Committee hears hours of testimony on Senate Bill 87, which would expand income‑based tax‑credit scholarships and raise the cap

The House Education Committee heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill 87, a proposed change to the Low Income Student Scholarship Act that would expand eligibility for scholarships funded by private donations that qualify for a state tax credit, raise the annual aggregate credit cap from $10 million to $15 million and allow automatic 25% increases when demand exceeds 75% of the cap up to a statutory ceiling of $25 million.

Revisor Jason Long told the committee SB 87 keeps the existing 250% of federal poverty level income threshold for low‑income eligibility but would add three categories of students who would be eligible regardless of income: students placed in foster care or kinship care at any time before graduation or age 21; students whose parent is on active duty in the U.S. military or who were killed in the line of duty; and students whose parent is an emergency medical service provider, firefighter or law‑enforcement officer. The bill as reported also removes an earlier Senate amendment that would have made the donor tax credit refundable up to 100%; under the version described to the committee the donor credit remains a 75% tax credit against state tax liability. The revisor said the bill would be effective July 1 if enacted and that the Senate had passed the measure on final action by a 24‑16 vote.

Proponents emphasized parental choice and private fundraising. Former Representative Chuck Weber, testifying on behalf of supporters, said the scholarship program “does not use any public money,” describing the program as donations to scholarship‑granting organizations that then distribute funds to students. He and other proponents asked the committee to lift the cap to allow more scholarship funding statewide; Weber said statewide donations to scholarship organizations recently totaled in the low‑millions and supporters seek the higher cap so more families can be served.

Representatives of Catholic school systems and scholarship organizations provided examples and outcomes. Vincent Ansch, executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation, said his SGO raised more than $11 million last year and used $8.3 million in credits to fund scholarships; he reported high graduation rates and post‑secondary attendance for scholarship recipients. Jeff Andrews, superintendent for the Diocese of Salina, said his SGO awarded $138,000 in scholarships to 102 students this school year (average $1,351.74 per student) and that the diocesan SGO has awarded roughly $504,911 in scholarships since the program began in their area. Multiple witnesses described the program as particularly important in rural communities and for military families who move frequently.

Legislative Research staff provided recent figures on tax credits and contributions. Elena Rutter said that for the 2024 tax year the statewide amount of tax credits claimed was about $5.5 million, with contributions totaling about $7.8 million; she also said total tax credits since 2016 are roughly $32.8 million and contributions about $46.3 million. Witnesses for SGOs and dioceses pointed to reporting and audit requirements and to Department of Revenue reporting of dollars raised and distributed.

Opponents raised concerns about public accountability, the impact on public schools and special‑education funding. Speakers representing Kansas Interfaith Action and the Kansas National Education Association argued the tax credit diverts state revenue (tax credits reduce state tax collections) to private schools and can weaken rural districts by shifting students and funding. Mr. Rogers of Kansas Interfaith Action said the program “takes public money and puts it in private hands.” Tim Graham of the Kansas National Education Association and other opponents urged the committee to prioritize funding public schools and to address special‑education shortfalls before expanding tax‑credit programs.

Other opponents said the program’s income threshold (250% of the federal poverty level) is higher than the bill’s name suggests and now covers families above the state median income; critics said that increasing the cap and expanding categories of eligible children could primarily benefit families that are not the lowest‑income and would reduce net state revenues. Several speakers asked for stronger oversight or limits tied to public accountability; others urged that if expansions are considered, they should be balanced with offsets to the budget so public school funding is not further constrained.

Committee members asked a range of questions about program mechanics, fundraising, SGO reporting, private school admissions and services to students with special needs. Several proponents said private schools accepting scholarship students do serve children with IEPs and other special needs but opponents stressed that many private schools do not provide the full range of special‑education services public districts are required to provide.

The committee did not take a committee‑level final vote on SB 87 during the excerpted hearing. The revisor told the committee the bill had passed the Senate 24‑16 on final action and would take effect July 1 if enacted.