Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmakers, educators studying impact of school finance ruling (activist judge)
Dodge Globe ^ | 12 May | Rebecca Gerber, Eric Swanson

Posted on 05/12/2004 3:43:21 PM PDT by aft_lizard

USD 220 Superintendent Jerry Cullen said Tuesday he was upset that lawmakers did not approve a school finance plan for 2004-2005, but he was glad a Shawnee County District Court judge had scolded them for failing to act.

"I'm glad he came down hard on them, because they really disappointed me," Cullen said Tuesday. "I really thought we had enough people in the House and Senate that they would step up to the plate and do the right thing. Unfortunately, I was wrong."

Along with other educators in southwest Kansas, Cullen was studying Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock's newest ruling, which directed the state to shut down its public schools in the fall while lawmakers fix problems with the way the state finances education.

Bullock's order came just a few days after the Legislature finished its work for the year without making any changes to the school funding formula.

USD 443 President Beth Love said she hoped the order would prompt the Legislature to take a serious look at the formula.

"I'm happy but hopeful that the judge will force the legislators to address the areas of constitutionality for all our children," she said.

Setting the stage

Bullock's order sets the stage for a new battle in the ongoing fight over the way the state funds K-12 education.

In December, the judge issued a preliminary order directing lawmakers and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to correct problems with the school funding formula by July 1. His order was a response to a 1999 lawsuit in which the Dodge City and Salina school districts challenged the formula as unconstitutional.

The Legislature responded to Bullock's December order by approving a bill allowing the state to file an immediate appeal of the order with the Kansas Supreme Court. The court is expected to hear arguments in the appeal sometime this fall.

Although lawmakers debated several education finance proposals for 2004-2005 throughout the session, they neither approved a plan nor made any changes to the current formula.

Bullock's newest order criticized the Legislature for failing to address his concerns.

"To paraphrase Aesop: The mountain labored and brought forth nothing at all," he said.

His proposed remedy: Close down Kansas' public schools for the fall unless the constitutional problems with the formula are fixed.

The judge will issue a restraining order preventing any state or local spending on schools after June 30 as soon as the plaintiffs formally request it, so the current academic year will not be affected.

Sebelius said in a statement the Legislature had failed to meet its constitutional responsibility for funding education, and Kansas schoolchildren, parents and teachers would reap the consequences.

"This situation could have been avoided had the Legislature done its job during the session," she said. "I intend to quickly review the judge's ruling and decide on a responsible course of action."

Meanwhile, Attorney General Phill Kline announced he would appeal Bullock's ruling to the state Supreme Court and ask the court to grant a stay, which would prevent the order from taking immediate effect.

Cheers and boos

Bullock's order drew praise and criticism from local lawmakers and educators.

Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, said he was shocked that the judge had directed the state to close schools unless the school finance formula is fixed.

"For him to issue this kind of judgment -- shut down all the schools in Kansas by virtue of the opinion of one district court judge -- is, I think, fairly ridiculous," he said. "The quicker we can have an appeal to the court of remedy, the Supreme Court, the sooner we can move toward a solution."

But Rep. Jan Scoggins-Waite, D-Dodge City, said she applauded Bullock's ruling.

"I'm pleased that he is saying, 'Do something,' which was the stance that I have taken all along," she said.

USD 443 Superintendent Gloria Davis said she thought Bullock was serious about his order and would close the schools after June 30 if problems with the formula are not corrected.

"It's just a horrible thing to even think about, and you have to ask yourself, 'Why?'" she said. "Because somehow, some way, we cannot get our legislators to do what they need to do. I just don't understand how we can continue to go along and do nothing."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; dodgecity; schoolfinancing

1 posted on 05/12/2004 3:43:22 PM PDT by aft_lizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
In some respects I agree with the lawsuit, but I do not agree with the Judges actions.
2 posted on 05/12/2004 3:44:24 PM PDT by aft_lizard (I actually Voted for John Kerry before I voted against Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
There is going to become a time in this country where people will just thumb their noses at judge's decrees and go about their business as always.
3 posted on 05/12/2004 3:57:15 PM PDT by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
In some respects I agree with the lawsuit, but I do not agree with the Judges actions.

There are a few problems with this situation. First, the activist Judges. Second, the fight for more funding in the name of "fairness" is a scam. I don't even have to look into the funding of schools in Kansas to tell you that increased funding has ZERO effect on learning and performance. I've researched this for quite some time on a number of levels. Local, County, State, National, it doesn't matter. The idea that "richer" schools have a learning advantage over "poorer" schools is absolutely false. In fact, students from "poorer" schools tend to out perform the others. Don't believe me? Look it up.
4 posted on 05/12/2004 4:02:47 PM PDT by Jaysun (If a person says that he enjoys the opera, that person is a liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
I think everyone should simply ignore this crazy judge. Do nothing different. If he thinks the schools should close, then let him personally enforce it.
5 posted on 05/12/2004 4:15:08 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Why do you agree with the lawsuit? If people do not like what the legislature is doing then they can vote differently.
6 posted on 05/12/2004 4:16:05 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
The point about this case isnt about richer schools verses poorer schools its about school districts paying more money than they receive if I remember right.
7 posted on 05/12/2004 4:17:10 PM PDT by aft_lizard (I actually Voted for John Kerry before I voted against Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
I agree with the lawsuit because it is patently unfair for a group of people who pay more taxes to not receive equal or equivelent benefit from those taxes. I do not however agree with the judge attempting to usurp the rights of the legislature in governance and distribution of this wealth, so I guess I am in a catch-22 here.
8 posted on 05/12/2004 4:20:39 PM PDT by aft_lizard (I actually Voted for John Kerry before I voted against Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Legal plunder is what taxation is all about. Rich districts, just like rich people, always pay for more than they receive. Welcome to government. And the power to give and take is like some sort of drug. This judge is an even bigger power addict than the lawmakers, the school boards, and the organizations that develop these "litigate your way to victory" plans. Parents should just pull their kids out of the public school system and look for something better. Our "we have no morals and we are proud of it" government needs to get out of the child-rearing business.
9 posted on 05/12/2004 4:27:40 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
What turns me off the most is to see snooty parents snort around like they are being ripped off or something because their school isn't reaping the windfall they feel entitled to. Excuse me people but those of us without kids in the system are forking over plenty of free money for your little snot-nosed dumb-dumbs already. I had no say in the birth of the kiddies. My kid didn't cost the taxpayer a dime. So my statement to all is to stop whining and get more involved with your own kids' education. Or volunteer to help a foster kid. BUT BACK OFF MY POCKETBOOK!!!!! I don't see why it costs so many thousands of dollars to teach one kid so little per year. It's not even a full-time job.
10 posted on 05/12/2004 4:37:04 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
The point about this case isnt about richer schools verses poorer schools its about school districts paying more money than they receive if I remember right.

Ahh. I made an assumption based on a quote in the article:

"I'm happy but hopeful that the judge will force the legislators to address the areas of constitutionality for all our children," she said.
11 posted on 05/13/2004 4:31:37 PM PDT by Jaysun (If a person says that he enjoys the opera, that person is a liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson