| Kansas
Costing Out | Recent
Events | Useful
Resources
Historical Background
The four cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of
Education, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court desegregation
decision in 1954, included Kansas' original Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka suit.
In 1972, a trial Court found the Kansas public education
funding system unconstitutional, in Caldwell v. State,
Case No. 50616 (Johnson County District Court, slip.
op. Aug. 30). In 1973, the legislature responded by
passing the School District Equalization Act (SDEA),
which established a foundation level of school funding
per pupil and committed the state to fund the difference
between local revenues and this target amount.
In 1990, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality
of the SDEA. A trial court "Opinion in Advance
of Trial" held that "the duty owed by the
Legislature to each child to furnish him or her with
an educational opportunity is equal to that owed every
other child." Mock v. State, 91CV1009
(Shawnee County District Court, Oct. 14, 1991). The
governor created a special task force to devise a new
school finance system, and, in 1992, the state adopted
the School District Finance and Quality Performance
Act (SDFQPA). The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the new
system in Unified School District No. 229 v. State,
885 P.2d 1170 (1994).
Montoy v. State
In 2001, a state court dismissed Montoy v. State,
No. 99-C-1738 (Shawnee County, Nov. 21, 2001), which
challenged the SDFQPA and the state "capital outlay"
and special education "excess costs" funding
statutes under the state constitution. In January 2003,
the Kansas Supreme Court reversed
and remanded for trial, which was held
the following summer. The trial court issued its
decision
in favor of plaintiffs in December 2003 and set a July
1, 2004 deadline for the State to enact a remedy.
In late 2004 and early 2005, the Kansas Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court’s finding that the state
education finance system was violating the Kansas Constitution
and set an April deadline for remedial action by the
legislature. The legislature acted by the deadline,
but enacted legislation that provided substantially
less funding than the amount deemed necessary by a 2002
costing out study the state had commissioned. The plaintiffs
returned to the court, which found the remedy insufficient.
In a rapid decision it issued in April, 2005, the Kansas
Supreme Court ordered the legislature to provide $290
million, the amount the cost study had recommended for
the first year of a multi-year phase-in by June 30.
The Governor called a special session to respond to
the Court order, and although the legislature failed
to act by the requisite date, it did meet over the July
4th weekend and enacted a bill that appropriated the
full amount the Court had ordered for the 2005-06 school
year prior to the July 8 date the court had established
to consider penalties for non-compliance. (The trial
judge had recommended closing down the entire state
public education system until such time as a constitutionally
adequate finance system was in place.) The Court then
ordered the Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA)
to incorporate the cost of outputs, as well as inputs,
in a cost study to determine required funding levels
for future years. In the event that the LPA failed to
comply, the Court held that it would consider mandating
additional funding for the 2006-07 school year based
on the 2002 cost study. This would have resulted in
an additional funding increase of $568 million.
Costing-Out
The Legislative Coordinating Council hired education
finance experts to conduct a study of the cost of providing
an adequate ("suitable" in the Kansas Constitution)
education. The study, released in May 2002, was based
on a detailed adequacy definition, including "inputs"
and "outcomes," and it used both the "professional
judgment" and "successful schools" costing-out
methodologies. The study concluded that Kansas needed
to increase K-12 education spending by $853 million.
An analysis of the study is at Kansas
Fact Sheet 2002.
After increasing state education funding in 2005, the
legislature directed its Legislative Division of Post
Audit (LPA) to conduct a follow-up cost study. Released
in January 2006, this study estimated the need for a
school funding increase of at least $399 million beyond
the increase enacted in 2005. Analysis of this study
is at Kansas Fact Sheet
2006.
Recent Events
In its 2006 session, the legislature responded to the
supreme court’s concerns about adequate funding
and equitable distribution of funds, increasing annual
state funding by another $466 million, to be phased
in over three years, and allocating almost one-third
of the increase to mid-size and large districts and
their disproportionately low-income, ELL, and special
education students. The Kansas Supreme Court held
that the new system complied with its earlier decisions
in Montoy and closed the case in July 2006.
Useful Resources
Charles Berger, Equity Without Adjudication: Kansas
School Finance Reform and the 1992 School District Finance
and Quality Performance Act, 27 Journal of Law &
Education 1 (January 1998).
Richard E. Levy, Gunfight At the K-12 Corral: Legislative
vs. Judicial Power in the Kansas School finance Litigation,
54 Kan. L. Rev. 1021 ( 2006).
Last updated , March, 2008 |
