Our friends at the Wichita 259 Truth blog have a nice article commenting on my recent appearance before the Wichita public school board of education. Wichita School Board Information Management

A popular measure proposed to produce better educational outcomes in public schools today is to reduce class size. The Wichita, Kansas public school district is currently proposing a bond issue with a partial goal of reducing class size. At least some of the recently-mandated increase in school spending in Kansas was used to reduce class size.

It seems that smaller class sizes should be great for students. Research, however, doesn't always verify this assumption. The Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby, now at Stanford, has stated this about her research into class size:

I have a study in which I examined every change in class size at every elementary school in Connecticut over a 20-year period. In schools, class size varies from year to year because enrollment varies. Therefore, with 20 years and 800-some schools, there is a tremendous amount of variation in class size to examine.

I found there was no effect of class size on achievement at all, even when children were in small classes for all six years of elementary school.

There is, however, one study that shows increased student performance with smaller class sizes: the Tennessee STAR experiment. It is probably the study cited most often by education bureaucrats, so learning a little about it is useful. In this experiment, students were assigned to either a regular class with about 24 students, a class of the same size but with a teacher's aide to assist the teacher, or a smaller class of about 15 students.

Jay Greene has written about the problems with the STAR experiment. The first problem he finds is that "students were not tested when they entered the program. Such point-of-entry tests would establish a baseline for each student's performance as it stood before the experiment began. Without this baseline measurement, we cannot confirm that the STAR project's random assignment method was successfully carried out."

Second: "[there is] an anomaly in the research findings: the improvement in test scores was a one-time benefit. ... This is an unusual and unexpected finding, because if smaller classes really do improve student performance we would generally expect to see these benefits accrue over time."

The STAR program produced a one-time improvement in tests scores that are the equivalent of a student in the 50th percentile moving to about the 58th percentile. Greene says this increase "may not amount to an educational revolution, but it is not trivial."

One interesting aspect of the STAR program is that participants, particularly the teachers, knew they were part of an experiment. Caroline Hoxby describes the implications of this:

More importantly, in the Tennessee STAR experiment, everyone involved knew that if the class-size reduction didn't affect achievement, the experimental classes would return to their normal size and a general class-size reduction would not be funded by the legislature. In other words, principals and teachers had strong incentives to make the reduction work. Unfortunately, class-size reductions are never accompanied by such incentives when they are enacted as a policy.

Education bureaucrats and teachers often claim that schools are not like a business or other areas of human endeavor, so incentives don't work. Education, they say, is somehow different. But it appears in the STAR program that teachers had a powerful incentive to make the small class sizes work, and they responded to that.

Reducing class size is a very expensive measure to implement. The STAR program reduced class sizes by a large amount: from 24 to 15 students, a reduction of 38%. Many more teachers and classrooms are needed to implement reductions of this scope, and that's why it is so expensive.

That leads to an aspect of the problem that's not often mentioned. Right now Wichita has a teacher shortage. The district can't hire and retain enough teachers. Implementing class size reduction programs requires more teachers and makes the shortage even more acute.

Compounding this problem is that research shows that teacher quality is a very important factor in the success of students. If we can assume that the most highly-qualified teachers are hired first, then increasing the number of classrooms means hiring more less-qualified teachers. So some students will be taught by poor teachers, and since class sizes are smaller, fewer students will be in the classrooms led by good teachers.

There is no doubt that teachers and the education establishment like smaller class sizes. Smaller classes mean an easier workload for teachers, larger budgets for school district administrators and politicians, and more teachers union members paying dues. The local board of education can tell parents that they have "saved the children" and the parents will believe them. The research, however, is not settled on the benefits of smaller class sizes, and the unintended consequence of more students being taught by less-qualified teachers is a large negative effect.

Remarks delivered to the board of USD 259, the Wichita, Kansas public school district on May 12, 2008.

My name is Bob Weeks. I am a member of Wichitans For Effective Education, a citizens group. Thank you for this opportunity to address this board and audience.

Since as of today there is no date set for an election concerning a bond issue, and therefore no specific bond issue to talk about, I would like to express a few of the concerns my group has regarding the process surrounding the election and its issues.

One of the problems we have is what I call the "shifting landscape of facts" emerging from USD 259. Two examples will illustrate. We relied on information from USD 259 that building the safe rooms would cost $15 million, and we wondered why can't something that modest be done without a bond issue? Then we learned that the issue is more complex after Mr. Cox issued a clarification. The total cost is really $75 million, with $15 million paid by FEMA. Then Mr. Libhart, in his April 13 Wichita Eagle editorial, used our reliance on these facts to discredit us.

But it wasn't only Wichitans For Effective Education that used the $15 million number as the cost of the safe rooms. Two television stations carried news stories stating the cost of the safe rooms would be $15 million. Here's a quote from a presentation made by Mr. Cox's firm to this board: "Includes bus loading/unloading, parking, parent drop off, security lighting. Provide FEMA shelters at all schools. Total Cost: $24 to $31 million." That's the cost for the safe rooms plus other things. Now if we can't rely on plain language like this, what can we rely on?

We also pointed out that school utilization overall is relatively low at 85%. Then we were criticized, both on the USD 259 website and in Mr. Libhart's Wichita Eagle editorial, for using outdated information. But the figures underlying these calculations came from the district's most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2007, from a page of figures labeled as being current as of June 30, 2007. Here we relied on the most recently available public information from the district's financial reports, and we were criticized for using old information.

The school district has the task of providing information and educating the public on the merits of the bond issue. It would be reasonable to expect that when representatives of the district criticize the data used by our group as old and no longer relevant, they would take steps to ensure that current and correct figures are available to the public.

A website, owned and operated by USD 259 and capable of criticizing bond issue opponents for using data that is not relevant, could easily post current relevant data and statistics to clarify and promote public debate using accurate information. But as of today, I have not seen updates issued to correct these outdated figures.

We as citizens cannot, to my knowledge, derive these figures ourselves. We must rely on you, the board and administration of the the Wichita public school district, to provide these figures.

Another problem we've had is that getting information from USD 259 can be prohibitively expensive. Wichitans For Effective Education made a records request for the number of classrooms and portables for the last two years. We were told this information is available to us at a cost of $860, with most of that cost paying for 40 hours of staff time to prepare the information. Besides not being able to afford to pay these prices for this information, we wonder how the district does not have this information readily available, especially since a claim of overcrowding is a prime reason given for the need for this bond issue. We wonder, then, if the district's physical plant and assets are being managed effectively. Furthermore, if the number of classrooms is not known, how can anyone calculate the capacity of each school?

So the shifting landscape of facts has been a problem for us. We find ourselves in a position where if we rely on facts from public documents and formulate an argument based on them, USD 259 will revise the facts, and we will be scolded on the district's website and the editorial pages of the Wichita Eagle about how we are mistaken.

The issue of the need for the special election is a problem, too. Several members of Wichitans For Effective Education appeared before this board and made the case for having the bond issue question appear as part of the already-scheduled August or November elections, instead of having a special election in the spring. But district administration delivered a presentation on the time value of money, explaining how any delay in the election would increase building costs much more than the cost of the special election. What changed that made the board willing to forgo those savings?

Similarly, an argument was made that with a May special election a new high school could be ready for use at the start of the 2011 school year. Delaying the election until even August would mean the school would not be available until the following school year. But now, apparently, those facts have changed.

The members of Wichitans For Effective Education care about our schools and the education of Wichita's children. We have tried to be responsive and helpful in providing feedback to the board and the community. But as you see, we've had some issues with the data and facts provided by USD 259. Without accurate and complete data, without a common set of facts to reason from, we feel the community can't have an effective dialog about the needs of the schools.

Wichitans for Effective Education wish to remind the residents of USD 259 (the Wichita, Kansas public school district) that on February 11, 2008, the board of USD 259 passed a resolution declaring that a special election was to be held today, May 6. That resolution asked the citizens of this community to approve a $350 million school bond proposal. On April 7, on the advice of an allied citizens group, the board decided the election should be delayed until some yet-to-be-known date.

The board originally argued that it was imperative to vote as soon as possible instead of waiting for the August primary or November general elections, even though the special election would cost $75,000. As evidence, Chief Operations Officer (now interim superintendent) Martin Libhart delivered to the board on January 28 a presentation titled "Time Is Money" which explained that if the bond issue election were delayed until November, the cost of building just one high school would increase by $360,000 -– far more than the cost of the special election.

The district also argued that if the election were delayed until August or later, the opening of the new high school would be delayed by one full school year.

Nevertheless, on April 7, the board abandoned these arguments.

Much effort went into preparation for the May special election. News outlets devoted extensive coverage. Three citizens groups formed to campaign for and against the bond issue. Expenses were incurred.

Opposition groups have had to deal with a shifting landscape of facts emerging from USD 259. We relied on figures supplied by USD 259 regarding the costs of building safe rooms, only to be told we didn't understand the true situation. We relied on figures published by USD 259 in its most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report reporting school capacity and enrollment, only to be told those numbers are out-of-date.

Sometimes getting any information from USD 259 is difficult. We asked for a count of classrooms and portables for the last two school years and were told that information is available at a cost of $860, with most of that cost paying for 40 hours of staff time. Since school overcrowding is one of the reasons given by USD 259 as the need for this bond issue, we wonder why these figures are not readily available.

The changing schedule of the bond issue election as well as the unreliable facts provided by USD 259 make it difficult to thoughtfully consider the merits of any proposal at this time. With the possibility of looming economic recession and the lack of a permanent superintendent in place to lead the Wichita schools, perhaps the best idea yet is to pull the question altogether. This would give the district time to research and locate all significant data, and then both opposing and supporting groups could base their decisions on accurate and timely information.

Part of the Wichita Eagle opinion watch series. An audio broadcast of this article may be heard by clicking here.

A letter writer in the April 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle makes the case that investment in USD 259 (the Wichita, Kansas public school district) has a good return.

By way of comparison, the writer argues that the Wichita airport, having been built with public funds, represents "an investment return." Whether it represents a good return on investment the writer doesn't say, but I believe he means that the airport was a good investment of public funds.

The mere fact that the airport exists, however, doesn't prove a good return on investment. Since the airport is owned by government and doesn't calculate its profit or loss in a competitive market, we can never know how wise is the "investment" made in the Wichita airport.

Then the writer really gets off track. He speaks of "my own school bond issue within my family," that being day care, preschool, K through 12, then a degree at the University of Kansas and a master's degree. These activities are all voluntary choices that the writer and his family made. Taxation by the government, however, is not voluntary. The writer might also be reminded that it may be a voluntary choice to attend the University of Kansas, but the people of the State of Kansas have no choice but to fund its operations.

Finally, the writer states "Some opponents of the school bond issue have even said the kids in USD 259 don't need tornado shelters. That is ridiculous." It is true that 60 schools in the Wichita school district don't have safe rooms, and this situation is the result of decisions made by the school district and its board. They had an opportunity to build more safe rooms as part of the bond issue in 2000, but they decided to spend the money on other things. Similarly, each year the district has a large capital budget to spend, and each year they decide to spend it on things other than safe rooms. Blame for the lack of storm shelters, therefore, rests solely with the Wichita school district. They have decided that other things are more important.

From our friends at the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy in Wichita, Kansas.

Universal Preschool Wastes Money, Imperils the Good Society
Short-term benefits, politicization of childhood await public funding

(WICHITA) - If K-12 schools fail to graduate one in four students on time, does it make much sense to enroll children in public programs at an even younger age? That's one problem with proposals for universal, taxpayer-funded preschool, as outlined by a new report issued by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. Read "Plato's Republic on the Plains: Should Kansas Really Embrace State-Financed Early Childhood Education?" at www.flinthills.org.

"On the one hand, you've got to applaud the desire to 'do something' to improve education," says John R. LaPlante, Education Policy Fellow of the Kansas-based think tank. "But what we see is that the longer children stay in school, the worse off they do. We should fix the K-12 system through competition and expanded school choice rather than enroll infants and toddlers in public programs that are often run through those same schools."

The study reviews the weaknesses of reports used to justify universal preschool programs, including methodological shortcomings. The benefits seen in preschool programs tend to be focused in lower-income children and fade out in a short time-hardly a prescription for a universal program.

In addition to experimental and economic problems, universal preschool poses a moral question: Do children belong to parents or do they belong to society and the state? Plato called for some children to be reared not by parents but by the collective. The impulse to use government to fix children's lives for the societal good may have at first a moral foundation, but it violates foundational truths about American society and the meaning of limited government.

Part of the Wichita Eagle Opinion Watch series. Audio is available here.

The school bond issue in Wichita and those occurring in surrounding districts overlook one crucial necessity: a fair wage for teachers. They are critically underpaid for all levels of education, service and abilities. (From The Wichita Eagle Opinion Line, April 27, 2008)

This writer is misinformed on several levels.

First, bond issues such as the one proposed by USD 259, the Wichita, Kansas public school district, are usually reserved for capital expenditures, such as constructing buildings. Ongoing expenses such as salaries are not considered as part of a bond issue. The writer might also remember that in August 2007, the Wichita school district raised property tax rates to pay for an increase in teacher salaries.

Then, who can determine what constitutes a "fair" wage? I know of no teachers who were forced to accept the jobs they filled. We can only presume that both the teacher and the school voluntarily entered into an agreement, with the wage to be paid as part of that agreement.

But the issue might be a little more complex. For one thing, most public school teachers work under a collective bargaining agreement which specifies the wages to be paid for teachers, based on their length of experience and educational credentials. There is little or nothing that most teachers can do to escape that pay scale. It works both ways: there are excellent teachers who are underpaid compared to the value they generate through their efforts and skill. At the same time there are poor teachers who are overpaid when compared to good or average teachers.

Related is the fact that public school teacher wages are not set in a free market by willing participants on both sides. Whenever teachers get a raise, it is inevitable that letter writers and opinion line callers will express outrage at having to pay for a raise in teacher pay. That's characteristic of coerced transactions: many taxpayers don't like to see their taxes go up. But that's usually the only way that public school teacher pay can be raised.

The public schools, also, have the same problem as does any public agency: they are not able to perform economic calculation to properly evaluate their use of resources. They are not able to calculate profit or loss, so we really don't know if they use inputs -- such as the taxpayer funds used for teacher salaries -- wisely.

Besides, the myth that teachers are underpaid relative to other jobs has been exposed for just that. Jay Greene, in the book Education Myths, reports that based on U.S. Department of Labor data for 2002, accounting for the number of hours worked, school teachers earned about $31 per hour. That is more than architects, economists, biologists, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and chemists.

Recently a USD 259 (Wichita, Kansas public school district) board member made this statement: "I know there are kids from many Catholic schools that have come to public schools when the Catholic schools have kicked them out."

This attitude reflects a common perception or myth: that private and religious schools kick out the misbehaving students they don't want to deal with. Since the public school system, by law, must accept them, these problem students are a reason why the public schools have such a difficult task. So goes the story, anyway.

I have read that this perception is false, so I decided to do some investigation on my own. The Kansas State Department of Education website can supply the number of students expelled from schools each year, not only for the public schools, but for some private and religious schools too.

As it turns out, the average number of students expelled from the Wichita Catholic Diocese schools is a little less than five per year. The Diocese covers an area much larger than Wichita, and presumably some of these expelled students didn't live within the boundaries of USD 259. Given that, plus the fact that there just aren't very many students expelled from the Catholic schools each year, accepting them can't be much of a burden to a large school district like the Wichita public schools.

The statistics I looked at are revealing in another way: expulsions, adjusted for the number of enrolled students, are much more frequent in the Wichita public schools. For the eleven years shown in the following table, the Wichita public school system expels students at a rate nearly ten times higher than does the Wichita Catholic Diocese.

I wonder if the USD 259 board member who made the statement quoted at the beginning of this article is ignorant of these facts. Or perhaps the board member simply believes, without critical thought or investigation, the myths told about public schools. Or perhaps there is another explanation.

When Bob Corkins, a lawyer with no classroom experience, was named Kansas Commissioner of Education in 2005, newspapers editorialists and education bureaucrats throughout Kansas condemned the action. How could a person with no classroom experience and no traditional education credentials possibly manage the state's schools?

"Bob's in way over his head," said Winston Brooks, superintendent of USD 259, the Wichita public school district.

But what about Martin Libhart, the man who succeeds Winston Brooks, if only as the interim superintendent? According to a news release on the USD 259 website: "Because Libhart does not currently possess a district level leadership certificate, the district is working with the Kansas State Department of Education for a restricted certificate as permitted by the department." (emphasis added)

It seems that lack of formal credentials was not an obstacle to the promotion of Mr. Libhart. But Mr. Libhart has worked for the Wichita public school district for 20 years, and it seems that loyalty is now paying dividends. Evidently it is enough to overcome his lack of classroom experience and traditional education credentials -- the same inexperience that made Bob Corkins, in the minds of Kansas education bureaucrats, unfit to serve.

What exactly did Mr. Libhart do for the Wichita school district? Again, from the USD 259 news release: "During his 20-year career in the Wichita Public Schools, Libhart served for 13 years as director of the Facilities Division prior to being appointed chief operations officer."

It seems, however, that the facilities and operations of the Wichita school district are managed somewhat less than efficiently. I say this because if you submit a records request asking the district how many classrooms and portables the district owned for the previous two years, you may get this answer, as did one citizens group:

The information is available. In order to prepare the information, it will require 40 hours of staff time @ $20.00 and 300 copies @ $.20, for a total cost of $860.00.

The Wichita public school district is telling us that in order to count the number of classrooms it possesses, it will take someone an entire workweek to produce this number. Does it seem like the district is effectively managing its resources when it will take one week to simply count the number of classrooms?

Recently members of Wichitans for Effective Education asked USD 259, the Wichita public school district, this question:

How many classrooms (and portables) are there in 2007-08? For 2006-07?

This would seem a fairly simple question for the school district to answer. After all, part of the district's argument for the proposed bond issue in 2008 is that schools are overcrowded. To make that assessment, the district must have some measure of its capacity.

Here's the answer that we received from the clerk of the board of USD 259:

The information is available. In order to prepare the information, it will require 40 hours of staff time @ $20.00 and 300 copies @ $.20, for a total cost of $860.00.

The district is telling us that in order to count the number of classrooms it possesses, it will take someone an entire workweek to produce this number. Does it seem like the Wichita public school district is effectively managing its resources when it will take one week to simply count the number of classrooms? It would seem that this number should be readily available, as it is an important measure of the district's physical plant and capacity.

By the way, the man in charge of these facilities, the district's chief operations officer, has been named interim superintendent.

In a column in the April 6, 2008 Wichita Eagle, columnist Mark McCormick writes about the proposed $350 million bond issue for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, and states: "For the average Wichitan, taxes will rise about $45 a year." How he arrived at this figure is unknown. He may be referring to bond supporters' claim that the taxes on a home worth $100,000 will increase by about $40 per year. But that's quite different from what Mr. McCormick stated.

The actual figure might be computed this way: According to reporting in Mr. McCormick's newspaper, the proposed bond issue is estimated to cost $590.6 million in principal and interest over 20 years. The state of Kansas will pay about 25%, so the residents of USD 259 will have to pay only $443 million. That's about $22 million per year. Divide that by the 311,228 people living in USD 259 (not the city of Wichita, as that's a different political subdivision) and you get, in round dollars, $71. (It's really more, because USD 259 residents will pay taxes to the State of Kansas just to get some of the bond issue paid for.)

But let's don't quibble over the amounts. What's more important is that Mr. McCormick attempts to trivialize this expense by comparing it to ten other expenditures that people may make, such a buying cable television or coffee at Starbucks. What Mr. McCormick evidently fails to recognize is that each of the ten expenditures he cites are voluntary transactions that people may make or choose not to make. USD 259, however, collects its revenue not through voluntary transactions, but through taxes. People don't have a choice whether to pay. There is a big difference between what Starbucks does to generate revenue and what the Wichita public school district does.

But even this is not the worst of Mr. McCormick's column. By far the worst part of this column is his endorsement of the delay of the bond issue election from May 6, 2008 to some unspecified future date. This action by the Wichita school board and Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE) teaches a terrible example about the value of integrity and sportsmanship to the young people of Wichita. Nothing that the bond issue could build is more valuable than these lessons. I hope that in time and with due reflection that Mr. McCormick will change his mind about his endorsement of this action.

In an article published in the April 10, 2008 issue of The Bond Buyer newspaper, USD 259 (Wichita public school district) vice president Lynn Rogers is quoted as follows:

School board vice president Lynn Rogers said he supported the delay, but believes the bonds will be approved whenever the election is held.

"I don't think if will make any difference if we have an election in May, in August, or in November," he said.

"I've had 20 sessions with groups in the past couple of weeks, and nobody has been negative, except those from the anti-bond groups who always show up," Rogers said. "I don't think this delay is going to affect us."

I have a few questions:

If Mr. Rogers believes the bond issue will be approved no matter when the election will be held, then why did he vote for the delay? His board as well as the staff and superintendent of USD 259 vigorously argued for the special election to be held in May. Why? The district claimed large savings would accrue from the early election. Also, an August or November election would delay the opening of a proposed high school by one full school year.

If Mr. Rogers believes the bond issue will be approved by voters on any election date, why is he willing to forgo these cost savings? And why is he willing to delay the opening of a high school by one year? Or were these facts they used to make their case really just fiction?

The board of USD 259 and the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education, a group supporting passage of the bond issue, also claim that a delay is needed so that they have time to make their case to the voters. According to Sarah Olson, co-coordinator of CARE: "We don't think there is sufficient time available to adequately inform Wichita voters on the merits of the bond issue." But both she and Mr. Rogers claim that the response they received from groups they've been to is positive.

So why, again, the need for the delay and the loss of the savings we were told only an early May special election would bring?

You may listen to this article in audio form by clicking here.

On February 11, 2008, the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, passed a resolution calling for a special election to be held on May 6, 2008, so that citizens could vote on a $350 million bond issue.

On April 7, 2008, the same board held a special meeting at the request of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education, a group that supports the passage of the bond issue. Two members of CARE asked the board to delay the election. As the meeting agenda did not allow for public comment, none was entertained by board president Connie Dietz, even though several people had followed USD 259 procedure and asked the clerk of the board to speak at the meeting. By unanimous vote, the board agreed to delay the election until no later than November 4, 2008.

The resolution that the board passed in February establishing the May election set two citizen groups that oppose the bond issue into action. These groups have spent money, time, and effort preparing for a May election. All that is now, apparently, wasted.

This action of the board of the Wichita school district poisons democracy. It gives the board and its apparently allied campaign group a tremendous advantage that no other group has, and by law, cannot have. The opposition groups can't control the election schedule to suit the needs of their campaigns. We have to trust that when the Wichita school board passes a resolution declaring that an election will be held on a certain date, that this election will actually take place.

At present, there is no date set for the bond issue election. When the board sets a revised election date, is it to be believed? When the date is set, opposition groups will be forced to mobilize a second time, making plans and expending precious resources based on the revised election date.

Speculation around town is that the Wichita school board and the CARE group felt they were going to lose a May election, and that is the reason for a delay. If they again feel they are going to lose on the revised election date, will the board delay that election too?

At the April 7 meeting, board member Jeff Davis asked how much money had the school district already spent preparing for the May election. It seems that he was not concerned with how much the opposition had spent. Mr. Davis is a sargeant in the Wichita Police Department, a man who should be concerned about theft. His vote to delay the election amounts to just that -- the theft of the time, money, and resources of his political opponents.

Personally, the saddest realization is that it seems the members of Wichita school board and CARE don't recognize the toxic effects of their actions on the democratic process. Not only them: two members of the Wichita Eagle editorial board wrote separate editorials supporting the delay.

Even worse for the citizens of Wichita is perhaps they understand precisely what they're doing.

On Monday April 7, 2008, I attended a news conference held at the USD 259 (Wichita public school district) headquarters, a building at First and Water Streets. Its official name is the Alvin E. Morris Administrative Center.

After the news conference ended, I thought I would take advantage of the moment to let the budding photographer in me express his nature by taking a few photographs. While standing on a public sidewalk and taking a photograph of a public building, I was ordered to stop.

A uniformed USD 259 security guard came out of the building and explained that if I wanted to take pictures, I had to "speak to someone."

Sort of takes the "public" out of the "Wichita Public Schools."

One of the offending photographs. I thought it was a dramatic rendition, if I do say so myself.

The arithmetic of school choice in Wichita

As the residents of USD 259, the Wichita, Kansas public school district, consider a bond issue whose purpose, partly, is to reduce overcrowding, we should consider a way to reduce overcrowding in schools that would be much less expensive.

The district is not likely to consider this method. Whenever school choice implemented through vouchers or tax credits is mentioned, district officials and the teachers union immediately claim that school choice will drain money from public schools and lead to their ruin. But is the claim that school choice drains money from public schools true? Let's sharpen the pencil and do some arithmetic and see what happens.

USD 259 receives funding from three sources: the federal government, the state of Kansas, and the tax levied on property within the boundaries of USD 259. These funding sources react differently to changes in enrollment.

According to information on the Kansas State Department of Education website, state funding for education is based on this formula: "Base state aid per pupil (BSAPP) times adjusted enrollment equals state financial aid (SFA)."

There may be subtleties in the way that state funding is calculated, but let's assume the worst case for local school districts that the formula implies: that when a student leaves a school district for any reason the district loses the entire amount of state aid per student. Similarly, let's assume the district loses the entire amount of federal funding per student.

The local district, however, won't lose the local funding. That's because the source of local funding is the property tax. The amount raised depends solely on the assessed value of the property in USD 259 and the mill levy (the rate at which property is taxed). The number of students enrolled in USD 259 schools has no effect on the amount raised locally.

The following table illustrates what happens to school funding as enrollment changes. The row "2006 - 2007 figures" shows figures obtained from the Kansas State Department of Education, and the row below that calculates the funding per student from the three sources of funding.

Now suppose that some students leave USD 259. The row "Reduction in funding" shows how much money USD 259 would lose, based on the number of students that leave. Note that the funding from federal and state sources decreases, but local funding, because it is based on property tax, does not change. The row "Remaining funding" shows how much USD 259 will receive, and the next row calculates the funding per student.

Note that as the number of students in USD 259 declines, the funding per student increases. The following chart shows what happens to available funding per student as increasing numbers of students leave USD 259. Again, it doesn't matter why the students leave USD 259. The effect on funding is the same. There is no "draining" of money. The total amount the district has available to spend will decrease, but their costs do, too.

Opponents of school choice have many arguments to refute the simple arithmetic of the financial impacts of school choice on local school districts. One important consideration is that schools, like most businesses or institutions, have both fixed costs and variable costs. Opponents of school choice often claim that the costs schools face are mostly fixed costs, so reducing enrollment leads to little cost savings.

Research, however, shows otherwise. A 2006 study in South Carolina found that fixed costs were 20 to 25 percent of per pupil costs. A study using data from New Hampshire for the 2001-2002 school year found that 73 to 87 percent of total costs of schools are variable, meaning that 13 to 27 percent of costs are fixed. So fixed costs are a relatively small part of a school district's total costs, meaning that schools can adjust their costs quickly when faced with changes in enrollment.

Furthermore, fixed costs become variable over longer periods of time. School districts can adjust their level of fixed costs as they adjust to changing enrollment levels over time.

Is the analysis really this simple? Fundamentally, it is. School districts, however, may face numerous constraints on the way they may spend the funds they receive from various sources. There may be all sorts of strings attached. That is a problem itself, as it prevents public schools from allocating their resources flexibly and effectively.

In summary, school choice does not drain money from local school districts. Yes, total funding and spending declines as students leave to attend other schools, but costs decline too. School overcrowding –- a major reason given for the need of the bond issue in the Wichita public school district -- is reduced or eliminated.

If the administration of USD 259 has information or reasoning to the contrary, let them make their case. Until then, the citizens of the Wichita public school district must wonder why the district is unwilling to consider this method of reducing school overcrowding without an expensive bond issue.

Note: Implementing school choice in Wichita funded through vouchers or tax credits would require a change in Kansas state law. If the board and superintendent of the Wichita school district were to ask the Kansas legislature for such a law, it would probably happen. Especially because one important Kansas lawmaker is a resident of the Wichita public school district. That's Jean Schodorf, Kansas state senator and chair of the senate education committee. We could hardly have a more powerful ally to help us effect meaningful reform in USD 259.

Download a printable pdf version of this article here.

"I agree, but I didn't have kids 20 years ago."

A statement like this, uttered by a member of Citizens Alliance For Responsible Education, a group that supports a bond issue for USD 259 (the Wichita public school district), illustrates the fact that the proposed bond issue is, plain and simple, a measure that benefits special interests.

The speaker said that in response to people telling him the Wichita school district needs improvements that "should have been done 20 years ago." ("Bond supporters launch planning," Wichita Eagle, March 9, 2008)

Evidently this speaker feels that when he didn't have children in the Wichita public schools, supporting the schools wasn't much of a concern to him. Now that he does have children in the public schools, things have changed. Now he is interested and concerned. Now he wants everyone else to support his cause -- including people in the same position he was in 20 years ago, when he didn't care.

This is an illustration of a special interest matter. If public schools were truly a general interest matter, this person wouldn't have changed his mind just because his personal situation changed.

Special interest politics creates a contest between the interests of one group and everyone else. Usually these battles are fought in the halls of legislatures and municipal buildings. The participants are lobbyists and elected officials or regulators, although it isn't clear if there is much divergence of interest between these two parties. The Wichita school bond issue, however, is being decided by the voters.

Special interest groups are often able to have their way because the things they want have dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. That is, the benefit being sought by the special interest group – the swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. -- are of great value to a few very interested groups. They are very motivated to get the public at large to fund their interests.

The cost to everyone else, though, is often small. Bond issue supporters campaign on this, with their claim that the cost of the bond is just $.11 per day for the owner of a $100,000 house.

That's how the supporters of special interest projects win. The cost of the bond issue is relatively small for any one person or family. Many people may oppose the issue, but since its cost is small, they may not be very motivated to oppose it, even through an act a simple as voting. For the special interest supporters, however, the extra spending matters very much. They are very motivated to work to get the bond issue passed.

USD 259 (the Wichita public school district) outgoing superintendent Winston Brooks has been receiving a supplemental salary paid for by private interests. This salary supplement, supporters say, was necessary to prevent Mr. Brooks from leaving Wichita for somewhere else where he would be paid more.

One way to look at this salary supplement is that USD 259 received the services of someone whose salary they couldn't afford. And since the salary supplement was funded by the voluntary action of citizens, how can we object? But there are problems with this type of arrangement.

If a superintendent of schools depends on the owner of, say, a car dealership to lead a group that pays a significant share of his salary, and then it comes time for the school district to purchase cars, how can we be sure there is no conflict of interest?

When it comes time for the school district to purchase cars or anything else, do we check to make sure that the selected vendor isn't a member of, or have a friend on, the committee that provides the superintendent's supplemental salary? And if so, is the district getting a good deal? Or would too many restrictions prevent the district from getting the best deal on their purchases?

Another problem is that it may be the case that the superintendent of schools is worthy of a large salary, perhaps much larger than the current salary and supplement. Someone who can effectively manage an organization with thousands of employees and an annual budget of over half a billion dollars is worth a great deal. Someone who can make a positive difference in how well Wichita's schoolchildren are educated is invaluable.

This illustrates a problem with government institutions. They do not have the flexibility to respond to events and circumstances in the way private enterprise can. If it was the case that the new incoming superintendent could save tens of millions of dollars while greatly improving student outcomes, that person would be worth a salary of, say, one million dollars or more. But as a practical matter, USD 259 could not pay anyone a salary that large. There would be too much resentment.

The main problem is that USD 259, like all government school districts, is funded not through voluntary transactions, but through taxation backed up by coercion. When taxpayers are forced to pay for things they don't agree with, resentment builds.

Further, because the Wichita public schools raise funds through taxation instead of voluntary transactions taking place in markets, we do not know, and the board of USD 259 certainly does not know, if their expenditures are wise and efficient. This applies to a superintendent's salary and every other expenditure the school district makes. Absent the test of profitability, or even the test of having to attract customers and revenue through voluntary decisions on the part of consumers, we do not know how efficiently USD 259 manages the resources they have.

One of the main reasons given for the necessity of a bond issue in 2008 for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, is overcrowding. Too many students; not enough classrooms. Utilization numbers supplied by USD 259, however, show that there is a possible solution that district officials haven't considered, as well as another solution that officials dismiss.

Here are the utilization numbers for USD 259: For high schools, utilization is 98%. For middle schools, it is 69%, and for grade schools, 86%. For the district as a whole, utilization is 85%.

No doubt the high utilization of high schools is a reason why the district wants to use bond issue money to build two new high schools. The low middle school utilization, however, offers an alternative to building new high schools: convert one or more middle schools to high schools. This is an especially viable and attractive option as the bond issue plan calls for building smaller high schools of 800 student capacity. That's more like the size of existing middle schools that could be converted to high schools.

A solution to grade school overcrowding is the low grade school utilization overall, which means that students could be shifted to different schools to solve the problem. But a bond issue question and answers booklet published by USD 259 says that changing neighborhood boundaries isn't a solution that can be used to solve school overcrowding. Why not? The schools that have unused space aren't in the same part of the city as the overcrowded schools. The district makes it sound as though grade school students would be bused from crowded schools to uncrowded schools halfway across town. Evidently the solution of gently nudging boundaries towards the underutilized schools hasn't occurred to them.

The district also raises the issue of feeder patterns. I think that this is not an important issue, except possibly to education bureaucrats.

I have no doubt that redrawing school boundaries is a tough challenge, especially if middle schools are converted to high schools. School board member Lynn Rogers said so in his recent editorial: "Schools that have seats available are not located next to schools without seats. To do this correctly, we would need to change four or five school boundaries to get relief to the school that needs it. You have to then consider the corresponding impact on feeder patterns, family traditions, neighborhoods, transportation needs and major highways. The list goes on."

It's a tough challenge, and one that the district will undertake when and if new schools are built. But they are unwilling to do it now in order to avoid the need to build new schools. Instead, they ask the people of USD 259 to pay more taxes. That's a tough challenge for the taxpayers.

In a candidate questionnaire from the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce before the recent USD 259 (Wichita public school district) board member election, Kevass Harding answered "No" when asked if he would support a tax increase for Wichita schools. The other successful candidates -- Betty Arnold, Jeff Davis, and Barb Fuller -- were more artful in their responses, promising "financial responsibility" and the usual empty pledges to spend wisely and efficiently. Ms. Fuller did say "I would not want to raise these taxes," referring to local property taxes.

The election took place in April 2007. In August 2007, just four months later, all Wichita school board members, including those mentioned above, voted to increase taxes. It didn't take long for Kevass Harding to reverse his position. It didn't take long for Barb Fuller to overcome her dislike for raising taxes. Power has a way of doing these things.

In February 2008, all members except Jeff Davis approved the idea of a $350 million bond issue, asking voters to decide the issue. There is no doubt, however, what position the board members take on the necessity of the bond issue and its tax increase. And before you get the impression that Mr. Davis was overtaken by a sudden wave of wisdom regarding tax increases, he voted no only because he felt his district wasn't slated to get enough. He later changed his vote.

Two middle schools in the Wichita school district have performed so poorly for the past six years that they must be restructured, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. ("2 Wichita middle schools must start over," Wichita Eagle, February 29, 2008) Four other Wichita middle schools are within one year of suffering this sanction, and another is two years away. So before long, seven of the 18 middle schools in the Wichita school district could be in the most severe category of remediation as defined by NCLB.

NCLB sanctions are progressive, meaning that these troubled schools have been receiving special attention and remedial measures for several years already. These measures have, evidently, failed to produce positive results.

What does the restructuring of these schools mean? Everyone, including the principals, must reapply for their jobs. That sounds severe, but in practice, it may not mean much at all. The superintendent of the Wichita schools says "... he expects leadership teams at both schools to remain." The teachers, being members of a union, are guaranteed a job somewhere in the Wichita public schools.

Are these tough sanctions? When people fail this spectacularly in private enterprise, they usually are fired. That's not happening here. Still, the sanctions are, somehow, painful. Wichita board of education member Barbara Fuller, herself the former president of the teachers union, "is most concerned about the restructuring plan's emotional impact. 'It's going to hurt, and it's going to hurt deep,' Fuller said." I wonder how hurt the parents of children who attend these failing schools feel.

The Wichita school district, I have been told, wants to be held accountable for results. This "restructuring" of these middle schools, while perhaps an abrupt change compared to what school reform measures usually call for, will probably not produce the desired results. The system will still be the same. The same bureaucracy -- from the superintendent to the school principals -- is in place. There is still the same lack of meaningful competition, the same insulation from market accountability, and the same lack of entrepreneurial discovery process.

Market accountability is what the Wichita public schools need most. It is one thing for the school superintendent and the board of education to say they want to be held accountable. They appear noble and courageous for saying so. But if they truly want to held accountable they would allow competition through school choice funded by vouchers or tax credits.

In Kansas, most parents don't have a credible threat of sending their children to a non-public school. School choice implemented through vouchers or tax credits would give parents the ability to send their children to almost any school they want. This is accountability. Losing your customers is a sanction that really hurts.

It’s easy to say you want to be held accountable when the penalty for failure is that described above. It is an entirely different matter to actually be held accountable by parents who have the credible threat of taking their children somewhere else -- the same market accountability that private enterprise is subject to. This is the accountability that the Wichita school district will not submit to.

Update: The architect for the Wichita school district has disputed the amounts referenced in this article.

The proposed USD 259 (Wichita public schools) bond issue in 2008 contains a provision to spend about $15 million to build 60 safe rooms in schools. These new rooms will be in addition to the 38 safe rooms already in place. Safe rooms provide the function of a storm shelter, something very good to have in tornado-prone Kansas.

It is a noble goal that USD 259 would seek to provide all Wichita schoolchildren with safe storm shelters. For this reason bond issue supporters already have, and will no doubt continue to, promoted the bond issue as necessary for the safety of our city's children.

But instead of congratulating USD 259 officials for their willingness to provide for the safety of children, we should ask these questions:

Why have children have gone to school in Wichita for so long without these vital shelters?

USD 259 has a capital budget of about $35 million per year. $15 million is required to build safe rooms. That's less than half the capital budget for one year. Why doesn't USD 259 use these funds to build these important safe rooms?

Or, as someone asked me: since loss of life is more important than comfort, why weren't these safe rooms added to the schools instead of air conditioning as part of the bond issue in 2000?

KWCH television reported that USD 259 has no plan for providing these safe rooms if the bond issue doesn't pass. Do Wichita school district officials seriously intend to continue their practice of placing the children of Wichita at risk if the bond issue doesn't pass, or is this just a tactic they are using to induce voters -- through misplaced guilt -- to approve the bond issue?

Underlying this is the fact that unless a family can afford private or religious school tuition, or unless a parent has the resources and means to provide homeschooling, their children must, by law, attend Wichita public schools that do not have adequate storm shelters.

According to USD 259 (Wichita Public School District) officials, one of the prime reasons a bond issue is needed in 2008 is that schools are overcrowded. New classrooms and new schools must be built, according to district officials, to solve this overcrowding problem.

This is another way to reduce overcrowding, and it won't require spending any new money. In fact, the Wichita school district might even save money, and satisfaction with schools in Wichita will increase.

How can we do this? The State of Kansas and USD 259 can implement wide-spread school choice funded by vouchers and/or tax credits.

This may seem contrary to common sense at first. After all, one of the primary criticisms of school choice is that it “transfers precious tax dollars from public schools,” according to a national teachers union.

But facts don't back up this claim. In 2007, The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation published a study titled “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 teachers union and education bureaucrats would have us believe that vouchers would kill public education.

Here's the answer, from the same study: “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.”

In Wichita, if the school district would loosen its monopolistic grip on the use of public tax dollars for schools, some students would take advantage of a voucher or tax credit program and go to school somewhere else. These students that left the Wichita public schools would reduce or eliminate the overcrowding problem.

Yes, the Friedman Foundation advocates for school choice. It was Milton Friedman himself who promoted school choice as a way to solve problems with public schools. It's an idea that is very popular with parents in the several places in America where school choice is in place. This is especially true with poor and minority families, as they have the most to gain from expanded choices in education.

Expanding school choice in Wichita through vouchers or tax credits would give parents greater control over their children's education, and it would solve the overcrowding problem without spending many millions on new classrooms and schools.

Listen to this article in audio form by clicking here.

The proposed USD 259 (Wichita public school district) school bond issue in 2008 is estimated to cost the owner of a $100,000 home about $40 per year in additional taxes. Proponents divide that into a monthly cost of about $3.33 per month, or sometimes a daily cost of $.11, to dramatize how little this bond issue actually costs.

Eleven cents per day per household! Who could oppose such a paltry amount? Especially when bond issue supporters make it seem as though that's all we spend on schools. But we do, in fact, spend a great deal more on our public schools.

How much more? There's another number that bond issue proponents don't publicize. In fact, I'm sure that many of them don't have an idea of the magnitude of this number. But this number gives us insight into the size and impact of the Wichita school district, and helps us view the district's spending in context.

What is that number? It's $1,749. That's what you get when you take the annual spending of USD 259 ($544,384,275) and divide it by the number of people living within the district's boundaries (311,228).

That's how much the Wichita public school district spends each year, per person living in the district. It's not the same as saying each person is taxed that amount each year by USD 259, as only 31% of district spending is paid for from local sources. The rest came from the State of Kansas (58%) and the federal government (11%). USD 259 residents, of course, pay a good share of those state and federal taxes.

That number -- $1,749 in spending by USD 259 per year for each person living in the district -- gives us an idea of the huge volume of resources that the district has at its command. It is a tremendous amount of money. Think of all the people you see each day. For each of those people, $1,749 has to be raised each year to pay for Wichita public school spending.

For a household of two adults and two children, $6,996 per year, or $19.17 per day, must be raised through a variety of taxes to support USD 259 spending. Keep this in mind as bond issue supporters ask for another increase in taxes.

Sources of data: Spending figures are for the 2006-2007 school year, from The Kansas Department of Education at http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1810. The population of USD 259 is from the National Center for Education Statistics at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sdds/acs05/index.aspx, from the 2005 American Community Survey data.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is hosting two panel discussion events regarding the Wichita school bond issue. I will be one of the panelists.

A letter in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle makes the case that using property tax increases to fund improvements to Wichita public schools gives renters a "free ride." This is because renters, as they don't own the homes they live in, escape paying property taxes. This is distinguished from homeowners, who "pay for everything," according to the letter writer.

In Kansas, residential rental property pays property tax at the same rate as homes. It is true that the property tax bill goes to the landlord, not the renter. This property tax, however, is a cost that goes into determining what landlords want to charge for rent. This tax affects all rental properties at the same rate; I don't think there is much opportunity for one landlord to be more "efficient" regarding property taxes than others, so these property taxes are pretty much passed on to the renter. Therefore, renters pay, too. We can expect rents to rise when property taxes increase.

A greater problem is in the property taxes that businesses and utilities pay. Residential property is assessed at 11.5% of appraised value. Business and utility property, however, is assessed at 25% and 33%, respectively. Again, both businesses and utilities seek to pass on their costs to the customers to the extent possible. This means that anyone who buys something from a business located within the boundaries of USD 259, or who consumes electricity, natural gas, telephone service, or other utility services within the same area, may face increased prices, should the bond issue pass.

For example, Simon Property Group LP, an owner of shopping malls in Wichita, is the seventh largest taxpayer to USD 259, accounting for .43% of the assessed valuation in the district. Together, Western Resources (the electric company), Southwestern Bell Telephone (the phone company that some people still use), and Kansas Gas Service (the natural gas company) represent 3.69% of the assessed value within USD 259, presumably paying the same proportion of the tax revenue collected. Customers of these companies will likely face price increases should the bond issue pass.

These increased prices affect renters and property owners equally. It's pretty hard to avoid paying these taxes.

Other articles on this topic:

Wichita School District Arithmetic
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/628

Wichita School District Tax Revenues Rise Rapidly
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/625

Wichita Public School Spending and Enrollment
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/624

Wichita School Bond Issue Impact Is an Illusion
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/622

Wichita School Bond Issue Not the Only Proposed Tax Increase
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/621

Wichita School Bond Issue: Don’t Indulge Superstition
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/611

Wichita School Bond Issue Economic Fallacy
http://wichitaliberty.org/node/608