Voice For Liberty

Search results for: “"school fund" balances”

  • Kansas school spending advocates: no alternative views welcome

    On Monday and Tuesday, the Kansas House Appropriations Committee held hearings, and big topics were Kansas school funding and the Kansas budget. The reaction by school spending advocates to two speakers is illustrative of the highly divisive nature of public school operation and funding in Kansas.

    We need to label them school spending advocates — and government schools at that — because it is increasingly apparent that increasing school spending (or avoiding necessary reductions in spending) at the expense of all reason is their goal. Suggestions that schools should operate more efficiently or learn to live with a little less — as many Kansas families and businesses are doing — will result in attacks on the messenger, sometimes unnecessarily personal in nature.

    Monday’s education-related testimony started with Kansas State Board of Education member Walt Chappell, followed by former Kansas Education Commissioner Bob Corkins. My reporting of their testimony is at At House Appropriations, Chappell presents Kansas school funding ideas and Corkins testifies on school finance history, recommendations.

    An example of the criticism made by government school spending advocates is that of Kathy Cook of Kansas Families for Education. In her newsletter she spoke of “Black Monday in Topeka,” writing “From House Appropriations to the Governor’s press briefing, it was nothing but bad news for our schools and our students. It was the longest drive home, and not without tears for all that is about to be lost for our kids.”

    She made personal attacks on both Chappell and Corkins without making substantive criticism about their testimony.

    At the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union), the “Under the Dome Today” newsletter carried a heading reading “Walt Chappell, Bob Corkins attack public education.” I heard no such attack from either speaker. They suggested ways that schools could operate differently to save money (Chappell) and to organize their reporting and accounting to better track spending and results (Corkins).

    To the Kansas education establishment, evidently, these suggestions represent unwanted meddling in school affairs.

    Reacting to the testimony of Chappell and Corkins, one leftist Kansas blog took the committee and its chairman to task for holding “a hearing that was lopsided even by Adolf Eichmann’s standards.” I was there for the entire afternoon, and after these two spoke, I heard three school district superintendents plea for more funds. Then, topping off the day was chief school spending and taxing advocate Mark Tallman, the lobbyist for the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB). There was, believe me, much pleading for more school funding.

    Some of the testimony was difficult to listen to. Fred Kaufman, superintendent of the Hays school system, said twice that there is no advocacy group for school administrators. I wonder if he has heard of United School Administrators of Kansas. This organization’s website describes itself as “a statewide ‘umbrella’ organization comprised of members of ten school administrator associations. We represent more than 2,000 individual administrators statewide.”

    The backdrop of all this is that the actual decrease in Kansas school funding, when considering all sources of funding, is quite small. As of August — before the governor’s cuts on Monday — estimated Kansas school spending per pupil for the 2009 to 2010 school year, when considering all sources of school revenue, fell by only 0.64%. That’s quite a bit less than one percent. It’s a rounding error, a fluctuation that could also have been caused by events such as, say, a cold winter causing higher utility bills. It’s an event that should have no affect on the ability of the schools to educate children.

    The reductions the governor made on Monday will increase the cut that schools will have to absorb. When considering this, it’s important to remember that schools fared much better than many state agencies this year. Schools still have a tremendous amount of money to work with, a fact that schools work hard to hide.

    Strong evidence that schools have plenty of money is that fund balances have been increasing. The way that these funds — and we’re talking about nearly $700 million in operating funds, not capital funds — increase their balances is by more money going in than is spent.

    The uncovering of the existence of these balances is strongly attacked by school spending advocates. Despite many school administrator’s claims, sunlight and transparency is not their goal.

  • Deconstructing Don Hineman

    Deconstructing Don Hineman

    Another Kansas legislator explains why raising taxes was necessary. So he says.

    Many members of the Kansas Legislature are writing pieces defending their decision to vote for higher taxes. Don Hineman is one. His explanation merits more than average attention, as he is the Majority Leader of the Kansas House of Representatives. This week the Topeka Capital-Journal published his op-ed Rep. Don Hineman: Why tax reform was necessary. It deserves comment.

    Hineman wrote: “This return to common sense tax policy resulted from legislators listening to their constituents and fulfilling the promises they made during 2016 campaigns.”
    There may have been some candidates who campaigned on a platform of higher taxes. But most used more subtle language, such as Hineman’s use of the phrase “common-sense tax policy.” Does anyone know what that means? Does it mean the same thing to everyone? Besides, raising taxes was just one issue for most candidates and campaigns. And, voters must vote for candidates, not specific policies. As Justice Antonin Scalia told us, “Campaign promises are, by long democratic tradition, the least binding form of human commitment.” An example comes from Hineman’s web page, which states one of his four core values is “Respect for private property rights.” He has respect for your property, unless that property happens to be your money. Then he wants more.

    Hineman: “… restore our state to firmer fiscal ground.”
    This could have been done with spending cuts, too.

    Hineman: “… a group of 88 representatives and 27 senators from across the political spectrum voted to override the governor’s veto.”
    Here, Hineman refers to the coalition of Republicans and Democrats that passed the tax bill notwithstanding the governor’s veto. Because members of both major parties voted the same way, it’s described as nonpartisan. It’s meant as a good thing. But most of the Republicans who voted for higher taxes qualify as Democrats in many ways. They dismiss the Republican Party platform and embrace most aspects of the Democratic Party and progressive goals. There is no “spectrum.” Regarding taxation and the size of government, they’re pretty much the same color. Kansas Policy Institute confirms: “The Freedom Index published by Kansas Policy Institute has repeatedly shown the legislative political division to not be about Democrats and Republicans but about legislators’ view of the role of government, and the above June 2 update of 2017 Freedom Index certainly bears that out. With a score of 50 percent being considered neutral, there are 13 Senators at the top of the list with positive scores and 13 Senators at the bottom of the list — and every one of them is a Republican.” 1

    Hineman: “Brownback’s tax plan abandoned the ‘three-legged stool’ approach to funding government, which had served Kansas well for decades by relying on a stable balance of income, sales and property.”
    The three-legged stool is one of the most inappropriate analogies ever coined. If the state of Kansas were to develop an additional source of tax revenue, say by slapping a tariff on Budweiser imported from Missouri or Coors from Colorado, we’d hear spenders like Hineman speaking of the virtue of a stable four-legged chair. Many states thrive without one of our three legs, the income tax. And if we’re looking for stability, as Hineman mentions, income taxes are quite volatile compared to the other legs. 2

    As far as serving Kansas well: There are a variety of ways to look at the progress of Kansas compared to the nation, but here’s a startling fact: For the 73rd Congress (1933 to 1935) Kansas had seven members in the U.S. House of Representatives. (It had eight in the previous session.) Until 1992 Kansas had five. Today Kansas has four members, and may be on the verge of losing one after the next census. This is an indication of the growth of Kansas in comparison to the nation.

    ” … sweep from the highway fund … rejected the governor’s short-term fixes as being neither responsible nor conservative …”
    In this (heavily edited) sentence, Hineman complains about sweeping money from the state’s highway fund. But: Even after raising taxes, the budget just passed by the legislature continues sweeps from the highway fund in the amount of $288,297,663 in fiscal year 2018. For fiscal year 2018, the total of the quarterly sweeps is $293,126,335. 3

    Hineman: “The fiscal strain created by the 2012 tax cuts caused public schools to suffer, increasing class sizes and reducing program offerings.”

    Kansas school spending. See article for notes about 2015. Click for larger.
    The nearby chart shows Kansas school spending, per pupil, adjusted for inflation. It’s easy to see that since 2011, spending has been remarkable level. There was a change in 2015 that shifted the way some school funding was credited, but in total, not much changed.

    Kansas school employment. Click for larger.

    Kansas school employment ratios. Click for larger.
    Some people will dismiss spending figures for a variety of reasons. They may say that inflation affects schools differently from everything else, or that these figures don’t include KPERS, or that they do include the cost of facilities. So let’s look at something else: The number of employees compared to the number of students. When we do this, we find that igures released by the Kansas State Department of Education show the number of certified employees rose slightly for the 2016-2017 school year.

    The number of Pre-K through grade 12 teachers rose to 30,431 from 30,413, an increase of 0.06 percent. Certified employees rose to 41,459 from 41,405, or by 0.13 percent.4 These are not the only employees of school districts.5

    Enrollment fell from 463,504 to 460,491, or 0.61 percent. As a result, the ratios of teachers to students and certified employees to students fell. The pupil-teacher ratio fell from 15.2 pupils per teacher to 15.1. The certified employee-pupil ratio fell from 11.2 to 11.1.

    If we look at these ratios over time, we see they are remarkably consistent since 2012. These figures, at least on a state-wide basis, are contrary to the usual narrative, which is that school employment has been slashed, and class sizes are rising rapidly. The pupil-teacher ratios published by KSDE are not the same statistic as class sizes. But if the data shows that the ratio of pupils to teachers is largely unchanged for the past five years and class sizes are rising at the same time, we’re left to wonder what school districts are doing with teachers. And, why are programs being eliminated?

    (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. 6 7)

    Hineman: “Though raising taxes is never easy …”
    No. Spenders love to raise taxes. In fact, some legislators warned that the tax hikes are not enough, and that they’ll be back for more. Indeed, projections show spending outpacing revenue in just a few years.

    Hineman: “… it was unfortunately the only responsible option available. State government has been cut to the point where there is no reasonable way to reduce spending enough to balance the budget.”
    No. One example: The efficiency study commissioned by the legislature recommended savings in the method of acquiring health insurance for public school employees. This was not adopted. Therefore, $47,200,000 in general fund spending is added over what the governor recommended. 8 9 This was not cutting services or benefits. It was asking school employees to do something differently in order to save money. But, it didn’t happen.

    Can Kansas cut spending? There are many states that spend less than Kansas on a per capita basis. 10

    Hineman: “Those who parrot the phrase ‘we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem’ have repeatedly failed to offer realistic suggestions for further cuts.”
    Hineman is correct in a small way. To balance the budget this year with cuts alone was probably impossible. The lust for spending other people’s money is just too great. But there have been proposals that should have been followed. First, the legislature should have commissioned the efficiency study in 2012 when taxes were cut. That didn’t happen. Then, the legislature should take the efficiency study seriously. But even simple things — like the recommendation of savings through school employee health insurance acquisition reform — are difficult to accomplish, because the spenders don’t want these reforms.

    And, in the past there have been responsible plans for reforming spending and the budget. But these plans were not wanted, nor were they realized. 11

    Hineman’s criticism shows that it is difficult to cut spending. People become accustomed to other people paying for their stuff. Legislators want to appear to be doing more for their constituents, providing seemingly free stuff while pushing aside the idea of paying for it. And so government grows, at the expense of our liberty and what might have been had the money been left in the productive private sector.

    —
    Notes

    1. Trabert, Dave. “Freedom index: Political division is citizens vs. government, not party lines.* Available at https://kansaspolicy.org/freedom-index-political-division-citizens-vs-government-not-party-lines/. ↩
    2. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Gary C. Cornia & Ray D. Nelson. State Tax Revenue Growth and Volatility. 6 Regional Economic Development, 23-58 (2010). Available at https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/red/2010/01/Cornia.pdf. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. In Kansas, sweeps to continue. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-sweeps-continue/. ↩
    4. 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. ↩
    5. 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. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. Kansas school spending, an interactive visualization. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-kansas-schools/kansas-school-spending-interactive-visualization/. ↩
    7. Weeks, Bob. Kansas school employment. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/politics/kansas-school-employment-2/. ↩
    8. “The FY 2018 budget assumes savings of $47.2 million from implementation of Alvarez & Marsal efficiency recommendations to include K-12 health benefit consolidation and sourcing select benefit categories on a statewide basis.” Budget Report, p. 17 ↩
    9. “Add $47.2 million, all from the State General Fund, for removing savings associated with A&M recommendations for health insurance and procurement for FY 2018.” Bill Explanation For 2017 Senate Sub. For House Bill 2002, p. 10. ↩
    10. Weeks, Bob. Spending in the states, per capita. https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/spending-states-per-capita-2/. ↩
    11. Kansas Policy Institute. A Five-Year Budget Plan for the State of Kansas: How to balance the budget and have healthy ending balances without tax increases or service reductions. Available at https://kansaspolicy.org/kpi-analysis-5-year-kansas-budget-plan/. ↩

  • Kansas school funds on the rise

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

    Evidence of this can be found in figures provided by the Kansas State Department of Education as made available at KansasOpenGov.org.

    Kansas school carryover fund balancesKansas school carryover fund balances

    The chart illustrates rising fund balances carried over to the next year. It’s money that wasn’t spent. Note that for the schools that are part of the Schools for Fair Funding group that is suing the state for more money: As a group, their carryover fund balances have increased.

    The carryover fund balances have been increasing, and rapidly, too. From 2009 to 2010, for all school districts in Kansas, carryover funds increased from $699,150,812 to $774,648,615. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent. From 2005 to 2010, again for all Kansas school districts, the increase is 69 percent. These numbers exclude debt service and capital outlay funds. Those funds have been mostly increasing, too.

    The increase in these carryover cash balances happened at the same time schools have laid off teachers and threatened to cut programs and close schools.

    School spending advocates argue that these carryover funds are necessary for various reasons, and they’re correct. Most businesses or organizations need a cushion in the bank to pay bills before revenue comes in.

    But the only way the balances in these funds can grow — year after year as they have — is that schools simply aren’t spending all the money they’ve been given.

    The Wichita Eagle editorial board sides with the school spending advocates who claim that these funds can’t be used.

    Evidence tells us, however, that the funds have been used. For the last school year, by using fund balances, schools in Kansas were able to increase spending by an estimated $320 million. Revenue to Kansas school districts declined by about $50 million, but $370 in fund balances were used to boost total spending by $320 million.

  • Visualizations

    Following are featured visualizations available from Voice for Liberty. For all articles about visualizations, click here. For a gallery of all visualizations, click here. Most visualizations have been created with Tableau and hosted by Tableau Public.

    MSA populations from 2020 Census


    An interactive visualization of 2020 census data for metropolitan statistical areas. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas 2020 presidential election


    An interactive visualization of the 2020 general election for president in Kansas, at the precinct level. Click here to use this visualization.

    Measuring household experiences during the coronaqvirus (COVID-19) pandemic


    An interactive visualization of household data on the effects of the pandemic. Click here to use this visualization.

    Presidential data explorer


    Explore the economic record of presidents, starting with Harry S Truman. Click here to use this visualization.

    Employment

    Unemployment Rates

    All the unemployment rates published by Bureau of Labor Statistics in an interactive visualization. Click here to use the visualization and compare the measures.

    Employment measures

    There is more than one way to count employment and jobs. Click here to use the visualization and learn the difference.

    National employment and unemployment

    Labor force, employment, unemployment, and unemployment by race/ethnicity. Click here to use the visualization.

    Employment and unemployment in the states

    An interactive visualization of employment and unemployment data for states and the nation. Click here to use this visualization.

    Employment in States and Metros

    An interactive visualization of employment and unemployment data for states and metropolitan areas. Click here to use the visualization.

    State Job Openings and Labor Turnover

    Data on monthly job turnover in the states and presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use the visualization.

    Large County Employment, Establishments, and Wages

    Quarterly data covering about 355 large counties. Click here to use the visualization.

    Employment by metropolitan area and major industry

    Source of data is Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce. Click here to use this visualization.

    Metropolitan area employment and unemployment

    An interactive visualization of labor force, employment, and unemployment rate for all metropolitan areas in the United States. Click here to use this visualization.

    Labor productivity in the states

    An interactive visualization of labor productivity in the states. Click here to use this visualization.

    Employment in the states

    An interactive visualization of monthly employment in the states by major industry category. Click here to use this visualization.

    Unemployment claims by state

    A visualization of unemployment insurance claims by state, adjusted for population. Click here to use this visualization.

    Occupational employment statistics

    Salary data presented in an interactive visualization by occupation, and by metropolitan area. Click here to use this visualization.

    State and local government employment

    A visualization of federal, state, and local government civilian employees by state and function. Click here to use this visualization.

    Local government employment by state and function

    An interactive visualization of local government employment, grouped by state and function. Includes employees and payroll per resident. These are local government employees only. State and federal government employees are not included. Click here to use this visualization.

    State government employment by state and function

    An interactive visualization of state government employment, grouped by state and function. These are state government employees only. Local and federal government employees are not included. Click here to use this visualization.

    Economics and Income

    Quarterly real gross domestic product by state and industry

    An interactive visualization of state Gross Domestic Product by industry, reported quarterly. Click here to use this visualization.

    Wealth in the States

    Household wealth in the states for several categories. Click here to use this visualization.

    Business Formation Statistics by State

    Business Formation Statistics provide timely and high-frequency information on new business activity in the United States and individual states. Click here to use this visualization.

    Business Formation Statistics by County

    Business Formation Statistics provide timely and high-frequency information on new business activity in counties. Click here to use this visualization.

    Consumer Price Index and inflation

    The Consumer Price Index is the most widely used measure of inflation. This interactive visualization presents all CPI data. Click here to use this visualization.

    Real personal income by metropolitan area

    Source of data is Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce. Click here to use this visualization.

    Real personal income for states and metros

    Interactive visualizations of personal income adjusted for regional price parity and personal consumption expenditures price index in states and metropolitan areas. Click here to use these visualizations.

    Personal Income by County

    Personal income and other variables by county in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Real Gross Domestic Product by County and Industry

    A visualization of real gross domestic product in counties by industry, including per capita values. Click here to use this visualization.

    Per Capita Personal Income in Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas

    An interactive visualization of Per Capita Personal Income in urban areas in the United States from 1969 to 2020, with differences from the nation. Click here to use this visualization.

    Household income in the states

    A visualization of household income by state, adjusted for inflation. Click here to use this visualization.

    Federal revenue and outlays

    An interactive visualization of federal government revenue and spending from 1962 to the present. Click here to use this visualization.

    County business patterns

    County Business Patterns (CBP) is an annual series that provides subnational economic data by industry. This series includes the number of establishments, employment during the week of March 12, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll. Click here to use this visualization.

    Zip code business patterns

    An interactive visualization of business data by zip code. Click here to use this visualization.

    Small area income and poverty estimates

    An interactive visualization of household income and poverty data for states and counties. Click here to use this visualization

    Downtown Wichita jobs

    A visualization of jobs and employment data for zip code 67202, which is downtown Wichita. Click here to use this visualization.

    Wichita metro employment by industry

    An interactive visualization of Wichita-area employment by industry.

    Downtown Wichita attraction attendance

    Attendance at downtown Wichita attractions presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Monthly state retail sales

    Monthly retail sales by state and major retail sector, in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Real gross domestic product by component

    Gross domestic product (GDP) shown by major component or category, in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars. Click here to use this visualization.

    Gross domestic product by metropolitan area and industry

    An interactive visualization of gross domestic product by metropolitan area and industry. Click here to use this visualization.

    Gross domestic product by state and industry

    Real GDP for the states and industries. Source of data is Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce. Click here to use this visualization.

    Real gross domestic product summary by county

    Real GDP values by county, presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Taxation

    Tax collections in the states

    Tax collections by state governments. Total and per capita. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Tax Collections. Click here to use this visualization.

    Quarterly state government tax collections

    State government tax collections presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas tax receipts

    Kansas tax receipts by category, presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas hotel guest tax collections

    Kansas hotel guest tax collections presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas agency expenditures

    Data regarding State of Kansas agency spending. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas agency revenue

    Data regarding State of Kansas agency revenue. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas vendor transactions

    Data regarding State of Kansas payments to vendors. Click here to use this visualization.

    State and local government employees

    Annual payroll per state resident and state residents for each FTE employee count. U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments. Click here to use this visualization.

    Transportation

    Airport traffic statistics

    Airport traffic data presented in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    National transit database

    An interactive visualization of data over time from the National Transit Database. Click here to use this visualization.

    Highways in the states

    Total lane miles, urban and rural, using data reported by the Federal Highway Administration for 2016. Click here to use this visualization.

    Population

    Metropolitan area populations

    An interactive visualization of populations of metropolitan statistical areas, or MSA, in the United States starting in 1969. Click here to use this visualization.

    City and other populations

    An interactive visualization of city and other populations. Click here to use this visualization.

    Population of the States with Components

    An interactive visualization of state population, with changes due to births, deaths, and migration. Click here to use this visualization.

    Population of Metros and Counties with Components

    An interactive visualization of metropolitan area and county population, with changes due to births, deaths, and migration. Click here to use this visualization.

    State population estimates

    Annual population estimates for states from the United States Census Bureau. Click here to use this visualization.

    Populations of the states

    An interactive table and charts of populations in the states and regions, starting in 1929. Click here to use this visualization.

    Populations of the counties

    An interactive table, chart, and map of populations in the counties. Click here to use this visualization.

    Zip code populations

    Population for zip codes in an interactive visualization. Click here to use this visualization.

    Economic indicators in the states

    Economic indicators in the states, coincident and leading indexes. Source is Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Click here to use this visualization.

    Education

    National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) by ethnicity

    Source of data is National Center for Education Statistics, a division of United States Department of Education. Click here to use this visualization.

    National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) by lunch eligibility

    Source of data is National Center for Education Statistics, a division of United States Department of Education. Click here to use this visualization.

    School spending in the states

    Data from ElSi, a service of the National Center for Education Statistics, regarding per-pupil revenue and spending in the states. Click here to use this visualization.

    School staffing and students

    Trends for the nation and each state in teachers, administrators, and students. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas school employment by district

    Kansas school employment and ratios to students in an interactive visualization. Source of data is Kansas State Department of Education. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas selected school statistics by building

    Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas school spending by district

    Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas school fund balances

    Source of data is Kansas State Department of Education. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas school salaries

    An interactive visualization of Kansas school salaries by district and category. Click here to use this visualization.

    Wichita public school district checkbook

    Source of data is Wichita Public School District. Click here to use this visualization.

    Wichita MSA employment

    An interactive visualization of Wichita-area employment and unemployment. Click here to use this visualization.

    Wichita check register

    Wichita spending data presented as a summary, and as a list. Click here to use this visualization

    Government revenue, spending, and deficit as percent of GDP

    Source of data is Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce. Click here to use this visualization.

    State and local direct general expenditures, per resident

    An interactive visualization of state and local direct general expenditures, per resident. Click here to use this visualization.

    Kansas state and local tax revenue

    Click here to use this visualization.

    NAEP scores and charter schools

    An interactive table of NAEP scores for the states and races, broken down by charter school and traditional public school. Click here to use this visualization.

  • School choice solution to Kansas school funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    According to news reports, no Kansas legislators are proposing school choice programs — not even an expansion of charter schools — as a solution to school finance. Sam Brownback, Republican candidate for governor, does not include school choice in his program to reform Kansas education. Democratic candidate Tom Holland proposes more spending on the current failing system.

    Only Libertarian Party candidate Andrew Gray proposes school choice, through the Kansas Education Liberty Act.

  • What’s missing from the Dennis editorial on Kansas school funds

    Today’s Wichita Eagle carries an editorial by Kansas School Board member David Dennis taking issue with claims that Kansas schools have money that can be spent.

    At issue is the claim made by the Kansas Policy Institute and Kansas School Board member Walt Chappell that Kansas schools have hundreds of millions in funds that could be put to use to meet the current shortfall. See Districts Have Funds To Meet Projected $100 Million Shortfall for an explanation.

    The editorial by Dennis explains some of the major funds and their purpose, and gives their balances on July 1.

    But that’s not sufficient. To simply state that a fund has a balance of $x that is used for a certain purpose tells us nothing about whether that amount is the right amount.

    The evidence we do have tells us that the balances in these funds are more than needed. That’s because they’ve been growing rapidly, by 53 percent over the last four years. The only way the fund balances can grow is if schools aren’t spending the money as fast as it’s going in the funds. Dennis didn’t mention this in his editorial.

    So what Kansas schools could do, in many cases, is to spend down these funds. Kansas Policy Institute President Dave Trabert gave an example where a food service fund might have a balance of $10 million. Then suppose the district believes it will need to spend $15 million on food service. Instead of stocking the fund with $15 million of new funding, add just $5 million (plus a little more). This gives the food service fund the ability to do its job, but it frees up perhaps $10 million to be used for other purposes.

    It’s not only theses two — KPI and Chappell — that say spending down these funds is possible. Kansas Deputy Commissioner of Education Dale Dennis agrees.

    An effect of doing this will be that fund balances will be smaller, requiring schools to be careful. That’s not as comfortable as operating with the cushion of large balances. But these are difficult times, and people across the state are taking extraordinary measures.

    <

    p class=”note”>The existence of these funds raises a question: Is it necessary to have so many funds? Do they restrict schools from allocating resources efficiently, to where they are most needed?

    Dennis’ editorial also contains a gross mischaracterization that I’m surprised the Eagle let slip by. It’s in this passage: “The base state aid per pupil for the 2009-10 school year, by statute, should be $4,492. This is the primary source of funding for the regular classroom. Due to state aid reductions, we are down to $4,012, an 11 percent reduction.”

    As I wrote in my recent post Wichita schools on the funding decrease, base state aid per pupil is just a portion of total school spending: “It’s base state aid per pupil that was cut by 9.5%, or $421. But base state aid per pupil is only a portion of total school spending. In the case of the Wichita school district, it’s less than one-third of total funding and spending. To put a cut of $421 in context, consider the total spending by USD 259. It’s somewhere around $13,000 per pupil. $421 is 3.2% of that.”

    (The numbers in my illustration were taken from a document supplied by the Wichita public school system, and are slightly different from the numbers Dennis uses. But they’re in the same neighborhood.)

    So while the numbers Dennis uses are correct — as far as they go — it’s misleading to claim that a reduction in base state aid per pupil results in the same percentage decrease in total school spending. It’s dishonest for someone equipped with the knowledge and experience that Dennis has to make such a claim.

    It’s also further evidence of just how difficult it is to get accurate information. Schools have so much money — even in this tough economic climate — that they go out of the way to hide just how much they have. Sometimes school spending advocates are simply uninformed, as was Rep. Melody McCray-Miller last year when she disputed the per-pupil spending of the Wichita public schools.

  • Kansas budgeting “off the tops” is bad policy

    Kansas budgeting “off the tops” is bad policy

    From Kansas Policy Institute.

    Budget “Off The Tops” Bad Policy

    By Steve Anderson

    Direct transfers of taxpayer money sent to a specific business or industry is always a tough sell to politicians, let alone the voting public. But, that is why some corporations pay lots of money to lobbyists. If we can’t get a company more revenue (via a taxpayer-funded payment) why don’t we lower their expenses via a tax loophole that lowers how much they pay in taxes?

    These sort of special interest tax breaks come in a variety of different forms but the net effect of each is the same — revenues are diverted from the appropriation process and instead sent to some “special” group. A shrewd lobbyist will often make sure the program is funded in a way that their client(s) will receive their funding even if the statute is changed in the future. However, that should not preclude bringing these special interest deals to an end. This is especially important given that the reduction in tax rates will increase the impact of these programs on the revenue stream even as the state continues along the path to eliminating the individual income tax.

    These transfer schemes are funded in a number of different ways that obscure the transaction from both the public and the appropriation process. For example, there are a number of these special deals that are funded by payroll withholding taxes. The payroll withholding exemptions are programs where the state abates collection of state income tax withheld on employee’s wages. The state then provides either a program or directly funds some benefit for the employer. These programs come in many forms and often are nearly impossible to find within the very complex tax and revenue reporting statements. In general these programs require relatively long commitments by the state of taxpayer funds. The discontinuance of these type of programs will not generally eliminate the programs immediately but it will create savings going forward that could be substantial to the maintenance of a stable fiscal environment and a more transparent tax code. It would also be a breach of trust, on some level, to yank away a promise made by the state to an entity or individual. But, that doesn’t mean we have to let these program exist into perpetuity.

    Investments in Major Projects and Comprehensive Training (IMPACT)

    IMPACT provides for major project investment to provide financial assistance to defray business costs. IMPACT uses withholding revenue for a direct funding source to pay for bonds issued by the state for projects. In fiscal year 2013 that percentage was 2% and the program expended $25,420,654 of funds that otherwise would have gone to the state coffers. The good news is that Kansas stopped issuing bonds in the IMPACT program effective Dec. 31, 2011. The bad news was it was replaced with other programs that are very similar. The IMPACT payments will extend on for a number of years in to the future because of the bond’s that funded those projects. This ability to bind future legislators and taxpayers to these sort of “deals” is, in and of itself, problematic but there is more damage done to the state of Kansas than just the direct cost of these bonds.

    Bad policy like the type of special interest payment that IMPACT represents often have negative impacts in the future that are not foreseen at the time of their passage. For example, the IMPACT bonds were at the heart of the recent Moody’s down grade of the Kansas state bond rating. The IMPACT bond’s ratings were reviewed by Moody’s rating agency because the funding source to pay off the bonds — withholding taxes — was being reduced by a cut in the tax on wage earners in the state income tax rates. The media, which generally is not comprised of individuals with a financial background, reported that the change in the IMPACT bond ratings were caused by the broad tax cuts, which is only partially true. What the media in general did not report, at least not with the same enthusiasm as their portrayal of the impact of the income tax cuts, was that Moody’s noted the long running unfunded liabilities of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) and the lack of spending cuts as key elements of their downgrade.

    However, analysis of the IMPACT bond rating issues bring to light another important problem with these type of giveaways. Future legislators have their hands tied because their predecessors have committed future tax revenues in a manner that precludes the ability to bring an immediate cessation, or even partial reduction, in the special interest funding source without repercussions such as the recent bond rating issue.

    Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK)

    The PEAK program allows companies that create 100 new jobs within a specified two-year period to retain 95% of employee withholding taxes for up to 10 years. Not surprisingly with such a generous incentive companies have grown its use rapidly going from $2.7 million in expenditures in 2010 to an estimated $12.5 million in 2012 years. The “cap” on this program going forward is: In FY 2014, the cap is $12 million. In FY 2015, the cap is $18 million, $24 million in FY 2016, $30 million in FY 2017, $36 million in FY 2018, and $42 million 2019. Immediately freezing the cap at the current level and eliminating the program going forward to prevent new obligations generates significant savings going forward for the state. This is giveaway is even more troubling when considering that a recent analysis from Kansas City’s Kauffman Foundation found that, “PEAK incentives recipients are statistically not more likely to generate new jobs than similar firms not receiving incentives.”

    Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA)

    The KBA’s short lifespan is a microcosm of what can go wrong with the concept of dedicated directed funding. The lack of transparency created by bypassing the scrutiny of the appropriation process often leads to expenditures that generate headlines but don’t create economic growth.

    The legislation that created the KBA produced a number of programs and funding streams. It also set the total funding limit to the authority over 15 years at almost $582 million. The funding was to be for a period of 15 years from the effective date of the establishment of the KBA and required the State Treasurer to annually pay 95% of withholding above the certified base, as certified by the Secretary of Revenue, on Kansas wages paid by bioscience employees to the bioscience development (code categories from NAISC) and investment fund of the KBA.

    The amount of funding transferred to the KBA grew from almost $20 million in 2006 to nearly $36 million by 2008 before the creation of the annual funding cap of $35 million in 2009. Issues with operations and management emerged in 2011 which led to a forensic audit by an outside CPA firm. The audit pointed to a number of issues that led subsequent legislatures to reduce the Authority’s funding to $11.3 million in 2012, $6.3 million in 2013, and $4.0 million in 2014 (KBA funding history here). It is doubtful that the current Administration or legislatures would increase funding above current levels but the $35 million is still the statutory cap leaving open that possibility.
    There is a secondary issue with KBA’s statutory cap caused by the treatment of these type of dedicated directed funding in the budgeting process. These statutory caps for entities like KBA are considered to be at their cap amount when forecasting future budgets. The $35 million of KBA statutory cap, for example, creates an illusion in fiscal impact statements issued by the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) because those statements show the full statutory amount of $35 million being spent every year for the five years they project. Based on the current trend line of KBA funding this will not happen and, instead, creates a significant overstatement of expenditures and helps create fiscal deficits where none may exist. These projections are used by legislators and the media and should strive to present as accurate a picture as possible of current and possible future realities. A more proper and accurate display of these type of funded programs for five year projections like KLRD produces would consider whether spending could be altered or removed completely. This should be reflected in either the actual amount shown, if there was a history of partial funding, or, at the very least, in a separate line item with a notation that the sum could be arbitrarily reduced or eliminated.

    Job Creation Fund

    Another of those dedicated directed funds is the Job Creation Fund (JCF). The Job Creation Program Fund or the “deal closing” fund, its more press-friendly moniker, lets the state, led by the Office of the Governor, make investments and extend incentives aimed at attracting or retaining businesses within a range of statutory guidelines. The funding for the JCF was from the elimination of three other credits: Kansas Enterprise Zone, Job Expansion and Investment Credit Act and a refundable credit for property taxes paid on machinery and equipment. This sort of reallocation of funding sources carry the coveted title of “revenue neutral” and hence have no fiscal impact statement for legislators to worry about when the funding was created. This allowed elected officials to be able to say on one hand they eliminated special interest funding while creating another special interest fund out of the “elimination” of those entities. The annual cap on JCF funds is $10 million which is how much could be immediately saved by letting JCF join its now-defunct predecessors in state history.

    Transfers Out of the State General Fund

    There is another area where what would be State General Funds are diverted from the appropriation process. There are a number of transfers out of the State General Fund with the largest and most notorious being the $135 million School District Improvements Fund. Not only does this amount not get counted in the school formula, the recent Gannon ruling on school funding pointed directly to this fund as an example of inequity in funding. This “inducement” to issue bonds for new buildings was a bad idea both from a policy and process aspect. Policy-wise the Kansas Supreme Court’s Gannon ruling was correct in pointing out that only the growing school districts could use this fund with a few big school districts garnering most of the monies. Process-wise the choice to use a transfer as the funding mechanism not only bypassed the school finance formula but also ensured that these funds are not counted by the National Center for Education Statistics; NCES is the “go to” place for comparing education-related data from across the country and is run by the U.S. Dept. of Education.

    There is also another series of transfers that have their own particular issues.The adjacent list shows the recipient and the amount for FY-2015 (available at link above).The picking of winners and losers by government is never a good idea and the direct transfer of taxpayer funding to companies is a suspect type of economic development.

    Transfers out of the State General Fund
    Spirit Aerosystems Incentive($3,500,000)
    Eaton MDH Spec. Qual. Indus. Mfg. Fund($30,000)
    Siemens Manufacturing Incentive($650,000)
    Learjet Incentive($6,000,000)
    TIF Replacement Fund($900,000)
    Learning Quest Match ($500,000)
    Total($11,580,000)

    It is also troubling when local communities enter into Tax Increment Finance (TIF) arrangements, not to mention other subsidy giveaways, which are basically an agreement between a company or individual and the city to suspend property tax payments for that company or individual. State taxpayers as a whole have to make up for lost revenues to the governing body of each such city from the TIF arrangement. This means that a TIF issued in Johnson County is, at least in part, paid for by residents of Bourbon County and Elkhart. This distribution of funds from taxpayers across the state to individual “redevelopment areas” that were created by local governments in a manner that is basically hidden from the citizens is another great example of why these “off the tops” are bad policy. Requiring these TIF subsidies to be debated in the light of the full appropriation process would no doubt lead to questions by legislators whose districts did not include cities who receive this subsidy.

    A general thought for legislators, citizens and industry on these economic subsidies. The reduction in income tax rates by the state on withholding rates has already provided a huge incentive for these companies in addition to the direct largess they receive from these dedicated funds. The rate cut on withholding taxes increased the take home pay of their employees without those companies having to give a pay raise to their employees out of company funds. Note that the “incentive” of lower withholding taxes is applied to EVERY wage earner in the state and does not go about picking favored businesses, industries, or individuals. This type of transparent, rules-based, and equally-applied policy is the correct way to encourage economic growth and allow the free market to dictate outcomes not politicians or bureaucrats.

    Conclusion

    Every program that spends the funds of the taxpayer should be examined regularly and the nature of these “off the tops” suggests that is not happening. The need for transparency and accountability is especially true of programs that benefit any specific individual, company or sector of the economy at the expense of another. Because of the contractual type of arrangement some of these represent we do not advocate for the state breaking existing contracts in regards to incentives. But, the creation of new or expansion of existing economic development handouts that are direct redistributions from taxpayers to other sectors of the economy needs to be halted and those still in existence need to be reviewed.

    A complete review of every agreement entered into by the state to ascertain if that agreement is contractual in nature or are not legally binding going forward should proceed this next legislative session. The state should review those that are not legally binding and current renewals that can be foregone and put this “off the top” funding back in the appropriation process going forward. How much could the state expect to realize would be determined by that review. Even a preliminary, informed estimate would be in the neighborhood of $50 million annually without breaking any contractual arrangements. The following chart gives an estimate of just three programs with statutory flexibility.

    Total Dollars Returned to the State Coffers
    $s in MillionsFY16FY17FY18FY18
    Freeze PEAK at Current Levels$6$12$18$24
    Kansas Bioscience Authority$25$25$25$35
    Cease Job Creation Fund$10$10$10$10
    Totals$41$47$53$69
    The issue of transparency is front and center in all of these programs and it would be appropriate for every “off the top” to be displayed on both Consensus Revenue Estimates and Appropriation profiles so that legislators and citizens can see that a significant amount of funds have already been appropriated by these arrangements.

  • 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.

  • The arithmetic of school choice in Wichita

    As the residents of USD 259, the Wichita 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.

More posts