Could a President Trump bring more school choice to Kansas?
One of the campaign planks of President-Elect Donald J. Trump is support for school choice. Specifically, his campaign page states: “Immediately add an additional federal investment of $20 billion towards school choice. This will be done by reprioritizing existing federal dollars.”1
In the next point: “Give states the option to allow these funds to follow the student to the public or private school they attend. Distribution of this grant will favor states that have private school choice, magnet schools and charter laws, encouraging them to participate.”
Normally I would not be in favor of adding to federal spending, but Trump proposes to “reprioritize” existing funds. He is not specific on details.
What could this mean to Kansas? If these funds were allocated to the states proportionally by population — as good a guess as any — Kansas would receive about $182 million. If students were awarded — for example — $5,000, this means 36,400 students could receive this benefit. This amount pays for tuition in some private schools, and goes a long way for paying for others.2 Nationally, charter schools operated on a budget of $7,131 per student in 2014.3 The State of Kansas should be happy to make up the difference, as that is far less than what the state spends now.
The problem with this initiative is that it is targeted towards states that already have school choice programs. Kansas has a small private school scholarship whose existence may be in peril. Kansas has a law that allows for charter schools, but it is limited and designed to make charters very difficult to form.
Targeting these funds towards states with existing school choice program is precisely backwards of what should be done. The funds should go to states that have no — or little — school choice. This will help students overcome the objection of the education establishment that hates school choice, which is that school choice drains money from traditional public schools. That argument is false, but funding from the federal government would help counter that argument.4
Undoubtedly the public school spending lobby will develop other arguments against school choice in Kansas.
Offsetting the increased federal spending would be reduced public school by the states, as most school funding formulas are based on the number of students.
For example, see Classical School of Wichita at around $6,000 per year, Cair Paravel Latin School in Topeka at around $7,000 to $8,000 per year, and the Independent School in Wichita from $10,000 to $10,600 per year. ↩
A Wichita Eagle op-ed by Kansas State School Board Member David Dennis (Fund balances won’t save schools) and another by Rhonda Holman dispute evidence that Kansas can make it through the current financial situation by making use of large fund balances in state agency accounts.
In his op-ed, Dennis writes that while he doesn’t disagree that Kansas schools have $700 million in funds excluding capital and bond payments, he writes “That fact by itself is very misleading. Each account must be analyzed separately.” He then proceeds to list some of these funds, their balances as of July 1, and what the fund is used for.
This recitation, however, doesn’t qualify as “analysis.” An analysis would look at the change in fund balances over the course of a budget year, and the trend of the balances over years. Dennis doesn’t do any of this. Of course, that type of material doesn’t make it into most newspapers.
Evidence gathered by the Kansas Policy Institute has found that statewide, these fund balances have grown by 53 percent over the last four years. For the Wichita school district, these balances have grown from $74 million to $94 million over the last four years. These funds grow when more money is added to them than is spent — strong evidence that schools have been receiving more money than they have needed.
So we have a member of the school spending lobby disputing the availability of these funds and calling for more tax revenue to be spent on schools. Not much new here.
What’s more disturbing is Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman’s recent editorial (Work together to solve budget crisis). It doesn’t come right out and say that the idea of using fund balances to make it through a tight spot is bogus. Instead, Holman shades her claims, using phrases like “If that were true” and “But a very different — and more realistic — scenario faces Parkinson and returning legislators.”
This is after slamming the think tank that found these balances and promotes their use as “conservative.” (Believe me, that was meant as an insult.)
It’s neither conservative nor liberal to look at facts.
But the fact that these fund balances are available — and the fact that they’ve been growing in recent years — isn’t comfortable for big-taxing and big-spending liberals in Kansas. First, the growing balances mean that these funds have been stocked with more money than has been necessary.
Second, for agencies to draw down these fund balances means that they’re going to have to be more careful in managing their finances and accounts. It’s easier to operate with large fund balances, no doubt, but many Kansans right now are operating on tight household budgets. We should expect government to do the same.
Then, if we find that Kansas can make it through this tight spot without tax increases, that deprives Kansas government spenders of future tax revenue. After all, if new taxes are implemented now, they’ll probably be around after the economy recovers, providing even more tax revenue for Kansas government to spend.
Tough economic times ought to provide an incentive to look for ways that government can become more efficient. But hardly anyone in Kansas government is looking for savings. In the case of Kansas schools, planned performance audits were canceled last year because school administers were too busy working on budget cuts. School districts could voluntarily participate in the audit — Derby did — but the Wichita school district didn’t participate.
Before considering a lawsuit against the citizens of the State of Kansas, there are several things this school district and Kansas schools should do to make it through the current fiscal situation.
I’m concerned about the corrosive environment a lawsuit creates in Kansas politics. Many social service agencies have experienced deep cuts, while schools have escaped with only minor cuts. Recent figures I received from the Kansas State Department of Education, which include all the cuts made through late December, estimate that for the current school year, funding for Kansas schools statewide will fall by just 3.4 percent.
I know that USD 259’s legislative platform says that funding has been cut by 9.5 percent. Kansas School Board member David Dennis’ editorial in yesterday’s Wichita Eagle claimed a larger cut. But these cuts are to base state aid per pupil, which represents less than one-third of Wichita school funding. When considering all sources of funding, the drop is much smaller. This focus on base state aid per pupil alone is misleading.
Several legislators have told me that this legislative session shapes up as a battle between schools and the social service agencies. This doesn’t seem helpful and productive.
Then, there’s the battle this lawsuit declares on the Kansas taxpayer. Many Kansans are without jobs or are suffering economic hardship. To ask them to pay more simply because schools are facing a 3.4 percent cut seems like the schools are not willing to bear their share of the burden we are all asked to accept.
I’m also concerned that Wichita and Kansas schools are not doing everything possible to reduce costs before asking for more funds.
One thing that would help schools make it through the present situation is to tap into the nearly $700 million unspent dollars in a collection of funds. These funds do not include money set aside for capital projects and debt service.
This is a controversial issue, it seems. The editorial by David Dennis recited a list of these funds and their balances. But that doesn’t tell us anything about whether these funds have the correct balances.
Evidence gathered by the Kansas Policy Institute has found that statewide, these fund balances have grown by 53 percent over the last four years. For the Wichita school district, these balances have grown from $74 million to $94 million over the last four years. These funds grow when more money is added to them than is spent — strong evidence that schools have been receiving more money than they have needed.
The editorial by David Dennis mentioned the “contingency reserve fund” as the “one fund available for use.” But Kansas Deputy Commissioner of Education Dale Dennis has said that all of these funds are available, if school districts choose to use them.
Other ideas Chappell presented are to increase the productivity of teachers, thereby making better use of existing classrooms and decreasing student/teacher ratios; “pay-to-play” for expensive varsity sports; and changing the definition of an at-risk student to something that is a meaningful indication of a child’s ability to learn.
There’s also the efficiency audit of Kansas schools districts that was commissioned by the 2010 Commission. This audit was canceled because “district administrators are too busy dealing with budget cuts to complete the audit,” according to the commission’s chair.
But it seems that a time of budgetary stress is just the right time to look for efficiency and savings. Although the audit was canceled, school districts could choose to participate voluntarily. Is participation something the Wichita district considered?
Finally, there’s the federal Race to the Top funds. Participation requires that states embrace charter schools and other reforms. But the charter school law in Kansas is so restrictive that few bother to apply for charters. Will this board advocate for reforms that would make Kansas eligible for Race to the Top funds?
Yesterday a business group hosted a luncheon where leaders of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, made short presentations and took questions from the audience. Overall, the event produced little in the way of new information for those who follow school district affairs even casually. Events like this, however, provide a useful measure of the attitudes of school district leaders.
Speaking first, Wichita School Board President Barb Fuller mentioned eleven years of “consecutive student achievement.” Since 2000, she said achievement has risen 20 percent in reading, and 25 percent in math.
In her overview, board member Lanora Nolan complained of a “budget decrease that puts us back five years in funding.” When questioned on this claim, Nolan said she didn’t have the figures in front of her. Board member Lynn Rogers jumped in and quoted the base state aid figures, insisting that these figures are lower now than in the past. He also said that some items are included in the budget in recent years that weren’t included in the past.
School spending supporters across Kansas focus on base state aid per pupil as though it was the only source of school funds. Currently base state aid per pupil (at least according to my reading of Hawver’s Capitol Flash) is $4,218. Yet, the Wichita school district receives funding that allows it to spend over $13,000 per pupil.
Followers of school finance in Kansas, of course, know that spending, no matter how measured, has been growing very rapidly in recent years, both in the Wichita school district, and in the state as a whole. See KNEA call for action overstates case, misleads Kansans for an illustration.
Follow-on questions elicited explanations by Rogers and others that illustrated the principle that USD 259 operates on: outsiders who question the school district never understand what’s really going on.
There is, it appears, a group of super-knowledgeable insiders who are the only people who truly understand Wichita and Kansas school finance and other matters of school district operation. Even the Wichita school district itself is sometimes short on this knowledge, as last year Linda Jones, the chief financial officer for USD 259, postponed a presentation on an issue that John Todd and I raised until she could “receive clarifications from the state.”
One question from the audience reminded the board that a business group’s recent survey showed dissatisfaction with recent Wichita school graduates. This produced a flurry of excuses — and some reasons — from board member Connie Dietz and Superintendent John Allison. Excuses mentioned included language difficulties, poverty, homeless students, social issues such as hungry students, and problems with parents.
The superintendent went on to say that “everyone has a different definition of what’s twenty-first century skills.” He did say that we’re finally coming together on a definition of what skills are needed.
Regarding No Child Left Behind, Allison said that the program is based on an exam given on one day to all students, and much depends on that one exam. The Kansas state test may not measure the real-world abilities needed to apply the knowledge learned in class. He said we need to “reduce the one-shot type of assessment of where we are with our students and whether our schools are being successful.”
He made an appeal for more funding from the legislature, and several times mentioned that “we all have to work together” and that we must have a “joint effort.”
A question about the test scores reported by the Wichita school district as compared to scores reported by the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress elicited these remarks by board president Fuller: The NAEP tests only a sample of students, not all students. Kansas does very well on these tests compared to other states. Allison remarked that the two assessments — the Kansas state and federal tests — test different things. Kansas does not align their assessment to NAEP. Districts align their curriculum to the state exam. They’re two different exams, not necessarily testing the same things, he said.
This seems to be an admission of “teaching to the test,” which is a problem that almost everyone admits exists. For more information on this issue, see Are Kansas school test scores believable?
When talking about Kansas school spending, few Kansans have accurate information. Those with children in the public school system are even more likely to be uninformed regarding accurate figures. But when presented with accurate information about changes in school spending, few Kansans are willing to pay increased taxes to support more school spending.
Not only did Kansans underestimate school spending levels, they did for the state portion of school funding, and again for the total of all funding sources — state, federal, and local.
Many people greatly underestimated school funding. For all sources of funding on a per-student basis, 43% of poll respondents chose a number that is less than half the actual number.
For a question asking about the change in Kansas school funding over the past five years, 64% thought that funding had declined. Only 6% knew that funding had increased by over 15% during that period. The five year time period is significant, as it was in 2005 that the Kansas Supreme Court ordered additional school spending as a result of the Montoy case.
When asked about their willingness to pay higher taxes to support mores school funding, 51% said they would, if per-pupil funding was down from five years ago. But when asked whether they would pay more taxes in per-pupil funding had gone up by over 20%, only 11% said yes. According to the Kansas State Department of Education, total funding per pupil increased by 26% over this period.
The school spending lobby in Kansas focuses on only one measure of school spending, base state aid per pupil. That number is approximately one-third of total school spending, and it has declined. As this poll shows, this special interest group needs to keep Kansas misinformed about the level and changes in school spending. When presented with accurate information about school spending, Kansans are not willing to pay higher taxes.
Talking about Wichita school funding this week, district superintendent John Allison was quoted in Wichita Eagle reporting as saying “We’re still at 2001 funding levels.” This claim is part of an ongoing campaign of misinformation spread by school spending advocates in Wichita and across Kansas.
Mr. Allison may have been referring to a component of the Kansas school finance formula called base state aid per pupil. It has been cut, as shown in this chart that the Kansas school spending establishment uses.
Kansas school spending, as presented by the Wichita public school district.
But base state aid is only the starting point. When we look closely at all spending by USD 259, the Wichita public school district, we see a picture vastly different from that described by the Wichita superintendent.
Considering all sources of funding, the Wichita school district has been able to spend more money each year for many years, despite the claims of cuts. What cuts have been made to base state aid per pupil have been more than compensated for by weighted state aid, federal aid, and local aid, as shown in the following chart.
Wichita school spending, as reported by Kansas State Department of Education.
Focusing on base state aid misses the larger picture. As an example, for the 2010-2011 school year, base state aid was $3,937. Yet the Wichita school district received $7,092 per pupil from the state, 80 percent more than the base aid number. Focusing only on base state aid per pupil also fails to recognize the federal and local sources of revenue to schools. For this year the Wichita district received $2,123 per pupil from the federal government and $3,855 per pupil from local taxpayers, for a total of $13,069 per pupil. The same figure for the previous year was $12,526.
There are also other issues to consider when analyzing Kansas base state aid per pupil spending. Dave Trabert of Kansas Policy Institute wrote this is response to Allison’s statement:
Superintendents sometimes talk about base state aid as though it was total aid, so let’s take a look at those facts. Kansas State Department of Education broke out the components of state aid back to 1997, when total state aid was $4,047 per pupil (base was $3,670, KPERS was $157, bond was $42 and all other aid was $178). Back in the days before a lot of weightings were added/expanded, districts had to cover At Risk and other weighting-funding costs out of the base.
State aid in 2012 was estimated by KSDE to be $6,931 per-pupil … base was $3,780 … KPERS was $804 … bond was $230 … and all other aid was $2,116. More than a ten-fold increase in other state aid, most of which is in those weightings that formerly had to come out of the base.
By the way, KSDE says 2012 was estimated to be a record-setting spending year.
Why do school spending supporters focus only on base state aid? Its decline provides the grain of truth for their larger and false argument about school spending. As explained in Kansas school spending: the deception this grain of truth enables school spending advocates like Mark Desetti (Director of Legislative and Political Advocacy at Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union) to be accurate and deceptive, all at the same time.
We ought to demand more truth from school districts and school officials regarding school finance.
Once again, Kansans are subjected to a rant by Kansas House of Representatives Democratic Leader Paul Davis. On Facebook, he continually complains about the lack of funding for Kansas schools, recently writing “What do you think is more important: tax cuts for millionaires or funding for your local school?”
But here’s the worst thing Kansas has done. It’s a fact that Paul Davis won’t tell you, and it’s something that is very harmful for Kansas schoolchildren: At a time when Kansas was spending more on schools due to an order from the Kansas Supreme Court, the state lowered its standards for schools.
For Kansas, here are some key findings. First, NCES asks this question: “How do Kansas’s NAEP scale equivalent scores of reading standards for proficient performance at grades 4 and 8 in 2009 compare with those estimated for 2005 and 2007?”
For Kansas, the two answers are this (emphasis added):
“Although no substantive changes in the reading assessments from 2007 to 2009 were indicated by the state, the NAEP scale equivalent of both its grade 4 and grade 8 standards decreased.”
Also: “Kansas made substantive changes to its reading grade 8 assessment between 2005 and 2009, and the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 8 standards decreased.”
In other words, NCES judged that Kansas weakened its standards for reading performance.
A similar question was considered for math: “How do Kansas’s NAEP scale equivalent scores of mathematics standards for proficient performance at grades 4 and 8 in 2009 compare with those estimated for 2005 and 2007?”
For Kansas, the two answers are this (emphasis added):
“Although no substantive changes in the mathematics assessments from 2007 to 2009 were indicated by the state, the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 8 standards decreased (the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 4 standards did not change).”
Also: “Kansas made substantive changes to its mathematics grade 4 assessment between 2005 and 2009, but the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 4 standards did not change.”
For mathematics, NCES judges that some standards were weakened, and some did not change.
In its summary of Kansas reading standards, NCES concluded: “In both grades, Kansas state assessment results showed more positive changes in achievement than NAEP results.” For mathematics, the summary reads: “In grade 4, Kansas state assessment results showed a change in achievement that is not different from that based on NAEP results. In grade 8, state assessment results showed a more positive change.”
In other words: In three of four instances, Kansas is claiming positive student achievement that isn’t apparent on national tests.
Kansas is not alone in weakening its standards during this period. It’s also not alone in showing better performance on state tests than on national tests. States were under pressure to show increased scores, and some — Kansas included — weakened their state assessment standards in response.
What’s important to know is that Kansas school leaders are not being honest with Kansans as a whole, and with parents specifically. In the face of these findings from NCES, Kansas Commissioner of Education Diane M. DeBacker wrote this in the pages of The Wichita Eagle: “One of the remarkable stories in Kansas education is student achievement. For 10 years straight, Kansas public school students have shown improvement on state reading and math assessments.” (Thank teachers for hard work, dedication, May 27, 2011.)
A look at the scores, however, show that national test results don’t match the state-controlled tests that DeBacker touts. She controls these states tests, by the way. See Kansas needs truth about schools.
A year later a number of school district superintendents made a plea for increased funding in Kansas schools, referring to “multiple funding cuts.” (Reverse funding cuts, May 3, 2012 Wichita Eagle.) In this article, the school leaders claimed “Historically, our state has had high-performing schools, which make Kansas a great place to live, raise a family and run a business.”
These claims made by Kansas school leaders are refuted by the statistics that aren’t under the control of these same leaders.
I wonder why Paul Davis doesn’t write about these topics on Facebook.
A video explaining the Kansas budget is accurate in many aspects, but portrays a false and harmful myth regarding school spending.
A popular video explaining the Kansas budget deserves scrutiny for some of the data presented. The video is available at the Facebook page of Loud Light.
The presentation makes a few good points. For example, the video is correct in that the sales tax is a regressive tax, affecting low-income households in greater proportion. During the capaign for a Wichita city sales tax in 2014 I analyzed Census Bureau data and found that the lowest income class of families experience an increase nearly four times the magnitude as do the highest income families, as a percentage of after-tax income.12
The video also rightly notes that Kansas is now, and it has in the past under other legislatures and governors, inadequately funding KPERS, the state employee pension plan.
Interestingly, the video praises Kansas for its early adoption of “progressive economics.” I think the narrator meant “progressive taxation,” as the video shows Kansas adopting an income tax in 1933. How has that worked for Kansas? 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.) 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.
Kansas Department of Transportation Funding, partial. Click for larger.The narrator states, “Kansas Department of Transportation is mostly funded by restricted revenue like fuel tax.” This was true at one time. But starting in 2011 KDOT has received more funding from sales tax than motor fuel tax.3 The gap is getting wider, as can be seen in the nearby chart. (By the way, there are proposals to increase the motor fuel tax. This tax is just like the sales tax, affecting low-income households greatest.)
School spending
The greatest problem in this video is its explanation of state spending on K through 12 schools. This is important, as the video correctly notes that this spending is half of the general fund budget. In introducing this section, the narrator notes “budget report gamesmanship that’s created a rhetorical paradox,” conceding it is “technically” true that education spending is at record levels.
The video then shows a chart titled “State Aid Per Pupil.” The chart starts with a value a little over $6,000 in 1993, declining to about $4,000 in 2013, then staying at that level. The citation is “Governor’s Budget Report” from the Kansas Division of Budget, and at the end of the video there is the explanation, “All financial data in this video is inflation adjusted to January 2017.”
A more accurate title for the chart is “Base State Aid Per Pupil.” That’s the actual name for the component of school spending that the video displays. This is important because base state aid is only the starting point for determining spending. Actual state aid to schools is much higher.
Kansas school spending, showing base state aid and total state aid. See article for notes about 2015. Click for larger.Base state aid per pupil — the statistic the video presents — is an important number.4 It’s the starting point for the Kansas school finance formula used before the 2015-2016 (fiscal 2016) school year, and something like it may be used in a new formula. 5
Base state aid, however, is not the only important number. To calculate the funding a school district receives, weightings are added. If students fall into certain categories, weightings for that category are added to determine a weighted enrollment. That is multiplied by base state aid to determine total state aid to the district. 6
While this may seem like a technical discussion that doesn’t make a difference, it’s very important. Some of the weightings are large and have increased by large amounts. The at-risk weighting, intended to cover the additional costs of teaching students from low-income families, started at five percent in 1993. In other words, for every student in this category, a school district received an extra five percent of base state aid. The value of this weighting has risen by a factor of nine, reaching 45.6 percent starting with the 2008-2009 school year.7
So in the nearby chart that I prepared using data adjusted for inflation in 2016, we see base state aid per pupil on a downward trend, just as the video shows. But I also plotted total state aid per pupil, which includes weightings. This number is on a mostly upward trend.
Kansas school spending, showing ratio of total state aid to base state aid. See article for notes about 2015. Click for larger.Kansas school spending. See article for notes about 2015. Click for larger.The weightings have a large effect on school funding. For example: During the 2004-2005 school year, base state aid was $3,863 and the at-risk weighting was ten percent. An at-risk student, therefore, generated $4,249 in state funding. (Other weightings might also apply.)
Ten years later base state aid was $3,852 — almost exactly the same — and the at-risk weighting was up to 45.6 percent. This generates funding of $5,609. For a district that qualified for the maximum high-density at-risk weighting, an additional $404 in funding was generated. (These numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)
So even though base state aid remained (almost) unchanged, funding targeted at certain students rose, and by a large amount.
Over time, values for the various weightings grew until by 2014 they added 85 percent to base state aid. A nearby chart shows the growth of total state aid as compared to base state aid. (Starting in fiscal 2015 the state changed the way local tax dollars are counted. That accounts for the large rise for the last year of data in the chart. For school years 2016 and 2017, block grants have replaced the funding formula, so base aid and weightings do not apply in the same way.)
All this determines state aid to schools only. There is also local aid and federal aid.
The questions Kansans should ask are these: Why doesn’t this video explain that “base state aid per pupil” is not the same as “state aid per pupil?” And why not explain that total state aid per pupil is much higher than base state aid, and has been rising over the long term?
For the fiscal 2016 and 2017 school years, the formula was replaced by block grants. ↩
Amendments to the 1992 School District Finance And Quality Performance Act and the 1992 School District Capital Improvements State Aid Program (Finance Formula Components), Kansas Legislative Research Department, May 20, 2014 http://ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/amends_to_sdfandqpa_2015.pdf↩
There’s also the high-density at-risk weighting. Starting with the 2006-2007 school year districts with a high concentration of at-risk students could receive an extra weighting of four percent or eight percent. Two years later the weightings were raised to six percent and ten percent. (This formula was revised again in 2012 in a way that may have slightly increased the weightings.) ↩
At a luncheon event today, leaders of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, made short presentations and took questions from the audience. I didn’t get a chance to ask a question, but here are the questions I prepared.
Both President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have advocated differential teacher pay and charter schools. What plans does the Wichita school district have to incorporate these programs?
Across the country it’s starting to become apparent that the characteristics of individual teachers is by far the most important factor in student success, far more important than class size, teacher experience, or teacher credentials earned. Yet the Wichita school district has made a large and expensive commitment to smaller class sizes. And while I’ve not read the new teachers’ contract, the previous contract made experience and credentials the only way to advance in salary. What are your thoughts on these matters?
The Wichita school district last year claimed “11 years of rising test scores.” My research shows that Wichita test scores closely follow the trend of test scores for the entire state. But on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, Kansas scores are flat or rising very slowly. What is the reason for this difference? How can we be sure that Wichita and Kansas test scores are reliable and valid measures of student achievement?
Two years ago The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released the study “School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006.” They found that “Every existing school choice program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce a substantial savings.” Why doesn’t the Wichita school district, in cooperation with the state, implement the proven strategy of school choice to save money?
In May of this year, The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released a study that compared the attitudes of public school and private school teachers towards their jobs and working conditions. Public school teachers rated their jobs and working conditions much lower. The study said: “These are eye-opening data for the teaching profession. They show that public school teachers are currently working in a school system that doesn’t provide the best environment for teaching. Teachers are victims of the dysfunctional government school system right alongside their students.” Do you think that Wichita public school teachers feel the same way as did this national sample? What can the district do to improve working conditions for teachers?
Last year Interim Superintendent Martin Libhart sent an email message to district employees in which he criticized bond issue opponents because, in his own words, they “openly refer to public education as ‘government schools.’” What’s wrong with using the term “government schools?”
What is the Wichita school district’s position on the possible revival of the school funding lawsuit?
Kansas school spending, as presented by the Wichita public school district.
Wichita school spending, as reported by Kansas State Department of Education.
