The Gannon vs. State of Kansas case...

Gannon vs. State of Kansas was filed against the State of Kansas on November 2, 2010. It alleges that the State has violated the Kansas Constitution by not adequately funding Kansas public schools. It comes just a little more than four years after its predecessor case, Montoy, was concluded. The conclusion of the Montoy case included a three year funding plan adopted by the legislature in 2006 to cure the "blatant violation" of the Kansas Constitution found at trial. Before the three year plan could even complete implementation, the State cut school funding by over $511 million, resulting in the Gannon case filing.

This lawsuit went to trial on June 4, 2012, before a three judge panel in Topeka. The case was tried by Alan Rupe, John Robb and Jessica Skladzien.

Evidence was presented over five weeks, with 17 days of trial, 662 exhibits, totaling 18,727 pages, and 44 witnesses. The trial generated 3,672 pages of transcript testimony for the record.

The court found that money does make a difference, contrary to the testimony of the State’s expert witnesses and the preachings of the Kansas Policy Institute. The court found

“Studies in Kansas have shown that money does make a difference.  In the LPA study, a 1% increase in district performance outcomes was associated with a .83% increase in spending – almost a one-to-one relationship.”

“In truth, and in fact, it appears that the Kansas Legislature... wholly disregarded the considerations required to demonstrate a compliance with Article 6....”

“An educational system that permits these results is neither fair, nor balanced, nor in the public interest.  More importantly, in Kansas, such an educational system is not constitutional.”

“[W]e still believe... that Plaintiffs have established beyond any question that the State’s K-12 educational system now stands as unconstitutionally underfunded.”

“It seems completely illogical that the State can argue that a reduction in education funding was necessitated by the downturn in the economy and the state's diminishing resources and at the same time cut taxes further, thereby further reducing the sources of revenue on the basis of a hope that doing so will create a boost to the state's economy at some point in the future.”

The case is currently on appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court. Oral arguments are scheduled for October 8, 2013.

The Petrella vs. Brownback case…

A group of parents from the Shawnee Mission U.S.D. 512 school district filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City on December 10, 2010, alleging that the statewide cap on Local Option Budgets discriminated against the Shawnee Mission school district and was unconstitutional.

The suit seeks to convert the statewide school funding scheme into a local funding scheme, where each school district would have to fare for itself in school funding. The parents’ suit alleges that the State “underfunds the Shawnee Mission school district” and “deprives district residents of the right to spend as much of their collective resources as they are willing to commit through the mechanism of local taxation.”

SFFF viewed the suit as a direct attack on the equity in the current school finance formula that would shift the statewide school finance burden onto local property taxpayers rather than the state as a whole. Kansas Courts have consistently held that the responsibility to fund the education of children in Kansas does not fall on the local district, but rather on the state as a whole. Vastly different district wealth across the state requires that limits be placed on wealthy district spending. It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions to make the education of a child a function of or dependent upon the wealth of the district in which the child resides. A local wealth-based funding scheme is clearly unconstitutional.

SFFF students were granted leave to intervene in this suit to defend the equity in the current formula.

 

The parent suit was then dismissed by the trial court on March 11, 2011. The parents then filed an appeal of this dismissal to the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The 10^th Circuit heard arguments in the fall of 2011 and reversed the dismissal on October 18, 2012, sending the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings. The reason for the reversal was for error in dismissing on technical “standing to bring suit” grounds. The 10^th Circuit did not speak to the merits of the suit. The matter is currently in the discovery stage in the federal court system. There are motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.