## Facts

- Parents of Kansas public-school students challenged the constitutionality of the State’s K–12 finance system under Kan. Const. art. 6, § 6(b), requiring the Legislature to make “suitable provision” for school finance.
- Prior litigation found constitutional violations in both equity (wealth-based disparities) and adequacy (funding not reasonably calculated to meet educational standards), prompting repeated legislative revisions and judicial review.
- The Legislature repealed an earlier funding scheme and enacted new frameworks, including CLASS and later KSEEA, with the Supreme Court continuing to evaluate compliance.
- After the Court held CLASS inadequate, the Legislature enacted SB 19 (as amended), restoring a formula-style structure and scheduling significant multi-year increases in K–12 funding (approximately $854 million).
- Following post–SB 19 review by the three-judge district court panel, the case returned to the Kansas Supreme Court to determine whether the revised system satisfied Article 6’s equity and adequacy requirements.
- The State argued SB 19 cured prior violations; plaintiffs argued the increases were insufficient once inflation was properly considered.

## Issues

1. Whether the post–SB 19 school-finance system provided reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort, satisfying Article 6 equity requirements.
2. Whether the post–SB 19 system, through structure and implementation, was reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public-school students meet or exceed constitutionally relevant educational standards, satisfying Article 6 adequacy requirements.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court held the State’s remedial legislation cured the previously identified equity violations and created no new equity violations under the circumstances presented.
- The Court held the State had not yet satisfied Article 6’s adequacy requirement because the funding plan fell short when properly adjusted for inflation.
- The Court accepted that previously approved funding levels could serve as a benchmark (a “safe harbor” concept) but required accurate inflation adjustments and other relevant updates.
- The Court retained jurisdiction and stayed issuance of its mandate until June 30, 2019 (or further order) to allow the Legislature additional time to make timely financial adjustments to achieve adequacy.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6, § 6(b) imposes judicially enforceable requirements of both equity and adequacy in the financing of public education.
- Equity requires school districts to have reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort, guarding against wealth-based disparities.
- Adequacy is satisfied only if the finance system, through structure and implementation, is reasonably calculated to have all students meet or exceed defined educational standards (as articulated in Kansas law reflecting Rose-type outcomes).
- Prior funding levels upheld as adequate may be used as a reference point, but they must be adjusted for inflation and other relevant changes to remain constitutionally sufficient.
- An appellate court may retain jurisdiction and stay its mandate to enforce constitutional compliance while allowing the political branches time to implement a lawful remedy.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that the Legislature’s post–SB 19 changes resolved equity deficiencies but did not yet achieve adequacy because inflation-adjusted funding remained below the constitutional threshold; the Court stayed its mandate and retained jurisdiction to permit prompt legislative correction.


Gannon v. State, 308 Kan. 372, 420 P.3d 477 (Kan. 2018)