A House panel quickly shelved Gov. Laura Kelly’s school finance plan Thursday, moving its own alternative that faces questions about whether it will comply with a Supreme Court ruling to adequately fund education.
The Republican-controlled K-12 Education Budget Committee set out on its own path, sending two bills to the House floor — one dealing with educational policy and another that addresses funding.
House Republicans tweaked their policy bill, removing a program that would have let bullied students use public money to attend a private school.
They also struck another proposal limiting school districts from piling up large reserves, although they would be required to submit an audit of those funds to the Legislature by 2023.
The audit, among other things, would be required to examine annual accumulations of the districts’ reserve funds going back 10 years as well as how that money has been spent annually.
The bill, however, revises a program that offers tax credits to entice businesses to donate money for scholarships that send the least affluent students to private schools.
It now would make the scholarships available to the 100 lowest performing elementary schools, not just the lowest performing schools in general. The program is capped at $10 million in tax credits annually, although it’s well short of that limit.
The policy legislation retains the accountability provisions that were part of the bill that was introduced last week.
It still requires the state Department of Education to prepare a performance accountability report and longitudinal achievement report for all public school students.
It also requires the department to prepare a financial accountability report on funding for each school district.
Both reports would be required to go to the Legislature and the governor.
The House education package, however, is very different from Kelly’s proposal that asked lawmakers to add $90 million for schools in 2020 and 2021 with no policy initiatives.
The Kelly plan, approved 32-8 by the Senate, is seen by some as the easiest way to settle the Supreme Court case.
The House plan puts a similar amount into schools in 2020 and 2021 but puts about half that money into targeted spending on mental health programs and at-risk students.
It also earmarks money for school security grants, dyslexia training and several other programs.
However, the House plan does not provide money beyond the first two years and removes money the Legislature approved last year for 2022 and 2023. It leaves some lawmakers wondering whether the Legislature is moving away from what the court wants.
Last year, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature is generally funding education adequately and equitably but ordered the state to add more money to account for inflation.
“I don’t think it will make court muster,” said Republican state Rep. Brenda Dietrich, who voted to get the bill out of committee in order to expedite the debate as the session nears an end.
“I just don’t think this bill has paid attention to what the courts have asked us to do,” she said. “We just have a little piece that we still have to work on. I’m just afraid this bill will not take us where we need to be in the court’s eyes.”
Republican state Rep. Kristey Williams, chair of the K-12 Education Budget Committee, said no one knows what the Supreme Court will do.
She said the funding bill that came out of committee Thursday makes a commitment to cover inflation in the first two years.
“We are putting approximately the same dollar amount that the governor put in,” Williams said.
“We are obligating our present Legislature plus a year. We will allow future legislatures to make that next determination.”
She warned that the Legislature didn’t want to return to what happened in the school funding case from more than a decade ago, when the state failed to keep its funding commitment to schools when the recession hit.
“By including something in your law, does not necessarily mean that it’s going to be funded,” Williams said.
“So let’s fund what we know we can do right, here and now, and let future legislatures make that determination.”
