Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Kansas attorney general urges lawmakers to heed Supreme Court ruling

March 18, 2014

Advertisement

— Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt urged state lawmakers today to heed the Supreme Court's school finance ruling, saying the surest way to resolve at least part of the case is to restore full funding of certain aid to poor school districts.

“My counsel would be, find a way, between now and July 1, before you go home, to provide that equalization aid,” Schmidt told the House Appropriations Committee.

Earlier this month, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld part of a lower court decision, saying the Legislature had violated the Kansas Constitution when it cut funding that goes to subsidize the capital outlay budgets and local option budgets of lower-wealth districts.

The state currently funds only about 78 percent of the LOB equalization aid, which means the state has to distribute that money on a pro-rated basis and districts receive only a portion of what they're entitled to. The Kansas State Department of Education says current funding is about $104 million short of what it should be.

In Lawrence, that amounts to about $1 million a year, a relatively small amount because Lawrence has relatively high property valuation for the number of students it has. But the poorer a school district is, the more it gets short-changed, resulting in what the court agreed are wealth-based disparities that violate the Kansas Constitution.

For capital outlay budgets — money used for big-ticket items like computers, equipment and building repairs — the state has not provided any equalization aid since 2009.

But some Republicans expressed concern that the additional money for those two formulas — estimated at $129 million a year — would go mainly for property tax relief and would not necessarily put more money into classroom education.

That's because state law limits how much districts can raise in each fund. So if the state doesn't pay its full share, Schmidt explained, local districts either have to raise their property tax levies to make up the difference or cut their budgets in those areas.

“With that in mind,” asked Rep. Marvin Kleeb, R-Overland Park, “do you see ways that we could actually have this money go to education, go back to those school districts, and put equity back to the students, helping those students out, rather than just tax relief?”

Schmidt advised against taking that approach.

“If you're going to have a system that relies at least in part … on local property tax effort, then the Constitution requires that that effort be equalized,” Schmidt said.

If the Legislature does anything less than restore full funding, Schmidt said, then those issues will be remanded back to the three-judge trial panel for further review. And if the Legislature does nothing, he said, that could result in the panel enjoining the entire local option budget mechanism, which state officials say would cost local districts more than $1 billion, or about 25 percent of their total operating budgets.

And even if the Legislature does resolve the equity issues for LOBs and capital outlay budgets, Schmidt reminded lawmakers that the larger issue — the adequacy of overall funding for public schools — is still an open issue because the Supreme Court remanded that back to the three-judge panel to be reconsidered under a different standard.

“This is a case that is still in active litigation,” Schmidt said. “This case is not over.”

Comments

Larry Sturm 6 months, 1 week ago

Tax cuts really working well for Koch brothers no jobs no money for education. Kansas kids are really going to prosper. BROWNBACK AND THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE BAD FOR KANSAS.

3

Richard Heckler 6 months, 1 week ago

Koch boys are not the only ones although a substantial portion. The Wal-Mart family is knee deep in this war against public education or perhaps it is chest deep.

2

Richard Heckler 6 months, 1 week ago

The Wal-Mart family is knee deep in this war against public education or perhaps it is chest deep.

Before considering the specific goals and activities of these foundations, it is worth reflecting on the wisdom of allowing education policy to be directed or, one might say, captured by private foundations. There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society’s wealthiest people. - Diane Ravitch, education historian and Assistant Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush

When the richest family in the country inserts itself into the education policy debate, ordinary Americans have reason to be concerned.

Why should one family’s overwhelmingly deep pockets give them the right to play such an outsized role in determining how the next generation of American students is educated?

What are they really trying to accomplish?

Why do the Waltons care about education? While John Walton said in February 2000 that he believed the greatest responsibility facing the country was to provide a “world-class education” for all children,[2] recent comments from his wife suggest that the family’s original motive for becoming involved in education policy may have been less lofty.

In a June 2011 speech to the graduating class of the private school her son Lukas attended, Christy Walton explained that her family became involved in K-12 education reform because their business—presumably Walmart—“was having trouble finding qualified people to fill entry-level positions” and because the family believed that “the education being provided [in public schools] had been dummied [sic] down.”

http://walmart1percent.org/issues/education/

2

Richard Heckler 6 months, 1 week ago

The family is active in education policy outside of its foundation, too—for example, by injecting money into local political races, often far from where they live:

http://walmart1percent.org/issues/education/

Can we say trillions of public school tax dollars going into the Walton family bank accounts?

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.