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.

Interesting Facts on American Education

The National Center for Education Statistics, a unit of the U.S. Department of Education, recently released The Condition of Education 2009, which is  filled with interesting information. I haven’t read the whole document, but if you’re interested in education, it’s worth looking at.

Here are some items that stand out from the full report. Page numbers refer to the page in the file, which is not the same as the page number in the document.

EARLY EDUCATION

A majority of 3 and 4-year old children (55 percent) are now in preschool. This contrasts with 20 percent in 1970. (page 5)

COLLEGE

Two in three 18 and 19-year olds are in college. This contrasts with fewer than half in 1970.  (page 5)

HOME SCHOOLING

The number of children in home schooling has increased dramatically, from 850,000 in 1999 to 1.5 million in 2007. That’s an increase of 76 percent. They now comprise 2.9 percent of all school-aged children  (page 5 and 14 and following).

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Roughly 11% of students are in private schools (page 46)

FOR MORE INFORMATION

There are many other measurements in the report, including those dealing with student performance and school finance.

This page lists many different ways of getting to the report, or portions of it.

You can browse through the information here.

You can view or download the entire document (some 300+ pages and 4MB) in a PDF file if you click here.

You can read a shorter (41-page) version of the PDF file here.

Sitting on Cash they Can’t Use

Paul Soutar, an investigative journalist recently hired by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, has uncovered some interesting numbers that might be part of the solution to the concerns of school administrators and taxpayers alike.

Soutar looked at numbers on the KSDE web site. Each school district has to allocate its money into a variety of funds. The following numbers, taken from this link on the Flint Hills site, give the historical perspective on some of the largest unencumbered balances in the largest funds. (I believe the original data is here, though be ware that some links at KSDE do go bad after a while.)

Fiscal Year	Capital Outlay	Special Education	Food Services	Contingency Reserve	Total	Annual Change
2000-2001	236,838,411	86,131,293	31,018,006	40,112,012	394,099,722
2001-2002	231,072,221	88,718,083	31,704,918	60,256,269	411,751,491	4.5%
2002-3003	242,160,862	109,042,721	34,557,624	74,345,417	460,106,624	11.7%
2003-2004	306,060,049	130,346,929	33,259,172	80,118,210	549,784,360	19.5%
2004-2005	320,989,321	131,914,785	34,399,477	80,773,479	568,077,062	3.3%
2005-2006	363,830,181	127,419,601	33,854,143	96,626,234	621,730,159	9.4%
2006-2007	382,076,795	145,919,148	37,939,317	106,147,726	672,082,986	8.1%
2007-2008	449,291,653	163,666,930	36,928,843	119,016,020	768,903,446	14.4%
7-Year Change	89.7%	90.0%	19.1%	196.7%	95.1%

In other words, schools have a lot of funds that they could be tapping, and the amount of money has increased from year to year.  KSDE gives the following guidance, which I’ve formatted for easier reading:

* There are no definitive guidelines as to how much money is to be kept in the Capital Outlay Fund-it should be dependent on the size of the district, the age of the buildings, renovations needed, the status of equipment, and numerous other factors.

* There are no requirements for the Special Education Fund cash balance either.

* The Food Service Fund cash balance, however, must not exceed three months’ average expenditures and

* the balance in the Contingency Reserve Fund must not be greater than four percent of the General Fund for years to the 2005-06 school year. For the 2005-06 school year and thereafter, the limit was raised to six percent.

Consistent with these guidelines, the balances in the food service funds have increased the least of these commonly observed funds. The most growth has occurred in the category with the broadest latitude, the contingency reserve funds.

You can also download a spreadsheet file that gives the cash balances, for each fund, for each school district in the state, though only for the 2007-08 school year. The file contains not only the funds mentioned above, but many others, including professional development, summer school, and “extraordinary school.” It also lets you see how much each district has, on a per-FTE basis, when you add up all the funds. The amounts range from $321 per student in USD 438 Skyline to $19,469 in USD 442 Nehama. Actually, USD 422 Greensburg beats them all at $8…. but that’s largely due to the need to rebuild after the tornado. The average district (mean value) has $2,785 per student in reserves.

In a report that accompanies the files, Soutar sums up the total unencumbered balances at $1.36 billion (as of the latest numbers on July 1, 2008). He says that if the Legislature loosened some of the restrictions currently in place, districts could switch money from one fund to another, and thus address some of their financial needs.

He also points out that state law has a spend-it-or-lose-it provision that applies to general funds. This provision could lead to some unwise spending.

Two days after his initial report, Soutar reported that districts can in fact spend some of their unencumbered funds–though only in the contingency reserve funds. Here’s an e-mail on the subject:

—————–

School Districts Permitted to Tap $119 Million in Contingency Funds

As the Kansas legislature continues to discuss options for balancing the 2010 budget, some members are taking a hard look at unencumbered cash balances held by school districts and asking whether districts are able to dip into those funds.

Total unencumbered cash balances totaled $1.36 billion scattered across 27 separate funds as of June 30, 2008. Most of the money in those funds can’t be tapped unless the Legislature revises the rules, but one of those funds is immediately accessible and portions of other funds may be as well.

Dale Dennis, Deputy Commissioner of the Kansas Department of Education, confirmed that district contingency reserve funds are available. According to Kansas statute 72-6426, district boards can use or transfer contingency reserve funds to meet financial contingencies as determined by the board. School districts statewide had $119 million in their contingency reserve funds as of July 1, 2008. Contingency reserve cash statewide has grown 197% since 2001.

School districts also have a special reserve fund which collectively held about $70 million as of June 30, 2008 but districts are limited in its use according to Dennis. Special reserve cash is a sort of self insurance fund set aside to pay claims, judgments, expenses related to health care, disability income benefits, group life insurance, uninsured losses, workers compensation insurance and workers compensation claims according to Kansas statute 72-8249.

The capital outlay fund statewide held $449 million but, according to Dennis, much of that also can’t be touched. According to state law once a tax is levied for a specific purpose the revenues can’t be diverted to a different purpose.

“When we make a levy for a fund like capital outlay we can’t use it for something else,” Dennis said. “We told the taxpayers what we were collecting it for and we’d be lying to them if we used it for something different.”

Some capital outlay funds, however, are not collected through a mil levy but transferred from the General Fund and can be transferred back before June 30, but such transfers are rare according to Dennis. Money left in a district’s general fund at the end of the fiscal year is subtracted from what the district receives from the state the next year. Districts are reluctant to leave money in the general fund and prefer to transfer it to other funds rather than lose the money. It’s unknown how much of the $1.36 billion came from such transfers and therefore likely eligible to be returned to the General Fund, but Legislators have a strong incentive to find the answer.

The legislature has in years past authorized specific transfers beyond what the law allows and some unencumbered cash funds may hold opportunities to meet budget shortfalls if the legislature is willing to write exceptions to current rules.

“The legislature can propose any legislation they want to,” said Mark Dick, executive vice president of Allen, Gibbs & Houlik, an accounting firm that audits state reports. “But there are probably going to be legal hurdles to overcome.”

Many funds were created so legislators can monitor spending for specific programs. These funds are like a fish trap. What swims in can’t swim out.   “Each session they seem to make it more complicated,” said Dennis. “We end up amending it slightly – a little here, a little there and eventually it’s extremely difficult to follow.”

State aid to schools has increased $959 million over the last five years while enrollment is essentially flat. Many legislators are sympathetic to taxpayers who will not accept tax increases on top of private sector layoffs and a worsening economy. With K-12 education accounting for 51% of state spending, legislators are hard pressed to balance the budget as required by the state’s constitution without cuts to education. Some legislators say it comes down to asking school districts to share in the solution to balance the budget or to raise taxes on an already stressed population.

Open Public Records

Sherry Chisenhall, an editor at the Wichita Eagle, comments the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy for its determination to bring to light public county records. The Center has meet resistance from some counties in its efforts to secure some records.  (For background, see this PDF file from the Center’s web site.)

Chisenhall says, in part:

A reader left a voice mail for me late last week, asking me to share some thoughts on a project by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy that sought property tax records from 105 Kansas counties. The gist of the message was that the organization didn’t really have a right to the records — or was doing something wrong by “raising a stink” at being denied records — because it is not a news organization, but is a think tank that supports a specific point of view.

My reaction: Good for FHC. Doesn’t matter who you are or why you want public records. They’re public. Period.

You can read the rest of her remarks, here. While the records aren’t directly related to education, the principle of disclosure should be followed by schools as well.

The New Budget and Education

The Topeka Capital-Journal summarizes the new state budget. It’s $13 billion in total (though I don’t know if that’s general funds or all funds). And when it comes to spending reductions,  “Kansas public schools lost the most — $113 million. The Kansas Department of Administration took the largest percentage hit — 34 percent.”

Another article has this to say about a bill that was sent to the governor for approval:

The bill loosens limits on local option budgets. That’s extra spending districts finance with property tax levies to supplement state aid.

The law allows school districts to add 31 percent to their base state aid. But state aid is due to drop $116 per student during the fiscal year beginning July 1. That automatically would cut districts’ local option budget limits, costing them $44 million.

The bill allows districts to calculate local option budgets based on their base aid before cuts, allowing them to get more money.

The budget was balanced by across-the-board budget cuts in departments, of 5.25 percent. Is that how much school budgets were reduced? Somehow I doubt it.

Kansas K-12 public schools had already lost almost $33 million in base state aid and special education funds in previous rounds of cutting, and the latest budget-balancing plan takes away an additional $83 million [for a total of $116 million]. Base state aid, set at $4,400 per student last fall, will drop by $116 for the next school year.

For perspective, Kansas schools as a whole spent $12,188 per student during the 2007-08 year, according to the state’s Total Expenditure report. A cut of $116 per student? Not terribly significant–at least if schools were able to move funds around to areas where they are most needed.

The Lawrence Journal-World, for its part, had this to say about schools:

Under the budget-balancing plan, public school spending will be cut $83 million in addition to cuts of approximately $45 million in an earlier round.

That’s a total of $128 million, a bit higher than the $116 million cited by the Capital-Journal.

The LJW, in another article, points out that John Robb, an attorney for the school districts that filed suit against the state in the Montoy case, wasn’t happy with the reductions in state funding.  It offers yet another number:  “Since the start of the year, lawmakers have cut school funding by nearly $130 million as part of an effort to balance the budget.” But again, for perspective, state aid to schools in 2007-08 was $3.1 billion.

The Kansas City Star seems to have it right in an article by David Kepler. The headline is “Schools, coal plant come out on top as Kansas Legislature closes.” Here’s what it has to say about schools:

Winners
Schools: Yes, lawmakers cut more than $100 million in school spending. But it could have been a lot worse for public education, which eats up more state dollars than anything else.

The Star moves its articles off line pretty quickly; for now you can find the article here.

Follow Education Legislation on Kansas Votes

Kansas Votes is a new web service of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. You can follow legislation and do many other interesting things related to the process of making our laws.

You can, for example, search legislation by topic, such as education. Right now, there are 76 bills (none have passed) under consideration that deal with education. Some are K-12, while others address higher education.

If you create a user account, you can also receive updates on selected bills or even topics.

So check out Kansas Votes. Our system of government depends on an informed public. Kansas Votes can keep you informed.

Is 65 Percent the Solution?

The Speaker’s call for administrative savings in Kansas schools may make you wonder about the “65 percent solution,” a proposal that had some currency a while ago to make 65 percent of school spending to be devoted to “instructional” purposes.

Good idea or bad?

Frederick M. Hess of the Brookings Institution offers some perspective:

• The 65 percent figure (or indeed, any figure) is arbitrary.
• It has no demonstrated relationship to efficiency in spending.
• The proposition “ focuses attention on dubious input measures.”
• Creative forms of problem-solving, such as new forms of tutoring. may be inhibited.
• Education reform should give teachers and administrators flexibility and hold them accountable for results. The 65 percent solution focuses on inputs.
• There is still some discretion as to how school districts classify a given expenditure, and this requirement could mean yet more money spent on accounting to ensure compliance.

Then there’s this interesting piece:

“In fact, reformers might wind up wishing that schools would cook the books. After all, the easiest ways to fulfill the mandate is to give teachers an across-the-board raise or go on a teacher hiring binge. Experience offers little reason to believe that such expenditures are an efficient use of funds. In fact, easy money has allowed teachers unions to avoid tougher teacher evaluation methods, performance-based pay and other efforts to modernize the profession. While the unions have been skeptical of the measure, no one should be surprised if they ultimately turn out to be its biggest winners.”

Meanwhile, Jeanne Allen, of the Center for Education Reform, had this to say in the center’s newsletter of February 7, 2006:

65 PERCENT SHELL GAME. It is an enticing proposal: 65 percent of all money in the public school system must be spent on what is classified as “direct classroom expenditures.” Governor Sonny Purdue of Georgia is just one of the governors pushing the legislation, which on its face would assure that money go directly to students’ education and not get lost in bureaucracy. However, the term “direct classroom expenditures” leaves a great deal of wiggle room. Bureaucracies love wiggle room. One argument, offered by Tom Crawford in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, notes that ‘direct classroom expenditures’ include activities such as field trips, athletics, music and arts, but not building maintenance, transportation, media centers, teacher training and guidance counselors. Under the 65 percent solution, “this means that uniforms for the football team would by law be a higher priority for school spending than nurses to treat ailing students, buses to bring students to school.” A deeper problem is that mandating any amount of money in the classroom doesn’t address the single biggest challenge the US faces – low student achievement. CER president Jeanne Allen calls it the politician’s equivalent of a chicken in every pot: sounds great, but has little impact on the real problem. But with the very successful entrepreneur and founder of Overstock.Com, Patrick Byrne, behind the initiative, it is a natural elixir for any politician.

Fair enough.

Our friend at the Independence Institute, Ben DeGrow, offered a warning about administrators working around any requirement:

Yet little could stop most school districts from merely hiring another bureaucrat to reconfigure the chart of accounts or rename job titles to meet the mandate.

A reader who browses through the Colorado Department of Education’s thick chart of accounts can get an idea of how easily school budgets can be manipulated.

Of course, it is possible that some school boards actually would eliminate some administrative staff positions (many of which were created to comply with federal regulations) in order to hire more teachers. They also might offer salary bonuses to their existing faculty or buy more textbooks and classroom computers. Maybe they would cut non-instructional costs through competitive contracting for services like maintenance or trash removal.

Regardless of what a school board might do in response, no connection has been found between the percentage spent on “classroom instruction” and the resulting student achievement.

DeGrow also calls the idea a symbol rather than a solution.

Should schools spend less on administration and more on classrooms? Ideally, yes. But the 65 percent solution is an arbitrary response to a real problem–rising costs and stagnant performance–baked into today’s political approach to education. Efficiency in any enterprise (think of Wal-Mart’s legendary logistics) best comes through the discipline of customers who can take their dollars anywhere, not a government fiat.

It’s better, at this point, to step back and consider how we cut costs in other areas of life. In the last decade, businesses across industries have worked hard to cut costs. Banks have replaced tellers and bricks-and-mortar branches with ATMs and online banking. Gas stations have gone self-service, except in two states where it’s illegal. Wal-Mart has become so good at wringing out costs through its exceptionally smart and powerful logistics system that some economists credit that single company with being a substantial reason why inflation has been kept in check lately.

In each of these cases, the organizations have saved money because it’s in their financial interest to do so. These and other innovations have not come about because a government agency convened a panel and said to the business “save money or else.” No, companies have become more efficient because it’s good for their business: It makes their products and services cheaper and thus more attractive, increasing the top line of revenue as well as the bottom line of profit. In short, the market has been at work.

But what about government? Can we expect a government organization to use the power of the market? In fact, some already do, though imperfectly. The food stamp program isn’t flawless, certainly–fraud is always a concern–but it is a good example of how markets can help governments save money. Think about how it uses the market versus how it might use politics.

If we used a political approach to hunger, legislatures would establish government-run grocery stores in each county. Each store would have a director and various assistants. Before long, you might hear someone call for a study commission to look at reducing the number of people who direct government-owned grocery stores.

Thankfully, we don’t have to deal with that situation. That’s because we give money directly to the poor, and they spend the money in the same grocery stores that the rest of us use–stores that, due to competitive pressures, are always on the lookout for cost-saving measures. Let parents control how education dollars are spent, and that change will do much more to drive down overhead than any legislatively-imposed accounting standard.

Latest on Virtual Schools

Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning 2008 offers an introduction to online learning.

Full-time or supplemental?

One common way of disaggregating online programs is to distinguish between supplementary and full-time programs.

Programs are (generally) supplemental or full-time. Though the distinction is not always sharp, here are some of the qualities that generally characterize the two types of programs.

Supplemental programs:

• A student takes one or two courses online but are otherwise enrolled in a traditional school.
• No Child Left Behind and other assessment requirements are levied on the traditional school program.
• Are generally funded by a dedicated appropriation from the legislature.
• Their growth is measured by the number of course registrations. One-third are increasing registration by a rate of more than 50 percent a year.
• They’re generally at the high-school level.
• Most are run by a state education agency, not necessarily the department of education.
• Supplemental programs are more common than full-time ones: While 17 states offer “significant” full-time programs, 23 offer “significant” supplemental programs.
• Generally, “state-led online programs” are created by the state, are open to students anywhere in the state, and offer supplemental opportunities to students. The Illinois Virtual High School, the Kentucky Virtual High School, and the Michigan Virtual High School are examples.

Full-time programs:

• A student is enrolled exclusively in an online program.
• No Child Left Behind and other assessment requirements are levied on the full-time program.
• In most states are funded by a per-pupil formula for full-time enrollment equivalent (FTE).
• Their growth is measured by FTE enrollment, not course registration.
• Their growth comes not so much from more students enrolling in existing programs, but more programs being developed. On the other hand, the second-largest full-time program grew 25 percent in the year surveyed.
• Are generally not run by a state-level agency. The exception is the Florida Virtual School, which has over 700 full-tine students, but many more students taking supplemental classes.
• May be run by either a charter school or a local school district.
• Often supported by an organization such as Connections Academy, K12 Inc., Insight Schools, or iQ Academies, which provides content, teacher training and management.

Who takes online classes?

A variety of students, though it appears that honors students outnumber students who are “credit recovery,” or making up failed or missed classes.

Some numbers about growth of online learning

• Most small programs are run by districts (LEAs, technically); most big programs are run by a state agency.
• The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School has 7,798 students. It is the largest full-time program. The second-largest program is the Ohio Virtual Academy, at 5,225 students. But most full-time programs have fewer than 1,000 students.
• Nearly one-third of all supplemental programs have seen course registration increase by 50 percent or more.
• Programs that felt constrained in their growth blamed funding more than any other cause. These were generally supplemental rather than full-time programs. The policy environment was the second-leading concern.

Policy Issues

The report mentions some policy issues that face online learning, including:

How should students and programs be assessed? One way is to take a snapshot test of online programs, but many people think that a “growth model” is the best way of assessing the student and the program.

Should teachers be required to take additional training? Do teachers learn how to teach in a virtual school setting? Some states are deciding that the answer is yes, and creating new requirements.

Can students take an online program anywhere, only only in their own district? Some states still place restrictions on students seeking online coursework. Should a student’s district of residence have a veto over whether he takes an online class offered by another district? Incredibly, in some states that is the rule. But if a student does “leave” the district for a program offered elsewhere, how much money goes with him? The state base amount? Local money?

How quickly can home-school and private school students be eligible for these programs? Some states say that only students who attended a public school in the previous year may attend a public virtual school. While we recognize the concern over funding, this requirement fails to recognize that the focus of public education should be about educating students. Making a student first spend a year in a public school would be, for many students, making them “mark time” until they can do what they really want–learn in a way that works for them.

What should be the basis of funding? : Based on geography? Should funding for online schooling be based on geography, or should the same amount be allocated to each student’s online learning regardless of where he lives?

What about elementary students? While most students who take part in online learning are high school students, some are elementary school. The appropriateness of online learning for lower-division students presents a host of questions that we’re going to omit for now.

Will online learning truly disrupt class? Business professor Clayton Christensen suggests in his book “Disrupting Class” that online learning will revolutionize education. The authors of Keeping Pace, by contrast, warn that any transformation is not automatic. They point out that the people who benefit from online learning (students) are not the people who fund schooling (that would be legislators) or purchase educational services (for now, that’s school districts). In other words, there are a lot of institutional obstacles to online learning being a significant force for change.

Where does Kansas fit in?

How does Kansas compare with other states?

• There are 35 programs in the state, run either by a school district or an educational service center.
• It does not have a state-led supplemental program; 34 states do.
• It does offer full-time programs; 21 states do.
• It is one of 17 states to offer both supplemental and full-time programs.
• Two states (Kansas is not one of them) currently or will require that a student take at least one online class to graduate.
• Florida is the only state to require that all districts create or provide an online learning program.
• In Kansas, Colorado, Idaho and Wisconsin, program audits led to suggestions that a moratorium be placed on online learning. Instead, the legislatures in each state placed additional regulations on the programs, but not a moratorium.
• By contrast, two states (Connecticut and Delaware) scaled back their plans, citing budget concerns.
• Unlike Wisconsin, it does not place a cap on the number of students who can take an online class or participate in an online program offered by another district. Unlike the Texas Legislature, the Kansas Legislature has not opposed students crossing district lines.
• Kansas gives an equal funding to students regardless of geography. (This is a good thing.)

Recommendations of the report

• Make sure that families are free to choose online learning.
• Schools of education should teach future teachers how to teach online courses.
• States should recognize teaching credentials of other states. This will help teachers cross state lines.
• Create a national standard for content. [Not sure we can buy into that.]
• Revise financial standard to make sure that the qualities of the online environment are taken into account, rather than depend on “seat time” and other old-school measures.
• Establish basic tools for measuring program quality. For example, do students complete courses?

Here are some other takeaways from the report, though not formal conclusions:

Per-pupil funding models are more stable than legislative appropriations.

Kansas Resources

Finally, KSDE has a portal to information on virtual schools.

Flunked the Movie Coming to Wichita

TWO THUMBS UP FOR “FLUNKED”
A must see for those who care about education

(WICHITA, Kansas) – You won’t see violence or suspense in the movie Flunked, but it is truly a scary show, as it foretells serious trouble ahead for American students.

The average American student is no longer able to compete academically. In Kansas, nearly six out of ten eighth grade students have substandard math skills, nearly half are not good readers, and four students out of ten fail to graduate from high school, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

These fundamental skills are critical in today’s workplace and economy, and recent studies indicate American students are falling far behind students in other countries.

As dire as it seems, this story has a hero, in fact many heroes. These heroes are teachers and principals who are achieving great success with their creative approaches to education. The movie Flunked profiles these heroes, and highlights the common threads of successful education: strong leadership, high standards, excellent teachers, and solid curricula.

Flunked has been widely hailed as a groundbreaking film, racking up awards such as Best Educational Documentary at the Bayou City Inspirational Film Festival, Honorable Mention in the Accolade Competition, and has been accepted into the San Fernando Valley International Film Festival.

The movie will premiere in Wichita on Wednesday, October 8 at 6 p.m. at the Orpheum Theatre, 200 North Broadway. Producer Steve Maggi will be on hand for questions. The one-time-only showing is sponsored by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, and Citizens for Better Education. These groups hope the movie will provide inspiration, ideas, and dialogue about improving the education of our children.

This event is open to the public at no cost, although school supply donations are encouraged.

The doors will open at 5 p.m. for a reception and refreshments. The show will run from 6:00 to 6:45 p.m., followed by a question and answer session. Make reservations by calling the Flint Hills Center at 634-0218, or at www.flinthills.org.

Flint Hills Center for Public Policy • 250 N. Water, Suite 216 • Wichita, KS 67202-1215 • (316) 634-0218

As a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank, the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy is an independent voice for sound public policy solutions that will enhance the well-being of all Kansans. Visit www.flinthills.org for more information.

Who’s Making Progress?

KSDE has released a list of schools and districts not making “Adequate Yearly Progress” as required by No Child Left Behind.

If one of the subgroups of students within a school (race, income, disabled, etc.) does not perform at the specified level of proficiency across the district, that school fails to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP.

If one of the subgroups of students across a district (race, income, disabled, etc.) does not perform at the specified level of proficiency across the district, that district fails to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP.

A total of 63 districts–a full 20 percent of all districts–fell afoul of the requirements one way or the other.

In 19 cases, the district as a whole as well as at least one of its school failed to make AYP.

In 31 cases, at least one school in the district failed, but the district as a whole made AYP.

In 13 cases, the district as a whole failed to make AYP, but each of its schools made AYP.

So as you can see, the difference is whether you look at particular schools or the district as a whole.

——————

			Not Making AYP, 2008 Edition
District No	Name		District fail?	School No.		School
D0202	Turner-Kansas City		Yes	164		Turner Elem
D0202	Turner-Kansas City			167		Turner Middle School
D0204	Bonner Springs		Yes	210		Bonner Springs Elementary
D0204	Bonner Springs			216		Edwardsville Elem
D0204	Bonner Springs			221		Robert E Clark Middle
D0207	Ft Leavenworth		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0210	Hugoton Public		No	357		Hugoton Middle
D0213	West Solomon Valley		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0214	Ulysses		Yes	450		Hickok Elem
D0214	Ulysses			444		Sullivan Elem
D0228	Hanston		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0233	Olathe		No	865		Olathe South Sr High
D0243	Lebo-Waverly		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0246	Northeast		No	1194		Northeast Elem
D0247	Cherokee		No	1230		South East High
D0253	Emporia		No	1406		Turning Point Learning Center
D0253	Emporia			1418		W A White Elem
D0257	Iola		Yes	1562		Iola Middle School
D0259	Wichita		Yes	1614		Adams Elem
D0259	Wichita			1646		Clark Elem
D0259	Wichita			1808		Curtis Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1660		Enterprise Elem
D0259	Wichita			1814		Hamilton Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1846		Heights High
D0259	Wichita			1628		Jackson Elementary
D0259	Wichita			1704		Kelly Liberal Arts Academy
D0259	Wichita			1718		Linwood Elementary
D0259	Wichita			1824		Mayberry Cultural Magnet Middle
D0259	Wichita			1837		Metro Blvd Alt High
D0259	Wichita			1742		Metro Meridian Alt High
D0259	Wichita			1852		Metro Midtown Alt High
D0259	Wichita			1838		North High
D0259	Wichita			1756		Park Elementary
D0259	Wichita			1840		South High
D0259	Wichita			1842		Southeast High
D0259	Wichita			1693		Spaght Accelerated Magnet
D0259	Wichita			1782		Stanley Elem
D0259	Wichita			1785		Stucky Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1834		Truesdell Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1844		West High
D0259	Wichita			1796		White Elem
D0259	Wichita			1833		Wilbur Middle School
D0260	Derby		No	1926		Derby Middle Sch
D0261	Haysville		No	1956		Campus High Haysville
D0261	Haysville			1961		Prairie Elementary School
D0265	Goddard		No	2027		Goddard Middle School
D0266	Maize		No	2050		Maize Sr High
D0287	West Franklin		Yes	2559		Appanoose Elementary School
D0290	Ottawa		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0300	Comanche Co		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0305	Salina		No	3026		Salina High Central
D0308	Hutchinson		Yes	3102		Avenue A Elem
D0308	Hutchinson			3130		Hutchinson Middle School
D0308	Hutchinson			3114		Lincoln Elem
D0308	Hutchinson			3116		McCandless Elem
D0308	Hutchinson			3124		Wiley Elem
D0312	Haven Public Sc		No	3241		Pleasantview Academy Grade S
D0330	Mission Valley		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0343	Perry Public Sc		No	4029		Perry-Lecompton Middle
D0352	Goodland		Yes	4224		Grant Junior High
D0353	Wellington		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0365	Garnett		Yes	4590		Garnett Elem
D0367	Osawatomie		No	4665		Osawatomie Middle School
D0369	Burrton		No	4734		Burrton Elem
D0373	Newton		No	4807		Santa Fe Middle
D0373	Newton			4799		Slate Creek Elementary
D0382	Pratt		No	5090		Liberty Middle School
D0383	Manhattan-Ogden		No	5130		Theo Roosevelt Elem
D0394	Rose Hill Public		No	5374		Rose Hill Intermediate
D0395	LaCrosse		No	5396		La Crosse Middle School
D0398	Peabody-Burns		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0402	Augusta		No	5560		Augusta Middle School
D0404	Riverton		No	5620		Riverton Elem
D0407	Russell County		No	5722		Ruppenthal Middle
D0417	Morris County		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0418	McPherson		No	6038		McPherson Middle School
D0420	Osage City		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0433	Midway Schools		Yes	6428		Doniphan West Middle School
D0435	Abilene		No	6475		Abilene Middle School
D0443	Dodge City		No	6686		Dodge City High School
D0443	Dodge City			6684		Dodge City Middle School
D0445	Coffeyville		Yes	6756		Community Elementary
D0445	Coffeyville			6770		Roosevelt Middle
D0446	Independence		No	6828		Independence Middle
D0447	Cherryvale		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0450	Shawnee Heights		No	6945		Shawnee Heights Middle
D0450	Shawnee Heights			6948		Tecumseh South Elem
D0453	Leavenworth		Yes	7008		Earl M Lawson Elem
D0453	Leavenworth			7020		Leavenworth Sr High
D0453	Leavenworth			7026		Leavenworth Virtual School
D0453	Leavenworth			7018		Leavenworth West Middle School
D0453	Leavenworth			7022		Muncie Elem
D0453	Leavenworth			7016		Nettie Hartnett/Ben Day Elem
D0453	Leavenworth			7017		Richard W. Warren Middle School
D0457	Garden City		Yes	7130		Garden City Sr High
D0457	Garden City			7138		Kenneth Henderson Middle
D0465	Winfield		No	7331		Winfield Intermediate School
D0465	Winfield			7333		Winfield Middle School
D0467	Leoti		No	7383		Wichita Co Jr High
D0476	Copeland		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0480	Liberal		Yes	7715		Cottonwood Intermediate School
D0480	Liberal			7714		Garfield Elem
D0480	Liberal			7728		Liberal South Middle
D0480	Liberal			7730		Liberal West Middle
D0480	Liberal			7724		Southlawn Elem
D0495	Ft Larned		No	8140		Larned Middle School
D0497	Lawrence		No	8195		Deerfield Elem
D0497	Lawrence			8198		Hillcrest Elem
D0497	Lawrence			8200		Kennedy Elem
D0497	Lawrence			8214		Lawrence Central Jr Hi
D0497	Lawrence			8224		Lawrence Free State High
D0497	Lawrence			8218		Lawrence High
D0500	Kansas City		Yes	8320		Argentine Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8324		Arrowhead Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8280		Central Elementary School
D0500	Kansas City			8316		Central Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8328		Coronado Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8331		D D Eisenhower Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8288		Emerson Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8329		F L Schlagle High
D0500	Kansas City			8294		Fairfax Campus
D0500	Kansas City			8308		Frank Rushton Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8332		Hazel Grove Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8290		John Fiske Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8342		Lindbergh Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8298		Mark Twain Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8303		Noble Prentis Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8305		Quindaro Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8321		Rosedale Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8282		Silver City Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8346		Stony Point South
D0500	Kansas City			8352		Welborn Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8319		West Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8313		Whittier Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8323		Wyandotte High
D0501	Topeka		Yes	8442		Avondale East Elem
D0501	Topeka			8552		Capital City
D0501	Topeka			8524		Eisenhower Middle School
D0501	Topeka			8469		Hope St Academy Charter Middle
D0501	Topeka			8532		Landon Middle School
D0501	Topeka			8471		Linn Elem
D0501	Topeka			8474		Lundgren Elem
D0501	Topeka			8494		Quincy Elem
D0501	Topeka			8444		Shaner Elem
D0501	Topeka			8504		State Street Elem
D0501	Topeka			8512		Whitson Elem
D0503	Parsons		Yes	8594		Parsons Middle School
D0503	Parsons			8596		Parsons Sr High
D0511	Attica		Yes	8764		Attica High
D0512	Shawnee Mission		Yes	8784		Bluejacket-Flint
D0512	Shawnee Mission			8793		Comanche Elem
D0512	Shawnee Mission			8880		Indian Woods Middle

Preschool Good for Some–But Should Taxpayers Fund it for All?

John McClaughry, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, echoes some of our concerns about the push towards universal preschool.

On using previous studies to justify universal preschool, he says:

“The Perry Preschool, Chicago Parent Child Center, and Abecedarian experiments, three projects frequently touted as showing the benefits of preschool] “dealt with seriously at-risk children. … Pouring the resources to the most desperate children can hardly help but produce some benefits, and most people would probably agree that it’s an inescapable public cost. But to proclaim 4-to-1 or 7-to-1 rates of return for investment in a program for all children is just not honest.”

On the motivation for universal programs, he says:

“The impetus for this movement comes from several different sources. A lot of sincere people think that lavishing lots of dollars on preschoolers is the next big thing in social progress. The Department of Education is obviously eager to expand the public school system. The NEA teachers’ union will naturally be enthusiastic, anticipating that expanded public preschool programs will bring them hundreds of dues-paying members.

A major driving force is business. Universal preschool, especially when it expands from a 10-hour a week to a 30-or 40 hour a week program, will be a boon to business. If kids are in school at 3 and 4, their employees won’t have to pay for day care, and the employer won’t have to provide for or bargain about day care.”

And in another column, he adds this:

First, “free” preschools are popular with working parents who would otherwise have to pay for day care. Second, two more public-school grades would mean more jobs and more teachers and miscellaneous aides. Third, for a lot of advocates, getting toddlers away from their unqualified parents and into public programs run by people with credentials is a step towards improving society.”

On the threat of universal programs to existing preschool businesses, he say:

“Universal ‘free’ government pre-K programs will either swallow up or wipe out small day-care businesses. For those–especially liberals–concerned about closing the achievement gap between at-risk kids and all other kids, universal preschool won’t do it. It will just eat up the funding that might do it.”

If a legislature wishes to expand a preschool program, he offers several alternatives, including:

“Give parents $2,500 vouchers that they could cash in at the public, private, or religious preschool of their choice. This would cost considerably less than taxpayer financing of unionized, credentialed public preschools. It would … keep alive the private day-care businesses that are in mortal peril if ‘free’ universal preschool is enacted.

A third approach would be to give a tax credit, as Arizona does, for contributions to nonprofit scholarship funding organizations … that offer scholarships to needy children to attend the preschool of their parents’ choice.”

Finally, McClaughy asks some hard questions, including these:

“If there are no identifiable educational benefits by the time children have reached third grade, why should the taxpayer be asked to pay for ‘preschools’? Isn’t this just a subsidized day care program for rich and poor alike?”

“How much in tax dollars does it take to give preschool children an identifiable educational benefit four years later, compared to children who have attended only K-3? Is that benefit worth the taxpayer investment?”

“If preschools for at-risk children help them close the achievement gap with their more favored peers, why won’t universal preschool maintain that gap indefinitely?”

“If private day care centers are drawn into a ‘collaborate’ controlled by the public school system, will the public school system not force higher teacher credentialing regulations on the operators  and staff of the day care centers? Will this result in any identifiable improvement for the children, or will it only replace day care operators with more costly (and unionized) public school teachers?”

Pre-K Recommendations

The Texas Public Policy Foundation offers some recommendations on pre-K programs that might be of interest to Kansans. It comes from a new report published this month. The title, Do Small Kids Need Big Government? (PDF) may strike some observers as unnecessarily antagonistic. But the report offers up a history of pre-K initiatives

Vouchers Help Special Education Kids

A new report from the Manhattan Institute says that special education vouchers have helped children in Florida. Some programs of choice in that state have been struck down due to lawsuits, but the McKay Scholarship Program lives on–and appears to have some benefits.

Innovative Charter School Operator

Want to see what sorts of innovations a charter school can allow? The Washington Post has a profile of a married couple who head Imagine Schools, which operates over 50 charter schools.

Home Schools Under Attack

As you’ve probably heard, a court in California has ruled that laws in that state require all home-schooling parents to have state certification as teachers.

There is no shortage of commentary on the subject. Here’s one article by Liam Julian, who works at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Here’s a key paragraph dealing with the “hard case” nature of this situation, which is the allegation of child abuse:

Some adults abuse their children. It’s awful, but it’s not a compelling argument for criminalizing home schooling. Limiting parents’ ability to home school in order to combat child abuse is a crude solution for a more specific problem. It is also, perhaps, not much of a crude solution: the high rates of truancy in many public schools; the anonymity that can pervade at some of the larger, more impersonal ones; and the migration of students between states and cities and classrooms render it possible that abusive parents may be just as abusive for just as long regardless of whether their child attends the local school or stays at home. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that students have a greater chance of being abused at school than at home — in fact, that’s precisely why many parents home school in the first place.

And of course most parents, homeschooling or not, do not abuse their children–a fact that makes the rationale for exerting a large burden on parents who wish to homeschool indefensible.

Meanwhile, the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy has released an op-ed on the question, too. It’s called Homeschooling in California and the Good Society in Kansas (PDF).

A key thought:

As it goes about its business, then, government must operate within limits. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle many times. Other limits include the Bill of Rights; a division of power between the national government and the state governments; and checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Limits on government are an essential part the American fabric.

Equally important to American life is the recognition that the political sphere is only one of several vital institutions in society. Others include the family; religious communities; the world of commerce; and voluntary organizations.

Each of these institutions is valuable, providing something necessary for life. Each has its own purposes and operating principles. “Treat everyone the same” may be a good principle for public programs, for example, but most parents will find that it’s not a good idea for childrearing.

Trouble results when one institution acts like another.

Plato’s Republic on the Plains

Plato wanted the children of the ruling class to be parented in common. Today’s would-be education reformers seem to be on the same path, hoping to expand the public school system from 7 year-olds (the current age of mandatory enrollment) down to 6-year olds.

In addition, there’s a great effort, starting from presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on down, to greatly expand the depth and scope of government involvement in early children’s lives. In Kansas, Gov. Sebelius favors expanding preschool services to all children, at least on a voluntary basis.

Some preschool experiments cited by officials such as the Kansas governor take children from as young as infancy and put them into programs funded by taxpayers. Sometimes the money even goes directly into the budgets of government agencies, such as school districts.

There are several problems with this idea, however. The experiments used to justify universal preschool have serious methodological problems that call into question the value of expanding them to the entire population. In addition, the problems with K-12 education don’t occur in the earliest of years, but instead start showing up in middle schools and high schools.

So why the fascination with the early years? One reason may be that it’s easier to expand the current public (government-run) education system than it is to reform it.

As appealing as the logic of universal pre-K may be, there’s a final reason to cast a critical eye on it: putting all or even a majority of very young children into government-run programs threatens the balance of responsibilities among important institutions such as family, religion, business, and government. Some level of government is required, but too much distorts a society.

Read more on this topic in a new report issued by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. It’s called (PDF) Plato’s Republic on the Plains: Should Kansas Really Embrace State-Financed Early Childhood Education?

Making Kindergarten Mandatory? No.

Last year we noted that Sen. Jean Schodorf, suggested making kindergarten mandatory. We didn’t think that such an obvious attack on parental choice and discretion would go anywhere. Obviously we were wrong, as the headline in the February 29 edition of the Wichita Eagle makes clear: Senate OKs mandatory Kindergarten Attendance.

A bill requiring Kansas public-school students to attend kindergarten was approved 36-3 Thursday by the Kansas Senate, while an amendment to phase in money for all-day kindergarten failed in the House.Current state law does not mandate kindergarten attendance.

Sen. Schodorf says that this rule doesn’t apply to private schools (isn’t that obvious?), and adds that parents can petition the schools for an exemption. But the senator has it backwards: the decision should be opt-in, not opt out.

In addition (nearly by necessity), the bill would also lower the mandatory school-entering age from 7 to 6.

So far money is one factor:

Money is the same reason several lawmakers cited for voting against a House amendment that would have phased in payments for all-day kindergarten over five years starting in the 2009-10 school year.Initially, the program would cost $15 million. That would build to $75 million, which would become a permanent part of the education budget, said Rep. Ed Trimmer, R-Winfield. Trimmer proposed the amendment to House Bill 2734 that would change how consolidated school districts are funded.

But there ought to be a more fundamental point: Given that the problems with education appear in middle school and high school, the state should not be bringing ever-younger children into the existing school system.

Early Childhood Proposals

Should Kansas expand K-12 to E-12? That’s a proposal being advocated in some quarters. But before Kansans expand the existing school system, they ought to consider some evidence.

Writing for the Washington Policy Center, Liv Finne looks at Early Learning Proposals in Washington State. The report starts out with the number of children in institutional care of some sort (roughly 23 percent of children under kindergarten age) and the cost of that care (median cost in 2005: $8,840 for an infant; $7,540 for a toddler; $6,916 for a preschooler). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation identifies one in four children under age 5 to be at risk to fail socially and academically for a variety of factors.

Finne addresses and then critiques four major arguments in favor of government-based programs for young children.

Will it improve their neurological functioning and thus contribute to a better education? It’s a lot more complicated than advocates argue. Children can bounce back from rough beginnings more than we think, while institutional care, even of the best kind, is not as good as we think. A key point here is that a better use of resources would be to focus on children already in institutional care, rather than expanding the number of children in that care.

Will it save money by avoiding welfare and criminal justice costs? Perhaps–but much of the enthusiasm for early childhood education calls for universal programs, making overall spending on pre-k programs less cost-effective than advertised.

Do the Perry, Abecedarian and Chicago studies prove that intense pre-K programs can compensate for early risk factors? Again, not necessarily. These programs are more intense than anything advocated in Washington, and they’re rather expensive, limiting the likelihood that they will be replicated on a large scale. In addition, some factors involved in the programs, such as improved parent-child interaction, don’t necessarily need a program like these three.

Finally, does institutional care provide the social and emotional skills required for learning at school? More likely, parent-child interaction produces those skills. Indeed, participation full-day kindergarten is associated with less, not more preparedness towards learning.

FADE OUT

One major problem with using pre-K as the skeleton key to unlock educational success is that such programs are prone to fade-out: that is, their benefits tend to disappear over time.

COSTS OF INSTITUTIONAL CARE

The costs of institutional care, the report suggests, can be personal (increased aggression, for example), academic (undermining natural curiosity) and financial . The financial costs, assuming the ideal setting as envisioned by the National Institute for Early Education Research, come out to $11,000 per child–about as much as the K-12 system costs in Kansas.

Any program, the report suggests, should be limited to low-income families and voluntary, with families able to transfer children between programs as the need requires.

Governor Takes More Active Role

From an editorial in the Wichita Eagle:

The governor names the Kansas Board of Regents. The voters elect the members of the State Board of Education. Rarely do the two panels meet, let alone collaborate. But this week’s first joint meeting of the two boards in four years could change that …. Both groups decided Tuesday to ask Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to create a new 17-member panel to study how to better align public education in Kansas — from preschool through postgraduate programs and into the workplace. She would lead the group …. Among other things, such a council could help make the state’s chief executive more than an onlooker of K-12 education — one glaring weakness in Kansas’ current governance structure. …

Weakness? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. After all, diversification of responsibility has some merits. It is built into the American political system, through federalism. This sounds, on the other hand, like something that will hinder innovation by reducing suggestions to the least-common denominator.

The offered rationale seems to be, however, that if we get everyone in one room, things can be improved:

“I think a lot of times we give legislators mixed messages from different groups and inaction is the result,” said Regents chairwoman Christine Downey-Schmidt, a former state senator from Inman. “This has great potential to create something positive for kids in Kansas.”

Of course legislators get mixed messages. Start with the fact that there are various interest groups, whose interests include financial self-interest, ideological interest, and add in competing visions of what education should look like, and the result will be … mixed messages. Should these differing ideas somehow be addressed outside the legislature?

Editorial writer Rhonda Holman seems to argue that the panel should decide policy for the legislature:

Some board members …. wanted to ensure the new council sufficiently represents business and the Legislature.

The last point is key. Business is the primary customer of Kansas’ public schools and colleges, and has a keen sense of what they’re doing right and wrong. And Kansas does not need another advisory committee, about education or anything else, making recommendations the Legislature will ignore.

Source: Panel to Study Preschool to Postgrad, Wichita Eagle, November 16

The Private School Universe in Kansas

Wonder what the world of private schools in Kansas looks like? You can now download a PDF list of private schools in Kansas. The list contains information from KSDE as well as the web site GreatSchools.Net.

Go to the Private Schools page and look for “Private School Census.”

Are States Fudging Test Scores?

You get word that your third-grade student is proficient in math and reading. Congratulations!

Does that mean that Johnny or Suzie will be successful in middle school? You’d like to think so, but of course, that’s not guaranteed. You may find out that when your child gets to eighth grade, the test scores aren’t so good.

The reason may have nothing to do with your child. It may simply be that there’s something askew with the tests.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, with financial backing (in part) from the Joyce Foundation and a few other groups, has looked at state proficiency scores across the country. One of the most troubling findings: states tend to have high standards for elementary school students but laxer standards for middle school students.

From the press release:

Washington–The tests states use to measure academic progress and student proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act are creating a false impression of success, especially in reading and especially in the early grades, concludes a major new study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association. Analysts found that states are aiming particularly low when it comes to their expectations for younger children, setting elementary students up to fail as they progress through their academic careers.

In simplest terms, the percentage of a test that a student must answer correctly to be labeled proficient (the “cut rate”) isn’t consistent in any of three dimensions.

• Across states: Massachusetts may demand that a student get 60 percent of the answers right, while Colorado may demand only 40 percent.
• Across subjects within a state: Further, many states count subjects differently: a 50 percent is good enough to pass reading, for example, while 75 percent is required for math.
• Across grade levels within a subject within a state: Finally, the percentage within a subject may vary from grade to grade: a 60 percent may good enough for Missouri’s 3rd grade math test, but 80 percent is required for the 8th grade math test.

(These numbers are for illustration purposes only.)

So what did the researchers find about Kansas?

“We found that Kansas’s definition of ‘proficiency’ in reading and mathematics are relatively consistent with the standards set by the other 25 states in this study. in other words, Kansas’s tests are about average in difficulty.

Like many states, however, Kansas’s math proficiency cut scores are easier in the earlier grades than in the later grades (taking into account the obvious differences in subject content and children’s development). Therefore, the reported proficiency rates may overestimate the proportion of third-grade students who are actually on track to be proficient in eighth-grade mathematics.

Moreover, Kansas’s reading cut scores are generally easier than the state’s corresponding math cut scores for a given grade.

State policymakers might consider adjusting their math cut scores to ensure equivalent difficulty at all grades so that parents and schools can be assured that elementary school students are scoring at proficient level are truly prepared for success later in their educational careers.

Further, state leaders need to be aware of the disparity between math and reading standards when evaluating differences in teacher and student performance across these domains.”

The report also observes:

“Kansas’s cut reading cut scores are generally easier than the corresponding math cut score for a given grade. Thus, reported differences in achievement between the two subjects may be more a product of differences in cut scores than in actual student achievement.

In other words, Kansas students might be performing worse in reading and better in mathematics than is apparent just by looking at the percentage of students passing state tests in those subjects.”

Getting to the particulars, the proficiency cut scores ranged from the 29th to the 40th percentile (in reading) and from the 30th to the 45th percentile (in mathematics). That’s a variation of 50 percent across grades in terms of how rigorous the tests are.

For reading, here are the cut rates for the reading test:

• Grade 3 – 35
• Grade 4 – 29
• Grade 5 – 40
• Grade 6 – 32
• Grade 7 – 32
• Grade 8 – 33

As far as consistency goes, not the worst though the passing score is fairly low. (Notice that none of the numbers go above 40).

Here are the cut scores for the math test:

• Grade 3 – 30
• Grade 4 – 34
• Grade 5 – 35
• Grade 6 -33
• Grade 7 – 45
• Grade 8 – 38

You can find the entire report (over 200+ pages, since it contains 3-4 pages for each state, plus a discussion and various appendices) the the Proficiency Illusion page of the web site.

Bel Aire Joins Wichita

The City of Bel Aire is moving lock, stock and barrel into USD 259. At least if the City Council has its way. The city’s land had been split between USD259 Wichita and USD 375 Circle, but the Council has voted to support a move all city land to USD 259.

The Ark City News set the stage on September 14 (“Families want to maintain school choice in Bel Aire”)

Officials with USD 259 last month asked city leaders if they would support transferring more than 10 square miles of land in the northeast part of the county from the Circle school district into their district. Recent annexations have pushed Bel Aire’s city limits eastward, dividing the city between the two districts. Bel Aire’s west side is in USD 259, but the lesser-developed east side is in USD 375. This portion, however, is expected to see rapid growth in the next few years.

USD 259 has expressed interest in constructing a middle school and possibly a high school in Bel Aire.

But … their interest would be heightened if they had all of Bel Aire.

Residents were divided on whether having two districts or one is a better idea:

For Connell, keeping the boundaries between the two districts as they are is about choices.

Versus:

“Having schools in Bel Aire is a critical factor to create that common ground for residents,” Bruckner said. “Community development leads to economic development.”

Common ground can exist outside of schools, can it not? Scouts, sports leagues, churches, and many other organizations give us a chance to find common ground. And our ability to have choices … is another common ground.

USD 259 says don’t accuse us of being predatory. From a letter to the Wichita Eagle, September 2. Here’s a portion of what COO Martin Libhart wrote:

The Eagle reported on a discussion between the city of Bel Aire and the Wichita school district concerning the possibility of changing district boundary lines between USD 259 and USD 375 (“Wichita district wants land in Bel Aire,” Aug. 22 Eagle). While the report correctly represented the information presented during the meeting, it failed to clearly state that the Wichita school district made the presentation to the Bel Aire City Council at the request of that city’s governing body. This distinction is important. It is not the practice of the Wichita district to pursue the acquisition of property from neighboring school districts.

From KSN.com, news of the city council vote:

The Bel Aire City Council has voted to approve changing school district boundaries — putting the entire town under the Wichita School District, USD 259, and taking some students away from the Circle School District.

The Tuesday evening vote was 4-1 with one abstaining.

There were several opponents of the move that spoke out at Tuesday night’s council meeting. And council members also discussed how difficult the decision was. But in the end they said they voted on what they thought was best for Bel Aire, not necessarily what was best for the school districts.

Another article (“Bel Aire Supports USD 259) from the Ark Valley News:

After more than a month of discussions, debates and presentations from both sides regarding a proposal to include all of Bel Aire in the Wichita school district (USD 259), the council was ready to make its decision during the Sept. 18 city council meeting. But residents were given one last chance to offer their opinions. In the packed council chambers, about 10 residents did just that.

Like previous meetings and a resident-organized town hall the night before, some spoke in favor of changing the school district boundaries to place all of the corporate limits of Bel Aire in one district, while others were opposed. Some called for the council to delay the vote again so the proposal could be examined more. The matter was tabled during the Sept. 4 council meeting.

Ultimately, though, the council voted 4-1, with Gary Breault opposed, to adopt a resolution supporting the boundary change.

Now, it is up to the USD 259 school board to petition the Circle school board to transfer the land in its district that is within the city limits of Bel Aire to Wichita public schools. Currently, no residents live in the eastern portion of Bel Aire that lies inside the Circle boundary. [Emphasis added]

On the plus side, no students will actually have to change schools as a result of the decision.

The move was prompted in part by plans of USD 259 to build a new school in a portion of Bel Aire.

The Wichita school district has proposed building an elementary school and a high school in Bel Aire, while Circle has passed a bond issue to build a roughly 350-student elementary school near Beal Aire, along Greenwich Road, between 37th and 45th streets.

Some students will still have a choice:

If the boundary is changed, parents will still have the option to send their kids to other schools. Often, the amount of available space at a particular school is a determining factor for allowing out-of-district students.

But there’s no guarantee. So what could have been a good situation–two districts to choose from–won’t be.

The mayor says that he endorses the change as a way to get the city its own school buildings. From the Wichita Eagle: “Mayor Harold Smith said he was convinced that the move gives the city the best chance of someday having its own elementary, middle and high schools.” (Bel Aire Council picks USD 259, August 19).

Yep, We’re Still Here

If you’re interested in education policy in Kansas, don’t worry. We’ve been busy with other projects of late, but the KansasEducation blog will start receiving updates this week.

Unity or Plurality? Bel Aire and Wichita

The question of whether all of Bel Aire will be within USD 259 or split between that district and USD 375 Circle turns on several points, as made clear in this article from the September 16 Wichita Eagle. First, though, the city’s public school enrollment is split, 130 for Circle, 820 for Wichita.

Wichita has talked about expanding. But how far?

The resolution before the City Council only suggests bringing the Bel Aire city limits into the Wichita district. But some residents are concerned Wichita schools will eventually push for larger boundaries, including land near Jabara Airport, where the Wichita district has expressed interest in building a technical magnet high school.

Then there’s competition-yet-no-competition between the districts:

Administrators for both districts say the issue shouldn’t be viewed as a case of one providing better schools than the other, but both have marshaled evidence of their districts’ strengths.

Circle and Wichita have since presented proposals for educating the young people of Bel Aire, though they insist they’re not in competition.

‘We are interested, obviously,’ Wichita superintendent Winston Brooks told business and community leaders this month.

It looks like, despite the no-competition theme, things got heated a while ago:

In January 2006, the two districts and Bel Aire’s city government started meeting to see if they could move the line half a mile in either direction, to avoid the possibility that a neighborhood would be split in half.

Those discussions became heated, and the council decided to remain neutral, said then-Mayor Brian Withrow.

Do school officials think with dollar signs in their eyes? You may wish that wasn’t the case, but they certainly aren’t immune:

Five thousand kids at $5,000 a head is $25 million,’ Brooks said, referring to a school-funding formula.

‘That’d be great revenue for us to have. I’m very interested in it. But we’re not in the business of taking over other districts’ territory. If they don’t want to do it, that’s fine with us. We’ll just educate the 49,000 (students) we already have.’

Both districts have made at least tentative plans for building in the area. One has already committed money:

Wichita will need to build schools in the northeast anyway, because of projected growth at Heights High School and Stucky Middle School, said chief operating officer Martin Libhart. The district is considering four sites in Bel Aire and the vicinity.

And also:

Last November, Circle voters approved an $18.8 million bond issue to build an elementary school at 29th North and Greenwich Road and to pay for other school improvements.

So far, the district has issued $10.8 million in bonds, said Superintendent Eliese Holt. People buying property in any area that was part of the Circle district when the bonds were issued — even if the land later changes districts –’would still be responsible for that bond taxation,’ Holt said.

Finally, what we find the most interesting, the question about the social function of schools:

Those in favor of the resolution say a boundary change will bring Bel Aire together as a community. They imagine Bel Aire families gathering at their local high school to cheer for the same team, instead of sending their kids to more than a dozen public and private high schools.

‘I think having neighborhood schools is important,’ said Mayor Harold Smith. ‘Part of that is community. And convenience is part of it.’

A real estate developer agrees:

Officials with Plaza Real Estate, which markets properties in Bel Aire, said unifying the city under one school district would help future development.

Plans call for building up to 1,500 homes in the area over the next 10 years, said John McKenzie, Plaza’s president and chief executive.

‘I think what will hurt development more than anything else is splitting neighborhoods and splitting that sense of community,’ McKenzie said. ‘People want their children growing up together and going to the same schools.’

On the other hand:

Jennifer Connell, a Bel Aire mother of two who sends her sons to Circle schools, said she sees the current division as a benefit for the city.

‘Why not have both districts building (schools) to support your kids?’ she asked. ‘You’d have the best of both worlds.’

Council member Gary Breault agrees with that sentiment:

Everything I’m hearing is that people don’t want to change,’ said Breault …. ‘They like the way it is, and they like the choice.’

Could some economic self-interest on the part of the city be at work? The former mayor says so:

The possibility that it could take months or years to resolve the boundary issue worries residents, including Withrow, the former mayor, who said he thinks the Bel Aire City Council favors the resolution because it is anxious to sell land.

Withrow said he also fears that while the issue is unresolved, developers will have a hard time selling property in Bel Aire.

For Bel Aire kids: unity or choice?: Two School Districts, One Community, Wichita Eagle, September 16.

ACT Results

The company known as ACT, which produces the college entrance test of the same name, released a report of the state’s record:

Kansas tested 76 percent of its graduates, according to ACT. Kansas’ average score rose by one-tenth of a point, to 21.9. The average score in Nebraska, which tested 77 percent of its graduates, was 0.2 points higher than Kansas’, Posny said. A perfect score is 36.

The national composite score, an average of the four ACT subject tests, rose one-tenth of a point, to 21.2. Nationally, an average of 42 percent of graduates took the ACT.

That’s a good showing, but recall that the national score went up as well.

The largest district, Wichita, posted a slight increase in its average score, up from 20.3 to 20.6.

The district with the highest average score, Andover, dropped from 23.3 to 22.8.

What we may be seeing here is statistical noise.

Officials with the firm hope that more students take math and and science classes:

The bad news in many respects is, we continue to see students not taking the math and science, not taking the core courses we know essentially prepare them for those freshman college courses,” said Richard Ferguson, ACT’s chairman and chief executive officer.

Included in the article were warnings, some self-serving, about the need to not judge a school on one score alone. There’s some validity in that. There are many indicators, such as the NAEP or state assessments, in addition to the ACT, which after all is administered to a self-selecting group of students.

“Wren encouraged middle-school parents to visit the high schools they’re considering for their children to get a true feel for the learning environment.” That would be Denise Wren, an assistant superintendent for high schools in USD 259.

Visits are fine, but at some point, schools will be judged on their record, not appearances.

The ACT, by the way, has on its web site college readiness profiles of each of the states, including a 32-page PDF file for Kansas. Among the interesting points there:

Minority students do not have a record of consistent improvement, if you look at scores for 2003 through 2007. African-Americans scored 17.6 on average but went down to 17.4 for 2005 and 2006 before making an uptick in 2007. The Hispanic average for 2007 is the same as that of 2003 (19.3), though there was a modest improvement in 2004 (19.4) and a decline (to 19.1) in 2005.

Math and science still give students trouble.

Six students achieved a perfect score in all four subjects: English; Mathematics; Reading; and Science.

The state-by-state results give some interesting information, too.The composite score of 21.9 put Kansas behind 17 other states, including 3 states (Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska) in which at least 66 percent of students take the test. (In Kansas, the number is 76 percent).

Commissioner Posny is quoted as saying “”There’s only one state that does slightly better, and that’s Nebraska.” Perhaps she was taken out of context, but that’s not right. Look at the source above. Limit yourself to states in which at least 42 percent of students–the national average–took the test. Here’s what you find.

STATE RESULTS

State results are given in this format: Postal code; Composite Score; Percentage of students taking the ACT

• MN 22.5 (70)
• WI 22.3 (70)
• IA 22.3 (66)
• NE 22.1 (77)
• MT 21.9 (59)
• KS 21.9 (76)
• SD 21.9 (76)

Source: State’s Score on the Rise, Wichita Eagle, August 29