Suitable Funding for Public Education
The Kansas Constitution
gives the state legislature, not local school districts, the responsibility for
providing suitable funding for public education. The people of Kansas and their
elected leaders expect all students to reach high academic standards. They
should expect all Kansas students to have the same opportunities as their own
children and grandchildren.
All Kansans have an economic
stake in every child. If a student fails to receive an education, the state,
not the local community, pays for the costs of incarceration and public
dependency. If a student succeeds, the state benefits from higher income,
better skills and more active citizenship.
A strong public school
system in Kansas.
ACT Scores: Kansas has
the 8th highest national scores; the highest combination of scores and percentage of students tested.
(2000 scores)
SAT Scores: Kansas
has the 5th highest scores nationally. (1998 scores)
NAEP Reading Scores: National
Assessment of Education Progress. Only one state had a higher average score and
percentage of students at or above proficient level than Kansas for fourth
grade; only two states scored higher at eighth grade.
High School
Completion: Kansas tied for 3rd highest in ranking by
the National Education Goals Panel (1997 data); tied for 4th in
Congressional Quarterly’s State Fact Finder 2001 (1997-99 data).
High School
Drop-outs: Kansas tied for 3rd best in ranking by
2000 Kids Count report (1997 data).
Percentage of Population
with High School Diploma: Kansas ranked 6th by Educational
Statistics 2000.
A growing crisis for
public education.
More classrooms without
teachers: The number of classroom teacher vacancies in public
schools reported to the State Department of Education rose from 196 in August,
2000, to 530 in August, 2001.
More waivers from
standards: The number of waivers requested to allow individuals
not meet all certification requirements to teach rose from 18 in 1997-98 to 123
1998-99, to 197 in 1999-00 and 290 in 2000-01.
An aging workforce: Over
1/3 of currently employed teachers are age 50 or older. That means a
significant number will have to be replaced in the next five to 10 years as
they become eligible for retirement. The situation is even more severe for
administrators: 40% of principals and 67% of superintendents are 50 and older.
Teacher salaries and the
private sector: Between 1995 and 2000, increases in salaries for private
sector employees were higher than for classroom teachers every year, sometimes
twice as high. Since 1992, teacher salaries have barely kept up with inflation,
while Kansas personal income has increased at more than twice the rate of
inflation.
The “pay gap:” The
most recent data show that Kansas teachers earn $15,000 a year less than other
college graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree. That means the average
teacher could make 45% more by earning the average salary of other college
educated employees – far more than is justified by fewer working days due to
summer vacations.
Average salaries of
public school teachers: While Kansas students rank among the highest in the
nation on achievement tests and other positive measures, Kansas’ teacher
salaries do not fair as well. In 1999-2000 the average salary for teachers in
Kansas, at $34,981, ranked 40th out of 51 states. It is becoming
increasingly difficult to draw new candidates to the profession with low
salaries, as well as rewarding our current staff for placing our student
performance level at the top of the nation. Many teachers are leaving the
profession for better paying jobs where public schools cannot compete with.
More expectations, fewer
benefits: Educators are expected to spend more time on
continuing education, professional development and school improvement efforts.
Yet school districts often provide fewer benefits (insurance, retirement,
profit sharing) than private sector employers.
Lack of funding for
public education.
Base budget and
inflation: Since the system was adopted in 1992, the state has
raised the base from $3,600 to $3,870, and increase of just 7.5%. If the base
had been adjusted at the same rate as inflation, it would be $4,521, or 25.6%
higher. That means that base has lost $651 compared to inflation alone.
Mandated costs: Part
of the increase in general fund budget has not been available for general
salary increases because of program restrictions and new requirements. For
example, most districts must transfer funds from their operating budget to pay
for special education programs not funded by the state or federal government.
Replacing state
support: Because the general fund budget, which is set by the
state, has not kept up with costs, school boards have had to “supplement” the
general fund with the LOB. This means the LOB has been used to make up the lost
purchasing power of the base, not to provide “extras” or “enhancements.”
Personal income and state
revenues: These trends have taken place at a time of extraordinary
growth in the state economy. Kansas personal income rose by 45.9%, more than
twice the rate of inflation, resulting in high revenue growth for the state.
The Legislature certainly had the revenues to increase school funding to meet
educational needs. But school funding had to compete with tax rate reductions
that eventually totaled more than $900 million per year.
Education funding vs. tax
cuts: For example, the Legislature reduced the statewide mill levy from 35
mills to 20 mills. Therefore, state aid was increased by $265.5 million just to
make up for reduced property tax collections for the general fund. Yet the
impact of this change on many property taxpayers was minimal because LOB’s,
funded mostly by property taxes, were increased by $222.6 million. As a result,
the reduction in the statewide mill levy really didn’t reduce property taxes;
it simply shifted the burden from a uniform and equalized statewide levy to
unequal local levies.
Investing in education.
A new system: In
the early 1990’s, the Legislature adopted a new school finance system that
significantly increased school funding, reduced the differences in local tax
rates for schools by giving the state a larger role, and included many school
improvement and accountability measures. Following increased funding and
commitment to school improvement, student performance increased on standardized
tests and other measures: ACT and SAT scores, state assessments, and enrollment
in advanced courses. Graduation rates have increased, attendance rates have
increased, and dropouts have decreased.
We are now back where we
started in the early 1990’s, where local tax rates are varied between
districts, and the state is taking a smaller role in funding public education.
Student performance has dramatically surpassed the amount of state funding for
education. This trend cannot continue.
A “post audit”
report: The Legislature requested a post audit report to
compare the amount of money Kansas school districts spent on instructional
costs to surrounding states. The report showed that, on average, Kansas schools
spend 57.6% of its K-12 budget on instruction, while the four-state average is
61.2%. The difference equates to 2,100 extra jobs that Kansas schools employ,
with 87% of the jobs in counseling, librarians, food service, transportation,
and maintenance. 13% were in administration. Kansas schools have been
criticized by some Legislators for this report, but they forget to look at the
way our students perform compared to these four states, and the nation.
Additionally, communities
expect schools to provide for a safe school environment where students feel
welcome and have a since of pride. This does not come cheep. To address these needs,
schools have added assistant principals, counselors, and security measures to
provide positive learning environments. To be criticized for addressing these
needs only happens when Legislators have to answer the question of why they do
not adequately fund public education. They stand behind it when people reflect
on “Columbine,” and other unfortunate incidents that may harm our children.
None of these costs are labeled as “instructional,” but most that care about
education would argue that these costs are directly tied to instructional
success.
The question is…”what counts
as an instructional item?” It depends on where you place it within your budget.
The computers that students use for learning are not counted as instructional
costs, depending on where they are purchased out of the budget. Most schools do
not consider technology as “supplies.” Special education funds do not count
because they are a “transfer” line item in the budget. Why? Because of the way
the Kansas State Department of Education has their budget line items separated.
I don’t believe the KSDE ever thought that our legislator’s would have become
so picky. We can alleviate the problem
by re-doing the way we prepare our budgets, but the money will still be spent
the same way… for instructional reasons, and the best interest of students.