Rep. Stephanie Clayton has done a summary of the recent Gannon decision with translations you may find helpful.

Gannon History:
The Supreme Court was handed Gannon v. Kansas after two years of legal battles claiming the state had not abided by 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 requiring additional funds to make up for funding inequities 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 state of Kansas is underfunding its schools. Specifically, the state is abdicating its constitutional responsibility by pushing funding increases to local school boards – taxes passed by voters targeted for programs over and above the baseline which should be provided by the state (Local Option Budget, or LOB).

Perspective:
The opinion is specific, though not directive. It leaves a lot of wiggle room to change the funding formula this year to reflect inadequacies and restructure educational priorities. The numbers delineated in the opinion recommend a minimum increase of $380 million, and a likely ceiling of nearly $600 million, depending on who is interpreting the opinion.

I’ve pulled out a few quotes from the decision which you might find informative, as well as a translation from legalese to English:

“The pleadings, and the evidence produced at this subsequent trial, over which we presided, reflected that the Plaintiffs’ complaints were not so much occasioned by any shortfall or defect in the A & M study’s, or the LPA study’s, analysis and conclusions, but rather from the wholesale abandonment of the commitments made to the Montoy IV Court by the executive and legislative branches of government subsequent.”
Translation: This problem didn’t happen because of bad studies or analysis but because the legislature abandoned its post-Montoy funding levels. (Montoy v. Kansas was the 2005 school finance lawsuit which reached the same finding and in response to which, school funding was increased.)

“…our charting would indicate that a BSAPP near $4654 could be appropriate, but only so if it was also accompanied by selective and relevant upward changes in weightings such as to meet the obvious needs of the Plaintiffs, and like school districts with large subgroups, that, in having been forced to use their LOB funds in the past or will without increased direct state sourced funding, need to in order to provide their students with the adequacy of education the Constitution demands.”
Translation: Local effort (taxes passed by the school board that are to be used for educational opportunities beyond the standard) have been used to prop up what the state is constitutionally required to do. This number is the low end of what we think it takes to suitably educate each Kansas student, NOT including extra expenses for special ed, English Language Learners, high-poverty, high-density, extreme low density, etc.

“We caution here we are not directing an exact BSAPP figure nor are we directing any exact method to any funding, but rather only noting parameters which should be considered in formulation to avoid unconstitutional results.”
Translation: This one is fairly understandable, but the last four words are of great import. This basically says the legislature is acting contrary to the constitution, by which they swear an oath to abide. This is where conversations of legislative contempt of court begin, as well as rumors of special education administrators brought in to run Kansas schools.

“Of course, a, perhaps, more difficult choice, yet the most straight forward and transparent choice, would be for the State to fully fund the formula from the front end rather than approach it from the rear. While subtlety accompanied this backdoor financing approach in the past, that choice would now become transparent.”
Translation: We’ve seen how you [chose to] “fund” education in the past – with smoke and mirrors and changing the rules of the game to meet what you’re willing to do. We strongly encourage you to fund the formula which has produced adequately educated students – until you underfunded it in 2009. Moreover, any attempts to remove the education requirement from the constitution or neuter this court by changing how we are appointed will be an obvious avoidance of your elected duty.

“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.”
Translation: We are going to work with you and be flexible because we understand the hole you’ve dug for yourself with the enormous 2012 tax cuts. However, that doesn’t exempt you from abiding by the constitution.
Resources:
Topeka Capital-Journal: Judges rule school finance inadequate
Kansas City Star: Kansas court calls school funding inadequate
Wichita Eagle: Court rules school funding is inadequate under Kansas Constitution
Kansas NEA release: KNEA Supports Full Constitutional Funding