State government and education officials are not-so-patiently awaiting Monday’s promised ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the state’s school finance law.

Most observers had expected the court’s opinion to be released before now, and the Jan. 10 start date for the Kansas Legislature’s 2005 session is perilously close. If the ruling forces any major revamp of the school finance system, lawmakers and education officials will have to move quickly to amass the necessary data and come up with a suitable plan that could be passed this session.

The fact that the high court has taken more time than some had expected with its decision probably indicates that the resulting opinion won’t be simply to uphold or reject Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock’s ruling that the state school finance formula is unconstitutional because it distributes money unfairly, thereby hurting poor and minority students. If all or part of the Bullock opinion is upheld, then the court would have to consider possible remedies for the situation, which may explain the delay.

Even before the decision is issued, however, the political posturing is starting. At the beginning of the 2004 legislative session, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius proposed a plan that would phase in tax increases of more than $300 million over three years to boost education funding. The proposal went nowhere in the Legislature. Earlier this month, the governor turned her attention to health care, announcing a $50 million plan to extend health care benefits to 70,000 Kansans.

Within days, Republican House Speaker Doug Mays was dismissing the governor’s health initiative, saying “This session is about education. Health care along the way will get some consideration, but to lose our focus off the main issue, which is K-through-12 education, would not be a good thing.”

Did the governor do this on purpose? Legislators put education on the back burner last session in spite of Bullock’s ruling. But once the governor says health care is her top priority, suddenly “This session is about education.” When Sebelius said she hoped the state could tackle both issues but that, given the reception for her plan last year, the Legislature would have to take the lead on education this year, Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, accused her of “looking ahead to the next election and positioning herself to run against the Legislature.”

Is it any wonder that Kansans had to look to the courts to try to force some action on school funding? Is there any hope that this issue will be resolved on the basis of what’s best for Kansas children rather than what will serve political goals?

Hopefully the court’s opinion will spell out a direction for the governor and legislators that is clear enough that it can’t be muddied or lost in the political battle that seems almost certain to ensue.