Kansas Supreme Court Relies on Texass Edgewood Decision

With the Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition litigation pending before the Texas Supreme Court and a decision expected to be handed down in the near future we wanted to call your attention to the recent ruling in the Kansas public school finance case (Gannon v. State). In particular we would like to share with you some highlights from the Kansas Supreme Courts ruling which draws directly from previous Texas school finance lawsuits (Edgewood v. Kirby).    Last weeks Supreme Court of Kansas (SCoK) ruling on the equity of the Kansas school finance system is a strongly-worded decision on the inequities of the Kansas school finance system. It leaves no doubt as to the causes of inequity and to the requirement they be addressed by the Kansas Legislature by June 30 the end of this years legislative session. See Gannon v. State Importantly for Texas it clearly defines equity as something that is measurable and it uses our own Edgewood v. Kirby decision as the basis for defining that measurement. The decision further characterizes that requirement (Article 6 of the Kansas State Constitution) as a standard set by the people of Kansas--giving it power and authority over and above any law passed by the legislature--and establishing the fact of the Courts undeniable responsibility to interpret laws passed by the legislature in relation to the will of the people as expressed in their constitution. While we encourage you to read their decision and draw your own conclusions we wanted to provide the following examples and quotes from the decision to give you a feel for its tenor. A decision we feel lends great credence to the equity arguments of the Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition--and the Equity Center--now before our own Supreme Court of Texas (SCoT).

1. In establishing a clear equity standard for Kansas the SCoK looked at their own prior decision and at Edgewood Indep. School Dist. V. Kirby 777 S.W.2d.391 392 Tex. 1989 focusing on this quote from the Texas decision:

There must be a direct and close correlation between a districts tax effort and the educational resources available to it; in other words districts must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort. Children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts must be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds. 298 Kan. at 1174 (quoting Edgewood v. Kirby at 777 S.W.2d at 397). The SCoK established equal access to similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort as their standard: We agreed with the basic principle embraced by the Texas Supreme Court and thus clarified our test for measuring equity under Article 6: School districts must have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort. 298 Kan. at 1174-75. (p. 35-36)

2. One of the issues in the trial dealt with the fact the new Kansas school finance plan failed to fully fund equalization assistance for poor school districts. In response to the States claim that plaintiff districts did not prove a need for additional revenue but simply raised taxes to try to qualify for additional funding the Court further defined equity as not requiring a needs-based determination saying:

That being said the states no need argument is not particularly relevant in evaluating equity. In this context equity is not a needs-based determination. Rather equity is triggered when the legislature bestows revenue-raising authority upon school districts through a source whose value varies widely from district to district such as with the local mill levy on property. (p. 44)

3. The Court further found the States method and formula for cutting funds when their budget did not fully fund the system exacerbated the inequities in the system and was in violation of Article 6. Quoting from their own previous decision they said:

The States proration of the equalizing payments has made it even more difficult for those districts with lower property wealth to obtain reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort. (p. 46) Just as the State presented no evidence to support its purported cure of the capital outlay aid inequities it can point to no evidence that refutes these losses or otherwise justifies them as a means to demonstrate compliance with Gannon I. Because it carries the burden...to show that districts had reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort this continued lack of evidence compels us to conclude it has not met that burden. In sum we affirm the panels holdings that the legislature failed to cure the wealth-based disparities affirmed to exist in Gannon I... (p. 47)

4. Much like the current school finance in Texas the State of Kansas argued the SCoK should not rule on this case but defer to the will of the state legislature. The Courts answer was:

Through Article 6 of their constitution the people of Kansas expressly assigned duties to the legislature that both empower and obligate it to make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state. Under this article the legislature must perform its duties in compliance with the requirements the people have established. Determining whether an act of the legislature is invalid under the peoples constitution is solely the duty of the judiciary. The judiciary is not at liberty to surrender ignore or waive this sworn duty. (p. 3)

5. Finally the SCoK in declaring its injunction and the possible remedies before the Kansas Legislature addressed the connection between equity and adequacy another issue before that court to be considered in the future:

...any other funding system it enacts must be demonstrated to be capable of meeting the equity requirements of Article 6-while not running afoul of the adequacy requirement. 298 Kan. At 1200 (explaining that although adequacy and equity are distinct components of Article 6 they do not exist in isolation from each other so that a particular cure of equity infirmities may affect adequacy of the funding system). Speaking more plainly the State would help its case by showing its work in how it determined that any other proposed solution complies with Gannon I. (p. 74)

Interestingly throughout the SCoKs 80 page decision there is a definitive thread regarding how to determine whether or not a funding system is equitable and this thread stems directly from Texas own Edgewood v. Kirby. Equity is simply and easily measured. That measurement is defined as ...districts must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort. Children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts must be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds. 298 Kan. at 1174 (quoting Edgewood v. Kirby at 777 S.W. at 397) If you have any questions or we can be of any further assistance please contact us at 512.478.7313 or info@equitycenter.org. The Equity Center is a nonpartisan non-profit organization of over 700 school districts across the state ranging in size demographics and location. We are the only entity focused solely on advocating for the fair and equitable treatment of Texas taxpayers and children. www.equitycenter.org