Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas hearing on SB 87 draws opposition over expansion of scholarship tax credit to non-low‑income students
Summary
Opponents told the House Education Committee that Senate Bill 87 would expand an existing tax-credit-funded scholarship to students regardless of family income, diverting state general fund revenue to private schools and risking limited oversight and uneven access for the students it purports to serve.
Madam Chair and committee members heard public testimony urging them to reject Senate Bill 87, which opponents said expands eligibility for a tax-credit-funded scholarship and could divert state general fund revenue to private schools.
Representative (conferee) Poskins, a conferee at the hearing, told the committee that “Senate Bill 87 opens up 4 categories of eligibility for students of unlimited income” and described scenarios where children who first qualify under income limits would continue receiving an $8,000 scholarship “no matter the income level that the family achieves.” She added, “I beg you to vote no on this bill and decrease state general funds when we're facing a deficit.”
Leah Fleiter, speaking for KSB (identified in testimony as opposing the bill), said the organization’s legislative policy “opposes programs including but not limited to vouchers, education savings accounts, trust funds, scholarships and tuition tax credits because such programs divert public funds from public schools to schools which are not required to serve all students.” Fleiter told the committee SB 87 “expands eligibility to non low income students” and “doesn't require the student to have ever been enrolled in a public school,” which she said increases the program’s potential cost to taxpayers.
Jim Carlskin, representing United School Administrators of Kansas, said private schools can be selective in enrollment and noted concerns about accountability. “We served all kids,” Carlskin said of public schools’ role, contrasting that with private schools’ ability to select students. He voiced worries about fraud and lax accountability in some states’ programs.
Mary Sinclair, speaking for the Kansas PTA, said private schools “can dismiss students with academic or behavioral challenges at will” and cited research offered in testimony that, she said, links voucher programs in other states to learning loss when micro‑schools collapsed or students returned to public schools. Sinclair also told the committee the existing Kansas tax credit program had left “millions in funds unallocated” and said expanding eligibility untethered from family wealth would allow private schools to “skip right over those struggling youth for whom this program has been justified.” She urged using funds to reimburse local districts for special education expenditures if the goal is to improve outcomes for struggling students.
The hearing record included repeated concerns from opponents about accountability, oversight and whether the scholarship serves low‑income students as intended. Proponents were not heard in the portion of the transcript provided. Committee members asked whether states cited for fraud had audit procedures and whether accountability or audit requirements would change the conferees’ views.
No committee action on SB 87 is recorded in the provided transcript; the portion supplied is the public‑testimony phase of the hearing.
