The House has passed a bill (68-50) that amounts to relabeling some local support for public education as “state” support. The Education Conference Committee placed a mandatory 10% LOB provision in SB171. According to KASB, “It would require each district have a local option budget of at least 10 percent, and transfer an amount equal to the 10 percent into the school district general fund as ‘local effort’ to finance a base budget per pupil of $4,264, rather than the current $3,838. Although this will result in a higher base budget, it will not provide any change in the amount of funding any district actually receives. The purpose [is] to provide a higher base amount to help defend the state in the school finance case, and to claim a portion of current ‘local funding’ as ‘state funding’.”
We oppose this type of moving money around and note that the Gannon court predicted this maneuver. In the Gannon Entry of Judgment and Order (which has been stayed while the case is on appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court), the court ordered,
(1) The State of Kansas is hereby enjoined from performing the unconstitutional act of altering, amending, superceding, by-passing, diluting or otherwise changing, directly or collaterally, any portion of the School District Finance and Quality Performance Act, K.S.A. 72-645 et seq., as it existed on July 1, 2012, if the effect of such action would be to abolish, lower, dilute, or delay the revenue that would be derived from the base state aid per pupil set forth by K.S.A. 72-6410(b)(1) of $4492. This order does not apply to the cost of living weighting created by K.S.A. 72-6449.
(2) The State of Kansas is hereby enjoined from performing the unconstitutional act of enacting any appropriation, or directing, modifying or cancelling any transfer, or using any accounting mechanism or other practice that would, will, or may in due course, affect, effect, or fund less than the base student aid per pupil of $4492 set forth in K.S.A. 72-6410(b)(1) as it existed on July 1, 2012, or as subsequently inflation adjusted as set forth in paragraph one of this Order or, otherwise, to unconstitutionally act to modify, change or alter downward the revenue to be received by a school district that would be derived from a base state aid per pupil of $4492 as set forth in K.S.A. (2012) 72-6410(b)(1) or as such inflation adjusted as set forth in paragraph one of this Order exists in the future.
See this article and note Reps. Grosserode and Huebert as supporters of this bill.
We oppose this type of moving money around and note that the Gannon court predicted this maneuver. In the Gannon Entry of Judgment and Order (which has been stayed while the case is on appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court), the court ordered,
(1) The State of Kansas is hereby enjoined from performing the unconstitutional act of altering, amending, superceding, by-passing, diluting or otherwise changing, directly or collaterally, any portion of the School District Finance and Quality Performance Act, K.S.A. 72-645 et seq., as it existed on July 1, 2012, if the effect of such action would be to abolish, lower, dilute, or delay the revenue that would be derived from the base state aid per pupil set forth by K.S.A. 72-6410(b)(1) of $4492. This order does not apply to the cost of living weighting created by K.S.A. 72-6449.
(2) The State of Kansas is hereby enjoined from performing the unconstitutional act of enacting any appropriation, or directing, modifying or cancelling any transfer, or using any accounting mechanism or other practice that would, will, or may in due course, affect, effect, or fund less than the base student aid per pupil of $4492 set forth in K.S.A. 72-6410(b)(1) as it existed on July 1, 2012, or as subsequently inflation adjusted as set forth in paragraph one of this Order or, otherwise, to unconstitutionally act to modify, change or alter downward the revenue to be received by a school district that would be derived from a base state aid per pupil of $4492 as set forth in K.S.A. (2012) 72-6410(b)(1) or as such inflation adjusted as set forth in paragraph one of this Order exists in the future.
See this article and note Reps. Grosserode and Huebert as supporters of this bill.