Montoy v. State, No. 92,032 (Kan. July 28, 2006)
In a 4-2 per curiam decision, the Kansas Supreme Court has dismissed a suit challenging the adequacy and equity of the state legislature’s school finance plan. Per curiam means the court, as a whole, authors the opinion, rather than the usual method of one judge being selected to do so. The court ruled that the latest legislative effort complied with the court’s prior orders to correct flaws in the scheme in place at the time the plaintiff school districts filed their suit. The court stated that sole issue raised by the suit was "whether the legislation passed in 2005 and SB 549 (passed in 2006) comply with the previous orders of this court." The issue of the new legislation’s constitutionality was not currently before the court and, if challenged, must be litigated in a new action filed in the district court.
The court found that the legislature had substantially responded to the concerns raised in the rulings striking down the funding system, including inadequate funding for students in middle-sized and large districts with a high proportion of minority and/or at-risk and special education students; lack of any actual cost basis for weighting factors for special education, bilingual, and at-risk students; equitable and fair distribution of the funding to provide an opportunity for every student to obtain a suitable education; and wealth-based disparities inherent in provisions for communities to rely on local option budgeting. The state will provide estimated annual increased funding by the 2008-09 school year of $755.6 million over that provided in 2004-05, of which almost one-third is to be directed to at-risk students.
The court rejected the state’s contention that its own cost study should not be considered in determining whether the state has complied. The study was part of the legislative history of SB 549, and the court could consider the study "in determining legislative intent as it is relevant to the question whether the legislature has complied with our orders in this case." But the court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that because SB 549 does not provide funding at the levels recommended by the state’s own study, the legislation fails to comply with the court’s order to base funding on actual costs. Because the study had not been conducted until after the case was already on appeal, it had not been subjected to fact-finding at the trial court level, and the supreme court may not reach a conclusion as to whether the study is credible evidence of actual costs.
The court concluded that there were two reasons for dismissing the suit rather than remanding it to the trial court. First, it is those states where school finance cases were remanded to trial court that have had the most trouble producing a final plan that met the state supreme court’s opinion of constitutionality. Second, "S.B. 549 is a 3-year plan; thus, it may take some time before the full financial impact of this new legislation is known, a factor which would be important in any consideration of whether it provides constitutionally suitable funding."
Montoy v. State, No. 92,032 (Kan. July 28, 2006)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: The Kansas City Star reports below that the legislature’s plan will increase school funding by $466 million over a three-year period and that the ruling is a major victory for legislators and Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who had hoped the justices would see the plan passed this year as a good faith effort and end the lawsuit. Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland issued a brief statement with the opinion saying, "This case is not about winners and losers. It is about the children of Kansas." Background on Kansas’s school finance litigation is available on the NSBA School Law pages.]
Kansas City Star
[Full story]
[NSBA School Law pages on Kansas school finance litigation]