Much has been said about the current school finance formula. I would like to focus on a couple assertions that have been made in the past few months.

The governor, as well as organizations such as the Kansas Policy Institute, have stated the state's school funding formula is broken and needs to be fixed. I would counter by saying the current formula is not broken but simply needs to be funded.

We have a unique formula and, if funded at a level such as it was in 2005, I don't think we'd hear many complaints from administrators, taxpayers or parents -- particularly if the funds were set for a three-year funding cycle as it was after the Montoy vs. State of Kansas lawsuit.

Speaking of that decision, I would suggest that since that decision favored the plaintiffs, that would indicate it passed constitutional muster. In fact, the Kansas Supreme Court approved the constitutionality in 2005. Also, the Legislature's passing the subsequent school funding bill in 2005 indicates it had legislative approval. I think if you were to ask any number of superintendents that were around at that time the most benefit came in the way of the Legislature's three-year commitment.

Multi-year funding was a key component of the K-12 funding bill that emerged at the end of the 2005 special session. Superintendents across the state indicated that a multi-year bridge allowed them to plan ahead as well as establish future goals. From an educator's point of view, I'm sure knowing in July that you would have a job at the start of the school year was very beneficial. As it stands now, school boards prepare budgets and submit them in August.

Once enrollment figures are established on the 20th day of September, funds are then distributed to the districts by the Department of Education.

Unfortunately, this doesn't facilitate long-range planning. As has been the case in the past few years, K-12 education has then seen funding cuts because of the Legislature's budgeting process. This creates a difficult challenge for districts to react to the cuts after plans and programs have been set in motion. The base state aid per pupil, in Kansas statute, is $4,492. During the 2011-2012 school year, the amount budgeted is $3,780.

Perhaps this explains why local boards have increased their cash balances, a practice that has been criticized by organizations such as the KPI. I don't see this as a problem with the current formula but a lack of commitment for future funding. In fact, in each of the past three years, funding was cut during the academic year.

I'm confident in saying that many local boards of education would be willing to spend down the cash balances provided that they knew what the funding would be in the next two to three years.

In the end we need to ask ourselves: "What is more important to Kansans, providing adequate funding for students, the disabled and the elderly or reducing income taxes for corporations?"

Don't hesitate to contact me in Hays or Topeka. During session, I can be reached in Topeka through the Legislative hotline, (800) 432-3924, or my office phone, (785) 296-7691.

Eber Phelps represents the 111th House District. eber.phelps@house.ks.gov