As many of you are aware the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling this week regarding the financing of K – 12 education. In particular the Court ruled that the Kansas Legislature has failed to “make suitable provisions for finance” of public schools as required by the Kansas Constitution. Pursuant to this ruling the Court determined that:

It is clear increased funding will be required; however, increased funding may not in and of itself make the financing formula constitutionally suitable. The equity with which the funds are distributed and the actual costs of education, including appropriate levels of administrative costs, are critical factors for the legislature to consider in achieving a suitable formula for financing education. By contrast, the present financing formula increases disparities in funding, not based on cost analysis, but rather on political and other factors not relevant to education.

The Court has given the Legislature until April 12 to comply with this holding, at which time if the Court is not satisfied it will take some unspecified action.

I’d like to take just a moment to consider both the opinion itself, and the even more vital issue of where we go from here. The Court’s action, while not a complete surprise, was disappointing none the less. It is my belief that this disappointment can be shared whether one agrees or disagrees with the notion that we should increase spending for public schools. I personally believe it is entirely proper for the legislature to seek to increase funding for K -12 education next year. However, I also believe that the Court’s opinion constitutes a violation of the separation of powers, and even setting that issue aside, was poorly reasoned on its own terms.

I have heard some argue that the Court showed deference to the Legislature in that it did not require a specific amount of increased spending. My belief is that this argument misses the larger point that the Court has still set it self up as arbiter of what does or does not constitute an adequate appropriation in the area of school finance. The power to appropriate funds is clearly a legislative function over which the Court simply should not have power to act. This does not merely mean the Court can not appropriate funds (just as the legislature can not decide Court cases); it also means that they are not vested with the authority to interfere with the Legislatures discretion in matters of appropriation. It should further be noted that the Court has not only directed the Legislature to appropriate money in a particular fashion, but has held out a not so veiled threat that it is willing to further exceed its authority by taking punitive action against the Legislature (and perhaps Kansas Public School teachers and students) if it fails to acquiesce to the Court’s usurpation of legislative authority.

While the Court’s opinion may make some happy because of its short term policy implications for school finance it should in truth make everyone uneasy. The same reasoning that allows the Court to exceed its authority to your benefit in one case, allows it to exceed its authority to your detriment in another.

All that having been said the Court’s opinion fails to make much sense even on its own terms. On the once hand the Court concedes that the factors which make up the funding criteria in the current formula are related to legitimate legislative purposes under equal protection analysis. On the other hand the Court says that many of these exact same factors must be revised by the Legislature in order to pass constitutional standards relating to actual cost and equitable distribution of funds.

Perhaps more simply the Court provides precious little support for its assertion that the Kansas Constitution mandates “that our educational system cannot be static or regressive but must be one which ‘advance[s] to a better quality or state.’” Then after grabbing this concept from thin air the Court adds insult to injury by failing to provide any hint as to what this concept can possible mean in the concrete situation of determining how much money to appropriate for K – 12 education. What the Court tells us instead is that while this concept has no set meaning, if the Legislature fails in its powers of divination to determine, prior to April 12th, what the Court thinks it means (but won’t tell us) then the Legislature will have somehow forced the Court’s hand requiring it to enact some unspecified draconian remedy. There are numerous other problems with the Court’s opinion that are worthy of comment, however for sake of brevity I will leave it at that.

As much as I disagree with the Court’s opinion I must say that as a practical matter it in no way changes the manner in which I intend to approach the issue of K – 12 education in the upcoming session. First some facts, in Fiscal 2005 the State of Kansas (excluding local and federal dollars) will expended over 2.4 billion dollars on K – 12 education, a 7.9% increase over fiscal year 2004. This constitutes 52.75% of the state General Fund budget. This represents a tremendous commitment by the citizens of Kansas to provide adequate funding for public education. I firmly believe that the current funding level meets any rational definition of suitability. I further find no basis for the view that the Kansas Constitution mandates some particular level of educational quality, however defined. That having been said my discussions with parents, teachers, local school officials and other legislators lead me to believe that some increase in K -12 funding is justified. I believe this not because of, but almost in spite of, the ruling of the Supreme Court.

In particular I would first like to see an increase in the base state aid per pupil of no less than $100 per student. I would further advocate providing some additional assistance for at risk and/or special education students both via increased funding to local school districts and through the creation of state funded scholarships to be used by these students at a school of their parents’ choosing. I further support providing school districts with additional authority to raise money locally and with greater flexibility in the expenditure of those funds to which they already have access. In order to meet the Court’s requirement that the Legislature analyze the actual cost to educate students I would advocate a requirement that school districts adopt uniform accounting practices thus allowing for more meaningful analysis of how education dollars are actually being spent. We must also look at consolidation of districts, reductions in administrative costs in some districts, and incentives to encourage districts to direct funds to teacher pay and other true classroom expenditures.

We should also keep in mind that the money with which to finance our public schools does not come from the school finance fairy. Dollars spent on schools are not available for other important purposes like the funding of higher education, operation of prisons, or even funding of the judiciary. As such we must recognize that the decision to spend more on K -12 education will not come without real costs in other areas. The purported alternative of financing increased spending through imposition of an ever greater tax burden on Kansas families and businesses is bad public policy and should be avoided. Tax policy disadvantageous to economic growth is not in the long term fiscal interests of our public schools. Only a growing economy can support the increasing demands for more K - 12 money. Higher taxes are inimical to economic growth and as such inimical to the very conditions which are a prerequisite to our ability to continue to provide more funding for schools over time.

With all of this in mind I pledge to work to provide reasonable increases in K – 12 education funding while always being mindful that our children our not best served by imposing an oppressive tax burden on their parents. I will also continue to speak out against actions by the State Supreme Court which undermine legislative authority and in doing so subvert the separation of powers upon which our very system of self government is dependent.

Lance Y. Kinzer
State Representative
District 14
State Capital, Room 531N
Topeka, KS 66612
(785)296-0111