Previous | Next

§ 6. Finance. (a) The legislature may levy a permanent tax for the use and benefit of state institutions of higher education and apportion among and appropriate the same to the several institutions, which levy, apportionment and appropriation shall continue until changed by statute. Further appropriation and other provision for finance of institutions of higher education may be made by the legislature.

(b) The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state. No tuition shall be charged for attendance at any public school to pupils required by law to attend such school, except such fees or supplemental charges as may be authorized by law. The legislature may authorize the state board of regents to establish tuition, fees and charges at institutions under its supervision.

(c) No religious sect or sects shall control any part of the public educational funds.

History: Adopted by convention, July 29, 1859; ratified by electors, October 4, 1859; L. 1861, p. 59; original subject matter stricken and new subject substituted, L. 1966, ch. 10 (Special Session); November 8, 1966.

Revisor's Note:

Prior to 1966 revision, this section related to moneys from various sources to be applied to support of common schools. For case annotations to original section, see Volume 6 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, dated 1964.

Provision for a permanent tax levy for educational institutions previously appeared in § 10 of this article.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Student Fees in Public Schools: New Statutory Authority, Joe Allen Lang, 16 W.L.J. 439, 441, 442, 448 (1977).

Religion in a Federal System: Diversity Versus Uniformity, Mechthild Fritz, 38 K.L.R. 39, 47 (1989).

Should There Be Home Rule for Kansas School Districts? Charles Benjamin, 5 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 3, 175, 177, 183 (1996).

No Child Left Behind, Only the Arts and Humanities: Emerging Inequalities in Education Fifty Years After Brown, Ryan S. Vincent, 44 W.L.J. 127 (2004).

2005 Legislative Wrap Up, James W. Clark, 74 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 22 (2005).

How the Kansas Courts Have Permitted and May Remedy Racial Funding Disparities in the Aftermath of Brown, Preston C. Green III, Bruce D. Baker, and Joseph O. Oluwole, 53 W.L.J. 439 (2014).

The Current State of School Finance in Kansas: The Kansas Legislature's Occasional Negative Approach to its Positive Constitutional Duty, 27 John Robb et al., 27 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 329, 331 (2018).

Blaines Beware: Trinity Lutheran and the Changing Landscape of State No-Funding Provisions, Matthew Sondergard, 66 K.L.R. 753, 754 (2018).

Educational Process Equity: A Proposal for Equitable School Funding, Katherine A. Davis, 59 W.L.J 333 (2020).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Schools; teachers' contracts; constitutionality of binding arbitration provision in Senate Bill No. 718. 80-63.

State educational institutions; management, operation; fixing of tuition, fees and charges. 81-115.

Education; state board of education; authority. 83-154.

Schools; vocational education; plan for establishment; approval by state board of education. 83-169.

Capital outlay levy; use of proceeds; procedure; constitutionality. 90-79.

Finance and taxation; revenue for current expenses. 91-142.

Religious liberty; voucher system program; sectarian schools, constitutionality. 92-55.

School voucher act; constitutionality. 94-37.

Authority of U.S.D. to charge a nonresident pupil for attendance in district; constitutionality. 98-31.

Proposed school voucher program; violative of Kansas Constitution. 2000-32.

Receiving school district may not retain both charges paid by a nonresident pupil and general state aid based on that pupil's attendance. 2004-8.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Apportionment of monies contained in fund established hereunder by state finance council not unconstitutional as being a usurpation of executive powers by the Legislature. State, ex rel., v. Bennett, 222 Kan. 12, 24, 564 P.2d 1281.

2. Whether school district finance and quality performance act (L. 1992, ch. 280) makes suitable provision for public education finance examined. U.S.D. No. 229 v. State, 256 Kan. 232, 235, 254, 885 P.2d 1170 (1994).

3. Whether authorization for community college courses to be taught on federal enclave is statutory examined. Board of Trustees of Butler Co. Comm. College v. Board of Sedgwick Co. Comm'rs, 257 Kan. 468, 475, 893 P.2d 224 (1995).

4. Court's sua sponte award of summary judgment reversed as there remain genuine issues as to material facts. Montoy v. State, 275 Kan. 145, 62 P.3d 228 (2003).

5. Legislature has failed to "make suitable provision for finance" of the public schools. Montoy v. State, 278 Kan. 769, 102 P.3d 1160 (2005).

6. Regarding school finance, 2005 H.B. 2247 is not in compliance with January 3, 2005, opinion of court and fails to satisfy constitutional requirement to provide suitable education; court retains jurisdiction of subject. Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817, 112 P.3d 923 (2005).

7. Full financial impact of SB 549, a 3-year plan, not known, a factor important to determine its constitutionality. Montoy v. State, 282 Kan. 9, 26, 138 P.3d 755 (2006).

8. Article 6 requirement that the Legislature make suitable provision for finance for the educational interests of the state contains two components: adequacy and equity. Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1163, 319 P.3d 1196 (2014) (explaining requirements to satisfy adequacy and equity components).

9. Under the facts of the case, the state did not carry its burden to show it cured prior findings of unconstitutional inequities with capital outlays. Gannon v. State, 303 Kan. 682, 712, 368 P.3d 1024 (2016).

10. Equity component does not require "precise standards" or "a zero tolerance test," but legislation cannot increase or exacerbate wealth-based disparities among school districts. Gannon v. State, 304 Kan. 490, 500, 372 P.3d 1181 (2016).

11. Legislature is not entitled to virtually conclusive deference in constitutional challenges claiming a violation of section 6 of article 6 of the constitution of the state of Kansas. Gannon v. State, 305 Kan. 850, 881–86, 390 P.3d 461 (2017).

12. Addressing the constitutionality of the Kansas school equity and enhancement act, the court reaffirmed that the adequacy component has two prongs: Structure and implementation. Gannon v. State, 306 Kan. 1170, 1181, 402 P.3d 513 (2017).

13. State's chosen remediation plan did not comply with the adequacy requirement, but the state can bring the system into constitutional compliance by making timely financial adjustments to the plan's identified problems and completing the plan. Gannon v. State, 308 Kan. 372, 392–93, 420 P.3d 477 (2018).

14. The state substantially complied with previously identified constitutional mandates through financial adjustments to the safe harbor plan. Gannon v. State, 309 Kan. 1185, 1200–01, 443 P.3d 294 (2019).