An Error in Judgment

A Judge in Kansas has just ordered all public school spending halted, and hence all public schools shut down, on June 30th. In an earlier ruling, he found that the state's funding formula is unconstitutional, in that it doesn't spend enough on the education of poor children to provide a satisfactory education.

Here's what the Kansas City Star has to say:

TOPEKA, Kan. - (KRT) - A Kansas district judge on Tuesday ordered public schools to close, beginning June 30, until the state's flawed school finance law can be overhauled.

Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock, who had declared the school financing law unconstitutional on Dec. 2, ordered the expenditure of school dollars to be halted at the end of next month.

His order, unprecedented in Kansas, applies not only to state education spending but also to additional property tax levies that local school boards authorize and local sales tax money collected for education in certain counties.

"This action by the court will terminate all spending functions under the unconstitutional funding provisions, effectively putting our school system on `pause' until the unconstitutional funding defects are remedied by the legislative and executive branches of our government," Bullock said.

As news of the ruling spread in media reports, concerned parents called schools to see if they would remain open, and worried school employees asked if they would receive paychecks after June 30.

State and school district officials urged people not to panic, predicting that the Kansas Supreme Court would delay implementation of the order.

Attorney General Phill Kline called a news conference to announce that he would ask the Kansas Supreme Court Wednesday to put the District Court order on hold until the high court considers it.

Kline already has appealed Bullock's original order that declared the school finance law unconstitutional. That appeal, authorized by a special law passed by the Legislature this year, is scheduled to be heard in September.

Kline was among those predicting that the Supreme Court would overturn Bullock's orders.

"Everybody needs to take a deep breath," he said. "There is a process, and we are following this process."

Last December, in declaring the school financing law unconstitutional, Bullock said it failed to distribute school aid equitably to students, failed to spend enough to provide students a "suitable" education and did not serve the needs of poor, minority, disabled and non-English speaking children.

"The current funding scheme was found to be irrational; that is, those schools with the children most expensive to educate receive the least," he said.

Bullock was critical of the Legislature for failing to deal with his December ruling.

"In fact, rather than attack the problem, the Legislature chose instead to attack the court."

Bullock had directed the Legislature and the governor to come up with a constitutional school-aid plan by July 1. But lawmakers could not reach agreement on one.

The judge said in his ruling that lawmakers running for re-election were reluctant to raise taxes for schools. However, he also noted that in the past 10 years, the Legislature had cut taxes by nearly $7 billion.

As a result, he said, the school funding method is now unconstitutional, in part because of inadequate funding. In last year's school-finance trial, Bullock heard unchallenged testimony that the cost of providing a suitable education for Kansas children is nearly $1 billion more than is currently provided.

I don't know who all testified before Justice Bullock, but clearly he didn't hear anyone familiar with the case of Kansas City, Missouri. Between the late eighties and the late nineties, Kansas City public schools spent more than $2 billion over and above their regular expenditures as a result of a ruling just like the one Bullock seems to be getting at. As in the current Kansas state case, the Kansas City ruling was meant to improve the achievement of low income students and narrow the racial and socio-economic achievement gap. It did none of these things. They did get an Olympic pool with underwater viewing area, though, which is kinda neat. Dunno if it's worth $2 billion, though.

I'll probably be writing more on this story in the coming week, so for now, I'll just leave it at that.

Posted by Andrew Coulson at May 12, 2004 12:02 AM | TrackBack