State argues school funding at record levels, satisfies Kansas Constitution

? Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s office filed briefs with the Kansas Supreme Court this week, arguing that school funding has increased since the Great Recession, that funding is now at record levels, and Kansas students are excelling in the classroom.

The state also argued that courts should have no authority to judge whether school funding is adequate because that is a political decision that can only be made by the Legislature and governor.

“Particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence that Kansas students are excelling, the Legislature reasonably concluded that it has made suitable provision for the financing of the state’s educational interests,” the state said in its brief, using language from Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution.

“This court should not allow a small number of school districts to second-guess the Legislature’s reasoned judgment,” Schmidt’s office wrote.

The 98-page brief sets out the state’s arguments in one portion of the ongoing school finance case, Gannon vs. Kansas, that challenges whether overall funding for Kansas public schools is adequate.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs in the case are saying those are the same arguments that have been rejected in the past by the trial court and, in some cases, the Supreme Court itself.

“In other words, ‘if the Legislature says it is enough money, it is enough money,'” lead attorney Alan Rupe said in an email. “This is not the test set forth by the Kansas Supreme Court.”

The plaintiffs are scheduled to submit their response brief by Jan. 6. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the appeal early next year, although an exact date has not been set.

The case was filed in 2010, mainly by four Kansas school districts: Wichita; Kansas City; Dodge City; and Hutchinson. They argued that cuts in base funding first enacted by then-Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, in response to collapsing revenues during the Great Recession were unconstitutional because funding was no longer adequate to meet districts’ basic needs.

They also argued that changes in school funding that carried forward in Republican Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration — namely under-funding certain kinds of “equalization” aid that benefits low-wealth districts — were also unconstitutional because they created inequities between rich and poor districts.

A special three-judge trial court panel has ruled twice that funding levels are inadequate, and in 2012 it ordered that the state needs to spend upwards of $500 million a year more in base funding for schools than it did at the time.

The panel is led by Shawnee County District Judge Franklin Theis. The other members include Judge Robert Fleming of Parsons, and Judge Jack Burr of Goodland.

The Supreme Court later set aside their initial ruling ruling and sent the case back with instructions to use a different standard for measuring adequacy. On June 26, after several days of hearings, the panel reaffirmed its original ruling, but elected not to issue a remedy order, pending the Supreme Court’s next review.

The case was complicated this year when, as the three-judge panel was reviewing its earlier decision, Kansas lawmakers repealed the school finance formula that had been in place since 1992 and replaced it for two years with a system of block grants. That resulted in most districts, including Lawrence, receiving less money than they had expected to receive under the old formula.

The panel declared that change unconstitutional as well, although the state argues the panel had no authority to review the block grant funding because it was not part of the case that was remanded to it from the Supreme Court.

The brief filed by the state Monday deals only with the adequacy portion of the case, which is by far the largest part of the lawsuit. The court heard arguments in the equity portion on Nov. 6 and is expected to rule on that part of the case soon.