An interactive visualization of Kansas school salaries by district and category.
This visualization holds salaries of Kansas school superintendents, principals, and teachers. The visualization shows the average for each of these categories for each school district. The values are adjusted for inflation to the most current year values. Some data is presented on a per-pupil basis using full-time equivalent student counts.
The visualization includes both tables and charts. The source of the data is Kansas State Department of Education for salaries and enrollments, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics for price levels, and author’s calculations.
An interactive visualization of Kansas school salaries by district and category.
This visualization holds salaries of Kansas school superintendents, principals, and teachers. The visualization shows the average for each employee category for each school district. The visualization includes both tables and charts. Some data is presented on a per-pupil basis using full-time equivalent student counts.
The values are adjusted for inflation to the most current year values.
One of the most important charts shows state spending per-pupil, adjusted for inflation. It shows the total of state and local spending, which is useful because in 2015 the state made a change in the way revenue is allocated between state and local sources. It also shows base state aid per pupil, which is an important number as it is the starting point for the school funding formula.
Why is total state and local spending higher than base state aid? The answer is weightings. These are amounts that are added to the base to pay for things like at-risk children, English language learners, and other items. The value of weightings has grown over time, so as base state aid has generally fallen, total spending has generally risen.
A second chart shows the ratio of total state and local spending to base state aid.
This is not simply a technical matter. In discussions of school policy, sometimes only the base aid figure is used. As it has fallen, some formulate an argument that school spending has been cut. That is easily refuted by looking at total state and local spending.
Of note, base state aid was not used in school years 2016 and 2017, which explains the gap in some of the series.
I’ve gathered these charts and others and present them in a presentation. Use arrow keys to move through the charts. Click here to access.
Near the end of this article are definitions of each measure. There are measures for total expenditures and total current expenditures. The major difference is that the current expenditures measure does not include the cost of construction of schools and the expense of debt associated with that.
Of note, the values for “United States” are the average of the values for the states, computed with equal weight without regard for the total spending or number of students in each state.
As of the date of publication, data was available through the school year ending in 2015.
Since these data series cover substantial periods of time, I’ve also used the Consumer Price Index2 to adjust the figures for the effects of inflation. Each measure has a companion whose name starts with “i.” This is the value adjusted for inflation, based on the CPI. You may choose to view the values as reported by ElSi, which are in current dollars. These are the values not adjusted for inflation. Or, you may use the “i.” measures, which are in constant dollars.3
This data is presented in an interactive visualization created using Tableau Public. To access the visualization, click here. There are three views of this data, accessed by tabs along the top.
Definitions of measures
Total Revenues (TR) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
Total revenues per student ate the total revenues from all sources (tr) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file.
Total Expenditures (TE11+E4D+E7A1) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
This is the Total Expenditures (Digest) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. The Total Expenditures (Digest) is the subtotal of Direct State Support Expenditures for Private Schools (e4d).
Total Current Expenditures for Public El-Sec (TE5) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
This is the total current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education (te5) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. The Expenditures for equipment, non-public education, school construction, debt financing and community services are excluded from this data item.
Local Revenues (STR1+R2) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
Local revenues per student are the total of all local revenue categories (strl and r2) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. Local revenues are raised and allocated by local governments.
State Revenues (R3) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
State revenues per student are revenues received by the LEAs from the state (r3). divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file.
Federal Revenues (STR4) per Pupil (MEMBR) [State Finance]
Federal revenues per student are federal revenues (str4) divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file.
The U.S. Census Bureau explains: ” Constant-dollar values represent an effort to remove the effects of price changes from statistical series reported in dollar terms. The result is a series as it would presumably exist if prices were the same throughout as they were in the base year-in other words, as if the dollar had constant purchasing power.” Current versus Constant (or Real) Dollars.www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income/guidance/current-vs-constant-dollars.html. ↩
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: The end of a Sedgwick County Commission election, the Wichita Eagle editorializes on school spending and more taxes, and Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell seems misinformed on the Wichita economy. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 207, broadcast August 26, 2018.
A recent editorial by the largest newspaper in Kansas misinforms its readers.
“For too many years, the [Wichita public school] district was constrained by reduced state spending on public-school children. School systems across Kansas tightened belts to the point of being unable to breathe.” 1
So says a recent editorial in the Wichita Eagle, the largest newspaper in Kansas. What does the data tell us?
Data from the Kansas State Department of Education for the school year ending in 2017 (the most recent data available) show that state and local total spending, per pupil, adjusted for inflation, has been remarkably level since 2011. 2
The situation in each school district may vary, so the nearby chart shows data from the Wichita public school district comprehensive annual financial report along with my calculations. I took two data series (total revenue and the sum of state and local revenue) divided by FTE enrollment, and adjusted for inflation. I plot the sum of state and local revenue because in 2015 there was a change in the way some taxes were allocated, and using the sum of the two removes the effect of the change. 3
As can be seen in the chart, the trend for both series is generally rising, with a few dips along the way.
Is the Wichita Eagle editorial board aware of this data? We have to hope so. But that leaves the question as to why it claims the district is “constrained by reduced state spending.” Another excerpt from the editorial provides a clue: “State funding, amazingly, still isn’t to the levels of 10 years ago and reinforces the damage that the late 2000s recession and Brownback-era tax cuts of 2013 and 2014 had on public education. In 2008, base state funding for Wichita was $4,492 per student, or $327 more than this year. Multiplied by 50,000 students, that’s still a $16.4 million shortfall.”
The numbers that the Eagle cites are base state aid per pupil. This number does not accurately characterize school spending in Kansas. Base state aid is an inaccurate indicator of total spending on schools by the state. It’s deceptive, in that after adjusting for inflation, base state aid has declined. But at the same time, total state aid to school districts has increased.
For a newspaper to uncritically present base state aid as the only indicator of school spending is a big problem.
Base state aid per pupil 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. 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, because some of the weightings are large. 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.
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.)
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 replaced the funding formula, so base aid and weightings do not apply in the same way.)
So yes, the Eagle editorial board is correct that base state aid per pupil is down. But total spending by the state is up.
Opinions may vary on spending more or less on schools. But our state’s largest newspaper isn’t giving its readers the information they need to form an informed opinion.
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Candidates for State Board of Education, District 7. Republican candidates appearing are Robert M. D’Andrea and Ben Jones. This was recorded on July 20, 2018.
Kenneth Willard is the current member for district 7. He is not seeking election. The winner of the August primary election will meet the Democratic party candidate in the November general election.
The Kansas State Board of Education has ten districts, each being composed of four Kansas Senate districts. District 7 covers portions of central and east-central Kansas, including these cities: Alma, Emporia, Matfield Green, Marion, McPherson, Ellsworth, Lyons, Hutchinson, Kingman, Newton, and portions of North Sedgwick County, but not including Wichita.
An interactive visualization of spending by Kansas school districts.
The accompanying visualization holds both nominal dollar amounts and amounts adjusted for inflation to reflect 2018 dollars. Data includes state aid, local aid, federal aid, and total spending for each school district, per pupil. The visualization includes both tables and charts.
Recently Kansas Policy Institute, along with Americans for Prosperity and Kansas Chamber of Commerce, held a series of briefings for candidates for the Kansas Legislature. The presentations in Wichita were recorded, and are available as follows:
What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan. KPI President Dave Trabert spoke on the reality and myths of the state’s tax plan. Click here to view at YouTube.
Kansas K-12 Education Spending and Achievement. KPI President Dave Trabert spoke on K-12 education spending and achievement. Click here to view.
Medicaid Expansion. Melissa Fausz, a senior policy analyst with Americans for Prosperity, spoke about Medicaid expansion. Click here to view.
Kansas Chamber Legislative Update. Eric Stafford, vice president of government affairs for the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, spoke on the legislative process in Kansas. Click here to view.
Property Taxes. KPI President Dave Trabert spoke on property taxes in Kansas. Click here to view.
Kansas school employment and ratios to students in an interactive visualization. Updated through 2018.
Here are certified Kansas school employees by district presented in an interactive visualization. There are several views that express the data in different ways. The source of data is Kansas State Department of Education. 1
According to KSDE, certified employees include: “All certified personnel, calculated at full-time equivalency (FTE). This includes superintendents, associate/assistant superintendents, administrative assistants, principals, assistant principals, directors/supervisors of special education, directors/supervisors of health, directors/supervisors of vocational education, instructional coordinators/ supervisors, all other directors/supervisors, other curriculum specialists, practical arts/ vocational teachers, special education teachers, pre-kindergarten teachers, kindergarten teachers, all other teachers, library media specialists, school counselors, clinical or school psychologists, nurses, speech pathologists, audiologists, school social work services, reading specialists/teachers, and others. 2
PK-12 Teachers include: “Practical arts/vocational teachers, kindergarten teachers, pre-kindergarten teachers, reading specialists/teachers, and all other teachers, calculated at full-time equivalency. 3
These are not the only employees of school districts. 4
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. ↩
If you’re running for office in Kansas and want the support of the teachers union, here are questions you’ll need to answer their way.
Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union has a questionnaire for candidates running for elective office. It’s really not a series of questions; instead it is a list of things the union wants. Candidates seeking union backing are expected to comply.
Following are a sample of questions with some commentary. The full questionnaire may be viewed here.
Question: “Do you support requiring that bonuses and/or incentive pay including any form of ‘merit pay’ be a mandatorily negotiable topic under the PNA given such plans would have the impact of reducing the earning potential of other teachers?”
Teachers unions oppose merit pay because, they say, it may not be fair to some teachers. But opposing teacher merit pay based on fairness issues isn’t being fair to students. Instead, it’s cruel to students. If we retain the worst teachers and pay them the same as the best teachers, we aren’t being fair to students. But here we see the union’s interest is teachers, not students. 1
Question: “Do you support high standards for entry into the profession of teaching including comprehensive training and licensure upon recommendation of an accredited degree-granting institution of higher education? Will you oppose legislation that would grant access as teacher of record to the classroom by persons without a license granted by the State Board of Education?”
One of the main effects for occupational licensure is to reduce competition for people who already hold the license. This is also the main thrust of labor unions: fewer jobs, but with better pay and perks for those who have unionized jobs.
Question: “Do you support the stabilization, maintenance, and improvement of the KPERS defined benefit pension system for all educators including paying back with interest all monies diverted from KPERS?”
Defined-benefit pension plans like KPERS are incompatible with elected politicians, as they can’t resist delaying required funding until some future year, and a future generation of taxpayers. 2
Question: “Do you support state funding for student support services in public schools including counseling and nursing services, social workers, and physical and occupational therapists?”
Questions like this make it seem as though the state does not fund these functions.
Question: “Do you support a safe and secure working environment in which educators can teach and children can learn without fear, including allowing local units of government to enact reasonable restrictions on the carrying of firearms?”
There is not much evidence that local restrictions on firearms will do anything to increase school safety.
Question: “Do you approve of and support the actions of the 2017 legislature that repealed the ‘march to zero’ income tax plan?”
Question: “Do you approve of and support the actions of the 2017 legislature that repealed the LLC income tax loophole?”
Question: “Do you approve of and support the actions of the 2017 legislature that restored the third income tax bracket?”
Question: “Do you support the three-legged stool of income, sales, and property taxes as foundational to a balanced and fair tax system?”
Question: “Do you support the establishment of an additional income tax bracket for high-income earners?”
These five questions point to one of the most important priorities of teachers unions: More taxes and higher spending on schools.
Question: “Please explain your position on the use of public monies to support students in private schools. Include tax credits, vouchers, and scholarships.”
Any form of school choice is anathema to teachers unions. They want no competition. Plus, schools without labor unions reveal just how harmful the union is for children trapped in their schools.
Question: “Do you support a school finance formula that addresses the needs of all student populations including bilingual students, at-risk students, students in poverty, and students with special needs (special education)?”
This is another question that makes it seems as though there is no support for these needs. But the Kansas school finance formula provides extra funding for these.
Question: “Do you oppose all efforts to divert funding from public schools through voucher or ‘scholarship’ plans, tuition tax credits, and the expansion of unaccountable charter schools?”
Again, a question that exposes the union attitude towards school choice. By the way, charter schools are accountable in ways that public schools are not. For example, students can’t be forced to go to charter schools. Also: Until recently, Kansas schools rated themselves using standards that were among the weakest in the nation, but were telling Kansans that standards were high and schools were good. 3
Question: “Do you support efforts to adopt an inflation measure appropriate to public education on which to base annual increases in funding?”
For many years the school spending establishment has contended they face a “special” rate of inflation that is higher than other industries.
An ongoing study reports that property taxes on commercial and industrial property in Wichita are high. In particular, taxes on commercial property in Wichita are among the highest in the nation.
The study is produced by Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence. It’s titled “50 State Property Tax Comparison Study, June 2017” and may be read here. It uses a variety of residential, apartment, commercial, and industrial property scenarios to analyze the nature of property taxation across the country. I’ve gathered data from selected tables for Wichita.
In Kansas, residential property is assessed at 11.5 percent of its appraised value. Commercial property is assessed at 25 percent of appraised value, and public utility property at 33 percent. (Appraised value is the market value as determined by the assessor. Assessed value is multiplied by the mill levy rates of taxing jurisdictions to compute tax.)
This means that commercial property faces 2.18 times the property tax rate as residential property. The U.S. average is 1.67. Whether higher assessment ratios on commercial property as compared to residential property is desirable public policy is a subject for debate. But because Wichita’s ratio is high, it leads to high property taxes on commercial property.
For residential property taxes, Wichita ranks below the national average. For a property valued at $150,000, the effective property tax rate in Wichita is 1.22 percent, while the national average is 1.39 percent. The results for a $300,000 property were similar.
Of note is the property taxes on a median-valued home. In this case Wichita is a bargain, due to our lower housing prices. A home at the median value in Wichita pays $1,513 in taxes, while the nationwide average is $3,343. (The median home value in Wichita is $124,400, and for the nation, $262,772, according to this report.)
Looking at commercial property, Wichita taxes are high. For example, for a $100,000 valued property, the study found that the national average for property tax is $2,319 or 1.93 percent of the property value. For Wichita the corresponding values are $3,261 or 2.72 percent, ranking ninth highest among the 50 largest cities. Wichita property taxes are 41 percent higher than the national average, for this scenario.
For industrial property taxes, the situation in Wichita is better, with Wichita ranking near the middle of the 50 largest cities. For an industrial property worth $1,000,000, taxes in Wichita are $29,681. The national average is $32,264.
Kansas school assessment standards remain at a high level, compared to other states. This is a welcome change from the past.
To evaluate the performance of their schools and students, states have their own assessments or tests. Some states have rigorous standards, meaning that to be considered “proficient,” students must perform at a high level.
But some states are less rigorous. They rate students “proficient” at a much lower level of performance.
How can we tell which states have high standards, and which states have low standards? There is a test that is the same in all states, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The U.S. Department of Education, through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), administers this test every other year. Known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” it is “the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas.” 1
By comparing scores on NAEP and a state’s own tests, we can learn about the state’s standards. Does a state have a large percentage of students score “proficient” on its own test, but have a much lower percentage score “proficient” on the NAEP? If so, that state’s standards are weak.
After NAEP scores are released, Education Next, a project of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, compares state and NAEP results and assigns letter grades to each state. 2
It’s important to know that this analysis does not tell us how well a state’s students perform on any tests, either state tests or NAEP. Education Next emphasizes:
To be clear, high proficiency standards do not necessarily reflect high student performance. Rather, good grades suggest that states are setting a high proficiency bar — that students must perform at a high level to be deemed proficient in a given subject at their grade level. Grades gauge “truth in advertising” by indicating the degree to which states inform parents of how well their students are doing on an internationally accepted scale. 3
The good news is that Kansas grades well in the analysis of its state proficiency standards for 2017, earning an overall grade of A (A in grade 4 math, B+ in grade 4 reading, and A in both grade 8 math and reading). This is the sixth highest score among the states and means Kansas assessments have a high degree of “truth in advertising.” These grades are nearly unchanged from 2015.
This high grade has not always been the case for Kansas, however. In 2013 the state received a grade of D+ and ranked forty-first. That was a little better than 2011, when the grade was D and rank was forth-forth.
Does this mean Kansas students are doing better on tests? No. NAEP scores are mostly unchanged, or changed very little. Instead, between 2013 and 2015 Kansas adopted more realistic and rigorous standards for its tests. It raised the bar for what students needed to know to be called “proficient.”
Here is an example of how low a bar Kansas once set: In 2009, 87.2 percent of Kansas students were judged “proficient” on state tests in grade 4 reading. But only 35.1 percent were judged “proficient” on the NAEP. For that year the average difference between “Kansas proficient” and “NAEP proficient” was 45 percentage points.
Despite this large difference, Kansans were being told the state’s schools are doing very well. In 2012, Kansas Commissioner of Education Diane M. DeBacker wrote this in the pages of The Wichita Eagle: “Kansans are proud of the quality of their public schools, and a steady and continuing increase in student performance over the past decade has given us ample reason for that pride.” (Diane DeBacker: Pride in Kansas public schools is well-placed, March 20, 2012.)
Bragging like this was common, and it was unfounded. It was a lie, and a harmful lie. Being told our schools are top quality based on state standards, when those standards are very weak, is politically expedient but untruthful, and the case for needed reform is dismissed as unnecessary.
“To generate these letter grades, we compare the percentage of students identified as proficient in reading and math on state assessments to the percentage of students so labeled on the more-rigorous NAEP. Administered by the U.S. Department of Education, NAEP is widely considered to have a high bar for proficiency in math and reading. Because representative samples of students in every state take the same set of examinations, NAEP provides a robust common metric for gauging student performance across the nation and for evaluating the strength of state-level measures of proficiency.”
Education Next. Have States Maintained High Expectations for Student Performance? Available at http://educationnext.org/have-states-maintained-high-expectations-student-performance-analysis-2017-proficiency-standards/. ↩
The Wichita school district officials and The Eagle Editorial Board said the slipping graduation rate was partially attributable to the relocation of Southeast from its previous location to a new building at the far eastern edge of Wichita. According to these claims, students needing bus service when they could once walk to school have resulted in declining attendance, which in turn has led to the low graduation rate.
The falling graduation rate is real, and it is troubling. However, it was not caused by the school’s relocation.
Billingham proceeds to cite statistics from the Kansas State Department of Education and concludes, “Rather, it is more likely that the school has become more strict in applying formal disciplinary sanctions to student behavioral problems that may previously have resulted in informal reprimands.”
I wonder if school district officials knew of these statistics. They should have, as those officials compile and report them to KSDE. I also winder if Eagle reporters and editorial writers looked into this.
(By the way, the Eagle doesn’t disclose the membership of its editorial board.)
This episode is another troubling revelation about Wichita schools since the departure of the oft-praised and rewarded superintendent John Allison. Today the Eagle editorial board wrote, “Hiring Thompson as superintendent proved to be a good move at a time when Wichita schools were languishing — poor teacher morale, stagnant student achievement results and a district in need of a spark.”
Does School Choice Kill Public Schools?
By Lori Graham
Recently, I asked Kris Kobach, candidate for Kansas Governor, if he supports school choice. His answer was “Yes,” and he gave an idea of how that would work. The liberal media pounced on his idea and twisted his answer in a way that perpetuates the fear that allowing parents to choose what is best for their child’s education will kill the public school system. Conservatives and liberals alike are fearful about this, but will it really kill the public schools?
To answer this, we need to first look at the problem. The real problem of meeting the needs of every student so that they achieve their potential. The Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) has a new program called “Kansans Can – Kansas leads the world in the success of EVERY student.” This is a lofty goal, because it is a fact that the public schools will never meet every need for every student even with all the money in the world. In 2017, only 34% of the students had an “effective” or better understanding of Math, Science and English skills to enter the workforce. This is a frightening statistic and knowing that all of the additional funding each year over the last 10 years, which has reached record levels, still has not improved student success.
When we speak about “School Choice,” it means we focus the educational dollars on every student in the state of Kansas. I would think this is what the KSDE means with their Kansans Can program. If neighborhood schools are not meeting the needs of their children, parents should be able to select a different school that does meet their needs. Right now, that right only belongs to the wealthy or the very poor. Those in the middle are stuck with their government assigned-school, and only one-third of the students succeeding proves this is a flawed method of educating the next generation.
There are many different models of school choice around the country. Kris Kobach’s idea of grading each school building sounds logical on the surface and uses current Kansas state tests to do so. What he proposed is that schools with test score improvement from year to year will get pay increases for the staff, and those that fail will give vouchers to the students to choose another option. While the performance-based initiative is a good start, it only meets the needs of children of failing schools. What about the other students that may be in a good school, but their needs are not being met? In addition, this puts more focus on the testing that has proven to be a failure with No Child Left Behind and other legislation.
The best school choice option is for every parent/guardian to choose the best school to meet the needs of their child. This solution is great for public schools, great for teachers, great for students, and great for the Kansas economy. The best system for students is the best system for everyone. When our students get their individual needs met, whether he is high-achieving where challenging work is best or he is special-needs and focused therapies are best, our teachers will be able to actually teach, have more opportunities, and thus better pay; our schools will be less taxed with the overbearing challenge of meeting so many different problems our children face; and our economy will be strengthened with better prepared graduates and growth.
In states that have enacted school choice for all students, the public schools are flourishing! The free-market system encouraged new schools to pop up to meet the full spectrum of student needs, from autism to college-prep. Not all students will flock to the new schools, because public schools still have a lot to offer. The value of attending school with your neighbors, great sports, and great teachers will still appeal to the majority of parents.
What it does mean is that public schools will be required to focus on the students, not the administrator’s salary. The teachers and staff will need to be paid better so schools have the best teachers. The student’s parents will be the judge of their child’s success instead of the government tests. Teachers and administrators alike will be encouraged to work with the parent to ensure the success of the student. My experience as a public school employee and as a public school parent was that teachers only speak to parents for less than 10 minutes, twice per year, as required, at Parent-Teacher Conferences. This might work for a few students, but it certainly doesn’t work for the majority.
If the parents prefer their child not sit through the social engineering classes that teach values in conflict with their own, they will now have the opportunity to go elsewhere. If the school is great, but the environment is a problem with the student like drugs or bullying, the parent will be able to move the student to a new environment. If the child is struggling with new teaching methods like Common Core, the parent can move he/she to a more classical learning option.
Until every parent is allowed to choose what is best for their child, our student success will be sub-par, the funding will continue to go through the roof, and our children will be sacrificed in the process. School choice for all students levels the playing field for poor, rich and middle-income students alike. As soon as conservatives and liberals stop arguing long enough to learn about the proven benefits of school choice, our children, every child, will finally get the education they so deserve and our public school system will also thrive.
Reestablishing a Fundamental Principle of Democracy
Alan Cobb, Kansas Chamber President & CEO
The words of a recent guest editorial in the Lawrence Journal-World about the Kansas Coalition for Fair Funding were not surprising. It was a continuation of the intellectually shallow, fact-short screed about taxes, school finance, and the Kansas budget. Certainly, reasonable people can disagree about these issues, but partisans rarely adhere to that theorem. And thus, I thought I was reading something from a partisan staffer.
Alas, it was from a well-respected Wichita State University professor emeritus who I have known for decades.
I’ve not always agreed with Dr. H. Edward Flentje, but even when I disagreed with him, I found his arguments well-founded and reasonable. Not this time.
Now to the point. Dr. Flentje, probably intentionally, conflates with the 2012 tax cuts with the current and ongoing school finance litigation. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The current litigation was filed around the day the Sam Brownback was elected Governor. To say the focus of the current coalition is part of an effort to maintain those tax cuts is fanciful, to be charitable.
The 15-word clause in the Kansas State Constitution that is the center of all of this was enacted in 1966. It took only a few years for the first lawsuit to be filed, and Kansas has been in court ever since. This is madness. Brownback was not governor when the original litigation was filed some 30 years ago. The Kansas Legislature developed the current finance formula in the early 1990s under the duress of a Shawnee County District Court judge. Sam Brownback would not be governor for another 18 years. To continue to enact Brownback’s name must mean the author simply can’t argue the merits of the issue we currently face. This is disappointing.
Last December, the Kansas Chamber Board of Directors approved the following language to be a part of our 2018 Legislative Agenda:
Support a constitutional amendment for the democratically elected legislature to have exclusive authority to determine funding for schools in an effort to eliminate endless litigation over school funding.
In my role as President and CEO of the Kansas Chamber, I’ve traveled the state visiting business of all sizes. The consistent refrain I hear from business owners and managers is that the constant litigation has diminished the effectiveness of our educational institutions and their ability to prepare Kansas students for post-secondary careers and post-secondary education.
In addition, I’ve had multiple conversations with educators, teachers, superintendents, and building principals; many embarrassed about the constant litigation. They know that Kansas courts are the not the place to set our state’s education policy.
Ultimately this is about the process of how Kansas sets and finances education policy. We are competing not just with our neighboring states, but all 50 states and many countries across the globe. There is a worldwide competition for jobs.
Because we are in a constant struggle regarding how much Kansas spends on K-12 education, we have not had substantive conversations that we should about the effectiveness and efficacy of our education systems and how we properly prepare Kansas students for their lives after high school.
Improving our education systems takes place because of conversations between employers, students, parents, educators and those setting education policy: the legislature, the Governor, local boards of education and the State Board of Education.
These conversations simply cannot take place between all the interested parties mentioned and the state’s judicial branch.
The Chamber’s board of directors and members across the Kansas business community recognize the importance of a well-educated and trained workforce. But they also desire a competitive business climate. The endless litigation over school funding places the state at risk of being able to a balance of a competitive tax climate and providing for the essential services required outside of the K-12 education system.
The framers of our national and state constitutions understood that the power to tax and appropriate funds must be placed in the hands of the legislature-the governing body of the people. The Kansas Coalition for Fair Funding supports a constitutional amendment that will reestablish this fundamental principle of democracy and will end the continuous cycle of litigation.
When properly considered, Kansas often underperforms the nation in the most recent assessment of “The Nation’s Report Card.”
The results for the 2017 administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, were recently released. I’ve prepared interactive visualizations of some of the results. To access the visualizations, click on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
When considering NAEP results, it’s important to consider subgroups, such as race/ethnicity and school lunch status, which is a proxy for poverty. It’s important because states vary widely in the composition of subgroups.
For example, consider an accompanying example from the visualization. We see that when considering all students, Kansas does better than the national average in percent of students performing as basic or better. This is true in all four combinations of grade and subject.
Looking at black students alone, however, we see that Kansas underperforms the nation, except in one instance where there is a tie.
For Hispanic students alone, Kansas does better in all instances except for one tie.
For white students alone, Kansas underperforms the nation in three instances, and outperforms in one.
This statistical anomaly is known as Simpson’s Paradox. It may appear when comparing subgroups to aggregated data when the proportional composition of subgroups varies between populations, in this case the states. For grade 4 reading, 64 percent of students in Kansas were white. For the nation, it was 49 percent. This is a difference in composition that must not be ignored.
The relatively low proportion of minority students is why Kansas appears to perform better than the nation. The apparent superior performance of Kansas melts away when looking at subgroups.
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas Senator Ty Masterson, a Republican from Andover, joins Bob and Karl to update us on happenings in the Kansas Legislature. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 192, broadcast April 14, 2018.
A look at National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores for Kansas and the nation, grade 4 reading.
Today the National Center for Education Statistics released the main NAEP scores for 2017. NAEP — National Assessment of Educational Progress — is known as the “Nation’s Report Card.” 1 It is a test that is the same in all states, and is the primary means of comparing states. 2
The main NAEP tests two subjects, math and reading, in two grades, fourth and eighth. For grade 4 reading, the average score for students in Kansas in 2017 was 223. NCES says this is not significantly different from the state’s average score in 2015 (221) and in 1998 (221). 3
Looking at the scores using achievement levels for fourth grade reading, we see that 30 percent were at the “below basic” level of achievement. 70 percent were at “basic” or better, 37 percent at “proficient” or better, and 8 percent at “advanced.” All of these numbers are within two percentage points of the 2015 levels and are not significantly different, according to NCES. 4 (Clicking or tapping on charts may produce larger versions.)
Comparing Kansas schools with the nation, we see that Kansas has an edge — sometimes — over the nation. For example, 70 percent of Kansas students are at basic or better, compared to 68 percent for the nation.
Looking at Kansas and national schools broken down by eligibility for the school lunch program, we see that Kansas does better than the nation with students eligible for the lunch program. (Students who are eligible for the lunch program are those from low-income households.) But for students who are not eligible, national schools do better.
Considering test scores by race/ethnicity, there is good news and bad news. (Again, these results are for grade 4 reading.) First, Kansas does better than the nation with Hispanic students at all achievement levels.
For Black students, Kansas does worse than the nation at all achievement levels.
For White students, Kansas also underperforms the nation at all achievement levels.
I’ve gathered some data from both states. The United States Census Bureau collects data from the states as part of its Annual Survey of School System Finances program. 1 Data is available through fiscal year 2015. The National Education Association also gathers data. 2 The following table displays some data from both sources.
Note that Iowa spends much more than Kansas. Iowa school teacher salaries are higher, although the student-teacher ratio is nearly the same. (Student-teacher ratio is not the same as average class size, but it’s the data that is collected and reported.)
Since Iowa spends more on schools than Kansas on a per-student basis, we might be concerned that Kansas students are not doing as well as Iowa students. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the best way to compare students in different states. 3 The following table shows NAEP data for Kansas and Iowa for 2015, the most recent year for data.
Considering all students, Iowa has a larger percentage of students testing at “proficient” or better in all four subject/grade combinations.
Looking at subgroups, however, is important, because states vary in the composition of their student bodies. When we look at subgroups, we find that Kansas usually outperforms Iowa for black and Hispanic students. Even for white students alone, Kansas and Iowa tie twice and split the other two subject/grade combinations.
So let’s ask a few questions: Why is Iowa considered an aspirational state for Kansas? Is it because Iowa students perform better, or because Iowa spends more?