We have been able to hold off vouchers for another year—at least for now.

There are no rules preventing the legislature from resurrecting this issue during the veto session, but that seems unlikely. Several voucher bills were introduced and heard during the 2025 legislative session. SB 87 gained the most momentum and became the primary vehicle for pro-voucher forces. You can read more about the contents of this bill below.

This proposal originated in the Senate and had a hearing on February 6th in the Senate Committee on Education. We submitted written testimony for the hearing, which you can read here: SB 87 Senate Testimony – Written

The Senate Committee on Education passed the bill and sent it to the Senate Committee of the Whole, where it was debated and passed with a vote of 24–16. You can see the vote breakdown here: SB 87 Senate vote

The House Committee on Education heard SB 87 on March 10 and 11. We submitted an expanded version of our earlier testimony and presented oral testimony. You can watch that testimony here: SB 87 Senate Testimony – Video Timestamp: 1:27:50

The House Committee on Education passed the bill and sent it to the House Committee of the Whole. It was initially scheduled for debate on March 19th but was skipped and rescheduled for debate the following day. Advocates on both sides of the issue anxiously awaited debate on March 20th, but the House skipped over the bill during General Orders, and it was never mentioned again.

As a result, SB 87 is now officially “dead.” It was stricken from the calendar by Legislative Rule 1507. In the Kansas House of Representatives, Rule 1507 addresses the handling of bills subject to specific legislative deadlines. According to this rule, any bill remaining on General Orders—the list of bills awaiting debate—at the close of business on its designated deadline day is automatically considered killed and is stricken from the calendar. This means the bill will no longer advance through the legislative process unless the Speaker of the House refers it to a committee before the end of that day. Any such referral is still subject to all applicable deadlines outlined in the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.

The fate of SB 87 seemed fairly clear when it received only 24 votes in the Senate. Governor Kelly was certain to veto the bill, and the 24-vote high mark in the Senate was three votes shy of the 27 needed to override her veto. This left several House members—who may have supported vouchers or been willing to reluctantly vote for the bill—less motivated to commit to a controversial vote on a bill that would ultimately be vetoed without enough support to override.

As noted before, the issue is not truly dead. While it’s unlikely to remerge during the veto session, this issue will continue to return in future legislative sessions.

The budget is far from ideal, but it could’ve been a lot worse.

Many people consider the budget to be the chief issue during every legislative session. It is repeatedly mentioned by multiple sources that the budget is the only issue the legislature is required to address during each respective session.

The budget process is both complicated and labor-intensive. Traditionally, the Governor—through the leadership of the Governor’s Budget Office—conducts the first deep dive into budgetary needs and wants, offering a comprehensive look at the state’s fiscal solvency, interviewing agencies for feedback on programs and policy, and making assessments accordingly. The Governor then makes the first recommendation for the next fiscal year’s budget. This recommendation is typically rolled out during the first week of each legislative session, after which both legislative chambers hold hearings and work sessions to ultimately build a budget for debate and deliberation.

This session, however, the legislature implemented an entirely new process that essentially bypassed the traditional approach. While the Governor’s budget recommendation was accepted on paper, it was largely disregarded in practice.

Republican leadership, which devised the plan, cited the need to begin the process earlier and expressed a desire for more control and understanding of it. This was likely true for several legislators—but let’s not ignore the political gamesmanship involved in a Republican-controlled legislature working with a Democratic Governor. This new process was also adopted with the intent to minimize the Governor’s involvement as much as possible.

Much has been said about the new process—its efficacy has been both challenged and praised, and so has its necessity. At the end of the day, the process ended where it always does: with a bill to debate and consider. The conversation about the process will certainly continue, and it’s unlikely that there will ever be consensus on its efficacy or necessity. KNEA cannot change the process, so we must meet the legislature where it is.

Our early testimony on the bill focused on ensuring that public schools are fully and equitably funded by maintaining current funding levels as established in the Gannon ruling, including the annual CPI adjustment stipulated by the Kansas Supreme Court.

We also strongly advocated for the full statutory funding of special education. We urged the legislature to appropriate the second year of a multi-year plan to reach 92% funding of the excess costs of special education by fiscal year 2029. This enhancement would have provided approximately $75 million in new funding.

Additionally, we supported Governor Kelly’s recommendation to add $5.5 million in budget enhancements to eliminate co-payments for students in reduced lunch programs.

The budget process began in the House Committee on K-12 Education Budget as HB 2007. It then moved to the House Committee on Appropriations before being deliberated and passed on to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill first went to the Senate Committee on Education, then to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, and was ultimately passed as SB 125.

The contents of the budget bill are currently on Governor Kelly’s desk. She has the authority to sign or veto the bill in its entirety or to use the “line-item” veto provision, which is reserved for appropriations bills.

The budget took on several forms and versions as it moved through the process. Base funding—including a CPI-U increase of approximately 4.3% ($233 million)—was not a major point of contention. The general sentiment across the political spectrum is that these increases are necessary to avoid another school funding lawsuit.

Special education funding became the central focus of this session’s education budget. Governor Laura Kelly’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal included an additional $72.6 million in Special Education State Aid. This represented the second year of a five-year plan aimed at fully funding special education in Kansas by FY 2029, as required by law. As mentioned earlier, this proposal was essentially ignored.

The legislature’s special budget committee only recommended funding levels equal to those of last session. This included another appropriation of $75 million for special education, which helps satisfy the federal Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements. However, no new money was proposed for special education funding.

Special Education Maintenance of Effort (MOE) refers to a federal requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It mandates that school districts and local education agencies (LEAs) must maintain or increase their level of local or state funding for special education services from year to year

The first significant movement on SPED funding occurred when the House Committee on K-12 Funding recommended $30 million in new funding, in addition to the $75 million that would be reallocated due to the MOE described above. The Committee ultimately endorsed this enhancement recommendation and forwarded it to the House Committee on Appropriations. There, Rep. Kristey Williams (R-Augusta) made a motion to strip the $30 million enhancement to SPED funding.

After some debate and advocacy from Rep. Jason Goetz (R-Dodge City) and Rep. Steven Howe (R-Salina), $10 million in SPED funding was added back as the House position.

During the same debate, Rep. Jared Ousley (D-Merriam) proposed a motion to restore the original $30 million recommendation, funding it in part from an incentive fund intended to attract the Kansas City Royals baseball team to Kansas. This amendment failed.

The budget moved to the Senate with the CPI adjustment and $10 million in new SPED funding. It first went to the Senate Committee on Education, where Chair Renee Erickson (R-Wichita) made a motion to “only fund Gannon.” This motion translated to funding the CPI adjustment but excluding any new money for SPED. It also proposed cuts to current and future funding for several programs, including Safe and Secure Schools grants, Teacher Excellence Grants, Computer Science Advancement Grants, Professional Development programs, Career and Technical Education (CTE) Transportation funding, and the Teacher Mentor Program. These cuts totaled more than $10 million and would have impacted funds that had already been appropriated—and in some cases, spent—in the current fiscal year.

The rationale behind this motion was that school districts were receiving enough new funding from the CPI adjustment to support these programs independently. During the debate in the Senate Committee on Education, at least one motion proposing approximately $80 million in SPED enhancements was introduced and defeated. Supporting the motion were Sen. Mike Argabright (R-Olpe), Sen. Brad Starnes (R-Riley), Sen. Adam Thomas (R-Olathe), Sen. Dinah Sykes (D-Lenexa), and Sen. Pat Pettey (D-Kansas City). The motion failed.

The Erickson recommendation prevailed and became the Senate’s official position, passing through both the committee and the full Senate.

House and Senate conferees met several times in the final days of the regular session and ultimately passed a bill that included $10 million in new SPED funding. It also restored the 2025 funding cuts to the programs listed above, though no new funding was allocated for them in 2026—with the exception of Career and Technical Education Transportation, for which both the 2025 cuts and 2026 funding were restored.

Fairness and decency lost another round. The transgender community and their allies continue to be targeted, but we finally found an example of what the legislature appears to see as “too far.”

The two major bills dealing with gender-affirming care and transgender rights were SB 63 (gender-affirming care ban) and SB 76 (the so-called “Pronoun Bill”).

You may recall that SB 63 (gender-affirming care ban) was a rerun of a bill previously vetoed by Governor Kelly and sustained last session. We worked diligently behind the scenes to ensure that the veto was upheld. However, the results of the 2024 elections—where many allies on this issue were either defeated or retired—made it almost certain that a gender-affirming care ban would succeed this year.

We submitted testimony on SB 63 in the Senate hearing. You can read our testimony here: SB 63 Testimony – Written. We also assisted KNEA members in their advocacy and opposition testimony during the Senate hearing. You can watch the hearing here: SB 63 Hearing (Senate).

The Senate deliberated the bill in the Senate Committee on Education where it was passed out and debated in the Senate Committee of the Whole. It eventually passed the Senate on a vote of 32-8. You can see the vote breakdown here: SB 63 Vote (Senate).

The House however, skipped the committee process altogether and referred this bill straight to the House Committee of the Whole where it was fast tracked and sent to the Governor for consideration on a vote of 83-35. You can see the vote breakdown here: SB 63 Vote (House)

Despite the strong possibility that she would be overridden, Governor Kelly vetoed the bill anyway. Her veto was overridden in both the House and Senate and the contents of SB 63 are now Kansas law.

SB 76 (the so-called “Pronoun Bill”) has not yet made it through the legislature.

SB 76 mandates that employees of school districts and postsecondary institutions use names and pronouns consistent with a student’s biological sex, as indicated on their birth certificate. It provides legal protections for employees who decline to use names or pronouns that do not align with biological sex. The original version of the bill allowed individuals harmed by a violation to bring legal action seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other appropriate remedies.

We submitted written testimony and delivered oral testimony opposing the bill in both the House and Senate committee hearings. You can read our written testimony here: SB 76 Testimony – Written (Senate) and SB 76 Testimony – Written (House). Watch our oral testimony here: SB 76 Testimony – Oral (Senate): Timestamp 1:53:35, SB 76 Testimony – Oral (House): Timestamp 2:03:20.

Several of our members also submitted and delivered testimony during these hearings.

The bill passed through the Senate with relatively little difficulty. Proponents effectively framed the debate around parental rights, emphasizing the requirement for parental notification if a child chooses to be addressed by a name or pronoun inconsistent with their birth certificate. They largely avoided the bill’s discriminatory aspects and legal implications.

Our arguments about fairness to the transgender community and the arbitrary punishment of educators who support transgender students gained little traction in the Senate. The bill passed out of committee and was approved by the Senate Committee of the Whole with a vote of 26–14. You can view the vote breakdown here: SB 76 Vote (Senate).

In the House, our arguments on fairness also struggled to gain support. However, our concern regarding the arbitrary nature of allowing educators to be sued over this issue seemed to gain some traction. The House amended the bill, removing the provision allowing teachers to be sued and replacing it with an administrative process that appeared slightly more aligned with due process.

While this amendment was far from a “fix,” it suggested that legislators were at least partially listening. Much like the fate of the voucher bill hinged on the Senate vote, this dynamic could also apply to the Pronoun Bill. When the Senate only secured 26 votes—just one short of the threshold to override a veto—momentum for the bill significantly slowed.

Many legislators expressed discomfort with the bill but faced intense pressure from partisan forces. We must reach a point where our common-sense arguments outweigh political pressure to fall in line with a party or ideology. This will require ongoing relationship-building, trust, and a commitment to leading with reason and fairness.

The bill is currently considered “dead” under Legislative Rule 1507—the same rule previously mentioned regarding the voucher legislation. However, as with all legislation, nothing is officially dead until the legislature adjourns sine die. Like the voucher bill, the contents of SB 76 could be resurrected during the veto session, though the chance is admittedly small.

Stay tuned.

Another disappointing set of circumstances surrounds our advocacy efforts on KPERS reform.

Of all the issues that have been at the forefront, this is one where we could be part of a meaningful and positive change that would directly impact our members.

With that in mind, it initially seemed like we were going to witness genuine reform. There appeared to be bipartisan agreement that KPERS Tier 3 needed changes, and Republican leaders were saying all the right things leading up to the 2024 legislative session. Unfortunately, the 2024 session began almost immediately with a tax reform battle between Governor Kelly and Republican leadership. This conflict consumed a significant amount of the legislature’s time and effectively sucked all the oxygen out of the room. KPERS Tier 3 reform was going to require support from Republican leadership as well as some old-fashioned “horse-trading.” With the tax fight taking priority, there was little appetite for progress on KPERS reform.

Former Senator Molly Baumgardner (R-Louisburg) made the strongest push for KPERS reform in the final hours of the 2024 legislative session. She held up the Education Conference Committee’s work in the early morning hours, demanding KPERS reform in exchange for her vote on the education budget. At the time, it looked like her strategy might succeed when both Speaker of the House Dan Hawkins and Senate President Ty Masterson emerged from their offices to join an impromptu meeting in a narrow Statehouse corridor, where it was reported that they promised KPERS reform in the 2025 session.

However, here we are at the end of the 2025 session, and once again, we’re hearing that they’ll “work on it over the summer break.” Any accountability tied to that conversation was lost when Senator Baumgardner announced her retirement shortly afterward.

There were several KPERS-related bills that we monitored this session. One was a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) bill that would have provided a much-needed raise for KPERS retirees, many of whom have been living on benefits that haven’t been adjusted for inflation in years. This bill wasn’t even granted a hearing. Another bill would have moved all licensed teachers currently in KPERS Tier 3 into Tier 2, offering them a better retirement plan. There was a hearing on that bill, but it was never seriously considered.

HB 2086 seemed to be the bill that had the momentum and support. HB 2086 would increase the dividend interest formula from 75.0 percent to 80.0 percent of the five-year average investment return above 5.0 percent. In plain terms these adjustments would slightly improve the benefits for KPERS Tier 3 members.

This bill was heard in both the House and Senate Committees. You can read our testimony here: HB 2086 Testimony – Written (House), HB 2086 Testimony – Written (Senate). Watch our oral testimony here: HB 2086 Testimony – Video (House), Timestamp: 9:38:40. HB 2086 Testimony – Video (Senate) Timestamp: 9:41:15

HB 2086 sailed out of the House Committee on Financial Institutions and Investments and passed the House Committee of the Whole on a vote of 116-5. You can view the vote breakdown here: HB 2086 Vote (House).

After such a strong showing in the House, it once again felt like we were finally on the path toward meaningful KPERS reform. But, as is so often the case in this building, one or two individuals can derail everything.

The bill ran into challenges in the Senate committee, where questions surrounding the Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) took center stage. The UAL represents the shortfall between the system’s actuarially calculated obligations to retirees and beneficiaries, and the assets currently available to meet those obligations. This is a significant issue. In fact, KNEA has a resolution specifically addressing the KPERS UAL. The resolution states:

KNEA further believes that an unfunded actuarial pension liability within KPERS must be paid as part of the employer contribution and over time with a sound funding position.

We understand the importance of maintaining a solvent system—one without an unmanageable UAL that could ultimately lead to the system’s collapse.

However, an overemphasis on the UAL at the expense of taking any action is simply unacceptable. If we want real results, we will need to lean more heavily into this issue moving forward.

In short, HB 2348 (Teacher Tenure Rights) continues to be stalled in committee.

However, it is a “blessed bill,” meaning it is not considered dead and may be deliberated during the Veto Session or even taken up again next year without the need to introduce a new bill.

As a reminder, a blessed bill—also known as an exempt bill—is one that has “touched” an exempt committee and is therefore not subject to the standard rules and deadlines that typically apply to legislation in the Kansas legislative process.

HB 2348 was likely never seriously intended to advance, but it was problematic enough that we felt compelled to testify against it. The bill seeks to redefine the concept of tenure at postsecondary educational institutions in Kansas by proposing that tenure not be considered an entitlement, a right, or a property interest in a faculty member’s employment.

This bill was only heard on the House side in the House Committee on Judiciary. We submitted written testimony and delivered oral testimony as well. You can read our testimony here: HB 2348 Testimony – Written (House) Watch our oral testimony here: HB 2348 Testimony – Video (House) Timestamp: 1:13:50.

This bill was surrounded by controversy from beginning to end. It should never have been considered, yet it was—and it immediately faced strong criticism from multiple directions. It’s unclear what the bill’s sponsor hoped to achieve, or whether they believe they accomplished their goal. We must remain vigilant and continue working with our allies to prevent this bill, or others like it, from becoming law.