Dear Friend:

I want to begin by thanking the hundreds of you who took the time to reach out to me this week to weigh in on SB 7, the school block grant bill. It will take some time to respond to you all, but it is my intention to do so.  Not one individual (among constituents and non-constituents alike) asked that I vote yes on this bill. Not one. My colleagues from around the state reported the same phenomenon.

You are the voters in charge of electing our state lawmakers, and our school board members, among other offices.  You are also the taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars pay to fund our schools.

I believe that my vote against this bill reflects the will of my legislative district, as well as my conscience.  I represent a specific area, and in this case one particular school district, but I have a moral imperative to ensure that my vote does not cause harm to the rest of the state.  We have over 460,000 students in the state of Kansas affected by the vote cast today.

While our own SMSD position, communicated the night before the vote, indicated conditional support for the block grants, it also clearly communicated that the primary desire was to see our formula changed. I recognize that our district has advocated for years that we need change to the funding formula, but repealing it outright without a plan for replacement is a reckless decision.  We have 10 years of legislative post-audit studies of our education system that identify the trouble spots, and offer recommendations for improvement.  We are not lacking in ideas, we are simply lacking the political will to do the responsible thing.

When I deliberated about how to handle this vote in the very short window of time we were given from the time the bill was introduced last Thursday at 5pm, until the vote yesterday afternoon, I gave careful consideration to the list of proponents and opponents who provided testimony in the hearing Monday morning.  The only three proponents of the bill who put testimony on the record were the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas Policy Institute, and Kansans for Liberty.  These are the very same special interest groups who testified the week before in our House tax committee that we need to close the deficit through spending cuts alone.  The magnitude of our budget deficit will not be solved without additional revenue unless K-12 education spending takes a deep hit.

In lieu of the usual format for my newsletter, I will attempt to explain some of the key components of the debate surrounding this bill in plain English. 

Myth #1, Certainty:
The bill was sold as an attempt to provide consistency and predictability for school districts but completely ignores how (and why) school finance is practically applied. It locks in spending at the current levels and allows for no variation in growth or loss of student population or other demographic changes. It does not account for rising utility costs, insurance costs or any other unforeseen circumstances. It requires that dwindling reserve funds be depleted and locks in spending at levels already found to be unconstitutionally inadequate. Yes, it is certainty for the legislature in the budget process, but it is certainty without regard for the very distinct needs of each community, let alone the individual needs of our students. Meanwhile, our public schools face a very uncertain future.

Myth #2, Reality:
Certainty is nothing without reality and the reality is that without major tax increases, we will not be able to fund this plan. In large part, I believe this is the intent – to pass a significant policy change without the funding to implement it, and make districts live with new rules and old funding. It will be most interesting to see if the 64 who voted yes on this plan will be willing to vote yes on tax increases, especially in a climate where the prevailing wisdom is “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” The harsh reality is that many of the 64 who voted to pass this bill have signed “no tax increase” pledges and have voting records that reflect that they consistently vote against tax increases and have no intention of paying for this bill.

This chart shows where the state would have been had the legislature not passed the disastrous 2012 tax plan. We would be funding K-12 and higher education at respectable levels, adhering to what we promised Kansans for our roads, and likely had room to spare for targeted tax cuts and a comfortable ending balance. 

• An amendment was offered during debate to protect any future education cuts from unilateral allotments by Governor Brownback. The amendment failed, which made obvious there is no intent to truly fund this bill. 

Myth 3, Shawnee Mission Supports It:
It is the Superintendent’s job to support the needs of his district. He is doing his job. I am elected to represent the people of the 25th District, however my job also requires me to carefully weigh the consequences of my decisions statewide. They call this “voting your conscience and your district.” Oftentimes, it is a delicate balance. In this case, I received several hundred emails from constituents – all parents and patrons of the district, asking me to oppose this bill. It represents one of those rare opportunities to vote both conscience and district together. I respectfully disagree with the SMSD position because I do not believe this action was the ONLY recourse available to address the concerns with the funding formula.

Myth #4, It’s the Last Train:
To attempt to replace the current 20+ year funding formula with one introduced, heard, and passed in less than 7 days is a disservice to every Kansas student. If the intent is to reformulate school finance, we owe it a more deliberative process. This is a massive policy change that has very little public scrutiny – an example of Washington style politics where we pass the bill to see what is in it. The ramifications and unintended consequences of such an ill-conceived and poorly vetted plan will impact our state for years to come. Supporters call this a “two-year time out” while we work on a new formula, but we do not get to have a time out from our responsibilities in real life, nor do our children have the luxury of a time-out in their growth and development. I am not against changing and improving our formula, but absolutely do not support the full repeal of the existing one BEFORE that process even begins.

Supporters argued that this was our only chance to change the funding formula, which is total nonsense. We have the power to make other choices besides the “either or” proposition this bill represented. Leadership continues the practice of providing false choices, limiting our options to “pass this or we will cut the budget.” Again, I must respectfully, but firmly, disagree.

Myth #5, Good for JoCo:
What is “good for Johnson County” at this moment is rarely good for us in the long term. If the legislature neglects the quality of K-12 education, it will damage the health of our economy and our quality of life in Johnson County. Much of Johnson County’s economic growth and success is due in great part to the intellect and industrious nature of our rural transplants. To ignore the value of providing quality education to every Kansas student is irresponsible and ignores Johnson County’s attractiveness to our rural neighbors.

I was preparing another email to update you on last week’s activities, but this bill and its immediacy took precedence. Thank you for your indulgence as this issue eclipses most others for the entire session. Please do not hesitate to reply with your thoughts and I look forward to continuing our work to bring common sense concepts to the Capitol.