|
And they're off!
Yes, the 2012 Legislature is off and running. The House and Senate gaveled in at 2:00pm on Monday, with a very aggressive agenda before them. Governor Brownback is touting three major reforms for the Legislature to consider this session: school finance, Medicaid managed care, and state income taxation.
Several other items will be adding some heat to these and other weighty issues. This is the year for redistricting, redrawing election maps, based on new 2010 census data. The governor is proposing the reorganization of some state agencies and programs. And, if that wasn't enough to keep things lively, 2012 is an election year for both the House and the Senate. (Get ready for a lot of votes that will serve only to plump up legislators' palm cards and election brochures this summer!)
While the legislative session can be aptly likened to a race, I am careful to remind people that it is more of a marathon than a sprint. And, as in a marathon, we need to use our energy and resources wisely - move methodically and strategically - until we have crossed the legislative finish line in May.
With the governor's push to revamp the school finance formula and, now, the Democrats' counterproposal, a lot of us want to get ahead of the race - endorse one plan or another and get legislators nailed down as quickly as possible. It's human nature to hate limbo and the anxiety produced while budgets, students and programs are hanging in the balance can be nerve-racking to say the least.
We are just completing the first week of the session. I recommend that we all start with the guiding principles we'd like to see in any school finance plan (e.g., BSAPP funded according to the law; equalization; at-risk funding; transportation). Then analyze the various plans against those guiding principles to figure out their respective strengths and weaknesses, and suggest pieces that would make the respective proposals stronger.
This type of work has already begun regarding the governor's proposal. Administrators across the state have provided feedback and Mike Mathes, superintendent of Seaman USD 345, has compiled a list of concerns and recommendations. (Detailed later in this update)
Following this type of analysis, the work is akin to the work we do every legislative session. Meet with your state legislators and discuss your concerns and recommendations. And, most importantly, hang in there and don't let yourselves get burned out when things seem too chaotic to produce anything good. There's a lot of race out there. All of us working together can ensure that great things continue to happen for K-12 students across this great state.
Challenging the KPI perspective
Most administrators across Kansas are probably very well aware of the anti-public education perspective being promoted by the Kansas Policy Institute. This is a group that is privately funded by anti-tax/anti-government entities. They cry out for transparency in the public arena, but are extremely secretive about their own operations, including who provides their funding.
Prior to the session beginning, KPI convinced House leaders to allow them several days and opportunities to present their perspective on reforming the K-12 education system in Kansas. Their presentation includes out-of-state "experts" talking about why they believe the Kansas education system is failing, as well as their ideas for reform - privatization, vouchers, charter schools, teacher quality, etc. Essentially, this is a group who is out to convince policymakers that Kansas schools are failing our kids and that other states, such as Florida and Indiana (who lag far behind Kansas' student achievements), have answers that will fix the problem.
In many ways, KPI has gone unchallenged. Not so anymore! USA|Kansas, along with KASB and KNEA, are asking legislative leaders for a more "fair and balanced" forum for considering the state of Kansas' education system. We are beginning with the House Education Committee. KPI is scheduled to present their perspective in that committee on Thursday, January 19th.
Mark Tallman, KASB, will present that same day data that demonstrates the increasing success of Kansas students, across all demographics. Representatives from Newton's Walton Rural Life Center and from Maize's virtual school will also be presenting and participating in a charter school discussion.
The following week USA|Kansas has asked to have several administrators present "innovations" they're implementing to meet the varied educational needs of their students. Many legislators simply do not know the intensive work that's occurring in the field to achieve greater successes with our students. KNEA will also present expert testimony on teacher quality and success.
In this way, we hope to more strategically provide an alternative to the KPI's message and to better inform Kansas legislators of the achievements, successes and innovations that continue to make our state one of the top in the nation.
Democrats release K-12 funding proposal
House and Senate democrats released Tuesday a school finance plan for funding Kansas schools. Maintaining that the current formula is not broken, just underfunded, this plan proposes increasing the BSAPP to $4,047 over a three-year period as follows:
- $66.75 in FY 2013, increasing the BSAPP from $3,780 to $3,846.75, at a cost of $45 million;
- $66.75 in FY 2014, increasing the BSAPP to $3,913.50, at a cost of $45 million; and
- $133.50 in FY 2015, increasing the BSAPP to $4,047.00, at a cost of $90 million.
This increase would not require an increase in state revenue, as budget projections show an increasingly healthy ending balance in coming years.
Nothing else changes under this proposal. While passing the test on simplicity, getting the necessary votes for passage in the Legislature - especially with the governor aggressively pushing his own plan - won't be quite so simple. Stay tuned! It promises to be an arduous race.
Administrators respond to governor's school finance plan
School administrators across the state have responded to the governor's request that they analyze his proposal for reforming the state's school finance plan and provide recommendations for making it stronger.
In recent weeks superintendents and school business managers have offered a number of suggestions, which Mike Mathes has compiled into a draft to send to the governor. Following is the content of that draft (printed with permission).
*It seems the best solution would be to fund the current formula over 4-5 years while allowing an increase in the LOB cap. I believe the Democrat's plan will be similar to that. However, if that is not an acceptable solution the following concerns should be addressed in any new plan:
- There must be a mechanism to fund additional at-risk or ELL students, additional student transportation costs, and enrollment weightings.
Solution: Create a Qualified Assistance for Student Needs program. This fund would be appropriated to the State Board, which would distribute to districts to address additional costs in the following areas: At-Risk, Bilingual, Transportation, and enrollment weightings. The amount would be limited by the appropriation. Recommended amount: $20 million. (This is about the same amount as now).
Promotes educational improvement by providing resources for districts with demonstrated increases in higher cost students.
- There should be some type of state equalization on any local mill rate effort. All districts should be able to increase their mill rate without a protest petition.
Solution: Provide a fixed amount of dollars for equalization of local mill levy increases, distributed by the Department of Education. The maximum aid provided would be for 3% per year of the operating budget. The amount would be limited by the appropriation. There would be no limit on the increase in local mill levies, and no equalization paid above the 3% percent threshold.
Recommended amount: 3% of the proposed total operating budget (the baseline total of approximately $3.47 billion) would require maximum state aid of $45 million at the 81.2% equalization formula currently used.
Elected local school boards should be able to increase the levy without protest or election.
Promotes educational improvement by giving all districts a more equitable opportunity to enhance their budget and promote excellence.
- The new hold harmless formula creates too many winners and losers. True hold harmless should keep everyone at the current level.
Solution: The baseline or "hold harmless" amount should be zero for all districts. No district should gain or lose due to the change in formula. This would eliminate $45 million from the new formula to be used other ways.
Promotes educational improvement by giving all districts a more equitable opportunity to enhance their budget and promote excellence.
- Full day kindergarten should be funded, not simply counted.
Solution: The baseline amount should be modified to phase-in funding for all-day kindergarten over a 5-year period. Each district would receive a .1 increase in their baseline amount for students in all day kindergarten programs.. Those charging may continue to charge for the unfunded amount. Cost would be $15 million per year.
Promotes educational improvement by funding early learning programs, supporting the Governor's goal of improving fourth grade reading.
- There must be some equalization of bond and interest.
Solution: The current system of bond and interest aid could be continued with two changes. First the amount would be capped at a level set by the state. Second, to receive state funding, projects would have to approved by the State Board of Education after a needs review. The Board would allocate funding based on available funding.
Local school boards should be able to approve bonds without public vote.
Recommended funding level: $5 million
- New facilities weightings should not be included as a perpetual entitlement.
Solution: New facilities weighting in the current system is the only state-funded weighting with a time limit - districts only receive the weighting for two years. The funds, estimated at $20 million, would be removed from the baseline amount and placed in a separate fund to be distributed by KSDE according to the current eligibility on a per pupil basis. The actual amount per pupil will depend on the number of student attending in a new facility. The amount could be capped at $950 per student in case the number of eligible students would drop below about 21,050 students. The amount would be limited by appropriation to the current level. No net cost to state.
- Funding for capital outlay equalization should be restored.
Solution: Funding for capital outlay could be restored, funded by using one mill of the 20 mill statewide levy, and capped at that amount going forward. Funds would be prorated if necessary. State aid would replace the 1 mill amount, making a net cost of around $25 million, but no further general state aid would be required going forward.
Five, six and seven promote educational opportunities by allowing all districts more equitable funding for facilities and equipment. Without these revenues, districts must divert resources from the classroom for these purposes.
The above suggestions would cost an additional $65 million above the Governor's proposed $45 million increase for a total of $110 million.
Hearings of interest scheduled for the week of January 16, 2012
Tuesday, Jan 17
9:00 a.m., House Appropriations, Room 346-S
- Presentation on: KPERS Commission Findings and Recommendations
9:00 a.m., House Education, Docking Room 784
- Kansas Teacher of the Year Presentation
Wednesday, Jan 18
10:30 a.m., Senate Ways & Means, Room 548-S
- Presentation of: The Governor's Tax Proposal
Thursday, Jan 19
9:00 a.m., House Education, Room 346-S
- Public School Reform Presentation by KPI and others
1:30 p.m., Senate Education, Room 152-S
Hearings on:
- SB 257 - Calculation of the local option budget
- SB 260 - Special education state aid
The House Education Budget Committee, which meets at 3:30 p.m., in room 159-S, has blocked out Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for "presentations to be announced." Likely, at least one of these will be devoted to the KPI education perspective.
| 
