The real world of school funding
By Rod Haxton, editor of The Scott County Record
There are two political worlds in which we live.
There’s the world where we can deport nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants, tax cuts will always (always!) lead to balanced budgets and no one would be crazy enough to elect Donald Trump president.
And there’s reality.
It would probably scare the bejesus out of us if we knew how few in America are living in the latter.
In Kansas, we have ultraconservatives in the governor’s office and in the legislature who are creating their own reality when it comes to the state budget, the courts, expanding Medicaid, welfare assistance and, of course, public education. That was on display during a recent town hall meeting when Sen. Mitch Holmes (R-St. John) defended state funding – or lack of – for K-12 education.
Holmes is puzzled as to why the state could provide about $950 million for public education in 1992, increase that to just over $4 billion in 2015, and yet schools are still complaining about being underfunded.
Holmes also likes to claim that the courts have given their stamp of approval to how much local property tax support (i.e., local option budget) meets an acceptable standard of equitable funding. Kansas school districts can place an additional levy on property taxes that amounts to between 25 and 33 percent of the general fund budget. In Scott County, for example, a 30 percent LOB levy amounts to $1.5 million.
We admit that the funding of education in Kansas is complicated. We can understand why most people might be confused about how funds are redistributed to local schools.
But willful ignorance by our state legislators is inexcusable.
Two areas, in particular, seem to have created the most confusion for Sen. Holmes.
First of all, we agree that state spending for public education has increased significantly over the past 25 years. That’s attributable to many factors – more students, more students with special needs (at-risk, English as a Second Language, etc.), new building construction, and higher operating costs (transportation, health insurance, utilities, salaries, etc.), just to name a few.
This isn’t news to anyone who operates a business or manages a household.
The old finance formula addressed these needs but we had too many state lawmakers, like Holmes, who felt it was far too complicated for them to understand. A much easier concept for them to grasp is to freeze school spending for a two year period with a block grant program and pretend that operating costs won’t increase during that time.
Of course, it’s not based on reality, but it’s simple and with too many of our legislators we have to keep things very simple.
Holmes is right when he says the acceptable level of local funding – whether it be a 25 percent or 33 percent LOB – is not written into the constitution.
What he ignores is that the LOB has been an escape clause for the legislature to avoid doing its job. Rather than increase funding at the state level to keep pace with rising costs, the legislature has instead given local districts the option of increasing the burden on its taxpayers.
When it was initiated in 1992, the primary intent of the LOB was to allow a district to make one-time purchases or to do things which go above and beyond everyday operations.
Over the years, the LOB has gone from paying for extras to a necessary component required to fill the funding gap between what the state is providing and what is actually needed.
Today, the LOB helps pay for staff salaries and programs essential for a school district.
Sen. Holmes is mistaken if he thinks this process has been given a constitutional green light by the courts. Quite to the contrary, this is one of the issues at the heart of the ongoing court battle.
If Sen. Holmes would bother to read the history of school funding in Kansas rather than his Republican talking points, he would realize that when the finance plan was adopted in 1992 it was a concerted effort by the legislature to meet the state constitution’s definition of equity. It had continued to evolve over time in order to maintain equity to the best of our ability.
Over the years, however, the concept of equity has been lost in the legislature’s desire to walk away from its funding obligations. The LOB has also provided wealthier districts with the ability to raise significantly more money than districts without the same property tax base or economic development.
In other words . . . and Sen. Holmes, you may want to pay particular attention to this . . . the funding gap between the haves and the have-nots has continued to grow. And that means students with the benefit of that additional funding have a huge advantage over students from poorer districts.
This is the equity issue to which the constitution refers and which the courts have repeatedly asked the legislature to remedy.
And here is where Holmes’ understanding of school finance becomes even more troubling. During a recent town hall he claims that he has “never supported increasing local funding for schools. Me and all rural legislators have voted against increasing the local option budget.”
That’s an interesting comment and even Dale Dennis, Deputy Commissioner of Education at the Kansas State Department of Education, is confused as to what votes Sen. Holmes is referring to.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that you get your wish, Sen. Holmes. LOB funding is eliminated. You’ve just eliminated $1,061,277,923 in LOB money that Kansas schools need to keep their doors open.
What now?
Or perhaps it means we must all live in the ultraconservative world where underfunding all Kansas schools satisfies the new definition of “equity.”
Sorry, Sen. Holmes, that’s not a place where I choose to live.
Rod Haxton can be reached at editor@screcord.com