Fiscal responsibility is a virtue for elected government officials at any level, but locking in a three-year funding plan for Kansas schools is an exercise in futility.

Not only can Kansas legislators not predict what the state’s economy will be like in three years, it’s impossible for them to force future legislators to follow through on their plans.

The reason legislators and the governor are looking at a three-year funding package is to illustrate to the Kansas Supreme Court their intention to increase K-12 funding to a level the justices will find acceptable. A plan for increased funding is a show of good faith and may guide the spending plans of future Legislatures, but there is nothing binding about it.

Haggling over the ability of the state to finance anything beyond the first year of the funding plan is pretty much wasted effort. A year ago, many legislators were adamant that there was no way the state could increase school funding significantly without finding new revenue sources. Yet, when the economy and tax revenue began to climb, lawmakers were able to raise school spending by $290 million this year with no tax increase, and may be able to follow a similar strategy for next year.

Some legislators are using predictions of huge tax increases down the road to justify their opposition to a three-year school funding plan. Not only is there no way to know what revenue figures will look like in three years, there is no way to know how future legislators might choose to raise whatever money is needed. Maybe they’ll approve expanded gaming; maybe they’ll sell the state prisons to a private operator. Who knows?

Although it’s ancient history for some, many local residents remember the three-year Margin of Excellence plan aimed at boosting funding for the six universities under the Kansas Board of Regents. It was an ambitious plan to provide much-needed support for higher education. It was fully funded for one year, funded at a reduced level the second year and abandoned the third year. So much for three-year funding plans.

The only reason to believe that a three-year K-12 funding plan wouldn’t meet the same fate is the watchful eye of the Supreme Court justices who are expected to retain jurisdiction on the lawsuit that prompted their decision until they are fully satisfied with the Legislature’s response. The court, more than current legislators, has the ability to hold future lawmakers’ feet to the fire.

A three-year funding plan is needed as a show of good faith. The plan should represent a reasonable strategy for reaching a school spending level that will satisfy the court and not depend on phony figures aimed simply at getting the Supreme Court off legislators’ backs. Serious thought must be given to the need for additional millions of dollars for K-12 education, but trying now to nail down exactly how future legislators will fund the plan in its third year – or even its second year – is a guess at best.