0

IOM affirms CDC guidance on N95 use in H1N1 setting

first_imgSep 3, 2009 (CIDRAP News) – The Institute of Medicine (IOM) today affirmed existing federal guidance that healthcare workers caring for H1N1 influenza patients should wear fit-tested N95 respirators, not just surgical masks, to protect them from the virus.At the same time, the IOM called for additional research on flu transmission and the effectiveness of various respiratory protection tools in clinical settings, along with efforts to develop new respiratory protection technologies to enhance safety and comfort.”Based on what we currently know about influenza, well-fitted N95 respirators offer health care workers the best protection against inhalation of viral particles,” said Kenneth Shine, chair of the committee that wrote the report, in an IOM news release.”But there is a lot we still don’t know about these viruses, and it would be a mistake for anyone to rely on respirators alone as some sort of magic shield,” added Shine, who is executive vice chancellor for health affairs in the University of Texas System, Austin, and former president of the IOM.. “Health care organizations and their employees should establish and practice a number of strategies to guard against infection, such as innovative triage processes, hand washing, disinfection, gloves, vaccination, and antiviral drug use.”But the IOM report drew criticism today from a representative of the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (APIC), who said the recommendation to wear N95s fails to recognize the many practical and logistical problems related to N95 use, including discomfort, costs, shortages, and the difficulty of fit testing.In the face of unclear science concerning flu virus transmission, the IOM prepared the report at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).The panel, which was given just 8 weeks to write the report, held a 4-day meeting, including a 1 1/2-day public workshop, in August. The panel’s assignment specifically excluded the economical and logistical considerations related to personal protective equipment (PPE).The report notes that the current CDC guidance on protection for health workers caring for H1N1 patients differs from guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Canadian guidance. The CDC recommends use of N95s for all healthcare workers who enter the rooms of patients in isolation with confirmed or suspected H1N1 infection. The same advice goes for emergency medical personnel who come in close contact with such patients.In contrast, the WHO recommends “standard and droplet precautions (including a medical mask, gown, gloves, eye protection, hand hygiene) for those working in direct contact with patients and additional precautions for aerosol-generating procedures including wearing a facial particulate respirator,” the report says. The recommendation allows for “the need for sustainability” in different countries.Similarly, recently released Canadian guidelines call for using N95s only during aerosol-generating procedures and recommend using medical (surgical) masks in other situations, according to the report.On the murky question of the extent to which flu viruses spread through the air, the IOM committee concluded that studies show that “airborne (inhalation) transmission is one of the potential routes of transmission.”The panel said it found few studies comparing the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in clinical settings, although several studies are under way. Hence the group based its decisions on comparisons of the two kinds of protection in controlled experiments. Those studies show that medical masks are unlikely to be effective in preventing aerosol transmission, the report says.In view of that evidence, the panel recommends that health workers in close contact with patients who have novel H1N1 flu or flu-like illness should wear fit-tested N95 respirators or respirators that are “demonstrably more effective.” The report specifically endorses the current CDC guidance and says it should be followed until there is evidence that other forms of protection work as well or better.In addition, the report advises that employers should make sure that N95 respirators are used and fit-tested in accordance with OSHA regulations.The panel further found that the need for more research on flu transmission and PPE is “striking.” It urges federal agencies and private organizations to support and undertake research to:Answer questions about the relative contribution of different routes of flu transmissionExplore the effectiveness of different respiratory protection tools in clinical settings through randomized trialsDesign and develop new respiratory protection technologies “to enhance safety, comfort, and ability to perform work-related tasks”The IOM’s recommendation to use fit-tested N95s drew criticism on practicality grounds today from Ruth Carrico, an infection control expert at the University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences and a former APIC board member. Carrico was on a panel of experts who reviewed the IOM report in draft form.”I think the IOM has missed the mark,” Carrico told CIDRAP News.She acknowledged that the panel of authors was specifically charged with looking only at the science and not the logistical and economic issues. But she said it’s difficult to separate the scientific issues from the logistical matters, such as the ability of health workers to follow the guidance and its applicability in clinical settings.”As a human being, if you’re being told this is the best protection for your and you go to work and that protection is not available, how likely are you to go to work the next day?” she asked.Noting that the recommendation specifically calls for the use of fit-tested respirators, Carrico said there are “lots of gaps” in the information about fit testing. Given the cost and time requirements of fit testing, she said, “Does it really make sense and is it a valid point? We have to be concerned about that in our economic times.”More generally, she said, “Divorcing the recommendations from the practicality of implementation represents a serious problem for healthcare workers who are trying to figure out, ‘What do I do to provide care for my patients in a safe manner?'”Hospitals say they do fit testing as best they can, but “there’s no way to be fit tested for all the kinds of respirators used,” Carrico continued. For example, this past spring, some hospitals ran out of respirators and hence used respirators from the government’s Strategic National Stockpile. Those were a different type from what hospitals normally use, which created a need for additional fit testing, she said.Keeping respirators on hand is a continuing problem, she added. “There are back orders; there are constant calls about interruptions in supply. We simply do not have the supply line of these types of materials in order to apply these recommendations.” As a result, hospitals try to save their respirators for us in the highest-risk settings.The shortages and other problems lead to inconsistent and changing hospital policies, which confuse workers, she added. “We’re hearing about workers who will say ‘I refuse to care for this patient because I don’t feel safe,'” she said.Carrico also commented that most workers can wear N95s only a short time before they become hot and uncomfortable.”At some point you’ve got to peel the onion and say what’s really necessary, what’s really practical, and how are we going to enable our healthcare workers to do what needs to be done?” she said.She also expressed hope that the IOM’s appeal for new research will lead to some well-designed studies in clinical settings.At a press briefing today, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden said the CDC has just received the IOM report and is looking at it.CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said the agency is considering the recommendations from the IOM and other expert groups on the issue of respiratory protection for health workers. “We hope to have a plan that further addresses this issue very soon,” he told CIDRAP News.See also:Sep 3 National Academy of Sciences news release about the reporthttp://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12748Table of contents page for full IOM report “Respiratory Protection for Healthcare Workers in the Workplace Against Novel H1N1 Influenza A”http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12748Aug 13 CIDRAP News story “Experts air practical PPE considerations to IOM”Aug 12 CIDRAP News story “IOM hears diverse findings on PPE for flu”last_img read more

0

Iraq lawmakers approve government of Prime Minister-designate Kadhimi

first_imgKadhimi’s candidates for Cabinet posts including interior, defence, finance and electricity passed with votes from a majority of lawmakers present.Voting on the oil and foreign ministries was delayed as the parties failed to agree on candidates. They rejected the incoming premier’s picks for justice, agriculture and trade.”The security, stability and blossoming of Iraq is our path,” Kadhimi wrote on his Twitter account after parliament voted for his Cabinet.He said he would make tackling the coronavirus pandemic, of which Iraq has suffered more than 2,000 cases and more than 100 deaths, a priority and hold to account those who had killed protesters in previous months of anti-government unrest.Iraqi officials say Kadhimi is acceptable to both the United States and Iran, whose battle for influence over Iraq has boiled into open confrontation in the past year.The United States killed Iranian military mastermind Qassem Soleimani and his close ally the Iraqi paramilitary leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a drone strike next to Baghdad International Airport in January.Iran responded with its first ever direct missile attack against US forces at a base in Western Iraq several days later but did not kill anyone.Washington accuses paramilitary groups backed by Tehran of carrying out a series of rocket attacks on other bases in recent months, one of which killed three troops in the US-led military coalition based in Iraq.Rockets have regularly been fired near the US embassy in Baghdad. None of the rocket attacks have been claimed by known Iran-backed groups.Kadhimi’s government must deal with an impending economic crisis precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused the prices of oil – Iraq’s principal source of revenue – to plummet.It also faces a growing Islamic State insurgency as the extremist group steps up attacks on government troops from hideouts in remote areas of northern Iraq.Iraq risks being caught up in any regional conflagration between Washington and Tehran, as militia groups vow revenge for the killing of Soleimani and Muhandis and President Donald Trump continues his bellicose rhetoric against Iran. Topics : Iraqi lawmakers approved a new government on Wednesday after six months without one as parties squabbled until the last minute over Cabinet seats in backroom deals.Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, Iraq’s intelligence chief and a former journalist, will head the new government. He will begin his term without a full Cabinet, however, after several ministerial candidates were rejected.US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo welcomed the new government in a call with Kadhimi, the US State Department said in a statement. It also said Washington would renew for 120 days a waiver allowing Iraq to import electricity from Iran “to help provide the right conditions for success” of the new government.Former prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, who has been leading a caretaker government, resigned last year as anti-government protesters took to the streets in their thousands, demanding jobs and the departure of Iraq’s ruling elite.They accuse the political class that took over after the 2003 US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein of corruption that has driven the country into dysfunction and economic ruin.The battle over government portfolios since Abdul Mahdi’s resignation in November prevented two previous nominees for prime minister from forming a Cabinet.last_img read more

0

Sumner County Superintendents condemn HB 2741; contents of bill below

first_img$27.6 million Estimated Bilingual State Aid: $20.8 millionDecrease = $19.7 Million $372.6 million HB 2741 Note: Statewide estimates only; may vary significantly by individual districts.                                       Sec. 10-13Maintains School District Finance Fund, state collection of statewide mill levy; dates of distribution of state aid; repayment of excess state aid; adoption of district budgets by August 25.Sec. 14, 46 – Success grants.Sec. 14 – Beginning in 2018-19, the State Board shall disburse grants to districts based on student success indicators. No amount of funding provided.The State Board is to use the following factors to measure student success:Number of students graduating in immediately preceding school year divided by number in ninth grade cohort.Number of students receiving nationally recognized certificate in preceding school year divided by number of students who graduated in second preceding school year.Number of students that graduated in second preceding school year who enrolled in third consecutive semester of postsecondary institution divided by number of students graduated in second preceding year, andNumber of students graduating in second preceding school year and required to take remedial courses after graduation divided by number of students graduated in second preceding year.The amount a school district receives must be proportional to the district’s success as compared to all other school districts. The higher the success factor score, the more grant money the district will receive.Success grants shall be disbursed to employees in the following classifications equally on a per employee basis: Principal; assistant principal; vocational education teacher; pre-kindergarten teacher; kindergarten teacher; reading teacher; other teacher; library specialist; school counselor; and school psychologist.Sec. 46 – Directs the state department of education collect information for success metric.Sec. 15 – Statewide mill levy.Districts are required to levy a 35 mill property tax, compared to the current 20 mill tax rate.Sec. 16 – Local property tax.Districts may levy a property tax for up to five years, with no limit, but subject to public vote. The purpose of the proceeds must be specified, but may not be used for instruction unless the course of study is offered to every other district in the state electronically. No state equalization aid provided.Sec. 17-18 – Continues school district budget funds currently authorized, and allows transfers among funds as the same basis as the current block grant law.Sections 19, 69, 74 – Extracurricular ActivitiesSec. 19 – Prohibits spending general state aid for extracurricular activities.No district may spend general state aid for extracurricular activities or related to such activities, but may use revenues raised under Sec. 16 or other local revenues (i.e. gate receipts, fees.) “Extracurricular activities” means those activities provided or supported by a school district, but which are not required by or a substantial part of any curriculum of such school district. “Co-curricular activities” means those activities provided or supported by a school district that are not extracurricular activities.Section 69 – Requires more precise accounting of receipts and expenditures from activity funds used for extracurricular activities. Reduction from 2014-15 Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (12) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +3 Vote up Vote down Caldwell Fan · 225 weeks ago Thank you so much for this very informative article. Report Reply 0 replies · active 225 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down turkeyleg · 225 weeks ago You people elected them so now live with it. Things like this happen when people are uninformed or just to lazy to vote, So from now on just maybe people won’t vote for a person just because they have a “R” or “NRA” beside their names. Look at it this way, Brownback and his bud’z still have over 2 1/2 years left. So get ready. Report Reply 0 replies · active 225 weeks ago -8 Vote up Vote down james day · 225 weeks ago Yes it stinks, but there are to many superintendents at the schools, we don’t need one for every school. Went by the schools the other day and one guy driving a mower with a person sitting on a weed sprayer, really it doesn’t take 2 to do that, Wellington wastes a lot of money that should be spent on class rooms. But that’s wellington leadership, kinda like the city council and there tactics. Wellington is sinking because our schools are not good, city is run by people that do not have the best interest of wellington. Report Reply 5 replies · active 225 weeks ago +8 Vote up Vote down Native Kansan · 225 weeks ago Supt. Rick Weiss is corrects when he tells us: “It is time for the population of Kansas to wake up to the fact that the majority of our Kansas Legislature and Governor are systematically planning the demise of the public school system in our state”. There has been the drip, drip drip of erosion of our public schools in Kansas by our representatives: Block grants that do not adequately fund the schools, an ” extraordinary fund” that requires schools to ask for money(beg) , attacks on educators, tax credits for private schools and now HB 2741,which will force more local funding for public schools; or as Sen. Steve Abrams said… “But if consolidation happens it happens”. We all need to ask ourselves if this is what we want for our schools and our state? We can no longer ignore what our Legislature and Governor are doing to us, our neighbors, our children and grandchildren. We are better than that as a community, county and state. How many of you have ever received a survey from Sen. Abrams on current bills or issues? How about a newsletter from him explaining why he voted a certain way on issues. If you sent him an email, did he even bother to reply?. Does he have a website or Facebook page? Is he the type of representative we want making decisions about our schools and issues that affect our daily lives? In the end we are responsible for the people we elect to represent us and have the power to remove them if they do not. Report Reply 1 reply · active 225 weeks ago +11 Vote up Vote down Terry Deschaine · 225 weeks ago House Bill 2741 is another blatant example of why Sen. Abrams should be defeated in the upcoming election. He is so far out of touch with the people he supposedly represents on not only this issue, but a multitude of other issues important to the people of Kansas. He does not listen to or respond to concerns of his constituents if their opinions are contrary to his on any issues and has demonstrated this time and again. There is a very qualified and informed candidate opposing Abrams in the next election. In addition to being qualified, he exhibits common sense and would be willing to bring integrity and knowledge to Topeka when addressing the many troubling issues facing our state. He would also, in my opinion, listen to and respond to the opinions and concerns of those of us who elect him. Wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air in this toxic political environment? His name is Don Shimkus. Don is currently President of the Oxford USD 358 Board of Education and is President of the Kansas Association of School Boards. PLEASE go to the polls and elect Don Shimkus to replace Sen. Abrams. Report Reply 0 replies · active 225 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down JP Buellesfeld · 225 weeks ago The 31 US States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.The governor of that US State was for Medicaid Expansion. The 19 US States that have opposed the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The governors of those 19 US States were adamantly opposed to Medicaid Expansion under the Afffordable Care Act. It seems like to me it would be a better use of the energy of those community leaders from Sumner Regional Medical Center if they could meet with Governor Brownback in Topeka, ks or when Governor Brownback is in sumner county ,Ks. I think the history of the Affordable Care Act tells us that even if Steve Abrams, Kasha Kelley and Kyle Hoffman were 100% in favor of expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It has no chance to happen without Governor Brownback and his full support for Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Report Reply 0 replies · active 225 weeks ago Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Transportation weighting: $101.8 million Part 2 of two-part seriesby James Jordan, Sumner Newscow — Sumner County Superintendents were quick to condemn House Bill 2741, which is designed to replace the block grant system and get the state in compliance with State Supreme Court edicts.The biggest points of concern are the removal of state funds for athletics and extra-curricular activities, and allowing money that would have gone to the district to go to a private school or online educational system.Wellington Superintendent Rick Weiss said the affect on public schools “could be devastating.”He said if no money was available for athletics, it would deny opportunities for many students, and perhaps a significant number would go to a private school instead. He said that might also put a burden on private schools, and increase competition for a limited number of spots at a private school.“It is time for the population of Kansas to wake up to the fact that the majority of the Kansas Legislature and Governor are systematically planning the demise of the public school systems in our state.” he said.Oxford Superintendent Mark Whitener, who will be replacing Weiss at USD 353, said while he supports a parent’s right to educate their children at a private or parochial school, he noted private schools are more selective and they are not as subject to state and federal educational requirements.“In a sense, some private schools have no accountability to the state,” Weiss said. “It seems if a private school receives tax payer dollars, they should be held to the same accountability standards as public schools.”He said many small schools would not be able to continue offering things like sports or FFA without state support. He said even if local districts raised taxes, they would still not have enough to continue sports programs. Clay Murphy, at Conway Springs said if schools had to fund programs without state support, the “pay to play” fees would go up dramatically. He said the fee could easily go up to $250 per student just to play football.“I understand the philosophy, but the reality is that many activities would have to be cut if this plan was put into action,” Murphy said.Murphy said he would like to see legislators sit down with school officials so they could work out a system that would work.“There has to be a respect factor there for everyone to get together and come up with what is best for kids,” he said.Alan Jamison Superintendent at Caldwell said the bill would benefit more affluent school districts and would hurt those with lower property valuations.He said two mils would raise $34,000, and that would not fund the programs for a long time.He said people who live in Caldwell and support the schools have put a lot of time and effort into the facilities, such as the football stadium.“It would be sad to try to maintain them and not have programs or other options than to just let them go into a state of disrepair,” he said.Jamison said students would eventually go to other districts, and families would eventually move to be closer to larger schools.“This would eventually cause the demise of small communities,” he said.Jamison said he thinks the bill needs more discussion and debate, and questioned whether it had been vetted properly.“Throwing something together like this without being vetted will only complicate the process and lead to more legal action, plus there are many more issues in this bill that will come up that the authors haven’t thought about or understand.” he said.————Here is a brief synopsis of the bill according to the Kansas Associations of School Boards. It is currently in the Committee of Appropriations. The bill may or may not be taken up during the 2016 legislative session but could in 2017.Part 1 – Creates a new school finance law called the School District Finance and Student Success Act, to take effect July 1, 2017 upon expiration of the two-year block grant law.Sec.1 – Citation (title) of act.Sec. 2 – Purpose.States the purpose is to provide financing of “instruction” (not “education”) to be reasonably calculated to meet the Rose standards. “Instruction” means those school district functions that directly impact the provision of education services. The term “instruction” does not include the following school district functions: Central office administration; capital improvement construction, reconstruction or remodeling; facility maintenance and repair; food service procurement and preparation; or the provision of extracurricular activities, as defined in section 19.(Note: this definition of “instruction” does not match the federal definition of instruction used by the school district accounting handbook, or elsewhere in state law which equate instruction with “spending in the classroom.” The “accounting” definition of instruction only includes the activities dealing directly with the interaction between teachers and students – but DOES include extracurricular and co-curricular activities.) Sec. 3 – Definitions – significant features include:At-risk student is defined the same as under the previous system and block grants law: free lunch eligible; does not include part-time over age 19.Rather than a single count date (Sept. 20) enrollment is based on the average daily enrollment (not attendance) for the previous Sept. 20 through March 20; with a declining enrollment provision similar to the pre-block grant law using previous year or three-year average.Sect. 4 – Determination of General State Aid:Beginning 2017-18, each district receives general state aid as follows: Enrollment aid (Sec. 5), plus transportation aid (Sec. 6), plus low income aid (Sec. 7), plus bilingual aid (Sec. 8), plus KPERS obligation, plus amount determined in Sec. 9, if any (hold harmless aid); subject to reduction in Sec. 38 (private education accounts).(Note: the bill does not change the current system of special education funding.)Sec. 5 – Enrollment Aid is: HB 2741 $64.3 million Previous law (2014-15) Previous law (2014-15) Estimated H.H.Reductions: Unweighted base aid: $1.75 billionUnrestricted weightings: $301.7 millionLocal Option Budget: $1.06 billionTotal: $3.11 billion HB 2741 2,000 or more $257,391,213 Estimated low income state aid: $337.2 millionDecrease = $58.1 Million Food Service: Sec. 9 – “Hold Harmless” Aid – For school years 2017-18 and 2018-19:For each district, determine total state aid received in 2014-15, less federal funds received from state solely as pass through.Add proceeds of any tax levied by district in 2014-15 other than bond and interest.Deduct any state aid received in current year (excluding federal aid received under this section).Deduct from (1+2) savings directly attributable to state health insurance plan as certified by budget director (see sections 27-32).Deduct from (1+2) savings attributable to efficiencies in food service and extracurricular activities as certified by budget director (see sections 19 and 20 – district may not spend general state aid on food service or extracurricular activities.)Deduct from (1+2) one-third of cash balance reconciliation amount.Essentially, if state aid under the new system is less than what a district received in 2014-15 (adjusted to health insurance savings, food service and extracurricular programs, and “excessive” cash balances), the district receives additional aid to make up the difference. (This provision is in effect for the first two years only.)The “cash balance reconciliation amount” is the amount of cash on hand July 1, 2014, in all funds except bond and interest, capital outlay, gifts and grants and any federal funds, in excess of 15 percent of expenditures in functions 1000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900, 3100 or 3300. (Basically, the A&M state efficiency study recommendation but spread over three years rather than five.) Sec. 6 – Transportation AidTransportation aid is based on the formula used in the previous school finance law, but adjusted as recommended by Legislative Post Audit for what LPA believes is an error in calculating the amount, which reduces funding. $80.0 million At-Risk weighting: $343.3 millionHigh At-Risk Weighting: $52.0 millionTotal: $395.3 million $5,763 1,000 to 1,999 Participating entity means any nonpublic school that provides education to elementary and secondary students located in this state and is registered with the state board as a non-accredited non-public school, including home schools. (Participating entity is more broadly defined in Sec. 41 below.)Sec. 35, 36 – Allows creation of education freedom accounts for students whose parent satisfies the requirements of the act, under administration of the State Treasurer. Parents must agree the student shall receive instruction in state-required subjects and not be enrolled full-time in a public school.Sec. 37 – A student’s account shall receive an aggregate annual amount equal to 70 percent of the general state aid of such student’s resident school district as determined under the finance law, excluding any amounts certified by the board of trustees of the Kansas public employees retirement system for the participating employer’s obligation of such school district to the system for the immediately preceding school year divided by the enrollment of such school district for the immediately preceding school year. If the student enrolls in public school on a part-time basis, the amount shall be prorated. (Up to 2 percent deducted for administrative expenses.)Sec. 38 – Each student with an account shall be counted in the enrollment of the resident public school district, and the amount equal to 70 percent of general state aid shall be deducted for each participating student. (Note: it appears this means the districts retains the other 30 percent, which is not addressed by the bill.)Sec. 39, 40 – Moneys in each account shall be accessed only by parents and may only be spent on specific educational costs; provides for random audits of accounts.Sec. 41 – A participating educational provider must be: (A) An accredited nonpublic school; (B) a program of distance education not operated by a public school or the department of education; (C) a tutor or tutoring facility accredited by a state, regional or national accrediting organization; or (D) a non-accredited private school registered with the State Board pursuant to K.S.A. 72-53,101; and must provide instruction in at least those subjects required by state law; provides for audits and revocation of approval.Sec. 42 – The state treasurer shall conduct an annual survey of parents to include, but not be limited to:The number of years the student has been a participant in the program;The relative satisfaction of the parent with the program; andAny opinions regarding any topics, items or other issues the treasurer determines may aid in the evaluation of the program or increase effectiveness of the program.(Note: there are no requirements for academic testing or other assessment or accountability measures for students.)Sec. 43 – Rules and regulation authority of State Treasurer.Sec. 44 – Nothing in this act shall be deemed to limit the independence or autonomy of a participating entity or to make the actions of a participating entity the actions of the state government.Part 5 – USD Efficiency Incentive ProgramSec. 45 – Creates USD efficiency incentive program.Any employee of a school district may submit a plan for the efficient operation of school districts which will result in cost savings. More than one employee may be identified as a submitter on any plan. Such plan shall be submitted in such manner and form as prescribed by the State Board, and investigated by the State Board.Each January the State Board is to submit a report describing each plan, the potential cost savings, and any legislation that may be necessary for implementationUpon certification of savings by adopting such a plan, 10 percent of savings are awarded to the employee or employees.Part 6 – School Finance LitigationSec. 51 – Amends K.S.A. 60-2102 to strike the right to directly appeal a decision in a school finance lawsuit to the Kansas Supreme Court. Under this amendment an appeal from a trial court decision would first have to be made to the Kansas Court of Appeals. This section is effective on July 1, 2016.Sec. 59 – Prohibit any general state aid moneys from being used by a school district to fund a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of any law concerning school finance. This section is effective on July 1, 2017. (It was would this would require these funds to be raised by the local levy levy authorized in Sec. 16.)Sec. 60 – Provides for selection of a three-judge panel for school finance trials by lottery, rather than appointment. The first judge selected via lottery is to be designated as the presiding judge over the panel. This section is effective on July 1, 2016.Part 7 – Conforming amendments; ending sections and effective dateSec. 47-50; 52-57; 61-65; 67-68; 70-73; 75-82; and 84-91 – Provides conforming amendments to various statutes outside the area of school finance that are needed if the act becomes law on July 1, 2017.Sec. 92-93 – Repealers of existing law, which would be replaced by the amended laws contained in the bill.Sec. 94 – Provides that the bill is effective upon publication in the statute book.Follow us on Twitter. (Note: there does not appear to be “linear transition” as under the previous low enrollment weighting. This likely means if a district’s enrollment changes to one student above or below the enrollment threshold, there is a significant change in enrollment funding, rather than a gradual change.)According to the bill, these amounts are based on components of “typical” district in which 70 percent of students who are not low income have met achievement levels 2, 3 or 4 for college and career readiness on state assessments for 2014-15.The components based on 2014-15 expenditures are:Instruction – “certain expenses categorized under function” 1000 – per pupilStudent support – “certain expenses categorized under function” 2100 – per pupilInstructional support – “certain expenses categorized under function” 2200 – per pupilAdministrative expenses – “certain expenses categorized under function” functions 2300 to 2500 – per pupilOperations and maintenance – “certain expenses categorized under function” 2600 – per districtBeginning 2018-19, each amount shall be increased annually by Consumer Price Index – Midwest Region.Previous law: Base budget per pupil $3,852, adjusted by weightings $8,490 per student Less than 400 students Activities: Estimated enrollment aid: $2.83 billionDecrease = $280 Million $60.0 million        (Three years only) Estimated transportation aid: $86.6 millionDecrease = $15.2 Million Previous law (2014-15) Section 74 – Requires reporting on receipts and expenditures for extracurricular and co-curricular activities by the specific activity to which the receipt or expenditure relates. Extracurricular and co-curricular activity reports are not to be commingled.Sec. 20 – Prohibit spending general state aid for food service.No district may spend general state aid for food service or related activities, but may use revenues raised under Sec. 16.Sec. 21 – Accreditation SystemNo district shall be accredited unless the district can demonstrate it is meeting the Rose standards. Reinstates system used in block grant law and previous law, referring to Rose capacities as state education goals, requiring state standards and assessments, site councils.(Note: by directing that schools must be meeting the Rose standards to be accredited, if a school is accreditation it is evidence that its funding is constitutionally suitable. This section raises issues of the State Board of Education’s constitutional powers regarding school accreditation.)Sec. 22 – Rules and regulation authority to State Board.Sec. 23 – Sections 1-23 are not severable.Part 2 – Capital outlay and capital improvement (bond and interest) state aidSec. 24 – Capital Outlay State Aid Fund.Equalization for district capital outlay levies of up to eight mills is based on cube root of assessed valuation per pupil, multiplied by mean federal adjusted gross income for preceding tax year, multiplied by average appraised value of single family homes in districts to the determine the equalization base for each district. (Currently equalization is based on assessed valuation per pupil only.)Values are rounded to nearest $1,000 and ranked high to low. Aid is based on 25 percent at the median equalization base, increasing or decreasing by 1 percent for each $1,000 up or down. (This is the same equalization formula for capital outlay in the bill passed to respond to the Kansas Supreme Court equity order, except that bill uses AVPP only.)Sec. 25 – Capital Improvement Aid.Beginning July 1, 2016, the Joint Committee on State Building Construction is to review those projects for which a school district is requesting capital improvement state aid to help finance the project.The committee shall consider the use of each facility and authorize (1) up to 100 percent of the state aid amount as the percentage of utilization for direct instruction for any school building that is a classroom attendance center; (2) up to 50 percent as the percentage of utilization for direct instruction for any building that is used for student transportation services, or for any portion of a building that is not a classroom, but is used on a daily basis by students for classes and extracurricular activities, including, but not limited to, auditoriums and gymnasiums; and (3) no percentage of utilization for direct instruction for any athletic facility or for any school administration and support building.(Note: this differs from legislation recently approved by Senate and the House Education Committees, currently in conference committee, which sets a state cap on bond and interest expenditures rather than limiting state aid by usage and has priorities for aid set by the State Board.)Sec. 26 – Study of state bonding programs for capital outlay and improvements.Creates joint committee on school district capital outlay and improvements, appointed by legislative leaders to:Review and make recommendations on proposals to implement a state revolving loan fund as a source of financing for school district capital improvement projects, which would utilize the bonding authority of the Kansas development finance authority;Review and make recommendations on proposals to implement a master lease program as a source of financing for school district capital outlay acquisitions, which would utilize the bonding authority of the Kansas development finance authority; andSubmit a report on or before January 15, 2017, to the Governor and the Legislature on the special joint committee’s findings, conclusions and recommendations. The committee then expires.Sec. 66 – Bidding for construction projectsNo expenditure for construction, reconstruction or remodeling of a facility for which bonds have been issued by the school district to finance such expenditure shall be made unless such school district has received at least three sealed proposals. (Note: this section could override authority for school districts to use construction management at risk.)Sec. 83 – State aid formula for capital improvement aid.The equalization formula used the block grant law is continued (using a lower equalization formula than the capital outlay plan just approved by the Legislature).Part 3 – School District Health Insurance ProgramSec. 27-32Directs that the state employees health care commission shall develop and provide for the implementation and administration of a unified school district employee health care benefits program.Beginning Jan. 1 2018, no school district shall offer or enter into any contract for the provision of any health plan in lieu of a high-deductible health plan and health savings account under the unified school district employee health care benefits program.A school district may offer or enter into a contract for the provision of supplemental health coverage in addition to a plan offered under the unified school district employee health care benefits program.An employee shall be eligible to elect such supplemental health coverage only if the employee also elects a high deductible health plan and health savings account under the unified school district employee health care benefits program.(Note: this is based on recommendation of the Alvarez and Marsal efficiency study. A&M estimated current district health care expenditures of $300 to $350 million. Saving $80 million would require reducing expenditures by approximately 25 percent. Assuming approximately half of 80,000 school district employees receive health insurance through the district, this would require shifting about $2,000 per year to each covered employee.)Sec. 58 – Professional Negotiations ActAmends state law so matters relating to health care benefits in Sec. 27 are not negotiable.Part 4 – Creates the Kansas Education Freedom Act, beginning July 1, 2017Sec. 33, 34 – Citation; Definitions.Eligible students must be residents of Kansas who: (A) are or have been enrolled in kindergarten or any of the grades one through 12 in a school district organized under the laws of this state; (B) are eligible to be enrolled in any school district in the school year in which an account is first sought for such child and the child is under the age of six; or (C) have established an account under this program and have not graduated from high school. (This appears designed to limit participation in the program to students currently in public schools or who have not yet started school. However, as written, a student who had ever been enrolled in public school would qualify, so if a parent enrolled a child in a public school for a single day, the child would be eligible.) 400 to 999 Hold Harmless Aid (Two Years Only): HB 2741 Cash Balances: $7,269 Total $6,137 Health Insurance: Sec. 8 – Bilingual State Aid.The number of students enrolled in a district receiving bilingual services, multiplied by $425. (Note: the previous law used the number of contact hours of bilingual instruction taught by certified bilingual teachers. There is also no inflation adjustment for this feature.) Previous law (2014-15) $231,745,454 Sec. 7 – Low Income State AidBased on poverty rate of individuals 5-17 in district in immediate prior year published by U.S. Census Bureau, multiplied by enrollment of district, multiplied by $3,099. The previous law used the percent of students eligible for free meals. (Note: there is no inflation adjustment for this feature.) Bilingual Weighting: $40.5 millionlast_img read more