A Kansas Primer onEducation Funding

Volume 1:

History of Education Finance

Gregory L. Schneider, Ph.D

Advocating ree enterprise solutions in education, fscal policy and health care.

Formerly known as Flint Hills Center or Public Policy, Kansas Policy Institute was ounded in 1996and advocates or ree enterprise solutions and or the protection o personal reedom or all Kansans.We’re in the process o changing our name to emphasize that we ocus on the entire state o Kansasand not just a particular region.Various elements o our name change will evolve over the next ew months as we develop a newweb site. Until then, our existing web address and e-mail addresses will remain intact; our phonenumbers and mailing address will not change. We will keep you posted on our progress and hope tokeep the transition as smooth as possible.

Guarantee o Quality Scholarship

Kansas Policy Institute is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research onstate and local issues in Kansas. The Institute guarantees that all original actual data are true andcorrect and that inormation attributed to other sources is accurately represented.

Pg.1

Perhaps no subject in Kansas has been more controversial in recent history than school unding. Yearso court battles earlier in the decade culminated in 2005 with the Kansas Supreme Court ruling in avoro plaintis in

Montoy vs. State o Kansas

and ordering the State to increase unding by $853 million.State aid to schools increased by $646.1 million between the 2004-05 and the 2009-10 school yearsand total unding to schools has increased by $1.36 billion. A severe decline in State tax receipts ($498million / 8.6% or FY 2009, with the rst quarter o FY 2010 down 10.2%) prompted the Legislatureand Governor Parkinson to reduce school unding or FY 2010, and schools are threatening to le yetanother lawsuit as this is written.Despite the unprecedented controversy, surprisingly little is really understood about how much moneyschools actually receive, how that money is spent or even the basis upon which the court ruled in theMontoy decisions.Education is extraordinarily important to the success o our State and to each individual. It is imperativethat students receive an education that prepares them to enter the workorce, whether directly into theirchosen eld or rst into higher levels o education. But while education is o critical importance wemust balance our approach to dening and unding a proper education with other essential needs; wemust also have adequate unding or other necessary government services, and the revenues requiredto und all services cannot be so high as to necessitate a tax burden that impedes economic growth.

A Kansas Primer on Education Funding

provides a high level o transparency and analysis so thattaxpayers and legislators are empowered to make inormed decisions going orward. The Primer isbeing published in our separate volumes in October and November o 2009.

Volume 1: The History o Education Finance

traces school unding developments, starting at theinception o statehood in 1863 and leading up to the ling o the above-mentioned Montoy lawsuits.

Volume 2: Analysis o Montoy vs. State o Kansas

provides a detailed examination o the legal andpolitical orces at play during the Montoy litigation. It also identies existing barriers that preventor restrict eorts to reorm the system and oers specic recommendations or overcoming thosebarriers.

Volume 3: Analysis o K-12 Spending

identies how court-mandated unding increases were spent byKansas school districts and compares per pupil spending by district in search o minimum spendinglevels that, at least under current curriculum standards, produce adequate results. It also oers specicalternatives to “just spend more” that provide reasonable unding to schools without raising taxes oreliminating other necessary government services.

Volume 4: Defning and Funding a Proper Education

examines whether Kansas schools are providinga basic education that gives students the opportunity to gain substantial skills or citizenship, urthereducation and adequately prepares them to unction in today’s job market. It also oers proposals toimprove the current education delivery process, explores alternatives to the current unding methodologyand examines existing and alternative methods o measuring student (and school) perormance.

Preface