(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers Jan. 19, 2015)
Gov. Sam Brownback’s first last-gubernatorial-term budget is out, and in some respects, it’s clever and it’s probably close to what he would have liked to have proposed several years ago, but couldn’t because of that darn election business.
Now, whether you 433,196 Kansans who voted for him for governor or you 436,306 Kansans who split your votes between Democrat Paul Davis and Libertarian Keen Umbehr (yes, the two got more votes than Brownback but that’s not how it works), Brownback won and he has pretty much free rein to put together a budget for the next four years.
You get the drift of where he’s going, and will get to continue to go unless Kansas voters—those with children or grandchildren or even neighbor children in public schools—don’t like the trend or maybe don’t like the trend.
In K-12 education his concept is fairly simple: Get rid of the school finance formula and instead block-grant to school districts virtually the same amount of money each got this year, but make them pay for a part of their employees’ pensions.
What’s that come down to? Forcing those school districts which many legislators believe are spendthrifts to economize, including cutting administration, cooperating with other districts for things like payroll, information technology and such, to make sure they have enough money for teachers—that “in the classroom” we keep hearing about.
It’s those economies Brownback is looking for. Fire an associate district superintendent and hire two classroom teachers? Probably fine with Brownback and probably a majority of legislators.
Practically, it’s probably possible for school districts for the upcoming budget year to pare some administrative expenses, divert those savings to teachers and get along OK, but probably with a few less Audis parked in the administrative sections of school district parking lots.
But the following year—and remember, Brownback issued a two-year budget last week—things will get tighter and there may be some school district property tax increases proposed. Districts with enrollment growth, or growth in student populations with special needs which under the current finance formula carry a “weighting” or additional state support, well, that’s where it gets tricky.
It also becomes a test for the folks who run the school districts—seeing what they will cut local spending on to make sure that students never feel the effect of the tightened budget. A few more kids in a classroom, probably OK, but nobody wants a third-grader’s class to look like a college freshman political science class with more than a hundred kids in it. At the K-12 school level, we want teachers to know the students’ names, not just their place on a seating chart.
There is budget cutting, and then there is budget-cutting. Done smartly, dollars are saved and nobody besides bookkeepers notice it. Done smartly, too, budget cuts can be made that will draw the attention of district patrons/voters and cause an uproar that will be felt at the next election. Say, eliminate debate or art, or have Friday night football become a non-contact sport.
Somewhere, of course, there’s that constitutional requirement that the state make provision for suitable education of children, and the decision of what is suitable—we’re talking state financing here—becomes an issue. But, remember, the Legislature and the courts have adopted new standards for “suitable” and nobody’s sure how to measure students against those standards.
Interesting tactical/philosophical/budget battle ahead. Brownback scores first, voters hopefully start paying attention now, to decide whether in 2016 he gets a legislature that supports him or whether he starts brewing coffee by the cup, not the pot…