A number of Kansas school districts involved in a lawsuit that produced significant funding increases for public schools a few years ago are regrouping and considering another court battle.
They say the state is reneging on its commitment — backed by the Kansas Supreme Court — to a three-year funding plan for K-12 schools.
It’s hard to argue with the school districts’ facts, but it is possible to question their timing.
In 2009, the third year of the funding plan, Kansas and the rest of the nation hit the economic wall. At the beginning of this fiscal year, base state aid to public schools was $4,433 per pupil and set to increase to as much as $4,597. However, after four rounds of cuts, affecting every sector of the state budget, base state aid now stands at $4,218 per pupil.
That’s bad, but with budget estimates released Thursday, it almost certainly will get worse. The state’s revenue estimators are projecting an additional 4.2 percent shortfall in the current fiscal year. That amounts to an additional $235 million that will have to be cut from this year’s budget.
Those cuts are likely to place a real hardship on the state’s school districts and it’s understandable that they are upset. But they aren’t alone. In fact, schools have at least some protection in the form of a federal requirement that the state maintain school funding at 2006 levels in order to qualify for federal stimulus funds. Legislators don’t want to lose those funds. Of course, stimulus funds will run out in 2011. What happens then is anyone’s guess, but that’s another story.
It’s certainly valid to say that legislators have an obligation to raise taxes if that’s what it takes to meet the state’s financial obligation to the public schools, but in an election year in the current economy, it just isn’t realistic to think any significant tax increases will be passed.
The point is that no one questions that the schools are hurting. No one argues that the state has reneged on its funding commitment to public schools, but the same could be said of virtually every other state-funded entity in Kansas.
It may be satisfying for school districts to stomp their feet and threaten another lawsuit, but a little patience may be in order. Gov. Mark Parkinson is asking the districts to delay any action until the state economy has a chance to recover, and that seems like a reasonable request. Both the state and local school districts have better ways to spend their money right now than on an expensive court battle.
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.
XEPCT (anonymous) says…
The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago today. I didn't read this opinion article.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Charge a users tax to wealthy parents who send their kids to public schools. Then lower property taxes for the rest of us (which includes thousands of childless households).
This elimination of welfare for the rich should be easy to support by those on both the left and the right.
avoice (anonymous) says…
STRS: Very good point. Public education is the biggest "entitlement" program in our nation, yet we never talk about that when criticizing programs such as Medicare and Social Security. There should be a sliding scale of families' financial contributions to their children's educations, based on income, as exists with just about every other aid program in this country. The contributions of the general populace through taxes should be limited to fully funding the educations of children whose families are at near-poverty levels and below. From the lower-middle-class up, families with children should directly absorb some or most of the cost burden of educating those children.
merrill (anonymous) says…
So long as Kansas remains in the news as a state that does not support public education across the board any new economic growth is history.
It is NOT just this period that Kansas public education has to fight and/or go to court to receive the funding necessary to educate Kansas it is year after year after year after year after year.
It's the policy of our legislature to NOT provide necessary funding... which takes its' direction from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce NOT.
Unfortunately our local powers that be and editorial writers support NOT funding the state public education system. Then these thinkers sponsor public meetings to discover why local economic growth has stagnated.
I say it is because of stagnate policies supported by the state and local powers that be.
It has been my experience over the years that says excellent public education systems are at the top of lists when deciding upon where to locate a business.
If tax cuts and depleting state cookie jars were key to new green industries,any up and coming industry and job growth Kansas would have wayyyyyyyyyy more jobs than job seekers could fill.
That is NOT the case which indicates that philosophy has big holes in it.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
avoice,
Very well put.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says…
From whom should all the additional funding come? Perhaps "avoice" is right?
How does our per pupil spending compare to historic funding considering inflation. If below there is a good argument for more. If above the Kansas Supreme Court is way out of line
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
Last time I was in a public school they had flat screen TV's hanging on the walls. How much did those cost and why?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
"Last time I was in a public school they had flat screen TV's hanging on the walls. How much did those cost and why?"
They cost the same as the ones spread out throughout LMH. But it's the big insurance companies that make healthcare cost too much.