by Ed Trimmer, State Representative, 79th District — On the last day of the regular session, the Kansas House and Senate passed an education equalization formula.  The Governor recently signed it.  The legislative process was rushed and confusing.  The final result was a plan that I believe makes little sense.  The Supreme Court will begin hearings on May 10 and a great many educators and others believe they will not accept the new formula as constitutional.

Ed Trimmer

The need for a new funding formula came as a result of the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling that Governor Brownback’s block grant funding formula was unconstitutional.  It took legislative leadership about three months to finally act on school finance.  Only after repeated condemnation from the press and school supporters for the apparent lack of action, was something finally done.

Two days before the end of the regular session, a finance formula was amended into an unrelated bill in conference committee.  Through a parliamentary move, the two Democrats on the conference committee were denied a vote.  Since the bill was sent back to the House and Senate as a conference committee report, legislators could not amend the bill and could only vote yes or no.  At no time were any members of the House allowed input, except for the two Republican members of the conference committee. 

Because the bill had not been thoroughly vetted, many members of the House and Senate did not see the contents of the bill nor were they briefed on it until one day before the end of the session.  This allowed virtually no time for legislators to contact their local school districts for any input.  I believe this is a very poor way to legislate and for that reason alone, I voted NO.

The bill dealt with the two equalization issues that the court ruled unconstitutional under Governor Brownback’s block grant model.  Once I saw the contents of the bill, I had even more reason to vote NO.  I also had more reason to believe that this was not an honest attempt to resolve the equity issue.

The Good

The first part of the funding formula, that was changed, was the equalization of money designated for capital improvements.  The bill returned to the original equalization formula that was used before the block grant funding model.  This part of the bill made sense and did help schools that had lost money under the block grant.  It was also part of the pre-block grant, funding model that was ruled constitutional and to which many legislators, including myself, would like to return.

The Bad

 The second part of the current formula for equalization, which court ruled unconstitutional, was the calculation related to the Local Option Budget (LOB).  The LOB allows schools to increase local taxes up to 30 percent of the budget they receive from the state.  To make this calculation fair, poor schools are given money from the state and wealthy schools must pay in some money from what they raise locally to provide all students an equal opportunity.

This formula was changed in 2013 to meet a court ruling and then immediately altered again in 2014 under the Governor’s block grant, which made it unconstitutional once again.  Under the new plan, that the Governor just signed, the LOB formula was changed yet again to make it even more unfair and unconstitutional.  To avoid significant losses to school districts, this year’s bill had a hold harmless clause to give back to schools what they lost in the new LOB formula. The fact that a “hold harmless” clause was deemed necessary, suggests that the new LOB calculation has problems.

I would like to borrow a very simple and clear explanation of this new plan from Duane Goosen, former Republican House Appropriations Chair and former budget director for Governors Graves, Sebelius and Parkinson.  It is the same as having three school districts, two that get $100 and one that gets $50.  To be equal you could give all schools $100 but Kansas is broke and can’t afford it, so the new formula takes away money and gives all schools $50.  Because this is unfair to many schools, the authors of the bill then gave the $50 the two schools lost back to them and held them “harmless”.   So, there are now the same two schools that receive $100 and  the same one that receives $50.  In other words, nothing has really changed in what schools receive.  Which begs the question, how does this equalize school funding?

What really concerns me is that if by some chance the Supreme Court does accept this new approach, schools would be at risk if there isn’t a perpetual “hold harmless” effort every year.  If not, here is what each school in Cowley and Sumner Counties would lose: (Figures from the Kansas State Department of Education)

Cowley:                       Local Option Budget Loss       Capital Imp. Gain         Total Loss

Burden Central                         -$129,589                    +$17,280                     -$112,309

Udall                                        -$206,438                    +$14,687                     -$191,751

Winfield                                   -$571,881                    +$164,626                   -$407,256

Arkansas City                           -$383,843                    +$51,508                     -$332,335

Dexter                                      -$31,423                      +16,970                       -$14,453

Sumner:                       Local Option Budget Loss       Capital Imp. Gain         Total Loss

Wellington                               -$349,018                    +$164,453                   -$184,565

Conway Springs                       -$135,100                    +$49,413                     -$85,687

Belle Plaine                              -$118,039                    +$38,894                     -$79,145

Oxford                                     +$67,172                     +$45,956                     +113,128

Argonia                                    -$73,952                      $0                                -$73,952

Caldwell                                  -$143,827                    +$10,773                     -$133,054

South Haven                            +$44,602                     +$9,665                       +$54,267

The Ugly

 To make matters more confusing, we were told the new equalization formula is only for one year.  This means that next year, even if the Supreme Court approves this plan (which I doubt), there will still have to be a new finance formula that will have to be approved by the court.  If the idea is to avoid lengthy court fights over education, the legislature should stop playing games and get down to business.  I believe this new funding approach is just a stall tactic to try to get through another election with no real concern as to whether the new formula is constitutional.

 Currently, information is being released that hails this plan as a win-win for all.  Here are the problems with that perception:

• With the “hold harmless” clause, the new LOB formula maintains the same inequality as under the block grant, which was ruled unconstitutional. Without the “hold harmless” clause, the new formula is even more unequal and unfair.  It is hardly a good faith effort to meet the court order.

• The new LOB formula will make it very hard for poor and mid-sized schools to raise needed funds from their local option budgets in the future, while wealthy schools will have a much easier time, creating even more disparity.

• Since the new funding formula is for one year only, the Supreme Court will very likely not accept this as an honest attempt to meet the constitutional requirement to provide a suitable and equal education in the future?

Schools have not received more funding since Governor Brownback took office and have actually received less money. The new formula does nothing to resolve this issue.

Had more time been taken to produce a reasonable bill and more people, including educators, been involved in the process, the bill might have been a much better product.  Democrats and moderate Republicans who voted against this plan are being criticized for not having a plan of their own.  Unfortunately, Democrats and moderate Republicans were never given an opportunity for input and were actually excluded from the process, intentionally.  Many in the House would like to return to the pre-block grant formula that was constitutional and much less complicated than any plan brought forth to this point. This is likely why House members were not allowed to make amendments to the new plan.

The Governor’s troops are saying the Republicans are the only ones who wanted to solve the school funding issue.  It is important to note that both Democrats and Republicans voted against this new proposal making the opposition bi-partisan.  To say we are the ones who want to shut down schools, is like planning a big dinner, telling us we are not invited, telling us there is no place for us at the table, and then criticizing us for not coming to the dinner.

Follow us on Twitter.