Kansas Supreme Court gives state until June 30 to properly fund public schools

[GMDino]

Brownback is living the GOP dream!

Soon there will be no Public Schools!

Quote:TOPEKA 

The Kansas Supreme Court on Thursday gave the state until June 30 to enact an “equitable” school funding formula or, it said, the state’s public schools won’t open for the 2016-2017 school year.

In its ruling, the court said that if a formula isn’t in place by then, the court will decide that “no constitutionally valid school finance system exists.”

“Without a constitutionally equitable school finance system, the schools in Kansas will be unable to operate beyond June 30,” the Supreme Court said.

“Accordingly, the Legislature’s chosen path during the 2016 session will ultimately determine whether Kansas students will be treated fairly and the schoolhouse doors will be open to them in August for the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year,” the ruling stated.


The ruling affirms a Court of Appeals decision that the state had failed to correct constitutional inequities among school districts in the state’s school funding system. The three-judge appeals panel said the state’s block grant system had shorted poor school districts by $54 million.


The Legislature switched to a block grant system last year to replace a per-pupil funding formula until it could devise a new formula. But the court said block grants left schools underfunded.


Gov. Sam Brownback issued a statement reacting to the ruling: “Kansas has among the best schools in the nation, and an activist Kansas Supreme Court is threatening to shut them down. We will review this decision closely and work with the Legislature to ensure the continued success of our great Kansas schools.”


But Alan Rupe, an attorney for the school districts that challenged the block grant system, including Kansas City, Kan., public schools, was pleased with the decision.


“It’s a win for every kid in Kansas that attends public schools, particularly kids who are disadvantaged and in high poverty areas,” Rupe said.
Cynthia Lane, superintendent of Kansas City, Kan., schools, lauded the ruling.


“Through this decision, the Supreme Court is making clear that the opportunity for a quality education must be available to all Kansas children, regardless of the ZIP code in which they live,” Lane said. “This is good news, not only for students in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, but also for students and communities across the state.”


Some lawmakers didn’t appreciate the court’s mandate.


“The courts have now interjected themselves in the business of the people and the business of the Legislature,” said House Speaker Ray Merrick, a Stilwell Republican. “They don’t appropriate. We do.”


Merrick was noncommittal on whether the Legislature could comply with the high court decision by June 30. He said he would meet with Senate leadership and Brownback to determine how they would proceed.


“This is really just a temper tantrum by the Supreme Court saying, ‘We’re running the show here. Do what we say or we’re going to shut down the schools and punish the kids,’ ” said Sen. Jeff Melcher, a Leawood Republican. “ ‘And we’re going to blame you for it.’ ”


Senate President Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said in a statement: “The Supreme Court’s threat to close our schools is nothing more than a political bullying tactic and is an assault on Kansas families, taxpayers and elected appropriators. The decision today makes a pawn of Kansas schools as the courts attempt to advance their agenda. We will not play their game but will instead do our best to provide a quality education for all Kansas students.”


Rep. Melissa Rooker, a Fairway Republican, said that although it would have been helpful to give the Legislature more time, the court provided lawmakers a road map for conforming to the Kansas Constitution.


“I appreciate that we do have a timeline and an opportunity to make this right,” said Rooker, who had opposed the block grants. “The court is properly inhabiting its role in determining whether the laws passed here in the statehouse meet the constitutional test.”


The ruling Thursday came on the same day the House took a final vote on its budget bill, which passed 68-56, and the Senate scheduled its own budget debate.


Brownback and the Legislature were moving ahead with plans to plug a nearly $200 million budget shortfall, plans forged before the Thursday ruling.

In the case at issue, called Gannon v. Kansas, the Kansas City, Kan., Wichita, Hutchinson and Dodge City school districts claimed the state had not met its constitutional obligation to properly fund public schools.


The Gannon case was split into two issues: whether overall state funding of school districts was adequate and whether funding was equitably distributed to districts.


The ruling Thursday dealt with the equity question.


The Supreme Court in 2014 ordered state lawmakers to fix unequal funding among districts. Last year, Brownback and the Legislature did away with the state’s per-pupil school finance formula and replaced it with block grants for two years until a new formula could be written.


The districts alleged that the state’s block grant system was unconstitutional, and a three-judge court panel agreed. The panel ordered the state to restore the funds under the earlier formula. The state appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.


In its ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said one way, but not the only way, the Legislature could comply “would be to revive the relevant portions of the previous school funding system and fully fund them within the current block grant system.”


In oral arguments before the Supreme Court last November, Rupe argued that the Legislature chose to switch financing formulas and to back away from its promise of full funding. The Legislature couldn’t provide evidence that the schools were equitably financed across the state, he said.


A “safe harbor” in the dispute for legislators was to appropriate full funding, he said, but “the Legislature chose not the safe harbor. They chose the wilds of the ocean.”


The state’s funding plan hits disadvantaged and lower-achieving students hardest, Rupe said.


But Stephen McAllister, Kansas solicitor general, said the three-judge panel overstepped its bounds by telling the Legislature to return to the previous formula. Legislators made it clear they wanted a new financing plan, and they are owed deference in that decision, he said.


McAllister said the Legislature acted in good faith when it switched to the block grant system while it decided on how best to finance schools. 


And lawmakers believed its appropriation represented full funding, he said.


Justice Dan Biles said he was frustrated by that assertion because it was clear the amount was about $54 million short of full funding.


Oral arguments on the adequacy portion of the Gannon case are expected this spring. The price tag in that decision is much larger, with the court to decide whether the state needs to increase total school funding by more than $500 million.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article59751946.html#storylink=cpy

[Benton]

I'm glad for Kansas.

Not for the people of Kansas. I feel bad for them, for raising their kids in an underfunded education system. I feel bad for business owners employing those kids. I feel bad for business owners trying to stay afloat as the state's job numbers slowly continue to go down (but up in some surrounding states not governed by idiots).

But I'm glad the rest of us have Kansas as a shining example of why you can't cut taxes and services, expand cronyist tax breaks, and then expect growth in a consumer based economy.

[*michaelsean*]

What is block funding?

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 02:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What is block funding?

The government (normally the granting agent is the feds, in this case it's the state) gives you a chunk of money with only a few strings attached. Like if it's for sewer improvements, they might give your municipality 80% of what it says it will cost. Your local taxes are supposed to cover the other 20%. And the feds will normally have only a few restrictions (no lead pipes, has to address a certain percentage of the population, has to be completed within a year, etc). That's opposed to specific taxes that most places use to generate funds and those dollars generated go to very specific uses.

In this instance, instead of saying 'it costs X to run the district, and you have to follow these regulations for graduation rates, text books, teacher requirements and salary, pupil to teacher ratio, etc' Kansas is saying, 'it costs X to run a district, here's N, figure it out on your own.'

The outcry is because some districts get more because essentially the state says so without much reasoning.

Edit: I thought this article explained it a bit, too.
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article37377267.html

The block-grant system, passed by the Legislature at Brownback’s request this year, essentially freezes funding for two years while the Legislature works toward crafting a new school finance plan. A three-judge school-finance court has ruled that the block grants fail to meet the constitutional requirement for the state to provide suitable funding for education – a ruling currently on appeal at the state Supreme Court.

Under the old school finance formula, a district’s revenue was determined by its enrollment, plus “weightings” providing extra money for poor, limited-English and other harder-to-teach students.

As an example of the stress brought on by the switch to block grants, the report cited Wichita schools’ struggle to fund education for an influx of foreign refugee children, even though the district has raised taxes, cut spending and dipped into reserves to fund this year’s operations.

“The district is facing a squeeze from growing enrollment, increased operating expenditures, and flat state aid,” the report said. “The quandary is not unique to Wichita Public Schools.”

[StLucieBengal]

I'm ok with not funding public schools.  Now drop property taxes and allow parents to find schools of their choice.

Or better yet allow teachers to market themselves and have their own classrooms where each student pays the teacher for the time. Then parents get the preferred teachers and teachers can get paid what they value themselves.

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 05:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I'm ok with not funding public schools.  Now drop property taxes and allow parents to find schools of their choice.

Or better yet allow teachers to market themselves and have their own classrooms where each student pays the teacher for the time.    Then parents get the preferred teachers and teachers can get paid what they value themselves.

So... you're advocating what exactly? A total private pay education system?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 07:18 PM)Benton Wrote: So... you're advocating what exactly? A total private pay education system?

We pay now and get terrible results in public Ed for the money spent

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 07:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We pay now and get terrible results in public Ed for the money spent

That's debatable. I'm pretty happy with my kids public schools. Maybe you should move?



But seriously, I don't see how going to private pay is conceivable. You'd end up with a largely uneducated populace. People won't pay 99 cents for a phone app. Restaurants have to charge extra for condiments because people are so cheap they steal the ketchup. Asking them to shell out several hundred dollars a week isn't going to work. And for those on social welfare, that's a ticket to their kids never getting out of poverty.

[BmorePat87]

Pretty good public schools in Maryland. People come to my county for the schools. We're one of the top 5 richest in the country and no one seems to mind the higher property taxes.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 07:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pretty good public schools in Maryland. People come to my county for the schools. We're one of the top 5 richest in the country and no one seems to mind the higher property taxes.

There are good school counties. Because he local area makes sure they are successful. Thing is it's not a one size fits all solution where we just spend more. Schools are as good as the parents are active.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 07:44 PM)Benton Wrote: That's debatable. I'm pretty happy with my kids public schools. Maybe you should move?



But seriously, I don't see how going to private pay is conceivable. You'd end up with a largely uneducated populace. People won't pay 99 cents for a phone app. Restaurants have to charge extra for condiments because people are so cheap they steal the ketchup. Asking them to shell out several hundred dollars a week isn't going to work. And for those on social welfare, that's a ticket to their kids never getting out of poverty.

Private school here. But there Are some good public schools here. Martin county is better than St Lucie:

If we went public We would move and be MartinBengal haha

[*Nately120*]

(02-12-2016, 07:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We pay now and get terrible results in public Ed for the money spent

Yes, but introducing capitalism makes me envision the education version of everyone mindlessly blowing their money on the school version of Starbucks, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart.  I guess it's fitting that another aspect of American life moves towards the profitable, cheap, disposable, commodity direction.

[BmorePat87]

(02-12-2016, 08:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There are good school counties.  Because he local area makes sure they are successful.    Thing is it's not a one size fits all solution where we just spend more.   Schools are as good as the parents are active.

Good thing education is in the hands of the states then.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 09:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Good thing education is in the hands of the states then.

All private schooling would be great. Plus the amount of home schooling would increase as well. But there would be more actual teachers marketing themselves to home schoolers. How awesome would it be for you to name your rate? That has to appeal to you.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 09:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, but introducing capitalism makes me envision the education version of everyone mindlessly blowing their money on the school version of Starbucks, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart.  I guess it's fitting that another aspect of American life moves towards the profitable, cheap, disposable, commodity direction.

Better than the low producing maximum cost version we have today. We have some success but we also have loads of failures.

[Rotobeast]

(02-12-2016, 07:44 PM)Benton Wrote: That's debatable. I'm pretty happy with my kids public schools. Maybe you should move?



But seriously, I don't see how going to private pay is conceivable. You'd end up with a largely uneducated populace. People won't pay 99 cents for a phone app. Restaurants have to charge extra for condiments because people are so cheap they steal the ketchup. Asking them to shell out several hundred dollars a week isn't going to work. And for those on social welfare, that's a ticket to their kids never getting out of poverty.

Agreed.
If this were to happen, there would be a large amount of kids getting no schooling at all.
Without the influence of public schools, children will have even less in common with each other.
The rift between cultures will grow larger and end up in near tribal warfare.
I'm surprised Obama never tried Lucie's proposal.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 10:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Agreed.
If this were to happen, there would be a large amount of kids getting no schooling at all.
Without the influence of public schools, children will have even less in common with each other.
The rift between cultures will grow larger and end up in near tribal warfare.
I'm surprised Obama never tried Lucie's proposal.

Everyone would still get quality schooling. More private schools would pop up and tuition rates would drop like a rock. Plus it would stop the strangle hold the teachers union has on public schools. Would make it a better classroom expierence and would force mor parental involvement because it wouldn't be free. The people with no money can work at the school. Like my mom did when I was in grade school at my private school. She helped at lunch.

[Rotobeast]

(02-12-2016, 10:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Everyone would still get quality schooling.   More private schools would pop up and tuition rates would drop like a rock.    Plus it would stop the strangle hold the teachers union has on public schools.    Would make it a better classroom expierence and would force mor parental involvement because it wouldn't be free.  The people with no money can work at the school.   Like my mom did when I was in grade school at my private school.   She helped at lunch.

That would be great, but we currently have a thread about people who will not work 6 hours/week to claim welfare.
I doubt they'd get off the couch to make sure their child can get an education.

I think there still needs to be some base of "free" public schooling.

Maybe just eliminate the teachers union, so jobs could be competed for annually ?

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 10:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Everyone would still get quality schooling.   More private schools would pop up and tuition rates would drop like a rock.    Plus it would stop the strangle hold the teachers union has on public schools.    Would make it a better classroom expierence and would force mor parental involvement because it wouldn't be free.  The people with no money can work at the school.   Like my mom did when I was in grade school at my private school.   She helped at lunch.

you're going in two directions. First it's great because teachers could name their price, then it's great because tuition would drop like a rock.

you're like the dick Cheney of education reform

sorry Lucie, but it's a very progressive idea you've got there where people pay less and everyone makes more. That's worse than public school math.

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 10:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: That would be great, but we currently have a thread about people who will not work 6 hours/week to claim welfare.
I doubt they'd get off the couch to make sure their child can get an education.

I think there still needs to be some base of "free" public schooling.

Maybe just eliminate the teachers union, so jobs could be competed for annually ?

I volunteer at my daughter's school. One of the reasons it's one of the top 20 is the state is the parental involvement. There's about one volunteer for every 60 kids at any given time. That said, it's 10 minutes away from two other schools that are lucky to get two volunteers throughout the day for a few hundred kids. Makes a huge difference. But I don't think any more would show up to any of the schools. Some communities seem to work out differently than others. That's why its important to have a floor for everyone.