Kansas School Finance Litigation: A Closer Look (KS)

November 5, 2010

Attorneys representing a coalition of students, parents, and school districts filed a lawsuit Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010, alleging that the State of Kansas has failed in its constitutional obligation to adequately and equitably fund public education in Kansas.  The lawsuit states that, for the 2010-11 school year, the under-appropriation totals $415,130,648; and that the inequitable distribution of funds has disproportionately harmed low-income school districts and students.
 
The petition, filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, outlines relevant facts, lists seven counts of alleged violation of constitutional, statutory, and case law by the State of Kansas (Defendant), and enumerates relief requested by the Plaintiffs.  Here we will examine the relevant facts of the case.  Follow-up articles will examine the alleged violations and relief requested.

The petition states that litigation to compel the legis lature to provide adequate funding for public schools dates back to 1972.  Despite extensive and repeated legal challenges, the legislature continues to evade its constitutional duty by adopting new legislation aimed at impeding legal action, rather than addressing the underlying problems in school finance. 

For example, KSA 72-64b03, adopted in 2005, requires a special 3-judge judicial panel be appointed to address school finance litigation; and specifically removes from that panel any real power to affect change should the legislature be found in violation of the law.  Also adopted in 2005, KSA 72-64b02(a) serves to delay litigation by requiring 120 days’ notice prior to filing any suit relating to Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution.  Attorneys for the Plaintiffs filed this required notice in June 2010.
 
In further efforts to evade funding education, the legislature has responded to lawsuits by adopting new funding schemes mid-litigation.  The legislature is fully aware that doing so serves only to put the issue “beyond the reach of the court.” 
 
This “delay and evade” strategy works because any new funding scheme likely renders the pending litigation inapplicable, and requires a new claim to be filed.  The most recent Supreme Court ruling, for example, did not find the current funding formula constitutional; but rather found it different enough such that the original litigation no longer applied.

The legislature’s evasion of litigation is so pervasive that the current funding scheme exists in large part due to such efforts.  Specifically, the current funding scheme emerged during the past cases of Mock v. Kansas (1991), Unified School District Number 229 v. State (1994), and most recently the Montoy v. State of Kansas line of cases in the mid-2000’s.

Following Montoy v. State of Kansas, the legislature adopted a three-year school finance plan that would have increased K-12 education funding by $755 million.  This funding scheme set the Base State Aid Per Pupil (BSAPP) at $4492 for the 2009-10 fiscal year, the amount of state aid the legislature determined was adequate to properly fund education in Kansas. 

The Defendant subsequently reduced the BSAPP to $4012 for the 2010-11 fiscal year through successive legislation and budget allotments, including:  SB 23 in February, 2009; HB 2354 in March 2009 (which also reduced special education funding); HB 2373 in May 2009 (which also eliminated equalization aid for capital outlay); and Governor Mark Parkinson’s budget allotments in July and November of 2009.  Together, these actions reduced current school funding by more than $300 million compared to 2009-10.
 
Follow-up articles will address seven counts against the Defendant, and the relief requested by the Plaintiffs.