Topeka ? After 11 days of futility and a strong message from the Kansas Supreme Court, weary legislators gave themselves a Fourth of July holiday without meeting a court mandate requiring more money for public schools.

The House and Senate sent members home Saturday evening, making plans to reconvene the special session on Wednesday – only two days before the court scheduled arguments over whether it should withhold money from schools.

That action could jeopardize the start of the new school year in August and keep 445,000 students and 64,000 teachers and support staff from classrooms. Legislators began their recess only hours after the court made its announcement.

House leaders said their members were tired and needed a break; Senate leaders said it was a mistake to leave.

The court’s statement was the latest development in a 1999 lawsuit by parents and administrators in Dodge City and Salina, who argued the state didn’t spend enough money on schools or distribute it fairly.

In June, the court told legislators to provide an additional $143 million, setting a July 1 deadline. The prompted Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to call the special session starting June 22.

House Speaker Doug Mays said legislators were close to an agreement on a $148.5 million school finance package but would have had to work past midnight. House members were simply too tired, having worked until nearly 4 a.m. Saturday.

Also, because of a Jehovah’s Witnesses convention in Topeka and auto races in Kansas City, Kan., there were no hotel rooms for many House members.

“We just finally faced reality,” said Mays, R-Topeka. “We decided to do the sensible thing and give people a break.”

House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg, said, “We’ll come back when we’re less tired and angry.”

But Senate leaders blamed the House.

“They’re leading us down the road to nowhere,” said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka. “I think the House made a colossal mistake in doing what they did tonight.”

Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, called the break “counterproductive” because it leaves legislators with little time to approve a plan.

“I think it’s a mistake to leave now,” said Morris, R-Hugoton. “We got a very direct communication from the court today.”

The direct communication was a two-page order signed by Chief Justice Kay McFarland.

“Specifically, counsel should demonstrate why this court should not enter an order enjoining the expenditure and distribution of any funds for the operation of Kansas schools pending the Legislature’s compliance,” the order said.

The session was called to deal with the court’s mandate, but many Republican legislators, particularly conservatives, believed the court exceeded its constitutional authority.

Those GOP legislators wanted to approve proposed changes in the constitution to limit the court’s power, and an impasse over that issue held up passage of an education funding bill. Voters must approve any change to the constitution.

The court’s announcement Saturday inspired yet more debate about the separation of powers. It also suggested it could even block spending on bond payments, leases and other financial obligations.

Some legislators were stunned.

“This was the nuclear option,” said Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood. “These justices are obviously on a fast track. They’re not fiddling around with procedure. They’re moving full steam ahead.”

Attorney General Phill Kline urged parents not to panic about the possibility of the school year’s start being delayed.

“This office will continue to do all within its power that is legal and responsible to ensure that schools open,” he said during a news conference.

Kline noted he was working with State Board of Education members to funnel funds already appropriated to school districts, so that their distribution can’t be blocked. The board plans to meet at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

Vratil, an attorney involved in school finance litigation in the 1990s, said the court and legislators were waging a “head-butting contest.”

“With each response, they seem to be upping the ante, and that’s not what this case is about,” Vratil said.