No Action in Kansas, Court Says State Must Be Held Accountable
In a dramatic decision
issued May 11, 2004, the Kansas trial court in Montoy
v. State has enjoined the distribution of funds
for pubic education, as of June 30th, effectively closing
the schools. However, the Attorney General has said
the state will soon appeal this ruling to the Kansas
Supreme Court, and the Governor has assured the public
that the schools will remain open, pending the outcome
of the appeal, expected late this year.
After the court
declared the state's funding system unconstitutional
in December 2003 and ordered reform by July 1, 2004,
the governor and legislature considered many bills addressing
the issue during the 2004 session. However, no proposal
was able to gain support in both houses, and the session
ended last week, returning the matter to the courts.
Cost-based Funding and Holding the State Accountable
In its May 11 ruling, the court reiterated key findings
from its December opinion and reemphasized the requirement
that funding be cost-based, citing other courts that
have required cost-based funding recently in Massachusetts,
Montana,
New York and
Arkansas.
The court also listed several basic components needed
in order for a Kansas school funding plan to "pass constitutional
muster." Among them, the court said, is a provision
that would hold the state accountable for maintaining
a constitutional funding plan over time, that is, to
prevent backsliding, which occurred in Kansas after
the funding system was rewritten in 1992. The court
said:
"To ensure that the funding scheme remains constitutional,
the new plan must also provide an effective and permanent
mechanism to oversee its implementation, operation,
and future adjustment. . . . This mechanism should:
(a) Provide actual cost information from the school
house upwards . . . [and] (b) Provide officials with
adequate power to monitor the implementation and operation
of the funding scheme . . . to ensure there is always
a direct relationship between the actual costs of
its components and the funds it provides."
Lastly, the court retained jurisdiction to assess
remedial measures that the state takes to resolve the
funding problem.
Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, May 14, 2004
|
