Vouchers, Audits, Capital Outlay Hearings Today; Innovative Districts and Board Elections Ahead

Bills to provide publicly funded scholarships to private schools for special education students and to broaden the use of capital outlay funds receive hearings today, with other major bills scheduled for hearings later this week.

The House Education Committee holds a hearing today on HB 2263, which would create a system for dissatisfied parents of special education students to take funds provided to their school district to pay for private school education.  The amount of the special needs scholarship under the bill would be based on the cost of providing the child’s individualized education plan in the public school, but the private school would not be required to provide the IEP.  KASB and the Kansas Association of Special Education Administrators are opposing the bill because it violates provisions of federal special education law, allows public funds to be used in schools that discrimination on the basis of disability, and would violate the Kansas Constitution if public education funds go to religious schools.

The committee also is scheduled to hear HB 2349, which would place in state law an annual requirement for the Legislative Post Audit Division to conduct efficiency audits on three districts.  KASB will support the measure as long as districts are chosen on a voluntary basis and local boards are not required to implement audit recommendations they believe are not in the best interest of the district.

A third bill scheduled for a hearing, HB 2232, would require the state to provide liability insurance for teachers.  Teachers are already protected from liability under state law, but many teachers want to purchase insurance coverage.  KASB has not taken a position on this bill.

The Senate Education Committee holds a hearing on SB 131, which would change the definition of acceptable uses for school district capital outlay funds.  The three-judge panel in the Gannon case has ruled the capital outlay system is unconstitutional unless the capital outlay state aid program, which was suspended from funding in 2010, is restored.  KASB will testify as neutral on the bill, and explain KASB can support the bill if equalization aid included, but would oppose it state aid is not provided.

The committee also holds a hearing on SB 128, which would allow districts to receive career technical education incentives payments for students who complete an approved CTE certification by the December following their graduation.  Finally, the committee may take action on SB 44, which would impose new requirements on school districts to provide services to students identified with dyslexia.  KASB opposes that bill as exceeding federal requirements for students with disabilities.

The Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Education is finalizing its recommendations for the Department of Education budget, including K-12 state aid programs, this morning.  Also this morning, the House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the K-12 budget.  That committee has been looking for budget cuts in light of concerns over passing the Governor’s tax plan.

Tomorrow, KASB is scheduled to testify before the House Education Committee in support of HB 2319, which would allow up to 10 school districts to exempt themselves from most state school laws in exchange for stronger standards for student graduation.  A similar bill, SB 176, has a hearing Wednesday in Senate Education.  Also tomorrow, KASB will support SB 137, which requires districts to include input from site councils in adapting bullying prevention plans, and post such plans on their website and file with the State Department of Education.

On Wednesday, the House Elections Committee holds a hearing on HB 2271, which would move all municipal elections, including school boards, to the November general elections in even-numbered years.  It would also make all elections partisan, and it would require that all school board members be elected on an at-large basis, rather than having the option to runs in two, three or six board member districts, as provided by current law.  KASB will oppose the measure.  Local board members are urged to consider testimony on this bill, or contact members of the House Elections Committee with your comments.

The People are King, but Where Do They Rule?

Two days of hearings on a constitutional amendment regarding suitable school finance concluded today.  I testified in opposition on behalf of KASB.  My testimony is below.

Two basic views on the constitution and the role of the courts emerged.  Several Legislators expressed the view that the Legislature, not the courts, should determine funding levels, because Legislators are directly accountable to the people in regular elections.  Senator Forrest Knox expressed the view that in the American system, the people are king, expressing their views through majority votes in elections.  From that perspective, Kansas Courts have overstepped their authority in ordering specific levels of funding, and the constitution should be changed to give the people more control over school funding through their the legislative representatives.

I tried to represent an alternative view.  I agreed the people are king, but noted that the people have placed in their constitution a higher standard for funding education.  The constitution was adopted by the people, and the people have said they expect their representatives to provide "suitable finance" for the educational interests of the state - a higher standard than the expression of a legislative majority. The current constitutional language allows individuals to challenges whether the Legislature is meeting that standard set by the people.

Committee chairman and Senate Vice President Jeff King noted that the people added the provision regarding suitable funding in 1966, and could vote to amend it once again. That is certainly their right.  The question is whether Kansas SHOULD remove a higher standard for educational funding, or whether education funding should continue to be given a special status.  That is the real question for the Senate and House, and if two-thirds of each chamber agree, ultimately for the people.

Testimony before the Senate Committee on Judiciary on SCR 1608 – Suitable Provision for Finance, Kansas Constitution, by Mark Tallman, Associate Executive Director, Kansas Association of School Boards, February 14, 2013

  

            Thank you for the opportunity to testify on SCR 1608.  We oppose this proposed constitutional amendment because we believe it would weaken our state’s commitment to education as a fundamental right of the people and a fundamental duty of government.  That commitment was placed in the constitution by the people of Kansas at the beginning of statehood.  It was strengthened when the education article was amended by the people in 1966 to read “The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.”

            Since 1966, the Kansas system has worked extremely well.  Measures of educational attainment have steadily increased.  Kansas ranks among the top states in education not just in our region but nationally.  The cost of providing this system has increased at a slower rate than total personal income in the state, which has risen along with educational attainment.

            This proposed constitutional amendment would modify that direction by adding “The financing of the educational interests of the state is exclusively a legislative power under article 2 of the constitution of the state of Kansas and as such shall be established solely by the legislature.”

            If the people intended school finance to be whatever the legislature deemed appropriate, there would have been no need for language directing the legislature to make suitable provision for finance.  The legislature already had that authority.  The purpose of the current article is to provide a higher standard.  A right or duty defined exclusively by a legislative majority is not a constitution right.

            A constitutional right or duty means that citizens can appeal to the courts for relief from legislative action or inaction.  Although the American system is based on majority rule, our state and federal constitutions include many rights that are intended to be above exclusive legislative control, in order to protect both majority and minority rights.

            This amendment would mean children, districts, communities, regions of the state or any other individual or group not represented by the Legislative majority could lose the right to seek relief through the courts if the Legislature fails to provide funding necessary to provide the educational improvement mandated by the section one of the same constitutional article.

            We believe educational rights and duties should be held to a higher standard than whatever a shifting legislative majority deems appropriate, because no function of the state is more important.  We agree with Governor Brownback, who has observed that as the fundamental duty of the federal government is national defense, the core function of state government is education.

            We believe the state can and should find an appropriate way to deal with current constitutional challenge, as it has done in the past.  Therefore, we oppose the passage of SCR 1608. 



Update at the Statehouse

A quick review of Statehouse news:

KASB will be one of the opponents of SCR 1608, which amends the state constitution regarding suitable education finance, in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings at 10:30 this morning. Yesterday, the proponents were Sen. Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City, and Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute. The committee also received a briefing from the National Conference of State Legislatures, and a report on efforts to amend the New Hampshire constitution.

The House Education Committee receives a briefing today on common core academic standards. Yesterday, the committee held a hearing on HB 2261, which makes flexibility in transfers from certain school district funds that have been authorized over the past two years permanent. The committee also voted to recommend HB 2221, which requires districts to provide equal access to mailboxes and school activities for competing teachers organizations.

The Senate Education Committee will consider action on bills previously heard. This could include SB 103, changing the calculation of at-risk weighting, SB 104, requiring certain policies for internet access in schools, and SB 44, requiring districts to provide additional services to students with dyslexia.

The House Education Budget Committee yesterday approved the K-12 budget essentially as recommended by the Governor, with two exceptions. It added funding for a position to assist schools with e-rate applications; and voted to remove a provision that would require a "means test" for free participation in the Parents as Teachers program. The budget recommendations will go to the House Appropriations Committee Monday morning. That committee has been sifting through all budgets to find reductions in state spending.

That committee held a hearing yesterday on HB 2215, which would move the threshold for transporting certain non-residents students back to 10 miles, after the Legislature dropped the mark to 2.5 miles last session. Today, the committee holds a hearing on HB 2003, which requires districts to adopt a local option budget of at least 10%, which would then be considered as part of funding base state aid per pupil. This proposal, offered over the past two years, was developed to help the state defend itself in school finance litigation.

The second day of the KASB Governmental Relations Seminar concludes today at noon.

Governor’s Tax Plan to Senate; New Bills; Hearings Continue

 The Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee on voted to send SB 78 to the full Senate this morning with almost no discussion.  The only amendment was successfully offered by Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, to delete a provision eliminating the state income tax deduction for property taxes paid.  That provision was not part of the Governor’s original budget proposal, but added to help defer the cost of additional income tax reductions.  The action does not significantly affect the budget outlook for FY 2014, but it increases the cost of the long-term impact of additional income tax rate reductions contained in the bill.

KASB supports the immediate revenue generators in the bill to help maintain school funding in FY 2014 and 2015.  However, the additional tax reductions are projected to create a new budget shortfall by 2018 unless the state economy grows significantly more than average over the next four years.

New Bill Introductions

With the deadline for bill introductions by individuals and most committees this week, new proposals continue to pop up.  Here is a quick review of bills introduced Friday and Monday.  Some bills will require deeper study to determine the actual impact.

HB 2271 – appears to move school board and other local elections to November of even-numbered years (the same time as state and federal elections), and make local elections partisan.  Other bills would move the elections to November of odd-numbered years.

HB 2266 – appears to move school board elections under the state, rather than local, campaign finance act, and require more reporting of expenditures to influence question submitted elections such as school district bond issues.

HB 2282 – sets up on incentive program for personal financial literacy instruction in schools.

HB 2285 – amends or clarifies the statutory definition of machinery and equipment; could have a major impact on local property tax base.

HB 2289 – prohibits implementation of the common core academic standards.

HB 2290 – requires school districts to hold an election and gain voter approval before joining in school finance litigation.

SB 169 – the Governor’s “Read to Succeed” program, prohibits a student from being promoted to fourth grade if not reading at proficiency on third grade state assessments or an alternative assessment approved by the State Board of Education; also provides funding for certain literacy assistance programs.

Also today:

Hearing in the House Education Committee on HB 2222, which includes staff members in certain requirements of school district bullying policies.

Hearing in the Senate Education Committee on SB 103, which changes the calculation of at-risk funding.

Hearing on K-12 state aid programs in the House Education Budget Committee.

Hearings tomorrow:

Hearing on K-12 state programs begin in the Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee on Education; continue Thursday.

Hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee for proponents on SCR 1608, amending article six of the state constitution regarding suitable educational finance; with opponents on Thursday.

Hearing in the Senate Education Committee on SB 104, Children’s Internet Protection Act.

Hearing in the House Education Committee on HB 2261, allow permanent flexibility for transfers for certain school district fund balances and removing limits on district contingency funds.

Hearing in the House Education Budget Committee on HB 2215, restoring the threshold for certain non-resident student transportation authority from 2.5 miles to 10 miles.

KASB Statement on Funding for At-Risk Programs

On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate Committee on Education is scheduled to hear testimony on SB 103 – Definition of At-Risk Pupil.  The bill would change the way school districts receive funding for at-risk student programs.  Currently, funding is based on the number of students in the district eligible for free meals.  The districts use those funds to provide services to students who demonstrate a need for additional help, regardless of whether or not they quality for free lunch.

SB 103 would change the criteria for students in grades four and above to the number of students who score below proficient on state reading and math tests.

The following is KASB's prepared testimony on the bill:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on SB 103.  This past December, the Delegate Assembly of the Kansas Association of School Boards overwhelmingly adopted plan called “First in Education, the Kansas Way,” with the goal of making Kansas the top state the nation for college and career-ready students.  One of the specific priorities in that plan is to maintain the current system of using free lunch as the primary factor in determining the level of funding for services to at-risk students.  We also believe other factors should be used to supplement this factor, which means we support the current non-proficient weighting.  We believe that maintaining the “Kansas Way” of serving at-risk students is one of the keys to moving Kansas from number seven to number one in achievement.  Therefore, we oppose SB 103.  Please consider the following reasons why.

Use of free lunch eligibility is an appropriate indicator of at-risk students

There is overwhelming evidence that economic disadvantage is negatively correlated with academic achievement.  Low income students (usually measured by free and reduced price meal eligibility) have lower test scores and graduation rates than their middle and higher income peers.  This is true on state assessments for public school students; on state assessments for participating private schools in Kansas, on the National Assessment of Education Progress for states and private schools, and other state and nation reports for educational attainment, such as graduation and drop-out rates.

There are numerous reasons for this fact, but perhaps the most important is that education levels are strongly associated with income.  Low income students are more likely to have parents with relatively less education, which means they are less able to provide academic help at home and less able to provide a stable environment that meets basic needs.  There are, of course, many examples of low income students who thrive academically and higher income students who struggle.  The current at-risk weighting system uses the number of free lunch students to determine the amount of money a district receives to provide at-risk services.  The district then determines which actual students will receive services, and at what level.

The current system is working effectively meet the needs of at-risk students.

Because the school system cannot compensate for all of the factors that negatively influence a child’s academic performance, an achievement gap for low income students will probably always exist to some degree.  Fortunately, schools under our current system have made progress in helping these students succeed.  State assessment data shows that Kansas has begun to narrow the gap between low-income students and their peers, despite a significant increase in the percentage of Kansas students qualifying for free lunch.

In additional, Kansas is one of the highest achieving states in the nation, despite a higher percentage of low income students than 29 other states, and spending less per pupil than 26 other states.  Kansas ranks especially high in performance of low income students.  On the 2011 National Assessment of Education Progress, only six states had higher average fourth and eighth grade reading and math scores than Kansas, and all six spent more pupil than Kansas and had much higher percentages of low income students to serve with those dollars.

State	Percent of Low Income Students At Basic or Above (2011)	Percent of Low Income Students at Proficient or Above (2011)	Current Spending Per Pupil, 2010	Percent of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch
Massachusetts	72.8%	28.7%	$14,350	32.9%
New Hampshire	70.4%	28.6%	$12,383	23.5%
Vermont	70.5%	28.6%	$15,274	34.6%
Montana	72.1%	28.7%	$10,497	40.0%
North Dakota	70.9%	24.8%	$10,991	33.8%
Wyoming	71.3%	26.8%	$15,169	35.2%
Kansas	69.8%	25.5%	$9,715	45.7%

In fact, as we have previously presented to the committee, Kansas ranks seventh overall on four separate measures of educational attainment.  The highest achieving state with a higher percentage of free lunch students than Kansas is Illinois, which ranks 18^th in achievement and spends almost $2,000 more per pupil than Kansas.  No other state with as many lower income students does as well as Kansas, especially for the amount of resources provided.  Quite simply, the Kansas system is working effectively and should not be changed unless there is clearly a better system.

SB 103 would create serious problems for the state, school districts and students.

Because SB 103 would shift the basis of at-risk funding at grade four and above from free lunch eligibility to students who are not proficient on state reading and math tests, those districts which have had the most success with low income students would lose the most money.  Last year, it was estimated that this concept would reduce at-risk funding by over $100 million.

That reduction would not occur generally across the school system, but would be taken from at-risk programs which are required to be targeted to at-risk students, regardless of whether the students are low income or not.  In other words, this bill would reduce funding for all at-risk students.

 Because this bill would significantly reduce funding for programs specifically designed to help students reach proficiency, we believe the most likely outcome would be more students failing to reach proficiency.  In that case, the Governor and Legislature would have to increase at-risk funding, quite possibly back to the same levels as before.  Unless the legislature has set aside the “savings” initially achieved by this bill, new money for at-risk funding would have to come from cuts to other education programs, such as base state aid, other areas of state spending, or tax increases.

 Students are often at-risk because of long-term individual, family or social problems.  These problems cannot be fixed with one-time intervention.  The current system gives districts a relatively stable source of revenue to help at-risk students before they take state assessments, and continue to provide support to maintain proficiency.  Under this bill, districts would not receive funding for most students until after they fail the test, and would lose funding once the student passes the test – at least until they next time they fail, when they would again have qualify for funding.

 Finally, remember it is the students who will bear the real impact of this bill: larger classes, loss of special services and less additional time for learning.  We urge the committee to maintain support for a program that is working.