Category: Wichita and Kansas schools

  • Kansas school spending, through 2020

    Kansas school spending, through 2020

    Charts of Kansas school spending presented in different forms.

    Recently Kansas State Department of Education released spending figures for the 2020 school year, that is, the school year starting in 2019 and ending in 2020.

    One of the most important charts shows state spending per-pupil, adjusted for inflation. It shows the total of state and local spending, which is useful because in 2015 the state made a change in the way revenue is allocated between state and local sources. It also shows base state aid per pupil, which is an important number as it is the starting point for the school funding formula.

    Why is total state and local spending higher than base state aid? The answer is weightings. These are amounts that are added to the base to pay for things like at-risk children, English language learners, and other items. The value of weightings has grown over time, so as base state aid has generally fallen, total spending has generally risen.

    A second chart shows the ratio of total state and local spending to base state aid.

    This is not simply a technical matter. In discussions of school policy, sometimes only the base aid figure is used. As it has fallen, some formulate an argument that school spending has been cut. That is easily refuted by looking at total state and local spending.

    Of note, base state aid was not used in school years 2016 and 2017, which explains the gap in some of the series.

    I’ve gathered these charts and others and present them in a presentation. Use arrow keys to move through the charts. Click here to access.

    Kansas school spending, showing state and local aid compared to base state aid. Click for larger.

    Kansas school spending, showing ratio of state and local aid to base state aid. Click for larger.

  • Kansas school employment

    Kansas school employment

    Kansas school employment rose for the current school year.

    Figures released by the Kansas State Department of Education show the number of teachers and certified employees rose for the 2019-2020 school year.

    The number of Pre-K through grade 12 teachers rose to 31,337 from 31,153, an increase of 0.59 percent. Certified employees rose to 43,305 from 42,861, or by 1.04 percent. 1 These are not the only employees of school districts. 2

    Enrollment rose from 476,482 to 477,032, or 0.12 percent. As a result, the ratio of teachers to students was unchanged (measured to two decimal places), and the ratio of certified employees to students fell.

    The relative change in enrollment and employment is not the same in every district. To help Kansas learn about employment trends in individual school districts, I’ve gathered the numbers from the Kansas State Department of Education and present them in an interactive visualization. Click here to use it.

    Photo credit: unsplash-logoElement5 Digital


    Notes

    1. According to KSDE, certified employees include Superintendent, Assoc./Asst. Superintendents, Administrative Assistants, Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors/Supervisors Spec. Ed., Directors/Supervisors of Health, Directors/Supervisors Career/Tech Ed, Instructional Coordinators/Supervisors, All Other Directors/Supervisors, Other Curriculum Specialists, Practical Arts/Career/Tech Ed Teachers, Special Ed. Teachers, Prekindergarten Teachers, Kindergarten Teachers, All Other Teachers, Library Media Specialists, School Counselors, Clinical or School Psychologists, Nurses (RN or NP only), Speech Pathologists, Audiologists, School Social Work Services, and Reading Specialists/Teachers. Teachers include Practical Arts/Vocational Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers, Pre-Kindergarten Teachers, Kindergarten Teachers, Other Teachers, and Reading Specialists/Teachers. See Kansas State Department of Education. Certified Personnel. http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/reports_and_publications/Personnel/Certified%20Personnel%20Cover_State%20Totals.pdf.
    2. There are also, according to KSDE, non-certified employees, which are Assistant Superintendents, Business Managers, Business Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Business Personnel, Maintenance and Operation Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Maintenance and Operation Personnel, Food Service Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Food Service Personnel, Transportation Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Other Transportation Personnel, Technology Director, Other Technology Personnel, Other Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors, Attendance Services Staff, Library Media Aides, LPN Nurses, Security Officers, Social Services Staff, Regular Education Teacher Aides, Coaching Assistant, Central Administration Clerical Staff, School Administration Clerical Staff, Student Services Clerical Staff, Special Education Paraprofessionals, Parents as Teachers, School Resource Officer, and Others. See Kansas State Department of Education. Non-Certified Personnel Report. http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/reports_and_publications/Personnel/NonCertPer%20Cov_St%20Totals.pdf.
  • Performance levels in Wichita schools

    Performance levels in Wichita schools

    There is some good news in the performance level reports for Wichita public schools.

    Since 2015, Kansas test scores have been reported in a new way. Kansas State Department of Education explains:

    Kansas assessment results are now reported in four levels.

    Level 1 indicates that a student shows a limited ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.

    Level 2 indicates that a student shows a basic ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.

    Level 3 indicates that a student shows an effective ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness

    Level 4 indicates that a student shows an excellent ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.

    For USD 259, the Wichita public school district, the trend is that an increasing proportion of students are at performance level 1 until this year, when the percent at performance level 1 fell to 46.1 percent from 47.0 percent. This chart holds the values.

    The percent at performance level 2 or better rose from 34.4 percent last year to 35.9 percent this year.

    The percent at performance level 3 or better fell to 13.7 percent from 14.3 percent the previous year.

    The percent at performance level 4 rose to 4.4 percent from 4.2 percent the previous year.

    Click here for a larger version of the following chart.

  • Kansas school salaries

    Kansas school salaries

    Kansas school salaries, visualized.

    This is an interactive visualization of Kansas school salaries for superintendents, principals, and teachers, for each school district.

    To learn more about the data and use the visualization, click here. Following, an example from the visualization.

    Click for larger.
  • Wichita public schools, by the charts

    Wichita public schools, by the charts

    Data from the annual report for the 2018-2019 school year for USD 259, the Wichita, Kansas public school district.

    The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, provides a look at trends over the years. The document, along with those from previous years, is available here. Here are some highlights from the CAFR for the year ending June 30, 2019, known as fiscal year 2019. The CAFR was released in December 2019.

    (Click charts for larger versions.)

    The following chart shows data from the CAFR along with my calculations. I took two data series, “total revenue” and “sum of state and local revenue,” then divided by FTE enrollment and adjusted for inflation. (The inflation adjustments cast past dollar values in terms of current-dollar equivalents, meaning past values are usually reduced.) I plot the sum of state and local revenue because in 2015 there was a change in the way some taxes were allocated. Plotting the sum of the two removes the effect of the change.

    While USD 259 — and schools generally — complain about funding cuts, the following chart shows funding nearly always increases, and over time, by quite a bit.

    The following chart shows spending categorized by “instruction” and “instructional support” per student in inflation-adjusted dollars. Capital spending is not included in this chart.

    In 2006, USD 259 spent $571 per student (inflation-adjusted) on administration. For 2019 the figure is $904. Could the Wichita public school district cut administration spending to 2006 levels, on a per-student, inflation-adjusted basis?

    The Wichita school district has been able to reduce its student/teacher ratios substantially over the last ten to fifteen years. (Student/teacher ratio is not the same statistic as class size.) There have been ups and downs along the way, but for all three school levels, the ratios are lower than they were years ago, and by substantial margins. This means that Wichita schools have been able to increase the employment of teachers at a faster rate than enrollment has risen.

    On enrollment, the superintendent’s letter says this:

    Budget reduction measures, stagnant population growth and changes to Kindergarten funding at the state level have all contributed to a decreasing enrollment trend which began in FY’16. Enrollment losses have primarily been at the elementary level. Those losses have been somewhat offset by increases in secondary enrollment, virtual and alternative programs. The elementary enrollment decline continued into FY’20, with a decrease of almost 800 elementary students. Once again, secondary enrollment offset some of this loss, increasing more than 350 students. The declines in past few years can partially be attributed to cost-cutting measures under the block grant, including denial of out-of-district students, the consolidation of alternative high school programs, and the combination of a longer school day and shorter school year, which many parents viewed as negatively impacting their students. Further, now that the State fully funds all-day Kindergarten, parents who used to enroll students in the District to obtain all-day Kindergarten services can now receive those same services in the surrounding area districts. Additional FY’19 funding allowed the District to return to the longer school year, but that action did not bring back elementary students to the District for FY’ZO. The District has instituted several promotion and program initiatives to attract students to the District, but it remains unclear if this will be continuing trend in the years to come.

    In the previous year’s report, there was this commentary on enrollment:

    The District’s enrollment trend over the last ten years has reflected an average increase of over 100 students a year. However, budget reduction measures and changes to Kindergarten funding at the state level are beginning to impact this trend. In FY’17, official enrollment decreased by 572 students, or one percent. Official enrollment in FY’18 increased by 80 students, but gains in virtual and alternative programs were offset by a significant decrease in elementary age students. The elementary enrollment decline continued into FY’19, with a loss of over 500 elementary students. Offsetting some of this loss, Secondary enrollment increased by 240 students. The declines in past few years can partially be attributed to cost-cutting measures under the block grant, including denial of out-of-district students, the consolidation of alternative high school programs, and the combination of a longer school day and shorter school year, which many parents viewed as negatively impacting their students. Further, now that the State fully funds all-day Kindergarten, parent who used to enroll students in the District to obtain all-day Kindergarten services can now receive those same services in the surrounding area districts. Additional FY’19 funding allowed the District to return to the longer school year, but it remains unclear if this action will bring back elementary students to the District.’

    Since 2015, Kansas test scores have been reported in a new way. Kansas State Department of Education explains:

    Kansas assessment results are now reported in four levels. Level 1 indicates that a student shows a limited ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 2 indicates that a student shows a basic ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 3 indicates that a student shows an effective ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 4 indicates that a student shows an excellent ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.

    For Wichita, the trend is that an increasing proportion of students are at performance level 1 until this year when the percent at performance level 1 fell to 46.1 percent from 47.0 percent.

    Following, a chart of the portion of Wichita public school students testing at performance level 1, the lowest level.

    Following, for performance level 2 or better, indicating, “a student shows a basic ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.” The percent at performance level 2 or better rose from 34.4 percent last year to 35.9 percent this year.

    Following, for performance level 3 or better, indicating, “a student shows an effective ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.” The percent at this level fell to 13.7 percent from 14.3 percent the previous year.

    Following, for performance level 4, indicating, “a student shows an excellent ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.” The percent at this level rose to 4.4 percent from 4.2 percent the previous year.

    Following, charts of suspensions and expulsions.

  • Kansas sees large drop in test scores

    Kansas sees large drop in test scores

    Using demographically-adjusted scores, Kansas falls in state rankings of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

    The U.S. Department of Education, through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), conducts the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every other year. Known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” it is “the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas.”

    The results for 2019 were released last week, and Kansas does not do well. Looking at state rankings, here are the findings based on demographically-adjusted scores.

    Grade 4 math: In 2017, Kansas ranked 16. In 2019, Kansas ranked 30.
    Grade 8 math: In 2017, Kansas ranked 14. In 2019, Kansas ranked 24.
    Grade 4 reading: In 2017, Kansas ranked 20. In 2019, Kansas ranked 34.
    Grade 8 reading: In 2017, Kansas ranked 16. In 2019, Kansas ranked 26.

    The adjusted scores are from the Urban Institute, America’s Gradebook: How Does Your State Stack Up?

    In a compilation by Matthew M. Chingos published in Education Next, the author notes:

    Change is generally more interesting than stability, and there are certainly examples of states moving up and down the rankings between 2017 and 2019. The table below shows the top and bottom five states in terms of their improvement (or decline) in the demographically adjusted rankings across all four NAEP tests. Four of the five states that moved up most in the rankings are in the South, compared to none of those in the bottom (which are otherwise spread across the country).

    Looking at change across all four tests, Kansas had the largest drop in state rankings except for New Hampshire.

  • From Pachyderm: Wichita school board candidates

    From Pachyderm: Wichita school board candidates

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Candidates for the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district. This was recorded October 4, 2019.

    In board district 3, incumbent Ernestine Krehbiel is running unopposed, so this event did not include that district.

    In board district 4, the candidates are James W. Kilpatrick, Jr. and Stan Reeser (incumbent).

    For the at-large board district, which covers the entire school district, the candidates are Sheril Logan (incumbent) and Joseph Shepard.

    Of note, the boundaries of the Wichita school district are not the same as the City of Wichita boundaries. Substantial parts of the city lie in other districts such as the Maize, Goddard, Andover, and Derby school districts, while the Wichita school district includes all or parts of Bel Aire, Kechi, and Park City.

    Also, while candidates for a specific school board district must live within that district and represent that district, voters in the entire Wichita school district will see the candidates for all board districts on their ballot, and may vote in each contest.

    The district offers this map.

    Shownotes

    From left: Joseph Shepard, Stan Reeser, James Kilpatrick, and Sheril Logan.
  • Wichita public schools, by the charts

    Wichita public schools, by the charts

    Data from the annual report for USD 259, the Wichita, Kansas, public school district.

    The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for USD 259, the Wichita public school district, provides a look at trends over the years. The document, along with those from previous years, is available here. Here are some highlights from the CAFR for the year ending June 30, 2018, known as fiscal year 2018.

    (Click charts for larger versions.)

    The following chart shows data from the CAFR along with my calculations. I took two data series, “total revenue” and “sum of state and local revenue,” then divided by FTE enrollment and adjusted for inflation. (The inflation adjustments cast past dollar values in terms of current-dollar equivalents, meaning past values are usually reduced.) I plot the sum of state and local revenue because in 2015 there was a change in the way some taxes were allocated. Plotting the sum of the two removes the effect of the change.

    While USD 259 — and schools generally — complain about funding cuts, the following chart shows funding nearly always increases, and over time, by quite a bit.

    The following chart shows spending categorized by “instruction” and “instructional support” per student in inflation-adjusted dollars. Capital spending is not included in this chart.

    In 2006, USD 259 spent $579 per student (inflation-adjusted) on administration. For 2018 the figure is $927. Could the Wichita public school district cut administration spending to 2006 levels, on a per-student, inflation-adjusted basis?

    The Wichita school district has been able to reduce its student/teacher ratios substantially over the last ten to fifteen years. (Student/teacher ratio is not the same statistic as class size.) There have been ups and downs along the way, but for all three school levels, the ratios are lower than they were years ago, and by substantial margins. This means that Wichita schools have been able to increase employment of teachers at a faster rate than enrollment has risen.

    On enrollment, the superintendent’s letter says this:

    The District’s enrollment trend over the last ten years has reflected an average increase of over 100 students a year. However, budget reduction measures and changes to Kindergarten funding at the state level are beginning to impact this trend. In FY’17, official enrollment decreased by 572 students, or one percent. Official enrollment in FY’18 increased by 80 students, but gains in virtual and alternative programs were offset by a significant decrease in elementary age students. The elementary enrollment decline continued into FY’19, with a loss of over 500 elementary students. Offsetting some of this loss, Secondary enrollment increased by 240 students. The declines in past few years can partially be attributed to cost-cutting measures under the block grant, including denial of out-of-district students, the consolidation of alternative high school programs, and the combination of a longer school day and shorter school year, which many parents viewed as negatively impacting their students. Further, now that the State fully funds all-day Kindergarten, parent who used to enroll students in the District to obtain all-day Kindergarten services can now receive those same services in the surrounding area districts. Additional FY’19 funding allowed the District to return to the longer school year, but it remains unclear if this action will bring back elementary students to the District.’

    Since 2015, Kansas test scores have been reported in a new way. Kansas State Department of Education explains:

    Kansas assessment results are now reported in four levels. Level 1 indicates that a student shows a limited ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 2 indicates that a student shows a basic ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 3 indicates that a student shows an effective ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 4 indicates that a student shows an excellent ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.

    For Wichita, the trend is that an increasing proportion of students are at performance level 1. Correspondingly, the proportion at level 2 or better is falling.

    Following, a chart of the portion of Wichita public school students testing at performance level 1, the lowest level.

    Following, for performance level 2 or better, indicating, “a student shows a basic ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.”

    Following, for performance level 3 or better, indicating, “a student shows an effective ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.”

    Following, for performance level 4, indicating, “a student shows an excellent ability to understand and use the mathematics skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.”

    Following, charts of suspensions and expulsions.

  • Kansas tax credit scholarship program

    Kansas tax credit scholarship program

    An op-ed in the Wichita Eagle regarding school choice prompts uninformed and misinformed comments.

    An op-ed written by James Franko appearing in the Wichita Eagle explains the importance of the Kansas Tax Credit for Low Income Students Scholarship Program. This is a program that awards scholarships to students to attend schools of choice. It is a small program. For the school year ending in 2018, 292 students received scholarships totaling $675,892.63. This represents one of every 9,606 dollars spent on Kansas schools. For each group of 1,632 Kansas students, one received a tax credit scholarship. Yet, this program is seen as a threat to existing public schools.

    Following is Franko’s editorial, followed by some comments left by Wichita Eagle readers.

    Tax credit programs give parents power over their children’s education

    James Franko
    December 22, 2018

    James Franko is vice president and policy director at Kansas Policy Institute.

    Education in Kansas has evolved dramatically since settlers plowed out a life on the Plains. The one-room schoolhouse is gone and the local community coming together to hire a young woman to teach are left to the Little House stories that I read with my kids. Education is now a political debate where decisions are increasingly made far away from families, teachers and local communities.

    While certainly well-intended, people in Topeka and Washington, D.C., are making decisions, demanding paperwork and setting standards that remove parents and teachers from the driver’s seat. Our teachers and other educators deserve our admiration. But we’ve all heard a teacher lament “teaching to the test” or that money that doesn’t seem to reach the classroom.

    A recent column about school choice (“How school choice works in Kansas,” Nov. 29 Eagle) seems to confuse what public education is intended to be with what it currently is. Schools — public, private, and home — are tremendous parts of our community. They make our society vibrant as a by-product of preparing children to succeed.

    Dr. Sharon Iorio’s concern about expanded tax credit programs undermining public education gets it backward. The free association of people choosing a private school is equally important to “the bond that holds together our society…” as is a choice to send a child to a public school. The point is that tax credit programs, which are different from vouchers, put parents back in the primary role of educating their children. Kansas’ tax credit scholarships help low-income students attending the lowest-performing schools in our state. It is almost paradoxical, but there is evidence from around the country that achievement increases in public schools when school choice is an option.

    America and Kansas have always been a patchwork of communities and cultures. This is what makes a road trip so great. We get to experience the different flavors of American life, many of them from our immigrant history. Expanding private school choice enhances and protects this diversity by allowing parents to decide where their children are educated. Local educators and parents will decide what education looks like in a community. This is in contrast to a one-size-fits-all approach taken when standards are dictated, tests are mandated and policies are implemented from afar.

    One approach captures the diversity of our communities and helps improve achievement for all students. The other homogenizes a rich community life and too often leaves student achievement stagnant.

    Following, some comments from Eagle readers. These comments show how much there is to learn about the actual Tax Credit for Low Income Students Scholarship Program.

    Who qualifies for scholarships?

    What people think: “The Kochs, err, KPI, wants private vouchers because it gives money to the wealthy to help pay for their expensive private schools.”
    “The tax credit idea mostly benefits religious schools.”
    “It’s a regressive tax meant for the 1%.”

    First, the guidelines from KSDE state: “An educational scholarship shall not exceed $8,000 per eligible student.” Expensive private schools cost more than this, but there are many private schools that do not. Also, $8,000 is less than the state spends on each student.

    Further, the scholarship program is limited to students who are “eligible for free lunch and attends a Title I Focus School or Title I Priority School.” This means a student from a low-income family.

    Still further, students over the age of six must have attended a public school in the year prior to receiving a scholarship. Students currently enrolled in private schools of any type, including church schools, are not eligible for a scholarship. 1

    Parents already have choice

    What people think: “You have always had, in fact anyone, freedom to choose where to send their child to school. Be it private or public.”

    This is cruel. The people who need school choice the most — poor children in inner-city schools — simply can’t afford tuition at even the most inexpensive private schools. Thinking like this ensures a permanent underclass cut off from private schools or even good public schools.

    Who gets the tax credits?

    What people think: “Tax credit is only if you make enough to apply for it and I have yet to see any of these minoritys and poor demanding school choice.”
    “When one can get 100% of their tax credit refunded and another family only gets a portion of their tuition refunded due to a low tax rate your playing a KPI pretend game without the facts.”

    These writers believe that the parents of scholarship students receive tax credits. Anyone who contributes to a scholarship-granting organization may receive a tax credit. Since scholarships are limited to students from low-income families, it’s not likely these families are able to make a contribution and receive a tax credit. Also, the writer who mentioned tax rates is confusing tax deductions with tax credits.

    Education only for those who can afford one

    What people think: “Right now people have the ability to get a free education. Under the Koch’s dream land, education would be reserved for those who could afford it.”

    Somehow, there are people who think that the goal of companies like Koch Industries and others is to have a poorly-educated population. But companies spend much time and effort recruiting educated and qualified employees to work in scientific laboratories, deal with complicated financial and accounting matters, drive innovation through information technology and other means, deliver health care, and perform numerous other tasks that benefit from a competent education.

    Then, don’t these companies want customers to buy their stuff? People with better educations earn more, buy more, and invest more. Companies want more of these people, not fewer.

    Without taxes and public schools, there will be no learning

    What people think: You don’t like paying taxes? You don’t like living where people can read and write? Go live in the woods.”

    In both the Wichita Public School System and the State of Kansas, the proportion of students testing at Level 1 rose. That’s bad. The proportion of students testing at Level 3 or better declined. That’s bad, too. 2

    The writer seems to think that public schools are teaching students to read and write. Despite a large influx of spending this year, test scores have fallen. A population of people can’t read and write is becoming larger.


    Kansas and Wichita school performance reports. Click for larger.


    Notes

    1. “Eligible students must meet the following criteria: (1) eligible for free lunch and attends a Title I Focus School or Title I Priority School; or (2) has previously received a scholarship under this program and has not graduated from high school or reached 21 years of age. 56(d)(1)(A)-(B) AND Eligible students are required to reside in Kansas while receiving a scholarship and be enrolled in a public school in the year prior to receiving the scholarship or be eligible to be enrolled in a public school, if under the age of six. 56(d)(2) and 56(d)(3)(A)-(B).” Kansas State Department of Education. Tax Credit for Low Income Students Scholarship Program Guidelines. Available at https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/Action%20Items/TCLISS%20Program–Guidelines.doc.
    2. “Kansas assessment results are now reported in four levels. Level 1 indicates that a student shows a limited ability to understand and use the English Language arts skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 2 indicates that a student shows a basic ability to understand and use the English Language arts skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 3 indicates that a student shows an effective ability to understand and use the English Language arts skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness. Level 4 indicates that a student shows an excellent ability to understand and use the English Language arts skills and knowledge needed for college and career readiness.” Kansas State Department of Education, Kansas Report Card.