House Committee on Education 01/21/2026

Bill Hearing Overview

Introduction and Acknowledgments

• The meeting begins with a recognition of Dr. New as the state board liaison, indicating the presence of key stakeholders.

• The speaker expresses excitement about having congressional spouses in a professional setting, highlighting the unique nature of this gathering.

Testimony by Erica Donald

• Erica Donald introduces herself as the chair of education opportunity at America First Policy Institute (AFPI), emphasizing her experience with the Trump administration.

• AFPI is described as a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on research and policy development aimed at empowering parents in educational choices.

Key Points on HB 2468

• Donald outlines two main goals of HB 2468: expanding parental choice for Kansas families and allowing participation in the federal education freedom tax credit.

• The federal education freedom tax credit is presented as a historic opportunity for school choice, potentially leading to significant expansions across states.

Financial Implications and Benefits

• Taxpayers contributing over $1,700 can receive dollar-for-dollar reductions in their federal tax obligations through donations to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs).

• Funds from SGOs can be used for various educational expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and special education services.

State Participation Considerations

• States opting into this program will allow residents to redirect funds that would otherwise go to Washington D.C. towards local educational opportunities.

• If Kansas does not participate, residents can still donate but those funds would benefit students in other participating states rather than local students.

Conclusion of Testimony

• Donald emphasizes that charitable contributions should support local students rather than being sent out-of-state.

• After concluding her testimony, she invites questions from committee members while expressing gratitude for their time.

Committee Proceedings

Transition Back to Committee Business

• Following the testimony, there is an acknowledgment of the committee's interest in further discussion and questions regarding the bill.

Bill Introductions and Unfinished Items

• The chair notes that there are no new bill introductions on this day but welcomes back Representative Ballard who expresses appreciation for being part of the committee discussions.

Response from State Department of Education

• Dr. Harwood is introduced after missing previous sessions due to commitments elsewhere; his input is anticipated regarding unfinished items from prior meetings.

Overview of Literacy Training Requirements

Introduction to Literacy Training

• The discussion begins with a review of questions from a previous meeting, focusing on the state board of education's actions regarding literacy training.

• By July 1, 2028, all individuals seeking licenses for specific teaching positions must obtain a seal of literacy to be appropriately licensed.

Seal of Literacy Acquisition Methods

• There are multiple pathways to acquire the seal of literacy, including state-approved trainings and testing opportunities.

• Current or aspiring teachers can take three different tests to demonstrate their understanding of the science of reading.

Current Statistics on Seal Holders

• Data indicates that out of 1,470 early childhood educators listed last year, only 494 (35%) currently hold a seal of literacy.

• For elementary teachers (including special education), 5,423 out of 14,645 (36%) have obtained the seal; school specialists show similar trends at 34%.

Breakdown by Training Method

• Of those who have acquired the seal:

• 511 completed foundations classes,

• 1,022 passed tests,

• Approximately half (446) are initial teaching license holders.

Funding and Support for Training

• The state board is utilizing ESSER funds to support approximately $25 million in federal funding for letters training available to public and non-public schools.

• Over 300 local licensed facilitators were trained in districts with more than 500 students to ensure ongoing support for future teacher training.

Current Status and Future Plans

Letters Training Participation

• As per recent data:

• Elementary Education: 14,470 participants;

• Completed: 6,523;

• In training: 7,819.

• Early Childhood: Completed: 790; In training: 274.

• Administrators: Completed: 204; In training: 822.

Contract Adjustments and Future Licenses

• The state board approved an increase in contracts with Pittsburgh State University to provide an additional estimated total of about 5,500 licenses over several years for continued educator training.

Testing Outcomes and Pass Rates

Test Performance Insights

• The pass rate for ETS tests is reported at approximately 89%, significantly higher than the national average of 74%, indicating effective preparation among candidates.

Discussion on Teacher Training and Testing Policies

Overview of Testing and Retake Policies

• The passing rate for tests is set at 80%, with a noted anomaly where pass rates significantly dropped. Discussions are ongoing about whether additional training costs fall on the individual if they do not pass.

• The current policy requires individuals to retake the course if they fail, but there is consideration for allowing retakes without repeating the entire course due to accountability concerns regarding training engagement.

Implementation Challenges Post-Training

• There is an emphasis on providing one retake opportunity for those who do not pass either of two end-of-unit tests, highlighting the importance of assessment in teacher readiness.

• Acknowledgment that the pandemic has altered nursing training processes, leading to quicker adaptations in training methods which may affect proficiency levels among new nurses.

Correlation Between Training and Proficiency

• Questions arise about how long training will remain effective before further intervention is needed, emphasizing the need for ongoing support from school districts.

• Discussion focuses on ensuring that initial training translates into lasting skills in classrooms, questioning how implementation can be effectively monitored.

Transitioning from Training to Practical Application

• The speaker stresses that while initial training is crucial, it must be followed by practical application in classrooms; otherwise, significant investments in training could be wasted.

• Plans are underway to assist districts with implementing learned strategies into classroom practices as part of a broader transition from theory to practice.

Licensing Requirements and Data Discrepancies

• Clarification provided that teachers in accredited non-public schools must also meet licensing requirements similar to public school teachers.

• Statistics discussed include a requirement for 18,299 teachers to obtain specific certifications by 2028; discrepancies between different data sources raise questions about collaboration between educational bodies.

Addressing Data Sharing Issues

• Concerns raised regarding differences in reported statistics between organizations; both parties claim they share data but variations may stem from timing or reporting methods.

• Emphasis placed on potential changes over time (e.g., retirements or job changes), suggesting that final numbers may exceed initial estimates due to workforce dynamics.

Discussion on Literacy Assessment and Training

Overview of Literacy Testing and Pass Rates

• The conversation begins with a recognition that literacy assessment standards may change frequently, indicating a dynamic educational environment.

• Representative Wolf inquires about the passing score for literacy tests, revealing that an 80% score is required to pass, with a high pass rate of approximately 97% historically.

Funding and Eligibility Concerns

• A question arises regarding the eligibility of public schools for a $1,700 credit related to SGOs (Student Growth Objectives), which is clarified to be applicable only to private schools.

Blueprint for Literacy Implementation

• Dr. Harwood discusses the "Blueprint for Literacy," initiated as part of the 2024 legislation, expressing concern over data comparability due to changes in cut scores from year one to year two.

• There are worries about how these changes might affect future assessments and whether they can accurately measure progress over time.

Data Measurement Tools

• The discussion highlights various tools like FastBridge used for assessing reading skills; however, it notes that FastBridge primarily measures risk potential rather than overall proficiency.

• It is emphasized that while FastBridge provides some insights into student performance, state assessments are more aligned with established standards.

Communication Between Educational Agencies

• Representative Hubert raises concerns about improving communication between K12 education systems and regional departments. Dr. Harwood acknowledges ongoing efforts but suggests there’s still room for improvement.

• The focus shifts towards training pre-service teachers in reading science as part of the blueprint's goals, aiming to enhance teacher preparedness moving forward.

Future Directions in Teacher Training

• Dr. Harwood mentions initiatives aimed at reducing training burdens on school districts by ensuring new teachers come equipped with necessary skills from their higher education programs.

• The conversation concludes with an emphasis on effective implementation strategies post-training completion and collaboration between universities and K12 systems being crucial for success.

Midwestern Higher Education Compact Overview

Introduction to the Compact

• The Midwestern Higher Education Compact is one of four regional compacts in the U.S. focused on higher education, emphasizing cost savings programs.

• The organization operates two main areas: cost savings programs and policy/research contracts. A handout with detailed information was provided to attendees.

Financial Impact and Savings

• Kansas contributes $115,000 annually to the compact, receiving a significant return of approximately 55 times that investment, equating to about $4.6 million in distance education technology savings through bulk purchasing agreements.

• The compact acts as an instrumentality of state government, managing requests for proposals (RFP) and providing turnkey contracts with major companies like Dell and Oracle.

Grants and Future Initiatives

• Additional revenue from tech programs allows for grants up to $250,000 for each state; Kansas is focusing on improving data systems through these funds.

• The speaker expresses gratitude towards Kansas as the first state to join the compact, highlighting their positive experiences during visits. They encourage questions from attendees regarding their initiatives.

Kansas Education Statistics

Retention Rates of Students

• Kansas has a commendable retention rate where 81% of students remain in-state after graduation; only 9% leave for other Midwest states while others go out-of-region. This statistic reflects positively on educational efforts within the state.

Discussion on Educational Changes

Transitioning Educational Practices

• Dr. Lane introduces a metaphor comparing changing educational practices to redecorating a home—once you start making changes in one area (like teaching methods), it often leads to recognizing further necessary adjustments across the system.

Data Discrepancies Addressed

• Dr. Lane responds to inquiries about differing data reports by clarifying that their figures are sourced directly from relevant agencies; she commits to investigating discrepancies further.

Literacy Improvement Strategies

Steering Committee Initiatives

• A steering committee formed under the blueprint initiative includes legislative leaders working over six months to identify successful literacy improvement strategies employed by other states across the nation. Documents detailing these strategies were distributed among attendees for review.

Key Policy Levers Identified

• Four critical policy levers identified as essential for advancing literacy initiatives include:

• Educator preparation (the responsibility of higher education).

• Ongoing professional learning and development for teachers.

• Access to high-quality instructional materials based on scientific evidence.

• Effective screening and intervention strategies tailored for student needs.

These insights are drawn from successful states that received federal comprehensive literacy grants such as Mississippi and Tennessee among others.

Comprehensive Literacy Plan in Kansas

The Need for a Unified Literacy Strategy

• Dr. Lane emphasizes the absence of a comprehensive literacy plan in Kansas that integrates pre-K through higher education, suggesting this is crucial for effective educational outcomes.

• Confusion exists regarding the roles of various educational bodies (blueprint vs. K12), highlighting the need for a unified approach with common goals and accountability metrics across the state’s education system.

• Dr. Lane advocates for collaboration among higher education institutions and the state board to develop and implement this comprehensive literacy plan.

Addressing NAPE Scores and Data Clarity

• Clarification on NAPE scores indicates that rankings can be misleading; raw numbers provide different insights into student performance levels.

• A new version of data reflecting current standings will be made available to ensure accurate information dissemination among committee members.

Future Discussions on Literacy Policy

• Dr. Lane expresses hope that future meetings will focus solely on advancing literacy policy, encouraging participation from all stakeholders involved in education.

• The agenda for upcoming meetings will prioritize discussions around improving literacy strategies, ensuring everyone has an opportunity to contribute.

Urgency in Addressing Reading Proficiency

• Dr. Lane highlights a pressing issue: 55% of students are reading below proficiency levels, underscoring the urgency to revise goals within the educational blueprint.

House Bill 2468 Overview

Tax Credits for Scholarship Contributions

• House Bill 2468 proposes tax credits for contributions made by taxpayers to scholarship granting organizations, aiming to enhance funding opportunities for students.

Federal Program Participation

• The bill includes provisions allowing Kansas to opt into a federal program providing tax credits up to $1,700 per year for eligible contributions towards scholarships.

Eligibility Criteria and Requirements

• To qualify under the federal program, organizations must distribute at least ten scholarships across multiple schools and verify household income not exceeding 300% of area median gross income.

Allocation of Funds

• At least 90% of an organization’s income must be allocated towards scholarships, which can only cover qualified educational expenses while prioritizing returning scholarship recipients and their siblings.

Tax Credit Proposal Overview

Federal Tax Credit Requirements

• The taxpayer must claim the credit based on a list of scholarship granting organizations submitted by the state treasurer to the federal secretary of the treasury.

State Program Amendments

• An amendment is proposed to increase the state tax credit cap for contributions to scholarship granting organizations from $10 million to $20 million annually.

• The annual tax credit limit for individual taxpayers can reach up to $500,000 under this program.

Automatic Cap Increase Mechanism

• If 75% of the current cap is exceeded, an automatic increase of 25% will be applied for the following year, allowing for potential growth in available credits. For example, if $7.5 million is claimed against a $10 million cap, it would rise to $12.5 million next year.

Interaction Between Federal and State Credits

• Taxpayers cannot claim credits for the same contribution under both federal and state programs; they may allocate their contributions accordingly (e.g., claiming part on federal and remaining on state). This provision aims to clarify how taxpayers can maximize their benefits without double-dipping.

Implementation Timeline

• The proposed changes are set to take effect on July 1st of this year, pending approval and enactment of the bill. Questions regarding specifics were raised during discussions among representatives about its implications and operational details.

Clarifications on Usage Statistics

• There was confusion regarding how much of the current $10 million cap has been utilized in previous years due to differing reporting timelines between various departments involved in tracking these credits. A suggestion was made for improved transparency through better reporting practices moving forward.

• It was noted that reaching out directly to the Department of Revenue would provide accurate information regarding current usage statistics related to tax credits awarded under this program.

Federal Legislation Reference

• The mention of a specific limit ($1,700) comes from section 25F of federal legislation concerning tax credit claims; clarity was sought on how this figure integrates with state proposals and taxpayer options moving forward.

Understanding the Kansas Tax Credit Scholarship Program

Overview of Opting into Federal Programs

• The state of Kansas must opt into the federal program for scholarship granting organizations to claim a federal tax credit.

• Approval for opting in requires legislative action, specifically adopting new sections and enacting them into law.

Eligibility and Foundation Involvement

• School district foundations cannot directly use tax credits unless they establish themselves as qualified scholarship granting organizations (SGOs).

• Private foundations can create 501(c)(3) SGOs to qualify for tax credits if they meet federal qualifications.

Structure and Functionality of the Program

• The existing state tax credit scholarship program has been operational since 2014, with expansions occurring twice.

• Contributions to qualified SGOs provide a 75% credit on state income taxes, enabling scholarships up to $8,000 for eligible students attending accredited private schools.

Application Process and Educational Freedom

• Applications from students are sent to the state department of education by SGOs to verify eligibility; contributors cannot apply for their own children.

• The program aims to enhance educational freedom by providing more families access to suitable educational options.

Impact of Legislative Changes on Funding

• Testimony highlights that hitting funding caps has led to significant unfulfilled donor contributions, indicating high demand for scholarships.

• Proposed legislation could increase available credits from $10 million to $20 million, addressing growing needs within the community.

Broader Implications and Neighboring States' Actions

• Surrounding states have opted into similar programs; failure to do so in Kansas may result in lost donations as citizens might contribute elsewhere.

Discussion on Scholarships and Funding in Kansas Education

Overview of Scholarship Grant Organizations (SGOs) and Funding Limits

• The speaker discusses the cap on SGOs, noting a state limit of 75% credits compared to a federal limit of 100%, indicating potential for increased support for public and private schools.

Financial Discrepancies in Scholarship Availability

• A representative questions how $3.6 million raised could not cover over 300 scholarships for high-risk students, highlighting concerns about financial management within the organization.

• The speaker clarifies that SGOs turned away $1 million worth of scholarship requests, equating to approximately 300 children who will not receive funding this spring.

Clarification on Fundraising Events

• The speaker explains that the $3.6 million raised from a gala is unrelated to tax credits, emphasizing that it comes from private donations through the Catholic Education Foundation.

Poverty Rates Among Schools Supported by SGOs

• Approximately half of the schools supported by their organization have high poverty rates, with some schools reporting over 80% poverty among students.

State Involvement and Tax Credit Program Insights

• The discussion reveals that there is no cost to the state for these programs; funds come directly from citizens opting into tax credits rather than state general funds.

• It is clarified that federal tax credit programs operate independently from state contributions, which are drawn from general funds rather than educational budgets.

Purpose and Impact of Fundraising Events

• The purpose of fundraising events like galas is reiterated as being solely to raise money for scholarships aimed at low-income families.

Student Testimony: Importance of Scholarships

• A student shares her personal story about how scholarships enabled her attendance at a private Catholic school after struggling with mental health issues in public school.

• She describes significant improvements in her mental health and academic performance after transferring to a supportive educational environment.

This structured summary captures key discussions regarding scholarship funding mechanisms, challenges faced by organizations supporting low-income students, and personal testimonies illustrating the impact of these initiatives.

Testimony on Education Opportunities

Personal Growth and Educational Opportunities

• The speaker shares a personal journey of growth, emphasizing how faith and friendships have boosted their confidence and outgoing nature. They attribute their current position to the decisions made by their parents.

• The importance of opting into bill 246A is highlighted, which aims to enhance educational opportunities for Kansas students across various school types, including public, private, and religious institutions.

• The speaker advocates for HB2468, stating it will help more students reach their full potential in education. They express gratitude for the opportunity to testify.

Support from Educators

• Acknowledgment of young people's contributions in discussions about education; the committee expresses appreciation for student involvement.

• Dr. Jamie Finkel introduces herself as an associate superintendent in Wichita's school district, discussing the demographics of students receiving scholarships and financial aid.

Financial Aspects of Education

• Dr. Finkel mentions raising $3.4 million last year for scholarships but notes that they hit a $10 million limit on donations, leading to turning away gifts.

• She emphasizes the need for continued support to maintain steady growth in funding educational opportunities through federal legislation.

Diverse Student Needs

• Superintendent Trina Delgado discusses the transformative impact of state tax credits on families and students in her district, particularly those from low-income backgrounds.

• She highlights the diversity within Catholic schools in western Kansas, where many students come from families facing economic challenges yet are committed to providing quality education.

Commitment to All Schools

• Delgado stresses that while they support public schools' funding needs—acknowledging her husband's role as a public school teacher—they also recognize that many families find better educational fits within Catholic schools.

• The growing percentage of economically disadvantaged students is noted (42% overall), with some schools reporting even higher rates; this reflects ongoing community commitment to improving educational outcomes despite financial constraints.

Testimony on House Bill 2468

Introduction and Context

• The session begins with appreciation for educators, highlighting the importance of their work.

• Andrea Hillbert introduces herself as a Kansas educator with 33 years of experience, expressing gratitude for the opportunity to testify in favor of House Bill 2468.

Key Arguments for House Bill 2468

• Hillbert emphasizes that educational heritage is adaptable, advocating for school choice as a means to support families effectively.

• She argues for increasing tax credits benefiting low-income students, stating that access to educational choice should not be a privilege but a right.

• Hillbert asserts that losing children and families from the education system is unacceptable and urges Kansas to opt into federal tax credit programs.

Concerns About Division in Education

• She addresses fears surrounding school choice legislation, suggesting that those who see it as divisive are operating from a place of fear rather than understanding its potential benefits.

• Hillbert concludes her testimony by urging support for the bill, emphasizing its alignment with what is best for Kansas families.

Opposition Testimony by Timothy Graham

Introduction and Position

• Timothy Graham introduces himself as the director of government relations for the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), representing nearly 22,000 educators.

Main Concerns Regarding Taxpayer Funding

• He outlines KNEA's long-standing opposition to taxpayer money funding private schools due to concerns about accountability and inclusivity.

• Graham stresses that these concerns remain unchanged even with the proposed federal opt-in program associated with House Bill 2468.

Suggestions and Alternative Proposals

• Despite opposing the bill, he offers KNEA's willingness to collaborate on policies supporting public education. He suggests considering refundable tax credits specifically aimed at lower-paid teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses.

Discussion Following Testimonies

Questions from Committee Members

• Representative Featherston questions Graham about education foundations raising significant funds, indicating skepticism towards KNEA’s position on taxpayer money usage.

Clarification on Positions

• Another representative seeks clarification regarding KNEA's stance on federal programs using taxpayer money. Graham reiterates philosophical opposition to funding private organizations while acknowledging complexities in discussions around Medicaid expansion.

This structured summary captures key insights from both proponents and opponents of House Bill 2468 while providing timestamps for easy reference.

Discussion on Private and Public School Funding

Opposition to Using Tax Dollars for Private Schools

• The speaker emphasizes that the United School Administrators of Kansas, along with their personal stance, is not against private or parochial schools but opposes using tax dollars to fund them.

• Concerns are raised regarding the lack of equitable access for students with disabilities, English language learners, and at-risk populations under current legislation.

• The speaker criticizes the term "school choice," arguing it primarily benefits private institutions rather than ensuring fair opportunities for all students.

Caution Against Federal Program Commitment

• A warning is issued about committing Kansas to a new federal program without understanding its implications for future years.

• Questions arise regarding differences in oversight between public and private institutions concerning disadvantaged and disabled children.

Special Education Services in Private Schools

• It is noted that many private and parochial schools lack the necessary staff to provide special education services effectively.

• The discussion highlights how private schools may become selective in admissions, potentially excluding students who require additional support.

Parental Choice vs. School Acceptance

• A representative argues that parents should choose schools based on their child's needs; however, the speaker counters that acceptance ultimately lies with the school itself.

• Clarification is provided that a child can be removed from a private school even if it goes against parental wishes.

Language Diversity and Special Education Services

• The conversation touches on language diversity within schools, noting some institutions serve over 70 different languages.

• There’s an acknowledgment of existing special education services in some private schools where students have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), indicating a complex relationship between public funding and service delivery.

Education Funding and Religious Instruction

Public Funds and Religious Education

• The speaker argues that public funds should not be used to promote specific religious beliefs, emphasizing that taxpayer dollars should not support religious instruction for families of different faiths.

• Reference is made to HB 2468 as an effort to support private education, highlighting concerns about the implications of such funding on public education.

Concerns About State Resources

• The speaker notes that the state treasurer lacks the necessary staff and funding to provide a list of approved educational institutions, raising questions about resource allocation.

• There is skepticism regarding the expansion of tax credits from $10 million to $20 million, which could lead to significant financial impacts on the state general fund.

Tax Credits and Accountability

• A question arises about potential issues with 501(c)(3) organizations receiving federal tax write-offs, but the speaker clarifies their stance does not oppose all such organizations.

• The discussion highlights concerns over how tax credits are managed and their impact on state funding priorities.

Economic Development vs. Educational Funding

• The speaker contrasts star bonds used for economic development with donor contributions that bypass legislative control over spending priorities in education.

• Emphasis is placed on how tax credits can divert funds away from essential state needs before representatives can address other budgetary priorities.

Opposition to Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program

Key Arguments Against Participation

• The speaker urges Kansas not to engage in the federal tax credit scholarship program or increase caps on existing programs due to underfunding in general and special education.

Academic Performance Concerns

• Evidence suggests voucher programs correlate with decreased academic achievement; studies indicate negative outcomes as these programs expand without adequate oversight.

Financial Oversight Issues

• There are claims of fiscal mismanagement within voucher systems, including fraud and inadequate academic services, necessitating caution against further diversions of taxpayer dollars.

Needs-Based Funding Critique

• Current designs of voucher programs do not prioritize student needs effectively; there are no requirements for students to demonstrate challenges in their current districts before utilizing vouchers.

Public Funds and Private Education: A Critical Discussion

Concerns Over State Funding for Private Schools

• The speaker argues against using state funds to support private education, emphasizing that public money should not be allocated to private institutions when public schools are available.

• A comparison is made between funding for private schools and recreational facilities, suggesting that just as we do not fund country clubs over local parks, we should not fund private education over public schooling.

Testimony from Mary Sinclair of Kansas PTA

• Mary Sinclair expresses opposition to the expansion of tax credits that subsidize private schools, advocating for the retention of public funds within public education systems where the majority of students are enrolled.

• She highlights financial pressures on state budgets due to increased costs in special education, which are inadequately reimbursed by the state, leading districts to divert general funds away from essential services like smaller class sizes and mental health support.

Impact of Voucher Programs on Students

• Sinclair notes a lack of evidence supporting the need for expanding voucher programs after a decade without reported student impact data or legislative audits comparing outcomes between scholarship recipients and their peers in public schools.

• Research indicates that at-risk students participating in voucher programs often face negative academic consequences, returning to public schools behind their peers.

Current Status of Kansas Public Schools

• Despite challenges, Kansas public schools have seen record graduation rates and an increase in students taking post-secondary courses.

• The speaker emphasizes the importance of focusing on improving existing public school systems rather than diverting resources towards unproven voucher programs.

Fiscal Implications and Further Testimonies

• The discussion shifts towards fiscal implications with Tom Tracy from the state treasurer's office estimating minimal fiscal impact from proposed changes but acknowledging ongoing resource allocation issues.

• Shannon Kimble from the Kansas Association of School Boards reiterates commitment to directing taxpayer dollars exclusively toward accountable public schools while correcting previous testimony regarding potential expenditure increases related to tax credit expansions.

Impact of Federal Tax Credit Voucher Program on Education Funding

Overview of the Federal Tax Credit Voucher Program

• The Treasury is still in the process of writing regulations for the federal tax credit voucher program, leaving uncertainty about its rules and implications.

• Initial estimates suggest that this program could remove approximately $38.6 billion from the federal treasury in its first year, with a potential total impact of up to $134 billion over ten years.

Special Education Funding Concerns

• The shortfall for special education funding at the federal level is estimated at $38.6 billion, which highlights significant gaps in financial support for public schools.

• There is a concern that if federal tax money were redirected to special education instead of vouchers, it could significantly help meet existing obligations and improve educational outcomes.

Personal Testimonies and Experiences

• Aaron Woods, a parent and advocate, emphasizes that neither state nor federal governments are fully funding special education, which diverts public funds away from essential services.

• Public schools are required to serve all students, including those with complex needs; underfunding leads to negative impacts on general education resources available to all students.

Consequences of Underfunding

• Historical context reveals that underfunding can lead to larger class sizes, school closures, reduced staffing (like nurses), and cuts in essential programs such as arts or physical education. This situation creates additional burdens on parents and communities.

• The ongoing shortfall in special education funding raises fears of reverting back to previous conditions where general education was severely impacted due to lack of resources. Parents have had to step in for roles typically filled by school staff due to budget constraints.

Call to Action Against HB2468

• Aaron urges opposition against HB2468 and any expansion of the tax credit scholarship program until adequate investments are made into public schools serving all students effectively. He stresses prioritizing public over private educational funding sources amidst these challenges.