Kansas high court strikes down school funding law, threatens shutdown
By Kevin Murphy
KANSAS CITY, Kan. (Reuters) - The Kansas Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the state's funding system for public education is unconstitutional and said it must be replaced by June 30 if schools are to remain open.
The court found in an 80-page ruling that the system approved by lawmakers in the Republican-controlled state legislature last year was inequitable, saying it had come up $54 million short in funding for schools in poor districts.
The court upheld a challenge by four school districts to the so-called block grant system, which replaced per-pupil funding, finding that system does not comply with the Kansas constitution.
Lacking a constitutional school finance system, schools in Kansas will not be able to operate after June 30, the court stated.
"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 court ruled.
Kansas lawmakers are debating the budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled almost two years ago that the state was breaching its mandatory duty to fully fund public schools. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit at that time said the state was under-funding education by at least $129.1 million for the year.
Republican Governor Sam Brownback and the legislature argued that lawmakers, not the courts, should establish public school funding levels. Some Democrats and other critics have said public school students are paying the price for tax cuts approved in recent years.
Brownback's office did not immediately respond with comment on Thursday's state Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling upholds a state court of appeals finding in favor of four school districts who argued that the block grant system of funding worked to the disadvantage of poor or under-achieving students.
The state Supreme Court held that lawmakers have relied on "wealth-based" disparities to deny certain districts money to which they were entitled.
(Reporting by Fiona Ortiz; Editing by Tom Brown)
