School finance proposal is a simple disaster

Rod Haxton, editor

By Rod Haxton, editor

Gov. Sam Brownback has unveiled his version of a school finance plan that is both complicated and simple.

It’s simple in that it would eliminate all the complicated math that accompanies the current formula’s “weighting” system. No more difficult calculations with transportation costs, at-risk students, English as a Second Language (ESL) students, etc. Whatever your enrollment, take that times $4,492 and you have your general state aid.

That will be true in the first year of the governor’s plan and 10 years from now.

You can imagine the flaw in that, but we’ll continue.

The governor has proposed raising basic state aid to $4,492 from its current level of $3,780. The $4,492 is where state funding would be if the legislature hadn’t cut funding over the past three years to compensate for the recession’s impact on state revenue.

The general fund budget in the Scott County school district is about $560,000 lower now than it was in 2008-09 as a result of state funding cuts. The cumulative effect of reduced state funding over the past three years totals nearly $1.7 million.

On the positive side, the governor’s plan would fund kindergarten students as full-time rather than half-time, as is currently done. That would appear to be a bonus for school districts.

But this is where the simple becomes complicated.

Under the current plan, the Scott County district receives $7,518,178 in state and local funding. Under the governor’s plan the district will receive $7,518,178 in state and local funding. How can that be with the increase in funding for kindergarten students?

Scott County has 86 kindergarten students which, at $1,890 per student, amounts to $162,590 (that represents half the basic state aid without any weighting factors). If these same kindergarten students are to be figured as full-time students at $4,492 each, that should increase state funding by $223,722.

Yet, under the governor’s proposal, there is no increase in funding. So what is the benefit to the district if kindergarten students are calculated as full-time students in terms of school funding? Apparently none.

And what of the additional funding that school districts - especially those in rural areas and Western Kansas - have counted on to cover additional transportation costs and to educate the growing number of ESL students? What of the funding that has been counted on for at-risk students, which currently account for 53 percent of the students in the Scott County school district, 43 percent in Dighton and 59 percent in Leoti?

This money will disappear under the governor’s plan.

What hasn’t disappeared is the need to educate these students, transport them to attendance centers, provide ESL instruction and meet the needs of at-risk students so they have every opportunity at a quality education.

The governor may not feel that sense of obligation. There’s a good chance that he may have similar support among a majority of Republican legislators. But school officials feel differently.

Many school officials are referring to the governor’s proposal as little more than “smoke and mirrors.” They are concerned about the failure to provide funding for bilingual and at-risk students and the added burden this will create for local districts.

Scott County Supt. Bill Wilson says the proposal provides a “very narrow description of the basic education that our students are entitled to. It says you get to come to school and the doors are open. Beyond that, we don’t promise you anything.” The governor’s proposal ignores the fact that “it costs more to educate students with these challenges.”

Don’t tell that to the governor or to legislators whose primary focus is to reduce the cost of education by any means necessary.

The best thing that can be said of the school finance plan for Scott County and 103 other Kansas school districts is that at least they won’t receive less money under the governor’s proposal. But even those districts receiving more money shouldn’t be deceived. In most instances it will be a one-time windfall.

And, as Wichita County Supt. Keith Higgins noted, the $144,565 in added money they would receive only begins to compensate for what the state has failed to provide over the past three years.

The biggest concern for anyone paying attention is that this finance plan would freeze state funding for education forever while the cost of utilities, transportation, salaries, insurance, food service, etc., continue to climb. That means if school districts want to maintain their current level of services - if they want to keep their doors open - then more and more burden will fall upon local taxpayers through higher property taxes.

And this, says the Brownback Administration, should prevent further intervention by the courts.

It remains to be seen how much traction the governor’s proposal will find in a legislature dominated by ultra-conservative thinking. It’s worrisome that the governor and a majority of legislators may share the mindset that we’ve reached our limit on funding education.

At least the governor has proposed a finance plan that’s simple. Delusional, yes. But simple.

Rod Haxton can be reached at editor@screcord.com