Proposed Bill That Limits Who Could Serve on School Boards Would Have A Significant Impact on Current School Board Membership

A REPORT FROM THE KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS (KASB)

A proposed bill that
limits who could serve on school boards would have a significant impact on
current school board membership, according to informal responses during the
start of KASB’s “Success Across Kansas” Fall Summit tour.

House Bill 2345 would prohibit a person from serving on a
school board if the person has a spouse, sibling or parent who is an employee
of any district in the state. It would also prohibit a person from serving on a
school board if they had a substantial interest in any business that provides
services to the state.

For example, a person
who is on the Leoti USD 467 school board in far western Kansas couldn't serve
on that board if they had a brother who drove a school bus for Lawrence USD 497
school district in eastern Kansas.

During KASB’s summit
on Tuesday in Sublette, the question was asked if HB 2345 became law, how many school board members would
be disqualified from serving. In the room were representatives of probably 10
or so school districts. A quick count found that an estimated 50 school board
members would be prohibited from serving.

KASB strongly opposes
the bill and school board members testified against it during the last session
when it had a public hearing before the House Education Committee. The bill did
not advance and some committee members said time spent on the legislation was a
waste.

Still, Republican
legislative leaders have asked for further review of the bill by theSpecial Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government.

The committee has
sent a survey to all school boards to determine how many would be affected by HB 2345.  

The Kansas
Legislative Research Department requests that the survey, being sent on behalf
of the committee, be returned by Oct. 16. The survey requests answers to
several questions and the department says answers will remain confidential and
documentation of the survey results will not be tied to any individual.

School board members
can return the survey to KLRD Principal Research Analyst Martha Dorsey at Martha.Dorsey@klrd.ks.gov

The KASB tour started
Tuesday in Sublette and continues today in Oakley; then Salina on Thursday
before picking up again Tue. Oct. 6 in Olathe; Wed. Oct. 7 in Greenbush and
Thur. Oct. 8 in Clearwater.

In addition to the
KASB meeting, Kansas Education Commissioner Randy Watson will be presenting at
those sites results of his listening tour in which Kansans said schools needed
to emphasize more soft skills, such as conscientiousness and collaboration, for
students to be successful. The tour also features meetings of USA/Kansas
(United School Administrators of Kansas) and KSSA (Kansas School Superintendents
Association).

In discussions about
the next school finance law to replace the temporary block grant system,
participants at the Sublette Summit provided several suggestions and
observations.

They said schools
should find out the individual student’s needs, put a dollar amount on that and
fund it; the funding system will alway be complex, so what is important is the
total amount and if policymakers don’t see education as an investment, they
should be prepared to increase funding for welfare and other assistance
programs.

Block Grants Are a Bad Recipe...Part 2: Reprinted from the Kansas Center for Economic Growth

Goossen: Block Grants Are a Bad Recipe…Part Two

By Duane Goossen
September 30, 2015

Kansas school districts face a multi-year decline in classroom funding while statewide enrollment grows, and while costs for supplies, utilities, student transportation, and salaries rise.

An important accounting of this trend can be found in the table “Major Categories of State Aid for K-12 Education in Kansas” in the FY 2016 Comparison Report (page 60).  The table contains governor’s numbers, reported by his Kansas Division of the Budget.  The budget office uses FY 2011 as the comparison point to the current fiscal year, but if the FY 2016 numbers were compared to FY 2009, the trend would actually be even starker.

The chart below, reprinted from the previous blog post on this topic, summarizes the numbers from the Comparison Report table.

Taking a deeper look at the Comparison Report table numbers, three items are important to note:

• The switch to block grant funding serves to hide the trend.  In the Comparison Report table’s FY 2011 column, it’s easy to see the numbers separated out for General State Aid (classroom dollars) and for special purposes such as Retirement System Payments (KPERS), Local Option Budget Aid, etc., but in the FY 2016 column most of those categories are mushed together under the block grant.  However, an earlier table on page 59 shows how to unpack the block grant numbers to gain a clear comparison between the years.

• Statewide mill levy money is included in the comparison.  For many years Kansas has had a 20-mill statewide levy for schools.  The property tax proceeds from that levy used to go directly to school districts, but in FY 2015 the state began routing the money through the state treasury and counting it as state aid.  The block grant incorporates that statewide mill levy money.  For the purpose of comparing FY 2011 to FY 2016 the table correctly includes that property tax funding in both years, even though it did not pass through the state treasury in FY 2011.

• Federal recovery act (ARRA) dollars are appropriately counted as “state aid” in FY 2011.  In FY 2010 and FY 2011 all states received federal ARRA funding to support Medicaid and Education as part of the federal government’s attempt to help states through the Great Recession.  Kansas lawmakers chose to use the federal education dollars as a substitute for state general fund dollars, knowing that the federal money was only available for two years.  To school districts it was all “state aid,” whether the source was ARRA funds or the general fund, just as the Comparison Report table appropriately shows. School districts expected that lawmakers would shift the source of school finance funding back to the SGF when the state no longer had access to ARRA funds. 

School districts also garner funding through local property tax levies for local option budgets, and bond issues.  While the Comparison Report table does not show those sources, it does show the portion of school finance for which state lawmakers are responsible.

School block grants are a direct result of the state’s financial crisis.  With revenue dropping as a consequence of unaffordable tax cuts, the switch to block grants provided a way to shut off increases for schools.  Yes, as the chart shows, the amount for KPERS, capital improvement aid (buildings), capital outlay aid, and local option budget aid (mostly property tax relief) has grown.  But the remaining state aid–the money that is used for classrooms–has declined. 

If Kansas lawmakers want more money to go to classrooms, they should put more money there.  The current block grant setup does not accomplish that.

# # #

Duane Goossen, a senior fellow at the Kansas Center for Economic Growth, is a former Kansas budget director.

- See more at: http://realprosperityks.com/goossen-block-grants-are-a-bad-recipe-part-two/#sthash.2viBIbaG.dpuf

Parents, We Need Your Help!

September 21, 2015

A couple of years ago I wrote an editorial about looking at starting a new tradition to replace the littering of the Main Street in Kingman on the Thursday night prior to Homecoming, which has now become to be known as Toilet Paper Thursday or TPT. Since I have been superintendent I and, I’m sure my predecessors as well, have been asked to solve this issue. Why does the school and school district care? It’s NOT a school-sanctioned event nor does it occur on school grounds. It does not occur at a school activity, but it DOES tarnish the school and school district’s image and particularly the image of all of our students, though a minority actually participates.

Our students, over the past few years, have cleaned up parks, participated in numerous community service projects, provided food to those in need, held state leadership positions in various organizations, and even been recognized by national organizations in FBLA, Student Council, Youth in Government, and music to name a few accomplishments. Their participation in activities and athletics help create the “soft skills” businesses across Kansas are yearning for according to the recent data collected by Kansas State Department of Education Commissioner of Education, Dr. Randy Watson. According to Dr. Watson, when holding community listening sessions across the state, over 70% of those participating indicated the soft skills were critical. When Dr. Watson then held listening sessions exclusively for business leaders, 81% of business leaders indicated the need for these soft skills.

How is the last paragraph related to the first? I believe our students are making great contributions to the community. The school was awarded an S-3 Climate grant a few years ago and monies from the grant helped fund programs related to the Six-Star program recently started at KHS. The Six-Star program identifies those character attributes (soft skills) future employers desire. In fact, one human resource manager even stated to a KHS teacher if you have someone who demonstrates consistently all six of the characteristics, I’d hire them immediately. We will train them for what they need. My question, therefore, is how does littering our own community in the name of school spirit help demonstrate the desirable skills? How does ignoring pleas from those living along Main Street to stop the littering show character? Are there worse shenanigans that can be done? I’m sure there are, but the TPT certainly causes angst amongst a significant number of residents living in the community. Our students who involve themselves can do better and normally do. I see their great achievements every day I go to KHS and elsewhere around the community

Mr. Albright (KHS principal), Chief of Police David Lux, and I met with the senior class this past Thursday making a plea to stop the TPT practice. Mr. Albright strongly felt the leadership of this year’s senior class could persuade all classes to put a stop to TPT and discussed the great start of the school year and the desire to build on that start. All of us (Mr. Albright, Mr. Lux, and I) have been coming under greater pressure to do whatever we reasonably can to put a stop to TPT. Mr. Lux, when he spoke to the students, also made a plea to put a stop to TPT and further explained the possible legal consequences to students including arrest and prosecution. I was the last to speak and followed Mr. Albright and Mr. Lux’s pleas to the students to stop the practice. Though, as explained earlier, the TPT activity is not school-sanctioned, it has for years been associated with homecoming week and thus, according to the school district’s attorney, could result in loss of discretionary activities. Therefore, should the TPT activity continue, it is within the school district’s legal authority to impose consequences and at least some discretionary activities could be canceled. There are a number of positive homecoming-related and school-sanctioned activities (you can find a list on the KHS website) and we want all of the KHS students to actively participate in those activities. Rest assured, nobody in the school district has any desire do take away any school-sanctioned activity.

I realize some adults, some students and various community members not only support TPT, but also condone it. Whether you support it or not, I am asking all parents to consider the risks to your child and to ask your child or children to come home after the scheduled powder-puff football game and bonfire (2 KHS-sanctioned activities) and to not let your child or children participate in spreading toilet paper up and down Main Street. By the time the bonfire is over on Thursday evening, it will nearly be Kingman’s curfew time for anyone under 18. There is nobody in the school district nor on the law enforcement side who wants to instill consequences, so as the title states, PLEASE HELP US!

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Diepenbrock

Block grants are a bad recipe for Kansas schools

Block grants are a bad recipe for Kansas schools

By Kansas Center for Economic Growth Senior Fellow Duane Goossen

Unsurprisingly, 16 school districts applied to the State Finance Council for "extraordinary needs" funding in August to help cover growing enrollments. Under the new block grant system, that's the only way to get additional funds. However, the Finance Council granted only a fraction of each request. The districts were told that block grants already provide a record $4 billion in aid.

Is that true? Is more money going to the classroom than ever before? Are schools out of line in asking for more funding when enrollments go up?

For an answer, consider the chart "Major Categories of State Aid for K-12 Education in Kansas" on page 60 of the Comparison Report released recently by the Kansas Division of Budget. The chart traces state aid history from FY 2011 to the present. According to the chart, in FY 2011 the grand total of state aid was $3.802 billion. In FY 2016, the current budget year and current school year, the total rises to $4.059 billion-the number often referred to by the governor as a "record."

Over a 5-year period that's an increase of $257 million, but what does that increase pay for?

The numbers from the Comparison Report show that aid went up in 4 categories:

• Retirement System Payments (KPERS): The amount school districts must put into the public retirement system for education employees rises every year. In FY 2011 this payment was a separate funding category. In FY 2016 it become part of the block grant, but school districts must still pay the bill.
   
• Local Option Budget Aid: The Kansas Supreme Court ordered lawmakers to increase this aid to solve "equalization" problems between districts. Almost all of the increase was used to lower local property taxes, and did not produce additional classroom resources.
   
• Capital Improvement Aid: These funds are disbursed through a formula to help some districts with bond payments for buildings, but do nothing to cover enrollment increases.
   
• Capital Outlay Aid: The Kansas Supreme Court also ordered this funding to help some districts cover equipment purchases.

These 4 areas more than explain the entire $257 million increase. Each one, considered separately, is a worthy and necessary item, but these areas do not provide general classroom aid - the heart of day-to-day educational activity.

State aid for classrooms has actually gone down in the 5-year period covered by the chart, even when the amount set aside for "extraordinary needs" is included in the FY 2016 total. Yet enrollment in that period went up by 6,420 students. Costs for things like electricity, transportation, salaries, and supplies also went up.

Classroom aid goes down, but costs go up. Of course school districts are going to seek more funding.  Under the now-expired school finance formula, a rise in enrollment brought more funding to a district. With block grants, school districts must appeal to the Finance Council, but have no assurance that the larger enrollment will be covered.

And what about next year? The costs that school districts face will keep going up, but the block grant will stay flat, and that's the best-case scenario. The state's financial outlook is so tenuous that even flat funding may not be possible.

This block grant system is not a recipe for creating world-class schools. It allows lawmakers to say they put more money into the classroom, but they didn't.

# # #

Duane Goossen is a senior fellow at the Kansas Center for Economic Growth and served as Kansas Budget Director under three different governors.  See all of KCEG's latest research & analysis, including briefs, infographics and other blogs, on our website.

Tallman Education Report: Big step forward for Kansas students

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Big step forward for Kansas students

When the Kansas State Board of Education receives a report on new reading and math test scores today, the results will look lower than what the public, teachers, parents and students are used to.

And that is actually very good news.

Kansas has made its reading and math tests much tougher by raising expectations, which means that performance will look lower. The new tests measure more than just knowing the basic facts of reading, writing and arithmetic. Instead, the tests are designed to tell if a student is learning to think critically and solve more advanced problems - to handle the more complex demands of college, technical education and the workplace.

These tests are different from the types of tests students have taken in the past, and certainly different from what most parents (and grandparents) experienced. Instead of asking students to simply give answers based on acquired knowledge, the new tests ask students to apply that knowledge to new situations. These skills take time to acquire. The test format is different from what students have experienced in recent years. However, the most important thing to remember is the new tests are designed to be more challenging.

Kansas: Rising Achievement, Rising Demands

Kansas has long ranked among the top states in education performance, such as national reading and math tests, high school graduation rates and preparation for college, and each of these measures has improved over the past decade. However, Kansas school leaders have recognized we will have to do even better to help students succeed.

For example, Kansas high school graduation rates are at an all-time high, but economic changes mean most jobs will require education beyond high school. In the 1970s, only about one-third of jobs required more than a high school diploma. By 2020, it is projected that over two-thirds of the jobs in the United States will require some type of postsecondary education: technical training or a two-year, four-year or advanced academic degree. In Kansas it will be even higher: over 70 percent - fifth highest in the nation.

The good news is Kansas education levels have been rising. From 2000 to 2013 (the most recent year statistics are available), the percentage of Kansans 25 and older with a two-year, four-year or advanced degree has grown from from 32 percent to 39 percent, the percent of Kansans with “some college” has held steady at 25 percent, and the number of students completing technical programs has increased, according to state higher education officials.

The educational level of Kansas adults should continue to rise because educational performance by Kansas students has also improved, including high school graduation rates, the National Assessment of Educational Progress fourth and eighth grade reading and math tests, and college preparation tests, such as the percentage of students meeting all four “college ready “benchmarks” on the ACT test. In fact, across 14 national indicators, Kansas ranks 5th in the nation.

It is worth noting that Kansas’ spending rank is 25th in the nation after adjusting for state cost of living differences, and Kansas spends less than any other state in the top 15 for student achievement.

Challenges Facing Kansas Schools and Students

However, being better than most states still leaves some big challenges.

First, too many students fail to prepare for college academic requirements and require remedial courses or simply drop-out of college without completing a credential. About 74 percent of Kansas graduating seniors take the ACT test and 93 percent of those students says they plan to enroll in college. However, about 20 percent of those tested self-report they did not take at least four years of English and three or more years each of math, social studies and natural science. Even students who do complete that “core” may not have passed the specific “college prep” courses required for qualified admission to state universities.

“College prep” courses are much more challenging than those required only for graduation. If students do not take courses to prepare for postsecondary education, they are much less likely to be successful in college. The new tests are designed to give parents, students and educators a better and earlier measure of student progress.

Second, as in all states, low-income, disabled, African American, and Hispanic students in Kansas lag behind in graduation rates and test scores, especially in preparation for college. Again, Kansas does better than most states with all groups of students, but it will be much harder to fill the educational needs of the state economy if these students do not make more progress.

This is particularly true when the numbers of low income, non-white students are growing rapidly. For example, Hispanic students were just 9 percent of ACT test-takers in 2011, but 13 percent in 2015. Only 15 percent of Hispanic students meet all four “college ready” benchmarks, compared to 37 percent of white students.

Improving educational levels is critical to individual economic well-being, as well as the state’s economy. Each higher level of educational attainment results in higher income, less unemployment, and less need for public assistance.

Third, academic preparation measured by state tests is not the only thing students need to be successful. Results of new Commissioner of Education Randy Watson’s “listening tour” of Kansas last Spring indicates Kansans place a high value on non-academic skills and characteristics. In addition, about one-third of Kansas jobs will NOT require postsecondary education. Many students are unlikely to want or even be capable of more rigorous academic courses. Kansas high school schools must provide programs to meet their needs, as well.

What It Will Take to Succeed

How do the new Kansas assessments address these issues? Because these tests are given in grades three through eight and in once in high school, educators, parents and students will have a better idea how well they are preparing for college and careers long before their junior or senior year in high school, and have more time to adjust plans, choose the right courses and seek additional academic help and career counseling if needed.

It is important to note the higher standards reflected in these tests does not mean Kansas education performance has declined or more Kansas students or schools are somehow “failing.” It does, however, mean more will be expected. Preparing for success after high school will require more challenging courses than many students - and parents - are used to. Many of these students will be the first in their family to attend college. It will require more from teachers and support staff, such as academic and career counselors. It will require more individualized instruction.

Finally, meeting these higher standards will require the right resources. The Kansas Legislature is setting out to develop a new school finance system while the Kansas Supreme Court considers legal challenges to both the previous system and the “block grants” that froze state operating funds for the current and next school year.

This give Kansas the opportunity to fund schools based on what it takes to educate a successful student, which is exactly the standard adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court through the so-called “Rose Capacities.” While those capacities, ranging from basic skills to civics, economic, health, the arts and preparing for postsecondary education, have not been completely defined, one thing is clear: the only states that outperform Kansas across all national measures of educational outcomes spend more money per per pupil and target additional resources at low income and other special needs students. These are the states Kansas will be competing against for high-paying, high-skill jobs.

Revenue Estimates Aren't the Problem (from the Kansas Center for Economic Growth)

Long before the failed tax-cut policy of the recent past, Kansas made a wise financial decision by twice-yearly working out a reasonable estimate of how much revenue the state expects to take in. It's not hard to see how that would help to better plan for meeting public needs and assessing the ability to react to an economic downturn. Though the revenue estimates have been off in the past couple years, it's not because of the estimating process but rather because revenue loss from the tax cuts were so extensive that it was difficult to make an accurate estimate.

These estimates are done by the Consensus Revenue Estimating (CRE) group which consists of experts from the Kansas Division of the Budget, Department of Revenue, and the Legislative Research Department, as well as an economist each from University of Kansas, Kansas State University, and Wichita State University.

The CRE's track record is pretty good. On average, from their start in 1975 to 2013 - the year before the full impact of the tax cuts - actual revenue came in about 0.2% above the estimates. In budget year 2014, when the tax cuts were in full effect, revenue came in 5.6% below what was expected - the biggest miss ever.

  

Though some say there is room to improve the estimating process, the CRE's past performance speaks for itself. Even through the worst of the Great Recession, the CRE group largely anticipated the resulting loss of revenue.  Its final estimates were only a little over 2% off. It's clear that the tax cuts, which caused such a sharp drop in actual revenues, are why the CRE group's estimates in 2014 missed the mark by so much. When the tax cuts went into effect, we lost over $700 million in revenue. The CRE group did estimate that revenue would drop in the budget year that began July 1, 2013, but its estimates didn't come close to the actual loss in revenue. Why? Because the revenue loss from the tax cuts was so large that it was difficult to forecast it accurately.

This puts Kansas into a constant state of budget crisis. It's forced the state into making short-sighted decisions when we should be making the long-term investments in education, public health and safety, and transportation that create jobs and build a strong economy. Instead, we're using dollars that were meant to support the needs of Kansas kids to back-fill our budget gap .

Our revenue estimating process is a sound way to plan for the future.  The estimates can give us a good picture of how the state's ability to serve the public will shape up in the next year. But those estimates can easily be thrown off by drastic changes in tax policy - changes that have not come close to delivering the huge benefits that were promised.

  

Read all of KCEG's latest research & analysis, including briefs, infographics and other blogs, on our website.

You’re welcome to reprint the blog post, if you need our staff to send you image files please let us know.

Annie McKay

Executive Director

annie@realprosperityks.com

Kansas Center for Economic Growth
720 SW Jackson, Suite 203 | Topeka, KS 66603
Office 785.783.7370