This year’s session got underway last Monday with the emotional swearing in of representative lee Tafanelli of Ozawkie. Tafanelli, commander of Kansas national guard units deployed in Iraq, just returned from his tour of duty, one that had forced him to resign his legislative seat. Former state representative Joann Flower assumed his position while he was deployed and his unit returned in time for him to resume his legislative duties this session. Popular and respected by both his republican colleagues and with democrats, lee’s return and ceremonial swearing in with his wife and two children at his side was moving and reminded all of us of the sacrifices our troops have made and are making every day in Iraq. Tafanelli addressed the house with conviction and reported that Kansas guardsmen and troops from all over America were making a difference in Iraq and deserved and needed our ongoing support.
Monday night’s state of the state speech by Gov. Sebelius was disappointing to say the least. She offered no real vision for the state in 2006, sent a budget to the legislature that seriously under funds k-12 education needs and tried to take personal credit for legislative initiatives that were neither her idea nor promoted by her office. She claimed she had called on the legislature to put cold medicines behind the counter so meth dealers couldn’t get to them when in fact the measure was one initiated by a senator and pre-filed as a bill last session. The governor ultimately signed the bill but wasn’t involved otherwise. She claimed in her speech to have reduced the state employee workforce since coming into office but a tally of state positions shows the numbers of state workers has actually increased by over 1200 while our private sector has lost 14,400 jobs since Aug. 2000.
The biggest news of the week, however, was the release of the legislative division of post audit’s much anticipated cost study analysis of k-12 education. We commissioned the study last year in the wake of school finance litigation and an unprecedented mandate from the Kansas supreme court to pour 100’s of millions of additional dollars into k-12 education. I’ll be reporting on the study and the legislature’s response in the coming weeks. In summary, the post audit report used two approaches in trying to estimate the costs of k-12 education in the state – one based on inputs, the courses and areas of instruction required by state law and one based on outcomes – the cost of meeting the ever-increasing performance standards adopted by the state board of education. For school year 2006-2007 the post audit team estimated that state spending would need to increase a minimum of $316m under the inputs approach and $399m under the outcomes-based approach. It’s important to keep in mind, however, that these numbers assume that the state would be funding 100% of these costs. In fact, Kansas currently funds k-12 education 55% at the state level, 35% from the local level and 10% from federal monies. This percentage of state funding is greater than any of the 5 nearby states. The post audit team did not include monies raised and spent locally, nor did they count the over $200m in state funds flowing to local school districts to equalize local option budgets.
Probably the most sobering aspect of the cost study was it’s suggestion that low enrollment districts should actually receive less, not more funding, and that the very large urban districts receive the lion’s share of any increases. Ironically, the school districts who actually sued the state wouldn’t fare nearly as well as larger urban districts who didn’t participate in the suit. In fact, $238m of the recommended increase in state spending would go to address students living in poverty. 4 districts, Kansas city, Kansas city turner, Topeka and Wichita would see huge increases under a recommended new weight called the urban poverty weight. Depending on which approach was used, as many as 220 school districts would see a proposed decrease in funding. These are mainly the small rural districts. Included in the potential hit list are Fairfield, Pretty Prairie and haven school districts in Reno County. Other Reno county schools would see only modest increases compared to larger, more urban districts.
Needless to say, there is much work ahead. I continue to serve as vice-chair of the house school finance committee and will be very involved in crafting this years school finance bill. I also serve as chairman of the house judiciary committee and will have such issues as imminent domain and sex predator legislation in my committee this year.
