The Kansas Supreme Court has once again found school funding unconstitutional with respect to adequacy and equity. Read the opinion here: http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2017/20171002/113267.pdf.
Here are some key quotes from the opinion.
“Including today’s decision, by our count inadequacy has been judicially declared to exist from school years 2002-2003 through 2018-2019, with the possible exception of three years of ‘substantial compliance’ for ‘interim purposes.’…With that regrettable history in mind, while we stay the issuance of today’s mandate through June 30, 2018, after that date we will not allow ourselves to be placed in the position of being complicit actors in the continuing deprivation of a constitutionally adequate and equitable education owed to hundreds of thousands of Kansas school children.” Gannon decision p. 77
“Less than three years after Montoy was dismissed, the State began making significant cuts to Kansas’ education funding, initially in response to the national economic downturn. In fiscal year 2009 the BSAPP appropriation was reduced from the 2006 legislature’s statutorily specified amount of $4,443 to $4,400. And although the 2009 legislature had initially established BSAPP at $4,492 for fiscal year 2010 and beyond, the actual appropriation for fiscal year 2010 was reduced to $4,012—a difference of $480 per pupil.
“After Gannon was filed in November 2010, legislative reductions in BSAPP- calculated spending continued. By fiscal year 2012—that began July 1, 2011, and ended June 30, 2012—the legislature had reduced BSAPP to $3,780. In total, the reduction to education funding through these BSAPP reductions constituted a loss of more than $511 million to local districts. Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1114-15. Based upon this and other evidence, the panel concluded in its January 2013 decision that the legislature underfunded K-12 public education between fiscal years 2009 and 2012. 298 Kan. at 1110. It also concluded the State had violated the equity requirement by eliminating capital outlay state aid and prorating supplemental general state aid payments to which some less-wealthy school districts were otherwise entitled by statute. 298 Kan. at 1181, 1188.” Gannon decision pp. 10-11
With respect to the Successful Schools Model replied upon by the State, “Simply put, merely performing ‘better than expected’—while perhaps a test for efficiency—is not our Kansas test for constitutional adequacy.” Gannon decision p. 25
“In sum, S.B. 19 admittedly increases at-risk funding and adopts several policies. But the State has not met its burden to show the efficacy of these changes to meet the standard of constitutional adequacy. See 305 Kan. at 856. Specifically, it has not demonstrated how much new money will be available because it is now fully funding kindergarten. Nor has it demonstrated how many at-risk dollars will get carried forward into the next full year given the new limitations. The only information available to us shows there will be a total of 27 million additional at-risk dollars. This is the sum of the
increased at-risk weighting ($23 million), the 10% floor ($2 million), and the preschool- aged at-risk funding ($2 million).
Conclusion regarding adequacy
“The State has not met its burden to satisfactorily demonstrate to this court that the K-12 public education financing system the legislature enacted, i.e., S.B. 19, is “reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed the standards set out in Rose [v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989)] and presently codified in K.S.A. 201[6] Supp. 72-1127.” Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1170.” Gannon decision pp. 49-50
From the end of the court’s Gannon decision,
“In the legislature’s efforts to make good on its declared intention, we are confident the State will also continue to keep in mind that:
“In addition to its purpose and intention to provide the capacities identified in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 72-1127, the legislature also has the constitutional duty to ‘make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.’ Kan. Const. art. 6, § 6(b).
“The Kansas Constitution leaves to the legislature a myriad of choices available to perform this constitutional duty. Gannon I, 298 Kan. at 1151. So there is no ‘specific level of funding’ for adequacy and no ‘particular brand of equity’ that is mandated.
“The State continues to bear the burden of establishing compliance with the constitutional requirements and explaining its rationales for the choices made to achieve it. Gannon IV, 305 Kan. at 856.
“The State would help its case by ‘showing its work.’ Gannon II, 303 Kan. at 743. This exercise involves considerably more than what it presented to this court in the instant appeal and in Gannon III. See 304 Kan. at 515. The State should identify other remedies that the legislature considered but, more important to meeting its burden, explain why it made its particular choice for reaching the constitutional standards for adequacy and equity. In being ‘mindful of the connection between equity and adequacy’ when considering cures, Gannon IV, 305 Kan. at 917, the State should remain cautious of challenges arising from an increased reliance upon LOB- generated funding (and less upon BASE-generated funding) as it seeks to make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state. See Gannon III, 304 Kan. at 501. Gannon decision pp. 78-79