In the News: Education Finance
Though I am new, I have felt I am witnessing something historic in the past week. While hopeful a few votes would switch and we could give school finance its due diligence, it was not to be. There is a lot of gloom and doom about how bad things are going to be now, and I have a looming sense of dread about what is in the bill that many did not anticipate or intend because it happened so fast.
As you have seen all over the news and social media, a bill to restructure school finance (the block grant bill) in Kansas was introduced last week. Hearings were heard last week, and the House Appropriations Committee amended the contents into a Senate bill (House Substitute for Senate Bill 7). With this procedure, it does not need to go back to the Senate for full consideration; the Senate can merely “Concur” on the House’s changes. With a concur, the bill would go to the governor’s desk for his signature. The bill flew out of committee in two days, was debated by the full House on Thursday, and passed the House Friday morning on a 64-57 vote. I voted NO. In short, a new finance formula to fund education for 460,000 Kansas students could be introduced and signed into law in a matter of days.
Most agree the school finance formula needs to be changed to reflect the changing needs of Kansas students. The court would argue the formula seems to be producing good outcomes – IF it is funded adequately. As with most things, the balance lies somewhere in the middle. What I know for sure is that eliminating the current formula for a very temporary, untested (experimental), 2-year “anything goes” block grant formula is short-sighted and irresponsible.
Current education dollars are assigned to and spent by districts according to an intricate formula accounting for the various needs of students. The new formula aims to break down the “silos” in funding to eliminate restrictions and provide more flexibility for school budgeters. The formula uses the current funding total as a basis and does not account for economic or population fluctuations. Thus, a school losing population retains its funding, yet a school growing in population doesn’t get more funds to accommodate new students and bigger classes.
Do you remember when the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed, and many said they needed to vote for it in order to see what was in it? We heard the same rhetoric last week, and I wasn’t prepared to “wait and see” when students and teachers are at stake. I agree the formula needs to be changed, but a 25-year formula deserves more than 7 days deliberation. When more than HALF the state budget is K-12 education, we owe it to the taxpayers to perform due diligence on every bill.
Explanation of Vote
It has taken three years for us to fully comprehend how ill-advised the tax bill of 2012 is. It will take far less time for the Block Grant legislation to be recognized as equally, if not more, irresponsible. K-12 funding will be cut, those districts which have contingency reserve funds will spend them down, property taxes will go up, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Equitable funding will be a casualty and suitable provision for education funding will be in peril. We will be at greater risk of losing in court. I vote no on SB7.
Next Steps
The Kansas Senate passed the Motion to Concur on a 25-14 vote Monday afternoon. However, the Shawnee District Court announced it could block the bill from becoming law. This court is home to the 3-judge panel tasked by the Kansas Supreme Court to assess adequacy of education in Kansas, and which said in December the state is indeed underfunding education to unconstitutional levels. In the December opinion, the court warned against shenanigans and clearly saw through this effort to override its authority by changing the rules mid-game.
The rhetoric is flying and talking points distributed, but I am more comfortable with my vote than ever.
