The Kansas Senate today passed a school finance bill on a 32-5 vote. The bill now is expected to be debated in the House later this afternoon.
The Legislature is responding to an order from the Kansas Supreme Court on the equity of school funding. The court gave the Legislature until June 30 to come up with a school funding bill that would comply.
A committee hearing was held on the bill on Wednesday, and it is moving quickly through the Legislature, which plans to take time off next week.
According to the bill’s backers, the school finance bill, Senate Substitute for House Bill 2655, addresses the court’s concern for equalization, and it had a “hold harmless” provision to make sure school districts receive at least the same amount of funding they now receive. The bill in question was formerly called SB 515 and its provisions were added to HB 2655.
Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said the bill narrows the disparity gap, which is an issue of equity. Extra needs and equity funds would be given to the state Department of Education, so it can respond quickly to future needs.
The bill’s backers referred to it as a stopgap measure that needed to be passed in order that schools can open in the fall.
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said he would file a protest to this bill.
He said the Legislature has yet to begin the task of putting together a long-term solution. Sen. Hensley said that during committee testimony, the Kansas City, Kan., Public Schools superintendent had said that if Senate Bill 7, the block grant bill, was unconstitutional, and this bill does the same thing as Senate Bill 7, then this bill must be unconstitutional as well.
Sen. Hensley said the bill simply redefines equalization methods to equalize the dollars all districts receive this year, while it does nothing to equalize the purchasing power between districts due to differences in local wealth. He said it did not meet the equity test and does not provide similar opportunities for all students.
He said the bill reduces generalized state aid by $83 million. As a result of that, the bill has the potential of increasing property taxes by $83 million, he said. For example, if the Shawnee Mission schools lose $3 million in local option equalization aid, they can go back under the LOB cap and raise property taxes $3 million to make up the difference, he said.
Another problem, he said is any districts that gain in capital outlay equalization would take the gain against deduction of any “hold harmless” money they would receive. If the Legislature were to do the right thing to comply with the Supreme Court order, it would appropriate an additional $38 million to fund equalization on both LOB and capital outlay, he said.
“What we’re doing is the proverbial rearranging the chairs on the Titanic,” he said.
He said that Wichita school district would lose almost $10 million when the old formula (one before the block grant) is compared to this bill; Kansas City, Kan., Public School district loses $2.2 million; Lawrence loses $2.1 million; and Topeka loses $1.8 million.
There’s an old expression about putting lipstick on a pig, he said. Senate Bill 7 was the pig and this bill puts lipstick on the pig, Sen. Hensley said.
The Legislature had 42 days to deal with the court order, and now it is dealing with it in a matter of 48 hours, he said. “I don’t believe this is the way this process should have worked,” he said.
However, Sen. Masterson said the bill would be constitutional, and there was more than one way to get to the right answer when it comes to equalizing the school finance formula. “We are meeting the articulated test presented by the Supreme Court,” he said.
He said the bill that passed today had the support of more schools districts than the previous bills that were discussed.
Sen. Pat Pettey, D-6th Dist., from Kansas City, Kan., said if the Shawnee Mission schools made a decision to increase the LOB and went to the voters, they would only have to raise 1 mill to get $3 million. But in the Turner Public Schools, to raise $400,000, it would take 4.5 mills. That makes it clear that when talking about property wealth, what a difference it could make for the local taxpayers, she said.
This is very much a shift from state responsibility to local responsibility, Sen. Pettey said. The state is moving back to where it was in the 1990s, she added.
When she voted against the bill, she said it was an attempt by its supporters to create a legislative record that would force the courts to keep schools open while not responding to their demands for equity in school finance.
Sen. Steve Fitzgerald, R-5th Dist., of Leavenworth, who represents part of western Wyandotte County, said the bill was not hastily put together, it was a good faith effort, and that everyone was able to hear from all sides. This bill preserves the increase that was received from the block grant, he said.
“This will keep the schools open, which needs to be done, and it will give all the districts the certainty they need, the reliability they need and the information they have of what funding they will have in order to go into this next school year,” Sen. Fitzgerald said.
The preamble of the bill came under criticism from a Lawrence senator, who later “passed” on the bill. She took issue with the claims made in it.