Alan Cobb of American’s for Prosperity (left) characterizes the Kansas Supreme Court’s actions as interjecting itself into the legislative process like “seven super-legislators” as (left to right) Bob Corkins, Tom Trigg and Dwight Sutherland listen.

The Role of Judges

On the question of who should be responsible for public education, there was near consensus, summed up nicely by Cashill: “Take it out of the hands of judges and allow [taxpayers and elected officials] to sit at a table where the decision are made.”

As Cobb saw it, the Kansas Supreme Court simply interjected itself into the process like “seven super-legislators.”

“I think the worst possible situation is to have a court running it,” concurred Kaplan. “I think it should be the legislators because they are duly elected. But they haven’t acted and that’s why we’re in this situation.”

How Much Is Enough?

The table also agreed on the ambiguity of the high court’s Jan. 3 ruling, specifically, how much of an increase in public education funding will be necessary to meet the court’s standard. The court refrained from giving an acceptable dollar amount in its ruling. But former Kansas state legislator Bill Reardon, currently an advisor for the Unified School District of Kansas City, Kan., thought he saw clues in the court’s ruling.

“Why do they (the Kansas Supreme Court) continue to refer to a study paid for and implemented by the Kansas Legislature to see what is necessary to provide a quality education for Kansas kids, the Augenblick & Myers study?” said Reardon. “The clue is if they thought Augenblick & Myers was completely out of line, you would never have seen that reference in what they put out Jan. 3.”

“Can we do it without a tax increase?” Reardon asked the group. “Look, I was a politician for 30 years. I know the ramifications of voting to raise taxes. It’s not something I want to do. But I can’t see that, if we’re to come anywhere close to Augenblick & Myers, that you can do it without a tax increase.”

Haines quickly pointed out that Kansas Speaker of the House Doug Mays, R-Topeka, believes a national economic rebound should provide the state with enough surplus revenue to satisfy the needs of public education without raising taxes. “I’m not confident that will happen by April 12,” said Reardon with a laugh.

If funds need to be raised, asked Haines, then just were do they come from?

Desetti said that even after years of tight budgets in Kansas, people still expect a high level of service. “There are those who say they can do this without raising taxes. You can do it—but only by harming something else. Pay for state employees, or roads. Do people really want to gut other state services to pay education? I don’t believe they do.”

“This is what legislators are supposed to do,” said Corkins. “They’re supposed to prioritize. They’re supposed to make these discretionary calls on how much money goes to this or that priority. (Public education) has to compete for that like every other state line item on the budget.”

There is a “cynical game” being played at the local level, said Sutherland, with schools deliberately canceling the most popular extra-curricular programs, such as sports and cheerleading, to create an atmosphere that will drive parents to put pressure on legislators to raises taxes.

Tallman countered that perception saying, “Many legislators say those (extra-curricular activities) are the things that should go first. Then when schools cut those things, they’re accused of cutting popular programs. What are we supposed to do? I agree, cutting band, cutting football, yes those are very popular. But what we hear from legislators is those are part of things that we don’t need to spend money on.”

As for what will come from this legislative session prior to the high court’s April 12 deadline, Desetti put it most succinctly.

“They (the Legislature) will do something but I’m pessimistic that it will meet the court’s standard. We don’t know what the court wants. They (the Legislature) will probably wind up in the $80- to $100-million range. But I don’t think it will be enough to satisfy the court.”