Kansas — MOE Waiver Requests — Support for Higher Education — SFY 22

Summary

This is the closing part of a Kansas letter to the Department asking it to renew a request for preliminary approval of the state's MOE waiver request for SFY 22. It argues that being bound strictly by the proportional funding provision means the cost of any program is higher than necessary, and says the Department's guidance released on April 21, 2021 stated in FAQ #8 that its approach to MOE waiver requests would be rooted in the impact on students. It states that, as shown in Enclosure G, Kansas can answer yes to every question in the relevant subsection of FAQ #8 relating to SFY 22. The letter is closed by Adam Proffitt, Director of the Budget.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

opportunity for states to recognize and react to changing priorities, such as increasing funding to
habitually underfunded areas of the government as Kansas has done with K-12 funding over the
past several years. Being held strictly to the proportional funding provision also means that any
time a state adds funding to any area of need, the cost of that program is higher than necessary,
because the state would need to also add a proportional level of incremental funding to higher
education, even if that unit has already seen significant increases in its level of funding. The
Department recognizes this nuance in its MOE guidance, which is why it is providing states an
opportunity for a waiver from this provision, if it can prove that has maintained support for higher
education, as has been demonstrated by Kansas.

       In its guidance released on April 21, 2021, the Department stated in FAQ #8 that “The
Department’s approach to MOE waiver requests will be rooted in the consideration of the impact
on students.” The Department further emphasized this point in a July 19th, 2021 letter from the
Under Secretary’s Office to the National Associations representing higher education institutions,
in which the Under Secretary’s Office referenced this same quote from FAQ #8, when discussing
how the Department will be determining which waivers to approve. The Department listed
additional questions under FAQ #8, intended to determine if a requesting state has increased
support for education. As you will see in Enclosure G, Kansas can answer “yes” to every single
question in this subsection of FAQ #8 relating to SFY 22, clearly demonstrating that our increase
in support for higher education meets the Department’s desire to ensure that the impact on the
student is positive.

        If the Department were to delay approval of the state’s MOE waiver request, then federal
dollars aimed at supplementing state support for higher education would be at risk, which would
appear to be in stark contrast with the Department’s stated goal of approaching MOE waiver
requests in consideration of the impact on the student. Therefore, we respectfully renew our
request for a preliminary approval of our MOE waiver request for SFY 22.




                                                     Sincerely,

                                                  (b) (6)
                                                     Adam Proffitt
                                                     Director of the Budget




                                                 2
Enclosure F




              3
Enclosure G

From Page 9 of the Department’s Guidance on MOE and Waiver Requests, April 2021
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/MOE-Chart with-waiver-FAQs FINAL 4.21.21Update.pdf


FAQ 8. What Factors might the Secretary consider in deciding whether to grant a State’s
MOE waiver request?

Has the State increased support for education?

The Department understand that it is possible that a State has maintained or increased overall
funding for education and the proportion of the State budget for education has still declined
because of increases in other areas of the budget (e.g., public health). In these cases, the Secretary
may consider:

•   Has total State funding for K-12 education and for higher education (calculated separately)
    increased from the prior fiscal year?
        o Yes. Funding for higher education has increased by $77,661,622 vs. SFY21; this is a
           10.6% increase.
•   Has total State funding for K-12 education and for higher education (calculated separately)
    increased over time (e.g., since baseline years)?
        o Yes. Funding for higher education has increased by $111,699,941 vs. the baseline
           years; this is a 16.0% increase.
•   Has per-pupil State funding for K-12 education and for higher education (calculated
    separately) increased from the prior fiscal year?
       o Yes. Higher education per-pupil funding has increased by $740 vs. SFY 21; this is an
           11.8% increase.
•   Has per-pupil State funding for K-12 education and for higher education (calculated
    separately) increased over time (e.g., since baseline years)?
       o Yes. Higher education per-pupil funding has increased by $1,576 vs. the baseline
           years; this is a 29.1% increase.
•   Has the State appropriated an increase in State funding for K-12 education and for higher
    education for future fiscal years?
       o The SFY 23 budget has not yet been created. However, as mentioned in Governor
           Kelly’s letter to the Secretary, Kansas recently agreed to a new K-12 funding formula,
           which will increase appropriations to K-12 by over $100 million in SFY 23.




                                                  5


File and source

File

department-of-education-pdf-www-ed-gov-9842bec956.pdf

Size

730,649 bytes

SHA-256

036dc38e79efe2cc90f7074e0b555b5a2381f400e198cd6cac23c30a2d8f55f9

Our copy

department-of-education-pdf-www-ed-gov-9842bec956.pdf

Original

www.ed.gov