Topeka — For the first time in seven years, Kansas schools are clear of the litigation that boiled state politics, brought constitutional showdowns and threatened to shutter classrooms.
The state Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision Friday, dismissed the school finance lawsuit first filed in 1999.
In an unprecedented move, Chief Justice Kay McFarland delivered the opinion and, while standing next to a table weighed down by legal briefs in the case, issued a statement.
"This case is not about winners and losers - it is about the children of Kansas," McFarland said. "They will be better educated and better prepared to meet the challenges of our rapidly changing society. Kansas will be the ultimate beneficiary."
Leading policymakers were euphoric to learn the school finance system had passed court muster, eliminating the possibility of a repeat from last summer when political tempers exploded during a special legislative session.
"This ruling is good news for Kansas and a welcome resolution to this case," said Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who promised to veto any attempt in future legislative sessions to scale back the new three-year school funding plan approved Friday by the court.
After the decision was announced, House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, a frequent critic of the court about previous rulings in the case, said, "I'm relieved; somewhat surprised."
Issue No. 1
The school finance lawsuit has been the No. 1 political issue before the Legislature the last two years.
At stake in the case was the $3.1 billion funding method that supports the 450,000-student public school system.
In 2005, the state Supreme Court declared the system unconstitutional because it shortchanged all students, especially those in districts with high proportions of low-income students. Some of those districts brought the lawsuit in 1999.
The court accepted the $290 million spending increase that resulted from last summer's contentious special session, considering it a down payment pending outcome of a study showing the actual costs of an adequate education.
That study done by the Legislative Division of Post Audit recommended a $400 million increase for the next school year.
In May, the Legislature approved a $466 million increase but stretched that over three years, with the first-year increase totaling $194.5 million. That measure, called Senate Bill 549, was argued before the court in June.
Court overlooks bill
The court's decision sidestepped questions about the constitutionality of SB 549.
The 4-2 majority said the $756 million in additional funds over the last two years constituted "substantial compliance with our prior orders."
The majority added: "A constitutional challenge of SB 549 must wait for another day."
Justices Carol Beier and Marla Luckert, who dissented from the majority, said they would have allowed the new school finance law to take effect for this school year but would have ordered that the education cost study done for the Legislature be analyzed by a state district court.
Beier said she was "unwilling to graft a 'good enough for government work' phrase" onto the provision in the Kansas Constitution that requires the Legislature to provide adequate school funding.
Advocates angered
Supporters of more funding for schools were upset by the court's decision. They said the Legislature should have provided the funds called for by the cost study.
"It's like the court decided to evade making a decision instead of making one," said John Martellaro, with Kansas Families United for Public Education. "By not ruling on the constitutionality of (SB) 549, they have invited the parties to drag this all the way through the courts again, which is disappointing. I had hoped for greater resolution than what we got."
Alan Rupe, an attorney representing the plaintiff school districts, said he had to speak with his clients before deciding what the next move would be.
But Rupe said he respected the court's decision and that "it's hard to be disappointed in looking back in what we accomplished."
Audio Clips
Attorney General Phill Kline on the Supreme Court decision
He said significant money had been directed toward "the kids that need the most to educate."
Fight may continue
Dan Biles, an attorney representing the Kansas State Board of Education, noted that the fight about equitable funding for public education may not be over.
Rupe has filed a similar lawsuit with a federal court in Wichita before U.S. District Court Judge Monti Belot. Action in that case has been held back pending outcome of the state lawsuit.
"I think the focus will turn to Wichita and the federal court there to see what the parties and what Judge Belot wants to do with the claims in that case," Biles said. Rupe declined to say what, if anything, would happen with the federal lawsuit.
Biles added: "All you can say is that for right now with this bill in this situation, we're done."
Lawrence squeezed
For Lawrence Supt. Randy Weseman, conclusion of the lawsuit was bittersweet.
"There are a lot of school districts that will receive substantial benefits, and I'm happy for them," Weseman said.
But, he said, Lawrence is not one of those because of its unique characteristics.
Lawrence will receive approximately $2.8 million more in state aid, about a 3 percent increase in its general funding. It also has authority to increase its local property taxes to add more revenue, though those decisions haven't been made yet.
But Lawrence lacks the large numbers of at-risk students to qualify for a massive infusion of funds, and its property tax base is not growing at the rate of districts in Johnson County.
"We are sandwiched between those extremes," Weseman said.
State Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, said the school plan was the best that could be accomplished from a Legislature that refused to increase taxes for schools.
"We tried to get more money, and we did pass more money," Ballard said. "It wasn't as much as we really wanted, but we did address some of the areas that were crucial."
Timeline of the case
1999: A group of minority students and 14 midsize school districts challenge the state's school finance law as discriminatory against minorities and disabled students. The state seeks dismissal.
Dec. 2, 2003: Shawnee County District Court Judge Terry Bullock rules the system unconstitutional and gives lawmakers until July 1 to correct it.
May 8, 2004: The Legislature adjourns, rejecting numerous proposals to increase school funding.
May 11, 2004: Bullock issues an order to stop school funding June 30.
May 19, 2004: The Kansas Supreme Court stops Bullock's order and takes up the case.
Jan. 3, 2005: The Kansas Supreme Court says the school finance system violates the Kansas Constitution and gives lawmakers until April 12, 2005, to fix it.
March 30, 2005: Legislators pass a $142 million school finance package. The plan also allows districts to increase local property taxes to fund extra programs.
June 3, 2005: Kansas Supreme Court orders legislators to increase school funding by an additional $143 million by July 1. The court also said absent a valid cost study, it could order additional spending of nearly $600 million.
June 22, 2005: The Legislature goes into special session, but many Republican lawmakers are reluctant to let the court dictate how much should be spent on schools and seek to amend the state constitution.
July 2, 2005: The Kansas Supreme Court threatens to close the state's public schools if the Legislature doesn't meet its order to increase school funding.
July 6, 2005: The Legislature approves a $148.4 million increase aimed at keeping schools open.
July 8, 2005: The Kansas Supreme Court approves the new school finance law as a temporary fix pending results of the cost study.
Sept. 9, 2005: Three Supreme Court justices - Carol Beier, Marla Luckert and Robert Davis - issue an opinion that states an adequate education is a guaranteed right under the Kansas Constitution. The opinion was written to accompany the unanimous ruling issued in January.
Jan. 9, 2006: A cost study done by the Legislative Division of Post-Audit states a $400 million increase is needed for the next school year.
April 20, 2006: State Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss removes himself from further proceedings in the school finance litigation because he discussed the pending case with two lawmakers. Chief Justice Kay McFarland calls for a disciplinary hearing and House Republicans launch an investigation.
May 9, 2006: The Legislature approves three-year, $466 million increase for public schools, including $194.5 million for the next school year.
June 22, 2006: Oral arguments are made before the Kansas Supreme Court on whether the new funding plan is constitutional.
July 28, 2006: The Kansas Supreme Court dismisses the case.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
bmwjhawk (anonymous) says…
So, every cost study that the legislature ordered was wrong? More likely, "they tried" is acceptable when it comes to providing schools with what they need, especially when faced with tough political pressure. The courts are supposed to be shielded from politics.
Our Kansas government is setting a great example for all of us.
Kids, do your best, or at least find an acceptable stopping point at which to comfortably relax and avoid the stress it would take to reach your goals.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Kids, there are real life constraints. You don't get every little thing someone thinks you might need. For instance, we can't afford a $75 million library, there are other things we have to pay for first. Don't let anyone tell you can't succeed in life because of it. Your glass is way, way more than half-full.
You see there are some people who just like to complain. No matter how much they are given there is always something else they must have. They are liked spoilt children and throw tantrums if they don't get their way. Fortunately success in this society and in life isn't related so much to the materialistic things you have in school or in your life in general, but what is inside you. In the end your success will have far more to do with your morals, values, character, work ethic, and attitudes than the things you start life with.
There are always going to be some people who have far more in this life than you do and some that have far less. There will always be things others have that you don't. Do not let envy and jealousy of those people turn you into to a bitter person who complains constantly about how unfair life is. Those people grow up to be unhappy bitter, complaining, and whiny adults who no one can really stand to be around. Often we call them lawyers and NEA members.
Most people who have succeeded in this life started with much less than what we have provided to you. In the end it is going to be up to you to do the rest. While there are no gaurentees no matter how much you are given, I have every confidence your hard work and determination will overcome much greater obstacles than this and that you can enjoy success far beyond your wildest dreams.
When you do remember, we hope you can provide more to your kids materially and non-materially than we provided to you, but we don't expect you to give into every demand that people make on you.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Most people who have succeeded in this life started with much less than what we have provided to you."
Actually, the facts show that most people this society considers "successful," (usually defined by now much money they have) start out with distinct financial advantages over the average person.
But I do agree that we would be much better off if we defined success in much broader terms. Sadly, the culture of greed that is now controlling our government policy is concentrating ever greater wealth into ever fewer hands, meaning that the vast majority are struggling just to meet the basic needs for survival.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
bozo said, "Sadly, the culture of greed that is now controlling our government policy is concentrating ever greater wealth into ever fewer hands, meaning that the vast majority are struggling just to meet the basic needs for survival."
translation: Hey Schools, Enough IS Enough!
Amen, sister.
bmwjhawk (anonymous) says…
*Tear rolls down cheek*
Very touching, Sigmund.
1) The spending increases, and the lawsuit, were brought about to help students who might not have the life experiences and role models to develop the "morals, values, character, work ethic, and attitudes" that they need to be successful in society and life. USD 497 won't receive a lot of money with the new plan, because it goes to needier districts.
2) Why fund a study-- multiple studies-- if they are going to ignore the not-what-they-desired findings? "Not enough" is "not enough" no matter how you slice it.
3) "Those people grow up to be unhappy bitter, complaining, and whiny adults who no one can really stand to be around. Often we call them lawyers and NEA members." Such a nice generalization! You would really be the life of the party at NRA socials and Klan gatherings!
4) What is needed to adequately fund schools may be more than our legislature can comfortably spend. The problem is that they are more concerned with re-election than with helping the children of Kansas. Tax increases are more popularly spent funding roads and prisons, which the older, voting populace love.
5) The Kansas Supreme Court was afraid of more political battles and didn't stand their ground. This, more than anything, should disturb the voters of our state. Vote "NO" to retaining judges. 20 years is too long.
6) I'm going to go water my SUV now.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
1. Spending more money doesn't necessarily mean better schools for students. KCMO paid multiple times the amount of money and yet their schools were decertified.
2. Studies are studies and the researchers are not constrained in their theoretical conclusions. We in the real world have contraints, things that even though we might want we can't afford without hurting equally important priorities.
3. I forgot to mention sore losers, you know those who have to win every single time. Learn to take defeat as gracefully and tactfully as your wins. People like that.
4. Schools are not the only priority for Kansans of all ages who pay taxes and expect basic services, learn to cope in a diverse society with competing needs.
5. Court rulings are not infallible. I agree with this one, you don't. However I do agree with voting not to retain judges, it should be the default! Let the Conservatives appoint new judges. Be careful what you ask for you just might get it!
It might help if you know Republican, Democrats, Independants, Conservatives and Liberals all have kids in Kansas schools and want the best for them. Funding is just one of those things they need. All we are diagreeing is what amount.
NRA socialist???
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
NRA socials and Klan gatherings, sorry I misread. I sincerely doubt I would be welcomed at a Klan gathering! I assume you know the definition of a racist? Anyone that has won an argument with a liberal.
bmwjhawk (anonymous) says…
Eh, I'm merely generalizing. That's why I went with the Klan. I've been diagnosed as a liberal. That's far, far, far from the truth. My friends and family would get a kick out of that.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
HERE is where lots of money is going!!! these people need to be audited and investigated. They are using money for a lot of things that are NOT even CLOSE to educational priorities!!!
http://www.greenbush.org/
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Sigmund analyzed that "Do not let envy and jealousy of those people turn you into to a bitter person who complains constantly about how unfair life is. Those people grow up to be unhappy bitter, complaining, and whiny adults who no one can really stand to be around. Often we call them lawyers and NEA members." Wow, Sigmund. Talk about unfair characterizations. That was somewhat below the belt, I think.
bmwjhawk, "they" did more than try, they achieved "substantial compliance" with the court's directive. My understanding (incomplete, to be sure) of the phrase "substantial compliance" in this context is that the legislature, while not performing at the level demanded by previous judgements, came so close that under a standard of reasonability they essentially met their obligations. The system has worked. The legislature earlier failed in its obligation to "provide for a suitable education" under Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution. Affected individuals addressed their grievances through the judiciary, as was their right and appropriate. The Court made a ruling, as was their obligation. The legislature responded. They met the essence of the requirement, using a reasonable person standard. The Court dismissed the action. The process has been successful.
And, asbestos, your references to Greenbush are outside the scope of the article and this associated thread.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Don't think so. How is Greenbush actually funded? The services they deliver are not taxed and compete with private sector businesses.
SO if they are funded within the scope of the state education fund I want to know about it. The services they provide to the schools, how are they paid and then IE funded. IT is totally relevant.
I think our educatinal dollars are getting fleeced vy these setup shops. THat is where funding goes to die and is not used directly for students, but for off program expenditures and operational items.
As I said it needs to be checked out.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Well, asbestos, they appear to be a not-for-profit--making them tax-exempt. If they can provide comparable services to the educational system at a lower cost than the private sector, it would seem to me that's a *good* thing. But I don't know how Greenbush is actually funded. I look forward to hearing your report back here on this forum after you have found that information and also how they spend the money they get. It's citizens like you who are concerned enough to raise these sorts of questions and then dig for the answers that ensure our government is held properly accountable to us.
Another option available to you is to contact your legislator and ask that hearings be convened. Anyway, asbestos, good luck on your information-gathering and we're really looking forward to hearing back from you what you find.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I am getting that together and will send it to the Feds. The local and state folks will just bury it.