Court can’t order more funding if it follows its rules

Just as Kansans are experiencing sticker shock over an unnecessary and retroactive $1.2 billion income tax hike over two years, they face the possibility that the state Supreme Court could almost double their economic pain. The schools’ taxpayer-funded attorneys are demanding $972 million more on top of the $293 million already provided over the next two years, and the tone of justices’ questions during a recent hearing indicate they may grant schools that windfall.

If they do, it would be in complete contradiction of the Court’s own rules established in March 2014. Adequacy, they say, is met when funding is reasonably calculated so students can meet certain outcomes (the Rose standards). The Court’s role, therefore, is to determine whether there is anything unreasonable in the Legislature’s calculation of funding provided – not whether the funding is at any particular level. The Supremes made that quite clear in their 2014 opinion, saying the district court “should apply the Rose-based test articulated in this opinion for adequacy in school finance to the evidence it deems relevant to its analysis, recognizing the test does not require the legislature to provide the optimal system.” The district court ignored this guidance in December 2014 and also ignored the new definition of determining adequacy.

For the first time, the Legislature’s school funding formula is predicated upon an outcome-based calculation. Base funding is calculated on what’s called a “successful schools” model that draws on outcome criteria commonly used by the Department of Education. There’s even legal precedent for using a similar model, as that was the underlying basis of the court’s final Montoy decision on school funding; the associated cost study was later discovered to have been consciously inflated to produce higher costs but the court never challenged the successful schools premise.

Some justices and the school attorneys indignantly noted that the Legislature ignored the so-called expert funding recommendation of the state School Board, which is the basis of the additional $972 million sought by plaintiffs. But that anyone would seriously entertain the State Board’s recommendation in light of the Court’s March 2014 decision is patently absurd. The State Board’s July 2016 discussion of adopting nearly $1 billion in new funding reflects a complete absence of effort to reasonably calculate anything as required by the new adequacy test; the State Board simply wants to go back to Montoy funding that was demonstrably inflated.

The economic damage of another major tax increase is bad enough, but lack of accountability for improving outcomes and closing achievement gaps is the real tragedy. If simply spending more money was the answer, there wouldn’t be achievement gaps in Kansas or anywhere else. Billions more have been spent over the last two decades and if anything, achievement gaps for minorities and low-income kids are worse. Until local school boards and administrators are held accountable for improving outcomes – as in a consequence for not improving outcomes – no amount of money will help kids get the education they deserve.

This story was originally published August 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM with the headline "Court can’t order more funding if it follows its rules."