Why Kansas Is Always Fighting About School Funding
If you’ve followed Kansas politics for any length of time, you’ve probably heard candidates mention Gannon v. State, Montoy v. State, or “school finance lawsuits.” These cases may sound like old news, but they continue to shape how Kansas pays for public education today.
Understanding why requires starting with the Kansas Constitution.
It Starts With the Constitution
Unlike many policy debates, school funding in Kansas is rooted in a constitutional requirement. Article 6, Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution directs the Legislature to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.”
That phrase—“suitable provision”—has been the subject of decades of litigation.
The Legislature writes the school finance formula and decides how much money to appropriate. But if school districts believe the formula does not meet the Constitution’s requirements, they can ask the courts to review it.
The Courts Enter the Picture
Kansas has experienced two major school finance lawsuits in recent decades.
Montoy v. State (2005) challenged whether the state was adequately funding public schools. The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that changes were necessary, leading to increased education funding.
Several years later came Gannon v. State, filed in 2010 by four school districts:
Wichita (USD 259)
Kansas City (USD 500)
De Soto (USD 232)
Lawrence (USD 497)
The case is named after Luke Gannon, one of the student plaintiffs.
Over the next fourteen years, the Kansas Supreme Court issued multiple decisions requiring changes to the state’s funding system. The Legislature revised the school finance formula several times and increased education funding substantially. In 2024, the court concluded that the state had complied with its previous orders, bringing the case to a close.
Why Are Politicians Still Talking About Gannon?
Because while the lawsuit ended, the constitutional questions did not.
Kansas still must adopt school finance laws that satisfy the constitutional standard established by prior court decisions. If future funding formulas are challenged, another lawsuit could follow.
That is why candidates continue to reference Gannon. Some argue that courts have exercised too much influence over education policy. Others argue that judicial oversight is necessary to enforce the Constitution when the Legislature falls short.
Reasonable people can disagree on where that balance should be. What is important to understand is that both sides are arguing within the same constitutional framework.
Three Branches, One Issue
School finance in Kansas involves all three branches of government:
The Legislature writes the funding formula and appropriates money.
The Governor proposes budgets and signs or vetoes legislation.
The Kansas Supreme Court determines whether the law complies with the Kansas Constitution when challenged.
Few issues illustrate the interaction among the branches of government more clearly than school finance.
Why It Matters
School funding is one of the largest expenditures in the Kansas budget. Decisions about the funding formula affect taxpayers, school districts, teachers, parents, and students across the state.
As lawmakers prepare future school finance legislation, discussions about funding levels, equity, accountability, and constitutional requirements are likely to continue. Even though Gannon itself is over, its legacy remains the backdrop for nearly every major conversation about K–12 education finance in Kansas.
Understanding that history makes it easier to evaluate the claims made by candidates and elected officials whenever school funding returns to the political spotlight.