Legislators object to Gov. Kelly’s veto of school finance provision | Commentary

Every headline in newspapers across the state should shout, “Gov. Kelly cuts funding for schools.”

Why? Because she effectively slashed $5 million in additional school funding.

Clearly, the Kelly/Toland Administration does not believe that money should be directed toward the student.

By the careless action of line-item vetoing Section 14 of SB 113, we are spending millions of our tax dollars to fund empty seats.

Notice to the governor: funding empty seats will not improve student achievement, with only 9% of our at-risk 10th graders proficient in math and only 14% proficient in English language arts.

It is also important to note that with Gannon funding increases, Kansas will be increasing K-12 funding by over $225 million next school year.

This hefty increase will give 276 of 286 school districts substantial increases in funding, regardless of declining enrollments. This would have been the effect without the administration’s veto, which did not take in consideration all aspects of the complex funding formula that already protects rural schools by providing double the student weighting for schools losing enrollment.

What is not being said is how truly unfortunate the governor’s veto is for our many growing school districts.

Section 14 represents a fair and practical adjustment in the funding formula — ensuring school districts receive funding for real students, not for empty seats.

Kansans should encourage the growth that is occurring in our schools and communities. Unfortunately, by sticking with the old formula, as the Kelly/Toland administration wishes, school districts will remain limited to computing enrollment based on the highest enrollment of the two previous years, a time when schools were faced with record-low enrollment due to the pandemic.

This will place undue strain on districts needing to hire additional teachers to accommodate enrollment growth. The changes in SB 113 would allow schools to use the highest enrollment from the previous year or the current year. Since the formula provides current-year weightings, e.g., virtual public schools, transportation, special education, at-risk, etc., it seems appropriate to fund real students, not phantom students, while also giving schools stability by allowing the highest numbers from two options.

It is also unfortunate that Kansas Association of School Boards, who had full access to SB 113 with the amendments to the enrollment provisions since April 8, has done everything in their power to champion an education veto. The governor joins with comments about “lack of transparency” or “hasty legislation,” which in fact are inaccurate on both accounts.

All subject provisions in the conference committee report were vetted in committee through hearings on individual bills.

Back to KASB, we have one simple question: how can 116 districts who are losing $23.7 million able to justify paying dues to an organization that just cost them millions of dollars and is not interested in funding real students in real-time seats? It’s shockingly uncharacteristic for KASB to bully the governor into cutting funding for schools when their entire existence is built on getting schools more money. If money makes the difference they say it does, why are they celebrating a $5 million cut to Kansas schools?

Bottom line, policy decisions are the sole responsibility of the Legislature.

From the legislative perspective, SB 113 was overwhelmingly approved on April 28 with votes of 83-37 in the House and 26-13 in the Senate. Coupling funding with policy continues to be the Legislature’s prerogative and ensures greater accountability and transparency between schools and the Legislature, which is representing the Kansas taxpayers.