House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2540 - Committee on Education
Short Title
Requiring moneys attributable to at-risk student weighting be expended for approved at-risk educational programs.
Minutes Content for Wed, Mar 11, 2020
Chairperson Baumgardner opened the hearing on HB2540.
Staff gave an overview of the bill. Discussion as to clarification ensued.
Mike O’Neal, Kansas Policy Institute, spoke regarding the allocation and targeting of at-risk funding toward approved, best practices, evidence-based programs to serve students at-risk of failing to attain the educational goals set forth in existing law. Despite unprecedented levels of additional legislative approved funding for K-12 resulting from the Gannon Court case, outcomes for students identified as at-risk have remained stagnant. In the Legislative Post Audit Report on at-risk funding, three recommendations were given to KSDE and the State Board of Education but there has been strong push back by both. This bill is an effort to put teeth in the LPA’s recommendations and to direct the KSDE and the State Board of Education to identify and approve actual at-risk programs that provide additional focused services to those at-risk students who continue to be left behind year after year. At-risk funds need to be expended only for programs that are known and proven to work based on evidence-based best practices. At KPI’s suggestion, the House amended the bill to provide local districts the opportunity to provisionally use an evidence-based at-risk program that does not appear on SBOE’s list. The House also added a second LPA compliance audit to be performed in 2022 with a report due to the Legislature in January 2023. (Attachment 1)
Jim Porter, Legislative Liaison for The Kansas State Board of Education, gave opponent testimony saying SBOE agrees it has the responsibility to provide guidance to school districts on the effective use of at-risk funding and it supports appropriate accountability measures. One objection to this bill is that it would eliminate the possibility of creative solutions and they would suggest the provisional definition be expanded to include creative solutions developed by practicing teachers. Several of the reporting requirements are unworkable. Unless a program or service is on the SBOE approved list requirement, this provision puts an undue burden on staff whose priority should be to spend their time providing services and programs to students. When students receive more than one service or program, it is not possible to determine which or what combination of programs contributed to the improvement. Decisions impacting the success of students should be made based on student need, not to provide data for an adult. Several of these provisions appear to assume at-risk students are only those who are academically behind. Programs that address social and emotional issues are difficult to measure. Change in attendance, office referrals, reports of bullying behaviors, etc. can be documented, but who did not run away from home or who did not commit suicide because of these interventions is not and cannot be known or documented. There were several completed audits that were amended into the bill on the House Floor. It would seem appropriate to delete those audits from the Statute Books. (Attachment 2)
Written proponent testimony was submitted by Dr. Tiffany Anderson, Superintendent and Dr. Scott Mickelson, School Board President, Topeka Public Schools, USD 501. (Attachment 3)
Chairperson Baumgardner asked Mr. O’Neal to explain why page 2, lines 32-36, (c) Upon a school district's receipt of state foundation aid, that portion of such state foundation aid that is directly attributable to such school district's at-risk student weighting and high-density at-risk student weighting, if any, shall be transferred to the district's at-risk education fund established under K.S.A. 72-5153, is an important component of the bill. Mr. O’Neal said it would give transparency as to how the funds are spent because expenditures could be tracked.
Chairperson Baumgardner also inquired about using the average ACT composite score and making that comparison for students who have received assistance or services. Which ACT score is this talking about? Mr. O’Neal answered this was a House Education Committee Amendment that he did not have involvement in so could not answer the question.
Senator Givens asked for Mr. O’Neal’s definition of failure for at-risk programing as mentioned in his written testimony. He replied that failure is not making adequate progress based upon the increase level of investment the state has put into that.
Senator Bollier asked which states have had great success that Mr. O’Neal would like for Kansas to emulate. Mr. O’Neal suggested Florida as they were at the bottom but now are at the top for at-risk programs. Senator Bollier referred to page 4, section 4 where it states “by a comparison of students receiving such service or assistance with all other students” and asked if this language is adequate. Mr. O’Neal stated that this is language from the House Education Committee in an attempt to broaden the language and get away from the idea that you have to track individual programs or individual students which is unworkable.
Senator Sykes, concerned about consistency, asked why Mr. O’Neal is being so harsh in this situation and not in the other. Mr. O’Neal said the evidence shows there needs to be more oversight in this area of at-risk funding. Discussion ensued. What they hope is that teachers and districts are innovative, that they would have the expertise as to what works and want them to show it is working and it would be reflected in the outcomes of the IPS.
Senator Alley stated in this legislation the at-risk student is identified. Does the teacher know who has been identified as at-risk? Being an at-risk student is not just those who qualify for free or reduced lunch. Mr. O’Neal replied this is true and every district has its own approach of identifying those students. Senator Alley asked if the evidence-based programs should be identified for a particular issue. Mr. O’Neal said you would hope someday to reach that level of sophistication.
Senator Baumgardner asked if Mr. Porter would be supportive of using as “another” way the three different predictive state assessments which are free from the University of Kansas. Mr. Porter replied as “a” way, not “the” way.
Seeing no further questions, Chairperson Baumgardner closed the hearing on HB2540.
Chairperson Baumgardner brought to the attention of the Committee a document in their packet from Blake Flanders, KBOR, providing information requested by Senator Rucker regarding institutions that qualify to participate in HB2515 Promise Scholarship Program and answered a question asked by Senator Sykes on the extent to which persons who received awards through our service scholarship programs went into repayment status or who elected to repay the award rather than meet the service requirements.(Attachment 4)
Also in the packet was a document from John Hess, Fiscal Analyst, providing the Committee with information on apprenticeship programs including programs in selected peer states, along with a survey of tax incentives and tuition assistance for apprenticeships and a 50-state survey of apprenticeship programs conducted by the Education Commission of the States.(Attachment 5)
The meeting was adjourned at 2:36 PM.
The next scheduled meeting is March 12, 2020.
