Kansas Supreme Court voices aggravation at Legislature in school funding case

An agitated Kansas Supreme Court sounded none too pleased Friday with the Legislature’s decision to switch to a block grant funding formula that came up short in fully funding the state’s school districts.

Justice Dan Biles was particularly unhappy with a provision in the statute that if the courts ruled against the Legislature’s funding plan, the whole school financing system was “null and void.”

“To me, it’s the state saying, ‘The kids should stay home from school tomorrow,’” Biles said.

“I don’t think anyone wants to close the schools,” replied Stephen McAllister, Kansas solicitor general.

The tug of war between the two branches of government was an undercurrent of Friday’s hearing, the first of two rounds of oral arguments in Gannon v. Kansas.

The Kansas City, Kan., school district is among four districts claiming the state has not met its constitutional obligation to adequately and equitably finance school districts.

The Supreme Court last year ordered state lawmakers to fix unequal funding among districts. This year, the Legislature did away with its per-pupil school finance formula and replaced it with block grants for two years until a new formula could be written.

After the hearing, Cynthia Lane, superintendent of Kansas City, Kan., schools, said it was clear from the arguments that the state had failed its constitutional duties to school districts.

“This has gone on too long,” she said about the case, which began in 2010. “I’m real hopeful.”

McAllister said the Legislature acted in good faith when it switched to the block grant system while it decided on how best to finance schools. And lawmakers “genuinely believed” its appropriation of $134 million represented full funding, he said.

Biles said that assertion was “frustrating to hear” because it was clear the amount was about $54 million short of full funding.

The districts had alleged that the state’s block grant system was unconstitutional, and a three-judge court panel agreed. The panel ordered the state to restore the funds under the earlier formula. The state appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments Friday focused on whether schools are equitably funded across the state. A decision, which would come later, could result in millions more in state funding for school districts.

Alan Rupe, one of the lawyers representing the schools, argued that the Legislature chose to switch financing formulas, chose to back away from its promise of full funding and now can’t provide evidence that the schools are equitably financed across the state.

A “safe harbor” in the dispute for legislators was to appropriate full funding, he said, but “the Legislature chose not the safe harbor. They chose the wilds of the ocean.”

The state’s funding plan hits disadvantaged and lower-achieving students hardest, Rupe said.

But McAllister said the three-judge panel overstepped its bounds by telling the Legislature to return to the previous formula. Legislators made it clear they wanted a new financing plan, and they’re owed deference in that decision, he said.

If the court decides against the state’s appeal, McAllister said, he hoped the court would give lawmakers guidance on how they should proceed and time to address a remedy when they return to session in January.

A second round of Supreme Court oral arguments — on the question of whether schools are adequately funded — will be held next year.

This story was originally published November 6, 2015 at 6:22 AM with the headline "Kansas Supreme Court voices aggravation at Legislature in school funding case."