Topeka ? The Kansas Supreme Court indicated Friday that it has serious questions about the Legislature’s recently approved education funding plan and will consider appointing a special master to review school finance issues.

The court issued an order detailing how it will review the funding plan and scheduled arguments by attorneys for May 11. It said it would consider the “constitutional significance” of legislators’ not identifying a source of revenue to support their $127 million increase in annual spending beyond the 2005-06 school year.

The court said another key issue was whether legislators based their decisions on the actual costs of providing a suitable education to every child.

Still pending is a lawsuit filed in 1999 by a coalition of school districts led by Dodge City and Salina, who argued the state doesn’t spend enough money on schools or distribute the dollars fairly.

“The burden of proof has shifted to the defendants to show that the Legislature’s action has resulted in a suitable provision for the financing of education,” said the order, signed by Chief Justice Kay McFarland.

Critics of the education funding plan, which was drafted by Republican leaders, saw the court’s order as evidence it has doubts about the measure.

Alan Rupe, the school districts’ lead attorney, said the court’s order was significant because of how it framed issues to be explored.

“They haven’t framed them on whether or not this is a good faith effort or whether this is a good first step,” Rupe said. “They have framed it the way it should be framed, which is, is it constitutional or not?”

Richard Olmstead, another attorney for the districts, called the court’s ruling “exactly what we wanted.”

Education laws should be flexible, Sebelius tells D.C. (04-15-05) Rally seeks rejection of school-finance bill (04-13-05) 6News video: Supporters go to bat for education funding (04-12-05) Sebelius: Schools plan is ‘recipe for financial disaster’ (04-09-05) School finance plan delivered to state Supreme Court (04-07-05) School advocates want nearly $1 billion, special master (04-06-05) More about School Finance

But House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, said the court’s order showed only that it wanted to examine the plan thoroughly.

Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, added: “It does not appear that the court has made up its mind. It appears that the court is being methodical, which one would expect.”

The plan

The plan increases aid to all school districts, as well as providing additional dollars for special education, bilingual education and programs that help students who are at risk of failing. It also permits school districts to increase local property taxes to supplement state dollars — some $485 million over the next three years.

GOP leaders relied on existing resources and cash reserves to finance the state’s higher spending — which critics said would wreck the state budget in future years. Critics also said the property tax provisions would help wealthy districts far more than poor ones.

“It was totally inadequate,” said Richard Cain, Hays schools’ assistant superintendent for finance. “We feel it makes the situation worse.”

In a January ruling, the court said the Legislature has a “constitutional duty” to provide for continuous improvement in education. It also criticized legislators for basing decisions on politics and factors not related to actual educational costs.

Unanswered questions

House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney said the Supreme Court was still raising the same issues it raised in January — and ones Democrats raised in criticizing the plan.

“These questions still haven’t been answered,” said McKinney, D-Greensburg.

Legislators reconvene April 27 to wrap up their business for the year. However, they hadn’t expected the wrap-up session to last past early May.

With no Supreme Court decision until mid-May, the Legislature could be forced to return for its first special session since 1989 if the court strikes down the plan.

Still, the court is moving quickly to consider the case. The state must file written legal arguments by April 25; the school districts’ attorneys by May 5.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline said in an interview it was too early to read anything into the court’s order.

“The game of prediction is fraught with mistakes,” he said. “I’m convinced that history has always demonstrated allowing local policy-makers to make decisions on education policy is better than a court takeover.”