Area superintendents not sold on governor’s school finance proposal

By Rod Haxton, editor

Many school officials in Kansas are skeptical - at best - regarding Gov. Sam Brownback’s proposal to restructure the financing of public education.

While all details of the budget plan have not been revealed, the initial reaction is that the plan won’t meet the long-range needs of education in the state and that more burden will fall upon local districts in the form of higher property taxes.

On the bright side, they don’t think the plan - in its current form - will make it through the state legislature.

“There are too many issues with this plan,” says Scott County Supt. Bill Wilson. “Seventy-five percent of the kids in Kansas are in districts that don’t receive more money. That’s too many. I think people will see through that.”

Scott County is one of the 104 school districts in the state that won’t receive more money than they currently get from the state. The same is true for the Dighton district. The Wichita County school district will receive an additional $144,565 under the plan while Healy would get $58,395.

Funding is frozen for many districts despite the plan calling for basic state aid to increase from $3,780 per student to $4,492. However, the proposal also calls for the elimination of weighting factors which is a huge item for many rural districts. The governor is proposing to do away with additional funding that many districts receive for transportation, at-risk and English as a Second Language (ESL) students, for example.

“The elimination of transportation weighting puts any rural district at a severe disadvantage,” says Wilson. “The cost of transporting a student in Topeka is far less than it costs to transport students in rural counties of Western Kansas.”

The loss of low-enrollment weighting would be “disastrous” for Western Kansas, predicts John LaFave, superintendent of the Healy district. Even though the district would receive additional money, he says it’s insignificant compared to the damage that would be done.

“If this plan is approved as it is - and I don’t think that will happen - it will close small schools like ours,” says LaFave, whose district has just 80 full-time equivalent students.

“At some point, even conservative lawmakers must realize that you can’t cut funding any more than you have in rural districts and still maintain these schools,” he says.

At-Risk Students

The elimination of weighting for at-risk students is a concern for districts who are seeing more and more students eligible for the reduced and free lunch programs.

The number of at-risk students in the Scott County districts hovers around 53 percent.

“Almost 50 percent of our kids qualify for the free lunch program,” says Supt. Keith Higgins of the Wichita County school district. “If there’s no additional money available for us to educate these kids that makes our job that much tougher. Just because the state says it won’t provide us the money doesn’t mean we still don’t have an obligation. It’s our job to provide the best education possible for every student who walks through our doors.”

The governor’s proposal would no longer restrict at-risk money for only at-risk programs. All money would be put into the same pool.

“All you’re doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money has to come from somewhere if you’re going to maintain these programs,” says Higgins.

State Funding Frozen

Another major flaw which administrators are concerned with is that the level of state aid will remain frozen at $4,492. The only way for a district to get additional money from the state is through higher enrollment.

In many districts with declining enrollment, the only way they could keep pace with rising costs for utilities, salaries, etc., is by increasing the local option budget.

“And for many small, rural districts without a significant tax base, that will put a huge burden on local property owners - if they approve an increase in the LOB,” says Dighton Supt. Joel Applegate. “It’s one thing to put that added burden on property taxes in Johnson County or even Sedgwick County. But you’re pretty limited in how much money you can raise in Lane County.”

Simply telling districts they have the ability to increase their funding through the LOB isn’t the solution, says Wilson. And he doesn’t feel that will keep the issue from going to the courts.

“The Administration seems to think this plan will avoid litigation, but I don’t see that being the case unless they can make the case this will meet the essential standards laid out by the courts calling for fair and equitable education for all students. From what I’ve seen in this, I don’t think that’s possible.

“This looks like smoke and mirrors to me,” he says.

Wilson emphasizes that the issue should be closely watched by all Kansans - especially voters.

“Our responsibility will come in November,” he says. “We’re the ones who put these people into office. If we don’t like what they’re doing; if we don’t like what’s happening to funding for our schools, then it’s up to us to make that known during the election.

“And it also pays to write a letter and make a phone call. Your legislators need to know what you think,” he added.