Lawrence school officials happy with ruling

There were smiles in the Lawrence school district offices Friday as officials reacted to the Kansas Supreme Court’s school finance ruling.

“Compared to what we’ve had over the last five years, it is absolute joy,” Supt. Randy Weseman said.

The Court found the Legislature’s proposed funding package inadequate. It called for the Legislature to double its planned increase in annual state aid, for a total of $285 million in additional funds. The deadline for getting that done, the Court said, is July 1.

Though district officials did not have complete figures Friday, Weseman said the ruling meant the district would likely receive less than the more than $5 million the district could have received under the Legislature’s plan.

That is because the ruling nixed the Legislature’s plan to allow districts to increase local property taxes. That should bring some relief to local taxpayers. But it will mean the district likely will get something less than $5 million in aid, a difference of perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars from the Legislature’s plan scotched by the court.

But Lawrence school officials said they were nonetheless pleased with the court’s ruling because they believed the court’s mandate would prove fairer than the nixed legislative solution.

“This certainly is more philosophically in line with what we believe is the right way to do this,” school board member Sue Morgan said. “It is the state’s responsibility to provide equal and quality education to all kids in the state.”

Weseman predicted the district will not have to cut any programs – a fresh statement after several tight budget years.

“This is more money than we’ve seen in half a decade,” he said.

Over the next three years, the board will be able to reexamine and possibly bring back the programs it was forced to cut in during the budget crunch, Weseman said.

And teacher salaries are a priority, several board members said.

“We’ve said that teachers are very important,” board member Cindy Yulich said. “We know that we’ve got some catching up to do.”

Officials called the decision a benefit for all Kansas schoolchildren.

“To me, it’s a victory for the state of Kansas,” board member Rich Minder said. “When we do arrive, we’re all going to arrive together.”

The equity issue also was important to teachers and parents such as Mark Reaney, a parent and chairman of the site council at Broken Arrow School.

“Getting rid of the local levy option only made sense,” he said. “There are some districts in Kansas that would have been broken by that.”

Sam Rabiola, a Free State High teacher and Lawrence Education Assn. president, said the ruling will allow the district to plan a budget, and it will allow teachers and staff to continue salary negotiations.

“Of course, there’s still going to be some wariness as to what the legislature is going to do,” he said. “It will be a waiting game again to see what the Legislature will do next year. But it seems that the court is giving them less latitude. : I think long term (the ruling) is good.”

Ruling reaction

“We need to act in the best interests of Kansas children and their parents, above all else, and we cannot afford more legislative irresponsibility.” – – Gov. Kathleen Sebelius

“This is a direct result of the Legislature’s longtime inaction to provide adequate and equitable funding for our schools. It’s a lack of Republican leadership.” – – Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka

“Today’s ruling confirms what thousands of Kansas families already know: that the Kansas Legislature acted irresponsibly during the 2005 legislative session and failed to meet its fiscal responsibilities or its moral responsibilities to the citizens the legislators are sworn to represent.” – – John Martellaro, president of Kansas Families United for Public Education

“In addition to the fact that it’s questionable whether the state Supreme Court even has the authority to legislate funding levels, today’s decision is noteworthy in that it does not specifically call for a tax increase to fund education. In fact, the Legislature should be able to easily comply with the court’s ruling without increasing the burden on Kansas taxpayers.” – Alan Cobb, director of the Kansas Chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative pro-business organization

“Slowly, the State Board of Education has understood what the problem was. Judge (Terry) Bullock understood what the problem was and the Kansas Supreme Court understood what the problem was. The only people who don’t get it are the people in the Kansas Legislature. Maybe this will awaken them enough to accomplish what these plaintiffs have said needed to be accomplished since 1999 and before.” – Alan Rupe, attorney for parents and administrators in the Dodge City and Salina school districts, who sued the state over education funding

“They were intentionally precise in what they’re doing. They clearly understand the area of school finance. They understood the wiggle room. They’ve left a lot of wiggle room for the legislative process, but they’ve also been very clear about what has to happen.” – Dan Biles, attorney for the State Board of Education

“I hope the majority of legislators don’t let politics as usual come into play and that they do what is right for kids. The legislative past practice of playing politics instead of really caring about providing a suitable education to the children of Kansas is what has brought us to this point in the first place.” – Mike Wilson, assistant superintendent of the Topeka school district

“I’m certainly not pleased. This is not a case of judicial activism. This is a case of judges out of control.” – Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler