Voice For Liberty

Tag: Education

  • Electing Kansas legislators: Education issues

    By Dr. Walt Chappell
    Member, Kansas State Board of Education

    Before Kansas voters can decide who should represent them in the state Legislature, we must have accurate information. This is especially important when it comes to which candidates will make responsible decisions about how to improve our schools.

    Some campaign mailers and editorials claim that student achievement has improved and funding for Kansas schools has been drastically cut. Neither is true.

    To give the impression that more students are “proficient” in reading and math, the State Department of Education lowered cut scores in 2005. Since then, high school students only have to answer 50 percent of the state math questions correct to be labeled “proficient.” They also claim that any student who gets 40 percent on the state science test “Meets Standard.”

    As anyone who has gone to school knows, getting 40 or 50 percent on a test is failing. Yet, by lowering the bar so low that nearly all students appear to be “proficient,” the state education staff have mislead the legislature, voters, and parents into thinking that our students are learning what they need to know to compete for jobs in the global economy.

    But, this spring’s results on the ACT test show that only 29 percent of Kansas students are ready for college. On the national NAEP test, less than 40 percent are proficient. Even though Kansas scores on these national tests have stayed low for 15 years, state bureaucrats claim 86 percent of our K-12 students are now “proficient.” Education lobbyists then repeat just the inflated state test scores to demand more funding for schools.

    Due to the economic recession, the base state aid for schools was cut some under governors Sebelius and Parkinson but federal stimulus money made up the difference in most districts. Under Governor Brownback, the Legislature added money back into school budgets.

    However, over the past 10 years, school districts have spent $2.7 billion more to teach the same number of students. That is an increase of 56 percent. They also held back $874 million in their bank accounts last year. With more of our tax dollars being spent and kept each year to educate Kansas students while test scores remain flat, why are lobbyists claiming that schools need more money?

    Significant changes must be made to prepare our students for 21st century jobs. But using taxpayer money to sue the state to increase funding and repeating false claims about student achievement will not get Kansans where we need to be.

    So, it is up to the voters to elect responsible legislators, judges and school board members who will ask tough questions, demand honest answers and make the hard decisions needed to improve our public schools.

  • Kansas Democrats wrong on school spending

    While the Kansas Democratic Party apologized last week for misstating candidates’ voting record on two mail pieces, the party and its candidates continue a campaign of misinformation regarding spending on Kansas public schools.

    Many of the allegations are made against Kansas Governor Sam Brownback for purportedly cutting school spending. An example is on the Kansas Democratic Party Facebook page, which can be seen nearby.

    As part of the party’s website, on a page titled Restore Education Funding, Kansas Democrats make this claim:

    An Education Fact

    Between FY2008-2009 and FY2011-2012, general state aid to education was cut by nearly $400 million. In just thee [sic] years, that’s a reduction of $620 for every schoolchild in the state.

    This claim is repeated on candidates’ web sites, such as this example from senatorial candidate Tim Snow, which reads: “In the last three years, conservatives in Topeka have slashed education spending by $620 per student.”

    The problem is that these claims aren’t factual. Consider the numbers from the Kansas Democrat website. In 2008-2009 Kansas state spending on schools was $3,287,165,278, according to the Kansas State Department of Education. In 2011-2012, that figure was $3,184,163,559. That’s a difference of $103,001,719, which is a long way from $400 million, the number claimed by Democrats.

    Looking at spending per pupil figures, the change was from $7,344 to $6,983. That’s $361, not $620 as Democrats claim.

    The Democrats are also considering only Kansas state spending on schools, neglecting federal and local sources of funds. In the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 schools years, federal aid soared as a result of the Obama stimulus program. These funds almost made up for the decline in state spending, meaning that total spending on Kansas schools declined only slightly.

    (You’d think that Kansas Democrats would want to remind us of the supposedly wonderful things the Obama stimulus accomplished, but evidently not when the facts are inconvenient.)

    Then, who was Kansas governor during the years that Kansas state spending on schools declined? Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson. They’re Democrats, I believe.

    There are more examples of Democrats misleading Kansans. Here’s Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley: “But Gov. Brownback is acting on the assumption that schools aren’t stretching every dollar to the last cent, even after he made the largest cut to public education in Kansas history.” (Dems seek input from parents, educators on impact of school funding cuts.) (emphasis added)

    Paul Davis, the Kansas House of Representatives Minority Leader, was quoted in the Lawrence Journal-World as saying “Instead of hosting an online forum to complain about public schools, why not discuss all the innovative ways our teachers and administrators have done more with less since Gov. Brownback implemented the largest cut to education funding in Kansas history?” (emphasis added)

    Hensley and Davis are two of the top Democrats in Kansas, absolutely so in the Kansas Legislature.

    It’s easy to understand why Democrats focus on school spending. It’s easy to persuade parents — and anyone, for that matter — that if we want the best for Kansas schoolchildren, we need to spend more.

    More spending in schools means more spending in largely Democratic hands, and more public sector union members, a key Democratic constituency.

    The school spending advocates have done a good job promoting their issue, too. On a survey, not only did Kansans underestimate school spending levels, they did so for the state portion of school funding, and again for the total of all funding sources — state, federal, and local. Kansans also thought spending had declined, when it had increased. See Kansans uninformed on school spending. Similar findings have been reported across the country.

    Spending more on schools is seen as an easy way to solve a problem. But the problems facing Kansas schools will require different approaches, and the Kansas school establishment won’t consider them. For a list of reforms that are needed, but resisted, see Kansas school reform issues.

    Kansas Democrats should consider themselves fortunate that our governor isn’t pressing for the reform that Democrats really hate: school choice.

  • Looking for Kansas school efficiency, sort of

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback started an online Kansas school efficiency task force inefficiency form. In response, Kansas House Democrats have launched a Kansas K12 efficiency survey.

    The Democratic survey contains a few loaded questions that are sure to influence the responses received. For example: “Please describe – as specifically as possible – how the reduction of state public education funding has impacted you, your child, or your school directly (larger class sizes, higher fees, higher property taxes, eliminated programs, fired teachers, etc).”

    First: Spending on schools in Kansas has fallen some in recent years, but just a little bit, as you can see in the chart. The question above specifically references state spending. That, as you can also see, did fall for a few years, but the difference was almost totally matched by an increase in federal spending. That fall in state spending, by the way, happened under the administration of Democratic governors.

    Kansas school spending per student through 2012.

    Second: The question also mentions “larger class sizes” and “fired teachers.” These are personnel issues. If we look at the ratio of students to employees, we see these ratios have changed. For a time they were decreasing, meaning that there fewer students per employee, considering either teachers only or all employees. These numbers have inched back up. But the student/teacher ratio today is still better than it was in 2005.

    Kansas school student/employee ratios.

    Another question reads: “Please describe – as specifically as possible – how your school has INCREASED efficiency as a result of reduced state funding.”

    The use of capitalization to emphasize a specific word lets us know that only increased efficiency stories are welcome. Besides that, there’s a troubling premise in the question, that schools will look to increase efficiency only when funding is reduced. We might think that schools should always be looking for ways to increase efficiency. That lets them either operate on smaller budgets, or deliver more and better education for the same budget.

    Kansas Democratic legislative leaders, however, don’t see things quite that way. They are offended by suggestions that schools aren’t operating as efficiently as possible, charging that critics are demonizing schools.

    But schools can operate more efficiently. In 2010, despite claims that school spending had been “cut to the bone,” USD 259, the Wichita public school district, found a way to save $2.5 million per year by adjusting school starting times, thereby saving on transportation costs.

    If we really believe that schools are underfunded, and that underfunding is harming children, why didn’t the Wichita school district look for and implement this cost-saving measure earlier? Was the threat of reduced funding the necessary impetus, as implied in the Democrats’ questions?

    Surely this isn’t all that can be saved. Kansas Policy Institute looked at K-12 spending in Kansas and concluded that schools statewide are spending as much as $717 million more than is necessary, and that implementing the “best practices” of more efficient districts could eliminate the need to raise taxes or cut spending on other essential services. Volume 3: Analysis of K-12 Spending in Kansas of KPI’s series “A Kansas Primer on Education Funding” also found that, despite district claims that they are underfunded, most districts haven’t spent all of the money they received in past years.

    The competing online survey forms illustrate a problem inherent with Kansas public schools that we don’t see in the private sector. Do we worry whether the grocery store is operating efficiently? No, because the grocery store faces market competition for customers and capital. But Kansas schools — because there is no effective school choice in Kansas — don’t face competition for customers in any meaningful way, and their capital is free of cost. Kansas Democrats (and their moderate Republican allies) fight against school choice to keep it that way.

    We also have to wonder whether Kansas Democrats are really interested in finding school inefficiencies. Eliminating many inefficiencies will mean reducing the number of workers, and government workers are a key constituent of Democrats.

  • Wichita school employment ratios, by the numbers

    Claims that reduced school funding have harmed Kansas schools — especially school employment — are overblown, if we care to look at actual numbers.

    First, this past school year set a record for spending on schools in Kansas.

    Second, schools have been able to maintain student/employee ratios. Consider USD 259, the Wichita public school district. As the chart shows, student/employment ratios were falling, but have leveled. This is true when looking at all employees, or just employees the school district classifies as “instructional.” (Data is from USD 259 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.)

    In the case of Wichita schools, the students/instruction employee ratio fell from 10.68 for the school year ending in 2001 to 8.68 for 2011. This is a drop of 18.7 percent.

    Considering all employees, the change over the same time was a drop of 12.5 percent.

    Falling student/employment ratios mean that there are more employees per student. This might manifest itself as smaller class sizes, or more support personnel, or more janitors. It’s up to each school district to decide.

    But when school districts — and school spending advocates — claim that schools are moving backwards, it’s not true. Student/employee ratios are simply not falling as they once were. If the ratios were worsening, the lines would be trending upwards. But they’re not.

  • Role of government in Kansas schools deflects attention from solutions

    Focus on two Kansas school efficiency panels, school spending, and the surrounding politics is deflecting attention away from what Kansas schoolchildren and parents really need: Choice.

    As part of an effort to increase the efficiency of Kansas public schools, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback announced an online portal for reporting inefficiencies. People may remain anonymous if the want. To view the form or report an inefficiency, click on Kansas school efficiency task force inefficiency form.

    Here’s an example to get started: I have received several letters from the Wichita School District using priority mail — an expensive service — to me one sheet of paper. Other government agencies are content to deliver similar correspondence by email.

    This effort, like the Kansas school efficiency task force itself has been harshly criticized by those in the school system. An example from Twitter yesterday is this: “Another Brownback salvo against public education. An insult to all KS schools. Red meat for the uneducated.”

    In response to the governor’s task force, another has been created by KASB, the Kansas Association of School Boards. Its purpose, as described in Topeka Capital-Journal reporting, is to “to analyze options available to local district officials to maximize educational return on investments in K-12 public schools.”

    One might think that the prime mission of a school board advocacy group would already be to “maximize educational return on investments.” What could be more important when considering the lives of Kansas schoolchildren and the plight of taxpayers?

    But I guess schools have to be prodded a bit. Does anyone notice the irony: Those already in charge of Kansas public schools have had the power to implement efficiency measures. They don’t need permission or a task force.

    There’s an incongruity here. On one hand, the public schools are (almost) entirely dependent on tax revenue for their funding. But public school officials object to the term “government schools.” In an email from Wichita School District Interim Superintendent Martin Libhart to Wichita school employees during the 2008 bond issue campaign, he took issue with those who, using his words, “openly refer to public education as ‘government schools.’” To him, this is something that shouldn’t be mentioned.

    I don’t blame them. Last year ABC News reported on the low opinion Americans have of government: “Only 26 percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’re optimistic about ‘our system of government and how well it works,’ down 7 points since October to the fewest in surveys dating to 1974. Almost as many, 23 percent, are pessimistic, the closest these measures ever have come. The rest, a record high, are ‘uncertain’ about the system.”

    Schools want (what they consider) the good things about government — people being forced to pay taxes to support them — while at the same time they try to avoid the justifiably low esteem in which people hold government programs.

    Governmental decisions are made through our political system — that is, unless we want to cede total control to bureaucrats. So we can’t keep politics out of school decisions as long as they are government schools. In today’s Wichita Eagle editorial writer Phillip Brownlee expressed concern for the role of politics in schools, especially surrounding the governor’s efficiency task force, concluding: “Though politics are swirling around the task force, it still may be able to come up with some good suggestions for reducing overhead without harming educational outcomes. If it does, great.” (Eagle editorial: School task force has rocky start)

    I don’t think Brownlee meant to perform this public service, but his editorial is an example of why we need less government involvement in education. Our government — excuse me, public — schools are one of the most powerful ways through which civil society is destroyed. In the process, we replace the innovation and creativity of free markets and economic freedom with moribund governmental programs for our children.

    As an example, take the controversy over what percent of school spending should go into the classroom. This is one of the motivating factors behind the school efficiency task force.

    But consider this: Do we worry about how much the grocery store spends on administration versus other expenses? Do we quarrel over the number of assembly workers vs. managers at a manufacturing company?

    Of course we don’t, at least we who don’t own these organizations. Instead, we recognize that these business firms operate in a competitive environment. That competition is a powerful force that motivates them to find the right mix of management and other expenses, or at least a good mix.

    We also recognize that there are different types of grocery stores. Some offer more customer service than others. People are free to choose which type of store they like best, even on different days.

    Schools in Kansas, however, face few competitive forces. There is little incentive for the public schools to find the right mix of spending, or to increase efficiency, or to offer the wide variety of choice that we have come to expect in the private sector. (It also seems that we’re failing to consider that different types of schools might work best with different mixes of classroom and other spending.)

    This is what we are missing in Kansas. With greater choices available to students and parents, there will be less need for government oversight of schools and all the bickering that accompanies decisions made through the political process.

    Unfortunately, we’re not moving in that direction in Kansas. Last week in Wichita, Governor Brownback had two opportunities to promote school choice in Kansas. On the Joseph Ashby radio program he was asked about school choice, but wouldn’t commit to it as a priority.

    Later that day at the Wichita Pachyderm Club a similar question was asked, and again Brownback wouldn’t commit to school choice. The focus right now is efficiency and to get fourth grade reading levels up, Brownback said. He added that about 28 percent of fourth graders can’t read at basic level, which he described as a “real problem. If you can’t read, the world starts really shrinking around you.”

    It’s a mystery why Governor Brownback hasn’t made school choice a priority in Kansas. Many governors are doing that and instituting other wide-reaching reforms.

  • Charges of slashing Kansas school spending

    Kansas Democrats are making claims on campaign mailers that don’t withstand scrutiny. An example is this: “Under the Brownback plan, funding for education has been slashed and local governments are being forced to make up the shortfall by raising property taxes on working and middle class Kansans. (The Wichita Eagle. 7/18/12)”

    Let’s look at the record of spending in Kansas schools. Here’s a chart:

    Kansas school spending per student through 2012.

    Does this look like school spending has been “slashed?”

    It’s true that a component of school spending known as “base state aid per pupil” was cut, although it’s rising now. We need to understand, also, that base state aid per pupil is just part of school spending, and most schools spend much more than that.

    Specifically, base state aid per pupil for the last school year was $3,780. But the state spent an average of $6,983 per pupil that year, which is an additional $3,203 or 84.7 percent more than base state aid. Overall spending from all sources was $12,656 per pupil. Both of the latter numbers are higher than the previous year.

    But school spending advocates — and Democratic campaign mailers and many newspaper editorial writers — focus only on base state aid. They present base state aid per pupil as the primary benchmark or indicator of school spending, despite the fact that it is only a small part of the Kansas school spending formula and disguises the overall level of spending.

    Focusing only on base state aid per pupil is wrong. Doing so allows the school spending lobby to make an argument that is superficially true, but deceptive at the same time.

    But it’s easy to understand why there’s the focus on school spending. It’s easy to persuade parents — and anyone, for that matter — that if we want the best for Kansas schoolchildren, we need to spend more.

    The school spending advocates have done a good job promoting their issue, too. On a survey, not only did Kansans underestimate school spending levels, they did so for the state portion of school funding, and again for the total of all funding sources — state, federal, and local. Kansans also thought spending had declined, when it had increased. See Kansans uninformed on school spending. Similar findings have been reported across the country.

    Spending more on schools is seen as an easy way to solve a problem. But the problems facing Kansas schools will require different approaches, and the Kansas school establishment won’t consider them. For a list of reforms that are needed, but resisted, see Kansas school reform issues.

    Base state aid compared to Kansas state spending and total spending. State and total spending has risen even though base state aid is mostly flat.

  • Another Kansas school efficiency task force

    Why is this news? “The association representing Kansas school boards Wednesday formed a committee to analyze options available to local district officials to maximize educational return on investments in K-12 public schools.” (KASB creates panel to study K-12 school efficiency, Topeka Capital-Journal.)

    KASB is the Kansas Association of School Boards. One might think that their prime mission is to “maximize educational return on investments.” What could be more important when considering the lives of Kansas schoolchildren and the plight of taxpayers?

    It’s likely that this panel has been formed in response to a school efficiency task force created by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. That task force has been criticized by the public school establishment for lack of educators in its membership.

    So now a panel of educators has been formed to examine efficiency in school spending. Does anyone notice the irony: Those already running the Kansas public school system have had the power to implement efficiency measures. They don’t need permission or a task force.

    The governor’s task force met this week. The presentation from Kansas Policy Institute is here.

    Some highlights of the presentation include slides 10 and 11, which show that the ACT composite score didn’t really decline in 2012. Instead, the demographic weighting shifted. In fact, says KPI president Dave Trabert, “The composite score has been flat for several years and the last time it dropped (applying the 2012 demographic weighting to actual scores) was in 2009 when K-12 funding per-pupil (total and state) peaked. So much for the KASB theory that budget cuts caused ACT scores to decline.”

    As Trabert noted, demographics play a large role in understanding student achievement. See my article Kansas school test scores should make us think for an explanation of how Simpson’s Paradox masks the problem with Kansas student test scores.

    Slides 13 and 14 compare state assessment scores and state aid, again demonstrating that there is no correlation (let alone causation) between achievement and spending changes. Slide 17 shows that despite the claims of massive cuts to education, taxpayer funding of public education set a new record in 2012. Slide 18 breaks down state aid into several components, proving that simple comparisons of base state aid are quite deceptive.

    Slide 42 tells a particularly compelling story: The less that districts spend per-pupil on administration, the more they spend on student and staff support (except for the five largest districts, but even there, higher spending per-pupil is associated with a wider gap on support spending). This shows that efficiency is not just about saving money. It’s also a way to put resources to more productive uses.

    Kansas K-12 Efficiency Task Force: Spending Facts and Efficiency Opportunities

  • Kansas school efficiency task force

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has been criticized for the composition of a school efficiency task force that he recently created.

    Accountants dominate the membership. Critics wonder why there aren’t any educators as members. I would remind these critics that educators — those already running the Kansas public school system — are free to implement efficiency measures any time they want. They don’t need permission or a task force.

    We’ve seen, however, that efficiency and controlling spending are hardly the concerns of the school spending establishment. The standard argument — or complaint — is that more spending is needed. Everything is underfunded, according to them.

    The school spending establishment isn’t willing to have an honest discussion of school spending. They present base state aid per pupil as the primary benchmark or indicator of school spending, despite the fact that it is only a small part of the Kansas school spending formula and disguises the overall level of spending. Which is that in 2012, Kansas schools spent more money than ever before.

    There’s also been the controversy over school fund balances. An outside group brought this issue to the attention of Kansans, and the school spending establishment resisted at every step. Just recently it was discovered that there were errors in the tabulation of Kansas school test scores. An outside group discovered this error, too.

    Kansas school districts have also been reluctant to participate in school efficiency audits conducted by Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit.

    We further find that citizens are generally uninformed about the level of school spending. Amazingly, legislators and school board members are sometimes uninformed or misinformed, too.

    Even worse, school administrators contribute to the confusion — or is it obfuscation — surrounding school spending. A KSN Television news story reported that Newton school superintendent John Morton thinks it is “a real concern” when citizens have access to data about government spending. This is a common reaction by government bureaucrats and officials. They prefer to operate without citizen scrutiny.

    Furthermore, according to the KSN story: “[Morton] says although numbers may say schools receive $12,000 per student, only about $4,000 makes its way to daily student learning.”

    It’s astonishing that of the roughly $12,000 that Kansas schools receive for each student, only $4,000 — according to Morton — makes its way to “daily student learning.”

    May I ask: Where does the other $8,000 go?

    These are the types of questions for which the school efficiency task force may seek answers. The school spending establishment has had its chance, and it has failed to even notice the problem.

  • Regarding Kansas schools, power is not with parents

    Information and options allow parents to make the best decisions for their children regarding schools. But in Kansas, parents have little power to make good decisions for their children, relative to the other states.

    The Center for Education Reform has produced the Parent Power Index, a guide so that parents can learn about the options available in their states, and how their states rank against others. Those who live in states that don’t empower parents — like Kansas, which ranks 47th — can learn what they can do to gain power.

    Elements of parent power include the availability of charter schools, school choice programs, systems that advance teacher quality, transparency, and online learning.

    Kansas earns its dismal ranking by excelling (in the wrong way) in several categories. Regarding charter schools, for example: “Kansas has one of the weakest charter laws in the country and the law is often considered ‘one in name only.’ Charters are not separate, independent public schools, but operate more like alternative district schools.”

    On school choice, Kansas fares no better: “Kansas does not have a private school choice program. The state has a limited charter school law. Kansas enables public virtual schooling. Limited open enrollment exists, but only for interdistrict public school choice.”

    Kansas has online learning opportunities. But on teacher quality, Kansas does not rate well: “Kansas’ data system has the capacity to provide evidence of teacher effectiveness, but objective evidence is not the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations, which are not required annually for all teachers. Neither tenure decisions nor licensure advancement and renewal are connected to objective evidence of teacher effectiveness. Districts are given full authority for pay schedules in Kansas, although the state does not support performance pay or additional compensation for work experience or for working in high-need subjects or areas. Ineffective classroom performance is not a ground for dismissal and tenured teachers have multiple opportunities to appeal dismissal. Performance is not considered in layoff decisions.”

    Kansas recently received a waiver from the No Child Left Behind law. One of the things Kansas must do is to develop a teacher evaluation system that includes student achievement as a significant factor in the evaluation.

    On transparency: “While school performance reports are easy to find, the data is old and attempts to generate fresh reports came up short. Information on charter school options also is provided in a fairly accessible directory.”

    The complete ranking for Kansas is at Parent Power Index: Kansas.

    Those who defend Kansas schools as already high-performing and not in need of reform ought to take note of a few things. First, Kansas is different from other states, and that difference makes Kansas scores appear artificially high when compared to other states. See Kansas school test scores should make us think.

    Second, Kansas has low standards for its schools. See Despite superintendents’ claim, Kansas schools have low standards.

    Then, the Kansas school spending establishment is not willing to face the facts, even on something as simple as measuring the level of spending. See Kansas school spending: the deception. Those who ask inconvenient questions face obstruction and attacks. See At Kansas Board of Education, some questions aren’t allowed, Wichita school board: critics not welcome, Wichita school board video shows why members should not be re-elected, and In Kansas, public school establishment attacks high standards.