Topeka ? State education officials approved changes Wednesday in graduation and school accreditation requirements designed to ensure no child is left behind.

But questions remain about whether Kansas has the money to bring its children along.

“This is the biggest change in expectations in 10 years, maybe more, while at the same time we are going through the biggest revenue crisis since World War II,” said Mark Tallman, assistant executive director for the Kansas Association of School Boards.

As approved on an 8-2 vote, students graduating during the 2008-09 school year would be required to pass three units of science and three units of history and government. The current requirement is completion of two units.

The state board’s changes came as no surprise to Lynda Allen, director of math and science for Lawrence public schools. She said she thought the board made a good decision.

“I think students do need more math and science,” Allen said. “I think it will especially benefit those who go on to college as well as those who go into technical schools, and even those who go into other occupations.”

Changes also were made in criteria for accrediting schools under requirements enacted in 1991.

Known as Quality Performance Accreditation, the criteria puts the focus on student and school performance, mandating that schools show progress in improving student achievement. The changes approved Wednesday assume no student will be exempt from testing standards.

All the changes are designed to bring Kansas into compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which was approved by Congress in December 2001. It’s a compliance superintendents say will not come cheap.

“The theory is great but the practicality is a big stretch,” said Bob Hightree, superintendent of Anthony-Harper schools. “It is a huge, unfunded federal mandate which will place an extremely burdensome expense on the state and all citizens.”

Wichita Supt. Winston Brooks said the board was imposing tougher graduation requirements as schools face trying to comply with the federal law. That combination will make it difficult to find enough money, he said.

“The problems finding the resources needed to increase graduation standards are going to be the greatest for the districts having higher numbers of disadvantaged students,” Brooks said. His district is the state’s largest, with about 44,000 students.

State board members said the changes were a step toward bringing all students to competence in basic skills.

“This helps those who aren’t going on to college to be better prepared to function in society,” said board member Carol Rupe of Wichita.

Val DeFever, whose last board meeting was Wednesday, said she supported the intent of the changes but was concerned the state would not have the revenue. DeFever of Independence and John Bacon of Olathe voted against the changes.

State officials estimate the cost of putting in place the additional graduation requirements at $10 million to $12 million statewide. They don’t have a figure for how much the federal law will increase costs.

Kansas spends $2.3 billion on public schools, the largest item in the state budget. Funding has been reduced by $17.5 million by Gov. Bill Graves as the state grapples with a potential $1 billion budget shortfall.

Gov.-elect Kathleen Sebelius has promised to protect education funding during her administration. However, most school districts have said they are prepared for further reductions in spending by as much as $100 to $300 per student over the next year.

Those reductions, said Jim Garner, superintendent of Kinsley-Offerle schools, will make it tougher to maintain existing programs, let alone hire additional science and math teachers.

Board member Bill Wagnon of Topeka said the state’s changes do not raise the academic bar for students as much as they put the emphasis on a minimum level of competence for all students.

Wamego Supt. Doug Conwell said he agreed with increasing requirements to better prepare students but that the timing is wrong.

“I would hope that if the state does fund this proposal that it does not take away from money already earmarked for schools,” Conwell said.

Board member Janet Waugh of Kansas City said the board would have the latitude to extend or cancel the increased requirements or grant waivers to districts if it became apparent that a lack of revenue was impeding implementation.