Stacey Fager, superintendent for Iola schools, is concerned lawmakers will bring back several educational bills that narrowly failed the last legislative session.
The 2024 Kansas Legislature convened Monday.
Two issues in particular — commonly known as “school choice” and the “Parents Bill of Rights” — are expected to resurface.
The “school choice” bill allows public education funds to follow students who attend private, parochial or home-based schools. Advocates say it allows families to choose learning environments that best meet their educational and personal needs. Opponents object to taking taxpayer funds away from public schools that are required to accept every student, unlike private schools that can deny admission based on disability, religion or other factors.
“School choice” is particularly challenging for rural districts, Fager said, pointing out Allen County could lose funding even though there are no local options for students to attend private or parochial schools. School funding is tied to enrollment.
“I’m a firm believer that our public tax dollars should support public education,” Fager said.
Conservative lawmakers have long championed school choice measures. In the past couple of sessions, they’ve gotten closer to approving them. The Kansas Senate narrowly rejected a voucher plan late in the last session; Gov. Laura Kelly likely would have vetoed the bill had it passed.
Similar measures have been proposed nationwide in states such as Iowa, Arizona and Utah.
Lawmakers did, however, pass an “open enrollment” bill that allows students to attend schools outside their home district. That will go into effect next fall.
Because Kansas has struggled to pass “school choice” measures, it has given lawmakers and educators time to see results in other states. Though advocates tout improvements in state assessments for students who attend private schools, Fager pointed out that that comes on the back of public schools by shifting taxpayer dollars to private schools.
The vouchers also cover only a small portion of tuition, keeping the schools out of reach for most lower-income families.
LAWMAKERS narrowly failed to override a veto on legislation that would have established a Parents Bill of Rights, giving parents greater ability to challenge educational material they find objectionable for moral, religious or other reasons.
Fager expects to see those proposals return. He is not in favor. Educators, including administrators and publicly elected school boards, take considerable time reviewing and approving evidence-based material.
“It flies in the face of local control and takes educational entities out of the decision-making process,” he said. “It can create a lot of animosity between public schools and some parents.”
FAGER hopes lawmakers will reconsider other educational proposals, such as a change to the way the state considers enrollment for funding. It’s another proposal that failed to override Kelly’s veto and would base funding on the current or previous year’s enrollment, rather than allowing districts to use one of the two preceding years.
