Voice For Liberty

Tag: Education

  • Your Kansas Tax Dollars: Efficient, Effective & Targeted?

    Following is a press release concerning an event of interest this Saturday in Arkansas City.

    Arkansas City (February 16, 2010) – “In any economy, but especially our current economy, the use of tax dollars is an issue every Kansas taxpayer should be interested and involved in. As we visit with citizens, we’re finding they do not truly understand how their state tax dollars are spent. Unfortunately this makes it difficult for them to participate in the discussion over how to solve our state’s fiscal crisis, and we certainly want and need their input. We are excited about the opportunity to have a broad public dialogue regarding use of tax dollars,” said Steve Abrams and Kasha Kelley, 32nd District Senator and 79th District Representative respectively.
    (more…)

  • Andover schools advocacy website not complete, accurate, or balanced

    The Andover Parent Legislative Council has created a website and wiki in support of the Andover, Kansas public school system (USD 385). This site, titled Andover Parent Legislative Council, is described as helping Andover schools “through legislative advocacy.” Andover parents wishing for complete facts and a balanced approach will need to supplement their research with other reading.

    As an example of the quality of information presented on this site, under the heading “Parent Resources for Understanding the Current Funding Crisis” one of the documents shows the trend of state funding for the Andover school system. The figures used to create the chart are incomplete and misleading. Some might even call the chart a lie.

    Here’s the problem: The chart shows funding from the state for 2008 to be about $4,500 per pupil. (I’m reading off a chart here, so I’m estimating.)

    The source or meaning of this number — the chart doesn’t say so — is probably base state aid per pupil. It’s the starting point of the Kansas school funding formula. School spending advocates like to focus solely on this number for two reasons: First, this number has been cut.

    But mostly, school spending advocates like to focus on this number because it represents, in many cases, only about one-third of total spending on schools. It’s all part of a poor-mouthing campaign by school spending advocates who either don’t know the facts or are embarrassed by the full scope of spending on schools.

    It’s not uncommon for the school spending lobby and its supporters to do what they can to hide the magnitude of spending on schools. They’ll also do their best to exaggerate the effects of any slowdown in the rapid rate at which spending has been increasing. This was demonstrated by Rep. Melody McCray-Miller at a recent legislative forum in Wichita. She disputed the total amount of spending by the Wichita school district. Wichita board of education member Lanora Nolan disputed these same figures at a Wichita Pachyderm Club meeting. Also see Wichita schools on the funding decrease.

    Where the Andover chart misleads can be found by looking at this table provided by the Kansas State Department of Education: Andover USD 385. In this table, you can find that actual state funding per pupil for 2008-2009 was $6,683.

    That’s a lot higher than what the chart claims. Now the Andover school system will probably say that the extra funding is for things like the burden of teaching low-income students or the many other ways that funding is “weighted.”

    But the fact is that Andover received much more money from the state than shown on the chart. And that’s not all. The table also tells us that Andover schools received $4,266 per student from local revenue, plus $248 per student in federal funds, for a total of $11,197 per student. And that number has been rising at a pretty rapid rate in recent years.

    There are other problems with the information this site presents. Under “Informative websites” we’d have to say that the selection is biased towards organizations that call for more school spending at any cost to the state. Two sites that provide balanced information — my site and Kansas Policy Institute — are missing.

    Here’s another example: In answering a question about those who say that schools can tap into unused cash balances, the site states: “Like all businesses, schools have funds set aside to meet future obligations. These funds were held by districts in order to meet payment obligations including mandated special education payments, self-funded health insurance and worker’s compensation for districts, textbook funds to purchase/replace textbooks for upcoming year, and anticipated food service costs for the beginning of the year. Additionally, many districts carry cash balances in order to meet future bond and interest payments.”

    This statement, however, doesn’t tell us whether the fund balances that schools have are too high, too low, or just right. The same mistake was made in an editorial written by Kansas school board member David Dennis, which is described as “insightful” on the Andover schools site. The article Kansas fund balances disputed despite evidence of their existence, benefit provides analysis of the problems with this editorial and the arguments that school spending advocates use.

  • Kansas school consolidation: it won’t be the first time

    An issue that some promote as a way to make Kansas schools more efficient and save money is school consolidation. If it happens, it won’t be the first time schools in our state have gone through consolidation.

    Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, who is a Democrat representing Kansas City, recently asked the Kansas Legislative Research Department for information about school consolidation in Kansas. The memo that KLRD produced is below, and here are some interesting facts.

    In 1958 Kansas had 2,794 school districts. That number shrunk to 311 in 1969. (Today there are 296 districts.) The goal during the 1960s was to produce school districts that had at least 400 students in grades 1-12, or at least 200 square miles and an assessed valuation of at least $2 million. Some of the intent of the legislation in 1963 was “the general improvement of the public schools,” “equalization of the benefits and burdens of education,” and to use state funds more wisely.

    A previous attempt at consolidation in 1961 was rejected by the courts, but public interest in the bill was high, according to material found by KLRD. One remark was “Most of the opposition [to consolidation] was due to a large majority of small school not wanting their little kingdom disrupted, even at the expense of educational standards.” We see similar remarks made today.

    A note in the memo mentions a 1992 report of school consolidation efforts in other states, finding that “consolidating school districts led to a minor savings in administrative costs but major savings would result only from closing schools, reducing the number of teachers, and increasing class sizes.”

    Kansas school spending advocates tell us that reducing teachers and increasing class sizes would be a disaster for children. But see this article and also this to learn how teacher effectiveness is much more important than class size.

    The history of school consolidation in Kansas nearly 50 years ago is also interesting for this reason: Currently a coalition of Kansas school districts are suing the state, asking for more money to be spent on schools. The state’s been sued for this reason before, and the remedy was probably not what the school spending advocates of the day wanted. Here’s correspondence from Sen. Steineger:

    This past summer, I met former Senator Glee Smith who served in the Legislature from the late 50’s into the mid 60’s. I asked him what prompted the unification movement, and he replied, “A bunch of school districts got together and filed a lawsuit against the State claiming not enough state aid,” and the Legislature responded by establishing a mechanism requiring unification of smaller weaker school districts.

    The standard remedy that school districts ask for in lawsuits is more money. Perhaps the courts will impose a different remedy.

    Kansas School Consolidation History

  • Lawsuits and tax increases not necessary to fund Kansas schools

    By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute President

    A recent commentary by Kansas State Board of Education member David Dennis said educators “…just ask that they (legislators) make their decisions based on accurate information, with the future of our students in mind. “We 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/or misleading information.

    For example, Mr. Dennis said another 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). This is no allegation, it is a fact that we obtained from the Department of Education. Here are some other facts we discovered that have been confirmed by the Kansas Department of Education (KSDE):

    • 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% over the last four years, which means that schools haven’t spent all of 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%, it’s quite likely that a good portion of it could be used to avoid budget cuts.

    Here’s another fact confirmed by KSDE that has been conveniently ignored or distorted:

    • Schools are getting a lot more than $4,012 in Base State Aid Per Pupil (BSAPP). Total aid to schools from state, federal and property tax sources this year is $12,225, or just 3.43% less than last year.

    There is also ample evidence that schools are spending more money than necessary. A July 2009 study by the Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) found many districts are much less efficient than others and offered 80 recommendations to save money. The 2010 Commission ordered the study, Phase 2 of which would have sent auditors into schools to help find ways to save money. But districts objected, so the 2010 Commission canceled Phase 2 and now is calling for more state aid to schools, knowing that other options exist.

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

    Mr. Dennis referenced another LPA 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 LPA did not say that higher spending caused test scores to increase. (It’s a well-known research principle that correlation does not imply causation). That same LPA 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.

  • New Kansas test scores not good news

    Kansas school spending advocates point to years of rising test scores as evidence that increasing school spending in Kansas has been a good investment. They also use this as a reason as to why school spending should not be cut further, and that taxes in Kansas ought to be increased to pay for additional school spending.

    But there’s a problem. The test scores that school spending advocates use — tests administered by the state of Kansas — are almost certainly misleading.

    The basic problem is that scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show achievement by Kansas students largely unchanged in recent years. This is at the same time that scores on tests given by the Kansas education establishment show great improvement.

    In describing the 2009 NAEP scores for Kansas fourth graders in mathematics, the National Center for Education Statistics writes “The average score for students in Kansas in 2009 (245) was not significantly different from their average score in 2007 (248) and was higher than their average score in 2000 (232).”

    In 2009, 46 percent earned a score that is considered proficient. In 2007, 51 percent did. That’s a decrease, but one termed “not significantly different” by NCES.

    So these test scores have actually gone down in recent years, although by small amounts.

    For eighth grade math, NCES describes the Kansas scores like this: “The average score for students in Kansas in 2009 (289) was not significantly different from their average score in 2007 (290) and was higher than their average score in 2000 (283).”

    The percentage considered proficient dropped to 39 percent from 40 percent, a difference again considered not significant.

    The Kansas-administered tests show a different picture. The numbers are much higher, and their moving upwards. On the Kansas math assessment test for fourth graders, 84.7 percent were considered to be “at or above standard.” This number increased to 86.6 percent in 2009.

    For Kansas eighth graders in math, 70.8 percent met the same standard in 2007, increasing to 77.2 percent in 2009.

    Is there a discrepancy? Can scores on Kansas’ own test be increasing while scores on federal tests decline?

    It’s an important question, especially since the period covered by these test scores was a period when spending on Kansas schools increased rapidly. Further, school spending advocate base their arguments on the Kansas tests, not the NAEP tests. If the school spending lobby used the NAEP scores as their measure of performance, their arguments that increasing school spending results in increased learning would be realized for the sham it is.

    Related: Are Kansas school test scores believable?, Kansas school test scores: can they be reconciled with national tests?, and Even the New York Times recognizes testing fraud.

  • KNEA uses incomplete funding data to argue for tax hikes

    In a story illustrated with several charts, Kansas Liberty shows that the Kansas National Education Association or (KNEA, the teachers union), is not to be trusted when talking about Kansas school finance.

    Why?

    School spending advocates claim that spending on schools in Kansas is declining rapidly. It’s true that base state aid per pupil, the starting point for the Kansas school finance formula, has been cut.

    But when considering the total spending by schools, a quite different picture emerges. From the Kansas Liberty story:

    Dale Dennis, deputy commissioner of education for the Kansas State Department of Education, said the discrepancy in reports is a result of the common practice of legislators and school advocates only citing the base state aid K-12 receives for gauging funding levels.

    “They use general state aid, which is the primary operating fund,” Dennis told Kansas Liberty. “But they don’t use the total.”

    The complete story is at KNEA uses incomplete funding data to argue for tax hikes.

    Related stories are at Kansas school funding email confuses, misleads and Wichita and Kansas schools.

  • Senator Steve Abrams to present topics in Kansas education

    At this Friday’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Kansas Senator Dr. Steve Abrams, Republican from Arkansas City, will speak on Kansas education. Abrams served 14 years on the Kansas State Board of Education. In 2008 he was elected to the Kansas Senate from the 32nd district, which covers all of Cowley and Sumner counties, and a small portion of Sedgwick County around and including the city of Mulvane.

    Abrams said his presentation will cover three main points: First, we need an education funding formula in Kansas that is not incomprehensible to most people. Second, we need to more closely align those who are responsible for the academics with those who are responsible for the funding. Finally, we must change the funding formula so that it will accommodate and encourage students that want to graduate from high school and also want to receive career and technical education certificates.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • AFP releases Kansas education spending policy primer

    Americans for Prosperity-Kansas has released a three-page document that details some facts about Kansas spending on schools and education.

    It’s an important topic, as K-12 school spending represents about half of our state’s general fund spending. Education — as we’re reminded by school spending advocates — is also one of the most important things we can provide the children of Kansas. There are also many misconceptions about Kansas school spending, as recently highlighted by Kansas Liberty.

    For example: “There have been claims that funding for schools has ‘returned to pre-Montoy levels,’” said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “However the policy primer clearly shows that K-12 education has realized nearly a $1 billion increase in funding since 2004, just prior to the Montoy decision in January of 2005, even though there aren’t that many more students in the system.”

    The next legislative session in Kansas, which starts just a little more than a month from today, is likely to be quite contentious. I asked a member of the Kansas senate if it’s going to come down to school spending advocates versus everyone else, and he said yes, that’s about right.

    Here’s a few interesting facts presented in the document:

    • Kansas leads our neighboring states in school spending, on a per-student basis.
    • Kansas schools have an average of 15 teachers per non-classroom supervisors, while Iowa has 24 teachers per non-classroom supervisor.
    • “It’s also interesting to note that in Colorado where, according to the teachers unions, TABOR has had a devastating impact on education; the ratio of supervisor to teacher is high for the region, tied with Kansas.”
    • “Kansas has not faired well with test scores stagnating despite a huge funding increase.”

    AFP’s press release announcing the policy primer is AFP-Kansas educates Kansans on K-12 spending. This page contains a link to the policy primer.

  • Articles of interest

    Education, health care, Kansas school funding, unintended consequences.

    Charter schools: Two studies, two conclusions

    This Washington Post article looks at two recent studies of charter schools to try and determine whether they perform better or worse than regular public schools. Kansas, in effect, has no charter schools. They’re allowed by state law, but local boards of education must approve them. Few are approved, as the education establishment, including the teachers union, is firmly opposed to charter schools. Most charter schools operate on a much lower budget than regular public schools. As Kansas tries to work its way out of a tight budget, charter schools could provide a way to create diverse educational opportunities at lower cost.

    Health Care is Not a Right

    (Competitive Enterprise Institute) A discussion of why there is no right to health care, at least not in a country that understands the true meanings of rights. “Whereas genuine rights protect citizens from state coercion, the ‘right to health care’ serves to justify state coercion against a particular part of the population: those who pay taxes. Moreover, by their very nature, such positive demands cannot be clearly defined and hence are capable of infinite expansions. As one need is satisfied, others arise.”

    School Districts: Extra Funds Cannot Replace Legislative Budget Cuts

    A story from KAKE Television about Kansas State Board of Education member Walt Chappell and the huge fund balances that Kansas schools are holding. Chappell says that some of the money in these funds could provide a way to get through a year of reduced funding from the state. The Kansas Association of School Boards, a group that advocates for more school spending and tax increases to support it, disagrees.

    Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster

    A Reason Magazine editorial took a look backwards at the George W. Bush presidency: “Bush’s legacy is thus a bizarro version of Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan entered office declaring that government was not the solution to our problems, it was the problem. Ironically, he demonstrated that government could do some important things right—he helped tame inflation and masterfully drew the Cold War to a nonviolent triumph for the Free World. By contrast, Bush has massively expanded the government along with the sense that government is incompetent.”

    The Henry Ford of Heart Surgery

    The Wall Street Journal article The Henry Ford of Heart Surgery: In India, a Factory Model for Hospitals Is Cutting Costs and Yielding Profits reports on a new model for reducing health care costs: economies of scale. “By driving huge volumes, even of procedures as sophisticated, delicate and dangerous as heart surgery, Dr. Shetty has managed to drive down the cost of health care in his nation of one billion. His model offers insights for countries worldwide that are struggling with soaring medical costs, including the U.S. as it debates major health-care overhaul.”

    Cash for Clubbers

    An example of unintended consequences at work: The Wall Street Journal found that the cash for clunkers program worked for something else, too: “We thought cash for clunkers was the ultimate waste of taxpayer money, but as usual we were too optimistic. Thanks to the federal tax credit to buy high-mileage cars that was part of President Obama’s stimulus plan, Uncle Sam is now paying Americans to buy that great necessity of modern life, the golf cart. … This golf-cart fiasco perfectly illustrates tax policy in the age of Obama, when politicians dole out credits and loopholes for everything from plug-in cars to fuel efficient appliances, home insulation and vitamins. Democrats then insist that to pay for these absurdities they have no choice but to raise tax rates on other things — like work and investment — that aren’t politically in vogue. If this keeps up, it’ll soon make more sense to retire and play golf than work for living.”