Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

By Alana Semuels, Los Angeles Times

It seemed like a victory for Kansas educators when the state Supreme Court ruled last month that Kansas had created “unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities” among its school districts, and ordered the state to remedy the problem by July 1.

But the way the state has gone about complying with that decision leaves some educators feeling that they may be losing as much as they gain.

A school funding bill, passed by the Legislature after lengthy negotiations, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. It finds money to increase state aid to poorer districts, but also takes away aid to at-risk and non-proficient students. It also ends due process for public school teachers and gives businesses a tax credit for creating scholarships at non-public schools.

The legislation also allows wealthier districts to raise more money for their schools, which may in fact increase disparities between school districts, educators say.

“One of our issues with it is that they took money from at-risk funding in order to help pay for it,” said John Robb, a lawyer who represented the parents and students who had sued the state in the school funding case. “They took it from Peter to pay Paul.”

The Supreme Court decision was the culmination of years of legal wrangling about education funding in Kansas; the case that Robb litigated was the second such case to reach the state’s high court in the last decade.

In Kansas, the state decides how much each school district can spend on education, and then gives aid to districts that cannot come up with the money themselves.

But during the recession, the state cut that aid, making funding per student unequal in poor and rich districts, Robb argued in the case, Gannon v. Kansas. He also argued that Kansas does not adequately fund education, but that part of the argument was sent back to a lower court for review.

Many lawmakers in the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature seemed loath to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Rep. Marc Rhoades resigned as House Appropriations Committee chairman March 31 in protest of the bill.

“None of the spending is tied to measurable education outcomes,” Rhoades said in a statement about his reasons for stepping down.

The final bill was passed after a long weekend of negotiations that sometimes dragged on until 1 in the morning. Teachers unions are frustrated because the bill ends a process through which teachers are allowed to make their case at a special hearing if they are fired, something that was never publicly debated in the Legislature. A state teachers union has said that it will sue school districts that take advantage of this change.

  • Bambi

    What is it about the Nation’s Heartland that provokes so much controversy? Why should arguments prevail about private schools versus public schools and about who get’s the taxpayers funding? Isn’t it clear? Taxes are used for the public’s benefit.
    We need that money since public funds are not allowed to turn children
    or families away.They serve children with physical, emotional, and mental disabilities, the gifted and those with learning disabilities. You don’t take our funds in order to funnel it to private profit oriented education.

    Parents and students will lose rights and protections in the private systems. These private schools are not compelled to accept all children with varying degrees of needs. Just the ones that don’t “rock the boat.” Some of the dire consequences of funneling public money to private causes is that the taxpayer will be forced to pay higher property taxes in order to ensure adequate funding for our public schools.