The Kansas Senate passed a school finance bill Monday that would provide block grants to school districts.
The bill changes the school finance formula from a per pupil system to a temporary block grant formula. It passed on a 25-14 vote.
Voting against the bill were Sen. Pat Pettey, D-6th Dist., and Sen. David Haley, D-4th Dist.
Voting in favor of the bill was Sen. Steve Fitzgerald, R-5th Dist.
The passage of the school funding bill takes place during a period when the Kansas courts have considered the Gannon case challenging state funding. The state had made budget cuts to education during some of the recent years. The courts found that in 2014 that not funding the equalization formula was unconstitutional. The courts also were considering the issue of adequacy of funding.
Some observers expect the new block grant funding bill to provide less funding for schools that receive equalization funding.
The Kansas City, Kan., Public Schools was one of the districts that had joined in the court challenge through an organization, Schools for Fair Funding.
The bill that passed on Monday, House Substitute for Senate Bill 7, had originated in the Senate, went to the House where it was amended, then came back to the Senate where the amendments were agreed to.
The Kansas National Education Association, which opposed the bill, stated in a newsletter Monday, “The biggest decision of the session – the funding of our public education system – was ramrodded through the legislative process in just seven legislative days. The process denied senators the opportunity to offer amendments; they could only debate and question.”
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, protested the bill with this statement:
“The funding in this bill for the current school year is based on a funding level that has already been found to be unconstitutionally low. The operational funding for school districts is cut even further (0.4%) for 2016 and 2017.
“The current school finance formula, when fully funded, has been found to ensure adequacy and equity as required by the Kansas Constitution.
“This bill completely removes the weighting components that ensure that Kansas’ disadvantaged students, specifically African-Americans, Latino-Americans, and other English Language Learners and foreign-born students and students living in poverty receive the same educational opportunities as non-minority and domestic-born students. These weightings evolved over several years based on expert testimony and in response to prior Kansas Supreme Court decisions and were based on the costs needed to educate different students.
“Governor Brownback has specifically stated that the purpose of the block grant mechanism is to ensure that the state is not ‘held hostage’ by changing demographics and increases in the number of students.
“Such a statement indicates that this legislation, if enacted into law, will have been enacted for the purpose of eliminating the protections found in the current school finance formula that ensured African-Americans, Latino-Americans, children in poverty and English Language Learners (the members of those “changing demographics”) had equal educational opportunities as non-minority and domestic-born students.
“The changes to the calculations for equalization deliberately prorate the level of equity that the State committed to restore through passage of 2014 Senate Substitute for House Bill 2506. The State represented to the Court that the funding of Senate Substitute for House Bill 2506 was secure and we have now done exactly what the Court told us we could not do.
“Thus, the passage of this block grant bill represents an intentional refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s order and renders the representations made by the State to the Gannon trial panel patently false.
“Governor Brownback has also said that ‘This cycle of school finance litigation must end.’ This block grant bill represents the Governor’s unconstitutional, intentional, and futile attempt to evade the clear directives of the Supreme Court and the trial panel.
“In sum, by passing this bill, we are all standing witness to the unconstitutional disassembling of public education in the State of Kansas.
“The attached printout SF15-094 shows the bill’s effect on current school district budgets. It creates losses in funding only for districts eligible for equalization funding.
“This is not in any way constitutional or acceptable for the school children of Kansas.”
Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, offered this statement on his “yes” vote:
“The formula was flawed from the beginning and after 25 years of incrementalism has collapsed under its own weight. The block grant will provide adequate financing over the next two years as we develop a formula to thrive in the modern education environment. The new formula should reward good outcomes and good teachers with less emphasis on structures. Transparent financing and measureable outcomes are main goals of the modern education environment. In 1991 we spent $1.1 billion on K-12 Education. Today we are spending over $4.1 billion. Education is important for the quality of life our citizens enjoy. It is the pillar that creates prosperity across our state. We will not waiver on our quest to create a modern educational finance formula that meets expectations. We must and will be successful in writing a new formula which works for everyone; students, teachers, parents, and the taxpayers.”
Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, stated about her “no” vote, with Sen. Pat Pettey, D-6th Dist., in agreement with her:
“The Senate should be discussing how to appropriate school funding, after all, K-12 funding is 53% of our annual state general fund budget. But concurring with changes made to H Sub SB 7 in the House provides for very little discussion. Our current school finance formula takes into account changes in enrollment and other weightings. This bill assumes we should ignore those changes within districts while reducing overall funds that can be used in the classroom. Under the block grant what a district received in 2014-15 determines much of what that district will receive for the next two years. Concerns that some equalization aid is going to “wealthy” districts are ignored; the basis for determining that aid does not change although all of those districts will receive it at differing lower percentages. I agree we need changes in virtual school funding, however this proposal provides more funding per FTE for part-time students and students over the age of 18 in 2015-16 than for the full-time students for whom the program was designed. I am concerned this bill puts the interest of some members of the legislature to have predictability in the state budget ahead of our responsibility to provide the funding to educate Kansas pupils. I vote ‘No’ on the motion to concur.”
Send your comments to [email protected].