Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Gannon v. Kansas
 | |
| Gannon v. Kansas | |
| Important Dates | |
| Filed: November 2, 2010 Most recent decision: June 14, 2019 | |
| Outcome | |
| Pending | |
On June 14, 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state's legislative adjustments to education funding, SB 423 and SB 61, were equitable. The court said the state was on track to provide adequate education by 2022.[1]
This ruling followed a prior one on June 25, 2018, when the court ruled that the state's legislative adjustments to education funding were equitable but inadequate. The court concluded that Kansas had not met the adequacy requirement in Article 6 of the state constitution. The court advised the state to undertake further adjustments to inflation and allowed the legislation (SB 19, SB 423, and SB 61) to temporarily remain in effect, thus providing funding for Kansas schools for the 2018-2019 school year. The court extended the deadline for the state to fulfill its constitutional duties to June 30, 2019.[2]
The 2019 ruling was the high court's latest in a case called Gannon v. Kansas. The plaintiffs argued that the education funding the state had provided was constitutionally inadequate. In 2013, a three-judge panel agreed, and in 2014 the case reached the Kansas Supreme Court for the first time. Several rounds of court decisions and legislative efforts followed as the parties and court grappled with the requirements of the state constitution and the state budget.
On October 2, 2017, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature had not met its constitutional obligation to adequately and equitably fund Kansas public schools. The court ruled the state had failed to show that the legislature's education funding bill, SB 19, satisfied its constitutional obligation to adequately and equitably fund public education. However, allowing the ruling to go into immediate effect would have invalidated SB 19 and left Kansas schools without funding for the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, the court stayed its ruling until June 30, 2018, leaving SB 19 temporarily in place. The court ordered the legislature to craft a new funding system and demonstrate to the court that the new system fulfilled the legislature's constitutional duties to adequately and equitably fund public education by June 30, 2018.[3]
Click on one of the links below to find out more information:
Ruling on June 25, 2018
The court says funding plan equitable but inadequate
On June 25, 2018, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state's funding plan was equitably distributed but inadequate. It gave the state another year to make changes and advised the state to adjust the existing funding plan to account for inflation.[2]
The court concluded that Kansas had not met the adequacy requirement in Article 6 of the state constitution. The court rejected the state's argument that legislation passed in 2018 (SB 423 and SB 61) phasing in approximately $548 million in funding over five years was enough to meet Article 6's requirements and said the state did not appear to have adequately adjusted for inflation for the 2017-2018 or 2018-2019 school years. The court wrote, "In its current status, the State's chosen remediation plan does not comply. But by timely making financial adjustments in response to the plan's identified problems and its accompanying calculations—and then by completing the plan—the State can bring the system into constitutional compliance." The court also questioned the state's treatment of virtual school aid, asking for an explanation on the use of virtual school aid in the state's school funding calculations.[2][4]
The court also ruled that the state complied with Article 6's equity requirement. The court wrote, "Upon our review, we conclude the State has shown that its proposed remedy, under the present circumstances, establishes that the K-12 public education financing system provided by the legislature through SB 19, SB 423, and SB 61 meets Article 6's equity requirement."[2]
Following this ruling, the parties were required to submit new briefs to the court by April 15, 2019, and response briefs by April 25, 2019. The court heard oral arguments on May 9, 2019. The court was expected to issue a ruling by June 30, 2019.[2]
Political reactions to the court's June 25 decision
- Gov. Jeff Colyer (R): "We will maintain a sharp focus on sending dollars to the classroom without raising taxes. I look forward to building upon the work we did together this year to address the remaining issues identified in the ruling."[5]
- Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R): "I continue to believe that Kansans should be given the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to indicate whether this litigation-driven funding system is really how they want school-funding decisions to be made."[6]
- State Senate President Susan Wagle (R): "Today the unelected bureaucrats of the Kansas Supreme Court chose to continue with the endless cycle of school litigation, leading us down the road to an unavoidable tax hike. When Kansas is on par with Nancy Pelosi’s California for sky-high property taxes and families are fleeing the state, we can thank the Kansas Supreme Court."[6]
- State Sen. David Haley (D): "Today’s ruling, which affirms that just over $4 million will be received by USD 500 in my Senate District in the next fiscal year, graciously gives our Legislature until April of 2019 to find additional school funding (as, coincidentally, recommended by an independently commissioned conservative Republican study) to further address our prime directive; which keeps Kansas competitive in attractive and maintaining a growing, family-oriented workforce. My experience leads me to strongly believe that in our growing state’s economy these resources will be found available without any tax increase on working Kansas families."[5]
- State Sen. and 2018 gubernatorial candidate Laura Kelly (D): "I’m grateful for the court’s work and I respect its decision. We will work together in the coming year to fully fund our schools and give all children the opportunities they deserve."[5]
- State Rep. Brett Parker (D): "I think it was predictable and avoidable. This is why many of us tried to avoid another losing court case for the state of Kansas and public education funding. There were several opportunities to do right by our schools and we just never had enough votes for them."[6]
- State Rep. Julia Lynn (R): "I think as long as we let this go on, as long as we let the court push us around and come over and do our jobs, that it will never be enough money."[6]
- Carl Brewer, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2018: "Today the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled state lawmakers have once again failed to adequately fund our public education system. This was not surprising and was completely avoidable if the Legislature followed the recommendations of its own study. Instead, they took the easy way out, deciding to fund schools in a manner that many knew would probably not meet the constitutional standard."[5]
Ruling on October 2, 2017
The court declares SB 19 unconstitutional
On October 2, 2017, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state had failed to demonstrate that SB 19 satisfied the legislature's obligations under Article 6.[3]
The court first concluded that the legislature had failed to show that SB 19 satisfied the adequacy requirement. The court noted that the legislature claimed it calculated the BSAPP outlined in SB 19 by studying 41 Kansas schools the legislature said were considered successful and then setting appropriate funding amounts based on the funding those schools received. The court rejected that method of calculation. "Stated simply and starkly," the court wrote, "the State's 'successful schools' model does not contain enough schools or districts meeting student performance standards—much less constitutional standards of adequacy—to warrant that label." The court noted that "in 19 of 41 (46%) of the selected districts at least 19% of the students were performing below grade level." The court concluded, "These profiles raise doubt about why these districts can be included in the 41 selected by the State—a question the State does not attempt to answer."[3][7]
The court emphasized the numbers of Kansas students who failed to meet academic proficiency standards. Citing an earlier opinion, the court wrote, "We clearly held in Gannon IV that the Kansas public education financing system was unconstitutional—when only 75% of all public school K-12 students were at grade level or above in the basic skills of both math and reading, and a significant group of harder-to-educate students were being left even further behind because of inadequate funding." The court noted that SB 19 was remedial legislation through which the legislature was supposed to remedy the existing inadequacies it had previously identified. But although the state argued that SB 19 provided constitutionally adequate funding, the court wrote, "it does not indicate why, how, or by how much, any of these levels are going to be improved by its proposed level of funding in SB 19." In sum, the court concluded, "The State has not met its burden to satisfactorily demonstrate to this court that the K-12 public education financing system the legislature enacted, i.e., SB 19, is reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed the standards...presently codified in K.S.A. 201[6] Supp. 72-1127."[3][8][9]
The court also concluded that the state had failed to show that SB 19 satisfied the equity requirement. The court examined four specific provisions to which the plaintiffs had raised objections.[10] Finding that the state had failed to demonstrate how any of the four provisions would maintain funding equity, the court noted, "The State fails to meet its equity burden in another respect. It has not shown its work, i.e., shown a justification for its legislative decision that demonstrates why the result of remedial legislation is equitable."
Emphasizing that the state bore the burden of demonstrating compliance, the court concluded, "The amendments to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 72- 8804 accomplished by SB 19, § 91 exacerbate wealth-based disparities, resulting in unacceptable levels. Under these provisions, school districts will not have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort." The court continued, "Stated more precisely, the State has failed to meet its burden of establishing that section 91 complies with the equity standard of Article 6."[3]
While the court's opinion was not unanimous, all justices agreed that SB 19 was unconstitutional. The justices who dissented or concurred argued that the majority gave the state too much time to create a remedy. Justices Johnson, Rosen, and Biles wrote or joined separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part from the court's ruling. Justice Johnson concurred that SB 19 did not adequately or equitably fund public education, but he would have given the legislature only until the end of 2017 to create a remedy. Justice Rosen joined Justice Johnson's opinion. Separately, Justice Biles also agreed that SB 19 was unconstitutional. But he would have immediately enjoined the provisions the court found inequitable, rather than allowing them to go into effect until June 30, 2018.[3]
Political reactions to the court's October 2 decision
Officials across the political spectrum reacted differently to the court's ruling:
- Republican leadership in the state legislature issued a statement that condemned the court's ruling and called it an unrealistic demand. “This ruling shows clear disrespect for the legislative process and puts the rest of state government and programs in jeopardy,” the statement said.[11]
- House Minority Leader Jim Ward (D): "The Democratic caucus is ready to get to work immediately on crafting a constitutionally sound school finance formula that ensures student success for all Kansas children — no matter their ZIP code."[12]
- Gov. Sam Brownback (R): "Today’s court decision is yet another regrettable chapter in the never ending cycle of litigation over Kansas school funding. The court should not substitute its decision for that of the legislature."[13]
Background
The Kansas Constitution
Gannon turns on the interpretation and application of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution. Article 6 states, “The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” Earlier court decisions have held that Article 6 requires the state to provide funding to public schools that is 1) adequate and 2) equitable.[3]
The first requirement is the adequacy requirement. The state must “show that the public education financing system provided by the legislature…is reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed the standards…codified in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 72-1127.” Those standards describe seven student measures that should be met in order to show that the education funding system is adequate:
| “ | [A]...system of education must have as its goal to provide each and every child with at least the seven following capacities: (i) sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization; (ii) sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable the student to make informed choices; (iii) sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation; (iv) sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness; (v) sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage; (vi) sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and (vii) sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market.[3][14] | ” |
The second requirement is the equity requirement. Under this requirement, “School districts must have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort.” This requirement refers to each district's relative ability to raise funds through local efforts (typically, property taxes). The state must show that its funding system provides for reasonably equal access to local effort funds, regardless of the relative wealth of each district. This requirement does not mean that every district must have exactly equal access to local effort funds. Instead, it means that the state's funding system cannot exacerbate wealth differences:
| “ | We have recognized that "allowing local revenue-raising authority...will almost certainly create wealth-based disparities among the districts," leading to inequality. This means some level of inequality has been constitutionally tolerable. Nevertheless, given the potential inequities that arise from local funding based on property taxes, the legislature must always be cognizant that changes to local effort rules raise equity concerns. Indeed, in previous situations where the legislature has exacerbated wealth-based disparities while attempting to cure past inequities that violate our state constitution, we have rejected the legislative change.[3][14] | ” |
Under Kansas law, the state bears the burden of demonstrating that its funding system meets the adequacy and equity requirements of Article 6.[3]
The pre-Gannon system
The SDFQPA
Educational funding in Kansas has been the subject of legal challenges since the early 2000s. Between 2003 and 2006, the Kansas Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of education funding in Montoy v. State. Montoy challenged an earlier educational funding law called the School District Finance and Quality Performance Act (SDFQPA). Like in Gannon, in Montoy the Supreme Court issued several different decisions. Partially in response to those decisions, the state increased education funding by a total of $755.6 million over three years. Based on the SDFQPA's provisions and on those increases, the court dismissed the case in 2005, holding that the state had met its constitutional obligations.[3]
The SDFQPA, which took effect in 1992, laid out a formula for calculating the amount of educational funding each school district needed and identified the sources of funding each district could access. Under SDFQPA, the state determined the amount of funding a district should receive per student, called the base state aid per pupil (BSAPP). However, the state recognized "that the needs of some students require more resources for their education than others," citing factors such as "low enrollment, special education, vocational, bilingual education, and at-risk student[s]." The state weighed those factors to calculate a district's equivalent enrollment. A district's equivalent enrollment might be more or less than its actual enrollment number, depending on the nature of the educational services its students needed. The state then multiplied the equivalent enrollment by the BSAPP to calculate the amount of state financial aid each district was entitled to receive.[3]
Under SDFQPA, educational funding to meet that aid entitlement came primarily from two sources: 1) state government financial aid, and 2) local efforts, which consisted primarily of property tax funds each school district was required to raise through mill levies on taxable property. State financial aid made up the difference between the amount of funding the district was entitled to under the SDFQPA formula and the amount of funding it was able to raise through local effort. Because property values vary, wealthier school districts were able to raise more through local efforts. If a district's local effort generated more funds than the district was entitled to under the SDFQPA calculation, "the excess was remitted to the State."[3]
Separate from state financial aid and the required local effort, the SDFQPA allowed districts to implement two additional types of levies. First, districts could implement levies to augment their general funding levels. Those additional levies were called local option budgets (LOBs). Under the law, the amount of additional funding raised through an LOB was capped at a percentage of the district's total budget. The state made supplementary additional funding available for less wealthy districts that could not generate as much additional funding. Second, districts could use a levy "to fund capital outlay expenses such as purchasing certain equipment." As with the LOBs, the state provided capital outlay state aid for less wealthy districts that could not raise sufficient funds through local levies.[3]
The recession and cuts to education funding
As the recession took hold, state revenues fell, prompting the state to begin reducing its education funding.[15] In 2006, the base state aid per pupil (BSAPP) appropriation was $4,443. By 2012, it had been reduced to $3,780. According to the court, "The reduction to education funding through these BSAPP reductions constituted a loss of more than $511 million to local districts." In response to the cuts, parents of Kansas students and several Kansas school districts filed Gannon in 2010.[3]
2012 tax cuts and the state budget
On May 22, 2012, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a package of tax cuts. The cuts went into effect in January 2013. The 2012 tax cuts reduced the state’s income tax brackets from three to two and also established state income tax exemptions for more than 300,000 farmers and business owners throughout Kansas.[16] The Brownback administration said that the tax cuts would spur the economy and job growth, estimating that they would leave $1.1 billion in the pockets of state taxpayers within two years. Opponents of the tax cuts argued that the cuts would decimate state services.
Shortly after Brownback won re-election in 2014, his budget director announced that the state was facing a $280 million shortfall. In 2015, Brownback announced $44.5 million in education cuts to close the budget shortfall. Brownback argued that the education cuts were due to school spending and that school spending was to blame for the state's budget shortfall.[17] By February 2017, the state's budget deficit was about $320 million.[18] On June 6, 2017, the Kansas Legislature overrode Gov. Brownback’s veto of legislation that rolled back the 2012 tax cuts the governor had supported. Moderate Republicans in the state said that a rollback of the 2012 tax legislation was needed to address a projected $887 million revenue shortfall in Kansas’ budget over the next two years.[19]
The legislature replaces the SDFQPA and the court rules again
While the 2013 Gannon decision was on appeal, in 2015 the state legislature voted to repeal the SDFQPA and replace it with the Classroom Learning Assuring Student Success Act (CLASS). The CLASS Act was intended to expire on June 30, 2017, giving the legislature two years to develop a full replacement for the SDFQPA. The Gannon plaintiffs also challenged the CLASS Act.[3]
On March 2, 2017, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the CLASS Act failed to pass constitutional muster. The court "specifically affirmed that for the two years CLASS was in existence—fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017—the funding was inadequate and that substantial numbers of Kansas students were performing below their grade level." The court gave the legislature until June 30, 2017, to pass a remedial bill.[3]
The Kansas legislature drafted and passed SB 19 to replace the CLASS Act. The court noted, "The parties agree that the framework of SB 19 is essentially based on the SDFQPA." However, SB 19 changed the underlying BSAPP and the types of expenses that school districts can fund through local options. The legislature argued that SB 19 offered additional and more equitable funding that allowed it to meet its constitutional obligations to adequately and equitably fund public education. The plaintiffs argued that SB 19 still did not meet the adequacy and equity requirements of Article 6.[3]
The legislature passes SB 423 and SB 61
The legislature, which reconvened in January 2018, had to demonstrate it met its constitutional obligations under Article 6 by June 30, 2018. During the 2018 legislative session, the legislature passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 423 and Senate Bill 61. SB 61 increased the state's base aid for the 2018-2019 school year from $4,128 to $4,165 and enacted gradual base aid increases in each school year from 2019-2020 to 2022-2023. The bill mandated that after 2023-2024, base aid would increase by a three-year rolling average based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for all urban consumers in the Midwest region. It also required school districts to have a local budget that amounted to at least 15 percent of the funds received from the state.[2]
SB 423 allocated $32.4 million for special education for the 2018-2019 school year and scheduled $7.5 million increases through 2022-2023. It appropriated the following funds for the 2018-2019 school year: $500,000 for the mentor teacher program, $2.8 million for an ACT and WorkKeys assessment program, and $10 million for a pilot program on mental health intervention and a related data system. SB 423 also required school districts to allocate a portion of their local budgets to at-risk and bilingual funds.[2]
Supreme Court makeup
The following justices took part in the October 2 and June 25 decisions:
Justices Carol Beier and Caleb Stegall did not take part in the court's October 2 decision. Senior Judges Michael J. Malone and David L. Stutzman sat by designation in their places.
Justices Lawton Nuss, Marla Luckert, Daniel Biles, Lee Johnson, Eric Rosen, and Carol Beier were members of the Kansas Supreme Court when Gannon v. Kansas was initially filed in November 2010. Justice Beier did not participate in the court's decisions and was replaced by David L. Stutzman. Judge Michael J. Malone was designated in the place of Justice Caleb Stegall, who joined the court in 2014.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Education Week, "Kansas Supreme Court Lets Legislature Off the Hook on K-12 Funding...For Now," June 14, 2019
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Kansas Supreme Court, Gannon v. Kansas, June 25, 2018
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 Kansas Supreme Court, Gannon v. Kansas, October 2, 2017
- ↑ The State, "The Latest: Kansas court says school funding inadequate," June 25, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Wyandotte Daily, "Supreme Court ruling in Gannon case viewed as ‘positive’ by school districts’ attorney," June 25, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 The Kansas City Star, "Kansas school funding still inadequate, Supreme Court says," June 25, 2018
- ↑ The successful schools model, as well as other models, are discussed in detail in court's opinion, pages 20-32.
- ↑ Internal citations omitted.
- ↑ The court also addressed several specific funding issues related to adequacy. Those issues are discussed in the court's opinion, pages 40-49.
- ↑ Those specific provisions are discussed in detail in the court's opinion, pages 52-75.
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "School funding still inadequate and unfair, Supreme Court rules," October 2, 2017
- ↑ cjonline.com, "Kansas legislators, governor candidates clash on K-12 court ruling," October 2, 2017
- ↑ The Kansas City Start, "Kansas Supreme Court rules new school finance formula is unconstitutional," October 2, 2017
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "Interactive timeline: Kansas school-funding dispute," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Brownback signs big tax cut in Kansas," May 23, 2012
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Gov. Sam Brownback cuts funding for schools and higher education," February 6, 2015
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "GOP plan to fix Kansas budget implodes amid pressure from educators," February 9, 2017
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Legislature overrides Brownback’s veto of bill that rolls back his 2012 tax," June 7, 2017
Federal courts:
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Kansas • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Kansas
State courts:
Kansas Supreme Court • Kansas Court of Appeals • Kansas District Courts • Kansas Municipal Courts
State resources:
Courts in Kansas • Kansas judicial elections • Judicial selection in Kansas
