A new law allocating $536 million more to education over five years continues the Legislature’s pattern of underfunding Kansas schools, the plaintiffs in the state’s school-funding lawsuit argued today.
In briefs filed Monday with the state Supreme Court, attorneys for the school districts challenging the adequacy of education funding say the new law provides an amount equal to about $252 million during the next five years when inflation is considered.
As a benchmark, the attorneys use the state’s education consultants, who recommended spending somewhere between $451 million and $2 billion depending on what student outcomes the state wanted to achieve. The attorneys specifically cited part of the study that recommended spending between $1.7 billion and $2 billion.
The new law “is an outlier that significantly underfunds education,” the plaintiffs attorneys contend. “It does so at a level far short of every single available indicator of what it actually costs to comply with the Kansas Constitution.”
“While the number of failing students in Kansas continues to grow, funding levels
do not meaningfully increase,” the attorneys argue. “Significantly more funding is necessary to remediate years of underfunding and move Kansas students to proficient.”
The state’s attorneys, meanwhile, contend in their brief that the Legislature has appropriated sufficient money to fund education, more than $1 billion over the last two legislative sessions. They urged the court to dismiss the case.
Meanwhile, school district attorneys took hold of the upper end of the funding recommendation made by the state’s consultants, arguing that the state can’t solve a $2 billion problem with funding equal to $252 million when inflation is factored in.
“Can this Court endorse a bill that all but guarantees that more than eight out of
every 10 African-American students will continue to be non-proficient in math,” the attorneys asked. “To avoid further harm to Kansas school children, this court must declare (the education finance bill ) unconstitutional.
Monday was the deadline for the state and the school districts challenging the adequacy of school funding to file their briefs with the Kansas Supreme Court. Another round of briefs is due May 14 with oral arguments scheduled for May 22.
The plaintiff’s argument is similar to the opposition raised by Democrats during the debate over the school finance bill last session.
Democrats made several efforts to add millions more to the school bill, but failed given that there was little room for increasing spending without exhausting budget reserves.
Many predicted the Supreme Court would order the Legislature to return this summer and add even more money to schools.
In their brief, the state’s attorneys argued that the Legislature agreed the last two years to put more than $1 billion more into education.
“The Legislature, after careful study and deliberation, discharged its constitutional duty by passing legislation designed to comply with … the Kansas Constitution,” the state argued. “This Court should find substantial compliance and dismiss this case.”
The state argued that the consultant’s recommendation was based on “aspirational” goals that the Kansas Board of Education reported to the federal government under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
While the state Board of Education’s “moon shot” goals are admirable, the state argued, they have no bearing on the constitutional issue at the center of the funding case.
For instance reaching a goal of a statewide graduation rate of 95 percent – the state is now at 86 percent – would be the highest in the country. Iowa now tops the list at 91 percent.
The state argues that previous court precedent says the test for adequate funding is “one reflecting minimal standards.”
“Once they are satisfied,” the state’s attorneys write, the constitutional requirements “are satisfied and the court’s role ends.”
“Whether the legislature chooses to exceed these minimal standards is up to that deliberative body and ultimately the people of Kansas who elect those legislators.”
The state argued the court – at a bare minimum – should accept a $187.5 million funding increase for 2018-19 that would be the first step of a multi-year plan to add money for schools. Any other issues should be left to the Legislature to fix next year.
“In no event should the Court order a remedy that would have the effect of
closing the schools,” the state argued.
“As the State has previously explained, such an extreme remedy would itself violate the Kansas Constitution, a Kansas statutory prohibition on closing schools and federal law.”
