KASB: Research and Analysis: Education of Kansas 18-24-year-olds

Research and Analysis: Education of Kansas 18-24-year-olds

 KASB Updates, SBR 2017

From the Census

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2015, 87.5 percent of Kansas adults under age 25 had graduated from high school. This makes Kansas 20th in the nation in terms of high school graduation rates.

In addition, 57.8 percent of 18-24-year-olds Kansans had some college or postsecondary education. This means they may have attended but did not yet complete a degree or certificate, or they earned a technical certification, an associates degree, or a higher degree. Kansas ranked 16th in the nation on this measure.

Of young adult Kansans, 8.9 percent had completed a four‐year degree or higher ‐ 30th in the nation. An estimated 36 percent of Kansas jobs in 2020 will require some postsecondary education.

This data alone doesn’t look too bad for Kansas, but it does when you compare the 2015 data to that reported for 2014.

Compared to 2014, Kansas attainment rankings for 18-24-year-olds have gone down considerably; from 18th to 20th for high school graduates, from 7th to 16th for those with some college or higher, and from 19th to 30th for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

If you look at the long term trends, Kansas high school completion by young adults increased 3 percent from 2005 to 2015, which is below the national state average of 5.6 percent. Kansas ranks 44th in the U.S. for the amount of change in this area.

For some postsecondary enrollment and completion, Kansas increased 5.9 percent, compared to the national state average of 9.3 percent, ranking 46th.

In four‐year or higher college completion, Kansas decreased 0.8 percent, compared to the national states average of an 0.8 percent increase, ranking Kansas 46th in growth.

The chart on the following page shows that the levels have actually changed very little since 2005.

From KSDE

According to KSDE, 71 percent of Kansas jobs in the near future will require a postsecondary credential; approximately half requiring a four-year degree or higher and the other half an industry credential or two-year associates degree. Approximately 90 percent of jobs will require at least a high school diploma.

Although current Kansas adult education levels are at an all-time high, they remain well below those levels, which means a higher percentage of young Kansans will need to graduate from high school and earn postsecondary credentials or degrees.

National Student Clearinghouse data, which goes back to 2010, shows that statewide in Kansas, approximately 65 percent of 2010 graduates were enrolled in some type of postsecondary program the first year after graduation (2010-11), and 35 percent were not enrolled in any postsecondary program. A very small number of students had completed a technical certificate or other credential in high school.

Six years later (2016), just under 40 percent of those high school graduates had completed a postsecondary program, and another 10 percent were enrolled in postsecondary programs but had not completed any credential. The remaining 50 percent had either never entered postsecondary programs or had dropped out without completion, or were part of a small number (about 3 percent) that are not tracked by the NSC because they opted-out under privacy laws, attended institutional that do not report to the NSC, or are in the military.

Using the same data, approximately 50 percent of students who graduated high school in 2010 were still enrolled in the second year out (2011-12) and five percent had completed a credential, most likely a one- or two-year technical certificate or a two-year degree. That equals a 55 percent “success rate” for high school graduates.

However, for the class of 2010, the “on time” or four-year high school graduation rate was 80.9 percent, so just under 20 percent of students did not graduate high school.

For the five years currently reported by KSDE, 2011 through 2015, the statewide graduation rate average is 85 percent; the success average is 52 percent and the effective average is 44 percent.

What does this data mean?

Kansas must continue to improve educational levels to meet employment and economic needs. By 2010, studies say 90 percent of Kansas jobs will require a high school diploma and 71 percent some level of postsecondary education; with about 35 percent requiring a four‐year degree or higher.
However, Kansas is beginning to fall behind other states. Kansas no longer ranks above the national state average and most similar states in educational attainment by young adults.

Kansas does well in graduating and getting students into college (top 20), but as of 2015 we are in the bottom half of the states when it comes to college completion for this age group.

Most alarmingly, Kansas ranked in the bottom 10 states in improvement in postsecondary attainment by young adults since 2005, suggesting that Kansas workforce is in danger of becoming less competitive with other states. This decline has occurred as Kansas school funding has also declined compared to other states.

Welcome Back to School Video - YouTube

Parents and students:

Please enjoy this back to school video developed by the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of the Kansas State Department of Education.

https://youtu.be/

KASB Post: Stay Politically Engaged

Legislators urge education advocates to stay politically engaged

Three legislators who voted for increased school funding and the tax changes to support K-12 and other parts of the state budget urged education advocates to stay politically engaged to protect the new direction of Kansas.

State Reps. Russ Jennings of Lakin, Bradley Ralph of Dodge City and John Wheeler of Garden City offered brief comments Wednesday during KASB’s advocacy tour on “A New Day in Kansas Education.” KASB’s advocacy team has been traveling statewide to have conversations about new education initiatives. 

During the 2017 regular session, Jennings, Ralph and Wheeler were part of a GOP-Democratic coalition that approved a new school finance formula and reversed much of Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax changes that led to severe revenue shortfalls.

Jennings, in his fifth year as a legislator, said the Legislature was able to start repairing the damage to state government from the past few years, but serious challenges remained. “We’re on the right path,” he said, but added it will take “a long period of restoration” to recover from years of inadequate state revenue.

He urged education advocates to reach out to the business community to help restore the value of educators in Kansas. Garden City USD 457 School Board President Lara Bors also emphasized the need for school districts to work with the local business community. She praised business leaders in Garden City who have a long-running program of providing monetary awards to local teachers for their work.

Ralph, who is a freshman legislator, said many legislators don’t understand the intricacies of public school operations like school advocates do and it is the responsibility of advocates to help legislators understand. “You can’t just sit tight. You have to keep talking to them,” he said.

Wheeler, also a freshman, said while the legislative process can be frustrating sometimes, “This year our Legislature worked very well.”

Jennings said he expects those who supported the tax changes will be pummeled with negative campaign tactics next year. “We’re up to the challenge,” he said. “We do it because we care about our state.”

This year, the Legislature approved a new school finance plan and increased K-12 funding by approximately $290 million over two years. The increase represented the first time in years that state funding surpassed inflation and the new formula replaced a two-year block grant system that kept funding flat. The formula and new dollars are being reviewed by the Kansas Supreme Court which ordered the Legislature to provide adequate funding.

In addition, the Kansas State Board of Education is implementing its Kansans Can vision, which calls for the state to lead the world in student success; the Kansas State Department of Education is set to announce selection of 14 schools for a major redesign project to coincide with the Kansans Can vision and the department has implemented a new school district accountability system.

KASB says the confluence of these efforts to increase student success represents “A New Day in Kansas Education.” KASB urges school board members, administrators, legislators, State Board members, and local leaders to attend these sessions. You don’t need to register and there is no cost.  Below is a schedule of meetings.

Thur. Aug. 3

10 a.m.  in Colby at the Board of Education Room, 600 W. 3rd St.

3:30 p.m. in Great Bend at the Board of Education office, 201 S. Patton Rd.

Mon. Aug. 7

10 a.m. in Hiawatha at Hiawatha High School, 600 Red Hawk Drive.

11:30 a.m. in Herington at Herington Elementary, 1403 N. 6 St.

6 p.m. in Hutchinson at the Hutchinson Career & Technical Education Academy, 800 15th Cir.

Tue. Aug. 8

9:30 a.m. in Haysville at the Haysville Activity Center, 523 Sarah Lane.

6 p.m. in Wichita at the AMAC (Alvin Morris Administration Center), 903 S. Edgemoor, Room 310.

Wed. Aug. 9

3:30 p.m. in Leavenworth at the Board of Education Office, 200 N. 4th St.

Thur. Aug. 10

10 a.m.  in Lawrence at the College & Career Center, 2910 Haskell Ave.

4 p.m. in Iola at the Iola High School Lecture Hall, 300 E. Jackson Ave.

Fri. Aug. 11

9 a.m. in Emporia at the Mary Herbert Board of Education Room, 1700 W. 7th Ave.

2:30 p.m. in Paola at Paola Middle School library, 405 Hospital Dr.

Welcome to USD 331 Kingman-Norwich Schools

August 2017

From: Dr. Bob Diepenbrock, Superintendent of Schools USD 331

To: Parents and Students of USD 331 Kingman-Norwich Schools

Welcome

On behalf of the Board of Education of USD 331 Kingman-Norwich we welcome you to a new day in Kansas and public education as five key factors converge to drive historic changes in the way we educate our children:

The Kansas State Board of Education has adopted a vision that Kansas will lead the world in the success of each student through emphasis on kindergarten readiness, improving graduation and postsecondary achievement rates, individual plans of study and social/emotional success. The USD 331 Board of Education adopted a vision that USD 331 will lead the state in the success of each student and is set to approve changes to the 2017-2018 Strategic Success Plan that reflects the same emphasis as the Kansas State Board;

The Kansas legislature enacted a new school funding formula with additional funding targeted to lower-achieving students;

This year launches a new accreditation system that shifts from a focus merely on reading and math tests to a broader view and a new measurement of how students succeed after high school; and

The State Board selected 14 schools across seven school districts to lead a redesign of Kansas schools to help all students succeed.

Educational attainment results in higher incomes, less poverty and more employment. School funding puts money into our communities through jobs, salaries and purchases. After years of neutral or declining funding, Kansas and USD 331 Kingman-Norwich schools can finally begin to restore important programs and give teachers and staff a salary that exceeds inflation.

We know what has made Kansas schools and USD 331 successful in the past, and how to build on that success. We have made decades of improvements in all levels and have continued, despite funding challenges, to expand programs like early childhood, career and technical education, Project Lead the Way Science, Technology, Engineering and Math curriculum, virtual and alternative education, individual plans of study, special education and at-risk programs. Our students succeed when these efforts, which often require additional staff and funding, respond to local needs.

The members of the USD 331 Kingman-Norwich Board, Administration, Faculty, and staff embrace this new day with optimism and ask for your support as we work to improve our students’ education and support their continued success. Furthermore, Kansas Commissioner of Education, Dr. Randy Watson will be addressing the staff at their beginning of school in-service at Kingman High School Friday, August 18^th at 10 -11:30 a.m. All parents, students and community members are welcome to Dr. Watson’s address on the new Kansas vision on education. We hope you can join the staff on the 18^th.

Again, on behalf of all members of the USD 331 community, welcome to our schools. We want to work together with you so our students lead the state in success.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Diepenbrock

KASB report says increased investment in schools will benefit Kansas

While there continues to be much debate about the tax increase approved by the 2017 Legislature, there has been little discussion about the benefits the tax increase will have for all Kansans when invested in K-12 education.

A new report by KASB shows that residents of states that invest more in public school education have higher education attainment and earn higher salaries. Those states with higher per pupil investment also experience lower unemployment and poverty rates. Here is a link to the report.

Previous KASB reports have shown that Kansas schools already use tax dollars efficiently as evidenced by the fact that despite ranking 31st in funding per pupil, the Kansas K-12 system outperforms the national average in nearly all student achievement measurements.

Generations of Kansans have invested in public schools and the results are higher levels of education and higher income levels. Continued improvement in our public school system is not a wish; in today’s world it is a necessity, according to studies that show 70 percent of jobs by 2020 will require some post-secondary completion.

The recent tax increase, which will result in an increased investment in our public schools, will pay dividends now and in the future by helping our students and economy grow, according to the KASB analysis.

For further information about the KASB analysis on the benefits of the increased K-12 investment, contact Mark Tallman, associate director for advocacy and communications.

KASB: Plaintiffs, State argue school finance in briefs filed with KS Supreme Court

Plaintiffs, State argue school finance in briefs filed with Kansas Supreme Court

 In briefs filed Friday, the State of Kansas says the new school finance act is “a dramatic, positive step for Kansas, its students, and its schools,” correcting the constitutional flaws in funding adequacy found by the Supreme Court; and asks the court to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs say the act “significantly underfunds K-12 public education – by all measures;” and ask the court to require almost $900 million for funding over the next two years.

The plaintiff school districts also say the new law introduces unconstitutional funding inequities, and ask the court to set a new deadline of Sept. 1 “for these unconstitutional provisions to be remedied” by the Legislature.

If the Legislature does not take corrective action, the plaintiffs want the court to declare the funding system void – effectively shutting down the operation of public schools in Kansas – but will ask the court for “exceptions to any spending injunction to allow for the preservation and security of district properties and systems should that be necessary.”

The state, on the other hand, says that if the court finds the Legislature has not fully addressed school funding adequacy, “the Court should allow year one of the law to remain in effect and allow the Legislature to address any remaining issues during the 2018 legislative session.”

Both sides have until this Friday to file a response brief to the other party. Oral arguments are set for 9 a.m. Tuesday, July 18. The state has the burden to prove it has addressed the court’s March ruling that school funding is not constitutionally adequate. The Supreme Court allowed the Legislative Coordinating Council to file amicus briefs on behalf of the Legislature, along with the plaintiffs and the state.

The state’s attorney argues the new school finance act, passed in SB 19, addresses the adequacy issue in four ways.

First, it notes the Kansas Supreme Court found “that not only is the State failing to provide approximately one-fourth of all its public school K-12 students with the basic skills of both reading and math, but that it is also leaving behind significant groups of harder-to-educate students.”

In response, the state says the new law increases funding for these students by (1) increasing the at-risk weighting factor; (2) funding all-day kindergarten students as full time students, freeing up at-risk dollars currently used for that purpose; (3) increasing at-risk preschool funding by $2 million each of the next two years; and (4) increasing special education state aid by $12 million each of the next two years. In addition, the new law requires at-risk funds be spent on “best practices” approved by the State Board of Education – although previous law required at-risk programs be approved by the Board, as well.

Second, the state says the Legislature used a “successful schools model” somewhat similar to a method used in the early 2000’s by the firm of Augenblick and Myers to determine a base or foundation amount for each student. The method used in SB 19 identified 41 districts with more than 500 students performing above expectations on state tests, graduation rates and ACT scores when considering their percentage of low income students. A formula was then developed that indicated these districts were spending a “calculated” base amount of $4,080 when the local option budget is also included.

Third, the state argues that if funding from the local option budget is included, the “effective” base amount per pupil next year under the new law will be $5,639, compared to an inflation-adjusted estimate from the 2006 Legislative Post Audit cost study for a base of $5,468. The court indicated in an earlier decision that all revenue sources, not only base aid, may be considered when determining adequacy.

Fourth, SB 19 provides that after the first two years of the statutory base increases, the base will be automatically indexed to the inflation rate, as supported by a number of school representatives.

The amicus brief filed by the Legislative Coordinating Council agrees with these four elements of the state’s argument that it has complied on adequacy, and adds another: that the bill creates a “dynamic partnership” between the on-going research of the State Board of Education and the Legislature’s funding for underperforming students; noting not only the new “best practices” requirements for at-risk and bilingual funding but a series of audits and legislative studies of weightings prescribed by SB 19.

In response, the plaintiffs say that none of these changes satisfy the adequacy test. First, the bill provides just under $300 million in additional state aid under the school finance formula at the end of two years, which is only one-third of the amount requested by the State Board over two years, or nearly $900 million.

Specifically, the plaintiffs note the base amount, special aid state aid, mentor teacher aid and professional development aid provided by SB 19 are far below the State Board’s request.

Second, the plaintiffs say both the Supreme Court and the State agreed that a base amount of $4,492 was constitutionally adequacy in 2009. Adjusting that amount for inflation to the current year would require over $800 million, compared to $300 million actually approved.

Third, the plaintiffs argue that the Legislature did not take into account either inflation or the increase in students since 2009; and ignored the base levels required after adjusting for inflation the two previous cost studies it commissioned (the Augenblick and Myers and Legislative Post Audit studies.)

Fourth, the plaintiffs say a significant portion of additional funding under SB 19 will be consumed by teacher salary increases and the Legislature failed to provide evidence the remaining amount will be adequate to improve performance by low-achieving students; that some districts with large number of low-achieving students will lose funding under the new system (primarily because of enrollment losses); and that a higher at-risk weighting based on the LPA study is still inadequate because the base upon which it is multiplied is below the level recommended by that same study.

The plaintiffs also say the bill inappropriately provides at-risk funding to districts which do not need it by setting a minimum at-risk funding level of 10 percent free lunch enrollment, even if actually enrollment is lower; and “freeing up” money by funding all-day kindergarten also allows more money for districts that did not use at-risk funding.

Finally, the plaintiffs says the tax bill passed by the Legislature, SB 30, is projected to fall short of state general fund expenditures by 2020, calling into question the future funding of the finance system; and that SB 19 continues to underfund certain programs specified in state law: special education, teacher mentoring and professional development.

In addition to the arguments on adequacy, the plaintiffs also say SB 19 violates the court’s pervious standard for equity, which is that school districts must have “reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort.” The plaintiffs based this claim on three provisions in the law.

First, the bill makes adopting a local option budget of greater than 30 percent (up to the maximum of 33 percent) subject to voter protest petition, which can lead to an election. Although a lower requirement than the mandatory election required by the previous law, plaintiffs say this still creates a higher barrier for low wealth districts, where voters are more likely to reject an LOB increase than high wealth districts.

Second, the bill expands the authorized use of capital outlay funding to utility expenses and property and casualty insurance. The plaintiffs note that even with state capital outlay aid under the current formula, high wealth districts can raise more dollars per pupil for each capital outlay mill than poor districts. The court previously upheld a lower capital outlay state aid rate because it was for building and equipment, rather than operations. The plaintiffs argue utilities and insurance are operating costs.

Third, the plaintiffs object to the provision of SB 19 that makes LOB state aid based on the prior year’s LOB. “As a result of this provision, no district will receive LOB equalization aid for any LOB increases for the first year of its increase.”

In response to the charge of “equity” violations, the state first argues that because the Supreme Court previously ruled the Legislature had complied with equity requirements, equity in the new law should be presumed constitutional until a new trial determines otherwise. “Any new equity challenges the Districts may raise at this stage by definition have never been litigated before. Thus, there is no evidence introduced by the parties, no lower court record, and no findings or conclusions of a lower court.”

However, the state does offer some preliminary rebuttal to equity challenges. First, because the court previously allowed an election requirement for accessing LOB over 30 percent, the state says a protest requirement should be acceptable.

Second, the state argues utilities and insurance “logically and obviously relate to the purposes of capital outlay” and the bill fully funds capital outlay equalization.

Third, the state does not address the issue of prior year funding of LOB state aid, but says using a three-year average of assessed valuation per pupil to determine LOB state aid beginning in 2019 provides the state greater stability in appropriating state aid, and “an average over time necessarily smooths out temporary peaks and valleys in data for any district.”

The state also defends the 10 percent floor for at-risk funding as appropriate for districts that have low numbers of at-risk students but still have underperforming students due to reasons other than poverty.

KASB:School leaders lead during legislative session

School leaders lead during legislative session

 State Board of Education, Suitable Funding, Revenue Sources, Financing Schools, Managing Schools, Tax Policy, Cost Reduction, Governing Schools, Efficiency Strategies, Newsroom

There was a distinct difference in public education debates between the 2017 legislative session and several previous sessions.

That’s because many more of the state representatives and senators in 2017 knew from first-hand, K-12 experience exactly what they were talking about.

With school funding a key issue in the 2016 election cycle, approximately 50 education leaders from across Kansas ran for the Legislature.

And many of them won office, bringing to the Statehouse a high level of expertise of the complexities of financing and operating a system that serves a diverse population of more than 450,000 students and their families.

Often heard during debates, a legislator would start his or her remarks, saying, “As a school board member,” or “When I was superintendent … ‘’
These legislators/school leaders rolled up their sleeves, bringing decades of knowledge to the table to help craft a new school finance formula and the tax increase needed to fund it.

During one debate, Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, voiced an often repeated allegation that school districts were sitting on piles of idle cash in their reserved funds.

But Sen. Lynn Rogers, D-Wichita, a freshman legislator who is also 16-year member of the Wichita USD 259 school board, explained in detail how reserve funds were needed for districts’ cash management.

For state Rep. Brenda Dietrich, R-Topeka, this was her freshman year as a legislator after retiring from 14 years as superintendent of Auburn-Washburn USD 437.

She said current and former teachers, current and former school board members and several retired superintendents in the Legislature were influential during the session especially in the committee process where legislation is put together.

“This group of like-minded individuals, who care deeply about public education in Kansas, influenced the deliberations of the K-12 Education Budget Committee by being visible and present at committee meetings, advising the K-12 Education Budget Committee members individually, and providing practical information regarding implementation of the different components of the formula,” Dietrich said.

The K-12 Education Budget Committee took the lead in forming a new school finance method and also conducted in-depth hearings and discussions on other school issues, such as school district purchasing and health insurance. The presence of former superintendents, school board members and other education leaders on the committee produced a deeper understanding of those issues.

Dietrich said the pro-education forces in the Legislature tried to advance an agenda that would help all Kansas schools. There are at least 28 legislators who have worked in some capacity in the public education system and while they don’t vote as a bloc, their experience and knowledge provided crucial information to the school finance debate.

“Most importantly, we could be counted on to vote affirmatively for amendments to strengthen the structure of the formula while also thwarting some of the more destructive options presented for inclusion during legislative debate,” she said. “The pro-education philosophy in the Legislature, by the election of a group of folks with education backgrounds, was very beneficial for crafting a new school finance formula that is structurally sound and advantageous to most districts the first year and all districts the second year.”