House to study tuition waivers

Daisy DeKnight’s testimony might make a difference.

The Kansas University student’s testimony Monday helped persuade a legislative committee to take a second look at a plan to waive tuition for foster children seeking university or trade school training.

After hearing DeKnight, a former foster child, a House committee agreed to add the bill to the list of those for consideration during the second half of the legislative session.

“I’m interested in working this bill, just not today,” said Rep. Lisa Benlon, R-Shawnee, chairwoman of the House Higher Education Committee.

If passed, children who turn 18 and are accepted to a state-run school or university while in foster care wouldn’t have to pay tuition or student fees. The schools, in turn, would be reimbursed by the state Board of Regents.

“A lot of people tend to forget that when these kids are in foster care, the State of Kansas becomes their father and mother,” said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, who had a hand in drafting the bill. “We think this is something we could do to make it a little easier on a group of kids that’s really struggling.”

It’s unclear how much the bill would cost because no one is sure how many children in foster care might be eligible or which schools they would attend.

DeKnight, a 20-year-old KU sophomore who spent 4 1/2 years in foster care, testified in favor of House Bill 2956, noting it would give hope to those who don’t know what it’s like to have someone encouraging them to succeed.

“When you’re in foster care, you feel like you’re worthless. It’s something you really have to deal with. I know I have,” she said.

“How can you expect foster kids to have hope for the future when they don’t have any hope in the present?” asked Andrew Williams, 16, who spent three years in foster care before earning a GED and enrolling at Highland Community Junior College.

Ten states already have tuition waivers similar to those in the bill.

Rep. Ralph Tanner, R-Baldwin, criticized the bill for not doing more to hold the state’s privatized child welfare system accountable for children after they turn 18.

“We don’t seem to be able to control the system,” Tanner said.