Superintendents Dr. Tonya Merrigan of Blue Valley, Dr. Brent Yeager of Olathe, and Dr. Michael Schumacher of Shawnee Mission have sent a joint letter in opposition to the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA). Their own behaviors, however, refute the claims they make.
The measure, currently in the Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House, proposes $5 billion in tax credits to fund scholarships for eligible students to attend the school of their choice. Kansas has had a similar program for several years.
Key elements of the ECCA:
- Available to citizens and residents of the United States
- The limit of the tax credit available is $5,000 per year
- Eligible students will be from households earning no more than 300% of their area median gross income.
- Allowable expenditures include tuition, books and other instructional materials, online education, and tutoring.
- As in Kansas, scholarships will be awarded by a qualified Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) which is not a private foundation.
In their letter, the superintendents outline their opposition to the School Choice bill:
This legislation would expand school vouchers and divert public funds to private education.
Our Legislature has consistently rejected broad voucher programs, and we oppose an existing tax credit scholarship initiative. We believe that position best reflects the values of our state— values that prioritize public education, local control and equitable opportunity for every child. This legislation undermines those values and would impose a model the citizens of Kansas have not chosen.
However, students in Kansas public schools do not have equal opportunity. Low-income students are two to three times as likely to be below grade level in reading and math. Taxpayers give school districts almost $600 million annually that, by law, is to be used for “above and beyond services” for students at risk of failing academically, but two state audits found school districts will not follow that law. The state school board theoretically requires districts to follow state law to be accredited, but still permits this illegal behavior to continue.
Only a quarter of low-income kids in Olathe and Shawnee Mission are proficient in reading and math, compared to more than half of students who are not low-income. Less than 40% of Blue Valley low-income students are proficient.
“Education administrators and school board members may want students to do better, but they are unwilling to change their behaviors to make it happen,” says Dave Trabert, CEO of Kansas Policy Institute and The Sentinel. ”
It’s also deceptive to say Kansans “have not chosen” school choice, as one public opinion survey after another shows strong support. Most recently, a December 2024 survey conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of Kansas Policy Institute found 78% of Kansans with children or grandchildren in public schools favor Educational Savings Accounts.
Equal opportunity is not the only false claim in the superintendents’ letter:
Public schools cannot—and would not—turn students away. We educate every child who walks through our doors. We provide comprehensive services for students with disabilities, English learners and those facing mental health challenges. We operate transparently, comply with public accountability requirements and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.
Trabert cites additional contradictory evidence:
“Superintendents Merrigan and Yeager signed a letter opposing open enrollment, which allows students to go to school where they want, subject to capacity. They said open enrollment would allow low-income students to come in from other districts, which might decrease property values in their districts.
Some school districts, including those in Johnson County, also grossly understated their capacity to take students from other districts.
“Those three districts, like many others in Kansas, also ignore the state law that says local school boards “shall conduct” annual needs assessments in each attendance center to identify and remove proficiency barriers. Shawnee Mission even admits it is denying critical services to students.”
We contacted each school leader and asked if improvement in academic outcomes was presumably everyone’s goal, what is to fear from competition to reverse today’s declining test scores in the core subjects of reading, math and English Language Arts. We received no response.
