Although school superintendents across the state are getting impatient with the Kansas Legislature, it’s not surprising that lawmakers are taking their time in formulating a school finance plan.

During her weekly press conference Friday, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said “discussions are under way” and she saw it as a positive sign that lawmakers are talking to one another and the governor’s office before putting specific plans on the table. In previous years, she said, plans more often were put together by small groups of legislators and dropped on their colleagues. Talking through the tough issues and seeking areas of agreement before putting a plan together may be a less contentious route, she said.

A study ordered by the Legislature and compiled by the Legislative Department of Post Audit determined that Kansas needs to dedicate between $400 million and $470 million to its public schools to adequately meet students needs. Because it was their study, conducted by their respected agency, legislators have found it difficult to argue with those figures.

However, as many critics have stated over the years, simply throwing money at the problem won’t ensure better schools or better test scores. It’s how that money is distributed.

Legislators may agree that $400 million or $470 million should be added to the annual education budget – although it’s likely that move will be made over two or three years – but what’s more difficult are the issues of how that money will be distributed.

The Post Audit report advised that much of the new funding should go to large urban districts in Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City. That’s because those districts have high percentages of low-income students who required additional services in order to be academically successful.

That makes sense, but the money needs to come from somewhere. The report suggests that the state reduce the money going into “low-enrollment weighting,” the additional funds that go to small districts to help them deal with the extra per-pupil costs created by their size.

Taking money away from small districts or forcing them to consolidate into larger districts are touchy subjects for any legislator from a rural area. They are well aware that keeping their schools open is important to small towns, perhaps the single largest factor in those towns’ survival.

Almost half of the state’s 300 school districts get low-enrollment weighting funds, payments that one of their lobbyists called “the lifeblood of our districts.” Yet, all of those school districts have fewer students in their entire system than Lawrence has in West Junior High School.

It’s a dilemma that won’t be easy to resolve, and it’s not unreasonable for the negotiations to take some time. If lawmakers are talking to one another and formulating an approach that can come to the table with broad, bipartisan support, the time will have been well spent.

It’s understandable that school superintendents are eager to see some results, but this is a time when patience for the process may pay off.