Voice For Liberty

Tag: Education

  • Avoiding the truth about Kansas school spending, Tuesday edition

    Once again we see the Kansas public school establishment dodging the facts about Kansas school spending. An example from yesterday was provided by Kansas House of Representatives Minority Leader Paul Davis on his Facebook page. Here’s what he posted:

    Paul Davis Facebook Posting

    Rep. Davis, it’s not the governor that makes claims regarding the level of school spending in Kansas. The Kansas State Department of Education compiles and reports spending numbers. For those who can’t navigate the KSDE website to find spending numbers, I’ve provided them here, and also at the end of this article.

    From this table we can see that after peaking in fiscal year 2009, state aid to schools fell in 2010. Since then it has risen each year, in both total dollars spent and dollars spent per pupil. (By the way, who was governor when state aid to schools fell?)

    Rep. Davis may be referring to base state aid per pupil when making his argument. That number has fallen. But as you can see, total State of Kansas spending on schools has been rising after falling under a previous governor’s administration. Readers should also note that as Kansas state aid to schools fell, federal aid rose, almost making up the difference.

    I would also remind the minority leader that tax cuts do not have a cost that needs to be paid for. It is government that has a cost. Reducing taxes lets people keep more of what is rightfully theirs, and that is always good.

    Paul Davis Facebook Posting

    Then: A reader left a comment wondering whether the school spending figures included mandatory KPERS payments. These are payments to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System. These payments are part of the cost of having employees, as long as schools want to provide a retirement plan to their employees. Rep. Davis’ response is correct. The state sends funds to school districts, which the districts then send to KPERS. These funds, then, are included in total school spending figures.

    Which is how it should be. How should the comment “it definitely doesn’t all go to classrooms” and Davis’ response be interpreted? The education spending establishment would like us to ignore that spending. But it’s money that’s spent. It’s part of the expense of having teachers. So does it go to the classroom? You be the judge.

  • Teachers union members to be proud of

    Critics of public schools usually explain that they’re not faulting individual teachers. Instead, they target their criticism at the teachers union, bureaucratic school administration, or “the system” in general.

    So when we observe the actions of teachers, we’re correct to wonder if they’re acting as citizens, or as teachers representing their school districts, or as union members, or in some other role. This issue is important when we take notice of the actions of teachers at a recent meeting of the South-Central Kansas Legislative Delegation in Wichita.

    Here’s a message tweeted during that meeting from Judy Loganbill, a Wichita school teacher and until this year, a member of the Kansas House of Representatives:

    This salty language inspired by political conflict: Is that Judy Loganbill citizen, teacher of young children, or union member speaking?

    This glee spilled over to Facebook:

    Wichita teachers on Facebook

    Randy Mousley is president of United Teachers of Wichita, the Wichita teachers union. Parents of Wichita schoolchildren might be interested in knowing which role he’s assuming when taking credit for his invention: Citizen, union leader, teacher, or something else?

  • Kansas school spending excused

    Kansas public school teachers and the education bureaucracy want taxpayers to trust them as a reliable source for facts about Kansas schools. But the record doesn’t inspire trust.

    At a recent meeting of the South-Central Kansas Legislative Delegation with citizens, teachers jeered when a legislator cited the spending numbers for USD 259, the Wichita public school district. A comment left to a KAKE TV news story claims that spending numbers presented by the legislator are “misrepresented,” because he included every single dollar. In fact, the numbers presented were correct, as explained in In Kansas, don’t mention the level of school spending.

    kansas-school-funding-comment-2013-03-02

    The writer seems to believe that “bond money” shouldn’t count as school spending. This is a common stance taken by public school spending boosters. They argue that spending on buildings, or perhaps on teacher pension costs, shouldn’t count as money spent educating students.

    Part of the reason for this deflection is that when people learn the true level of school spending, they’re usually astonished at how much is spent. So the school spending lobby has to explain — rather, make excuses for — the high level of spending. Recently Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) recommended Kansans ignore employee pension costs and the costs of buildings and equipment. Here’s how KASB explained this as part of a document titled Questions about recent Kansas Policy Institute survey:

    Finally, districts received $690 per pupil in KPERS contributions for district employees, and districts spent $2,320 for capital costs such as buildings and equipment, payments on construction bonds for new schools, and other local revenues like student fees. None of these funds — almost 25 percent of total revenues — can be spent for regular education operating costs.

    (See Ignore this Kansas school spending, please.)

    Should teacher pension costs and the cost of buildings and equipment be included in school spending? Of course — unless you’re arguing for more school spending.

    The comment writer also claimed that lawmakers have “cut education funding consistently.” As shown on the nearby chart, it’s true that spending on Kansas schools, on a per-pupil basis, fell slightly for two years running. It then rose a small amount last year. Spending from all sources, individually and collectively, is much higher than ten years ago. I don’t see how you can make an argument for consistent cutting — unless you decide to ignore parts of spending.

    Kansas school spending per student, adjusted for CPI

  • In Kansas, don’t mention the level of school spending

    At a meeting of the South-Central Kansas Legislative Delegation today, it was apparent that facts are either not known — or not important — to public school spending advocates.

    The audience for today’s meeting was, apparently, heavily stocked with teachers who were eager to voice approval or displeasure with statements made by either the public speakers or the legislators. At one time the teachers drew a reprimand from Representative Nile Dillmore.

    Here’s what Kansas should learn from this meeting — something important that affects actual public policy: We can’t have an honest discussion of school finance unless we recognize and agree on some facts such as the current level of spending. The teachers in today’s audience either don’t know the facts, or don’t want to talk about them.

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/kansas-school-funding-2013-03-02.mp3″]Teachers react to school spending.

    In the nearby audio clip, Representative Gene Suellentrop told the audience the spending figures for USD 259, the Wichita public school district. According to figures available from the Kansas State Department of Education, he was correct to the dollar. The audience reacted with jeers.

    So we’re left wondering this: Do Kansas schoolteachers know the correct level of school spending? Or do they know, but don’t believe it? Or do they know, but don’t want to talk about it?

    This is particularly troubling for Kansas, as the public school bureaucracy insists on more school spending. But talking about actual school spending is somehow uncouth and deserves to be shouted down.

    Newspaper editorial boards aren’t helping Kansans learn about school spending and student achievement. Surveys find that like the general public across the nation, Kansans are uninformed on school spending.

    This is the uncomfortable condition of public discourse in Kansas. We are lacking in knowledge and facts. Even worse, we’ve taken something that ought to be noncontroversial (the education of children) and turned it into a shouting match. This is what we get by turning over important things to politics.

  • Kansas school supporters should look more closely

    Those such as Kansas House of Representatives Minority Leader Paul Davis who uncritically tout Kansas schools as among the best in the nation are harming both students and taxpayers when they fail to recognize why Kansas performs well compared to other states.

    Paul Davis Facebook Post, February 22, 2013

    Davis recently posted on his Facebook page a quote from Geary County schools superintendent Ronald Walker: “Kansas has always performed academically in the top 10 of all states. As bills are introduced in the current Legislature without the input of educators, the state is in jeopardy of losing ground.”

    Kansas does perform well compared to other states on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as “The Nation’s Report Card.” Nearby is a table showing scale scores for Kansas and National Public schools for math and reading in grades four and eight. Looking at the top row, which reports scores for all students, it is the case that Kansas does better than the national average in all cases.

    But if we look at the data separated by racial/ethnic subgroups, something different becomes apparent: Kansas lags behind the national average in some of these areas.

    Why is there this apparent discrepancy? In general, white students perform better than black and Hispanic students. Kansas has a much higher proportion of white students than the nation. In Kansas, about 69 percent of students are white, compared to 53 percent for the entire nation.

    This difference in demographic composition hides the fact that, for example, fourth grade black students in Kansas underperform the national average for black students in reading.

    Some may say that it’s racist to talk about student achievement in this way. But I would ask this: Is it better to gloss over these facts, or to recognize and confront them? These details are not mere numbers on a spreadsheet. They are children.

    Let’s ask Rep. Davis if he’s aware of these statistics.

    Kansas and National NAEP Scores, 2011, by Ethnicity and Race

  • Kansas school spending, for real

    A new organization with the motto “Responsible Policy. Real Prosperity.” is producing reports that are true on the surface, but fail to present the total picture.

    In a report titled “Kansas Schools Struggle With Recent Budget Cuts,” Kansas Center for Economic Growth explains that Kansas schools are funded through three sources: State, federal, and local. So far, so good.

    kansas-schools-face-major-challenges

    But the report later makes this claim: “Kansas has cut state education spending, the largest source of funding for local school districts, by $745 per student, or more than 13 percent, since the start of the recession, after adjusting for inflation.”

    It’s true that state education spending — that portion of total school funding provided by the State of Kansas — has fallen. The figure given is roughly correct.

    But total school spending per student is different. It has fallen too, but by much less. That’s because at the same time state spending was falling, local spending remained steady, and federal spending rose.

    So overall school spending per student, adjusted for inflation, fell for two years. It rose a small amount last year. Spending from all sources, individually and collectively, is much higher than ten years ago. Remember, the figures in the chart are adjusted for inflation.

    After explaining that Kansas schools are funded from three sources, the report makes its concluding argument based on just one of these three sources. It ignores the other 45 percent of school funding. If these other sources of funding are included, Kansas Center for Economic Growth’s argument suddenly becomes much less compelling — but Kansans would at least know all the facts.

    Kansas school spending per student, adjusted for CPI

    kansas-school-spending-base-state-aid-adjusted-cpi-2013-08

  • Common core standards: Can a state escape?

    Last week Robert Scott, the former Texas Education Commissioner, testified to the House Standing Committee on Education on the wisdom of adopting Common Core Standards in Kansas. His written testimony is at the end of this article.

    Perhaps the most interesting and revealing information Scott told the committee and audience was the experience of Texas when it resisted adopting the Common Core Standards: Intense bureaucratic and political pressure was applied. Audio is nearby, and another article about Scott with video is at Former education commissioner blasts Common Core process.

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/kansas-house-education-committee-robert-scott-2013-02-14.mp3″]Robert Scott

    Of note is the reaction of freshman representative Carolyn Bridges at the end of the nearby audio clip.

  • In Kansas, arguing about the wrong school issues

    School blackboardSunday’s Wichita Eagle makes a state-wide issue (literally) out of something that could self-regulate, if only we would let it.

    The issue is what proportion of Kansas school spending finds its way “into the classroom” — whatever that means — and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s use of this statistic.

    The front page Sunday article (Governor’s numbers come under question) spent over 1,000 words on the topic. It covers where Brownback got the number he uses, the controversy over how to classify spending as “classroom” or other, and troubles surrounding an advocacy group that pushed for more spending going to the classroom.

    Why is this issue important? In Kansas, most children attend government schools that are funded and regulated by government. This means that how schools spend money is a political issue. There will be arguments.

    In the private sector, however, we don’t see these types of arguments. Do we argue in public about how much the grocery store spends on administrative overhead compared to other spending? Of course not. The managers and owners of the grocery store are intensely interested in this issue. The public is too, but only in how the management of the grocery store affects their shopping experience.

    If shoppers don’t like the way a store is managed, they shop somewhere else. Management may notice this and make changes that customers appreciate. If management doesn’t adapt, the store will likely close and be replaced by other stores that do a better job delivering what customers want.

    Or, some shoppers may like a high level of management in a grocery store — one with more personal service. Some like a bare-bones store where you sack the groceries yourself. This variation in customer tastes and needs leads to what we observe: diversity in the types of grocery stores shoppers can choose from.

    The point is that in the private sector, people get to choose what they like. They choose what’s best for them. But with our system of public schools funded and regulated by government, there is no choice. (Yes, you can escape the public schools and use others, but you still must pay for the government schools.)

    There’s a factor that leads to this diversity of grocery stores and self-regulation focused on meeting consumers’ needs. It’s market competition.

    But Kansas has no market competition in schools, unless you want to escape the system entirely and still pay for it. We have a very weak charter school law, meaning there are very few charter schools in Kansas. We have no vouchers or tax credit scholarships.

    If we had these instruments of school choice in Kansas, government schools would face market competition. They would have to start being responsive to customers. We could allow schools to decide for themselves how much to spend on management and things other than the classroom. Market competition would guide schools in structuring their management and budgets to best meet the needs of schoolchildren and parents.

    If we had school choice in Kansas, we would have a more diverse slate of schools for parents to select from. We could rely on the nature of markets to self-regulate schools like we rely on markets to regulate grocery stores.

    We could quit arguing about things like how much is spent in the classroom, and we could actually focus on teaching children.

    But the Kansas school education establishment doesn’t want that. That establishment fights every attempt to introduce even small elements of choice into Kansas. We’ll see this soon as several bills facilitating school choice are introduced in the Kansas Legislature.

  • Kansas and Texas schools and low-income students

    The Kansas school spending establishment is making the case that Kansas should not sink to the level of Texas in any area, especially schools. They point to various measures that, they say, show that Kansas schools are much better than Texas schools. They argue that we must increase school spending so that we don’t fall to Texas’ level.

    So if you were the parent of a low-income student, or a student who is a member of an ethnic minority group, in which state would you rather have your child attend school?

    The Kansas school spending establishment has an answer for that question.

    But let’s look at data. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” holds some results that can be used to compare Kansas and Texas schools. That test has Kansas scoring better than Texas (with one tie) in reading and math, in both fourth and eighth grade.

    But Kansas and Texas are different states, demographically. As shown in Kansas school test scores in perspective, when we look at subgroups, all the sudden the picture is different: Texas has the best scores in all cases, except for two ties. Similar patterns exist for previous years.

    kansas-texas-naep-test-scores-2011

    Kansas students score better than Texas students, that is true. It is also true that Texas white students score better than Kansas white students, Texas black students score better than Kansas black students, and Texas Hispanic students score better than or tie Kansas Hispanic students.

    How can these seemingly contradictory facts all be true? The article I referenced above explains Simpson’s Paradox, which is what applies in this case.

    What about low-income students in Kansas and Texas? The usual way to categorize students as low-income is if they are eligible for the National School Lunch Program. The following table shows NAEP scores for Kansas and Texas, presented by Race/ethnicity and eligibility for the lunch program.

    NAEP Scores, Math and Reading, Grades 4 and 8, by Eligibility for National School Lunch Program

    In the table, I shade the cells for the state with the best score. While there are ties, in no case does Kansas outperform Texas.

    By the way, Texas spends less on schools than does Kansas. In 2009, Kansas spent $11,427 per student. Texas spent $11,085, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Considering only spending categorized by NCES to be for instruction purposes, it was Kansas at $6,162 per student and Texas at $5,138.

    Texas also has larger class sizes, or more precisely, a higher pupil/teacher ratio. Texas has 14.56 students for each teacher. In Kansas, it’s 13.67. (2009 figures, according to NCES.)