Kansas school officials speak in opposition to block-grant funding bill

School officials from Wichita and around the state voiced strong opposition Monday to a bill that would overhaul the state’s school finance system, saying it would reduce accountability and hamper districts’ ability to provide services to students.

The House Appropriations Committee convened the first hearing Monday on HB 2403, which would put state aid for school districts into flexible block grants. It and an identical Senate bill were introduced last week by Republican lawmakers.

Jim Freeman, the chief financial officer of the Wichita school district, cautioned lawmakers against acting hastily on the legislation.

The Senate budget committee will hold a hearing on its bill Tuesday. Either chamber could vote on the bill as early as this week if either committee advances it.

The bill would give the Wichita school district about $7.8 million less for the current year than it expected when it passed its budget last summer – or $4.8 million less than it expects now after a cut ordered by the governor went into effect last weekend.

The bill would give districts greater flexibility to shift and spend funds, which under the current system are supposed to be spent on specific purposes. Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said last week this flexibility should ensure that no districts have to cut a single planned expense.

But Freeman suggested the flexibility could eliminate transparency. He said the bill would enable the district to spend its health insurance reserve on salaries or use its textbook fund to pay its electric bills. He questioned whether that was the best idea.

Cynthia Lane, the superintendent of Kansas City, Kan., schools, made a similar point. She said that the block grant disconnects the money from accountability. She also said that the block grant, which would tie funding levels to current appropriations, would cap resources and only give districts flexibility in deciding what to cut.

‘Quit micromanaging’

Wichita Republicans pushed back on the notion that the block grant bill would prevent districts from meeting their needs.

“I’m trying to figure out why you don’t trust your school board,” Rep. Mark Hutton, R-Wichita, said.

He asked Freeman whether he trusted the Wichita school board to spend funds responsibly if it was given more flexibility, and Freeman said he did.

Rep. Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, the committee’s chairman and a co-author of the bill, said the intent of the bill was to show trust in local school boards and for the state “to quit micromanaging.”

In a meeting with reporters, he also contended that the bill, which sets fixed costs for education through the 2016-17 school year, would give lawmakers more clarity as they work on balancing the state’s budget.

“We’ll have certainty there. Then we’ll try to balance the budget from that point,” Ryckman said. “This will solidify half of our expenditures so we can then have the debate over dealing with revenue.”

Questioning the formula

Rep. Gene Suellentrop, R-Wichita, questioned a representative from the Kansas Association of School Boards about how districts could say they were underfunded when overall spending has increased by an annual average of 6 percent since 1992.

“What is enough?” Suellentrop said. “Where’s the end? How much do we owe?”

Mike O’Neal, former speaker of the Kansas House and president of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, was a member of the Legislature when the state developed the current school finance formula, which he voted against. He said it had “outlived its usefulness” and had produced results “that border on the absurd.”

O’Neal pointed out that affluent communities in Johnson County receive aid meant to help poor districts, while some communities in rural Kansas do not.

“You have an extraordinary opportunity here to fix that,” O’Neal told the committee. “And to get back to the core principles of educating children.”

The only other groups supporting the legislation were the tea party group Kansans for Liberty and the Kansas Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes free-market ideas.

Kansans for Liberty submitted written testimony in support.

Districts consulted

No school districts spoke in favor of the bill. No districts from Johnson County, the state’s most populous county, testified for or against the legislation. Shawnee Mission’s superintendent has conditionally backed it.

Masterson and Ryckman said last week they consulted with multiple school districts when drafting the legislation. Masterson said Monday that that comment was not meant to insinuate they had whole-hearted support from districts on every aspect of the bill.

“Short of spending hundreds of millions of more dollars, we’re probably not going to get significant buy-in from the districts as seen by history,” Masterson told reporters in his office Monday.

Masterson and Ryckman had been scheduled to take questions from reporters about the bill at a briefing. But the House GOP staff said the comments would be off the record, and reporters from The Eagle, the Associated Press and other newspapers said they would not attend.

Masterson later expressed confusion, saying he had not said the conversation needed to be off the record. He and Ryckman then answered questions in his office for 20 minutes.

No new programs?

Cheryl Semmel, president of the United School Administrators of Kansas, said the bill discourages districts from adopting new educational programs. Supporters of the bill say it is only meant to be a temporary measure lasting two years. But opponents say it does not include a sunset clause, meaning that if it passes, it would remain law until lawmakers passed a new bill.

Because the bill does not increase funding proportionally with inflation, districts would hesitate before adopting new programs, opponents said.

“There is no certainty,” Semmel said. “Why put a program in place when in two years you don’t know if you’ll be able to fund it?”

The bill does create an extraordinary need fund, which districts could receive to counteract unforeseen consequences from the bill. The State Finance Council, which includes the governor and legislative leaders, would decide whether districts qualified.

Rep. Don Hill, R-Emporia, called this provision the “don’t worry, be happy” section and complained that it is “squishy” and “broadly defined,” making it unclear whether districts would have their needs covered.

This story was originally published March 9, 2015 at 12:40 PM with the headline "Kansas school officials speak in opposition to block-grant funding bill."