School Funding Studie d (KS)
September 23, 2010
A potential lawsuit challenging the state’s school finance formula has prompted discussion over new funding proposals.
Kansas House Speaker Pro Tem Arlen Siegfried, R-Olathe, testified in front of the Legislature’s Special Committee on Education and outlined two new proposals that would significantly change the way the state aids local school districts.
One proposal moves the share of funding schools to local districts through property taxes while the other would change how students are prepared for life after school.
Districts that rank below the 81st percentile of districts across the state would be able to obtain funding to match them with districts that are at, or above, the 81st percentile, under one of the plans proposed.
“If you are above the 81st percentile, you would not receive any funding whatsoever,” Siegfried said. “If you are below, you would receive funding that would bring the level of funding equal to those schools that are above the 81st percentile.”
The second concept proposed by Siegfried would remove the 31 percent cap on local option budgets. The state would still fund schools at a frozen rate of $4,012 per pupil. The first proposal would eliminate pupil weighings and increase accountability for at-risk and bilingual student funding.
Under that plan, local district budget limitations would be eliminated and the procedure under which school districts transfer local tax proceeds would also be eliminated.
Siegfried said that if some changes were not made to school funding, the Legislature would be faced with a daunti ng budget shortfall for 2012. He said that, currently, the state is looking at a $290 million budget shortfall. Couple that with the $470 million request from the state Board of Education and Siegfried said that funding that amount would be impossible.
“If you put those figures together, that is almost $800 million and no one can expect that to just fall out of a tree,” Siegfried said. “We have to fund based on the funds we have available.
“With a tax increase, if we are still $800 million short of funding the Montoy plan, it is probably time to look at changing how we are funding our schools.”
Democrats in Topeka immediately denounced the plans saying that it would put rural schools at risk.
“There seems to be a concerted effort by the conservative wing of the Republican Party to return to a system whereby schools are funded locally, which we know from experience will result in disequalized schools and local property tax increases,” said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “Property taxes disproportionately harm small business owners, farmers and ranchers, seniors on fixed incomes and the middle class.”
Davis said that Siegfried’s plan was just a continuation of a plan proposed during the 2010 Legislative session from Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Overland Park, that would cut school funding by $86 million and increase property taxes by $65 million.
Senate Democrat Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said that the plans nothing more than an extension of a funding plan provided by GOP gubernatorial candidate Sam Brownback.
“Sam Brownback and House Republican Leadership seem determined to sidestep their responsibility to public schools and pass the buck onto local scho ol boards, homeowners and small business owners,” Hensley said. “Local property taxpayers can’t afford the Brownback/House Republican Leadership Plan. Unfortunately, the public schoolchildren and local property taxpayers of Kansas will be the ultimate losers.”
Siegfried said that the notion that his proposed plans mirrored that of Brownback was “ridiculous.” “I have not talked, in any way shape or form, with the Brownback campaign about this,” Siegfried said. “This has nothing to do with Sam Brownback … this is the Rep. Arlen Siegfried plan, plain and simple.”