The Kansas State Board of Education backtracked on a new graduation requirement it recently implemented for the upcoming school year. 

Board members voted 6-3 on Wednesday to start the process of repealing an accreditation provision mandating that high school students complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Board member Dennis Hershberger was not present for the vote.

Completion of the optional FAFSA application paves the way for students to receive federal funding for higher education expenses. According to data compiled by FAFSA Tracker, Kansas ranks in the bottom tier of FAFSA completion rates at 38.8%, while Tennessee leads the pack at 63.4%. Completion of the application by high school upperclassmen in Kansas, according to the data, has dropped by roughly 3,000 from the previous year.

State education leaders and legislators contend that millions of dollars in aid is being left on the table by students unaware of FAFSA’s potential financial benefits. 

Danny Zeck, who represents an area of northeast Kansas, said the burden should be on the student and not the school because kids and parents are “supposed to try to figure out things themselves.” 

“It seems like we want to do everything for everybody,” Zeck said, further explaining he’s “old school” in his views. “If you want to be successful, then you get out there and do whatever it takes to be successful.” 

Zeck and Michelle Dombrosky were the only board members to cast “no” votes to the graduation overhaul measure in May.

The board in May voted to approve the new set of graduation requirements, marking the first time in 20 years the state overhauled those regulations. But at least two board members expressed skepticism over the FAFSA requirement, prompting the board to quickly revisit the measure. 

Concern centered on alleged pushback from unnamed school administrators who didn’t believe getting students and parents to comply with the requirement was feasible — despite a built-in opt-out provision. But Education Commissioner Randy Watson countered the assertion, saying superintendents surveyed statewide broadly supported the measure. 

At Wednesday’s meeting, the board considered but ultimately passed on an option that would have allowed districts to merely relay information related to FAFSA’s potential benefits and additional guidance from the Kansas State Department of Education. In that scenario, the measure would have no longer been considered an accreditation requirement. 

The FAFSA requirement was included in recommendations from a task force’s multiyear study that looked into the graduation requirements overhaul. Board members were previously informed that the idea was to place the burden on the school district to do more as far as presenting FAFSA info to students.

Board member Cathy Hopkins, who represents a large swath of central and western Kansas, said Wednesday she believed the district “compliance” option presented during the meeting achieved that objective.

“I believe doing it through compliance does that,” Hopkins said. “And not through actual graduation requirements, which does put the burden on the parent or student to have to opt out and deal with the whole situation.” 

Board member Jim Porter, who represents parts of southeast Kansas, said his concern primarily centered on “capable” students who were not being provided with pertinent info related to FAFSA. Some school districts hold annual FAFSA informational events, which is another avenue for schools to comply with the alternative option presented at the meeting. Porter said he believed the compliance option presented at Wednesday’s meeting would not result in a breakthrough. 

“If compliance is a ‘FAFSA night’ and sending messages, it’s going to get to the same people it’s getting to now,” he said.

Board Chair Melanie Haas agreed that “a FAFSA night is not enough” as far as outreach efforts. 

“It’s one night and a lot of parents are working, they’re busy, they can’t make it, they’ve got other kids,” she said. 

Haas also mentioned that completion of the FAFSA does not automatically equate to higher education success. 

“That’s what I want to solve,” Haas said. “If they’re going to go to college, it would be great to see them finish college.” 

Board member Jim McNiece, who served as the chair of the graduation task force, was baffled by “all the fuss” related to the board’s swift pivot on the issue. 

“I’ve talked to several people [on the graduation task force] and they were surprised,” McNiece said. “That’s what the board picked on? That’s the item that got the most attention?” 

He said the measure specifically provides added support for all students, particularly those at risk. McNiece indicated the measure should be a slam dunk, noting that the board wasn’t scaling “Mount Everest.” 

Matt Resnick is a Statehouse reporter at State Affairs Pro Kansas/Hawver’s Capitol Report. Reach him at [email protected].

As some states begin to ban cell phones in schools, the Kansas State Board of Education is weighing how best to address students’ screen time.

The board on Tuesday heard a presentation from Payton Lynn, an intern with the Kansas State Department of Education. The project was overseen by Jake Steel, the department’s director of strategy and operational alignment; and Gabrielle Hull, legislative coordinator for the department’s Division of Fiscal and Administrative Services.

Lynn pointed to legislative action around the country, including phone bans in Florida, South Carolina and Indiana and new policies and guidance in other states. Just this week, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order to create cell phone-free classrooms by Jan. 1.

In Kansas, House Bill 2641 died in committee earlier this year. The bill would’ve required each Kansas school board to create a policy banning personal cell phones during normal school hours, with certain exceptions.

Shannon Kimball of the Kansas Association of School Boards said during a February hearing that she believed phone restrictions are issues best addressed locally. The Kansas National Education Association also opposed the bill for the same reason.

Steel called the issue a hot-button topic and said the research was specifically focused on the non-educational time students spend on screens, from watches to tablets to phones to computers.

Education Commissioner Randy Watson said the word “cell phone” is a misnomer because most smartphone usage isn’t simply making a call.

“These devices aren’t being used to call your friend or call home,” he said.

Since 2020, children’s non-educational screen time has risen by 52% to an average of seven to 10 hours per day, Lynn said. About five of those hours are spent on social media.

But she said there’s not much expert guidance on how much time school-aged children should spend in front of screens.

Studies show high amounts of screen time are correlated with higher levels of depression and anxiety, though Lynn said it’s unclear whether that relationship is causal. Some research also shows that certain types of screen time, such as educational TV programming, can be beneficial.

Lynn cited a report from the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, that found “adolescents who spend more than three hours per day on social media face double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes.”

Studies show that 77% of schools nationwide have policies against non-academic cell phone use — though Lynn explained that many of those policies were written in the early 2000s and are now outdated.

Difficulties today include inconsistent enforcement of those policies, leaving individual teachers to police their own classrooms. 

“A lot of educators say that it’s really difficult to enforce this at the classroom level. …” Lynn said. “Others would say that it’s really important for the administration to be the ones to enforce it so that teachers don’t have to take the time to be the cell phone police in class.”

However, surveys show parents generally don’t want their children’s phones to be unavailable during class.

Board member Betty Arnold said she understands that parents are divided and that some want their children to have the ability to communicate during emergencies.

“I don’t think that we can bring everybody together on that same page for that,” Arnold said.

Ann Mah, another board member, suggested a state-level ban on phones in schools would be unenforceable and said it’s an issue that should be handled at the local level.

Brett Stover is a Statehouse reporter at State Affairs Pro Kansas/Hawver’s Capitol Report. Reach him at [email protected] or on X @BrettStoverKS.