The reality of the legislative process is that no one usually gets everything he or she wants in a bill. Sometimes they have to respect the process and be satisfied with a reasonable compromise.

Alan Rupe, the lead attorney for school districts who successfully sued the state over school funding, might want to keep that in mind. Instead of raking legislators over the coals for proposing a three-year funding plan for Kansas schools, he might look at the additional $500 million schools will be getting at the end of that period.

Instead of berating a plan proposed by members of the Kansas House as a “political decision” because it doesn’t force a tax increase, Rupe could try to understand the reality that increased funding without a tax increase is far more palatable not only to lawmakers who are seeking re-election but also to taxpayers who will fund that increase.

In the face of an order from the Kansas Supreme Court, legislators approved $290 million in new funding for schools last summer. They also ordered a study by the Legislative Department of Post Audit to determine the actual costs of educating students in an attempt to meet the court’s requirement that they base school funding on actual costs rather than political expediency or some other factor.

Many legislators probably swallowed hard when the Post Audit study recommended additional expenditures of $400 million to $470 million are needed to properly educate Kansas youngsters. But it was their study, prepared by their agency, so they set about trying to meet the obligation put before them.

Now, House leadership, in consultation with the governor, has put forth a plan that will exceed the Post Audit recommendation by raising school funding by $500 million over the next three years. By phasing the increase in over three years, legislators hope to cover the costs with increased revenue rather than taxes. The schedule also may allow schools to better plan how they can most effectively use that money.

There always is some skepticism about whether future Legislatures will follow through on multi-year funding plans (state universities have learned this through hard experience with the Margin of Excellence and the Higher Education Coordination Act), but it seems unlikely that the Kansas Supreme Court would let lawmakers renege on the school finance deal if it is approved.

Three years is the blink of an eye. The three-year plan seems like a reasonable way to raise education funding without placing an additional tax burden on Kansans. But Rupe disagrees.

“The need is $500 million today, not spread over three years,” he said, adding that if the measure passes, “Before the governor’s signature is dry, we will be back in court.”

It’s hard to make some people happy. Rupe is an attorney being paid to represent clients, but it’s easy to understand why his comments riled legislators who had worked hard to come up with the three-year plan.

Rupe and his clients should work to make sure that the funding package meets or exceeds the Post Audit recommendation and, if it is phased in, that it will be completed without interruption. Then they might consider the possibility that it’s time to cool the rhetoric and declare victory in this case.