Topeka ? The fight over school funding is now over how to fight.

A legislative proposal heard Thursday would change the rules of engagement in school finance litigation, making it more difficult to sue for inadequate funding.

The proposal was supported by anti-tax advocates, but opposed by groups representing school officials and parents of students.

A hearing before an interim judicial committee provided a preview to the battle that is sure to erupt again when the 2006 legislative session starts in January.

“We will continue to bicker not only about funding schools but also the process that has gotten us to this point,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, a member of the committee.

Earlier this year, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the school finance system unconstitutionally shortchanged all students, especially minorities. The court ordered more funding, which resulted in a rare special legislative session and a $300 million increase to schools.

On Thursday, Karl Peterjohn, executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, spoke in favor of legislation pending from the session that would require future school finance cases first be heard by a three-judge panel, instead of a single district court judge, and increase the burden of proof for those suing the state.

“There is a tremendous amount of grass-roots frustration over what has happened,” Peterjohn said.

He said the proposal would ensure there is more diversity on the bench considering the initial lawsuit, and that taxpayers would be protected by raising the burden of proof for the plaintiffs.

Currently in school finance litigation, he said, “Win, lose or draw, the only certainty is that taxpayers get the bill.”

But Pat Baker, representing school boards, administrators and teacher groups, said lawmakers shouldn’t change the legal process because of a ruling they didn’t like.

“Anytime a case is lost, a special interest will simply go in and try to change the law,” she said.

Mark Thompson, representing Kansas Families United for Public Education, said raising the burden of proof requirements was a “thinly veiled attempt to lower the constitutional requirement of a suitable education.”

The proposal would require the three-judge panel to rule in favor of the state if it determined that adequate funds were provided to schools to pay for mandated classes.

“This would let the Legislature off the hook for not requiring any accountability of local school boards for how they spend the dollars available to them,” Thompson said.

But Rep. Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, said the state has “to draw the line” on funding essentials before extras.

Davis said he agreed that at some point the Legislature will have to define what essential subjects must be funded.

But, he said, legislative attempts so far have fallen short because they have not included what should be considered essentials, such as music, arts and physical education.