• KNEA Legislative Agenda
• Legislative Issues
• Legislative Week in Review
• School Funding Central
• State Board News
• Take Action Now (LAC)
• Under the Dome Today

January 23-27, 2006

This week’s links:

The Legislative Education Planning Committee Report: 20 pages of discussion and recommendations from the joint House/Senate Committee that makes legislative recommendations to the regular education committees. Click here.

The Kansas Alliance for Education: The Kansas Alliance for Education (KAE) is a nonpartisan grassroots organization formed in 2005 for the purpose of promoting the election of candidates to the Kansas State Board of Education who support quality education for all Kansas children. Click here.

House Education Committees begin LPA discussion

Unlike the Senate, the House has divided school policy from school finance into two committees. The House Education Committee considers issues of policy while the House Select Committee on School Finance considers issues of funding. Representative Kathe Decker (R-Clay Center ) chairs both committees.

This week the House began its discussion of the Legislative Post Audit Cost Study on school funding. They are still deep in the learning phase.  

Special education up first

Wednesday they took up the LPA analysis of special education funding and Mark Desetti was there to testify for KNEA. Said Desetti,

“We believe the Legislative Post Audit has done an excellent job of reviewing special education costs in Kansas and that they have correctly identified some problems with the way excess costs are calculated. In a system that strives to put each and every child in the general education classroom to the greatest extent possible, backing out the funding provided for general education purposes ignores the reality of the costs to the general education program. We cannot look at special education students as if they are separate from the general education population.”

Under the LPA analysis, funding for general education was put back into the calculation thus driving up the cost of special education overall. But the analysis depended on the current percentage of reimbursement from the state (89.3% in ’05-’06; 92% in ’06-’07). The amount of money recommended was based on a reimbursement of 89.3% of the newly identified money. It is a larger amount overall but still not 100% of the excess costs. Desetti told the committee that special education “is a calculable, known cost as was pointed out in the Court case. The legislature should continue to discuss fully funding special education excess costs.”

Vocational education next

Thursday was vocational education day and once again Desetti was there to testify.

On the vocational weighting, the LPA looked at costs from a purely mathematical position. First they looked at what districts reported to the State Department as vocational education and then they asked the school districts to tell them everything else including the cost of any new facilities directly related to vocational education. With those numbers in, they looked at total spending in each of the 21 districts surveyed and found the median level of expenditure. They then proposed a per pupil expenditure based on that median level. A weighting based on that median was calculated for comparison purposes.

Desetti told the committee that while this might make sense mathematically, it likely would hurt some vocational programs. Noting a wide variation of expenditures in various categories such as supplies, student-teacher ratios, and facilities, Desetti suggested that the state examine “why there would be such wide variations.” He told the committee,

“I imagine that the answer lies within the broad array of programs that fall into the vocational education umbrella. I would like to know what the difference is in pupil teacher ratio between an auto body program and a foods program. I would like to know the difference in supply costs between foods and business. What is the impact of facilities costs on growing school districts with student populations and communities that demand vocational programs and those of school districts with stable populations.”

Desetti concluded, “We would urge this committee to examine why cost variations are so broad within vocational programs. Until you know that, applying a median to the establishment of a weighting might not be the best approach.”

Finally, an overview

On Friday the Education Committee convened to hear from the auditors themselves. This was the beginning of what will likely be several sessions to explain the report and answer legislators’ individual questions.

Senate Education Committee reviews LEPC report; takes up standards reviews; talks to the Regents

The Senate Education Committee was busy this week beginning on Tuesday with a review of the report of the Legislative Education Planning Committee (LEPC).   The LEPC is a joint House/Senate committee that meets between legislative sessions to review education issues and make recommendations to the regular education committees.

The Legislative Educational Planning Committee recommended 11 bills for introduction during the 2006 Session. The legislation would:

• Increase the interval for State Board of Education review of curriculum standards from every three years to every seven years (Senate Bill 329);
• Delete the penalty for withdrawal of funds within one year of establishment of a Learning Quest account (Senate Bill 330);
• Expand the tax deduction for college savings accounts to include out-of-state programs (House Bill 2573);
• Allow the Board of Regents to contract for health insurance or the services of a health maintenance organization for students at the state universities (Senate Bill 332);
• Remove the $25,000 limit under which the Director of Purchases may delegate authority to any state agency to make purchases, thereby authorizing delegation at any amount (Senate Bill 333);
• Amend the concurrent enrollment statutes to allow gifted students in ninth and tenth grades to participate and to add technical colleges to the list of eligible institutions (House Bill 2575);
• Authorize the state universities to purchase insurance other than health insurance independently of the Committee on Surety Bonds and Insurance and state purchasing statutes (Senate Bill 332);
• Authorize the Board of Regents and state universities to sell property acquired by bequest without the approval of the Legislature (House Bill 2574);
• Align various statutes with the Private and Out-of-State Postsecondary Institutions Act (passed during the 2004 Legislative Session) (House Bill 2572);
• Require that a technical college which does not comply with statutes or regulations concerning its governing body shall revert back to a vocational school and may not offer any classes leading to an academic degree (Senate Bill 331); and
• Clarify recent statutory amendments to the Board of Regents’ retirement plan (Senate Bill 375).

The LEPC report contains summaries of discussions in a wide variety of areas including the so-called 65% solution, virtual schools, high school reform, state assessments, the Standard and Poor’s efficiency study, vouchers, state university facility needs, and concurrent enrollment. If you want to read the report, go to “This Week’s Links.”

Members of the LEPC are Sen. Jean Schodorf (Chair), Rep. Kathe Decker (Vice-Chair), Senators Marci Francisco, Roger Pine, Mark Taddiken, Ruth Teichman, and John Vratil and Representatives Barbara Ballard, John Faber, Deena Horst, Steve Huebert, Eber Phelps, and Jo Ann Pottorff.

Curriculum standard review change proposed

Up for discussion in the Senate Education Committee was Senate Bill 329. This bill would change standards review from a three-year cycle to a seven-year cycle. Unfortunately the bill also strikes language that says Kansas curriculum standards must be “equal to the best standards.” KNEA supports the change in the cycle but opposes the language deletion.

KNEA lobbyist Terry Forsyth told the committee, ”One reason for our outstanding success on the National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP is that our standards are among the best.”

While the deletion does not, by itself, lower standards, it opens the door the possibility of lower student learning standards. Said Forsyth, “That’s a path we don’t want to take. It would be bad for our students and it would be bad for our state.”

The hearing will continue later.

Activities rule bill swims out of Senate

The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee voted to send SB 317 to the full Senate for consideration. The bill allows swimmers to participate and train simultaneously on a high school swim team and on a competitive club team sanctioned by United States Swimming. The rules of the Kansas State High School Activities Association (KSHSAA) prohibit student athletes from training or competing in club sports during a high school season. For example, a high school wrestler cannot train with a non-school wrestling club during wrestling season. Senate Bill 317 applies only to swimming. The prohibition would still stand for all other sports.

The bill passed the full Senate on a vote of 33-7 on Thursday.

Regents oppose TABOR, repeal of immigrant tuition bill

Reggie Robinson, President and CEO of the State Board of Regents, gave the Senate Education Committee an overview of Regents issues in the 2006 session. Most notable among Robinson’s remarks were two things that the Regents will oppose this year.

TABOR – the Regents officially oppose the passage of tax and expenditure limits such as the so-called Taxpayers Bill of Rights. KNEA is working to defeat this legislation as well. To read more on TABOR, visit the website of the Coalition for a Prosperous Kansas by clicking here. KNEA is a member of the Coalition.

Changes to HB 2145, the immigrant tuition bill – Last year the legislature passed a bill providing that the children of undocumented workers who have attended a Kansas high school for at least three years and graduated from a Kansas high school or received a GED in Kansas would be eligible for in-state tuition at public post-secondary institutions. This legislation was supported by the Regents as well as KNEA, KASB, and a number of school districts throughout the state. An effort is underway this year to reverse that action. It should be noted that the law was challenged in federal court and the lawsuit was thrown out.

House Bill 2615 was introduced by Rep. Becky Hutchins (R-Holton). It would strip these children of in-state tuition. HB 2615 will have a hearing in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee next week.

Meanwhile, in Washington, full funding of special education is introduced again

Senators Hagel and Harkin have reintroduced legislation to fully fund IDEA (special education). Of particular interest to Kansans – Senator Pat Roberts is signed on as a co-sponsor! Unfortunately, Senator Sam Brownback is not on board. Click here to send a message to Senator Roberts.

KNEA Legislative Contacts

Blake West, President
Mark Desetti, Director, Legislative and Political Advocacy
Terry Forsyth, Director, Political Action

The KNEA Lobby Team consists of elected leaders and staff. The Lobby Team welcomes member feedback on issues before the Legislature and on this site.