Gannon School Finance (Adequacy) Opinion
Last week, a three-judge panel in the Shawnee District Court issued its opinion on Gannon II (School Finance Adequacy).
My comments on the issue were featured on KCUR and in the Kansas City Star and Prairie Village Post.
History
The Supreme Court was handed Gannon v. Kansas after two years of legal battles claiming the state had not upheld its constitutional requirement for “suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” In April, the Supreme Court divided the case into two components – equity and adequacy – and issued a decision on equity requiring additional appropriations to make up for funding disparities between districts. The legislature complied with HB 2506 at the end of last session. They sent the adequacy question to a 3-judge panel for consideration.
Summary
The panel ruled that the state is abdicating its constitutional responsibility by pushing funding increases to local school districts. The decision came as no surprise to me. Each successive ruling in the long legal battle has affirmed, and reaffirmed, the constitutional duty our state has to adequately fund our public school system. The opinion makes clear that schools have lost nearly 10% of their buying power due to inflation just since 2009 and are having difficulty meeting their mission to prepare our students for college and career. Of additional significance for Johnson County is the court’s opinion that LOB funds cannot be counted on to supplant state effort, and when the state co-opted those funds to “count” as state aid, local districts were deprived of their local control over those funds.
Missing from calls to rewrite the formula is recognition that our current total spending has once again been declared inadequate and unconstitutional. While there may well be room to improve upon the current formula, the obligation to provide additional funds has been upheld. Those who seek to reduce the education footprint on the state budget in order to pay for tax cuts will push for policy reforms and formulaic changes, but it is abundantly clear that in order to truly serve the best interests of our children, we need to deal with economic reality.
For me, one of the most compelling passages in the entire opinion appears on page 115:
"Nevertheless, we understand the self-imposed fiscal dilemma now facing the State of Kansas, both with or without this Opinion. Since the obligations here declared emanate from our Kansas Constitution, avoidance is not an option. However, the affirmative path to compliance and its duration may well rest in sincerity, practicality, and reasonable accommodation."
The court acknowledges the fiscal problems the state faces, and leaves the door open to a reasonable path forward rather than demanding immediate restitution. I stand ready to work on a comprehensive plan to stabilize our state budget so that we can responsibly meet our constitutional obligation to our children.
Other Resources
Topeka Capital-Journal: Judges rule school finance inadequate
Wichita Eagle: Court rules school funding is inadequate under Kansas Constitution
Kansas NEA release: KNEA Supports Full Constitutional Funding
Kansas Association of School Boards: Response to school finance ruling should focus on what is best for students
This story is only just beginning, so watch for periodic updates from me, as there is news to share. Until then, here’s to 2015 and all the challenges and opportunities it is certain to hold!