Both sides seem to claim victory from the Kansas education finance ruling

Sam Brownback seems rather sanguine on an afternoon in which the Kansas Supreme Court said the state underfunds education to the point that it’s unconstitutional.

For a state that boasts its connection to the landmark desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, the Kansas’ highest court has twice ruled that the state’s K-12 education funding scheme is so inadequate that it can’t meet the minimum threshold of constitutionality.

“We have an opportunity for progress,” Brownback said Friday afternoon in a press statement. “My commitment is to work with legislative leadership to address the allocation issue identified by the court. We will fix this.”

Friday’s eagerly anticipated ruling on education finance was somewhat anticlimactic. It didn’t result in an immediate nine-figure increase in school funding and didn’t set the table for what could have been a constitutional crisis if lawmakers made good on their promise to blow off any court order to increase education appropriations.

Brownback and other Republican legislative leaders insisted that because the ruling didn’t specify a required spending level on education, they’re free from the handcuffs of the 2005 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that ordered specific increases in spending.

Lawyers who represented school districts in the lawsuit against the state disagreed, claiming that the state will have to pour nearly $130 million into K-12 education by July 1 to account for part of the court’s mandate.

“We view this as a huge victory for Kansas kids,” said John Robb, a lawyer for several Kansas school districts. “It will provide much needed resources next year.”

The ruling made it clear that the complex Kansas education finance scheme shortchanges poorer school districts and ordered that the state fix the inequalities. Lawmakers seemed to focus on that part of the court’s decision.

They were more quiet about a different part of the ruling, about whether the financing mechanism provides enough money for all Kansas students. A lower court has to explore that question once again, but Robb anticipated that the ruling could result in up to nearly $1 billion in additional K-12 financing.

The ruling so far is a good one for poorer districts, such as the Kansas City, Kansas, School District. 

Wealthier districts like those in Johnson County won’t see any immediate windfall on the decision. It may realize increased funding if the courts come back and order increases on a per-pupil basis.