An ominous cloud hangs over the Kansas Capitol today, after the state Supreme Court late Friday rejected changes in school funding the Republican-dominated Legislature made earlier this year.
The justices ruled lawmakers failed to improve funding for poor districts, “… (the Legislature) has not performed its duty.”
The justices said funding was not equitable, after they directed legislators in February to make it fairer to poor districts.
The conspicuous club the court holds is an admonition that schools will be shuttered on June 30 if legislators don’t meet financial obligations the justices ruled were made clear in the Kansas constitution.
What legislators did was redistribute aid they had allocated, rather than increase funding for schools. The court said remaining flaws make the system disproportionate for poor districts.
The ruling was met by a predictable gnashing of teeth by the leadership in both chambers, who railed that Kansas is providing more dollars for education than previously. That may seem to be true, until components of what flows to the state’s 286 local districts are examined more closely.
The justices did and have not been fooled by the rhetoric.
When the Legislature sacked the funding formula from the early 1990s and replaced it with block grant funding this school year and next, the outcome was skewed.
To wit: Kansas Public Employees Retirement System money was included in the block grants, as well as property tax relief that was part of an earlier increase ordered by the court and special education funding, which never has been a part of general fund aid. Each district is merely a conduit for the special education funding.
Another cloud hangs outside Topeka and awaits deliberation by the justices: Whether funding for schools is sufficient by the constitution’s declaration that Kansas students be provided an adequate education.
KANSANS of every stripe should be thankful that the Supreme Court justices were insightful and meticulous in their consideration of school funding, prompted by and ongoing from when four districts sued the state over education funding in 2010.
Two factors to do with statewide economics have played an enormous role, leading up to the lawsuit.
Starting in 1992-93, school funding was determined by a base state aid per pupil formula. Revenue came from a statewide property tax levy of 35 mills. In succeeding years, with the economy surging, the levy was lowered. Eventually it settled at 20 mills, where it is today. Also, at one point in the formula the first $20,000 for residential property was exempted for general fund aid.
When the recession hit in 2007, funding suffered. More students were considered at risk because their families’ incomes had regressed. At-risk students were funded higher than the base, one of several areas where adjustments were made.
