Topeka ? The Kansas Supreme Court is being asked again to review a lower court decision that said current funding of public schools is unconstitutionally low.

Attorney General Derek Schmidt filed the appeal Tuesday, the second such appeal since a three-judge panel in Topeka ruled in December that current school funding is inadequate, even under the new legal standard the Supreme Court handed down last year.

That new standard measures the adequacy of funding based on a set student outcomes, known as the “Rose standards.”

That was just the latest twist in a complex lawsuit that challenges both the adequacy of school funding and how equitably that funding is distributed among the state’s 286 school districts. And it came just one day after the Kansas Legislature passed and sent to Gov. Sam Brownback a bill repealing the current school finance formula and replacing it for the next two years with a system of block grants.

Shortly after the panel issued its ruling in December, Schmidt appealed to the Supreme Court. At the same time, however, he also asked the panel to clarify its ruling, arguing that parts of the decision were vague and poorly worded.

Schmidt also asked the panel to state specifically which facts presented in the case supported the court’s conclusion that funding was inadequate to meet the Rose standards.

The plaintiffs in the case also filed a motion for the panel to reconsider its decision that the additional money lawmakers provided last year for equalization funding solved the equity problems in the current formula.

The Supreme Court at that time declined to take the appeal and instead left the case in the hands of the three-judge panel to rule on those motions.

On Friday, however, the panel issued two orders: one rejecting Schmidt’s request for further clarification of its December order; and another setting a hearing date of May 7 on the plaintiffs motion to reconsider the equity portion of the suit.

In that second order, the court also notified the parties that it could issue further orders that would block any changes in the current finance formula from taking effect.

“We’re headed back to the Supreme Court for further guidance,” Schmidt said in a statement released Tuesday. “Unfortunately, we will have to do so without further clarity from the panel.”