Insiders Club on Thinking by Dr. Charles Fay - Love and Logic Institute

Have you ever stopped to think about what a blessing it is to be a good thinker? Now I’m not necessarily talking about being a genius or intellectually gifted. I’m mostly referring to being able to use good problem-solving skills and good old-fashioned common sense. As this world becomes ever more complex and temptation-laden, it becomes more and more important that we teach our kids how to build their mental muscles. Listed below are some quick tips: •   When your kids ask you for help with something, encourage them to try a bit longer before you jump in to help them. The only way to really learn good thinking skills is by having to figure out some things on your own. •   Ask them as many questions as possible. Examples include, “What else might you try? What have you seen other people do to solve this problem? What would happen if you tried_________? Where might you learn how to do that? Is that something you could learn about in a book, by asking someone, or by looking on the internet?” •   Allow them to mess up. Too frequently, we step in and tell kids exactly what to do when we worry that they might make a mistake. When the consequences are small, allow them to blow it and learn. In our book, Love and Logic Magic: When Kids Leave You Speechless, we also teach the importance of limiting the amount of TV kids watch and how to deal with all of the arguing that can happen when we begin to set limits. The less TV your kids watch the better thinkers they will become. Thanks for reading! Our goal is to help as many families as possible. If this is a benefit, forward it to a friend.   Dr. Charles Fay

Mark Tallman Blog Gannon School Finance Case

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Key Issues for the Kansas Supreme Court in the Gannon school finance case

Based on briefs filed by both parties and oral arguments Tuesday, the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in the last school finance case will focus on these questions.

1.       How much is enough? The state says actions by the Legislature over the past two sessions will provide $1 billion more in school funding over a six-year period. The plaintiffs want $500 million added to what the Legislature did immediately (for next school year) and up to $2 billion more phased in and adjusted for inflation.

2.       Meaning of the latest cost study. The state says the $2 billion cost of meeting state standards developed by Dr. Lori Taylor and others is based on "moon shot" aspirational goals that should not be required constitutional adequacy. It argues the Legislature used another approach to adequacy, based on previous rulings of constitutional compliance in 2009. The plaintiffs say the new study's goals are based on what Kansas students need to be successful, as defined by the State Board of Education, and the new study confirms what previous state-commissioned studies, a peer review this Spring, and an alternative study commissioned by the plaintiffs found about the cost of meeting state standards. Several justices questioned why the Legislature has repeatedly paid for cost studies it then doesn't want to follow.

3.       What is required to meet the “Rose” standards? The Supreme Court has set the standard for adequacy as enabling "all" students to meet or exceed seven standards of educational competence, from basic skills to preparation for college and career, called the Rose standards after a Kentucky school finance case. A major reason courts found the current finance system unconstitutional is that about 25 percent of students score below "grade level" on Kansas state tests and nearly 15 percent do not graduate on time. The state says approved funding should[LF1]  allow 85 percent of students to reach grade level. Plaintiffs say the target should be at least 90 percent of students on grade level and 60 percent of students "college ready" on state tests. Justices asked how high the constitutionally acceptable bar had to be – can schools be expected to reach 100 percent? Put another way, can more money solve all educational issues?

4.       Does money matter? No debate here: both sides agree additional funding will improve education. The state says its billion-dollar increase will significantly improve student success and should satisfy the constitutional requirement. The plaintiffs say it won't go far enough.

5.       The role of the court. Several justices expressed concern that any decision based on substantially new facts – such as the new cost study – would go beyond their scope as an appeals court. They raised the possibility of sending the case back to the three-judge panel to consider new evidence. Neither side expressed much support for a step that would add months or years to the process.

6.       The role of the State Board of Education in funding. Article 6, section 1 of the Kansas Constitution gives the Legislature the duty to “establish a system of public schools” for educational improvement; and in later sections delegates to the State Board authority for “general supervision” of public schools; to local school boards the duty to “maintain, develop and operate” schools and to the Legislature the duty to “make suitable provision for finance.” The state says this means the Legislature has the primary role, and the State Board is to supervise the system the Legislature “establishes.” The plaintiffs argue the State Board has independent authority to set educational standards for schools and students which the Legislature then must support with adequate funding. When asked if that means the State Board could lower standards (and therefore costs), plaintiffs replied that the Supreme Court should then intervene to the enforce the provision that the public education system must provide educational “improvement.”

7.       Retaining jurisdiction. The school finance bill passed in the 2018 session includes phasing in more than $400 million spread over the next four years. The plaintiffs want more money now AND a phase-in of additional funds. However, the state wants the court to dismiss the case, which means if the Legislature failed to follow through, a new lawsuit would have to be filed. The plaintiffs want the court to retain jurisdiction until any final resolution is fully implemented, which could be more than five years. The Supreme Court allowed a three-year phase-in as part of the Montoy case in the late 2000’s. It dismissed the case before the Legislature fully funded the law, and funding was reduced when state revenues fell during the Great Recession and following state income tax cuts.

8.       What happens to the Local Option Budget? The state claims the new requirement of a 15 percent LOB should count in its favor because it will increase the mandatory commitment of funding for each district. (For example, it would keep local school districts from using additional state aid to offset their LOB and reduce local property taxes.) Plaintiffs argue that a mandatory LOB should be 100 percent equalized by the state, rather than equalized to the 81.2 percentile under current law. The court has approved the 81.2 percent rate for the currently optional LOB. Plaintiffs also want the court to remove any voter protest or election requirements for the LOB and strike a provision that requires districts to use LOB funding for at-risk and bilingual education programs in proportion to amount of at-risk and bilingual weighting they receive.

9.       When will the court decide? That’s up the court. It previously promised a decision by June 30. If the Legislature’s action is found to be insufficient, the state has asked that the system be allowed to operate (schools remain open) during the upcoming school year (while about $200 million will be added) and the Legislature given next session to continue to work toward compliance. Plaintiffs say unless the Legislature approves additional funding for the upcoming school year, more funding committed for the future and changes to the LOB, the court should shut down the school finance system until it does – but want exceptions to allow maintenance of school district buildings and property while schools are closed.

KASB analysis of court hearing on school finance

KASB analysis of court hearing on school finance

The state on Tuesday urged the Kansas Supreme Court to keep schools open, accept the new finance law and dismiss the Gannon lawsuit that has gone back and forth between the court and Legislature for eight years. 

Plaintiff school districts, however, argued the new law falls far short of what Kansas students need to succeed, urged an additional $500 million and upwards of $2 billion afterwards, plus inflation, and pleaded with the court to maintain jurisdiction in the case because of past behavior by the state in cutting school funding after the previous Montoy decision. 

The long-awaited showdown before the state Supreme Court was scheduled to take two hours, but ran closer to three hours. Chief Justice Lawton Nuss said the court would take the matter under advisement. The court has previously stated it would issue a decision by June 30. 

A ruling against the state could trigger a special legislative session this summer as political campaigns heat up before the Aug. 7 primaries. 

Here is what KASB experts Donna Whiteman, assistant executive director of legal services, and Mark Tallman, associate executive director of advocacy and communications, noticed during the arguments (here is a link to the full KASB Live webinar on the court proceeding): 

— The court is trying to determine if the new law is calculated to have all students meet or exceed the Rose standards and whether students have reasonable access to educational opportunity from similar tax support. What level of student achievement is acceptable?   

— The state argued Kansas is adding $1 billion more for education, getting to Montoy levels of funding adjusted for inflation, but that is going to take five years. “That may be the single biggest problem that they (the state) have to overcome,” Tallman said. 

— Justices expressed frustration over how long the school system has been underfunded. The case was originally filed in 2010 after the state during the Great Recession cut school funding below levels accepted by the court as part of the Montoy lawsuit. 

— The state abandoned the school finance cost study commissioned by legislative leaders, which called for upwards of $2 billion in additional funding. “The state threw their expert witness under the bus,” said Whiteman. Whiteman noted without a cost study to rely on, three justices questioned whether they have enough information before them and talked about possibly remanding the case back to the lower court for more fact-finding. 

— After years of denying that “money matters” in K-12 funding, the state on Tuesday essentially conceded that it does. 

— When asked to dismiss the Gannon case, several justices noted that the court dismissed the Montoy lawsuit and then several years later, the state cut school funding.  

Kansas School Superintendents' Association Explaining School Finance Issues

Superintendents explain

School Finance and SB 243 
Open the video link below or copy and paste in your browser: 

https://usakansas.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1afdd21669&id=4db2d949f7&e=5f9be2e083

As you get an opportunity to visit with your legislators over the next two weeks, a few items to keep in mind.

 How did we get into this situation?

• Years of cuts from the base, special education and LOB Equalization Aid Reduction
• Caused by a recession, slowed economy but more important legislative tax cuts

Understand your district's history

• What cuts and reductions have been made over the last 8 years
• Projects that need to be completed
• Local increases, LOB or Capital Outlay
• Student and Staff needs

 

What do you need to reach your district's goals?

• Staffing (Cost)
• Programs (Cost)
• Projects (Cost)
• Almost yearly expense increases (Energy, Fuel, Supplies, Insurance and Other)

 

Education is not a zero-sum business our students and schools are consumers. We know we can’t afford everything, but we also know we can’t get the need results without a serious investment.

KASB:The $80 million issue in the school finance bill explained

The $80 million issue in the school finance bill explained

The school finance bill signed by Gov. Jeff Colyer this week wasn’t written as intended and will provide school districts $80 million less than expected. The Governor has called for the Legislature to correct this problem when it returns next week. 

Not only does the bill provide considerably less than intended (as described by proponents), the impact of the inadvertent changes has a different impact across Kansas school districts. 

First, here is a very brief recap of how the school finance formula works. Districts count their actual students, then add “weighted students” based on various costs factors for different student, program and district costs. This means the actual “full time equivalent” enrollment of around 480,000 students is increased to just under 700,000 when all “weighted students” are added. The adjusted enrollment is then multiplied by a base amount per pupil, $4,006 this year. 

Under SB 19, the school finance bill passed last session, the base state aid per pupil was supposed to increase from $4,006 to $4,128, or $122. Multiplied by just under 700,000 “weighted” students – actual students with adjustments for various weighting factors for – that meant districts were expected to receive about $85 million more next year, 2018-19. In addition, special education state aid would increase $7 million. 

Earlier this session, the Kansas House passed HB 2445 in response to the Supreme Court’s Gannon decision. That bill would have increased the base next year to $4,170, an additional $42 per pupil or $29 million, for a total “base increase” of about $115 million in general state aid next year, plus an additional $32 million in special education for a total of $44 million. 

In the final weekend of the regular session, the House amended a Senate bill, SB 423, to include provisions very similar to HB 2445, and the Senate concurred in those amendments, sending the bill to the Governor. Members were told it would provide the same level of school district funding as the original House bill. But it become apparent that the way the bill was written would have a very different impact. 

The new bill contained a provision that required every district to have a mandatory Local Option Budget of 15 percent. This funding – from both local property taxes and state supplemental general state aid – would then be added to general state to funding a base budget of $4,900, although districts would not receive any more money than they would without the 15 percent LOB and a base of $4,170. 

This concept has been championed for years by House Education Committee chair Clay Aurand, who readily admits the purpose is to allow the Legislature to claim before the Supreme Court a higher “guaranteed” base amount for each pupil by “mandating” a portion of the LOB. 

However, as the amendment was drafted, it included state special education aid as part of the total amount of the 15 percent required LOB. This increased the “required” LOB statewide from $510 million to $590 million. Because this amount is subtracted from the total as “local effort” to determine how much state funding a district received, it ended up reducing state aid by $80 million below the intended amount. 

In addition, this new language does not affect all districts equally. Districts that received higher amounts of special education, because of higher special education enrollment or more expensive services, will have a larger “deduction.” Also, the bill repeals the “artificial” LOB base, which “grandfathered” LOB authority in certain districts. 

Combined with the impact of declining enrollment and expiration of some previous weighting like extraordinary declining enrollment and new facilities weighting, a number of districts actually lose funding under the bill as passed. Very few would lose funding under the bill as intended. 

Here is a link to a KASB document showing the district-by-district impact of SB 423 as it was approved and as it was intended.

It will be up to the Legislature to determine whether to correct the unintended consequences by either dropping the “mandatory LOB” provision, or making technical changes to keep that concept but avoid the $80 million reduction – or do nothing. 

KASB Report: What school finance means to Kansas

KASB Report: What school finance means to Kansas

 

KASB’s Mark Tallman, associate executive director for advocacy, has prepared a report about Kansas’ investment in public school education and what it means for the future of our state. 

Here is the link to the report entitled: “School Finance in the Court, Legislature and Schools: What it Means to Kansas.” 

The report shows that funding is directly linked to the success of our students and the success of our students is directly linked to the economic health of Kansas. 

We urge all our members to use information in this timely report as they advocate on behalf of public schools. The Kansas education community is entering a critical period in school finance because of the Gannon lawsuit, the Legislature’s response and the 2018 election cycle.  

In addition, KASB would welcome invitations to present this report to any group wanting to know more about the importance of adequately and equitably investing in public schools in Kansas.  

For more information, contact: 

Mark Tallman at mtallman@kasb.org 

Leah Fliter at lfliter@kasb.org 

Rob Gilligan at rgilligan@kasb.org 

Scott Rothschild at srothschild@kasb.org 

KASB Blog: K-12 funding is not taking larger share of state budget

K-12 funding is not taking larger share of state budget

Despite concerns that K-12 funding is taking a larger share of the state budget and squeezing out support for other programs, analysis of state spending shows that school funding’s share of the Kansas budget has changed little since 1994. 

According to data from the Kansas Legislative Research Department’s Fiscal Facts publication, state aid to school districts in 1994, when the state assumed a much larger role in school funding to reduce property taxes, was 48.2 percent of the state general fund. Under the approved budget for 2019, school district state aid will be 49.7 percent. The average over the past 25 years has been 49.9 percent. 

In other words, school district aid from the general fund has increased at almost exactly the same rate as overall state general funding spending, including increased funding as a result of school finance lawsuits. 

Note that state aid funding increased from about 40 to 50 percent of the state general fund from 1992 to 1994 when the Legislature raised sales and income taxes to reduce local school property taxes in most districts. The percentage of state aid for K-12 also increased following reductions in the statewide mill levy from 35 to 20 and removing the state school levy from motor vehicle taxes in the late 1990’s, and following the Montoy school finance decision in 2005. 

The share of budget going to K-12 had been declining since 2011 until the current year when funding was increased to address the Gannon decision. However, the share of state general funding going to K-12 is expected to decline next year under the two-year budget approved by the 2017 Legislature. 

Note: this data includes only appropriations for school district state aid from the state general fund. It does not include capital improvement (bond and interest) aid or the 20-mill statewide levy.