From KASB

We’ve been asked: What are the real facts in school funding changes?
KASB received the following comments and questions from a local school newspaper editor.

I’ve read the response to school funding from (the Governor’s spokesperson) Melika Willoughby, as I’m sure you have, and I guess I’m somewhat confused by her explanation about school funding that schools are – or feel they are – entitled to receive.

Question 1) As I read her comments, she makes it sound as though the schools were informed of a potential $53.6 million windfall in LOB and capital outlay money after their budgets were prepared and this is the money that school districts feel the state is not providing.

It’s been my understanding the schools were told they would receive money from the state, which was included in their budgets, and this is the money – not a $53.6 million windfall – districts have been denied this spring.

Answer: School districts budgeted to receive this additional amount of money because that was what the school finance formula said they would receive. Approximately half of this money was for Local Option Budget state aid, and primarily resulted in lower property taxes this year, not additional spending. The rest was for capital outlay state aid, which was higher than expected because districts raised their “matching” local mill levies more than expected after four years when the program was not funded at all.

The net effect is school districts are still receiving more than last year even after the reduction, but had to cut $54 million from what they budgeted to spend in the current year, after contracts for staff and other expenditures were signed.

The Legislature approved higher funding last year in good faith to comply with a Supreme Court order for equitable funding. School districts adopted their budgets in good faith under current law, which turned out to require more funding. Nobody did anything wrong. But failing to provide the additional money meant districts had to cut planned expenditures in the middle of the year.

Question 2) She also makes the argument, as have other Republicans in the legislature, spending for public education is actually at an all-time high.

If that is the case, does that include KPERS and special education funding to schools? If so, what would the state be spending on public education if these figures weren’t part of the overall total and how would that compare with the previous year?

Answer: Yes, public education funding is at an all-time high – and yes, that does include KPERS and special education. It also includes spending on things like food for student meals, local revenues for building costs and bond payments.

To see how funding has changed compared to previous years and how it is expected to change over the next two years under the block grants, KASB has created an interactive tool on our website (available through this link) that provides statewide and individual school district finance information on the portion of district budgets addressed by the block grant bill.

This data shows actual school funding amounts from 2012 through 2014, the amounts both budgeted and reduced in the current year, and the funding appropriated for the next two years. It included the “general” fund amounts districts have received from the state, plus state aid for local option budgets and capital outlay. These three aid programs are combined and “frozen” in the block grants for the next two years. We also included the amount of local property taxes raised for LOB, and estimated what will happen over the next two years. Together, these funds make up the state and local “operating” budgets for districts. Finally, we show the amount districts received for KPERS retirement contributions, which cannot be used for operating costs.

In addition to these total amounts, this tool shows the amount per pupil for the state and for each district, which is then adjusted for inflation based on the 2015 consumer price index.

The bottom line is statewide operating funds per pupil in 2012 were $7,942 (adjusted for inflation), and are expected to be $8,003 in 2017, an increase of less than one-tenth of 1 percent above inflation over five years. During this time, districts have faced a growing number of special needs students and salary and benefits costs that tend to increase more than inflation.

That explains why school districts believe their funding is not keeping up with rising costs and higher expectations for student achievement.