Should Kansas Cut the Number of Districts in Half?

The Division of Legislative Post Audit released a report (108 pages in PDF) looking at the possibility of consolidating school districts.

Kansas Reporter, an effort sponsored by the Kansas Policy Institute, has a write-up that describes some of the main qualities of the report. The auditors said that the state might save $18 to $183 million. The latter number reflects cutting the number of districts down to 152, or half from just a few years ago.

Here are some (admittedly) scattered thoughts on the subject:

One curiosity about the report is that much of the savings stem from the state no longer having to pay “low-enrollment” weighting to districts–since those districts would be merged out of existence, into larger districts. There’s nothing sacred about the enrollment formula, however, meaning that some savings could be found apart from consolidation, simply by doing away with low-enrollment weighting. (Whether districts could be financially sustainable without that weighting, however, is another question.)

The state’s fiscal crisis may be an occasion not only for rethinking the number of districts in the state, but how the state funds education. The flow of funding is unnecessarily complex, trying to achieve many things at once. One alternative is to shift all funding to the state, and employ weighted student funding, so that, for example, every student carries a given amount of money with him to the school of his choice. The “weighted” in “weighted student funding” could be used so that, say, students who were academically deficit could be “worth more” to a school.

What’s the best way for organizations to consolidate? Consolidation occurs all the time in industry: Spring and Nextel; Exxon and Mobil; and the former “Big 8″ accounting firms are but a few examples. In those cases, however, the mergers are in response to market pressures. In the case of schools, mergers would be due to political pressures–namely, the plummeting fortunes of the state budget.

The possibility of district consolidation may be an occasion for everyone to rethink the way we “do” education. Virtual schooling may play a hand in educating children in sparsely populated areas, for example. Education entrepreneurs might also come up with new business models of schools–say, by developing something along the lines of a “charter district.”

Finally, some of the concerns about consolidation are legitimate–long bus rides, and whether resulting school buildings might be “too big.” But other concerns–losing sports rivalries, losing jobs, etc.–reflect the fact that public schooling is often about more than seeing to it that children have an opportunity to learn.

How Much is that College Degree Worth?

How much is a college degree worth? That’s a question of unending debate. There are a number of costs and benefits to going to college. The most obvious cost is financial–tuition, room and board, books, not to mention forgone opportunities to earn an income. For some students, they face the problem of never having the college experience “click” for them.

On the benefits side, you’ve got the chance to indulge the intellect and develop intellectual skills that will serve you later. There’s also the chance to attend a lot of parties and sporting events, cultural activities, and meeting people from around the country and around the world.

Of course, the financial side of things looms large, too. Having a college degree has become a defacto screening device for employers, and it also offers financial rewards. But how large is that reward? The Wall Street Journal offers some numbers.

The College Board has in the past put the number at $800,000, as in that’s how much a college graduate, on average, will earn over what a high school graduate would earn. But others question that number. First of all, the cost of attending college continues to grow at a rate that outpaces inflation.

They [the estimates] don’t take into account deductions from income taxes or breaks in employment. Nor do they factor in debt, particularly student debt loads, which have ballooned for both public and private colleges in recent years. In addition, the income data used for the Census estimates is from 1999, when total expenses for tuition and fees at the average four-year private college were $15,518 per year. For the 2009-10 school year, that number has risen to $26,273, and it continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation.

Dr. Schneider estimated the actual lifetime-earnings advantage for college graduates is a mere $279,893 in report he wrote last year. He included tuition payments and discounted earning streams, putting them into present value. He also used actual salary data for graduates 10 years after they completed their degrees to measure incomes. Even among graduates of top-tier institutions, the earnings came in well below the million-dollar mark, he says.

As the story also points out, averages are … averages, and don’t apply to each person. You may love what you’re doing and do well financially without a college degree–or be stuck in an unsatisfying job that doesn’t pay as much as you might earn doing something else.

I wouldn’t tell anyone “don’t go to college.” But each student must carefully consider himself. It’s good for many people, but not for all. If you’re uncertain about going to college, spending a year doing something else–a ‘gap year’ after high school–may be a good time to sort things out.

What’s the implication for K-12 education? By all means we should give high school students the opportunities to earn college credits through AP classes, whether in the classroom or in online venues. (Indeed, online classes may be a godsend for academic high-achievers attending schools that don’t otherwise have suitable classes for them.)  But  perhaps we should also look into restructuring K-12 so that students interested in something than attending college can get adequate training. Sen. Steve Abrams is one person who has been proposing such an approach. A report published by a commission several years ago, “Tough Choices or Tough Times,” is another. Whatever we do, we should do more to tailor the schooling experience to the wants and needs of students.

NCLB Goal: A Balloon Payment

No Child Left Behind calls for 100 percent student proficiency by 2014, though it has let each state decide its timetable for getting there. The Obama Administration plans to redo the law, a fact I mentioned yesterday.

Lisa Snell, an education policy analyst for the Reason Foundation, has a short write-up of the law as it stands now. She uses a metaphor I’ve never thought of, but which is apt:

The 2014 deadline which requires that all states have students that are 100 percent proficient is a balloon payment that the states were never planning to pay. In California, for example, in 2010 the state still does not require that even 50 percent of students are proficient in reading and math to meet the federal benchmark of “adequate yearly progress.” The states were counting on a change in administration long before the 2014 deadline.

The most obvious result of NCLB, she argues, is that it’s resulted in more spending, not more results.

Another Model of School Financing

The Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont-focused organization, has published a rather interesting proposal for redoing the way that state “does” schooling. In brief, it’s a school-focused and child-focused approach that breaks away from the district-centered approach the state currently uses.

The report is titled “Better Value, Fewer Taxpayer Dollars,” and you can download it (PDF) here. Among its proposals:

• Replace funding to districts with certificates of tuition given to families, who can redeem them at any school. This amount would be based on regional cost differences of existing public schools. If a school charges less than the value of the certificate, the student can keep the money in an account to be used only for further educational expenses (such as college tuition or tutoring.)
• Writing a charter school law (Vermont does not have one) so that groups of people and communities can restart schooling, free of many of the current state mandates.
• Make greater use of virtual schooling.
• Give tax credits for donations to student tuition organizations, which in turn help families pay for the cost of education.
• Retain the state government’s role in funding and overseeing the needs of special-education students.
• Retain the state’s role in overseeing safety and health regulations governing schools.

Time to Redo NCLB?

It couldn’t last, could it?

The Obama administration will seek changes to No Child Left Behind, says the New York Times. Among the changes is “the elimination of the law’s 2014 deadline for bringing every American child to academic proficiency.” And in a move that should make school officials everywhere rejoice, “Department of Education officials have said they also want to eliminate the school ratings system built on making ‘adequate yearly progress’ on student test scores.”

There’s some encouraging news in here: “Significantly, said those who have been briefed, the White House wants to change federal financing formulas so that a portion of the money is awarded based on academic progress, rather than by formulas that apportion money to districts according to their numbers of students, especially poor students.”

Not that the federal government ought to have a large role–or indeed, any role–in education. But if it is to have a role, providing financial incentives to schools that make progress is not a bad idea.

The provisions of the law offering students in specified schools to get tutoring help or the option to transfer to other schools are good, but they’ve not been used much. Why that is can be debated, but the point is they’ve had little impact.

What about ending the proficiency requirement? “A new goal, which would replace the 2014 universal proficiency deadline, would be for all students to leave high school ‘college or career ready.’”

That might be an improvement in that it recognizes that now all students will (or should) attend college.

Here’s another slight area of hope: “One section of the current Bush-era law has required states to certify that all teachers are highly qualified, based on their college coursework and state-issued credentials. In the Race to the Top competition, the administration has required participating states to develop the capability to evaluate teachers based on student test data, at least in part, and on whether teachers are successful in raising student achievement.”

Now, I think that school teachers, at least those in high school, ought to have more academic subject  preparation. But requiring, say, math teachers to have a math major, puts too much emphasis on credentials and not enough on performance in what counts–helping students learn.

The Times notes that the law has been widely unpopular, since in the views of many teachers and administrators, “it sets impossible goals for students and schools and humiliates students and educators when they fall short.”

The fact that a law “humiliates” the adults in the schools is the least bad feature. After all, should we operate schools for the benefit of students, or of school employees?

School choice in the words of a fourth-grader

Justin, a fourth-grade boy, explains in this video why he supports school choice, and enjoys his virtual school.

Is “Adequacy” a Valid Concept?

Kansas is certainly not the only state to be sued by school districts unhappy with the amount of money they’re getting. The state of Washington, for example, is being sued for the third time.

Such lawsuits, says one observer of education policy, depend on four questionable assumptions:

1.     The state needs to spend more money on education, and doing so will improve academic achievement.
2.     The state is already spending current education dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible.
3.     The actual cost of educating every child in the state to standard can be determined and fixed.
4.     It is beneficial for judges and courts to order the legislature to make specific education policies.

I’d say that Kansas has similar problems.

On the question of “the actual cost,” the commentary has this to say:

In making its case against the state, the NEWS [school district] coalition points to the fact that not all students are passing the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL). This, the plaintiffs argue, proves the constitution has been violated and the legislature is failing to provide all students a quality basic education.

NEWS is asking the court to order the legislature to determine the actual cost of bringing all students to standard, and then to pay that cost.

Unfortunately, this request may be impossible to fulfill. Determining what it costs to make sure every student masters basic education material has never been done, simply because there is no school in the nation that can guarantee 100 percent success with students. Students are unique and, yes, human. Many factors, including their own motivation and aptitude, impact their educational success, and these cannot all be controlled by policy.

No education system and no amount of money can guarantee equal outcomes. What they can do is provide equal opportunities, and those opportunities can be based on proven best practices showing what works well when it comes to meeting the needs of unique students.

The idea that a given level of performance can be guaranteed if only funding is “adequate” is folly.

Special interests, and extra special interests

Who said this, of a group of school officials who sued the state for cutting back on aid in a time of plummeting tax revenues?

“They’re saying, ‘We’re not special interests, we’re extra special. We’re supposed to get all the money and everybody else can just divide up the crumbs. It’s clear to me they don’t care about anybody but themselves.”

Take a guess, anyone? Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal? Another member of the Kansas Legislature? Taxpayer advocate Bob Weeks? Kansas Policy Institute’s president, Dave Trabert? Yours truly?

Nope. Try David Patterson.

Who’s he? The Democratic governor of New York, battling the education lobby after he withheld some state aid to schools in an attempt to “keep the state afloat.”

New York, like Kansas, has been beset by a coalition of school districts that have sued the legislature, seeking more money.

Comparing Kansas District Numbers to Other States

Since the topic of school district consolidation comes up from time to time in Kansas, I’ve been looking through some national statistics. Here I’m going to present a few observations.

How many districts are in each state?

1. There’s a wide number of school districts across states. One state, Hawaii, has but one district. On the other end, everything really is bigger in Texas, including the number of districts: 1,243.
2. The “average” state (using the median state) has 204 districts.
3. Kansas (as of the 2007-08 school year) had 302 districts, meaning that it has more districts than the average state. But its population density is less than half of the national average, so that’s not surprising: You may need more districts if you don’t want to bus students for long distances.

What’s the typical number of students in a district?

1. The median state had 2,851 students per district.
2. Kansas has fewer–1,551 students per district.

How many students are in each school?

A number of education schools think that smaller schools are better for students.

1. The median state has 445 students per school.
2. Kansas has 321 students per school.

Comparing Kansas to states with a similar population density

Given the current model of “doing school,” in which students are bussed to bricks-and-mortar schools, population density has a role to play in deciding how many schools that can be supported.

Population across the states ranges from a low of one person per mile in Alaska to 1,176 per person in New Jersey. The median state has 450 people per square mile. Kansas is on the less-dense side of the scale, with 33 people per square mile.

One way to put the number of Kansas school districts is to compare the state with other states with similar population densities. So I looked for states that have a population density that is equal to that of Kansas, plus or minus 33 percent. Here’s what I found:

• Colorado
• Idaho
• Nebraska
• Nevada*
• Oregon
• Utah

Kansas has more districts than any state in the comparison group

Kansas has the most number of districts of the six states. As of 2007-08, it had 302. The state with the next largest, Nebraska, had 258. The median for the six states was 183 districts.

Kansas has the second-lowest number of students per district

Nebraska had the least number of students in an “average” district, at 1,129. Kansas was had the second-lowest number, at 1,551. Given the number of districts, that’s not surprising.

Kansas has the second-most number of schools

Colorado lead the pack with 1,783 schools. Kansas had 1,461, and the median state had 1,194.

Kansas has the second-lowest number of students per school

Nebraska has 244 students per school, on average. Kansas has 321.

Bonus observation: Kansas has more counties than any of the comparison states

Kansas has 105 counties, far more than any of the comparison states. Colorado, with a strong tradition of county governance, has only 64, or nearly 40 percent fewer. Nebraska has 93. Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah, have 44, 17, 36, and 29, respectively.

A warning:

Note that the U.S.government is a significant (perhaps a majority) landowner in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and and perhaps Oregon, a fact that might affect the number of counties.

Conclusions

Finding the “right” number of schools and school authorities (in this case, districts) would best be determined in a market of people freely buying and selling educational services. We don’t, however, have that situation.  Instead, we have political control over every aspect of schooling, including funding levels, student assignments to schools (often by boundaries rather than choice), and curricula.

With that in mind, it might be useful to compare Kansas to other states on a number of measures, including the number of schools and school districts. The numbers suggest that Kansas, relative to the states selected for having a similar population density, has too many school districts. It might also have too many schools, but I’d want to research the literature on the “ideal” school size, which has been the subject of various experiments funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other education reform groups.

* Nevada fell just under the 66 percent mark, but it was so close that I included it.

How Many Districts Per State? How Many Churches?

The idea of school district consolidation comes up from time to time, and with good reason. School administrators don’t teach children, teachers do. How many districts does Kansas need?

But first let’s ask another question. “How many churches does Kansas need?” Or how about, “How many grocery stores does Kansas need?” The answer: As many–or as few–as people want. They express their preferences by attendance and donations, in the case of churches, and by purchases, in the case of grocery stores.

There’s no need for legislative hearings or blue-ribbon panels when it comes to meeting human needs for spiritual expression or obtaining food.

But there are plenty of hearings when it comes to education. Why? Because, at least for children under 18, education is funded almost entirely through the political process. Property taxes, for the most part, go to education. Some portion of sales and income taxes, do, too, as well as numerous special taxes. And of course, questions about what to tax (the “base,” which may be wages, investment income, property wealth, etc.), how to tax (sales tax, income t ax),  and how much to tax (the rate) are inevitably political questions.

So on the income side, education is a political animal. And it’s political in another way: Once governments collect money in the name of education, the money has to be spent somehow.This may or may not be done at a government institution. Money in the Pell Grant program? Spent at public or private universities. Money parents can claim as a tax credit for early childhood education? Spent at public or private schools. Money allocated for food stamps? Spent at Dillons, Wal-Mart or any number of other privately owned companies, and certainly not at stores operated at the Department of Grocery Stores.

When it comes to education of children between ages 5 and 18, however, the money can be spent only at certain institutions, called “public schools

But only certain institutions–”public schools”–can receive the money collected through taxes for the purpose of education. Naturally, that makes them subject to the political process. A bevy of politicians, ranging from an elected local school board to the United States Congress, leave their mark on institutions that in spirit and in fact are units of government, which is to say, subject to politics.

So back to the question: How many districts does Kansas need? Politicians may consult science, but at the end of the day, political decisions are answered on the basis of which groups have political power, what group can get its value system or economic interests recognized, and what comes out of the hurly burly of political debate.

Coming up: A look at how some states have addressed the question of school districts.

Base Funding Doesn’t Tell All

Discussions of school funding typically focus on just one element of the funding formula, the base state aid per pupil. That’s the amount that the state legislature allocates for each “student unit.”

In December, the Kansas Legislative Research Department published a 28-page report (PDF) describing the formula. Looking through the report shows just how complex–some might say convoluted–is the process for funding schools.

You’d think that the number of students enrolled in a school would be the primary factor in how much money a school gets. And you’d be right, but only partly so, for when it comes to funding, some students are more equal than others.

Here’s a partial list of the various kinds of money that a district can get:

1. Base state aid per pupil (BSAPP)
2. Low-enrollment weighting
3. High-enrollment, or correlational, weighting
4. Transportation weighting
5. Vocational education weighting
6. Bilingual education weighting
7. At-risk pupil weighting
8. High-density at-risk pupil weighting
9. Medium-density at-risk pupil weighting
10. Non-proficient at-risk weighting
11. School facilities weighting
12. Ancillary [new building] school facilities funding
13. Special education and related services funding
14. Declining enrollment weighting
15. Cost-of-living weighting

The first item on the list–the base state aid per pupil–is what gets the press. For example, the Kansas Reporter (also affiliated with the Kansas Policy Institute), says

The governor’s proposed combination of a one-cent sales tax increase and higher taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products will raise enough money to increase the state’s total education budget by $12 million, to $3.28 billion, and to increase basic state aid to students $50 per student, to an avearge $4,062, Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis told the Kansas State Board of Education at its January meeting.

But without the money from the proposed tax increases, education spending drops to $3.04 billion, and per pupil aid falls by $286 to $3,276, or about 1999 levels, Dennis reported. Cutting that deeply would force districts across Kansas to lay off teachers and other employees.

Can schools do the job with $3,276 per pupil? That doesn’t sound like much. Neither does $4,062. But remember, all those weightings (and other types of funding) add up.

As a quick look, consider these numbers, which you can find in Volume 3 of a series of reports by the Kansas Policy Institute:

$3,863 … $9,235

$3,863 … $9,707

$4,257 … $10,596

$4,316 … $11,558

$4,374 … $12,188

$4,400 … $12,660

What do these numbers represent? They’re numbers from school year 2003-04 through 2008-09. Both represent the per-pupil funding, on average, that districts in the state received in each of those years. The first column is the base funding from the state, before any weightings.  The second column is the total revenue that the “average” district received, after state weightings and other state money, after local revenues, and after federal grants.

So take a look at these numbers:

42

38

40

37

36

35

These numbers? They represent the percentage of total revenue that is supplied by the base aid amount.  Clearly, the base aid is an important though hardly the only element of school funding, so focusing on changes in that amount gives us an incomplete picture, at best.

Advocates of legal action against the Legislature (read: people) will point out that the percentage of revenues supplied by the state base aid has declined over the years. But that’s due in part to increases in non-base aid brought about by the Montoy lawsuit. And it should also be noted that when all funding sources are considered, per-pupil funding is UP. In fact, per-pupil revenue is up 32 percent in just six years. A slight pullback, then, should not be traumatic. An organization with managerial flexibility should be able to adjust to an overall cut of a percentage point or two.

For a variety of reasons relating to politics, however, schools are anything but flexible. And that’s a big part of the problem.

One-third of students are at grade level

State and local education officials tout improved scores on the state’s assessments. The implied message: We’re doing a great job, the only thing that needs to change is that you need to give us more money.

But the numbers aren’t necessarily what they seem.  A report from Education Week suggests that high school graduation rates in the state are overstated. If you compare tests on the NAEP with state assessments, you’ll find reasons to think that the numbers on state assessments are overly rosy as well.

Here  are some comments I recently left at Wichita Liberty about this subject.

The state NAEP results gives a scale score, which is a number . It also gives the percentage of students who are proficient.

Consider a classroom in which the average score is a B, which the teacher gives to students who score 80 to 89 percent correct. In one year, the average raw score is 83, and in the next, it’s 88. In both years, the letter grade is the same: B.

NCES, a unit of the U.S. Department of Education, has historical data for the national test as well as for states. It looks like Ed has made it more difficult than it was in the past to find the information.

1. Go to this link: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
2. Click on “Accessible version”
3. From the drop-down menu box labeled “Select a State,” choose Kansas.

Or you can go here (http://kansaseducation.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/assessments-through-the-years/) and download a one-page PDF, which contains the same information.

To summarize:

The percentage of fourth-grade students scoring “proficient” increased a lot from 2000 to 2003, and slightly after that. Eighth-grade scores have showed some improvement, too, though not as much.

Reading scores have barely moved (grade 4) and may have slightly declined (grade 8).

About one-third of students are proficient (grade level) in reading.

About half are proficient in fourth grade, but that drops to only a third in the eighth grade.

Certainly nothing too impressive, overall.

So some skepticism is in order, both on the performance and financial front.

Stalling Efficiency, Pushing Tax Increases

As you probably know, Gov. Mark Parkinson gave his state-of-the-state address a few days ago. (You can read his prepared remarks here.)

He lavished praise on the state for its history in K-12 education:

While other states were shy to adopt public education, we embraced it.  Our leaders made the conscious decision clear back in the 1860s to spend money on public education. Their vision was to create a literate population that would become workers, then consumers and lead our state to prosperity. This commitment to public schools was not one time or intermittent; it was long-lasting. It is at the very essence of what makes Kansas, Kansas.

“Throughout our history this has worked.  We developed a world class public school system.  It is a system that outside entities consistently rate as one of the best in the country.  It is a system that has higher graduation rates and test scores than the national average.  It is a system that has provided every child a chance and has created the outstanding labor force that we dreamed of building. It happened because those that came before us had vision and the courage to make investments in our future.

Above-average test scores are good. But are they sufficient when fewer than half of students read at proficient on the “Nation’s Report Card?”I’ll get back to that in another commentary.

Parkinson also spoke about recent budget cuts and the need for efficiency: “We have cut $1 billion out of the state budget.  Like any organization, public or private, there was waste in state government.  That is inevitable.”

How about local schools? It would be foolish to expect that state government has waste but school districts do not. As Bob Weeks pointed out, Speaker Mike O’Neal, in his response to the governor’s remarks, “when all sources of funding are considered, schools have been cut less than 1.5% on average, and schools are receiving more funding than in fiscal year 2008.”

With that modest amount in cutbacks, there’s most likely more room for efficiency. Unfortunately, the budget cuts at the state level that point out the need for efficiencies have been used as an excuse to looking for them. Citing the need to respond to (slight) cutbacks in state aid, school districts pressured the Division of Legislative Post-Audit into putting a pause on efforts to produce efficiency audits.

If smarter spender isn’t the answer, what is? Raising taxes, of course. The Lawrence Journal-World notes that “Gov. Mark Parkinson’s proposal to funnel more money into state coffers by increasing sales and cigarette taxes drew applause from education officials in Lawrence.” No doubt, many officials throughout the state would agree.

Scott Morgan, president of the Lawrence school board, seems to think that what the state needs is not more efficient schools, but raising income taxes: “A graduated income tax is probably the fairest way [to increase tax revenue], but a property tax is more fair than a sales tax.”

Of course, the two states most known for having a graduated income tax are California and New York, two states that are all but technically broke, proving that yes, you can outspend your revenue base, even with a graduated income tax.

Breaking into the Silos of Money

If you’re running a school district, it seems like there’s never enough money. The federal law known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) threatens to shake up your way of doing things should your school fail to meet a multitude of testing targets. Teachers, like anyone, hope for more money in their paycheck each year. And many schools, built decades ago, get hit by rising fuel costs. The Legislature, meanwhile, has cut back on one of the revenue streams you depend on, the Base State Aid Per Pupil, or BSAPP. (Don’t you just love how the education industry is filled with acronyms?)

So what do you do? You might look for ways to economize. Negotiate cheaper deals on supplies. Ask your staff to take a pay cut, as has happened in many businesses. Or … you could sue your customers, who in this case are the taxpayers and their elected representatives. That’s what a number of districts are doing, hoping that the Kansas Supreme Court will re-open the Montoy lawsuit.

An alternative is to tap some of the unspent money that you’ve got on hand. Now, it’s useful to have some unspent money around. If you live in a house and have a mortgage, you might send your bank a check every month. Some of it goes towards the mortgage, but the rest goes to pay property taxes and homeowners’ insurance. You might also save of money for regular, big expenses that hit at once, such as the bill for auto insurance, or winter heating bills.

But how much of a cushion should you have? That’s a debatable question. If your auto insurance is $500 a year, payable once a year, it might make sense to have $400 stashed away a month or two before the bill is due. It would not, though, make sense to have $2,000 saved for auto insurance. And the best reason to have some money saved is so that you can spend it if you have an unexpected drop in income or increase in expenses.

School districts have roughly the same situation. Some cushion is good. And now would be a good time to spend that cushion. The Kansas Policy Institute has chronicled, on several occasions (see, for example, this report back in November) that districts across the state have hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve. Some  of it is legally obligated to pay off construction costs, so it can’t and won’t be touched.

But there’s plenty of money that could be spent now, especially if the Legislature were to loosen the restrictions on what is called “categorical funding,” which some people might call “micromanagement.”

Rather than sue for more, districts ought to spend down some of those reserves. They should also ask the Legislature for permission to spend some of the categorical funding in ways that school leaders see best.

Do districts need more money? Perhaps. But they should make sure they make use of what they have rather than call out the lawyers.

KPI President: Tax Increases Not Required

Dave Trabert, the president of the Kansas Policy Institute, recently addressed the issue of school funding in an op-ed published by the Wichita Eagle:

Tax increases and lawsuit not needed

Wichita Eagle, Sunday, January 10, 2010

A commentary by Kansas State Board of Education member David Dennis said that educators “just ask that (legislators) make their decisions based on accurate information, with the future of our students in mind” (“Fund balances won’t save schools,” Jan. 3 Opinion).

I completely agree, and just ask that educators do the same. Unfortunately, some have been making their case for tax increases and lawsuits with a healthy dose of inaccurate and misleading information.

For example, Dennis said a fellow board member “alleges” that schools started the current year with $700 million in carryover cash reserves (in addition to money for capital projects and bond payments) that could be used to fund education. This is no allegation. It is a fact that my organization obtained from the Kansas State Department of Education. Here are some other facts we discovered that have been confirmed by the department:

* Deputy Commissioner Dale Dennis says schools can legally use those reserves for current expenses, freeing general-fund receipts for other purposes.

* That $700 million total has grown 53 percent over the past four years, which means that schools haven’t spent all the money they received.

* No independent audit of the necessary ending balances in each fund has been performed.

Certainly some carryover is necessary, but the minimum required balances have not been determined. So, combined with the fact that these balances have grown 53 percent, it’s quite likely that a good portion of the money could be used to avoid budget cuts.

Here’s another fact confirmed by the department that has been conveniently ignored or distorted: Schools are getting a lot more than $4,012 in base state aid per pupil. Total average aid to schools from state, federal and property-tax sources this year is $12,225, or just 3.43 percent less than last year.

There is also ample evidence that schools are spending more money than necessary. A July 2009 study by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit found that many districts are much less efficient than others and offered 80 recommendations to save money. The 2010 Commission ordered the study, phase two of which would have sent auditors into schools to help find ways to save money. But districts objected, so the 2010 Commission canceled phase two and now is calling for more state aid to schools, knowing that other options exist.

Our own study of K-12 expenditures found that per-pupil spending in 2007-08 ranged from $9,017 to $25,240. If high-spending districts had just been at the median cost per pupil of similar-sized districts, that would have saved $636 million. The complete analysis is available at the Web site www.KansasPolicy.org.

Dennis referred to another legislative report that found a correlation between increases in education spending and achievement scores, which he and others have used to justify their demands. They neglect to mention, however, that auditors did not say higher spending caused test scores to increase. (It’s a well-known research principle that correlation does not imply causation.) That same report also said the educational research “offers mixed opinions about whether increased spending for educational inputs is related to improved student performance.”

The truth is that these facts and others refute schools’ case for higher spending.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/781/story/1130421.html#ixzz0cLBHk0QU

Assessments Through the Years

How have Kansas schools done lately? One way of answering that question is to look at the state’s  performance on the NAEP, or National Assessment of Educational Progress. You can download a one-page summary (PDF) of Kansas performance on the NAEP since 1998.

There’s Never Enough, is There?

The state’s largest district, USD 259, votes to sue for more. The best comment from members of the board–who voted 7-0 in favor of taking legal action, came from Lynn Rogers, who said “We can’t keep adding requirements and expect to do that for the same funding.” Combined with the conversation about unencumbered balances and the general fund, it’s logically a call for the Legislature to extend more flexibility to school boards.

Bob Weeks says Kansas schools should not sue. Weeks recommends that schools tap ununcumbered funds and make efficiencies. He also points out to conflicting priorities: “Several legislators have told me that this legislative session shapes up as a battle between schools and the social service agencies. This doesn’t seem helpful and productive.”

Weeks also has comments to the USD 259 board, made by other citizens.  John Todd said “The amount of money you are proposing to spend in this endeavor seems to me to be enough money to pay several full time teachers salaries that could be used to reduce class sizes and help our kids learn.”

Karl Peterjohn pointed out that far from having a smaller budget than last year, USD 259 is proposing a 2 percent increase. And that’s even with the cuts in one funding stream of state aid. He also said he fears a “judicial oligarchy” taking control of Kansas government.

Longer School Days?

President Obama has suggested that schools need are longer days. Some charter schools in fact do use longer days, and longer school years. But if they’re added to the traditional school system, the only sure result will be higher expenses.

One education analyst looks at the idea and finds it wanting:

“Extending the school calendar without making improvements to the curriculum and teacher quality would simply subject students to additional hours of unproductive instruction. Indeed, high-performing countries are successful because they employ strong leaders, focus on measurable results, and maintain very high expectations for all teachers, parents, and students. Our public schools should focus on the same.”

As it turns out, in many successful countries, students spend fewer hours, not more, in class. Quality, not quantity.

Congratulations to the Blue-Ribbon Winners

The U.S. Department of Education has announced the 2009 Blue Ribbon schools. According to a press release from the department, “The Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors public and private schools based on one of two criteria: 1) Schools whose students, regardless of background, achieve in the top 10 percent of their state on state tests or in the case of private schools in the top 10 percent of the nation on nationally-normed tests; and 2) Schools with at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds that demonstrate dramatic improvement of student performance to high levels on state tests or nationally-normed tests.”

Five schools in Kansas made the list. They are:

Rock Creek Junior/Senior High School (USD 323, St. George), in the category “Schools in the top 10% with less than 40% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The following schools earned the distinction of being in the top 10% of schools in the state with at least 40% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds:

Broken Arrow Elementary, Lawrence

Oakley Elementary, Oakley

Phillipsburg Elementary, Phillipsburg

Robinson Elementary, Augusta

Is Your Teacher a Widget?

In tight financial times–at any time, really–government ought to be smart in the way it uses your money. But it often spends education dollars rather foolishly.  One key example is when it treats teachers as interchangeable parts.

See The Widget Effect, an interesting and useful new study from The New  Teacher Project, on the need to make sure that we recognize good teachers, give all teachers appropriate feedback for continuous improvement, and dismiss ineffective ones. While taking these steps is important for all children, they are especially important for those from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.

School Boards, School Unions

School boards represent the public. Correct? Maybe.

You’d think that in these challenging economic times, school boards would be looking for ways to economize the public dollars they are entrusted with. They could look at, say, ways to make schools more productive, make the best use of the people they have, and so forth.

The Kansas Association of School Boards scored Kansas legislators on issues relating to education. Correction. On issues relating to increasing spending on schools. (You can find the report, in PDF, here.) In the eyes of the KASB, the difference between “pro-education” legislators and “anti-education” legislators is … 1 percent.

If you can’t find a way to cut your expenses by 1 percent, you shouldn’t be in management.

Are “Profit” and “Education” Incompatible?

Profit-seeking in education? Not exactly. After all, plenty of businesses make money in education, selling textbooks, tests, school supplies, and curriculum aids of various sorts.

The Pope Center for Higher Education Policy points out that for-profit colleges are the fastest-growing institutions in higher education.

How Efficient is Your School District?

School districts vary widely in many ways, including graduation rates, enrollment, and the wealthy of the local tax base. But they also vary in another important way: How much money they spend per pupil on various functions.

The Legislative Division of Post Audit recently completed a report on 121  school districts in the state. It looks only at non-instructional expenses: district-level administration, school-level administration, instructional support services, operations and maintenance and food and transportation services.

Among the findings:

1. “Although spending per student primarily was driven by enrollment, we saw significant differences among similar-sized districts.”
2. School district administrators complained about being audited(!) The squeaky wheel gets the grease? Indeed.  As a result of the complaints, the LPA “changed the audit question and limited our work.”
3. “We didn’t fully address the reliability of the school district data,” which obviously leaves open some questions.
4. Districts with more school buildings tend to spend more on operations and maintenance per pupil. [On the other hand, other research shows that smaller schools tend to do better academically than bigger ones.]

The report put the students into five peer groups depending on the following factors:

A. How many students are enrolled, and are they in a rural or suburban?

B.  Is there a lot of poverty in the population? Many bilingual students?

C. Are property values low, moderate, or high?

The largest district (USD 232 DeSoto) included had only 5,527 students. You might defend that decision, since once you get above that level the sample size gets rather small. Still, the bulk of the money is spent on larger districts, meaning that any attempt to look at efficiency cannot avoid them.

Advice for the New USD 259 Super

Bob Weeks reviews the new superintedent of USD 259 at his site Wichita Liberty. He sayd that new super John Allison must find new cost savings and prove the credibility of glowing test scores.

Can technology fix what ails American education? Terry Moe and John Chubb think so, and they’ve outlined their ideas in a new book, Liberated Learning.

Here are some excerpts from a recent Wall Street Journal book review.

What can online learning do?

“They think that technology — particularly online education — holds two potentially dramatic benefits. One is simply a general improvement in education as students from “anywhere — poor inner cities, remote rural areas, even at home” gain access to high-caliber instruction. More important, the authors say, is technology’s ability to destroy the political barriers that prevent education reform.”

The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School is an example of online learning in action:

“As for results, even though the school’s demographics are average or even below average, Cyber was rated as having made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in No Child Left Behind, hitting all 21 educational targets. By contrast, barely half of Pennsylvania’s bricks-and-mortar schools received the AYP rating. On SAT tests, Cyber students scored 97 points higher than the state average.”

What do teacher unions think of the idea?

“Teachers unions, of course, are appalled. They know that “the new computer-based approaches to learning simply require far fewer teachers per student — perhaps half as many, and possibly fewer than that,” Messrs. Moe and Chubb write.”

Still, the authors hae high hopes for online schools:

“The authors also believe that, by allowing the door to be cracked open with online schools, the unions won’t be able to shut it. With the encouragement of students’ parents, millions of children will rush in, overcoming current union-imposed enrollment caps. Since labor costs keep rising, school districts, hard-pressed for funds, will naturally turn to technology as a way to get more for less.”

More for less? Bring it on.