The Kansas Supreme Court has given state lawmakers a challenging assignment for the legislative session that starts this week.
Define what constitutes the 鈥渟uitable鈥� education that the state constitution guarantees Kansas students, the court said, and use an objective way to calculate what it will cost to provide one to the state鈥檚 471,000 pre-K-12 students.
Oh, and finish the task by April 12.
That order came last week in a preliminary ruling in a 6-year-old finance lawsuit against the state, in which the supreme court ruled that the legislature 鈥渉as failed to meet its burden鈥� imposed by the constitution to suitably finance public schools.
A 2001 report estimated that the state fell about $800 million a year short of doing so.
鈥淜ansas has never defined the services that the school must provide,鈥� said Sen. John Vratil, the vice chairman of the Senate education committee. 鈥淚t seems logical to me that it鈥檚 got to be the first step.鈥�
But the ultimate solution, which must include Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, will be difficult to negotiate, Mr. Vratil and other members of the GOP-controlled legislature say.
While many legislators have pledged to vote against any tax increase, the reality is that it would be hard to make a major increase in education aid without raising taxes, Mr. Vratil said.
鈥淚t鈥檒l be very difficult, if not impossible, to find [the money] in our current budget,鈥� the Republican said. 鈥淚f you do that, you devastate other areas of our budget. We鈥檙e going to have to convince people of the wisdom of a tax increase.鈥�
Struggle Ahead
Other lawmakers are taking a wait-and-see approach.
The legislature needs to decide how much complying with the decision will cost before committing to financing new taxes, said Rep. Kathe Decker, a Republican and the chairwoman of a House-Senate committee studying school finance.
Gov. Sebelius was scheduled to give her State of the State Address on Jan. 10. Last year, she outlined a $300 million package of tax increases to help pay for changes required by the trial court in the case. But the legislature adjourned without adopting her plan. (鈥淜ansas Judge Orders State to Shut Schools,鈥� May 19, 2004.)
States big and small will face similar debates in this year鈥檚 legislative sessions.
New York must comply with a 2003 ruling from its highest court declaring the state鈥檚 funding of New York City schools to be inadequate. (鈥淧ataki Speech Mostly Mum on New York Finance Case,鈥� this issue.)
Elsewhere, Texas legislators will be seeking a solution to a state judge鈥檚 ruling last year that the state鈥檚 school funding system needs big revisions. (鈥淛udge鈥檚 Ruling Cites Flaws in Texas鈥� School Finance System,鈥� Dec. 8, 2004.)
In Kansas, the debate will center on just what a 鈥渟uitable education鈥� is and how to calculate what it would cost to provide that to all of its students.
In its brief opinion in Montoy v. State of Kansas, handed down Jan. 4, the state supreme court said that the current financing system is based on 鈥減olitical and other factors not relevant to education.鈥�
The unanimous seven-member court cited a study commissioned by the legislature to estimate the cost of reaching the state鈥檚 academic goals.
That study, which was completed in 2001, estimated that Kansas fell about $800 million short of what was required. The state now spends $2.4 billion a year on K-12 schools.
Although the supreme court said the study was 鈥渃ompetent evidence鈥� that the state had failed to meet its constitutional obligations, it did not endorse the $800 million price tag.
The study鈥攃onducted by the nationally respected consultants John Augenblick and John Myers鈥攕hould be the guideline for debate, said the lawyer representing the two school districts and the students that filed the lawsuit.
鈥淭he supreme court and [the trial judge] both gave the road map for the fix,鈥� said the lawyer Alan L. Rupe, who is based in Wichita. 鈥淭hat road map is Augenblick and Myers.鈥�
But Mr. Vratil said the legislature would look for other research as well.
The study used only one of several methods for estimating the cost of providing an adequate education, he said. 鈥淭hat whole area [of research] is the subject of differing opinions,鈥� he noted. In addition, Mr. Vratil said, the study didn鈥檛 consider ways that the state could revise its funding formula and require administrative changes that would save money.
Stay Tuned
The high court issued its preliminary ruling last week to guide lawmakers during their new legislative session. The court said it would issue a formal opinion after the April 12 deadline.
鈥淭he legislature, by its action or lack thereof in the 2005 session, will dictate what form our final remedy, if necessary, will take,鈥� the unsigned ruling concluded.
Mr. Rupe, the plaintiffs鈥� lawyer, said that the court鈥檚 warning gives the legislators an incentive to do the job right.
Last year, lawmakers failed in an attempt to comply with a lower court鈥檚 ruling that the state鈥檚 school aid system was inadequate.
鈥淲hen the Kansas Supreme Court is looking over your shoulder,鈥� Mr. Rupe said, 鈥渋t鈥檚 a pretty big deal for Kansas legislators.鈥�
Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said it was 鈥渁ppropriate鈥� for the legislature to await the supreme court鈥檚 decision. This year, though, lawmakers must act, Mr. Kline said in a statement. 鈥淚naction by the governor and the legislature in the face of this order is unacceptable and invites further action by the court,鈥� he said.
Editorial Administrative Assistant Jessica L. Tonn contributed to this report.
