Kansas school officials speak in opposition to block grant funding bill

School officials from several parts of 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 provided services to students.

The House Appropriations Committee convened the first hearing Monday on legislation that 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 than it expected with its budget it adopted 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, an Andover Republican, 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.

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,” said Rep. Mark Hutton, a Wichita Republican.

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

Rep. Gene Suellentrop, a Wichita Republican, questioned a representative from the Kansas Association of School Boards about how districts could say they were underfunded when overall spending has increased consistently over the past 20 years.

“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.”

James Franko, the vice president of the Kansas Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes free-market policy, also spoke on behalf of the bill. The tea party group Kansans For Liberty submitted written testimony in support.

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.

Since 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 governor and legislative leaders, would decide if districts qualified.

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

This story was originally published March 9, 2015 at 2:36 PM with the headline "Kansas school officials speak in opposition to block grant funding bill."