State high court decision doesn t surprise local school administrator
Legislature directed to 'fix school finance law'
Staff writer
Marion-Florence USD 408 superintendent Lee Leiker said he wasn't surprised by the Kansas Supreme Court ruling which said the state's schools were underfunded.
"The court is giving the legislature another opportunity to make a decision," Leiker said Monday afternoon. "It's clear the court believes the legislature isn't meeting the needs of education and changes will need to be forthcoming."
Public school administrators have been saying for years the state's formula for financing schools is inadequate. Monday, the state's highest court agreed with them.
In a 10-page informal opinion filed Monday morning, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state wasn't spending enough money on its public school and ordered the legislature to correct the problem before April 12. If not, the court pledged to fix the formula itself.
"Its failure to act in the face of this opinion would require this court to direct action to be taken to carry out that responsible," the opinion said.
Although the high court agreed schools were underfunded, they disagreed with an earlier lower court decision which said the finance formula violated some students' civil rights.
Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock ruled in December 2003 the school finance formula was unfair toward poor and minority students. The supreme court overturned that portion of the decision.
Superintendent Leiker said he was optimistic the ruling sending the formula back to the legislature would mean positive things for Kansas students.
"I think this will help all schools in Kansas," Leiker said. "I'm optimistic what will take place this year."
Although Leiker believes the ruling will help all Kansas schools, Rep. Donald Dahl (R-Hillsboro) said Monday's decision only might be geared toward improving the financial situation of mid-size or larger schools.
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the decision," Dahl said Monday afternoon. "They (supreme court) thought funding was not constitutional. My questions are 'What do they mean? Do we redo it? Are we going to have to take money from smaller schools to fund mid-size schools?'"
The initial lawsuit, funded by mid-size school districts in 1999, named 36 students from Dodge City and Salina districts as defendants.
Dahl said he would need to study the ruling "more in-depth" before commenting on any action he would be willing to take in the legislature.
"Obviously, this is going to take some more of our time this session," Dahl said.
Like superintendent Leiker, Sen. Jim Barnett (R-Emporia) said he wasn't surprised by the high court's decision and indicated it was "very much in line" with what he could support.
"My gut feeling was the (school finance) law was constitutional, but underfunded," Barnett said. "I felt we were not unconstitutional in the way we were treating minorities."
As a former school board member, Barnett said he understood the various school districts' concerns and believed the legislature needed to do better in funding schools. However, the state's economic climate in recent years has made it difficult.
Noting the number of cuts which have been made in other state services, Barnett said he believed the legislature had done a "good job meeting the challenge of funding schools."
"K through 12 has seen a $680 million increase over the last four years," Barnett said. "We put more money toward schools. Some people, however, would make you believe there's been nothing."
As far as cutting funding from smaller schools to support mid-size schools, Barnett said he would fight to help small schools maintain low-enrollment weighting.
"I represent some of the smallest schools in the state. I have to make sure they're not hurt," Barnett said. "We must not let go of low-enrollment weighting. As a rural legislature, I'm ready and willing to fight."
Both Dahl and Barnett indicated the 2005 session, which begins Monday, most likely would be a difficult one.
"Any session is difficult," Barnett said. "Not only are we going to have to deal with education, but also health care, the death penalty, and the marriage amendment."
Both men also said they did not know how the legislature would go about remedying the situation.
"We're concerned about the court decision and there's still a lot of potential unknowns," Barnett said. "But the legislature needs to come back and take some major steps toward the needs of our children."
