Blog

 “If the people intended school finance to be whatever the legislature deemed appropriate, there would have been no need for language directing the legislature to make suitable provision for finance. The legislature already had that authority. The purpose of the current article is to provide a higher standard. A right or duty defined exclusively by a legislative majority is not a constitution[al] right.” Mark Tallman, KASB, testifying in opposition to a constitutional amendment to remove courts from school funding decisions. http://tallmankasb.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-people-are-king-but-where-do-they.html...

And there’s a bill to require schools to address “strengths and weaknesses” of climate change science. “Strengths and weaknesses” is the way Texas has challenged teaching evolution. Not only are they going to underfund schools, they’re trying to teach Kansas kids backwards science. http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/anticlimate-bill-kansas-0014713#.UR5xwLkgIt4.facebook  ...

A great explanation of how we got here and how the Montoy/Gannon cases are not overreach. http://www.dockingblog.com/the-true-story-of-the-school-finance-lawsuit/...

 The Senate Judicial Committee has forwarded the constitutional amendment regarding keeping the courts out of school funding, and we have 2 more bills directed at underfunding schools and defying the court’s order. Senate Bill 173: “in any lawsuit claiming that state funding of education is inadequate, the courts would be required to factor in spending on retirement benefits in calculating total state aid to school districts.” House Bill 2297: “would require the courts to accept school funding as adequate if the funding, including money spent on retirement benefits, is at least 50 percent of the state’s appropriations for...