From the Shawnee Mission Post:
Although the timing of the Gannon opinion took me by surprise, the verdict did not. In my newsletter of July 28 regarding our work on the school finance bill, I wrote:
“When I introduced HB 2270 in February, the policy and funding levels included were the result of years of research, input from the Kansas Department of Education (KSDE) and other education stakeholders, bicameral collaboration, and attention to the decisions handed down in Gannon over the years. Our choices were not arbitrary, but the legislative process is messy and compromise is necessary to keep legislation moving. There are several elements of the final product with which I disagree, but supporting the compromise was vitally important to move the process along and allow the court to review our work.
As the bill evolved, I stayed focused on the goal of drafting a finance formula that restored per pupil funding, with added categories of weighting to address the individual characteristics of the students in each district. We
experienced the difficult consequences of a static funding model during our two-year block grant experiment, making it abundantly clear we needed to ensure our funding mechanism is responsive to changing conditions within each of our school districts.