by Ed Trimmer, state representative of the 79th District — The Kansas Legislature has reached its halfway point and I wanted to share some of my perceptions and also give you an update on where we are with some of the most important issues discussed to date.  I will group the issues by subject area and break my update into several parts that I will send over the next several days.

PART 1 EDUCATION

The Supreme Court Decision on the “Gannon” school funding issue:

The most important education issue to legislators and the public, alike, is the recent Kansas Supreme Court decision regarding school funding.  The court split its decision between two concepts; equity and adequacy of funding.

Two issues were raised in regard to equity.  The court ruled that the elimination of equalized capital outlay funds in 2010, which reduced funding to about 2/3 of Kansas school districts, and the reduction of equalized Local Option Budget (LOB) funding to low valuation districts, created a significant inequity among schools.  The court suggested that if about 129 million dollars would be added to remove these inequities, the finance formula would be constitutional in regard to equity.  The following table shows how much of an increase schools in the 79^th district would receive if the Legislature allocates the full 129 million dollars.

 

School                                     Capital Outlay State Aid        LOB Equalized State Aid

 

Belle Plaine                                         $18,962                                   $244,421

Oxford                                                 $0                                            $122,041

Udall                                                   $0                                            $113,666

Winfield                                              $206,069                                 $664,434

 

Local property taxpayers should be happy about this decision because the increased equalized LOB funds, which would affect all schools in the 79th district, would allow school districts to raise their LOB budgets up to the 30% maximum without raising property taxes and any amount above the 30 percent maximum LOB would have be used to reduce local property taxes.

In regard to adequacy, the court sent the proposed increase to the Base State Aid Per Pupil (BSAPP) back to the lower court for more study, using a Kentucky model, which bases adequacy on more than just “At-Risk” funding.

The legislature could, of course, decide to ignore the court ruling or move funds from other education budget areas but that could result in the court nullifying the LOB altogether which would remove about 25% of school funding statewide.

 

Health Education in Public Schools:

A bill to change the current law on health education has stalled in the House Education Committee at this point.  Current law allows parents to see all curriculum used in a district’s health class.  Parents can also opt their children out of a health program if they choose.  Because of one case of an inappropriate poster in one school, which was dealt with by the local district, the new bill would require all districts to have an opt-in requirement for participation in a health class.  The majority of committee members were not in favor of the bill because of the following issues:

• These courses have been successful in reducing the number of sexually transmitted diseases.  Unfortunately, these diseases still remain a problem in Kansas.  In the first six months of 2013 more that 2000 Kansas children ages 15-19 contracted a sexually transmitted disease.  There is still a need for this information to reach our children.

• The opt-in provision would mean that parents, who do not take an active role in their children’s education, would be less likely to enroll their students in a health class.  Many education and health professionals feel these are the children who are most at risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.  Sex education should be taught at home, but the reality is that in many homes it isn’t.

 

Common Core Standards:

A bill has been heard in committee and there were more than seventy conferees, about half in favor of elimination of the standards and half against.  I believe most of the comments against the common core standards, while well meaning, were based on misinformation provided by a few interest groups.  The following is a list of arguments against the standards and what I believe are the reasons why the majority of the committee currently opposes elimination of the standards.  I believe these reasons are why the same legislation failed in the House last session.

• Opponents of the common core standards believe they are a federal mandate.  Common core standards were created by the Association of State Governors and the Council of State Education officers.  Kansas was a voting member of this compact and has created its own standards called Kansas College and Career Readiness Standards.  Kansas is also creating its own assessments.  The “No Child Left Behind” program was a federal mandate, which is why states decided to create an alternative.

• Opponents argue that states can opt-out of the standards.  That is true and that is why they are not a federal mandate.

• Opponents argue that the standards are too low and not rigorous enough.  All educational professionals, from whom we heard, believe the standards would be more rigorous.  They also believe the standards allow teachers the freedom to teach concepts and not just answers to test questions.  The standards allow for project based learning which Finland uses effectively and is why they top the charts on international assessments.

• Opponents argue that the standards will take away local control.  Local districts are allowed to establish the curriculum, select textbooks, and determine how the standards would be incorporated into their curriculum.  The federal No Child Left Behind program forced all districts to teach to the same test.

• Opponents argue that certain stories about alternative lifestyles and sex education would be mandated.  None of the currently adopted standards require the use of any specific materials. That is up to each district.  The standards focus on comprehension skills, math skills, science discovery skills and social science concepts.

• Opponents argue that students would only study test questions.  The tests have not been written at this point, but will not be multiple choice as the “No Child Left Behind” program requires.

• Opponents argue that the common core standards are a vehicle for the federal government to gather individual student information.  No new reports to the federal government are required and all data is sent as aggregate data.  No individual student would be identified.  The bill would make it impossible for educational institutions in Kansas to send transcripts to any out of state college or entity.

In addition, common core standards have been embraced by the U.S. Military and most corporations, because they would help schools standardize concepts from state to state at each grade level. This would benefit students who move from district to district.  For example, if the math concepts of division are taught at one grade level in all schools a student who moves from one school to another or one state to another would not miss out on learning these concepts.  The local district would still control how these concepts would be taught.

My next update will include but may not be limited to discussion of the Religious Freedom bill, the Spanking bill, and the Renewable Portfolio Energy Standards bill.