In late March, the Kansas Legislature passed a bill that would shorten the time schools have to apply for waivers of some state regulations under the Public Innovative District Act, originally passed in 2013 — ironically, despite cutting the time for application review by the state from 90 days to 45 days — the bill would actually make it easier for schools to get the designation.
HB 2402 would also move the application deadline from December 1 to May 1.
Currently, if either the Kansas State Board of Education or the Public Innovative District Coalition Board fails to act to approve an application within the existing 90-day window, the application is “deemed to be unapproved.”
Under the new bill, if signed by Governor Laura Kelly, if those organizations fail to act within the 45-day window, the application would be “deemed approved.”
Senator Renee Erickson, (R-Wichita), said an “innovative district” can be “a number of things.”
“It’s just basically a district that says, hey, look, we want to try something new, regulations or rules or specific laws prohibit us from doing it,” Erickson, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, said in a phone interview. “For example, I know McPherson at one point wanted to use the ACT as their measure of student outcomes instead of the state assessment, so they could apply to do that. Some have used, and we’ve only had, I think, six districts over the years try to be or become an innovative school district. The goal is always to improve student outcomes, but it’s always around a rule, regulation or law that prohibits them from doing something innovative that they think will help their students learn.”
Dr. Troy Pitsch, superintendent of schools for USD 329 Wabaunsee, in written testimony, said moving the innovative district application deadline to May 1 only makes sense.
“The greatest barrier to rural innovation today is not a lack of vision or capacity, but a lack of administrative alignment with how school systems actually operate,” Pitsch wrote. “Under current law, districts must apply for Innovative District status by December 1. That timeline requires superintendents to commit to staffing models and local partnerships nearly eight months before a program launches, and well before final budget figures or staffing realities are known. [The bill] moves the application deadline to May 1, which reflects operational reality.”
Pitsch said by May, districts “have around budgets, staffing gaps, and student needs. Just as importantly, May is when local experts, particularly tradespeople who live and work in our communities, are finally in a position to commit to teaching roles for the upcoming school year. This change aligns state policy with local planning cycles.”
In the case of Wabaunsee, the district intends to use Innovative District Status to build “high-quality career and technical education pathways in fields such as electrical and plumbing.”
State law already allows non-(teacher)-qualified experts to teach under certain circumstances.
The problem, Pitsch said, is if he finds — as an example — a master plumber willing to teach in May, it would be unreasonable to ask that busy tradesperson to wait until August for a possible decision from Topeka. Whereas the accelerated timeline makes finding such experts much simpler.
The Kansas Association of School Boards was predictably opposed.
In written testimony, KASB Assistant Executive Director of Advocacy Leah Fliter said — without anything to back up the claim — that the real goal is to loosen regulations around charter schools.
“We must call out what is likely the unspoken agenda behind this bill — a first step in loosening regulations so as to open the door wider in Kansas to a charter school sector that, in other states, has operated without sufficient guardrails and accountability — ultimately harming public education through waste, fraud, abuse, and poor academic outcomes for students,” she wrote, also taking aim at the new approval window. “The changes proposed … are not merely procedural. They reorder who bears the burden of diligence in decisions that affect students, families, educators, and taxpayers. A May 1 deadline, combined with a 45-day review window and ‘deemed approval,’ creates a system in which silence equals consent — even when proposals are incomplete, raise fiscal or legal concerns, or have not been adequately vetted with staff, parents, or the broader community.”
Erickson said she found KASB’s reason for opposing the innovative district change “interesting.”
“That was an interesting twist from the KASB,” Erickson said. “They’re the ones who testified that this might be some back-door charter school plot, and nothing could be further from the truth. Charter schools have to be under a public school district, and I absolutely do not see the connection. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of this law when it was passed in 2013 was the Kansas Association of School Boards, and now they’re singing a completely different tune. And I don’t understand the charter school pushback. I really don’t.”
