Senate Bill 49, which would amend the cited KSA provision governing attendance‑center needs assessments, received testimony at a Kansas Senate Education Committee hearing focused on increasing local board access to assessment data and making district budgeting more transparent.

Tamara Lawrence, committee reviser, told the committee the bill would (1) require local needs assessments to include input from school board members, teachers, school site councils and school administrators; (2) require that each local board member receive state assessment results showing the number of students scoring at levels 1, 2, 3 and 4; and (3) require that any time monies are allocated to or reallocated among funds, that allocation or reallocation be identified in the school district’s budget and budget summary. The bill would take effect July 1 upon publication in the statute book, Lawrence said.

Supporters urged the panel to strengthen how needs assessments are used in budgeting. Mike O’Neil of the Kansas Policy Institute said the needs assessment statute is underused and argued money has not been directed to instruction in ways that improve outcomes. “We need to get more dollars to the classroom,” O’Neil said, and he told the committee the “cumulative effect” since 2005 is “about $13,100,000,000” spent in ways he said did not prioritize instruction.

Opponents said the bill is unnecessary and encroaches on local control. Leah Fleider, assistant executive director for advocacy and government relations at the Kansas Association of School Boards, told the committee the existing statute is a longstanding local control tool and that many districts already use the needs assessment in budgeting and program development. Jim Carlsgant of United School Administrators and Mary Sinclair of the Kansas PTA made similar points, arguing the assessment process typically spans many meetings and district practices vary.

Committee members pressed both sides on scope and practice. Senator Arkebright noted needs assessments are often year‑long, multi‑meeting processes rather than a single checklist. Members asked proponents for evidence of districts not complying; O’Neil said his organization’s survey indicated board members often were not aware of or invited to needs‑assessment sessions. Opponents countered with examples of districts that integrate assessment data into school‑level reports and budget deliberations.

No formal committee action or vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing’s close. The committee chair closed the hearing on Senate Bill 49 and proceeded to separate testimony on Senate Bill 87.

The hearing record contains proponent and opponent written testimony submitted for the committee record.