By MARK TALLMAN
The 2021 Legislature came through with full funding of the school finance system as recommended by Gov. Laura Kelly, passed by previous Legislatures and approved by the Kansas Supreme Court to address the Gannon lawsuit.
It also added over $50 million to state higher education funding to help ensure Kansas schools receive about $1.3 billion in federal aid to respond to the COVID pandemic.
Actions this session make clear is that legislators will be looking even more closely at results of this funding. More funding means more oversight.
KASB estimates that full funding of the Gannon plan will increase school district base state aid, special education aid and local option budgets (both state aid and local revenues) by $930 million between 2017 and 2023. Total school funding, excluding one-time federal COVID aid, will increase about $1.5 billion. That means K-12 funding will have risen about 24 percent over six years, or twice the rate of inflation.
This increase follows eight years (2009 to 2017) when total school funding increased just 7.4 percent, and base aid, special education aid and local option budgets just one percent, while inflation increased 14 percent. During that time, Kansas per pupil funding fell compared to the U.S. and regional average. Kansas state and national test scores declined, and Kansas has improved less than the national average on graduation rates and postsecondary attainment.
School leaders have blamed past funding cuts for lower student achievement, but with full funding of the Gannon plan, state leaders will be expecting student results to turn around.
Student achievement will almost certainly be lower in the next round of state assessments and other measures due to the COVID pandemic, but Kansas schools are projected to receive nearly $1.3 billion in one-time federal COIVD aid spread over four years.
In short: school leaders have argued for years that more funding was necessary for – and would produce – improved student outcomes. Although educational measures are expected to decline due to the pandemic, claims that funding matters will lose credibility if results do not improve from that new baseline.
The education funding and policy bill passed on the last day of session contains other provisions focused on student results.
It mandates an annual report on education outcomes for children in foster care, including graduation rates, state assessment scores, promotion to the next grade, suspensions and expulsion from school, meeting academic standards and other measures.
It amends current law requiring local school boards to conduct an annual needs assessment of each school in the district by requiring the information obtained from the assessments be used to improve student academic performance, and requires district budgets to allocate funds in a manner reasonably calculated to ensure all students achieve the “Rose capacities,” which are adopted in state law as education goals.
It adds new requirements for state funding for “at risk” students who are having difficulty in school. Districts must show they are using these funds for “evidence-based best practices” and report longitudinal student data on state assessments; Kansas English language proficiency; four-year graduation rates; progress monitoring; norm-referenced tests; criterion-based tests; individualized education program goals; attendance and average ACT composite scores.
It requires a new study in 2023 by the Legislative Post Audit division on how districts are using over $400 million in at-risk aid, including whether districts and the State Board and Department of Education are following state law regarding these programs and trends in academic outcomes of students receiving these services.
It extends the high-density at-risk weighting, which provides additional funding for districts with the highest percentages of low-income students, until 2024 when it will be evaluated based on performance data and audits.
The bill also allows school districts for the first time to use general funding to help pay for college costs of high school students in dual or concurrent enrollment courses as a way to help more lower income students get started on postsecondary education when still in high school.
Other, more controversial parts of the bill were also prompted by those who said they were concerned over results.
Those who successfully pushed for expansion of students eligible for private school scholarships supported by state credits, cited "achievement gaps" between low-income and non-low-income students in public schools. The fact is similar gaps exist in the state accredited private schools -- and the bill added new reporting requirements for private schools participating in the program.
The education bill also imposed new limits on remote learning, based on stated concerns that most students do better in an in-person learning environment.
School boards are now in the process of making important decisions about next year’s budget, programs and staffing, teacher negotiations and use of federal COVID funds. It is critical that districts focus on how increased funding will be used to improve student success, how funding decisions will be evaluated and how districts will make decisions in the future based on that evaluation.
A core value of KASB has always been local decision-making by school boards and their staff, based on community input. More than ever, the state will be watching the results of those decisions.
. . .
Mark Tallman is the associate executive director for advocacy for the Kansas Association of School Boards