I received the following, which I thought was interesting, so I present it. I do not entirely understand the author’s argument, so if anyone can help me understand, I would appreciate it.
Kansas Legislative Education And Research
827 SW TOPEKA BLVD TOPEKA, KS 66612
PHONE: 785 233 8765 EMAIL: ks firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact: Bob L. Corkins
Court sets Trap for Legislature
“The Kansas Constitution thus imposes a mandate that our educational system cannot be static or regressive…
“…there is substantial competent evidence, including the Augenblick & Myers study, establishing that a suitable education, as that term is defined by the legislature, is not being provided.”
“…we need look no further than the legislature’s own definition of suitable education to determine that the standard is not being met under the current financing formula.”
“…the legislature has failed to “make suitable provision for finance” of the public school system as required by Article 6 Â§ 6 of the Kansas Constitution.”
“It is clear increased funding will be required…”
The Supreme Court requires additional funding and implies that the legislature must do so because constitutional standard of “suitable education” has not been achieved. Increasing funding for this reason would be like walking into a trap.
Did the Supreme Court say the constitution requires “suitable education”?
The Court said the constitution requires “improvement’ and that the legislature has interpreted this to mean
The Court merely asserts that Article 6 refers to an improving educational system.
The Court itself is not making the connection, it’s just claiming that the legislature has interpreted “improvement’ ‘to mean “suitable education”.
The Court does not even explicitly say it agrees with the legislature’s alleged interpretation.
Is there anything in the Kansas Constitution that requires a minimally acceptable level of education quality?
All the Court’s references to minimum quality standards are to those now set (or may have at one time been set) by the legislature, not by the constitution.
The Court repeatedly states that the legislature failed to satisfy its own standards, not that the legislature failed to satisfy any constitutional standard.
A statutory standard does not equate to a constitutional entitlement.
The constitution’s mandate for “improvement” logically refers to students’ opportunity for personal self ‘improvement as compared to their ability to do so in the absence of public schools.
Suitable education indeed, even uniformly excellent education is a worthy and legitimate public policy goal even if it is not compelled by the state constitution.
To Avoid the Trap:
Financing must be increased, but do not do so because current funding violates any constitutional “suitable education” standard.
All current, and all future, statutory definitions of “suitable education” must make abundantly clear that the legislature is not defining the term as the result of a constitutional mandate, and that “suitable education” is distinct from the true constitutional mandate of “suitable provision for finance”.