|
|
|
Quality education and the future of our children has always been an issue of great importance to the people of Kansas. This is one of the major reasons that I ran for the Kansas Senate more than 22 years ago.
When I was first elected to the Kansas Senate, local property taxpayers paid for approximately 75% of the cost of K through 12 education. I am very proud that after the 1992 school finance reform, the burden for funding education was shifted from the local property taxpayer to the state, with the state paying 75% of the cost. Unfortunately over time, the responsibility has once again been shifting to the local property taxpayer, with the local property taxpayer now paying nearly 35%.
One of the most important aspects of the 1992 school finance reform was that it equalized the funding for our schools, which allows the poorer areas of our state to fund schools on a more equal basis with the wealthiest areas. This is particularly important for rural districts and those with low property valuations.
Sam Brownback is talking about providing more local control, and past experience tells us that local control is in reality more authority to raise LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. Brownback wants the Legislature to tell him how to change the school finance formula and also wants to cap state spending.
At the same time, the Republican leadership in the House has proposed dramatic changes that will devastate schools in rural Kansas. These changes will make local communities bear a larger burden of the costs of our public schools, dramatically increase property taxes and dramatically reduce the quality of the education that will be provided in those communities. The House Republican leadership school finance plan would turn back the clock on school finance and return Kansas to a system that would burden property taxpayers with a disproportionate responsibility for school finance.
Both of the plans proposed so far this year by Republican legislators would increase the burden on the local option budget (LOB). Funding of the LOB relies on local property taxes and areas of the state that are densely developed or are mineral rich, and thus have high property valuation, and can produce more money than districts with lower property valuations. Unfortunately, the Legislature hasn’t been able to fully fund the state’s share of the LOB for the last two years, so why would we expect the state to be able to appropriately fund its share of an increase in the LOB? Especially when Sam Brownback says he will cap state spending.
Brownback’s opponent, Tom Holland, is committed to funding education and agrees with me that the current school funding formula is not broken and provides an equal opportunity for all Kansas schoolchildren.
When the Legislature refuses to provide adequate funding for our schools at the state level, which comes from sales and income taxes, unfortunately the only recourse for the local school boards is to raise local property taxes. While some legislators have bragged that they did not vote to raise taxes when they did not provide adequate state dollars, in fact they did raise the most unfair tax — property taxes — with their refusal to carry out their duty to the children of the state.
As you consider whom you are going to vote for on Nov. 2nd, please consider the consequences for your local community, local school and your pocketbook of electing a governor that would have you rely on more property taxes in order to fund your school.
Quality education and the future of our children has always been an issue of great importance to the people of Kansas. This is one of the major reasons that I ran for the Kansas Senate more than 22 years ago.
When I was first elected to the Kansas Senate, local property taxpayers paid for approximately 75% of the cost of K through 12 education. I am very proud that after the 1992 school finance reform, the burden for funding education was shifted from the local property taxpayer to the state, with the state paying 75% of the cost. Unfortunately over time, the responsibility has once again been shifting to the local property taxpayer, with the local property taxpayer now paying nearly 35%.
One of the most important aspects of the 1992 school finance reform was that it equalized the funding for our schools, which allows the poorer areas of our state to fund schools on a more equal basis with the wealthiest areas. This is particularly important for rural districts and those with low property valuations.
Sam Brownback is talking about providing more local control, and past experience tells us that local control is in reality more authority to raise LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. Brownback wants the Legislature to tell him how to change the school finance formula and also wants to cap state spending.
At the same time, the Republican leadership in the House has proposed dramatic changes that will devastate schools in rural Kansas. These changes will make local communities bear a larger burden of the costs of our public schools, dramatically increase property taxes and dramatically reduce the quality of the education that will be provided in those communities. The House Republican leadership school finance plan would turn back the clock on school finance and return Kansas to a system that would burden property taxpayers with a disproportionate responsibility for school finance.
Both of the plans proposed so far this year by Republican legislators would increase the burden on the local option budget (LOB). Funding of the LOB relies on local property taxes and areas of the state that are densely developed or are mineral rich, and thus have high property valuation, and can produce more money than districts with lower property valuations. Unfortunately, the Legislature hasn’t been able to fully fund the state’s share of the LOB for the last two years, so why would we expect the state to be able to appropriately fund its share of an increase in the LOB? Especially when Sam Brownback says he will cap state spending.
Brownback’s opponent, Tom Holland, is committed to funding education and agrees with me that the current school funding formula is not broken and provides an equal opportunity for all Kansas schoolchildren.
When the Legislature refuses to provide adequate funding for our schools at the state level, which comes from sales and income taxes, unfortunately the only recourse for the local school boards is to raise local property taxes. While some legislators have bragged that they did not vote to raise taxes when they did not provide adequate state dollars, in fact they did raise the most unfair tax — property taxes — with their refusal to carry out their duty to the children of the state.
As you consider whom you are going to vote for on Nov. 2nd, please consider the consequences for your local community, local school and your pocketbook of electing a governor that would have you rely on more property taxes in order to fund your school.
