The K-12 Budget Committee met again today continuing to work on HB 2410. They started by adopting the Communities in Schools amendment from Melissa Rooker (R-Fairway) that simply eliminates some old language that is no longer applicable to the program.
Rooker then offered a motion to reconsider the amendment adopted yesterday on requiring schools to pay for ABA therapy for a child with autism if requested by the parent and supported by a medical recommendation. The Committee reviewed a letter from a KSDE attorney informing them that the requirement would violate the federal IDEA law by removing the IEP team from decision-making. The motion angered the maker of the amendment, Scott Schwab (R-Olathe), who said he was not going to act based on the opinion of one lawyer. It was Schwab who yesterday asserted that schools were sending children with autism to pet shops to pet puppies as therapy. Brenda Landwehr (R-Wichita) then weighed in declaring that our public schools were failing children with autism. When the vote was taken, it was eight to eight to reconsider. Chairman Larry Campbell (R-Olathe) cast a NAY vote breaking the tie and defeating the motion.
Next was an amendment by Landwehr that would require the State Department to present an annual report on accreditation to the Legislature and Governor. The amendment was adopted.
Clay Aurand (R-Belleville) returned to his amendment from yesterday on the corporate tuition tax credit program. Yesterday the amendment would have removed the requirement that private schools receiving students would have to out-perform the trend data on post-secondary success or the statewide average ACT scores. He withdrew the motion yesterday to rework it so that high schools accepting students would still have to meet those requirements but elementary schools would not. The new motion was adopted.
Another Aurand amendment on the corporate tuition tax credit program changed the definition of an eligible student from one direct certified by the Department of Children and Families back to an at-risk student (defined as on free lunch). He then added that 50% of those children would have to be direct certified by DCF. The amendment passed.
Jim Karleskint (R-Tonganoxie) expressed concern about language in the bill directing the SBOE to create an accreditation system based on student performance. He noted that the SBOE has just completed that work. The Revisor was directed to seek language that puts that section of the bill in the present tense and bring it back tomorrow.
The final amendment offered came again from Aurand. This one would repeal the Cost of Living weighting and replace it with a Local Enhancement Budget. This LEB is intended to allow districts to raise local property taxes to get money to spend on non-at-risk students for enrichment opportunities beyond the required curriculum. Schwab asked that the motion be divided. Part A of the motion would be establishing the LEB; part B would be repealing the Cost of Living weighting.
There was plenty of back and forth of this amendment raising many concerns. So many in fact that the committee ran out of time.
They will meet again tomorrow with the intent of addressing the Karleskint concerns, voting on the LEB motion, and giving Schwab the chance see if he can rework the ABA amendment to address the concerns of the KSDE legal team. Campbell hopes to vote on the bill on Friday.
Senate Takes Up a Tax Bill
It came as a surprise to everyone today that the Senate would take up a tax bill. House Bill 2067 was put together by the Tax Conference Committee and it was decided that it would be voted on today.
HB 2067 is a match of SB 30, the tax bill that was pulled from consideration in the House when it was found that it did not have enough support to pass.
HB 2067/SB 30 is a good policy bill in that it reverses the most damaging parts of the disastrous Brownback tax policy. It would restore the three income tax brackets, repeal the LLC income tax exemption, and end the glide path to zero. But unfortunately, while the bill would fill the holes in the budget, it would not provide the funds necessary to pay for HB 2410, the school finance plan crafted in the House. And one thing Legislative Counsel Jeff King told both the House K-12 Committee and all the Senate is that in order to pass Court muster, the state must show that the money is there. It is not there in HB 2067/SB30.
Passage of the bill would mean that they would be forced to develop yet another tax increase to address school finance. There are no promises or plans from Senate leadership on what that “trailer bill” would be or what tax it would raise.
Initially, the Senate voted the bill down on a vote of 18 – 22. They then reconsidered the action and voted to not adopt the bill, sending it back to conference where it can be used as the shell of a new tax plan.
Here’s what former State Budget Director Duane Goossen had to say to legislators about the plan:
Before you lend your support to something short of a full fix, I urge you to request the following of legislative leadership:
- Assurances of support. Legislative leaders should commit to upholding the position of the chamber. If they are unwilling to do that for a compromise similar to Senate Bill 30, it should serve as a red flag for legislators that it may not be a compromise at all. Rather, it is more likely a maneuver to lower the bar for negotiations and push through something much smaller that fails to restore stability to the state’s budget.
- A plan for schools. Failure to comply with a Supreme Court order to adequately fund public education will put schools in high danger of closing in August. If a tax package does not produce enough revenue to cover this, another funding source for schools should be clearly identified before voting on tax reform. As former Senator Jeff King stated in addressing the House K12 Budget Committee on Thursday, “if you promise to put in money, you have to have the money.”
powered by Typeform