Excerpts from the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision Friday on education funding:

“In our January opinion, this court reversed the district court in part and affirmed in part, agreeing that the Legislature had failed to make suitable provision for finance of the public school system and, thus, had failed to meet the burden imposed by Article 6, Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution. :

” : This court’s retained jurisdiction allows a review to determine if there has been compliance with our opinion. :

“Although the balance of power may be delicate : it has been settled that the judiciary’s sworn duty includes judicial review of legislation for constitutional infirmity. We are not at liberty to abdicate our own constitutional duty. :

“In this determination we will be guided, in large part, by the A&M study (commissioned by legislators in 2001, done by Denver consulting firm Augenblick & Myers) despite the state’s criticism of it and our knowledge that, at best, its conclusions are dated. :

“As of this time, the Legislature has failed to provide suitable funding for a constitutionally adequate education. :

“: Suitable finance of a constitutionally adequate education does not necessarily include every item each school district or student wants; its focus must be on needs and the appropriate costs thereof.

“In light of the Legislature’s unsatisfactory response to our January opinion, we are again faced with the need to order remedial action. :

“The Legislature has known for some time that increased funding of the financing formula would be necessary. : Although the state claims it considered the A&M study, it in fact chose to impugn its design and ignore its recommendations. It can no longer do so.

“: We cannot continue to ask current Kansas students to ‘be patient.’ The time for their education is now. :

“We conclude, however, that additional funding must be made available for the 2005-06 school year to assist in meeting the school districts’ immediate needs. : We further conclude, after careful consideration, that at least one-third of the $853 million amount reported to the board in July of 2002 (A&M study’s cost adjusted for inflation) shall be funded for the 2005-06 school year.

“Specifically, no later than July 1, 2005, for the 2005-06 school year, the Legislature shall implement a minimum increase of $285 million above the funding level for the 2004-05 school year.”