Latest Event Updates

Court Accepts Fix

Posted on

Group of Elementary Pupils In Classroom

SCHOOLS FOR FAIR FUNDING

Court accepts fix… equity resolved for now.  We have spared you from hourly updates through the special session. We assumed most of you were following in a more “real-time” manner than we could provide anyway. Here is a summary recap of the past week or so.

We began the session with the same position that we have had for years:

(1) Equity must be fixed.

(2) The “safe harbor” was the best approach at this late date to avoid school closures.

(3) Hold harmless provisions were likely to be rejected by the Supreme Court and should be avoided.

(4) The funding for the plan should not come from the schools. (The schools-funding-the-plan card had been played by the legislature in March and the Supreme Court rejected this approach.)

Our position was also the court position as shown in the Gannon I, Gannon II and Gannon III opinions. It was our strong belief that any deviation from the above positions would be rejected by the court and cause a shutdown. It was also our strong belief that a court rejection, school closures, and a second special session were not in anyone’s best interest.

Just prior to the session the JoCo schools and all the JoCo Chambers of Commerce held a press conference insisting that any plan must contain a hold harmless provision so that no school lost money. We opposed this. The purpose of equalization is to… equalize. The system would not equalize if those with an advantage that is no longer warranted by the formula were allowed to retain the advantage.

Legislative leadership early on agreed that a full funding of the LOB equalization under the old formula for $38M was the most certain path to compliance. Hurdle one cleared.

Legislative leadership came to the realization that a hold harmless would most likely be rejected, cause a closure and require a second special session. They, therefore, moved away from the hold harmless provisions fairly early in the discussions. Hurdle two cleared.

Then we hit the “how do you fund it” wall.

Legislative leadership decided to run the schools-funding-the-plan game again with a .005 cut to all schools. We opposed this. The court had said that the solution could not harm adequacy. The funding source became the point of negotiation.

Leadership wanted the .005 cut. The schools did not. Once leadership determined that they did not have 63 votes in the house, due to the opposition from the schools and the prospect that the court would not accept the cut, leadership began to get creative and search for other funding sources.

We offered to join in a stipulation to the Supreme Court that equity had been cured if they could get to a “clean” fix that did not have a bunch of extraneous policy stuff in it and could be appropriately funded without cuts to the schools.

Leadership proposed to drop the .005 cut and substitute any excess from the sale of the Bio Science assets, but insisted that if this was not enough that any shortfall come from the .005 cut. We rejected this due to the potential cut. Leadership came back with a .0025 cut. We rejected this also.

The extraordinary needs fund was in play also. This is school funding, but no district could budget for it and the process had been a sham in its first year. The fund was not even consumed the first year and was swept to cover part of the state deficit. Leadership had already tapped the fund for part of the solution and the final agreement was to make the extraordinary needs fund absorb the excess if the Bio Science asset sale did not cover the cost. If the extraordinary needs fund did not cover it, then the state general fund would make up the difference.  No cuts. Hurdle three cleared.

At this point there was agreement. Bill Brady signed the agreement on behalf of SFFF, which is attached. The bill was printed and we waited to review the actual language. The bill drafting was sufficient. Bill Brady testified in favor of the bill on behalf of SFFF, as agreed,  and the House then passed the bill 116-6.

The Senate had not been involved in the process to this point. Upon the House passage, the Senate agreed to support the same bill if Alan and I signed the agreement also. We requested that President Susan Wagle sign the agreement. She did and we did. The Senate then passed the bill 38-1.  HB 2001 Agreement

On Sunday, we prepared a stipulation draft and submitted it to the Attorney General. Negotiations over the language continued throughMonday and the stipulation was filed with the Supreme Court late yesterday. Here is the stipulation: 2016-06-27 Joint Stipulation Constitutionally Equitble_ Compliance

The Supreme Court accepted the stipulation late today. I attach the decision. The court ordered that “The planned implementation of HB 2001 and full funding of that formula for 2017 would be in compliance with the equity component of Article 6 Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution…. Therefore, no judicial remedy is necessary at this time. Oral arguments to address the adequacy portion of this litigation will be set by future court order.”Order062816

Kudos go to Bill Brady and his team for managing this entire process. We would not be where we are now without his efforts. Thanks also to the schools and supes that participated, both directly and indirectly. The meetings, calls and emails mattered. It simply would not have happened without everyone’s efforts.

Assuming the legislature does not back up on equity after the election, like they did last time, we should be finished with equity. It is now on to adequacy.

Attached is an article by John Celock that gives a bit more detail about the process. He gets it mostly correct.  91163 Celock Report – How Game Changer Kansas Schools Deal Was_ Reached (1) 

Equity Order

Posted on Updated on

sffflogo - Mail Chimp

Equity has been met, for now!

Order062816

Signed agreement on school funding solution

Posted on

Group of Elementary Pupils In Classroom

Schools for Fair Funding is pleased to support the legislature and the Governor when they pass constitutional school finance laws. And when they do not, we stand ready to challenge their actions. Kansas school children deserve no less. 

Gannon – Joint Stipulation of Compliance 0616

Schools for Fair Funding Response to Kansas Supreme Court Ruling on Equity

Posted on

sffflogo - Mail ChimpThe Kansas Supreme Court continues to uphold our Kansas Constitution requiring equitable funding for students regardless of their zip code. The message from the court today is that the block grant funding is unconstitutional and must be fixed. Now it is the legislature’s responsibility to find the necessary funding and act in the best interests of our students.

We strongly encourage legislators to resolve the funding problem soon. We want our school doors to open in August and allow the educational process to continue on its regular schedule which includes all of the wonderful school traditions that our communities enjoy.

If the Topeka politicians do not resolve this funding gap not only will our students suffer the consequences but the entire State of Kansas suffers.  We continue to hope and believe that the governor and legislature will act soon in ways that uphold the Kansas Constitution and the rights of all students to an equitable education.

 

Justin Henry, Superintendent of Goddard USD #265

President, Schools for Fair Funding

For more information contact Joyce Morrison/316-804-8099

 

Gannon Response Brief

Posted on

Attached is our brief filed on April 25th.  Oral Arguments are scheduled for May 10th.

Gannon v. State

Supreme Court Order – April 8th

Posted on Updated on

The Kansas Supreme Court has set an expedited schedule to review the legislation that is purported to solve the equity portion of the Gannon Case.

Briefs Due – April 18th, 5:00 p.m.

Oral Arguments – May 10th, 9:00 a.m.

040816Order

 

The latest school finance plans

Posted on

 

sffflogo - Mail ChimpSB 515points to consider

Winner and Losers (991109 KSDE Calcs on SB515 – comparison CHART)

Comparisons New LOB Formula and Hold Harmless (991109 KSDE Calcs on SB515 – comparisons)

PLEASE NOTE:

HB 2740 is now House Sub for SB 59, please contact your House members and ask them to vote NO

SB 515 is now  S Sub for HB 2655, please contact you Senate members and ask them to vote NO.