Maybe we all should have had a little more faith in the system.

In spite of dire rhetoric about a constitutional crisis and one of the most intense political standoffs the state had seen in many years, Kansas government, in the end, proved itself equal to the task of keeping the state’s K-12 public schools funded and open.

A week ago, the Kansas Legislature was stymied over political differences on school finance. Many members were willing to provide additional funding for public schools, but that effort was being held hostage to efforts by legislators determined to express their displeasure with the Kansas Supreme Court, which they believed had overstepped its authority by ordering lawmakers to pass a specific amount of funding by a specific date.

It may be a valid discussion, but it overshadowed the primary mission of the special session: to fund public schools.

It’s not certain what caused conservative legislators, particularly in the Kansas House, to back down on their effort to tie any school funding measure to passage of a constitutional amendment to curb the Supreme Court’s power in this matter. It’s been speculated that during a three-day recess for the July 4 holiday, constituents back home told their representatives that their top priority should be to conclude the session and keep schools open. It could be that lawmakers simply faced up to the political reality that they didn’t have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment by the necessary two-thirds majority.

For whatever reason, when lawmakers came back to Topeka on Wednesday, the rhetoric had softened. House Speaker Doug Mays, who earlier had drawn a line in the sand saying no funding would pass without an amendment, was ready to drop that demand and move forward. After one long day’s work, the Senate approved both a school finance package and a constitutional amendment saying the Supreme Court could not close schools over a funding debate. The House concurred on the finance package and rejected the constitutional amendment. Both houses adjourned and went home, leaving many Kansans to wonder why they couldn’t have done that job in one or two days rather than 12.

On Friday, the Supreme Court accepted the plan “for interim purposes,” so the dispute is temporarily put to rest. The court, however, retained jurisdiction in the case, which means it will continue to monitor the Legislature’s progress toward properly funding schools.

What’s involved in the suitable education the Kansas Constitution requires be provided to Kansas youngsters, and how much that education costs, is bound to be a topic of much discussion. The only study on those issues was rejected by the Legislature several years ago because the costs seemed unreasonable to some, considering that Kansas students are doing well based on various education measurements.

A new study may give the 2006 Legislature – and the courts – a new measuring stick on which to base the actual costs of providing a “suitable system of financing of Kansas public schools,” as called for in the court’s June 3 decision. If increased funding is needed, finding that money will be an additional challenge.

There obviously is hard work ahead, but the fact that the state’s legislative, judicial and executive branches managed to salvage such a positive outcome out of such a heated situation last week offers hope that state government eventually will be able to hash out reasonable school finance solutions for Kansas.