The Kansas Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that state funding to schools is inadequate and gave the Legislature a June deadline to enact changes, scrambling a legislative session already consumed by a sprawling budget debate.

The ruling in the Gannon lawsuit came as lawmakers were away for a weeklong break at the traditional midpoint of the legislative session, but it sent shock waves across the state. Gov. Sam Brownback, as well as Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said the decision emphasizes the need for lawmakers to enact a new finance formula.

“Under the facts of this case, the state’s public education financing system provided by the Legislature for grades K-12, through its structure and implementation, is not reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed” educational standards, the court ruled.

The court’s opinion doesn’t give an exact amount lawmakers need to spend. But Alan Rupe, an attorney for the plaintiff school districts, placed that figure at $800 million or more.

“Our adequacy test, as described in (an earlier case), rejects any litmus test that relies on specific funding levels to reach constitutional compliance,” Supreme Court justices said.

Lawmakers are trying to fill a budget shortfall of more than $270 million in the current fiscal year, which lasts through June, and more than $500 million the following year. Schools already account for the largest percentage of state general fund spending.

Where the additional money could come from isn’t clear. A package of tax increases passed the House and Senate but was vetoed by Brownback. The legislation would have raised more than $590 million next year, and whether lawmakers would vote for an even larger increase is an open question.

The court gave the Legislature a June 30 deadline to make changes. Each justice joined in the ruling, except justices Caleb Stegall and Carol Beier, who recused themselves in the case.

Reaction swift

The ruling seemingly ends a winding, yearslong legal battle over school funding. The Gannon lawsuit, brought by a coalition of school districts under the banner of Schools for Fair Funding, challenged both the adequacy and equity of state funding for education. Nearly 50 districts sued in 2010, kicking off the case.

Rupe hailed the ruling, saying the court had finally confirmed that public education is significantly underfunded. But, Rupe said, the hardest part is still ahead. He suggested the state’s 2012 tax policy should be rolled back to help fund education spending increases.

“Many Kansans associate Gov. Brownback’s tax cuts with the state’s inability to fund basic state programs and agencies, as well as education. The new, more moderate Legislature has already suggested that it will repeal some of the tax cuts put into place by Gov. Brownback,” Rupe said. “This would go a long way in not only allowing Kansas to address the inadequacies in education funding, but also in addressing the overwhelming budget deficit that Kansas is currently facing.”

Rupe said the plaintiffs are willing to work with lawmakers on a process that steps up funding over time, but he said he would insist on the case remaining before the Supreme Court during that time. He invoked former President Ronald Reagan, who said, “Trust, but verify.”

The Supreme Court handed down its decision during a session that will require lawmakers to craft a new school finance formula, after the Legislature scrapped the old formula and implemented a temporary block grant system in 2015. A handful of possible plans have received hearings, but none has yet advanced to the House or Senate floor.

In a statement, Brownback didn’t criticize the ruling, despite previous comments from him and other Republicans charging the court with playing politics. The Legislature has the opportunity to engage in “transformative educational reform,” he said, by passing a school finance system that puts students first. Success is measured by higher student performance, not dollars spent, he said.

The governor also called for school choice, saying parents should be able to pursue other options if they believe a quality education isn’t possible from their local public school.

“The Kansas Supreme Court correctly observes that our education system has failed to provide a suitable education for the lowest performing 25 percent of students,” Brownback said. “The old funding formula failed our students, particularly those that struggle most. The new funding system must right this wrong.”

Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said the ruling doesn’t change a self-imposed deadline to enact a new formula by the end of the legislative session. She said she looked forward to working with other lawmakers to send a bill to Brownback that puts the needs of students first.

“Educating our children is imperative to our state’s success, and it is our duty to provide Kansas students with the resources they need to thrive,” Wagle said.

House Speaker Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, said work on a new formula will continue in the House K-12 Education Budget Committee. He said the court had acknowledged the high quality of Kansas schools in the ruling and affirmed the “role and authority of the Kansas Legislature to formulate and establish the state’s K-12 funding mechanism and determine and appropriate funds necessary to support our schools.”

House Minority Leader Jim Ward, D-Wichita, called the ruling a “great victory” for Kansas schoolchildren. He said it is time for the Legislature to get to work, “do our jobs, and ensure that we fulfill the order set forth by the Kansas Supreme Court.”

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said lawmakers should have started working on a new formula sooner. Brownback and Republican leaders must stop playing political games and get serious about fully funding education, he said.

“You’re only in first grade one time. You’re only a senior in high school one time. We have to get this right, and we have to do it right now. The future of Kansas children depends on it,” Hensley said.

Rep. Stephanie Clayton, a moderate Republican from Overland Park, said the Legislature “owes it to the people of Kansas to set aside invective and fulfill our constitutional obligation” to fully fund education.

Attorney General Derek Schmidt, whose office represented the state in the case, said the court’s June 30 deadline “must be met.” He called on the Legislature to enact a new formula before the regular session ends to give the justices ample time for review. Lengthy delays would impose needless strain and uncertainty, he said.

“One thing is clear: The state’s interest in bringing this litigation to an end can best be met by a bold legislative response, enacted swiftly, squarely targeting the constitutional defects the court identified,” Schmidt said.

^

Long path to ruling

The Gannon districts won in Shawnee County District Court in 2013 after a 16-day trial. The state appealed the outcome, eventually leading to intervention by the Supreme Court, though the court sent part of the lawsuit back down to the district court level.

A 2014 ruling by a three-judge panel in Shawnee County held that the school finance system in place at the time, in both its structure and implementation, wasn’t “reasonably calculated” to have all students meeting desired educational outcomes. The judges were critical of lawmakers for shifting the funding burden from the state to the local level.

That ruling came after the Supreme Court asked the district court to look at the adequacy of funding based on what it would cost to achieve desired educational outcomes for students. The desired outcomes are referred to as the Rose standards, a concept originally used in a Kentucky court case. The standards focus on preparing students for life outside of school — from personal and civic life to careers and mental and physical well-being.

During oral arguments last September before the Supreme Court, attorneys for the districts said lawmakers were violating the state constitution by providing only enough aid to districts so a portion of students do well.

“We’re leaving massive numbers of kids behind in public education,” Rupe argued at the time. He referred to his fourth-grade granddaughter, Katelyn. “I’d like her generation to graduate in an adequately funded system.”

Kansas Solicitor General Stephen McAllister, arguing on behalf of the state, told the justices during oral arguments that more spending on schools won’t necessarily improve academic outcomes for students. He said some of the additional money “will be wasted” on teacher salary increases and other spending.

“We cannot achieve 100 percent proficiency,” McAllister told the court. “What you’ve got to do, I think, is look at what is realistic.”

The court’s Thursday ruling is the second major school finance ruling in little more than a year. In February 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that funding among schools was inequitable. The decision led to a special legislative session, where lawmakers boosted equity spending by $38 million.

After past rulings, conservative Republicans sometimes criticized the court in harsh terms and, in some cases, voiced the possibility of ignoring the decisions. Some lawmakers see the court as infringing on the Legislature’s role as appropriators.

But despite legislative displeasure over rulings, voters retained all five justices who appeared on the ballot in November.

.videoWrapper { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; /* 16:9 */ padding-top: 25px; height: 0;}.videoWrapper iframe { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%;}

TCJ Statehouse reporters talk about the ruling.

Contact reporter Jonathan Shorman at (785) 295-5619 or

@jshormanCJ on Twitter.