Kansas Senate committee hears hours of testimony on SB 75 education tax credit

Senate members heard more than three hours of testimony Tuesday on Senate Bill 75, a proposed refundable education opportunity tax credit that would give taxpayers up to $8,000 for each dependent child enrolled full time in an accredited private school and $4,000 for each dependent in a nonaccredited private school, the reviser's office told the committee.

The bill, described in a memorandum from the reviser's office by Tamara Lawrence, "would establish the education opportunity tax credit for taxpayers with eligible dependent children who are not enrolled in public school." Lawrence said the proposal would require a taxpayer to provide the child's Social Security number, bar eligibility if a child already received a scholarship under the state's low-income student scholarship program, allow the Department of Revenue to consult with the Department of Education to verify public-school enrollment, and make the credit refundable. Lawrence also summarized the bill's cap: a maximum of $125,000,000 per tax year with an automatic 25% increase if claims reach 90% of that cap, and a priority for prior recipients if the cap is reached. The reviser said fraudulent claims would be subject to penalty and that the bill would take effect July 1, 2025, upon publication in the statute book.

Why it matters: supporters said SB 75 would expand parental choice and reduce cost barriers to private and home schooling, while opponents said the credit would divert state general funds from public schools, worsen funding shortfalls for special education and rural districts, and impose little oversight of how funds are spent.

Proponents: dozens of proponents, including private school leaders, parents and home educators, argued the credit would increase access for families who cannot currently afford private tuition. "We support this legislation because it provides parents with an opportunity to choose the educational environment that best fits their child's unique needs," said Dr. Jamie Pinkledigh, associate superintendent of the Catholic Diocese of Wichita. Melinda Evans, special education coordinator at Maranatha Christian Academy, told the committee she sees private-school placements as beneficial for some students with learning disabilities and described her school's approach to individualized plans. Home-educating parents and students also testified that the credit would return some of the taxes and other costs they already pay and make private options accessible to more families.

Opponents: local school advocates, teachers' and PTA representatives, faith groups and rural leaders warned of budgetary and accountability risks. "Vouchers are wrong for Kansas in any form," said Representative Mary Lynn Poskin, citing calculations she presented showing that some large families could receive credits that exceed their private-school tuition. Leah Fleiter of the Kansas Association of School Boards said public schools serve roughly 90% of Kansas children and cautioned that diverting state funds would damage those communities. Laurel Burchfield of Mainstream Coalition framed the measure as a separation-of-church-and-state concern because many private schools receiving funds would be religiously affiliated.

Questions and limits: senators asked about verification, duration of enrollment and fraud prevention. When Senator Petty asked how intentional false claims would be detected, Lawrence said that determination would be made by the Department of Revenue and that the bill does not create a new, specific mechanism beyond existing tax-fraud procedures. When asked about partial-year enrollment, Lawrence said a dependent enrolled any time during the tax year in a public school would render the child ineligible for that tax year.

Process and timing: the panel took several hours of proponent and opponent testimony and indicated it would collect additional written testimony that had been submitted. The hearing did not include a committee vote on SB 75; the panel paused to allow members to appear on the floor and set a hard stop on testimony to accommodate the Senate schedule. Earlier in the hearing the committee introduced RS 0468, a separate bill regarding participation in school activities; the committee chair asked if there were objections and, seeing none, stated that RS 0468 was introduced.

What remains unresolved: the committee did not take final action on SB 75. Numerous witnesses asked for fiscal data, accountability requirements and limits on eligibility; opponents pressed for means-testing and stronger safeguards for special education funding. Supporters urged the committee to allow parental choice and pointed to accreditation and testing requirements used by many private schools.

Looking ahead: senators said they had further questions and would follow up with conferees for additional submissions. No final committee vote on SB 75 was recorded at the hearing's end.