Wichita and Kansas schools

Kansas teacher quality policies ignored

by Bob Weeks on December 28, 2011

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has proposed a new school finance plan that is sure to be the primary focus of Kansas education policy in the upcoming session of the legislature. Critics of the plan have noted that it does nothing to address the issue of student achievement. At the same time, education researchers are producing convincing evidence that of the factors under control of schools, teacher quality has the largest impact on student achievement.

Kansas ranks low in policies relating to teacher quality. The 2010 State Teacher Policy Yearbook for Kansas prepared by National Council on Teacher Quality gives Kansas these grades for five areas of policy related to teacher quality:

Delivering Well Prepared Teachers: D+
Expanding the Teaching Pool: F
Identifying Effective Teachers: D
Retaining Effective Teachers: C-
Exiting Ineffective Teachers: F

Kansas has a problem with its policies related to teacher quality. These issues have not been addressed by the Brownback Administration. Many of these policies would cost very little to improve, and would make a huge difference in the classroom for Kansas students.

Last year Sandi Jacobs of National Council on Teacher Quality spoke in Wichita on the issue of teacher quality policies. Following is the report I filed at that time.

Kansas ranks low in policies on teacher quality

States are the primary drivers of teacher policy, said Sandi Jacobs, and the states, particularly Kansas, are not doing a good job promoting teacher quality.

Audio recording: Sandi Jacobs speaking in Wichita, Kansas.

Jacobs is Vice President of National Council for Teacher Quality. She appeared in Wichita at an event sponsored by the Kansas Policy Institute. NCTA is a research and advocacy group that promotes accountability and transparency of the institutions that affect teacher quality.

While states play the largest role in formulating teacher policy, other actors are local school districts, teachers unions, and the education schools that train teachers. Until last year when Race to the Top money became available from the federal government, it didn’t play a significant role. Kansas did not make it past the first round of Race to the Top evaluations.

Jacobs said that there is strong consensus that of the factors under control of schools, teacher quality has the greatest impact on student success. And recently there has been a shift in how we consider teacher quality, moving from certifications and past education to effectiveness and results in the classroom.

Jacobs presented research that shows how teacher quality can make a large difference in how much students learn in just a period of three years. In the example she illustrated, third graders who had teachers in the top 20 percent of effectiveness for the next three years went from the 50th percentile in performance to the 90th. For students with teachers in the lowest 20 percent for the same period, their performance dropped from the 50th percentile to the 37th percentile. This is a “huge achievement gap,” she said.

Jacobs said that states already have many policies regarding teachers, but they are not the right policies. The NCTQ gives an average grade of “D” to the states for their policies regarding teachers. Kansas is below average, earning a grade of “D-.”

Among the policy areas regarding teacher effectiveness and quality, states fare worst in identifying effective teachers. Further, the methods that statues use to evaluate teachers are not indicative of teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Only ten states “require evidence of effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion for teacher evaluation.” Kansas policy says that school districts “should” include a measure of teacher effectiveness in their evaluations. But that is as far as Kansas policy goes, Jacobs said. Kansas, like many states, does not require classroom observation in teacher evaluation.

If student data is to be an important factor in teacher evaluation, states must create data systems that match students and their test scores with teachers. Kansas has the building blocks in place, Jacobs said, but the system needs more work before this matching can be done.

Value-added data has been in the news recently. This refers to the ability to measure the impact of teachers on student achievement. In value-added methodology, the specific students taught by a teacher are tracked so that teachers may be evaluated by the achievement of their own students, not by broad measures. “Value-added methodology is very fair to teachers. It looks at their impact on their students,” Jacobs told the audience.

Jacobs said that twelve states use value-added data in teacher evaluations. Kansas does not.

The frequency of teacher evaluation is important, too. Kansas requires multiple evaluations for new teachers, which Jacobs said is a wise policy, even though the evaluation process may not be meaningful. For teacher who have gained tenure, they are evaluated once a year in their first two years after gaining tenure. After that, evaluations are required once every three years, which Jacobs said does not make sense, and should be addressed.

The process of granting tenure — permanent employment status, after which is is very difficult to dismiss a teacher — is almost automatic in most states, Jacobs said. She added: “We’re not awarding it based on anything too meaningful, and we’re awarding it very quickly.” In Kansas, as in most states, teachers earn tenure after three years.

Jacobs said that after three years, school districts will have probably two years’ of data on a teacher, which she said is not enough. She recommended a probationary period of five years before evaluating a teacher for tenure.

For professional licensure, which is awarded by states, many states require no evidence of effectiveness. Kansas requires a performance assessment. Jacobs had no data for Kansas, but on other states that have such as assessment, the passing rate is generally above 98 percent. “So if 98 percent of people are coming through your gate, well then you don’t have a gate. Why are you even giving that assessment?”

The policy area in which Kansas scored lowest was in exiting, or firing, ineffective teachers. Kansas labor law has special language just for teachers, Jacobs said, and this language makes it very difficult to dismiss ineffective teachers. Teachers are also allowed multiple appeals. The second appeal is made in the court system, which changes the matter from an educational issue to a procedural issue.

Kansas is also weak in alternate certification, a process where people may become teachers without going through the traditional route through the education colleges. Kansas schools may hire such teachers only if they certify that no traditionally-prepared teacher is available. Jacobs said that research shows that alternatively-certified teachers perform well.

Retaining effective teachers is important, Jacobs said, and compensation is an important factor in this regard. A problem is that teachers are treated interchangeably, she said, because school districts pay teachers based on years of experience and by degrees earned, not by effectiveness. Furthermore, there is strong consensus of evidence that advanced degrees do not make teachers any more effective in the classroom. It’s a “double premium” that districts pay, however, as many will pay teachers to earn a higher degree, and then pay them a higher salary. But this practice does not increase student leaning.

Kansas does not have a state teacher salary schedule. Instead, districts create their own salary schedules. But Jacobs said the state needs to send the message to districts that salary schedules based on years of experience and advanced degrees “don’t make sense, aren’t efficient, and are counterproductive to retaining our most effective teachers.”

I asked Jacobs about the relative importance of class size as compared to teacher effectiveness. Jacobs said that research shows that class size makes a difference for very young children (below third grade), when class size can be reduced to 11 or 12 students. For everyone else, there is no evidence that class size makes a difference. Additionally, reducing class size requires that more teachers be hired. When California tried class size reduction, the thousands of additional teachers hired were not of high quality, and student achievement fell.

{ 1 comment }

Kansas school spending: the complete picture

by Bob Weeks on December 27, 2011

In an effort to drum up support for school spending in Kansas, advocates seize on a partial picture of school spending to make their case.

An example: A recent Lawrence Journal-World editorial contained “In the last four years, per-pupil state funding for public schools has declined by about 14 percent, from $4,400 per student to $3,780.”

Writing in the Wichita Eagle, Rhonda Holman complained of “several years of cuts totaling $653 per pupil.” (Reason to be wary, December 16 Wichita Eagle)

Kansas school spending, as presented by the Wichita public school district.

In a bond issue update video presentation for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, spokesperson Susan Arensman spoke of “severe loss of funding from the state.” Displayed on the screen at this time was a chart titled “State per-pupil funding.”

These presentations of data are designed to convince Kansans that school funding has been cut, and cut severely. The actual facts, however, are quite different.

For example, following is a chart showing spending by USD 259, the Wichita school district. Can you spot cuts or declines in spending? There is one instance on this chart where spending, on a per-pupil basis, was less than the year before. That’s an example of a cut — and the only one, considering the last ten years illustrated in this chart.

Wichita school spending. Total spending, in red, is measured on the left axis. Per-pupil spending is in blue and measured on the right axis.

So how do newspapers and school districts make a claim of cuts?

They do so by looking at only one part of spending on schools by the State of Kansas: base state aid per pupil. That number has fallen, as shown in the chart in the video.

But base state aid per pupil is only part of the spending story. It’s the starting point for the Kansas school finance formula. After weightings are applied, most school districts receive much more funding than the base figure. The Wichita school district, for example, received $6,511 per pupil from the state at a time when base state aid was $4,012.

While Kansas school spending has declined, it has not declined as much as has base state aid. At the same time, federal funding for schools increased to make up almost all the difference. As the following chart illustrates, total spending on Kansas schools has declined slightly for the past two years. For the school year starting in 2009, total spending was down 2.61 percent. For the year starting in 2010, spending declined 0.38 percent.

These declines are much less pronounced than the drop in base state aid.

Which figures should we use to represent the history of spending in Kansas schools: (a) Total spending, or (b) a small slice of spending that happens to support the case of those who believe that it is impossible to spend too much on schools?

The answer, if we are to be honest, is (a) total spending. Those who use base state aid as the only measure of spending on public schools in Kansas need to be held accountable for their misrepresentation.

{ 0 comments }

Kansas school spending facts ignored by many

by Bob Weeks on November 14, 2011

A recent Lawrence Journal-World editorial that was repeated in the Wichita Eagle made several claims about Kansas schools that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Unfortunately, the editorial is an example of how difficult it is to have a reasoned discussion of Kansas school issues.

School spending

The editorial makes this claim: “In the last four years, per-pupil state funding for public schools has declined by about 14 percent, from $4,400 per student to $3,780. Districts have cut the fat in their budgets and then some. It’s time to correct this dangerous trend.”

This statement about base state aid per pupil is true. But using only that figure to describe spending on schools in Kansas is disingenuous. It hides facts that are contrary. The truth is that Kansas school spending has fallen only slightly in recent years. Charts at the end of this article that are based on figures from Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) tell the story.

The first chart shows total spending per student in Kansas schools. Statewide, spending has declined the past two years. But while school spending advocates describe spending cuts in terms like “falling off a cliff,” the actual decline is quite mild. Using figures adjusted for inflation, per-pupil spending is $331 higher than in the 2005 – 2006 school year.

A second chart shows spending on Kansas schools considering state aid only. The drop in spending, considering only state aid, is more pronounced than when looking at funding from all sources. School spending advocates emphasize this fact, but state aid is only part of total school spending. Note also that for the most recent school year, spending per pupil rose.

The third chart illustrates the relationship between base state aid per pupil and total spending. This is important to realize, as the Journal-World editorial notes the large drop. It’s true. Base state aid has decreased. But total state spending, as noted in the previous chart, has not fallen by near as much, and rose for the most recent year. And the line for total school spending has declined only slightly.

Because base state aid has fallen, school spending advocates concentrate on this number. As reported in Kansas school spending: the deception, Mark Desetti, the lobbyist for the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union, uses this argument when he makes the case for more school spending. He’s not alone in using deception to argue for more school spending. The Lawrence Journal-World, only of our state’s largest newspapers, is helping.

Teacher quality

The Journal-World editorial also states: “There is no higher priority than recruiting and retaining high quality teachers and giving them classes that are small enough to manage and teach effectively.”

This sentence is partially correct. It’s becoming clear that teacher quality is the most important factor that schools have under their control that influences student achievement. Unfortunately, Kansas schools have policies that work against teacher quality. An example are union pay scales that pay all teachers the same regardless of how good a job they do.

Class size

The Journal-World editorial also makes the case for small class sizes: “How can Kansas schools preserve the quality of instruction they offer students with so many fewer teachers in the classrooms? Research has repeatedly documented the positive effect that smaller class size has on educational achievement. There is no doubt that the classroom teachers who have direct contact with students on a day-to-day basis are a critical part of individual students’ academic success.”

The editorial doesn’t cite the research it relies on. If it had to produce a citation, it might find that difficult. Research shows that class size makes a difference for very young children (below third grade), when class size can be reduced to 11 or 12 students. For everyone else, there is no evidence that class size makes a difference. Even the left-wing Center for America progress agrees that small class size is not effective, and summarizes the current research in its article The False Promise of Class-Size Reduction.

But class size reduction remains popular, mostly because it has an intuitive appeal. It seems like it should work. We can understand parents being seduced by its appeal, and we can understand politicians pandering for their votes by supporting class size reduction. We can understand the teachers union advocating for more teachers at any cost, not matter how ineffective they may be. But newspaper editorial writers ought to know better.

Total spending per student in Kansas schools. Spending has increased much faster than inflation.
Kansas school spending, state aid only.
Kansas school spending and base state aid per pupil. While bsapp has declined, other spending has not declined as much, or has held nearly steady. Focusing only on bsapp is misleading, and school spending advocates do just that.

{ 0 comments }

Kansas is undertaking an effort to revise its school funding formula. This effort is likely to be a big deal, consuming large amounts of time, attention, and effort. But I’ve not heard one thing discussed much, the one thing which ought to be paramount: How will this affect the achievement of schoolchildren?

As Kansas struggles with a formula for financing schools, we’re losing an opportunity to examine our schools and see if they’re performing as well as they should, both financially and academically. Here are some issues not being discussed on a widespread basis:

School choice

Across the country, charter schools and school choice programs are offering choice and improved educational outcomes to families. While Kansas has charter schools, the charter school law in Kansas is one of the weakest in the nation, and virtually guarantees that public schools won’t face much meaningful competition from charters.

School choice in the form of vouchers or tax credits doesn’t exist at all in Kansas. As a result, Kansas public schools face very little of the competitive forces that have been found to spur public schools to improvement across the country.

School choice programs save money, too. In 2007, the The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released the study School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006. According to the executive summary: “Every existing school choice program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce a substantial savings.”

Kansas is overlooking several reforms that would increase freedom and educational opportunity and would save money at the same time.

Accountability with teeth

Recently former Florida Governor Jeb Bush explained the accountability measures that have produced great success in Florida. Measures including grading individual schools from “A” to “F,” ending social promotion, and school choice programs, which help all schools: “Choice is the catalytic converter here, accelerating the benefits of other education reforms. Almost 300,000 students opt for one of these alternatives, and research from the Manhattan Institute, Cornell and Harvard shows that Florida’s public schools have improved in the face of competition provided by the many school-choice programs.”

Teacher quality policies

Recently Sandi Jacobs of National Council for Teacher Quality spoke in Wichita and addressed Kansas policies regarding teacher quality. Our policies rank below the average for all states. More information from Jacob’s presentation is at Kansas ranks low in policies on teacher quality.

Fund balances

The Kansas Policy Institute has found that Kansas schools are sitting on large fund balances that could be used to make it through a tough budget year.

School spending advocates dispute the use of the funds. But Kansas Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis agrees with KPI President Dave Trabert that these fund balances could be used — if the schools wanted to.

Chief school spending lobbyist Mark Tallman of the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) has argued that “many of the funds Trabert labels reserves are restricted or necessary to cover costs before government payments are received.”

That’s true. But this argument, just like a faulty op-ed written by Kansas school board member David Dennis, says nothing about whether the balances in these funds are too high, too low, or just right.

The evidence we do have tells us that the balances in these funds are more than needed, because they’ve been growing rapidly. The only way the fund balances can grow is if schools aren’t spending the money as fast as it’s going in the funds.

Focus on what works

Class size, merit pay, salary scales, unions, teacher experience and education, certification: all need to be examined to make sure that schools make decisions based on what works. We find, however, that school districts resist reforms. As a monopoly shielded from significant competition, Kansas public schools face little pressure to reform.

Consider class size, something that the education bureaucracy says is of utmost importance, and one of the primary reasons given for school bond issues. What the school spending lobby won’t realize is that class size is not important. Even the left-wing Center for American Progress agrees, as explained in Class size reduction not effective. Instead, the quality of teachers is much more important. Writes education researcher Eric Hanushek: “Much of the work that I have done has focused on teacher effectiveness. From this research I have concluded that teacher quality is the most important factor in determining how well a school will do. … Teacher quality is not captured by typically discussed characteristics of teachers such as master’s degrees, teaching experience, or even certification — things that states typically monitor. Requiring such things unrelated to student performance dilutes accountability and detracts from things that would make them more effective.”

Consider the harm of union work rules: When private sector companies are forced to layoff employees, they may use the opportunity to shed their lower-performing employees first. Government schools, governed by union contracts like the one in Wichita, can’t do this. They must dismiss the teachers with least seniority first. While this might seem like a good way to keep the best teachers, it turns out that experience is only a minor factor in teacher quality.

Test scores

Are Kansas test scores a reliable and valid measure of student achievement? The test scores that school spending advocates use — tests administered by the state of Kansas — are almost certainly misleading. The basic problem is that scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show achievement by Kansas students largely unchanged in recent years. This is at the same time that scores on tests given by the Kansas education establishment show large improvements. We need to investigate so that we understand the source of this difference. The Kansas education bureaucracy resists such efforts.

The cost of a suitable education

The issue of what an education in Kansas should cost is again being examined by courts. This should provide an opportunity to examine the cost studies used by the court. The Kansas Policy Institute has published Kansas Primer on Education Funding: Volume II Analysis of Montoy vs. State of Kansas, which provides useful criticism and perspective of the cost studies used.

Alternative remedies

Besides ordering increased spending, courts should consider alternative remedies. These might take the form of increased opportunities for parents to escape failing public schools. An example is the parent trigger. This mechanism allows parents to force radical change on a school through the petition process.

{ 3 comments }

School choice savings not being considered in Kansas

by Bob Weeks on November 1, 2011

According to the reporting surrounding the revision of the Kansas school finance formula, Kansas is overlooking a sure way to save money and improve Kansas schools: widespread school choice.

While proponents of public school spending argue that school choice programs drain away dollars from what they claim are needy, underfunded public schools, this is not the case.

In 2007 The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released the study School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006. According to the executive summary: “Every existing school choice program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce a substantial savings.”

How can this be? The public school spending lobby, which in Kansas is primarily the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) and the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB), would have us believe that educational freedom would kill public education. They say that school choice program drain scarce resources from the public school system.

But when researchers looked at the actual effects, they found this: “In nearly every school choice program, the dollar value of the voucher or scholarship is less than or equal to the state’s formula spending per student. This means states are spending the same amount or less on students in school choice programs than they would have spent on the same students if they had attended public schools, producing a fiscal savings.”

So at the state level, school choice programs save money. They don’t cost money to implement; they save money.

Further research on school choice programs funded through tax credits confirms this.

At the local level, schools districts have more money, on a per-student basis, when school choice programs are used: “When a student uses school choice, the local public school district no longer needs to pay the instructional costs associated with that student, but it does not lose all of its per-student revenue, because some revenue does not vary with enrollment levels. Thus, school choice produces a positive fiscal impact for school districts as well as for state budgets.”

But according to news reports, the Brownback administration is not proposing school choice programs — not even an expansion of charter schools — as a solution to school finance.

{ 0 comments }

Kansas schools need to be much more dynamic and diverse in order to meet students’ needs and effectively engage them in learning. But the lack of school choice and charter schools in Kansas means that Kansas children are missing opportunities for learning that are present in some states. Until Kansas changes its educational policies, it is unlikely that schools will see any significant improvement.

These are some of the conclusions and recommendations of a report produced on behalf of the Kansas Policy Institute titled reinventing the Kansas K-12 school system to engage more children in productive learning.

Part of the problem is that huge increases in spending have not produced much results. Paradoxically, the education bureaucracy claims that even mild cuts in spending will have catastrophic results.

(It’s true that tests under control of Kansas have shown increases in student achievement. But independent measures don’t have the same trend, leading to serious doubts about the validity of the Kansas tests.)

Student engagement is the key to learning, says the report: “Typically, service recipients don’t assist in production of the service, but in education they do. Intellectual growth occurs only with the active cooperation of the clients, the students.”

While student engagement is important, studies find that most students are not engaged in schools. The Wichita school district has used the engagement argument many times in its quest for more funding for sports, arts, and other programs.

The report is critical of “attendance zones,” that is, the practice of assigning students to schools based on residency within a school’s boundary. Currently the Wichita school district is struggling with the process of redrawing school attendance boundaries, a process a Wichita Eagle headline describes as a “tricky job to tackle.” The Wichita school superintendent is quoted as saying “We’re talking about change, and that’s never easy.”

The challenges that attendance zones cause are described: “While students living within public school attendance zones are often homogeneous in terms of socio-economic status and ethnic makeup, the students themselves still have very different goals, subject interests, and learning style factors that influence and motivate how they learn best. In the subject interest and learning style diverse classrooms that result from assignment by residence and mainstreaming of special needs children, the material will seem too difficult to some or confusing because they can’t learn it via the prevailing pedagogy. … Large disparities in student intellect within individual classrooms cause many teachers to lower their standards so that the majority of their students can ‘succeed’ but then many under-achieve (or worse; disrupt or drop out) because of boredom. The large differences between students within attendance zones create an impossible teaching task; namely find a uniform process to address diverse instructional needs. … ‘Watering down’ practices appear to be especially debilitating in inner city schools, where most students perform below grade level on essential subjects.”

This is an example of how public schools are failing those who most desperately need a good education.

Age-grouping — keeping students together with other students of the same age — leads to classrooms with students at wide levels of achievement, which is not conducive to instruction.

The “single salary” schedule for teachers, where salary is determined by only longevity and earned educational credentials, leads to teacher shortages in certain subjects and locations. It also provides disincentive for talented teachers to remain in the schools, as they are paid the same as the very worst teachers, which the report labels “insulting and demoralizing.”

Accountability in schools is a problem. Currently public schools are managed through top-down accountability, that is, accountability to government. Bottom-up accountability is more customer-focused: “Bottom-up accountability in the private sector forces corporations to address all possible customer concerns, even the ones that are hard to quantify into objective performance measures. Since public schools do not receive funding directly from their customers, and instead receive government financing mostly as a function of the number of students assigned to their schools, consumer accountability is minimal in the public school system.”

Public school officials bristle at the thought of having customers. But accountability to customers leads to systems that recognize and embrace the diversity of needs and desires. Government accountability is weak (“school system personnel face few if any major repercussions when they fail to meet their objectives”) and leads to ineffective and destructive accountability laws like No Child Left Behind and “teaching to the test.”

Past attempts at reform haven’t worked, says the report. The most often desired reform — spending more — hasn’t worked. Spending has risen rapidly and there is little to show for it, despite a “sharp narrowing of the curriculum to focus specifically on the tested items.”

Smaller class sizes — a favorite of the education establishment — hasn’t worked, either. “The average U.S. class size fell steadily from 22.6 in the 1970s to 16.2 in 2002; a time of sharp decline in academic performance, followed by the recent leveling off in scores as more time has been spent on the core tested items and test preparation.” Reducing class size is very expensive, too.

The solution, recommends the report, is a wide variety of schooling options that are as diverse as the student population and their needs and interests. There should be a variety of specialized schools. The present system of magnet schools provides a “small, but hopefully compelling hint” of the benefits that could be had with even more opportunities for specialization. Surprisingly, school specialization leads to overall cost savings.

Creating a diversity of schools requires meaningful school choice, says the report. Furthermore, market-based pries signals need to be employed to match supply and demand for different types of specialized schools. This means that some specialized schools that happen to be in high demand will be able to charge students an extra add-on tuition. While this may seem a strange and even undesirable idea to many, tha lack of price signals means we have what we always have when there are price controls: “waste, shortages, stifled innovation, and declining product quality.”

Real school choice also means that schools will have to be accountable to parents for a broad range of performance measures, not just the narrow test focus that government requires: “Meaningful school choice fosters direct accountability to parent/student clients, which provides educators the necessary strong incentives to focus on the full schooling experience, not narrowly, and sometimes fraudulently, on tested items.”

School choice leads to competition for students. One of the byproducts is that there will be competition for the best teachers, improving the desirability of teaching as a profession. And instead of requiring that teachers be trained in ways that have been shown to not affect student achievement, schools would be free to hire and retain teachers based on their effective in actual teaching.

The report recommends four policy options for Kansas to consider. First is open enrollment, meaning that students may attend any school within the district.

Second, Kansas need a charter school law that actually encourages such schools. Currently, charter schools must be authorized by the local school district. As a result, there are very few in Kansas.

Third, Kansas needs school choice through vouchers. The fourth, and related, idea is tax credits for individuals and businesses to create scholarships for children to attend privates schools.

The report contains appendices that cover a overview of the U.S. educational system, myths surrounding school choice programs, and a summary of charter school research from the states. There are 193 footnotes.

{ 6 comments }

Kansas school funding formula is badly broken

by Bob Weeks on October 14, 2011

By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

Data from the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) shows school districts’ unencumbered operating carryover cash reserves (excluding capital, debt and federal funds) as of July 1, 2011 were at a record-high $868.3 million. All last year districts said funding shortfalls were prompting them to cut teachers and programs. Meanwhile, most districts didn’t spend all of their state and local tax aid and increased their operating carryover cash reserves by $85.7 million.

This isn’t a one-time phenomenon; 2011 was the sixth consecutive year (since the courts said schools were under-funded) that some state and local tax aid was used to increase operating carryover cash reserves. Total operating carryover increased by $410.1 million since 2005.

If the school funding formula is consistently providing more money than necessary to operate schools, we should put the money where it’s really needed or give it back to taxpayers. That may be a controversial statement, but we can’t let controversy get in the way of providing kids with a quality education and a fiscally stable state after they graduate.

A large portion of the buildup in carryover cash is in funds set aside for special education, academically at-risk, and bilingual students. The balances in these funds alone have grown by $164.5 million; their total is $314.4 million. This is money specifically allocated by the funding formula for those purposes; the fact that this much apparently wasn’t needed is a clear indication that the formula is badly broken.

Kansas Policy Institute has been researching this issue since 2009. At first, some districts said the money wasn’t there; others said it existed at one point but had been spent. Still others said the cash existed but couldn’t be spent.

There is a legitimate issue of needing some degree of carryover to manage cash flow, especially since the state has been late sending money to districts over the last two years. But even that reason has an element of ‘the dog ate my homework’ for many districts.

Data collected from KSDE shows that districts’ operating carryover ratio last year (beginning carryover cash divided by operating costs) ranged from 1 percent (USD 312 Haven) to 64 percent (USD 502 Lewis), with the median at 16 percent. If Haven and dozens of other districts consistently manage cash flow with less than 10 percent carryover cash ratio, those with ratios of 20 percent or greater could do so with much smaller carryover balances.

Fortunately, the Kansas Legislature recognized the absurdity of having carryover cash pile up and gave schools full authority to transfer carryover balances from previously-restricted funds to offset up to $156 million in Base State Aid reductions over the last two years. (Another quirk of the formula caused base state aid to decline even though total state aid increased.) KSDE reports that only a small portion has been put to use so far.

The school funding formula should be based on what it costs to achieve required outcomes and also have districts operating and organized in a cost-effective manner.

Believe it or not, that wasn’t the basis of the last school lawsuit.

How’s that for a broken system?

{ 0 comments }

Following is a press release from Kansas Policy Institute. It is important that citizens understand the issue of the unspent fund balances. It’s also important that they are aware of the refusal of school districts and school spending advocates to deal forthrightly with the public on this issue. It provides insight into the nature of our public schools, and why reform is so difficult. In July Dave Trabert, President of KPI, appeared before the Wichita school board to discuss these fund balances. For information on that appearance, see Wichita school district discusses unspent fund balances. For more articles on the fund balances, click on Kansas school fund balances.

Kansas Schools Start The New Year With Even More In The Bank — New Authority To Spend Now Exists

Operating Carryover Cash Reserves Increased 90% Since 2005

September 29, 2011 — Wichita — New data from the Kansas Department of Education show that Kansas public schools increased their operating carryover cash reserves by $93.7 million in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. Operating cash reserves (not including capital, debt or federal funds) increased from $774.6 million to a record-high $868.3 million. The increase in operating reserves includes a first-time disclosure of $8 million in school activity funds, which are primarily used for school athletics.

“We continue to hear about schools choosing to cut classroom spending, but many districts are not spending all of their state and local tax income,” said KPI president Dave Trabert. “These funds operate much like personal checking accounts; the unencumbered balances only increase when income is greater than spending. It will be interesting to see how Kansas school districts use the new authority they have which makes it easier to spend down these balances.”

Effective July 1, 2011 school districts were permitted to transfer unencumbered carryover cash balances from a group of twelve funds to be used for any operating purpose. Some of these balances have always been available but, to the extent that restrictions existed, the new law (SB 111) expedites access by lifting all restrictions. SB 111 gives districts authority to access those funds to offset the $232 per-pupil decline in base state aid over the last two years.

Since 2005, Kansas schools have increased operating reserves by $410.1 million. The balances increased every year over that time frame, when a Kansas Supreme Court ruling forced legislators to increase school funding. Last year’s increase was the second-largest; the greatest annual increase of $112.1 million occurred in 2009. A complete, district by district breakdown is available at KansasOpenGov.org, a website operated by Kansas Policy Institute. As with all data on KansasOpenGov.org, the carryover balances were obtained through Kansas open records law from the appropriate government agency, in this case the Kansas Dept. of Education.

Trabert concluded, “As of July 1, the average Kansas school district had nearly four times the amount permitted to be transferred in the funds identified in SB 111. All but ten districts across the state could exercise the full authority of SB 111 and still have carryover cash balances. Of course, each district is faced with a unique situation but teachers and parents have a right to know that this option exists.”

{ 0 comments }

Kansas school spending: the deception

by Bob Weeks on September 27, 2011

At a September rally at the Kansas Capitol, Mark Desetti presented a picture of Kansas school spending that is accurate but deceptive, all at the same time.

Desetti is Director, Legislative and Political Advocacy at Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union. In other words, he’s a lobbyist whose job is to try and garner as much money as possible for the members of his union — all in the name of “the kids,” of course.

In video of the rally, he told the audience that “Base funding for education in Kansas has dropped to the 1999 level for 2012, and that’s not adjusted for inflation.”

Desetti is correct — nearly so — in this assertion. But “base funding,” also known as base state aid per pupil, tells only part of the school spending story. And a small part, at that.

According to the Kansas State Department of Education, BSAPP for the school year starting in 1999 was $3,770. For the school year starting in 2011 (fiscal year 2012), the figure is $3,780. (Let’s not quibble over the $10 difference.)

Listening to school spending advocates like Desetti, you might think that BSAPP is the only funding that schools receive. But BSAPP is only part of the funds that schools receive.

For the 1999 school year, Kansas spent $1,815,684,144 on state aid to schools. For the 2009 school year, the most recent year for which KSDE supplies data, state aid was $2,867,835,438 — an increase of over one billion dollars, or 58 percent.

Looking at total Kansas school spending for the same years, spending increased from $3,063,233,269 to $5,589,549,135 — an increase of about 2.5 billion dollars, or 82 percent.

These are the types of figures that school spending advocates don’t like to talk about. Instead, they focus on a small portion of total spending — one that has gone down quite a bit from its recent peak — and use it as a surrogate for total school spending.

Is this telling a lie? No. Desetti is correct — as much as he wanted to be. But if we look at the entire spectrum of school spending in Kansas, we see that Desetti — like most of the school spending advocacy and bureaucracy in Kansas — is deceptive in focusing on only one component of school spending.

It’s no wonder that Desetti and others won’t appear in public forums where they don’t control the message.

{ 2 comments }

KNEA: Let’s just raise taxes

August 22, 2011

For KNEA, the Kansas National Education Association and our state’s teachers union, the solution to all problems is as simple as raising taxes and hoping the union’s critics will stop talking.

Read the full article →

Kansas students, while improving, are mostly not ready for college

August 17, 2011

Kansas students perform better than the national average when preparing for college-level courses, and the trend is slightly up. But the portion of students ready for college-level work is still low.

Read the full article →

Wichita school district able to maintain employment ratios

July 18, 2011

Despite the claims that schools have made drastic cuts, evidence shows that USD 259, the Wichita public school district, has been able to maintain student-employee ratios.

Read the full article →

Wichita school district discusses unspent fund balances

July 18, 2011

Last week the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district provided another example of the attitude of the board towards those who have opinions that are not aligned with the policies of the district and public school spending advocates.

Read the full article →

Wichita school fund balances again an issue

July 10, 2011

The issue of school fund balances in Wichita and Kansas is a serious issue that deserves discussion. At the same time, we need to make sure we don’t lose sight of Kansas school issues that are even more important. But school officials need to be held accountable for their deception of the public, most notably through straw man arguments.

Read the full article →

Wichita school board: critics not welcome

July 7, 2011

A recent meeting of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, provided insight as to the insularity of the board members and district staff, and as to how little meaningful discussion or debate takes place at board meetings.

Read the full article →

Parents and teachers deceived about Kansas school funding

June 24, 2011

“Deceived” is a strong word but there’s no polite way to describe the way parents and teachers are being misled about the nature of school funding in Kansas.

Read the full article →

Kansas needs truth about schools

May 31, 2011

Kansas needs an honest assessment of the performance of its schools from education commissioner Diane M. DeBacker.

Read the full article →

In Kansas, school choice programs could help the most needy students achieve

May 18, 2011

School choice programs in Kansas could help close the gap between low-performing students and the rest, according to the Kansas Policy Institute.

Read the full article →

In Kansas schools, follow the money

March 19, 2011

Kansas public schools hold cash while threatening cuts.

Read the full article →

KNEA, the Kansas teachers union, open to reform?

February 16, 2011

Do the teachers unions in Kansas, particularly Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), have the best interests of schoolchildren as their primary goal?

Read the full article →

Kansas school teacher cuts

January 27, 2011

As Kansas struggles with its budget and decides what to do with public schools, advocates of public school spending exaggerate claims of pending job cuts and fail to take advantage of an opportunity to improve our state’s base of teachers.

Read the full article →

In Kansas, school reformers not wanted

January 26, 2011

The Kansas public school establishment expects school board members to be compliant and unquestioning.

Read the full article →

Kansas school reform issues

January 12, 2011

As Kansas struggles to find funding for its public schools and other functions of government, we’re losing an opportunity to examine our schools and see if they’re performing as well as they should, both financially and academically.

Read the full article →

Most Kansas students not ready for college

January 11, 2011

While Kansas high school students perform slightly better than the nation, only 26 percent of students that take the ACT test are ready for college-level coursework in all four areas that ACT considers.

Read the full article →

Wichita school district makes transparency effort

January 11, 2011

A recent transparency effort by USD 259, the Wichita public school district, is welcome, but we need to wait to see if the district’s past poor attitude towards open records can be reversed.

Read the full article →

Kansas ranks low in policies on teacher quality

December 10, 2010

States are the primary drivers of teacher policy, and the states, particularly Kansas, are not doing a good job promoting teacher quality.

Read the full article →

Kansas school spending: the charts

December 6, 2010

Kansas school spending was down for the most recent school year.

Read the full article →

Wichita school district seeks budget advice

December 1, 2010

The Wichita public school district claims budget cuts despite the fact that spending has increased. Now it seeks advice on its budget.

Read the full article →

Kansas school funds on the rise

November 30, 2010

Kansas schools, while presenting a gloomy financial outlook, have failed to spend all the funds they’ve been given.

Read the full article →

Kansas school spending: citizens again are uninformed

November 30, 2010

Kansans, like most Americans, are uninformed about the level of school spending. Reaction of the education bureaucracy indicates that uninformed citizens are their preference.

Read the full article →

Kansas schools cut, yet fail to spend

November 18, 2010

Kansas schools have cut staff and teachers at the same time carryover fund balances have increased.

Read the full article →

Florida school choice helps public schools

November 17, 2010

In Florida, a tax credit program that funds scholarships that allow students to attend private schools helps everyone, even those who stay in public schools. Kansas should learn from this.

Read the full article →

Kansas school spending advocates sue; opportunity for reform is overlooked

November 11, 2010

As Kansas schools sue taxpayers for more funding, important issues of education in Kansas are being overlooked.

Read the full article →

School choice solution to Kansas school funding

September 23, 2010

In its search to find a solution to the problem of funding its government schools, Kansas is overlooking a sure solution: widespread school choice.

Read the full article →

Americans believe teachers should be paid based on merit

August 31, 2010

A Gallup poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly believe that teachers should be paid “on the basis of the quality of his/her work.” 72 percent of public school parents believe this.

Read the full article →

Again, citizens are uninformed on school spending

August 13, 2010

As has been shown in the past in Kansas and across the country, citizens are grossly uninformed about the amount of money public schools spend.

Read the full article →

School bailout about unions, not kids

August 11, 2010

The U.S. Congress is rushing to approve a spending bill to retain teacher jobs that are not in actual jeopardy, according to the Center for Education Reform.

Read the full article →

KNEA, Kansas teachers union, makes endorsements

July 14, 2010

The Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) has released the list of candidates it is endorsing in the August 3rd Kansas primary election.

If you’re thinking about using the teachers union as a source of voting recommendations, you ought to familiarize yourself with the teachers union and its activities. Then you can decide whether an organization with such a noble-sounding name is, in fact, working for the quality education of all Kansas schoolchildren.

Read the full article →

Kansas ‘pigs at the trough’ award goes to …

June 29, 2010

Dietz said that earlier this year, an organization had labeled schools as “pigs at the trough.” Saying she is speaking for herself only and not on behalf of any organization, Dietz noted that “Mark is our lead lobbyist for K-12 education, and Diane represents Wichita Public Schools.” She presented both with a memento that had something to do with pigs and oinking.

Read the full article →

Wichita teachers union uses meeting for advocacy, campaigning

May 27, 2010

Two weeks ago, while the Kansas Legislature was working on budget and tax issues, Larry Landwehr, president of United Teachers of Wichita, the union for Wichita public school teachers, addressed the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district.

Read the full article →

For Kansas school spending lobby, truth is frustrating

May 6, 2010

Today’s lead Wichita Eagle editorial complains that a Kansas public policy group’s position on school fund balances is frustrating.

It would be one thing if the findings made by the Kansas Policy Institute were false. But it has been found that these findings are true: Kansas schools have been spending down the funds in the way that KPI has said they could do.

Read the full article →