Proposed new school-finance formula is flawed

A proposed new school-finance formula has some interesting ideas, but is flawed and impractical and shouldn’t be rushed into place.

Less than a week after the Legislature voted to scrap the state’s long-standing school-funding formula and replace it with block grants, Senate Education Committee Chairman Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City, unveiled a new formula idea. His plan would fund schools based on six main categories: enrollment, poverty, sparsity, equalization, pensions and success.

The new formula initially would apply only to the state’s six “innovation” school districts: Hugoton, Concordia, Marysville, McPherson, Blue Valley and Kansas City, Kan. The next year it could expand to 100 additional districts; it would apply to all districts in fiscal year 2018.

The proposal’s emphasis on success is interesting and raises an important point: A goal of education is to help people succeed in life, not just pass achievement tests. But it would create other problems.

Districts would receive “success” ratings based on the number of graduates who within two years earned an industry certification, completed basic military training, enrolled in a third consecutive semester at a college or worked at a job earning an income of at least 250 percent of the poverty level ($29,425).

How are districts supposed to keep track of all their graduates, many of whom may move to other communities or out of state? That could be a data-collection nightmare, and a potential invasion of privacy. Are they really responsible for the life choices and income their graduates make? Would districts be punished if an economic downturn or a depressed local economy didn’t provide many jobs that paid a 20-year-old at least $29,425? Is someone who earns less money not a “success”?

Abrams’ attempt to make his formula straightforward and predictable disconnects funding from actual costs. For example, it would base enrollment funding on the previous year’s student count, not current enrollment. It also would eliminate extra funding for bilingual students, who can be more costly to teach.

The bill would not provide “at risk” funding based on the number of low-income students in a district. Instead, it would use U.S. Census data to determine poverty rates. But the demographics of students enrolled in a district may be significantly different from the overall population – particularly, as in Wichita’s case, when there are private schools that may attract higher-income students.

Why not provide funding based on the actual number of students enrolled in the current school year and their actual demographics?

The proposed formula also would lift the cap on local funding of schools, which could result in increased property taxes and increased funding disparities between wealthy and poorer school districts. That could invite more court intervention – as would a shift away from actual costs.

Give Abrams credit for thinking creatively and for launching an important discussion. But as one person who testified this week observed, the proposal is not ready for prime time.

For the editorial board, Phillip Brownlee

This story was originally published March 25, 2015 at 7:06 PM with the headline "Proposed new school-finance formula is flawed."