There were hearings on Sen. Abrams’ proposed school funding plan earlier this week. We agree with the assessment in this editorial.
“Districts would receive ‘success’ ratings based on the number of graduates who within two years earned an industry certification, completed basic military training, enrolled in a third consecutive semester at a college or worked at a job earning an income of at least 250 percent of the poverty level ($29,425).
“How are districts supposed to keep track of all their graduates, many of whom may move to other communities or out of state? That could be a data-collection nightmare, and a potential invasion of privacy. Are they really responsible for the life choices and income their graduates make? Would districts be punished if an economic downturn or a depressed local economy didn’t provide many jobs that paid a 20-year-old at least $29,425? Is someone who earns less money not a ‘success’?
“Abrams’ attempt to make his formula straightforward and predictable disconnects funding from actual costs. For example, it would base enrollment funding on the previous year’s student count, not current enrollment. It also would eliminate extra funding for bilingual students, who can be more costly to teach.
“The bill would not provide ‘at risk’ funding based on the number of low-income students in a district. Instead, it would use U.S. Census data to determine poverty rates. But the demographics of students enrolled in a district may be significantly different from the overall population – particularly, as in Wichita’s case, when there are private schools that may attract higher-income students.
“Why not provide funding based on the actual number of students enrolled in the current school year and their actual demographics?
“The proposed formula also would lift the cap on local funding of schools, which could result in increased property taxes and increased funding disparities between wealthy and poorer school districts. That could invite more court intervention – as would a shift away from actual costs.”
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article16317305.html