Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas State Department of Education

Kansas school employment trends de-emphasize classroom teachers
From Kansas Policy Institute.
School district employment trends de-emphasize classroom teachers
By Dave Trabert
A large body of research shows that nothing benefits students more than having effective teachers in the classroom. With that in mind, we thought it would be interesting to see how Kansas school district employment has changed over the years — comparing changes in regular classroom teachers to enrollment and other employment trends. All of the data was provided by the Kansas Department of Education (we appreciate their cooperation in helping to locate historical data) based on reports they receive from school districts.
The results are actually quite surprising and prompt a number of questions that legislators and parents may want to pose to school districts. But first, let’s look at the trends.
The first two tables show the changes in full time equivalent (FTE) employees over several time frames during the last twenty years.
1993 to 2005: These are the pre-Montoy years, during which time KPERS-adjusted school funding increased at a compound annual growth rate of 3.9 percent and FTE employment increased at a compound annual growth rate of 1.3 percent. KPERS retirement money was not included in reported funding until 2005, so we’ve added the annual amounts for 1993 through 2004 as provided by KSDE.
2005 to 2008: Large court-ordered funding increases began in 2006. School funding increased at a compound annual growth rate of 7.9 percent (from the 2005 base year) and FTE employment increased at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 percent.
2008 to 2013: While the economic impact of the Great Recession began in 2009, school funding actually increased 4.0 percent that year. Total funding per KSDE dipped slightly in 2010 and 2011 (1.4 percent and 0.04 percent, respectively) and then increased in 2012 and 2013 (3.3 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively). We examine this period in total in the first table and then break it out by year in the second table.

Annual employment changes in the second table are compared to total school funding per-pupil as reported by KSDE and our own calculation per-pupil funding provided on state authority with all KPERS amounts removed. The state-provision calculation uses all funding sources provided to school districts through the state legislature’s statutory provision (except for KPERS as noted). This excludes all federal money and property taxes for bond levies that are approved by local voters. We exclude KPERS in this calculation to demonstrate that, contrary to claims in some circles, school funding increases are not totally driven by retirement spending.
Regular teacher employment has generally kept pace with enrollment over the years. Twenty years ago, there were 17.8 students per teacher, compared to 17.7 students per teacher in 2013. But the growth in non-teacher employment (40 percent since 1993) has significantly reduced the student-to-employee ratio from 8.0 to 6.7. Regular classroom teachers comprised 45 percent of school district total employment in 1993 but only represent 38 percent of employment today.
School district employment trends raise a number of thought-provoking questions.
- Do district hiring practices (aides vs. teachers) indicate that district administrators and local school boards believe aides are more beneficial to students than hiring more teachers — or perhaps using the money to pay teachers a better salary?
- What do parents and teachers think about this development?
- Upon what analytical basis are such staffing decisions made?
- Staff increases in the early Montoy years followed significant increases between 1993 and 2005, which, other than classroom teachers, were much greater than enrollment changes. Upon what analytical basis were decisions made to further increase staffing?
- Do districts have any historical analysis that shows what necessary staffing levels should be? i.e., have districts been moving toward specific targets or are they just adding staff?
It’s critical to understand how districts resources are being allocated so that student-focused decisions can be made, especially since student achievement is relative stagnant and large, persistent achievement gaps exist for low income kids and students of color.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 22, 2013
Spinning for fundraising, Kansas-style
Kansas liberals accuse Republicans of “spinning” statistics on school funding. Can we look at some actual numbers?
Candidate for Kansas Governor Paul Davis sent this fundraising email:
This weekend another independent advocate for our schools called attention to Sam Brownback’s attempt to mislead Kansans about his real record on education. The fact is, Sam Brownback made the largest cut to our schools in Kansas history — leading to larger class sizes, school closings, and increased fees for parents.
But being the politician that he is, Sam Brownback is trying to spin his record. We won’t be fooled.
Kevin McWhorter of the Goddard School Board said it plainly, “State funding for education will continue to decline, and state officials will continue to twist the numbers to ask you to believe otherwise. Don’t fall for it. It’s just spin.”
Davis is referring to an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle written by a Goddard school board member. (Kevin R. McWhorter: Don’t fall for spin on school funding, November 17, 2013)
In his op-ed, McWhorter complains that present funding from the state is not as high as statute requires. He calls that a cut. He concludes that the “governor’s economic policy is a train wreck” and that “state funding for education will continue to decline.”
Nearby you may find charts of data for the Goddard school district. (Click for larger versions.) You may draw your own conclusions. Recall that Sam Brownback became governor in 2011. The charts are derived from visualizations of data obtained from the Kansas State Department of Education. You may click here to access the visualization for school spending. Information about school employment, including a video and interactive visualization is at Kansas school employment trends.
Charts for the entire state look similar: Employment going down, then rising. Ratios of employees to students improve correspondingly. This is not the case in every school district, however.
But not everyone believes the statistics. When the Kansas Republican Party posted a chart of statewide school employment on its Facebook page, someone remarked “Where do I find the facts supporting this graft [sic]? Where did the numbers come from? How are these more than 400 additional teachers and 500 certified employees being paid when school funding has been reduced?”
Sounds like someone’s been spun.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 20, 2013
Kansas school logic, Goddard-style
Fiscal 2010, according to figures from Kansas State Department of Education, was the recent low in school funding for Goddard, reflecting spending cuts made during the recession of the Sebelius/Parkinson era. Since then, in actual dollars, this has happened:
State aid per pupil increased from 6,343 to 7,260.
Federal aid per pupil declined from 720 to 269.
Local aid per pupil increased from 3,650 to 4,813.
Total spending increased from 10,713 to 12,342.
Data from KSDE also shows that the Goddard school district has increased the number of teachers and other certified employees in recent years, and the corresponding ratios of these employees to students has fallen.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 19, 2013
Kansas school spending, by district
There’s new data available from Kansas State Department of Education on school spending. I’ve gathered the data, adjusted it for the consumer price index, and now present it in this interactive visualization.
For each school district (and state totals) you can see the trend in each of the three sources of school funding (state, federal, and local) along with the total. A few observations:
State aid per pupil for 2013 ($6,984) is approximately the same as it was in 2006 ($6,941). (All figures are inflation-adjusted, per pupil.)
Total spending per pupil for 2013 ($12,781) is higher than it was in 2007 ($12,991).
You may use the visualization below, or click here to open it in a new window, which may work better.
Data is from KSDE; visualizations created by myself using Tableau Public.
Learn About Tableau
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 14, 2013
Kansas school spending, visualized
Now that Kansas State Department of Education has released spending figures for the 2012-2013 school year, I’ve gathered the data and prepared two interactive visualizations.
One visualization presents total spending, and the other holds per pupil spending. Both hold nominal dollars and inflation-adjusted dollars. Data is from KSDE; visualizations created by myself using Tableau Public.
The visualization for total spending is here. For per pupil spending, the visualization is here.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 29, 2013
Shortchanging Kansas schoolchildren, indeed
This month the New York Times published an editorial that advocates for more spending on Kansas public schools. While getting some facts wrong, the piece also overlooks the ways that Kansas schoolchildren are truly being shortchanged.
Here’s evidence supplied by the Times (Shortchanging Kansas Schoolchildren, October 13, 2013): “State spending on education has fallen an estimated 16.5 percent since 2008, including $500 million in cuts under the Brownback administration, resulting in teacher layoffs and larger class sizes.” (Governor Brownback has responded to the editorial; see Kansas Governor responds to the Times.)
The Times editorial board doesn’t say how it calculated the 16.5 percent decline in spending, but it’s likely that it used only base state aid per pupil, which is the starting point for the Kansas school finance formula. Much more spending is added to that. A nearby table holds spending figures for recent years, and a similar chart with inflation-adjusted figures may be found in Kansas school spending rises.
Perhaps the Times didn’t notice that at the time base state aid was falling, total state spending on schools rose. Base state aid per pupil, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was during the previous decade. Total Kansas state spending on schools, however, has recovered to the same level as 2006, in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Total state aid per pupil this past school year was $6,984. Base state aid per pupil was $3,838. Total state spending, therefore, was 1.82 times base state aid. It’s important to consider the totality of spending and not just base state aid. It’s important because total spending is so much greater than base state aid. Also, total spending accounts for some of the difficulties and expenses that schools cite when asking for higher spending.
For example, advocates for higher school spending often point to non-English speaking students and at-risk students as being expensive to educate. In recognition of this, the Kansas school finance formula makes allowances for this. According to the Kansas Legislator Briefing Book for 2013, the weighting for “full-time equivalent enrollment in bilingual education programs” is 0.395. This means that for each such student a school district has, an additional 39.5 percent over base state aid is given to the district.
For at-risk pupils, the weighting is 0.456. At risk students, according to the briefing book, “are determined on the basis of at-risk factors determined by the school district board of education and not by virtue of eligibility for free meals.”
Taken together, bilingual students considered to be at-risk generate an additional 85.1 percent of base state aid to be sent to the district, per student.
Teachers and class sizes
The Times wrote that under Brownback, Kansas experienced “teacher layoffs and larger class sizes.” Figures from the Kansas State Department of Education tell a different story. Considering the entire state, two trends emerge. For the past two years, the number of teachers employed in Kansas public schools has risen. Correspondingly, the pupil-teacher ratio has fallen.
The trend for certified employees is a year behind that of teachers, but for the last year, the number of certified employees has risen, and the ratio to pupils has fallen. Pupil-teacher ratio is not the same as class size, but it’s the data we have.
Here’s the question we need to answer: If school districts have been able to hire more teachers and other certified employees, and if the student to teacher ratio is improving at the same time, but there are still high class sizes, what are school districts doing with these teachers and employees?
By the way, the Times editorial writers might be interested in learning that the declines in school employment occurred during the administrations of Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson, Democrats both.
I’ve created interactive visualizations that let you examine the employment levels and ratios in Kansas school districts. Click here for the visualization of employment levels. Click here for the visualization of ratios (pupil-teacher and pupil-certified employee).
If the Times really wanted to help Kansas schoolchildren from being shortchanged, it might have noticed that at a time when Kansas was spending more on schools due to an order from the Kansas Supreme Court, the state weakened its already low standards for schools. This is the conclusion of the National Center for Education Statistics, based on the most recent version of Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales. More about that can be found in Why are Kansas school standards so low?
Another thing the Times could have done to increase the public’s awareness of the performance of Kansas schools is to investigate why Kansas schools perform relatively well on national tests. I and others have done this; see Kansas school test scores, a hidden story and Kansas and Texas schools and low-income students.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 27, 2013
WichitaLiberty Podcast, episode 2
In this episode of WichitaLiberty Podcasts: David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, visits the WichitaLiberty.TV studios and explains the ideas behind libertarianism and its approach to government and society. New figures from the Kansas State Department of Education show that spending on public schools in Kansas is rising, and at a rate higher than the year before. Is Wichita economic development being managed? The problem of overcriminalization. City of Wichita proves Einstein’s definition of insanity. Episode 2, October 25, 2013.
[powerpress]
Shownotes
WichitaLiberty.TV October 27, 2013. David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, visits the WichitaLiberty.TV studios and explains the ideas behind libertarianism and its approach to government and society.
Kansas school spending rises
Wichita economic development not being managed
USA versus You: The problem of overcriminalization
City of Wichita proves Einstein’s definition of insanity
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 25, 2013
Kansas school spending holding steady
(This article has been revised to reflect a data entry error.)
New figures from the Kansas State Department of Education show that spending on public schools in Kansas is rising in actual dollars, and holding steady in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The nearby table presents Kansas school spending figures for recent years. Figures are adjusted for inflation by the consumer price index (CPI), using 2013 as the base year. Charts appear at the end of this article.
Note that base state aid per pupil, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was during the previous decade. Total Kansas state spending on schools, however, has recovered to the same level as 2007.
Total state aid per pupil this past school year was $6,984. Base state aid per pupil was $3,838. Total state spending, therefore, was 1.82 times base state aid.
It’s important to consider the totality of spending and not just base state aid. It’s important because total spending is so much greater than base state aid. Also, total spending accounts for some of the difficulties and expenses that schools cite when asking for higher spending.
For example, advocates for higher school spending often point to non-English speaking students and at-risk students as being expensive to educate. In recognition of this, the Kansas school finance formula makes allowances for this. According to the Kansas Legislator Briefing Book for 2013, the weighting for “full-time equivalent enrollment in bilingual education programs” is 0.395. This means that for each such student a school district has, an additional 39.5 percent over base state aid is given to the district.
For at-risk pupils, the weighting is 0.456. At risk students, according to the briefing book, “are determined on the basis of at-risk factors determined by the school district board of education and not by virtue of eligibility for free meals.”
Taken together, bilingual students considered to be at-risk generate an additional 85.1 percent of base state aid to be sent to the district, per student.
Base state aid should not be focus
The decline in base state aid per pupil is a convenient fact for public school spending boosters. They can use a statistic that contains a grain of truth in order to whip up concern over inadequate school spending. They can cite this as an argument for increasing spending, even though spending has been rising.
(By the way, when citizens in Kansas and across the nation are asked questions about school spending, we learn they are totally uninformed. Even worse, several recent candidates for the Wichita school board were similarly uninformed. See Wichita school board candidates on spending.)
Further, citing only base state aid reduces “sticker shock.” Most people are surprised to learn that our schools spend $12,781 per student. It’s much easier to tell taxpayers that only $3,838 was spent. But that’s not a complete picture, not by far.
Also, it’s important to realize that the nature of Kansas school funding has changed in a way that makes base state aid per pupil less important as a measure of school spending. See Base state aid is wrong focus for Kansas school spending.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2013
Kansas schools do not have rigorous standards, despite newspaper editorials
A Kansas City Star editorial makes a case for higher school spending in Kansas, but is based on a premise that doesn’t exist in fact.
In its conclusion, the editorial states: “Kansans have always known that rigorous standards and strong, well-funded public school systems are the best routes to an educated work force.” (A decisive time for Kansas schools, October 15, 2013.)
The problem is that Kansas doesn’t have rigorous standards for its schools.
If the Star editorial writers had asked the National Center for Education Statistics about Kansas school standards, that agency might have referred the editorialists to the most recent version of Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales. (NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations, and is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences.)
The mapping project establishes a relationship between the tests each state gives to assess its students and the National Assessment of Education Progress, a test that is the same in all states. The conclusion of NCES is that Kansas school standards are relatively low, compared to other states. This video explains. (View below, or click here to view in HD at YouTube.)
For Kansas, here are some key findings. First, NCES asks this question: “How do Kansas’s NAEP scale equivalent scores of reading standards for proficient performance at grades 4 and 8 in 2009 compare with those estimated for 2005 and 2007?”
For Kansas, the two answers are this (emphasis added):
“Although no substantive changes in the reading assessments from 2007 to 2009 were indicated by the state, the NAEP scale equivalent of both its grade 4 and grade 8 standards decreased.”
Also: “Kansas made substantive changes to its reading grade 8 assessment between 2005 and 2009, and the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 8 standards decreased.”
In other words, NCES judged that Kansas weakened its standards for reading performance.
A similar question was considered for math: “How do Kansas’s NAEP scale equivalent scores of mathematics standards for proficient performance at grades 4 and 8 in 2009 compare with those estimated for 2005 and 2007?”
For Kansas, the two answers are this (emphasis added):
“Although no substantive changes in the mathematics assessments from 2007 to 2009 were indicated by the state, the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 8 standards decreased (the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 4 standards did not change).”
Also: “Kansas made substantive changes to its mathematics grade 4 assessment between 2005 and 2009, but the NAEP scale equivalent of its grade 4 standards did not change.”
For mathematics, NCES judges that some standards were weakened, and some did not change.
In its summary of Kansas reading standards, NCES concluded: “In both grades, Kansas state assessment results showed more positive changes in achievement than NAEP results.” For mathematics, the summary reads: “In grade 4, Kansas state assessment results showed a change in achievement that is not different from that based on NAEP results. In grade 8, state assessment results showed a more positive change.”
In other words: In three of four instances, Kansas is claiming positive student achievement that isn’t apparent on national tests.
Kansas is not alone in weakening its standards during this period. It’s also not alone in showing better performance on state tests than on national tests. States were under pressure to show increased scores, and some — Kansas included — weakened their state assessment standards in response.
What’s important to know is that Kansas school leaders are not being honest with Kansans as a whole, and with parents specifically. In the face of these findings from NCES, Kansas Commissioner of Education Diane M. DeBacker wrote this in the pages of The Wichita Eagle: “Kansans are proud of the quality of their public schools, and a steady and continuing increase in student performance over the past decade has given us ample reason for that pride.” (Diane DeBacker : Pride in Kansas public schools is well-placed, March 20, 2012.)
A look at the scores, however, show that national test results don’t match the state-controlled tests that DeBacker touts. She controls these states tests, by the way. See Kansas needs truth about schools.
The same year a number of school district superintendents made a plea for increased funding in Kansas schools, referring to “multiple funding cuts.” (Reverse funding cuts, May 3, 2012 Wichita Eagle.) In this article, the school leaders claimed “Historically, our state has had high-performing schools, which make Kansas a great place to live, raise a family and run a business.”
These claims made by Kansas school leaders are refuted by the statistics that aren’t under the control of these same leaders. Before courts rule on school spending, and before we change Kansas school standards, we need to realize the recent stewardship of Kansas schools under current leadership.
Ask these questions before devoting more resources to Kansas public schools:
Why are Kansas school standards so low compared to other states?
Why did Kansas reduce its standards at the same time school spending was increasing?
Following are two examples of charts from the NCES study where Kansas school standards rank compared to other states. Click on them for larger versions.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 19, 2013