BREAKING

the

CYCLE :A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

It’s a scene that plays out on repeat. Disagreements over school funding make

their way to the courts and push the state to the edge of crisis. Politics come into play

and tensions rise even when solutions seem near. But what if it didn't have to be

that way? What if a different approach could pave the path to lasting progress?

THE FOLLOWING STORY, TOLD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE

OF A FICTIONAL WESTERN KANSAS LEGISLATOR,

IMAGINES WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

10.

hut the doors. Switch off your phones,” the governorsays intently. “Nobody gets in or out of here for a while.”

As he pauses, a hush creeps over the 50 people packed into the main room of a community buildingin a Flint Hills town on a warm Saturday in May. Looking around, I see nearly every faction with astake in the state’s perpetual tug-of-war over public school funding. I rub my eyes and blink twice,not quite sure I believe what I’m seeing.

“I know this must feel strange to many of you,” the governor continues. “It’s not entirely comfortablefor me either. But I feel like there’s a window of opportunity here. And if we don’t take it, we’ll juststart heading back down the same road we’ve been on for years.”

I exchange perplexed glances with a few members of my caucus, the Republicans in theKansas House of Representatives. The Senate Republicans sit a few rows back from us. I spy a fewDemocrats from both chambers looking dubious. The patchwork of roles and ideologies watchinganxiously includes school superintendents, board members, free market activists, the CEO ofa large corporation, teachers’ union representatives and a few “average” citizens. The governorsports his casual look of blue jeans, boots and a plaid shirt.

As I scan the room, that Bill Murray line from “Ghostbusters” — “Dogs and cats, living together!”— pops in my head and I chuckle aloud. Kaye Williams, a Democratic rep from Kansas City who hasbeen a partisan sparring partner of mine since our days together at Washburn Law, gives me “thelook” from the end of the row.

I shift in my chair and think about how it wasn’t that long ago that the state seemed on the vergeof a constitutional crisis. Long before I showed up, the Legislature pumped a bunch of money intoschools to resolve a lawsuit filed by some of the state’s school districts. Then, aid to schools gotcut back significantly because of the recession. Instead of restoring funds to their high-water mark,a new governor and the Legislature enacted big tax cuts intended to grow our economy. In between,the school folks sued the state, yet again, saying that we hadn’t lived up to our constitutional dutyto fund education.

“SBy

Brian Whepley and Chris Green

11.

14.

“I want to seeif there’s somechance thatwe can work

TOGETHER forthe common good.”

13.

I, like many of my friends in the Legislature, was ready for a fight this time around if theblack-robed justices on the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against us. But the court told uswe just had to fix a few things by July to make school funding equitable. Rather than orderingus to pay a king’s ransom to adequately fund schools, they sent that part of the case backto a three-judge panel for additional review. Who really knows how long that will take?

I expected us to make some tweaks in the Legislature to help poor schools and be done withit. Which we tried to do. But we also made some changes dealing with the dismissal of teachersand corporate tax breaks for private school scholarships that upset some folks. Tempers havecooled a bit, but there’s an air of bitterness and resentment that hangs over the room and someparts of the state like a western Kansas dust storm.

I thought things on the school-funding front would be quiet for a while. But then the governorcame out saying that he wanted to take “one giant swing” at getting past the state’s decades-long cycle of school-funding lawsuits — by calling for a retreat on the issue involving all of thefactions, outside of Topeka, no less.

Now I sit in this room as the governor takes questions, looking at nearly as many foes as friends.This combustible mix is a result of the governor’s decision to work with school finance advocatesto whittle the factions involved down to a workable number of delegates. Not everybody’s here— a few of the people who felt the strongest about the issue refused to attend. And by the demeanorof some around the room, I’m guessing a few more might bolt before the day is out, even if theyhave to climb out of the windows.

“These lawsuits have been going on since I was in law school, and they don’t settle anythingfor very long,” the governor says. “A few months ago, I called for a truly open process to workat breaking this cycle of perpetual litigation. I believe the people assembled in the room — agroup representing a full spectrum of views and ideologies in this state — can make this happen.”

The room remains silent, as if in disbelief.

“Why on earth would we do that?” I think to myself. “Shouldn’t we just sort this out amongconservative Republicans in the Legislature? After all, the voters picked us to make the decisions.”

“I know this is an unusual step,” the governor says, as if he’s reading my mind. “But if you lookat the history of this issue, it makes you wonder if there’s any one party or group who can solveit in the long run. It’s vexed my predecessors, Democrat and Republican alike, for decades. I wantto see if there’s some chance that we can work together for the common good. Or at least beginbuilding the relationships that might make it possible someday.”

The governor exhales deeply and takes in the room.

“I’m pretty convinced that I am right about this issue right now. The people around me tell me I’mright, too. I’m sure your own people tell you the exact same thing. But when I check out my approvalrating or read the newspaper editorial pages, I’m reminded that a lot of people don’t agree withme — or even particularly like what we’re doing. I want to dig a little deeper into what that’s allabout, and if there’s something I can do about it. Maybe there’s not. But I think we can all benefitfrom taking a big enough step back to see ourselves and this issue through other people’s eyes.”

A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

he governor goes on to reiterate that he’sinvested a lot of effort and political capitalin cutting taxes, in hopes of creating thebusiness climate he wants to see in this state.But he won’t be in power forever, and he’sseen far too many governors watch their legaciesget erased by changes in circumstance and time.

“If I – if any of us – want Kansas to truly grow and prosper, then we have to find a proper,long-term solution to end these school-funding controversies,” he says.

People across Kansas are in the process of developing a water plan that looks decades into thefuture, he says. But school finance doesn’t feel like quite so cross-cutting an issue.

That’s probably because about half of all the spending the state has control over goes to K-12education, he continues. The sector plays a huge role in shaping our communities, the size andscope of government in Kansas and how our economy will perform now and in the future. It’sinevitable that Democrats and Republicans — whether they’re liberals, moderates or conservatives— are going to disagree strongly over how to deal with it.

“But what if we could disagree a little less? Or at least agree enough to break this insane cyclewe’re in,” he says. “It may be unlikely, but I think it’s possible. I don’t believe that there’s anybodyin the room who wakes up in the morning intent on mucking up Kansas. There must be a waywe can fund our schools adequately, equitably and wisely.”

When the governor’s done talking, the group disperses for a short coffee break. I find myselfstanding next to Kaye.

“Hey, there. You look like you’d rather be at the dentist’s office. Not enjoying our retreat somuch?” she teases.

I laugh and tell her that the people from my western Kansas district didn’t send me to Topeka forfun and games. They want me to fix things and put the state back on a path to prosperity. They’retired of high taxes and government overspending, and they just want more jobs to come to ourtowns, which are struggling to survive. I agree with them on those things. “Stick to your guns,”they say. “I intend to,” I frequently reply. “I’m not going to compromise what I believe in.”

Anyway, the two of us get around to talking about how we both ended up here. It’s the first timewe’ve really chatted since the most recent legislative blowup, in which we stood, yet again, inopposite camps.

Kaye says she was invited to help reflect the Democrat view and because she’s long been anegotiator for a teachers’ union. Because I served two terms on my local school board, I reflect

TA school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

14.

the House GOP’s freshman caucus, which is bigger than usual. I tell Kaye that I am not sure,though, what exactly I have to offer in a room full of high-powered politicians, activists, expertsand lobbyists.

“Well, at least that’s one thing we agree on, that you are not worthy,” says Kaye, jabbing mein the shoulder.

But then we turn serious and wonder together what the real story behind this event is.

“Maybe the governor’s serious about working this out, instead of just blowing smoke like heusually does,” Kaye says. “It’ll take a ton of work to convince me he’s really shifting gears.”

“I think he’s trying,” I assure her. “But when I look around the room, all I see is a whole bunchof people who are trying to annihilate us in the next election.”

“Annihilate you?” she gasps. “I think you might want to take another look at the endangeredspecies list, buddy. Because you’re the ones who’ve been coming after us.”

My blood pressure still up a bit, I trudge back to my chair.

I hear snippets of conversation from around the room that tell me others are just as skepticalas Kaye and me. An editorial writer from one of the state’s biggest newspapers tells a schoolsuperintendent he thinks the governor is simply “grandstanding.” The superintendent wonderswhy anybody should even bother with the summit since the issue is moving back to thecourts anyway.

The voices of my constituents from a recent public forum I held back home echo in my head.They don’t want their income taxes to go back up. They wonder about some of the choicesschools make in how they spend their dollars and where exactly all the money goes.

But it’s also the things that I didn’t expect to hear that night at the public forum that spin aroundin my head. The concerns about larger class sizes. The wealthier districts getting the best teacherswith higher salaries. The feeling that people have of being nickel-and-dimed for school suppliesand fees in ways they never did with their older kids. The steady creep of local taxes even as thestate’s tax bills get smaller.

“How on earth do you reconcile those competing things?” I ask them. “Dunno,” one man saysto me, “isn’t that your job?” Others suggest talking it out. “If you look for ways to trim the budgetfirst, then maybe we’d be willing to dig a bit more into our pockets,” one woman says. “Just don’tscrew things up worse,” another urges me, sparking a cascade of applause.

I squirm a bit in my chair while recollecting their comments. In fact, a whole bunch of us hereseem uneasy. Because we don’t see much chance of gaining anything today but do see a bigfat chance of losing something, whether it’s credibility with voters or just a fine spring weekendwith our families.

A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

15.

“If I – if any of us –want Kansas to trulygrow and prosper,

then we have to finda proper, long-term

solution to end theseschool-fundingcontroversies.”

LEGISLATURERESPONDS TO CRISIS

the

CYCLE :1 9 7 2 - P R E S E N T

CRISISDISSIPATES

CHANGESULTIMATELY

FALLSHORT OF

ADEQUACY/EQUITY

SCHOOLDISTRICTS SUEOVER FUNDING

COURTS RULEFUNDING

INADEQUATE/UNEQUITABLE

�

�

�

��

A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

When we reconvene, a woman named Pam takes the microphone from the governor andexplains that she’s the chief facilitator from a Houston-based consulting firm and has madea career of working with community groups and businesses on conflict resolution, teamworkand overcoming mistrust. She has assembled a team of highly trained facilitators from Kansaswho will guide the group through something called “transformative scenario planning.” A groupof foundations interested in healthier civic collaboration have banded together to fund the exercise.

It’s a five-step process that helps groups map out plausible scenarios so they can understandthe consequences of their actions and get unstuck on a tough problem by together choosinga better path. Sounds touchy-feely and hard to get my head around, but, what the heck, I’mhere. And they aren’t letting us out of here anytime soon.

They break the big group into smaller ones, made up of as diverse and contentious a mix ofviewpoints as they can manage — which is how Kaye ends up in my group. Our discussionsare usually pretty contentious, whether it’s about due process for teachers, drug testing forwelfare recipients, judge selection or income taxes.

“That’s good,” I whisper to Kaye when I learn she’s in my group. “I already know what you think— and how wrong it is.”

Others in the group include, I soon learn, a free market advocate from southeast Kansas, anofficial from the state teachers’ union, a K-State professor, a Methodist pastor from Wichitaand two school superintendents — one from a tiny district out near me, another from a good-sized one in a rich Kansas City suburb.

They assign each smaller group a referee — excuse me, facilitator — to keep us on track, which isgood, because I fear we’re just wasting our time here. Greg, our facilitator, asks each of us to takea turn telling a bit about ourselves —where we’re from, what we do, whether we have kids in school— and what we think is a good education, as well as what we expect from the state in providing one.

Views and values start flying, and the little room gets warmer.

The union leader pipes in first — big surprise — with the spiel about how the Legislature hasn’tdone its constitutional duty and is now picking on teachers, blaming them for a problem legislatorsand the governor created. Teachers and kids deserve better and now the courts will do whatlawmakers resisted doing: force an increase in school funding and taxes. The small-governmentactivist observes that as long as he’s been around, schools keep saying they want more moneyno matter how much they’re getting at the time. Times have been hard in his part of the state,and everybody’s got to share the pain when the budget’s tight.

“With lower income taxes the implement dealer can hire more people,” I toss out, “and jobs likethat mean kids won’t leave my town for good.”

“But when your daughter goes to K-State, the tuition will bust even your bank,” Kaye counters,which gets me thinking about how, in a decade, four years at K-State or, God forbid, KU will pincheven a somewhat successful small-town lawyer.

Hold up for a moment, Greg says, telling us that the discussion is descending into knee-jerkterritory. He suggests we think carefully about the values that lie behind each of our positions.

18.

Soon, we’re sinking deeper into defining what a suitable education is. I share that, when I was onthe school board, the administration always seemed to find money for new computers and smartscreens and could pad the reserve fund, but my son’s math book is a decade old and his gradeschool class can’t take any field trips.

Meanwhile, our school superintendent has the highest-paying job in the entire county.

The preacher from Wichita — his wife’s a special ed teacher — says the city’s district has thousandsof kids with all kinds of problems that make it difficult to learn. Helping kids in poverty is expensive, andit seems like there are more in need every day. The schools there have so many programs that parentsmove to the district to get its services. That’s a big challenge with money so tight, the pastor says.

On top of that, he continues, the district has a tough time filling teaching jobs in areas such as mathand science, as well as in special ed. That may only get tougher with more baby-boomer teachersreaching retirement age and young people not seeing teaching as a viable, rewarding profession.

“I wonder if we’re on the verge of a crisis in terms of having enough qualified teachers to fill ourclassrooms,” the pastor says. “My daughter would have been a great teacher. But she found a jobat Cerner, instead, and I have a hard time arguing with her choice.”

The challenges that teachers face in the classroom each day become a topic of conversation as well.

“I’d like it if my niece’s teacher didn’t have to corral 30 other 8-year-olds,” Kaye says, and I rememberhow my own kids’ elementary school can no longer afford an aide for that unusually big class, nowfourth-graders, moving through the school.

Over the course of the next few hours, we start talking about the future and what it is we really wantour school system to do for the kids of this state. Are we trying to get everyone to meet a minimumset of standards? Aim higher? What kind of education do kids really need to succeed in today’s worldand how do we know if they’re getting it?

“I think what’s hard about this issue for me is that I just want someone to tell me the magic num-ber for what we need to put in schools, whether it’s the court or some egghead’s cost study,” Isay. “But I’m starting to think that magic number just doesn’t really exist.”

“And even if it did, all we’d do is argue about the number some more,” Kaye interjects. “Somepeople will think it’s too big, others too small. It’s always about how so-and-so didn’t figure thisor account for that correctly. We fight about the number so much that we never get to the heartof the issue.”

“Or it’s just another round of the blame game,” the preacher joins in. “The Legislature failed. Theschools are spending their money wrong. There are too many bad teachers. The voters can’t decidewhat they want — low taxes or well-funded schools. We can always turn a blind eye to how we’readding to the mess by pinning the blame on somebody else.”

Bouncing what I’m hearing around in my own head, I’m struck by how deeply felt the opinionsare, and how most of them are based on things we Kansans like to talk about — how important

A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

19.

“I think we canall benefit from

taking a big enoughstep back to seeourselves and

this issue throughother people’s eyes.”

14.

A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

our cities and town are to us, how we want our kids to see a future in our communities. I rememberhearing the same things from my neighbors last month when I asked about what they expectedfrom the state, and what they’d give up, or pay, to get it. Striking, too, is that sitting and talkingwith these folks face to face makes it difficult to just write off their views.

It gets harder, though, when Greg tells us to consider the various plausible ways that the school-funding controversy may turn out and to consider the consequences. At first the scenarios soundmighty theoretical, but then Greg describes how the method has been used in situations far messierthan this one, such as when South Africa ventured out of apartheid. With some guidance and question-ing, we come up with a half-dozen scenarios but whittle them down to the three most likely ones.

With our scenarios in hand, the 50 of us reunite in the big room and discuss with the head facilitatorwhat we divined. We find that nearly all the groups sketched out very similar possibilities, observing thatthe court ruling narrowed the possibilities a good bit. While we agree that it is still possible that the courtswill decide that schools are adequately funded, we’re not willing to bank on such a decision resolvingany controversy for the long haul. And we agree that we can’t simply ignore rulings of the court entirely.

We nickname Scenario No. 1 “Just Put Out the Fires.” The Legislature keeps coming up with quickfixes to resolve the constitutional imbalances found by the court. But the underlying issues — anda real discussion of the kinds of schools Kansas wants and will support — keeps getting kickedaside or down the road a year or two. We risk the possibility of another ruling in the future ignitinga constitutional crisis.

A second scenario we end up calling “Protect Home Plate.” Rather than addressing school fundingas a problem that we all have a stake in, we protect our home bases by fighting for what’s best forour own people, be it our political party, profession or schools. The end result is an outcome wheresome factions or groups absorb a disproportionate share of the loss associated with changing thesystem. It’s a result that sows the seeds for future conflicts.

But there’s another possibility, one we take to calling “Everybody Takes a Hit.” It is appealingfor the very fact that, unlike the first two, it might put us on the path to resolving the funding fightin a more lasting way. We step forward, a group of adversaries who disagree on a lot, to beginreimagining the next era of our public education financing system and building it in a way thatmakes sure schools get the funding they need and the lawsuits go away, if not for good, thenat least for decades. The challenge comes in the fact that each faction is likely to take a lumpor two along the way to make progress possible.

On one level, it makes perfect sense. No one wins for very long under the current cycle of lawsuits.Plus, it acknowledges that we’ll all need to pitch in to accomplish something, and that we’re alllikely going to have to stomach something that isn’t appealing. That last part unnerves all of us.

No one really knows what that kind of system looks like. And it opens up all sorts of questionsabout how we’ll change the existing system and what it will mean for each group in the state.

21.

How will our funding system change? Where will we direct the money? Will some districts losewhile others gain? Will there be consolidation? Whose taxes will go up? Whose taxes will go down?Will we cut spending in other areas of government? Will we change how school districts operate?Start more charter schools? Offer vouchers? All of a sudden, someone has emptied a bottle of bitterpills on the table, and some of them will be tough to swallow.

“I don’t know how I could possibly go back home and tell people that we’re pumping more moneyinto government and that we might have to raise taxes,” I confess to Kaye.

“You surely don’t think I want to talk compromise with some of the teachers in my district, doyou?” Kaye shoots back. “Some of them don’t want to hear of schools getting a dime less thanthey got back before the last round of tax cuts, just like your supporters don’t want to hear abouttax hikes. And now those teachers feel like the politicians are settling a score and attacking them.”

Still, none of us think we can live with Scenarios Nos. 1 or 2 either. Just putting out the fires orprotecting home plate will ultimately only lead us back to where we just left, a place of repetitiveconflict and crisis.

After two surprisingly quick days in the Flint Hills, the meeting concludes and we’re preparing tohead back to our various towns and jobs. We make plans to meet again in July and reassess wherewe are then. We haven’t agreed on a firm path to resolving the issue. There’s no real plan yet, atleast none that we can hope to agree on.

The one thing that’s changed, though, is I see the world differently than I did before. I haven’tchanged my mind about keeping taxes low. Or the need for smaller, more efficient government.Kaye hasn’t flip-flopped on schools needing more money.

But I’m no longer thinking so much that it’s “us vs. them.” It’s hard, but I’m trying to see that weall share a common enemy, a less than ideal status quo that will carry on unless we do somethingdifferent to address it. When it comes to that challenge, I see a wider range of options on the tablefor making progress than I had realized previously.

I leave thinking more about the long term. About how we fund education appropriately andsustainably and have the state have competitive taxes and be a magnet for jobs. How we cancreate certainty and consistency for students and employers. And how, back in Topeka and inmy district, I will encourage others to work on sharing the pain rather than ignoring the biggerissues or focusing only on protecting their own interests.

And then I tell Kaye, “I don’t know how this story ends. I hope we really can break the cycle togetherthis time. I just don’t know that it’s very realistic.”

“Stranger things have happened,” she replies. “The governor stepped up and invited us all here.And then we actually came. Who’d have thought that possible?”

Editor’s note: This description of a hypothetical process to resolve the Kansas school funding disputeis based on interviews with experts experienced in leadership, civic collaboration, public engagementand conflict resolution. It is informed by the techniques of fiction writing and the concept oftransformative scenario planning, as described by writer Adam Kahane in a 2012 book on the subject.

A school funding

H Y P O T H E T I C A L

22.

the

SCENARIOS :

PROTECTHOME PLATE

Factions end up fightingonly for their own interests.

•

One faction or group endsup being a clear loser and

absorbing a disproportionateshare of the loss associated

with changes in school funding.

•

Hard feelings sow theseeds for future conflicts –and perhaps even lawsuits.

•

May not resolve the issuesof equity and adequacy.

EVERYBODYTAKES A HIT

Parties start reimagining theschool-funding system basedon the clear outcomes theywant to achieve and lookto fund it in ways that

diminish the possibility offuture lawsuits.

•

A wider array of possibilitiesis put on the table, and

factions carefully considerwhat bitter pills theyare willing to swallow.

•

Factions develop strongerrelationships with otherfactions and can better

empathize with the lossesother factions must sustain

in service of a morelasting solution.

JUST PUTOUT THE FIRES

Quick fixes resolveconstitutional dilemmas.But underlying issuesremain unaddressed.

•

May place the work ofresolving deeper issues inthe hands of the courts.

•

Risk of school fundingcrisis reigniting if courts ruleagain and the Legislature

reacts in defiance

23.