Legislature

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools is opposed to Senate Bill 302. Our community and elected Board are committed to addressing the broad range of issues that cellphones and social media have contributed to changing the nature of our society in general and our schools in particular. Senate Bill 302 mandates the strongest instrument to address these issues. We support regulation of phones in schools. A fully funded school finance formula, including the $44 million annually we divert from the budget to fill the special education shortfall, and management of cellphone behavior are both required.

We do not support the proposed methods of eliminating the negative impact of cellphones in all schools. One-size fits every school district will not address the issue. The current bill includes exceptions, and more exceptions will certainly be sought, and the bill includes the exemption for non-public schools receiving public funds. Senate Bill 302 is not a comprehensive solution, and it is not a solution built on our community and parental engagement. As ours is in Olathe. 

We support Senate Bill 302 as a framework and guide for all schools to set high and clear standards, goals, and outcomes. We support the ability of each elected school board, and nonpublic school governing body, to determine, within state standards, measures to mitigate the impact of cellphones and the challenges they bring to the classroom.

The Olathe Public Schools Board of Education has policies and guidance that already address the content of this bill; we prioritize local control. Our Board of Education voted on policies over a year ago that met the needs our greater community has asked for regarding cell phone usage in the classroom. Historically issues the Legislature addresses with a broad ban may not reflect the varied needs of each local school district and communities they serve. Our focus remains on the importance of serving our community’s expectations with the final decisions rooted in the elected board’s decisions locally.

The focus and commitment of our Board to our community is on setting and fulfilling high expectations for all our students and addressing cellphone use is a priority. Our Board focuses valuable resources on ensuring students have the opportunity to succeed and minimization of cellphone interference is critical. Our robust school improvement system holds schools accountable for academic achievement and progress, and we are accountable for addressing cellphones with the support and engagement of our community, not the mandate in Senate Bill 302.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager, Superintendent

Chairwoman Estes and Members of the Committee: Olathe Public Schools is opposed to House Bill 2268, that expands the scope and impact of student scholarship act beyond its original legislative intent, diverting scarce public dollars away from public schools.

The Olathe Public Schools legislative platform reflects the policy priorities of our Board of Education and our District. Our approved 2026 legislative platform asserts:

• We strongly support using public dollars to support public schools and oppose programs, including vouchers, education saving accounts, opportunity scholarships, tax credit scholarships, tuition tax credits as well as individual tax credits and deductions allowing guardians to receive state income tax relief for approved educational expenses, that divert public funding from public education to schools that are not held to the same legal requirements as public schools.
•  https://www.olatheschools.org/discover-olathe/board-of-education/legislature

The scholarship program began at the behest of legislators advocating to create the opportunities for low-income public-school student, who had no chance to escape “low performing schools.” Non-public school supporters praised the program as a means to help those the public school system had left behind. Often the students present in committee hearings and presentations were “low income.” Since the original law began, almost every legislative session that includes expansion of the scholarships. The Legislature increased income eligibility, expanded the amount of the tax credit, and raised the total program cap but also removed tax revenue available to education all students.

The goal of helping struggling students without opportunity and resources have better chance is diminished. The expansion of the program in House Bill 2468, combined with support for the federal tax credit program, are now tools of the state government supporting non-public and home schooled for a vastly different population.

The results of this bill include:

1. Higher income eligible participants. Tax credits in House Bill 2468 that will now reach $500,000 per year to contributors make the program more obviously a tax shelter for high-income earners or business and corporate entities
2. Raising the total statewide cap, and possibly with a built-in accelerator annually, will increase the total amount of revenue available for the state to fund public education.
3. Finally, we do not support the bills “election” to join the federal scholarship program as well that is included in House Bill 2468.

Collectively, these changes alter the original legislative intent; funnels more public dollars primarily to families who already are availing themselves of private school options as we see in other states; and decreases the resources available to the vast majority of public-school students.

Olathe Public Schools is held to high standards for educational outcomes and student achievement, because we are funded by the taxpayers. Publicly elected school boards are accountable to the citizens and taxpayers, and open meetings, open records, and auditing laws because they are funded by the taxpayers. Since this proposed law would allow scholarship granting agencies and “qualified schools” to receive the financial benefits of taxpayer funds, Kansas taxpayers should expect accountability and transparency.

• Eligibility for “qualified schools” and scholarship agencies must adhere to antidiscrimination laws.
• KSDE performance accountability reports include specific data reported by both public-school districts and “qualified schools” or home school programs. Their reports should now include reporting on public school districts and qualified schools by number and percentage of students with an IEP.
• All scholarship granting agencies and “qualified schools” should be statutorily identified as subject to contractual and financial audits, as are public schools per KSA 46-1114.

If I can provide any additional information or answer questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager, Superintendent

Chair Estes and Members of the Committee: Olathe Public Schools is opposed to House Bill 2421. Our community and elected Board are committed to addressing the broad range of issues that cellphones and social media have contributed to changing the nature of our society in general and our schools in particular. House Bill 2421 mandates the strongest instrument to address these issues. We support regulation of phones in schools. A fully funded school finance formula, including the $44 million annually we divert from the budget to fill the special education shortfall, and management of cellphone behavior are both required.

We do not support the proposed methods of eliminating the negative impact of cellphones in all schools. One-size fits every school district will not address the issue. The current bill includes exceptions, and more exceptions will certainly be sought, and the bill includes the exemption for non-public schools receiving public funds. Section 3 (2) also includes new cumbersome and extensive recording and reporting on all screentime for students from grades one through four. House Bill 2421 is not a comprehensive solution, and it is not a solution built on our community and parental engagement. As ours is in Olathe.

We support House Bill 2421 as a framework and guide for all schools to set high and clear standards, goals, and outcomes. We support the ability of each elected school board, and nonpublic school governing body, to determine, within state standards, measures to mitigate the impact of cellphones and the challenges they bring to the classroom.

The Olathe Public Schools Board of Education has policies and guidance that already address the content of this bill; we prioritize local control. Our Board of Education voted on policies over a year ago that met the needs our greater community has asked for regarding cell phone usage in the classroom. Historically issues the Legislature addresses with a broad ban may not reflect the varied needs of each local school district and communities they serve. Our focus remains on the importance of serving our community’s expectations with the final decisions rooted in the elected board’s decisions locally.

The focus and commitment of our Board to our community is on setting and fulfilling high expectations for all our students and addressing cellphone use is a priority. Our Board focuses valuable resources on ensuring students have the opportunity to succeed and minimization of cellphone interference is critical. Our robust school improvement system holds schools accountable for academic achievement and progress, and we are accountable for addressing cellphones with the support and engagement of our community, not the mandate in House Bill 2421.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager, Superintendent

Chairman Proctor and Members of the House Elections Committee:

Olathe Public Schools oppose HB 2451. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on HB 2451, which prohibits the use of local assets in support or opposition of state constitutional questions or ballot initiatives. In short, HB 2451 infringes on local decision-making on questions of importance for municipalities (including school districts) and their citizens and attempts to restrain the content of information that should be made available to the public.

The law focuses on the election or defeat of a state or local political candidate and HB 2451 adds State constitutional amendments and local ballot questions.

The bill contends school districts must “promote or oppose” state or local questions in a “neutral manner” and “neutral information,” but only on the official government website. The bill’s use of “neutral” is abstract and ripe for conflict and litigation. The second section restricts the ability to “conduct or authorize” mass communications via “flyers, physical signage and statements posted on social media.” These issues are of the greatest importance related to bond issues to address new construction and upkeep of existing facilities.

The bill is ambiguous and likely results in misinterpretation. A local unit of government by necessity is responsible for explaining, detailing, and presenting a proposed ballot question for example. “Neutrality” itself is probably debatable related to a ballot question for example. Is a levy for a new school, gymnasium, or playground not described by its benefits, efficiencies, and contribution to the operation of local government? Could that description be rebutted by potential critics who argue the language is “not neutral”? The designation can be subjective.

We support our elected school board and administration’s capacity to truthfully and accurately explain ballot questions and trust our communities’ capacity to evaluate a non-partisan and political decision based on the needs for new or repaired facilities, enhanced security, or other resources. An accurate and detailed description of a project and its benefits is not propaganda.

HB 2451 imposition of limitations are unnecessary, unless there is consistent evidence of local school boards’ misuse of the process, that warrant some consideration of change. We do not believe there is and thus respectfully request the Committee oppose this bill.

If I can provide any additional information or answer questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager, Superintendent

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools is opposed to the concept of new school meal verification procedures. We are very concerned that it will be excessively burdensome and estimate the process will likely cost us nearly $200,000 in staff costs. Currently, we verify 3% with a significant investment in personnel and time. The issue of required verification for 100% of the Free/Reduced applications would be impossible to accomplish without adding several additional staff. Additionally, the provisions of this bill are likely not in alignment with Federal law.

Olathe Public Schools do not participate in Community Eligibility Program, which is all federally funded, so the impact on us would strictly be the 100% verification unfunded mandate. Nonetheless, the CEP provision requiring legislative authorization to utilize federal funds to feed children from low-income families is another good example of an issue that does not impact the state and should remain the decision of the locally elected school boards..

The proposed legislation has unclear objectives and limited constructive benefit, particularly in the light of significant uncertainty regarding federal policy and intent. Olathe Public Schools is focus on supporting education by ensuring children in need are fed so they can be ready to learn in order to reach their highest academic potential.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager

Chair Goetz and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools supports increased funding for K–12 education, and we are asking this Committee to take decisive action on special education funding.

Olathe Public Schools supports the Kansas State Board of Education’s recommendation to increase special education funding by $145 million. This increase is essential to move the State toward meeting its statutory obligation to fund 92 percent of excess special education costs—an obligation the State has failed to meet for more than a decade.

The Governor’s proposed $50 million increase does not go far enough. It does not reflect the scope of the problem and does not come close to covering the existing shortfall in Johnson County or across Kansas.

Johnson County schools are currently shifting approximately $130 million from general education budgets to cover unfunded special education costs. In Olathe Public Schools, last year we redirected over $44 million to fill the gap left by inadequate state funding. Those dollars should have been spent in classrooms and on student supports for ALL students. Instead, they were used to cover costs the State is legally responsible to fund.

This underfunding does not just impact students receiving special education services. It impacts every single student and every staff member in our district. When millions of dollars are redirected, class sizes increase, staffing is strained, services are reduced, and opportunities are lost for all students.

The current reality is that this level of underfunding is bankrupting school districts with small cash balances, including Olathe. Districts are being forced to absorb costs they cannot sustain year after year, placing their long-term financial stability at risk.

We recognize that the federal government has also failed to meet its funding obligations for special education. However, even if the federal government fully met its commitment, the State of Kansas would still have significant ground to make up. Federal underfunding cannot be used to justify continued state underfunding.

At the same time, the current state appropriation that cannot be spent on education this year is more than sufficient to fix this problem. The resources exist to address the special education funding gap now; what is needed is the will to prioritize it. The State has a legal obligation to fund special education appropriately. Continued underfunding shifts that responsibility onto local districts and taxpayers and undermines the educational system as a whole. The State Board of Education’s $145 million recommendation represents an important step toward addressing this issue.

We urge this Committee to support special education funding at the level recommended by the State Board of Education. Anything less continues a pattern of underfunding that harms students, staff, and communities across Kansas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

The Kansas Legislature has the resources to fully fund special education at statutorily required levels this year. 

That was the message the Johnson County School Districts delivered in Topeka in mid-January, just as the session was underway.  The locally elected Johnson County Boards of Education and superintendents met with legislators who represent parts of our region to advocate for funding, students, and public schools.

At the top of our agenda was a solution for lawmakers that requires no new spending. Based on this year’s state appropriation for K-12 education and the decrease in student enrollment across Kansas, the Legislature already has the resources available to meet its legal obligation. It simply must choose to do so.  

The state has approximately $269,000,000 excess due to declining enrollment.  The shortfall created by not funding special education in Johnson County is $61,000,000.  The state currently has the funds to follow the law and fund special education, and all children in Kansas, by earmarking the funds currently set aside and allocating it to the districts who are supporting special education at the state’s required amount.  That still leaves a balance for the state to use the set aside funds for other priorities, while meeting their obligation to all Kansas children.  

By statute, the state is required to reimburse 92% of the excess costs that districts incur to provide special education services, including costs for essential equipment, specialized instruction and staffing for students with exceptional needs. Year after year, the state has failed to meet this requirement. Yet school districts must, by law, provide the services special education students require due to their individual needs. The costs increased 11% In Johnson County, or $27,115,058 between 2024 and 2025 for special education.  In Johnson County, the six school districts spend $271,953,969 in special education support, yet state and federal aid are only 51% of that total.   In order to provide those services, despite the shortfall from the state and the federal government; Johnson County School Districts transfer $132,716,762 from the general fund, which provides services for all 95,000 students in Johnson County, to cover the shortfall created by not meeting the statutory requirement.   The last time the Kansas Legislature fully funded special education at the statutory requirement of 92% of excess costs was during the 2010-2011 school year.  Year over year, it is the same backwards slide that has resulted in where we are today.  In essence, special education is fully funded, because our school districts are covering the shortfall out of general operating budgets.  The general population of students is not fully funded and in fact, $1,400 from every student’s allocated amount of $5,378 is transferred to fully fund special education.  If the state were to fund special education as required, this allows for school districts to reallocate the transferred funds from special education into the general education classroom, recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and staff, and provide the necessary supplies and equipment that teachers are providing due to the year over year shortfall.  

We presented lawmakers with this solution that is affordable and practical.

Fully funding special education should not be a partisan issue. We encourage all Kansas residents to contact your legislators and ask them to support full special education funding at the level required by law. We also advocate for leaving local decisions to the elected board members, rather than making policy decisions in Topeka that are unfunded mandates.  Together, our voices can make a difference.

Johnson County School District Superintendents:

Dr. Brent Yeager, Olathe
Dr. Michael Schumacher, Shawnee Mission
Dr. Link Luttrell, Spring Hill
Dr. Brian Huff, Gardner Edgerton
Dr. Cory Gibson, DeSoto
Dr. Gillian Chapman, Blue Valley

Chair Estes and Members of the Committee: 

Olathe Public Schools supports the message and intent of House Bill 2489. Fentanyl and opioids have a devastating impact on our community, families, and the students we educate.

Olathe Public Schools’ age-appropriate curriculum on health and safety incorporates education and awareness of the highly dangerous and unpredictable threat of fentanyl. Additionally, life-saving naloxone is available in all our school facilities.

We support the goal of educating school boards on the risks of fentanyl and the benefits of naloxone and encourage frank engagement in the education process. However, we believe locally elected school boards are the best method to shape local policy on most issues. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager
 

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools is appearing in opposition to Senate Bill 421 regarding student personal expression.

Our school system is supportive of student free speech and encourages student interest and engagement in our community and nation. We also adhere to the protections and boundaries of hateful, discriminatory, and other speech that is age appropriate within the context of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Our opposition stems from two components of the bill. Our first concern is the definition of "harmed" in language that is otherwise very expansive and inclusive. The bill allows a self-determination of harm that is almost without limitations when an individual student or family member believes their space of safety has been violated. The bill could be used to cast too broad of a net and invites unending litigation with possible intent to diminish a voice in opposition to their freedom.

Second, the sanctions included are aggressive and problematic when paired with our first concern. The bill provides that "any student or student club or organization that is harmed" can pursue a private cause of action against the school including damages, legal fees, and "any appropriate relief." And a civil penalty of $5,000 each. The bill makes the public entity liable for the speech within their walls. 

The bill could expand free speech, and it could provide many opportunities for students and organizations to educate each other. We don't want to make a chance to learn also a vehicle for retribution. We believe the existing authority of the locally elected boards of education have the authority and responsibility to address these local issues. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Dr. Brent Yeager

Greetings:

We represent the Blue Valley, Shawnee Mission and Olathe school districts, and we are joining together to address the impact of Sub. for House Bill 2007 on Johnson County schools. While each of our districts is unique, the challenges this legislation presents—and the significant and nearly identical impact on our students, staff and communities—demand a united response. Together, we serve tens of thousands of students and families, and we are deeply concerned about the consequences of this legislation on our ability to deliver high-quality education and support the needs of all learners.

Last year, the Legislature made a meaningful step forward by investing $72 million in special education (SPED), moving closer to the statutory requirement of 92% funding. We are grateful for that support. Unfortunately, HB 2007 halts that progress by failing to provide adequate new SPED funding for the 2025-26 school year—leaving schools with growing financial obligations and little to no additional support.

This failure to adequately increase SPED funding forces our districts to make damaging choices: we must divert even more dollars away from general operations, core classroom instruction, and vital student programs to fulfill the obligation left by the unfulfilled commitment and budget shortfall. This is not sustainable.

Recently, there have been suggestions that other existing sources of revenue are filling the shortfall and new funds aren’t needed. However, the suggestion that these existing sources can simply be “repurposed” to fill this gap is misleading and inaccurate.

• The Local Option Budget (LOB) is generated from local property taxpayers to meet local needs, often with voter approval. Shifting these funds does not fulfill the state’s 92% funding obligation—it shifts the burden from the state to local taxpayers.
• Cash balances in SPED accounts fluctuate depending on deposits and spending. A periodic elevated cash balance does not mean extra or unused SPED funding. It reflects cash flow, not excess.

The magnitude of the shortfall is clear. Our districts have already been forced to make massive transfers to cover special education needs:

• 2022-23 school year: Blue Valley $20.3 million; Olathe $36.2 million; Shawnee Mission $19.4 million
• 2023-24 school year: Blue Valley $22.6 million; Olathe $32.1 million; Shawnee Mission $18.0 million
• 2024-25 school year: Blue Valley $25.0 million; Olathe $34.1 million; Shawnee Mission $22.6 million
• Total: Blue Valley $67.9 million; Olathe $102.4 million; Shawnee Mission $60.0 million

Cumulative total transferred away from other student services: $230.3 million.

This is not theoretical. These are real dollars, real impacts on students, teachers and classrooms.

Additionally, the budget also removes a variety of teacher-focused programs critical to quality education and specifically identified in the Gannon decision:

• Professional Development
• Career & Technical Education (CTE) Transportation
• Mentor Teacher Program
• Teacher Excellence Program (cutting $5 million this year and $5 million next year)

Stripping these programs is a direct hit to teacher quality, recruitment, and retention—particularly in a time when districts are already grappling with workforce shortages and increasing student needs.

We do appreciate the inclusion of $262 million to fund the consumer price index (CPI) increase. But let us be clear: these funds are not a windfall. They are necessary just to maintain current service levels and meet rising costs for staff, supplies, transportation, and other essentials. Without them, districts would fall behind, unable to fulfill commitments to students and staff.

As budget negotiations begin, the Legislature must not turn its back on students with disabilities, educators and Kansas families. We strongly urge legislators to:

1. Restore and increase SPED funding to meet the statutory 92% obligation.
2. Reject any suggestion that local dollars can substitute for state responsibility.
3. Reinstate crucial teacher support programs that directly affect student outcomes.
4. Protect the CPI increase to ensure schools can operate effectively in the face of rising costs.

Failure to act will force districts to make serious decisions as it relates to the future of programs, staff and services, shifting the burden to local communities and undermining educational quality across Kansas.

Now is the time to honor commitments. Our students, educators and families are counting on you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tonya Merrigan, Blue Valley Schools superintendent

Dr. Brent Yeager, Olathe Public Schools superintendent

Dr. Michael Schumacher, Shawnee Mission School District superintendent

Chair Estes and Members of the Committee:

We’re providing testimony on SB 47 because many of the procedural proposals are requirements beyond the usual and customary procedures for all elected governing bodies in Kansas. Olathe Public Schools supports active and engaged Board leadership and participation in every aspect of our district. We conform to many of the provisions of the bill regarding Board activities and encourage all districts to do the same if are not already.

The bill’s board procedure provisions allow any single board member to modify, change, expand, or remove agenda items is contrary to common procedure, and would be disruptive to business of any elected body, including the Legislature. The same provisions regarding public comment apply as well.

Finally, for a district of our size, given our number of students and schools, the bill requiring board members unlimited and even unknown access to any district property raises any number of issues, including legal and safety issues. This provision also highlights the contrasting requirement that all volunteers in schools are subject to background checks.

SB 47 appears to be instigated by the actions of one or two districts and a limited number of persons. Statewide policy is best set with our focus on the boarder issues that many districts may experience, not anecdotes.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools supports the Kansas Department of Education and Governor Laura Kelly's budget recommendations.

Olathe Public Schools operates 58 public schools, serving approximately 29,000 students. The second-largest school district in the state has over 4,500 employees, 32% free and reduced lunch-qualifying students, a large special education population, and maintains an almost 95% graduation rate.

The 2024 Legislature fully funded the K-12 budget that included the base funding as well as over $72 million in special education funding. We thank them for their commitment to valuable resources that help us serve our community and the needs of students. In Olathe, almost every dollar of new money went directly to our staff compensation and benefits. Our large population of special education students, and the district commitment to serving them, requires continued funding to fulfill the special education cost demands in pursuit of reaching the statutorily required 92% of excess costs.

We support the State Department of Education's budget to continue to fund the K-12 schools adequately and equitably. The Governor's budget recommendations adding to K-12 funding request fulfills that ongoing commitment and the recommendations should be included in the approved budget.

• Governor recommends fully funding base state aid and $72.6 million for SPED, and the same amount for the next four years to reach 92 percent excess cost funding in 2029. The House budget adds only $10 million in new funding.
• We will transfer $34.1 million during the 2024-25 school year to fund the state shortfall in special education funding.
• We could increase starting teacher salaries by $9,020 with the diverted funds.

Thank you for your continued support for funding Kansas public schools.

Dr. Brent Yeager, superintendent

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools strongly supports every school district’s engagement in all necessary training, preparation, prevention, and mitigation efforts related to active shooter events. Senate Bill 263 articulates policy changes to facilitate a statewide set of guidelines. We support policies that reduce administrative burdens when current procedures may be absent, but our interest in favoring local school board decision-making on this issue warrants our neutral position. The mission of SB 263 is already being implemented and refined on a regular basis.

Olathe Public Schools serves approximately 29,033 students in fifty-one public schools in five high schools, ten middle schools, and thirty-six elementary schools. The time, energy, and concentration of resources already committed to safety and security is significant.

The focus and commitment of our Board to our community is the safety of all our students and employees. Our local board can be quick and nimble to adjust to situations, circumstances, technology, and methods to ensure student and staff safety. We favor that flexibility in our responsiveness. There is value in the State Department of Education identifying best practices and providing technical guidance for districts, but statutory designation should consider local elected decision making as well.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chairman Lewis and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools is the second-largest school district in the state. In addition to outstanding student achievement in the classrooms, many of our 28,500 students engage in the available extracurricular athletic, academic, and social activities.

The safety of our students and staff are a priority, highlighted, unfortunately last spring, when our school safety officers had to address a student incident. In addition to our investment in school resource officers and security measures, we are also committed to helping our students’ behavioral health needs both on campuses and with community partners.

Because of our extensive student engagement in activities year-round, and the flow of non-students and staff on our campuses, House Bill 2324 is a valuable tool available for county attorneys to address incidents. We appreciate the introduction of this bill and support its passage.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

We’re providing testimony on SB 47 because many of the procedural proposals are requirements beyond the usual and customary procedures for all elected governing bodies in Kansas. Olathe Public Schools supports active and engaged Board leadership and participation in every aspect of our district. We conform to many of the provisions of the bill regarding Board activities and encourage all districts to do the same if are not already.

The bill’s board procedure provisions allow any single board member to modify, change, expand, or remove agenda items is contrary to common procedure, and would be disruptive to business of any elected body, including the Legislature. The same provisions regarding public comment apply as well.

Finally, for a district of our size, given our number of students and schools, the bill requiring board members unlimited and even unknown access to any district property raising any number of issues, including legal and safety issues.

SB 47 appears to be instigated by the actions of one or two districts and a limited number of persons. Statewide policy is best set with our focus on the boarder issues that many districts may experience, not anecdotes.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chair Estes and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools supports House Bill 2139 and the increasing of the threshold under which the board of education of every unified school district may delegate to the superintendent of schools the power to execute contracts on behalf of the district for the purchase of goods and services if the value of such goods is under $50,000 or less, vs. the current $20,000 referenced in Sec. 2. K.S.A. 72-1151.

Olathe Public Schools serves approximately 29,033 students in fifty-one public schools in five high schools, ten middle schools, and thirty-six elementary schools. Our Board of Education and staff pride themselves on being good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. Internal processes exist aside from this statute that ensure fair and competitive pricing is obtained for all our purchases. However, with the size of our district and nearly a half- billion dollar budget the $20,000 threshold established in 2006 creates an unwarranted inefficiency in our system. Based on our volume of purchases the $20,000 threshold is exceeded regularly, adding time and cost to the procurement process, something smaller districts do not face.

The proposed $50,000 threshold will alleviate the inefficiencies related to seeking Board approval on routine purchases, that due to our size exceed the long unadjusted $20,000 threshold. The time saved in a more efficient process around a $50,000 threshold can be better utilized for other financial matters we deal with.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Chief Financial Officer John Hutchison

Chair Erickson and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools opposed Senate Bill 49 and the mandated use of staff and board resources in a manner that is less efficient, more costly, and divergent from our mission to educate children. We support policies that reduce administrative burdens when current procedures produce the same statutory required results with less use of resources.

Olathe Public Schools serves approximately 29,033 students in fifty-one public schools in five high schools, ten middle schools, and thirty-six elementary schools. The time, energy, and concentration of resources to comply with the provisions of SB 49 are not costs.

The focus and commitment of our Board to our community is on setting and fulfilling high expectations for all our students. Our Board focuses valuable resources on ensuring students have the opportunity to succeed in special education, at-risk programs, with quality, committed staff. Our robust school improvement system holds schools accountable for academic achievement and progress. Senate Bill 49 adds administrative burdens with limited impact.

The current assessment process maximizes efficiency so that Board members and all staff do not have time to participate. As with each function of elected leadership, their skills and time are valued and not best expended in the exercises of the provisions of SB 49.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chairman Hoheisel and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools supports House Bill 2129 and the movement of current KPERS 3 teacher employees to the KPERS 2 program.

Olathe Public Schools serves approximately 29,033 students with a district that employs over 4,500 employees, including teachers, classified personnel, and administrators. We are one of the largest employers in Johnson County and the Kansas City area. Quality teachers are essential to maintain the high student outcomes. Our proximity to the Missouri border presents a number of challenges for a large employer competing with the private sector in two states and public entities as well.

There is no easy solution, particularly if the change were to include administrators and other school personnel in addition to teachers, which is our ideal. We recognize the price is high, but the benefits to our employees are long-lasting. Finally, we hope this hearing creates discussion to begin exploring methods to make KPERS 3 more appealing for employees and affordable for the state. We cannot afford to lose great educators.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chairman Goetz and Members of the Committee:

Olathe Public Schools supports the Kansas Department of Education and Governor Laura Kelly’s budget recommendations.

Olathe Public Schools operates 58 public schools, serving approximately 29,033 students. The second largest school district in the state has over 4,500 employees, 32 percent free and reduced lunch qualifying students, a large special education population, and maintains an almost 95 percent graduation rate.

The 2024 Legislature fully funded the K-12 budget that included the base funding as well as over $72 million in special education funding. We thank them for their commitment to valuable resources that help us serve our community and the needs of students. In Olathe, almost every dollar of new money went directly to our staff compensation and benefits. Our large population of special education students, and the district commitment to serving them, requires continued funding to fulfill the special education cost demands in pursuit of reaching the statutorily required 92 percent of excess costs.

We support the State Department of Education’s budget to continue to fund the K-12 schools adequately and equitably. The Governor’s budget recommendations adding to K-12 funding request fulfills that on-going commitment and the recommendations should be included in the approved budget.

• Governor recommends fully funding base state aid and $72.6 million for SPED, and the same amount for the next four years to reach 92 percent excess cost funding in 2029.
• Includes a two-year budget request to ease district budget planning.
• Proposes the state pays school meals co-pay cost for 37,000 students in the reduced income lunch program. Cost $5.5 million. Also recommends $500,000 to pay AP testing for low-income students.

Thank you for your continued support for funding Kansas public schools.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager

Chairwoman Erickson and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of Olathe Public Schools, I am submitting written opposition testimony on Senate Bill 75 that creates an income tax credit for non-public schools and entities.
Olathe Public Schools relies on the leadership of our elected school board members to guide key policy priorities that benefit our students. The Board-approved Legislative Statement for 2025 includes the following statement:

• We support using public dollars to support public schools and oppose programs, including vouchers, education saving accounts, opportunity scholarships, tax credit scholarships, tuition tax credits as well as individual tax credits and deductions allowing guardians to receive state income tax relief for approved educational expenses, that divert public funding from public education to schools that are not held to the same legal requirements as public schools.

Senate Bill 75 specifically includes a number of provisions that provide funds to families through a refundable tax credit up to $8,000 per child for use in non-public schools and homeschools at a cost of $125 million per year. Among our specific concerns and reasons for our opposition are the following.

• SB 75 provides for automatic cost accelerators to the public as high as 25 percent per year.
• The refundable tax benefit means even those with no tax liability will receive the benefit.
• The taxpayer funds would pay families for the cost of buying services from organizations that:
  • Recipients are not required to serve all students.
  • Recipients can discriminate in the students they admit.
  • Recipients are allowed to reject students with special education needs.
  • Recipients have little or no accountability and oversight over how public funds are spent.

These features of Senate Bill 75 are directly opposed to the policies our Board has adopted. We have many issues to address together to improve and enhance the historical commitment to public education. We look forward to working with you on a great number of other issues, but Senate Bill 75 reduces resources to address the issues that face every child, family, teacher, and public school.

Thank you for your continued support for funding Kansas public schools.

Superintendent Dr. Brent Yeager