Public Education, School Finance, and the November 8 Election (part 1)
In October, the governor made a statewide request for public feedback regarding a new school finance plan. Just to refresh people’s memory, in the 2015 legislative session, the school finance formula dating back to 1992 was replaced with a “block grant” funding system. What this did was to essentially give public schools the same amount of money for a two-year period of time regardless of changes in student enrollment and composition. The reason that was given for this change was that the old formula was “too hard to understand” and it created problems for the legislature to plan for allocating money for public schools. With the 2017 legislature scheduled to develop a new finance plan and an election taking place right around the corner, it is important for the public to consider public school finance and the 2016 election.
When it comes to the governor making the request for public input regarding a new school funding formula there are a couple of angles for the public to consider. Let’s look at the possible angle that there truly is interest in understanding what the public wants in funding our schools such that it is legal, fair, adequate, and it strengthens Kansas public education. Under this assumption, research about educating children would play a significant role. So, from this position, parents and patrons should ask that the new formula contain the following points:
- The foundation of the formula is based on student enrollment. Within this consideration it should be noted that if we are to be fair for ALL of our students then smaller schools should receive additional assistance since they require more money typically to operate. The old finance system took this into account.
- The formula should take into consideration student demographics and the additional money needed to help certain segments of our student population. Here are several examples:
- At-risk students – For so many of our students today, being at-risk means not having learning opportunities that typically non-at-risk families might have. The research on at-risk children is definitive. Included in this research is the fact that large areas of at-risk children (currently called high density areas) have significantly more serious health and social issues and thus cost even more that general at risk areas of children. The old formula took this into account.
- Pre-school education – There are several needs under this umbrella.
- Pre-School for 3 & 4-year-old students – The research again is very clear, early childhood programs make a difference for at-risk children. Currently there is some money coming in to support 4-year old programs (covering up to 15 students) and pre-school special education programs. If we were to truly honor what is best for at-risk children then we would have universal pre-school opportunities for all at-risk students, 3 and 4 years of age.
- Parents as Teachers (PAT) education– It used to be that the state gave money for PAT programs to serve any family though the amount of money many times limited the actual number that could be served. It is a great program that helps so many young parents to understand how to help their young child. Under the current state leadership, the rules have changed to where a family has to meet a defined criteria in order to participate in the program. This was an economic decision rather than one that is best for children. (By the way, this is not part of the old or current funding formula but should be protected and expanded)
- Special education students –Services for special education students is a federal requirement. The federal government pays for about 19% of this cost for Kansas students. The state is supposed to cover 92% of the excess costs above what the federal government provides. Then school districts are to pay the remaining portion of expenses (about 8%). It is rare that this 92% of excess costs is actually met by the state. Thus, local dollars cover what the state does not cover. At a minimum, the state should meet the 92% of excess costs requirement.
- Section 504 student costs – Again, this is a federal requirement for which a school district does not receive any money to provide for the special needs of children that fall under this program. The state or federal government should consider the actual costs of this requirement and contribute to these costs.
- Bi-lingual student costs – We are seeing a growing population of students who either do not speak or have difficulty with the English language. It is a misconception that these students are “illegal” immigrant children. While some might be, the vast majority are legal immigrants that need extra help to meet the educational requirements of our state. The old formula took this into account.
- After school programs – So many of our parents today work and thus are not home when school is dismissed. Some would say that is the parent’s problem. However, if we are considering what is best for children, we should come to grips with the fact that for many parents the workplace does not pay enough for one parent to remain in the home any longer. Further, an increasing number of children are being raised in single parent homes. Providing a safe, educationally rich place for students to have care after school should be a serious consideration in a new school finance system. By the way, this used to be something districts could afford to do before school funding cuts.
- Summer programs – Again, while there are still some summer programs around, budget cuts eliminated many of these learning opportunities for struggling students.
- A new formula should take into account secondary level, non-at-risk education and other school related programs that have extra costs associated with them. Here are some examples:
- Vocational-technical programs – More and more parents are coming to understand that vocational training means a good income and future for our children. If we were to do this right, a concerted effort would be made to help students to attend an accredited, technical school while still in high school.
- Professional development – This used to be funded by the state before the cuts to education. As the state and federal governments require more and higher expectations of teachers and students, professional training is key to meeting these expectations.
- Last, I am a believer that there should be state assistance for capital outlay spending by schools. There is a large disparity between what one mill provides for school districts across the state. Yet the cost for a roof, boiler, or a school bus all keep rising. These expenses hit less wealthy districts disproportionately because of this wealth disparity. State assistance in this area keeps money in classrooms.
The deadline for submission of public comments is November 30. Comments are to be sent to StudentsFirst@ks.gov. Early next week I will post my final draft of my letter to the governor on the USD 417 website. I encourage any and all parents and patrons to support public education and forward your school finance thoughts and/or concerns to the StudentsFirst@ks.gov.