Comments on Gannon
Here are some of the comments from all corners of the legislative and educational landscape of Kansas:
“We have an opportunity for progress. My commitment is to work with legislative leadership to address the allocation issue identified by the court. We will fix this.” – Governor Sam Brownback
“Our task is to come to resolution on capital outlay funding and local option budgets before July 1. We now have some clarity as we work toward resolution of issues that began years ago under prior administrations.” – Senate President Wagle
“I was pleased the court also recognized that total dollars spent is not the touchstone for adequacy in education. Our focus is on supporting teachers and improving student outcomes so that all Kansas children continue to receive a quality education.” – Speaker Merrick
“We’re encouraged that the Court ruled that total spending cannot be used to measure adequacy. This is especially important because spending is currently based on deliberately-inflated numbers in the old Augenblick & Myers report. To this day, no one knows what it costs for schools to achieve required outcomes while also making efficient use of taxpayer money.” – Dave Trabert, the president of Kansas Policy Institute
“We are disappointed that today’s announcement by the Kansas State Supreme Court prolongs a resolution of the school finance issue. It didn’t deal directly with the current critical need in Kansas public schools. Together, the citizens of Kansas made sacrifices at a time when the state and national economy were in crisis. During that time Kansans came together and dealt with staggering cuts to education, believing the promise of full restoration to public school funding once the state economy had rebounded.” – Marcus Baltzell, Director of Communications, Kansas National Education Association
While the much-anticipated ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court on Gannon v. State of Kansas school funding law suit answered a few question, several more are bound to surface in its wake.
For one, the question of what is adequate funding will need to be revisited. Then, there is the question of what is equitable. And while those questions are being hashed out, the court also ruled the Legislature has until July 1 to fully fund the capital outlay provision or the panel will need to take additional action on the issue.
The ruling first upheld that the Court must determine whether an act of the Legislature is invalid under “the people’s constitution.” Citing Article 6, the Constitution’s education provision, the ruling affirmed the Legislature is obligated to perform its duties as the people have established. It also affirmed the Court should determine what adherence to those standards entailed.
“The people’s constitutional standards must always prevail over the legislature’s statutory standards should the latter be lower.”
The ruling also stated the District Court panel did not apply the correct test to determine whether the state met its duty to provide an adequate K-12 public education, and ordered a partial reversal, remanding the panel to revisit the question.
“Regardless of the source or amount of funding, total spending is not the touchstone for adequacy in education,” the ruling stated. And adequacy is only one component. The constitution also requires equity, as opposed to equality.
“Instead, school districts must have reasonably equal access to substantially similar education opportunity through similar tax effort.”
As for the capital outlay funding claims, the Court held that the panel correctly ruled that the State created unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities by withholding all capital outlay state aid payments and prorating the supplemental general state aid payments to which certain school districts were otherwise entitled. It also upheld the panel’s decision that the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees.
