Five things to know ahead of the Kansas Legislature’s special session on school funding

Kansas lawmakers will return to Topeka on Thursday in an effort to prevent a shutdown of schools next month.

The state faces a June 30 deadline from the Kansas Supreme Court to fix inequities in school funding. If lawmakers fail to pass a fix by then, the court could block $4 billion in education funding, forcing schools to close.

Gov. Sam Brownback and lawmakers in both parties have said that they support allocating $38 million to restore the state’s old equalization formula, an option identified as a surefire fix by the court.

However, some Republican leaders, including Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, say the court did not specify a funding amount. They may look to pass a less costly plan in the face of the state’s budget woes.

Here are five things to know before lawmakers return to Topeka.

1. What is equalization?

First, a little background: Four school districts – Wichita, Kansas City, Hutchinson and Dodge City – have been suing the state over education dollars since 2010, when the state cut funding in the midst of the recession.

The case has bounced back and forth between district court and the state Supreme Court since then, with the most recent ruling coming down in May.

That ruling focused on equalization, which refers to the way the state reduces funding gaps between school districts. The state provides aid to districts that cannot raise as much money from local property taxes as wealthier districts in order to create equity between districts.

The Legislature froze equalization funding at 2014 levels when it replaced the state’s school finance formula with block grants. That, the court ruled in February, put the state out of compliance with a constitutional requirement for equity in school funding.

Under the old equalization formula, districts received aid if they fell below the 81.2 percentile for money drawn from local property taxes (also called the local option budget). The amount of aid that districts were entitled to bounced up and down from year to year based on a variety of economic factors, including oil prices and home values.

Restoring this system would cost about $38 million and result in $5 million in property tax relief for Wichita residents. More than 140 other districts would also see an increase in state funding, but 96 districts would see a reduction in their state aid.

That’s because those districts – including several in Johnson County, the state’s most populous county – receive more money under the block grant than they would under the old equalization formula.

The 34-member Johnson County delegation has been resistant to giving up this money to help pay for property tax relief in Wichita and other areas of the state.

Some Wichita lawmakers, however, see the issue in reverse, contending that money that should be going to their district has gone to Johnson County for the last two years.

2. Will the Legislature take money away from any school districts?

That’s probably the biggest question at this point.

Superintendents from Johnson County want a “hold harmless” provision that would guarantee no district loses money. But there are serious questions about whether the court would accept a bill with such a provision.

The court rejected a bill passed by the Legislature earlier in the year that included such a provision.

John Robb, an attorney for Wichita and other districts suing the state, says a “hold harmless” provision would undermine efforts to equalize funding and could be rejected by the court.

Senate Vice President Jeff King, R-Independence, and Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita, two practicing attorneys who rarely agree on political matters, said they interpret the May ruling to mean that a “hold harmless” provision would be unconstitutional.

Ward recommended that school districts that lose money in any school finance fix could seek to regain it from the state’s extraordinary needs fund instead.

However, several Johnson County lawmakers pushed strongly for a “hold harmless” provision at a Friday hearing, recommending that it could be paired with a “severability” clause that would allow the court to scrap it if necessary.

It would be difficult to pass a bill without the support of Johnson County, which has the biggest delegation in the Legislature.

3. What is the Republican plan?

Republicans have yet to unveil their plan for a funding fix.

Rep. Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, the House budget chairman, has been meeting with superintendents from around the state, including Wichita’s John Allison, to discuss a possible plan.

Ryckman has yet to share the details of his plan with the public but could hold a hearing on it Thursday when the Legislature reconvenes.

Several Republican leaders, including Ryckman, have openly disagreed with Brownback about whether the state needs to spend any new money to address the court order. It’s possible that they’ll look to shift existing education funds instead.

Some Republicans have also floated the idea that some dollars from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, more commonly known as welfare, could go toward a school finance fix.

It’s possible that Democratic votes might be needed to pass a bill if the factions of the Republican Party can’t come to a consensus.

Democrats presented their own plan Friday that would cut $39 million from other areas in the state’s budget and shift it toward a school finance fix. That included $3 million from TANF.

Their plan also empties out the $15.2 million K-12 extraordinary needs fund, an idea that has also been floated by some Republicans.

The Democrats would also take $13 million from the Kansas Department of Commerce’s Job Creation Fund, a pool of money that is used to attract new companies to Kansas.

Brownback’s office criticized this idea shortly after it was announced, saying it would jeopardize thousands of jobs and that the money has already been committed to Amazon, Goodyear and other companies.

4. How involved will Brownback be in the solution?

That’s still a bit of mystery at this point.

Brownback avoided getting too involved when lawmakers made their first go at a school finance fix in March.

The governor has said that he only has the power to call the Legislature back to Topeka and does not have the power to tell lawmakers what to pass.

However, he has come out in favor of spending $38 million to restore the old equalization formula. That’s a rare move for Brownback, who typically tries to give the Legislature a wide berth on financial matters and avoids setting specific funding targets.

When he does get involved, it’s usually to tell lawmakers what not to do, such as when he warned that he would veto any tax plan that rolled back a tax break for business owners last year.

He has voiced opposition to Senate Vice President King’s idea to divert highway funds to help pay for a school finance fix but hasn’t recommended any specific spending cuts of his own.

Brownback took a hands-off approach for most of last year’s legislative standoff over taxes, which stretched on for months. He finally gave a tearful speech a few days before the state would be forced to furlough workers, urging lawmakers to pass a plan.

They did within 48 hours.

5. Will lawmakers pass a constitutional amendment?

They’re at least going to debate it.

Members of the House and Senate judiciary committees held two days of hearings this past week to discuss whether to amend the Kansas Constitution to explicitly prohibit courts from issuing rulings that could result in school closings.

So far there seems to be more enthusiasm for the idea on the Senate side.

The Senate committee voted to recommend an amendment stating that “no court shall have the authority to order a school district or any attendance center within a school district to be closed.” The amendment would also bar the Legislature from closing a school district in a response to a court order.

Supporters say this would protect schools from future closures, but opponents say it is intended to remove the courts’ ability to enforce the requirement of suitable education funding.

The court still has to rule on whether school funding is adequate at some point in the near future. That ruling could force the state to pay hundreds of millions more to school districts.

The House committee made no recommendation on the amendment, which Rep. Mark Kahrs, R-Wichita, called unnecessary.

Several House members of both parties have said they would prefer to focus on the current court order during the special session rather than delving into a constitutional debate.

An amendment would require approval of two-thirds of each chamber of the Legislature to be added to the November ballot. It would be enacted if a majority of voters approved it.

This story was originally published June 18, 2016 at 4:52 PM with the headline "Five things to know ahead of the Kansas Legislature’s special session on school funding."