Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita and Kansas schools

  • After years of low standards, Kansas schools adopt truthful standards

    After years of low standards, Kansas schools adopt truthful standards

    In a refreshing change, Kansas schools have adopted realistic standards for students, but only after many years of evaluating students using low standards.

    The former Kansas school standards for grade four reading, showing Kansas ranking low among the states.
    The former Kansas school standards for grade four reading, showing Kansas ranking low among the states.
    For years Kansas schools have used low standards to evaluate students. That is, Kansas was willing to say students are “proficient” at a much lower level of performance than most other states. But now the new Kansas standards are more in line with those of other states, and present a more truthful assessment of Kansas schoolchildren.

    This is the finding of the EducationNext report After Common Core, States Set Rigorous Standards. EducationNext is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution and the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School that is committed to careful examination of evidence relating to school reform.

    The report compares the proportion of students considered “proficient” on the states’ own exam with that of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as “The Nation’s Report Card.” The report explains:

    Data from both the NAEP and state tests allow for periodic assessments of the rigor of each state’s proficiency standards. If the percentage of students identified as proficient in any given year is essentially the same for both the NAEP and the state exams, we can infer that the state has established as strict a proficiency standard as that of the NAEP. But if the state identifies a higher percentage of students as proficient than the NAEP, we can conclude that the state has set its proficiency bar lower than that of the NAEP.

    From 2003 to 2013 the Kansas standards were weak, earning letter grades ranging from “C” to “D” in the EducationNext reports. In another similar study, the Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales series from National Center for Education Statistics, Kansas standards were also found to be low compared to other states. NCES is part of the United States Department of Education and the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education. It has not yet examined the 2015 NAEP and state exam scores.

    Now, after comparing Kansas state assessments to the 2015 NAEP exam, Kansas earns a grade of “A” from EducationNext for the strength of its standards.

    This grade of “A” does not reflect the performance of Kansas schoolchildren on tests. Instead, it means that the state has raised the definition of “proficient” to a higher level. A presentation by Kansas State Department of Education to the Kansas State Board of Education explains the relationship of the new standards to the former:

    The Kansas College and Career Ready Standards are more rigorous than the previous Kansas Standards. The Mathematics test is more demanding than even the ACT and taken a year earlier. The assessment is also more demanding than the NAEP assessment. Kansas takes seriously the current issues of college dropout and remediation rates and feels higher standards are necessary to help remedy the problem.

    Kansas is not alone in making a change:

    The results are striking: The last two years have witnessed the largest jump in state standards since they were established as part of the federal accountability program. Overall, 36 states have strengthened their standards since 2013, while just 5 have loosened them, and 7 have left their standards essentially unchanged. In short, the Common Core consortium has achieved one of its key policy objectives: the raising of state proficiency standards throughout much of the United States.

    This is a refreshing change for Kansas. It means that after many years of evaluating students with weak standards and low expectations, Kansas now has reasonable standards.

  • Kansas schools and other states

    Kansas schools and other states

    A joint statement released by Kansas Association of School Boards, United School Administrators of Kansas, Kansas School Superintendents’ Association, and Kansas National Education Association makes claims about Kansas public schools that aren’t factual.

    The Kansas public school establishment is proud of Kansas schools. In a joint statement released at the start of this year’s legislative session, satisfaction with schools is evident: “Our Kansas public schools are great. … The results are there. Working with parents and communities, Kansas schools rank in the top ten nationally on every measure on reading and math tests, high school completion and college preparation.”

    According to National Center for Education Statistics, Kansas does have a high percentage of students that graduate from high school. But this is the only bright spot for Kansas students. In many other measures Kansas is near the middle of the states, and in some cases much below the middle.

    In the recent report Quality Counts by Education Week, Kansas ranked twentieth overall among the states.

    For last year’s ACT scores, Kansas ranked twenty-first in composite score. Kansas ranked twentieth in readiness for college in English, and twentieth also for math readiness.

    In U.S. News and World Report’s How States Compare in the 2015 Best High Schools Rankings, we find Kansas ranked forty-fifth among the states, with 1.3 percent of its high schools earning a gold or silver medal. There were no gold medals; only silver.

    The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” reveals the unfortunate weakness in Kansas schools. NAEP is a test that is the same in all jurisdictions. Consider fourth grade math, looking at the percent of students who score “proficient” or better. For all students, Kansas ranks twenty-second, a little above the middle. But when we look at subgroups, something else appears. For black students Kansas ranks thirty-eighth, for Hispanic students the rank is thirty-fourth, and for white students the rank is twenty-ninth. Similar patterns exist for math and reading in grades four and eight. The highest Kansas ranks in any subgroup is fifteenth for grade eight math for Hispanic students. (Click here for a pdf version of these rankings. An interactive visualization of these scores is here.)

    NAEP Scores, Kansas and National. Click for larger version.
    NAEP Scores, Kansas and National. Click for larger version.
    When comparing Kansas NAEP scores to the national average, using appropriate subgroups, we find that often Kansas underperforms the national average. The reason for this anomaly is Simpson’s Paradox, in which aggregated data hides differences between subgroups. Given that white students across the nation score higher than black or Hispanic students, and that Kansas has a high proportion of white students compared to the nation and many states, Simpson’s Paradox makes Kansas NAEP scores — only when considering all students — appear high. But if you are a parent with young black children learning to read, would you rather be in Kansas (thirty-seventh in reading for black students, grade four), Louisiana (twenty-fifth), or Colorado (third)?

    It’s unfortunate that Kansas does not rank better in all these measures. What’s worse is the insistence that Kansas schoolchildren are doing well. Notwithstanding this evidence, after listing all the ways Kansas schools and teachers work to make school great, the joint statement says “This is how the Kansas school system operates. We are good at.”

    But it isn’t good for Kansas schoolchildren to be in a system that does not recognize the truth.

  • Must it be public schools?

    Must it be public schools?

    A joint statement released by Kansas Association of School Boards, United School Administrators of Kansas, Kansas School Superintendents’ Association, and Kansas National Education Association exposes the attitudes of the Kansas public school establishment.

    In a joint statement by the leaders of the Kansas public school establishment the clear theme is that education must be provided by public schools. Not schools in general, but public schools.

    There’s no reason that education must be provided by government, and many reasons to keep government out of education. Across the spectrum of human activity, government provides services at high cost, with low levels of diversity and innovation, and with low accountability. School choice programs allow parents and children to find alternative non-governmental sources of education (although charter schools are public schools).

    Defenders of public schools over school choice programs note that parents do have choice. Parents can, they say, enroll their children in private schools. But these parents still must pay for the public schools, which severely reduces their ability to pay private school tuition. That isn’t much choice. And for parents in poor neighborhoods, such as Wichita’s zip code 67214 where the median family income is $29,637, there isn’t much money available for private school tuition, or to move their households to suburban school districts. The latter is a form of school choice available to middle-class and wealthy parents that isn’t available to low-income families.

    Across the country 393,467 students participate in school choice programs, in this case defined as vouchers, tax credit scholarships, or education savings accounts. 1 There are around 49 million students in public schools. So for every one student in these school choice programs, 125 students remain in public schools.

    Despite the small number of students enrolled in school choice programs, the anti-choice establishment vigorously fights against any school choice program, even the small Kansas tax credit scholarship program. Kansas State Department of Education reports that since the beginning of the scholarship program, there have been 73 students awarded scholarships which totaled $108,384. 2

    Seventy-three students. $108,384. The public school establishment describes this as a grave threat, something that drains public schools of funds. For a bit of context, there are executives of Kansas Association of School Boards and Kansas National Education Association that earn more than $108,384 per year. These executives earn these salaries, in part, by blocking the type of school choice programs that benefit children living in Wichita’s zip code 67214 with its median family income of $29,637.

    Why is the public school establishment so firmly against school choice? Private schools don’t pay dues to the Kansas Association of School Boards. Teachers not in traditional public schools are not members of Kansas National Education Association, the teachers union. Without this revenue, it might be difficult to pay the high salaries of KASB and KNEA executives and staff.

    But there’s more. The ideological bent of these groups is for more government, more taxes, more government spending, and more governmental control over the people of Kansas. Consider this sentence from the joint statement: “Now, we turn our attention this week to the Statehouse in Topeka where the Legislature is gathering to consider how to provide for the people of Kansas.” (emphasis added)

    In a nutshell, there is the paternalistic governing philosophy of our state’s public school establishment: Government provides for us.

  • Pupil-teacher ratios in the states

    Pupil-teacher ratios in the states

    Kansas ranks near the top of the states in having a low pupil-teacher ratio.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratios in the States. Click for larger version.
    Pupil-Teacher Ratios in the States. Click for larger version.
    Data from National Center for Education Statistics, ELSI Elementary and Secondary Information System, shows that Kansas is near the top of the states in pupil-teacher ratio, meaning that Kansas has many teachers compared to the number of students.

    A common complaint in Kansas is that class sizes have been rising. While pupil-teacher ratio is not the same measure as class size, the question is this: If Kansas has a low pupil-teacher ratio, but class sizes are large and rising, what are these teachers doing?

    In the chart of pupil-teacher ratios over time, we see that while the ratio in Kansas rose during the 2014 school year, the trend over time is down, meaning that the number of teachers has increased faster than enrollment. Also, note the position of Kansas compared to other states. The pupil-teacher ratio in Kansas is lower than in most states.

    Click here to access the visualization.

    Pupil-teacher Ratios in the States, Kansas highlighted.
    Pupil-teacher Ratios in the States, Kansas highlighted.
  • Kansas school employment

    Kansas school employment

    Kansas school employment declined for the current school year, and ratios of employees to pupils rose.

    Figures released by the Kansas State Department of Education show the number of teachers and certified employees declined for the 2015-2016 school year.

    The number of Pre K through grade 12 teachers fell to 30,413 from 30,868, a decline of 1.48 percent. Certified employees fell to 41,405 from 41,975, or by 1.36 percent.

    Enrollment fell too, from 464,395 to 463,504, or 0.19 percent. As a result, the ratios of teachers to students and certified employees to students rose. The pupil-teacher ratio rose from 15.04 pupils per teacher to 15.24. For a school with 1,000 students, this change would be caused by the loss of one teacher.

    The relative change in enrollment and employment is not the same in every district. The Kansas City school district saw its pupil-teacher ratio continue to decline, although the certified employee-pupil ratio rose slightly.

    Of note, Kansas school fund balances rose slightly this year, both in absolute dollars and dollars per pupil.

    I’ve gathered the numbers from KSDE and present them in an interactive visualization. Click here to access it.

    Kansas School Employment State Totals. Click for larger.
    Kansas School Employment State Totals. Click for larger.
  • School choice in Kansas: The haves and have-nots

    School choice in Kansas: The haves and have-nots

    Kansas non-profit executives work to deny low-income families the school choice opportunities that executive salaries can afford.

    Kansas Association of School BoardsKansas Association of School Boards
    Executives and annual salaries 1
    John Heim, Executive Director $158,809
    Donna Whiteman, Assistant Executive Director $105,872

    Can afford to send their children to any school.

    Kansas National Education AssociationKansas National Education Association Political Action Committee
    Executives and annual salaries 2
    Karen Godfrey, President $98,234
    Claudette Johns, Executive Director $125,052
    Kevin Riemann, Associate Executive Director $123,143
    David Schnauer, General Counsel $114,886
    Marjorie Blaufuss, Staff Counsel $116,731
    Mark Desetti, Director of Governmental Relations $115,106
    Anthony White, Uniserv Director $112,605
    Burle Neely, Uniserv Director $111,199

    Can afford to send their children to any school.

    All the above lobby vigorously against any form of school choice.

    Zip code 67214 in Wichita from Google mapsZip code 67214, Northeast Wichita
    Median family income $29,637 3

    Can this family afford school choice?

    School Choice in Kansas - The Haves and Have Nots b

    —

    Notes:

    1. Source: IRS Form 990 for 2013 ↩
    2. Source: IRS Form 990 for 2013 ↩
    3. Source: U.S. Census, 2014 ↩
  • Survey finds Kansans with little knowledge of school spending

    Survey finds Kansans with little knowledge of school spending

    As in years past, a survey finds that when Kansans are asked questions about the level of school spending, few have the correct information. From Kansas Policy Institute.

    Survey Finds Kansans Misled on School Spending

    December 14, 2015 — Wichita — Kansas Policy Institute released a new Survey USA Poll of 509 registered voters in Kansas showing a significant disconnect between voters’ perception of Kansas school spending and true expenditures.

    The survey found 47% of Kansans believe per-pupil funding has dropped more than 5% in the last 5 years. Another 15% believe it has dropped less than 5%. In fact, school funding has increased by 6.4%. Only 7% of those surveyed believe there have been such increases.

    “The narrative coming out of school districts is intentionally misleading,” said Kansas Policy Institute President Dave Trabert. “District officials aided by their government funded lobbyists are telling parents and students that because they didn’t receive increases as big as they want, they are being ‘cut’. This is patently false.”

    Citizens have also been misled about actual funding amounts. The survey found 61% of Kansans believe per-pupil funding from the state is less than $5,000 when in reality, it was $8,567 last year; 61% also believe total funding is less than $10,000, while actual funding was $13,124 per pupil. Less than 10% of Kansans identified true funding levels. “Knowing the extent to which school districts have misled Kansans, it’s no wonder that so many are upset about school funding,” said KPI President Dave Trabert.

    However, when voters are faced with the factual data of per pupil spending and cash reserve balances, a majority reject the idea of paying more taxes to fund schools, 50% somewhat or strongly disagree to 41% somewhat or strongly agree.

    “Every Kansan wants to do what is best for their child’s education. Unfortunately, too many Kansans haven’t been trusted with the complete truth and won’t have the opportunity to make sure their children are in the best possible situation to succeed,” said KPI Vice President and Policy Director James Franko.

    The survey also found that 66% agree, somewhat or strongly, that spending on out-of-the-classroom expenses should be provided on a more efficient, regional basis to divert savings back into classroom spending. only 21% are somewhat or strongly opposed.Support for this common-sense concept extends across all geographic and ideological boundaries, yet local school boards remain fiercely opposed.

    “Kansans need to know the truth about record-setting school funding”, said Dave Trabert. “Only through an informed citizenry can we create sound economic policy and improve education outcomes for our students.”

    The survey was of 509 registered voters with a 4.4% margin of error. Full results of the survey can be viewed here.

  • Kansas school reform

    Kansas school reform

    A Wichita economist and attorney offers advice to a committee of the Kansas Legislature on reforming Kansas schools for student achievement.

    This week saw the third meeting of the 2015 Special Committee on K-12 Student Success for the Kansas Legislature. Of special interest was the short testimony of Robert Litan, a Wichita economist and attorney. His testimony summarized some of the important problems with Kansas public schools and points to ways that Kansas can move forward in providing education to schoolchildren. His written testimony may be viewed here.

    In arguing for starting with a “clean sheet” instead of merely tweaking the current formula, Litan wrote: “The reason is quite simple. Despite continued increases in real spending per pupil in the state, educational outcomes in Kansas are not improving nor are the gaps between the performance of students from low-income families and all other students.”

    He also touches on several ways that Kansas schools could improve efficiency in their operations without consolidating school districts. The savings could be several hundred million dollars per year, a significant sum in Kansas.

    Kansas needs to improve the performance of schools, focusing particularly on closing the achievement gap between students from low-income families and others, said Litan. A possible problem, he writes, is that the additional money allocated for “at-risk” students may not be spent in ways specifically targeted to those students. A problem is lack of tracking systems to see how this money is spent. (The at-risk weighting is substantial. For its first few years, starting in 1992, the weighting added five percent to state funding for each student classified as “at-risk.” It rose over the years, reaching 45.6 percent in 2008.)

    Litan also touches on the importance of having good teachers and the controversies surrounding how to evaluate teachers. But it is important to reward good teachers, he writes.

    Cost savings might also be used to reward school districts that provide more student attendance time: “Other things being equal, more schooling time should enhance student performance.” Of note, this year’s agreement with the teachers union for the Wichita school district reduces the school year by two days.

    Finally, the importance of school choice, which is nearly non-existent in Kansas. A new funding formula needs to allow for school choice:

    Finally, there are limits to how much any change in the way funding for schools is allocated among districts can affect student performance. That is because today parents’ and students’ ability to choose their public education provider is very limited, or non-existent.

    That is not true in some other states, where parents and their children have more choices, as they do in other spheres of life for other goods and services. While broader choice is not directly on the table of today’s hearing, hopefully any changes this Committee and the Legislature may make in funding will not penalize any new schools that may be formed in the wake of any possible future change in Kansas law governing charter schools.

  • Kansas at-risk school funding report released

    Kansas at-risk school funding report released

    KPI releases landmark at-risk education report

    By David Dorsey, Kansas Policy Institute

    The Kansas at-risk program, which spent $3.6 billion over the past 23 years, failed its mission to improve the performance of the very students it was designed to serve. Achievement gaps in academic performance (in this case the difference between low-income and not-low-income students) are universal, significant and persistent despite the incredible growth in funding, in particular the increases since 2005.

    From Kansas Policy Institute: "At-risk funding: Increased funding failed to increase achievement"
    From Kansas Policy Institute: “At-risk funding: Increased funding failed to increase achievement”
    That and other findings and recommendations are in Kansas Policy Institute’s just released research report At-Risk Funding: Increased Money Fails to Increase Achievement.

    Four basic reasons the program failed in its mission are: dollars were not targeted exclusively to at-risk students, some funds were actually targeted directly to non-at-risk students, school districts were not held accountable, and scant information about the at-risk program was made available to the legislature and the public.

    Despite the shortcomings, an at-risk component should be included in the new education finance law, with these fundamental changes: at-risk students must be clearly identified and dollars targeted directly to them, the method of funding the program should be changed, and school districts must be held accountable to the public.

    It is important to note that there is no recommendation for reducing the amount of funding for at-risk students, but a call for a more effective use of the dollars.

    Eric Hanushek, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and education policy authority, made these concurring remarks:

    This report on at-risk funding in Kansas accurately identifies what is a national problem.  While we directly fund a number of programs to improve the education of at-risk students, we never follow-up to see that the money is used effectively.  If we are going to solve this problem of achievement gaps, we need to fund programs to support at-risk students but to hold schools accountable for results.

    As the Kansas legislature crafts a new K-12 finance law, it is the perfect opportunity to overhaul the approach in addressing inequities in achievement based on economic status. It’s time to put all Kansas students first.