Report ranks Kansas high on education performance and college funding; lower on equity, state economy and finances

A new report says Kansas is in a better position than most states to meet future workforce education needs, but offers some warnings about educational equity, state economy and finance policies.

The report indicates the Kansas education system, from pre-K through postsecondary, does relatively well in preparing students to complete high school, participate in postsecondary education and complete a degree or workforce credential – and does so at a fairly low cost. These conclusions are consistent with KASB’s Comparing Kansas report on educational attainment and K-12 funding.

However, the report notes that all states are projected to fall short of projected educational needs.

The report, College Opportunity at Risk: An Assessment of the States, was prepared by the Institute for Research on Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education. It provides a state-by-state "risk ranking" for addressing future educational opportunity using 17 indicators in four areas: education performance (both K-12 and higher education), education equity, higher education funding and productivity, and state economy and finances.



“Unless state and college leaders take steps to ensure that more Americans attain postsecondary degrees and certifications, the United States will be woefully unprepared for the economic and civic challenges of the 21st century,” say the authors, led by Dr. Joni E. Finney, director of the Institute for Higher Education Research. “By 2025, the United States will need approximately 60 percent of its workforce to have college degrees, workforce certificates, industry certifications, and other high-quality college credentials (Lumina Foundation, 2018).” The report indicates that Kansas had 50.7 percent of its residents meeting those goals in 2016, and says if Kansas fails to improve, it will fall short of the 60 percent benchmark by 133,877 in 2025.

Other reports have suggested Kansas will have an even greater need for credentialed workers. The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workplace said in 2013 that the nation will need 65 percent of workers with a postsecondary credential and that Kansas would need 71 percent – tied for sixth highest among the 50 states. These concerns have been a driving force in the Kansas State Board of Education’s Kansans Can vision to boost high school graduation and postsecondary attainment rates.

How Kansas scored in the new report

The College Opportunity at Risk Report ranks states on a range of indicators available for all states. The method is similar to KASB’s Comparing Kansas report, but is much more focused on higher education data, as well as state budget and economy measures.

Overall, Kansas ranked 12 LOWEST in “risk rank,” meaning 11 states were considered to have a lower risk of not meeting educational goals and 38 were at higher risk. The states with lower risk rankings were (from lowest risk to highest): Washington, Vermont, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and Delaware.

How does Kansas fare in the individual areas covered by the report, and what implications does it have for state and local policies?

Education Performance – Kansas ranked 9th

Kansas ranked in the top 15 states in high school graduation rate (89 percent) and percent of population enrolled in education beyond high schools (45 percent for 18-23-year-olds and 5.8 percent, for 24-64-year-olds). It also ranked higher in the percent of community college students completing a two-year degree within three years (34.6 percent).

Kansas was average in the percent of students scoring at proficient on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading and math at fourth and eighth grade (between 33-41 percent), the percent of students completing a four-year degree within six years (51.8 percent) and percent of family income, on average, required to pay the cost of attending postsecondary institutions (after subtracting all financial aid) in the state (27.2 percent). Kansas ranked lowest in the percent of passing Advanced Placement test scores per 100 juniors and seniors (13.4).

The Kansans Can vision places a high emphasis on graduation rates and postsecondary participation, which, along with career-focused individual plans for study, make up three of the five outcomes that all districts are to focus on. (The other two are kindergarten readiness and social and emotional issues.) The Kansas Department of Education last year developed a Postsecondary Effectiveness report as one of the accountability tools for all districts.

Educational Equity – Kansas ranked 33rd

Kansas ranked 20th in the white/non-white gap in high school completion or graduation rate (8.5 percent). It ranked 33rd in the percentage difference between the percent of non-white students enrolled in degree or workforce certificate programs (7.4 percent). In other words, a smaller percentage of students from racial and ethnic minorities are enrolled in postsecondary programs than are in the overall population.

Kansas ranked 42nd in the gap between white and non-white students in the “on time” completion rate for two-year and four-year institutions. Finally, Kansas ranked 20th in “geographic equity,” defined as the average distance from each county center and the closest degree-granting institution (6.4 miles).

This data suggests Kansas is about average in the “achievement gap” between white and non-white students for high school graduation, but a lower percentage of non-white students attend postsecondary programs and an even lower percentage actually complete those programs.

Note that the equity gap only measures the difference between white and non-white students. For example, a smaller difference between white and non-white students was considered better, even if both groups were below the national average, than a larger difference if both groups were higher than average.

Higher Education Funding and Productively – Kansas ranked 2nd

This was the best area for Kansas. The state was in the top 15 states in postsecondary productively or state and local appropriations per degree and certificate produced at all public institutions ($25,082), and in the number of degrees and workforce certificates awarded for every 100 full-time equivalent students at all degree-granted institutions.

Kansas ranked 2nd in the “volatility of higher education appropriations,” defined as the percent of the amount of money appropriated specifically for higher education fluctuated annually between 2000 and 2015. Ranking 2nd means higher education appropriations in Kansas were NOT volatile; that state support did not change as much from year to year as most states.

This data suggests that a comparatively high percentage of students complete degrees at a relatively low cost to the state. It indicates that Kansas state support for higher education has been quite stable compared to other states but does not show how the level of funding compares to costs or needs.

State Economy and Finances – Kansas ranked 31st

The report’s final area looks at a state’s economy and fiscal practices. On the economic side, Kansas was fairly average in gross domestic product (revenue from all goods and services in the state’s economy) per capita in 2016 ($46,217). The Kansas “New Economy Index” ranked 30th. The index developed by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a composite indicator that represents how well the structure of each state’s economy aligns with the ideal structure of the New Economy in five broad categories: knowledge jobs; globalization; economic dynamism; the digital economy; and innovation capacity. Finally, Kansas ranked 23rd in Income Inequality, the gap between the median family income of families in the highest and lowest income groups.

In terms of state fiscal policies, Kansas ranked 17th in volatility of general fund expenditures, the average annual fluctuation of state expenditures from year to year between 2000 and 2015 (2.7 percentage points). The state’s worse rank, 47th, was state reserves, with an average “rainy day fund” balance of 0.0 percent between 2016 and 2018. Finally, Kansas ranked 21st in state debt and unfunded liability as a percent of state revenue (180.6 percent).

It is unclear how the report defines “rainy day funds” in state budgets. Kansas does not have a separate rainy day fund but is supposed to maintain state general fund ending balances of 7.5 percent. That threshold has been regularly ignored in recent years.

Overall Implications

Although the report suggests that Kansas is better positioned than most states in providing postsecondary opportunity for its students. There are two major concerns.

First, Kansas has wider disparities between white and non-white students in postsecondary education than most states. That is especially problematic considering other reports that project the non-white population in Kansas will grow faster than in most states. Second, the state’s economic ability to support education is barely average compared to other states.

The biggest area of concern raised by the authors of the report is the shifting financial burden for postsecondary education from state and local funding to tuition, and the impact of that shift on under-represented student populations. It calls for new compacts for public education. “Today it is clear that post–WWII state policies, which were designed to educate 30 to 40 percent of Americans beyond high school, do not meet current and future demand,” said the report, stressing that new economic demands will require educating 60 percent or more of students beyond high school.

Kansas school property taxes lower than most other states

Local property taxes for public schools in Kansas are lower than most states in the region and nation, even including the state 20 mill levy.

Property taxes are usually considered the most unpopular tax among voters and taxpayers, and concerns about higher property tax rates have been cited by some as a reason to amend the Kansas constitution’s school finance provisions. However, national data shows Kansas schools rely less on property taxes than most neighboring and Plains states and the national average.

Data from the most recent Public Education Finance report for 2016 from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Kansas raises $2,191 per pupil from local property taxes, 37^th out of the 43 states that reported revenue from local property taxes. That is lower than all bordering states (Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma) and other Plains states (Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota).

That number for Kansas does not include the statewide 20 mill levy, which is mandated by the state legislature, collected by the state and redistributed to school districts as state aid. National data does not indicate if other states fund schools with state aid from property taxes. However, even if including $1,212 per pupil from the statewide mill levy is added, Kansas school property taxes are still below all neighboring and Plains states except Minnesota and Oklahoma, and over $600 below the U.S. average.

Why are Kansas school property taxes so low? First, because overall Kansas school funding is relatively low. In 2016, total funding per pupil ranked 30^th in the nation, over $1,500 below the national average; lower than Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and North Dakota in the region, and just $120 more than Missouri.

Second, property taxes are also lower in Kansas because of deliberate state policy to rely more heavily on state revenues. Kansas schools overall receive just 27.4 percent of total revenue from local sources. That is a lower percentage that any state in the region, compared to Colorado (49.5 percent), Iowa (39.1 percent), Minnesota (29.2 percent), Missouri (49.2 percent), Nebraska (58.7 percent), North Dakota (34.8 percent), Oklahoma (41.0 percent) and South Dakota (56.3 percent), as well as the U.S. average (44.5 percent). This fact also explains why Kansas ranks high in state aid per pupil (as opposed to local revenues) and K-12 aid amounts to about 50 percent of the state general fund budget, as it has since the mid-1990’s. Relative to other states, a portion of state aid effectively functions to lower property taxes rather than increase school funding.

Third, school property taxes are lower due to state equalization aid. Three major state aid programs – Capital Improvement aid for bonds ($190 million) Capital Outlay aid ($60 million) and Local Option Budget aid ($480 million) do not provide districts with any additional spending power; instead, they offset local property tax requirements. Without this funding, property taxes would have to be much higher in low wealth districts or spending in these areas reduced.

A significant amount of state equalization has been passed by the Legislature because of Kansas Supreme Court rulings on funding equity. Other states have different constitutional language and court opinions.

State Board proposal would adjust Legislature's school funding for inflation

The Kansas Supreme Court’s latest Gannon decision said the Legislature’s most recent plan to provide constitutional school finance is acceptable if funding is added for future inflation. In July, the Kansas State Board of Education laid out a plan to do that.

State attorneys told the Court the 2018 Legislature’s plan was based on the amount that should have been appropriated in 2010 – after action to address the earlier Montoy case but before budget cuts caused by the national recession. This method, called the “Montoy safe harbor,” adjusted for inflation between 2010 and 2017 and showed actual school funding was $763 million short in 2017.

The state argued increased funding approved by the 2017 and 2018 legislatures would close that gap. Much of the additional funding would be phased in through 2023.

The Supreme Court basically accepted that approach; however, the court said its approval was conditioned on the Legislature adjusting for inflationary increases as that funding level is phased in. In developing its budget request for the next state budget cycle, the State Board voted to recommend additional state aid increases over the next four years to comply with the court, adding $90 million per year to funding already approved. (The State Board is also requesting other increases as well).

The following chart shows how the State Board’s request would close the gap between the Legislature’s action so far and an inflation-adjusted “safe harbor” calculation. The solid orange line is the state’s estimate of funding required to maintain the constitutional level approved in the Montoy case, adjusted for inflation through 2017. The solid blue line is the actual level of general fund support. The dotted blue line shows funding approved by the Legislature to close the gap in 2023. However, if the top line is adjusted for 1.44 percent inflation, the gap does not close. The red line indicates the State Board’s proposal for additional funding to close the gap in 2013.

State revenues and budget. School funding already approved for 2020 through 2023 will require more than $100 million per year. The State Board’s request would increase that amount to approximately $200 million per year. Total state general fund revenue for the fiscal year just ended, 2017-18, was just under $7.3 billion. To add $200 million in state funding would require revenue growth of over 2.7 percent. However, there are expected to be many other funding demands on the state, including human service caseloads, increased funding for KPERS contribution, restoring transportation and higher education.

Since 1994, K-12 funding has been about 50 percent of the state general fund budget. To keep K-12 funding at that percentage of the SGF, state revenues will have to increase by double the rate of education funding, or about 5.5 percent. That is much faster than revenue growth in most recent years. However, tax revenues were over $300 million higher than projected in April. The next official revenue forecast, which will cover the rest of the current Fiscal Year as well as FY 2019-20 and 2020-21, will be released in November.

How was the “safe harbor” and inflation adjustment calculated?

Column 2 shows actual school district general fund amounts (not including special education) from 2009 to 2017, the approved general fund levels for 2018 (last school year); the amount of additional base and special education aid approved for 2019 (upcoming school year), and the estimated general fund from 2020 through 2023 under base state aid increases approved in 2018 SB 61.

Column 3 shows the annual change in the Consumer Price Index-Midwest from 2011 to 2017, as noted in the court's Gannon VI decision, based on a memo from the Kansas Legislative Research Department, and a projected 1.44 percent inflation rate from 2018 through 2023. There is no actual CPI-M data past 2017 (the current year, 2018, is only about half over). The court's concern is that no inflation adjustment was made in the state's approved funding for 2018 and 2019, or the for the "phase in" of the plan from 2020 to 2023. The court seemed to suggest a 1.44 percent adjustment might be applied in future years. The State Board used this percent in developing its budget request.

Column 4 is taken from a Kansas Legislative Research Department memo cited by the court, which showed what the general fund total would have been in 2010 under the Montoy decision, which was presumed to be constitutionally suitable. That level is then adjusted by the CPI-M through 2017 to the level of $3.44 billion. The state argued this is the target it needs to reach under the "safe harbor" concept. The state did not discuss any change in this amount for 2018 to 2023.

Note that in 2023, the estimated level of general fund support is $3.38 billion, compared to the 2017 safe harbor amount of $3.44 billion, which indicates that Legislature’s five-year plan would be about $56 million short even without adjusting for inflation. The court may have accepted this because of other funding the Legislature said it was providing, including increases in special education, early childhood and other programs.

Column 5 shows an increase in the “safe harbor” level based on 1.44 percent inflationary adjustment from 2018 through 2023, the period of the Legislature’s phase-in. The safe harbor amount increases from $3.44 billion in 2017 to $3.74 billion in 20023.

Column 6 shows the difference between the actual funding from 2010 through 2017 and the Legislature’s safe harbor calculation for the same years, and between the estimated amounts under Legislative action and the inflation-adjusted safe harbor from 2018 through 2023. The shortfall increased from $533 million in 2010 to $763 million in 2017. It began dropping in 2018 with legislative action, but after adding 1.44 percent for inflation annually from 2018 through 2023, the gap remains $364 million in 2023. That was the Supreme Court’s major concern.

Column 7 shows the amount proposed by the State Board to add about $90 million more each year from 2020 through 2023. These increases are cumulative, so by 2023, the additional funding requested by the board is $364 million.

Column 8 shows the estimated foundation amount for 2020 through 2023 if the State Board’s request is added, under which the state aid level finally matches the safe harbor level, adjusted for inflation, in 2023. That means state foundation aid would have been below the state’s proposed calculation of adequate funding for 14 years – an entire class of students from kindergarten through grade 12.

There are three big issues with the board’s proposal to comply with Supreme Court’s decision.

Inflation rate. The State Board used a 1.44 percent inflation rate for a phase-in through 2023, which the court observed is “the average of all the years of inflation shown in the State’s chart from its April 23 memo (SY 2010-11 through SY 2016-17).” However, the actual rate could be higher (as many observers expect), as well as lower. Currently, inflation is running higher than 1.44 percent.  The April Consensus Revenue Estimate projected the national consumer price index to increase more than 2 percent in 2018 and 2019. (The national CPI tends to increase slightly faster than the Midwest CPI.)

Would the court accept an inflation adjustment for 2018 through 2023 based in the average inflation rate from 2011 through 2017?

What funding “counts” toward the safe harbor? The “safe harbor” calculation was based on the total of school district general fund budgets, essentially the base or foundational state aid per pupil multiplied by actual enrollment and student weightings under the school finance formula. However, in determining the amount of additional funding to meet the inflation-adjusted safe harbor, the State Board appears to have included $44.4 million in additional special education aid in 2019. For 2020 through 2023, the board only considered the increase in base state aid which the Legislature approved and proposed additional base aid of approximately $90 million per year.

It is not clear if the Supreme Court would expect all additional funding to meet inflation to be base state aid, or whether it would consider other funding, such as special education, pre-school funding, transportation weighting changes, mental health programs, local option budget changes and even KPERS funding attributable to increased aid.

State aid for school district bond projects: how it works, why it matters

Most people are aware that the state of Kansas provides help for some school districts to pay for construction bonds to build, remodel and equip schools and other district facilities. But they may not know the details of how the program works, or why it is important. Decades ago, before the state began assuming a larger role in school funding, schools were mostly funded through local property taxes. There are great differences among districts in the amount of taxable local wealth (called assessed valuation), especially when considering differences in the number of students each district enrolls and educates.

 Assessed valuation per pupil ranges from just over $1,000 in Ft. Leavenworth, a military installation with almost no taxable property, to over $500,000 in Burlington, home of the state’s only nuclear power plant. Even after throwing out those extremes, valuation per pupil ranges from about $25,000 to over $375,000.

This means lower wealth districts would require much higher property taxes to raise the same amount as wealthier districts. For example, according to the Kansas State Department of Education, the average school district bond payment last year was $1,202 per pupil. This is an average: many districts have no debt and no payments; others are higher.

 Again, excluding extremes, a district with $25,000 in assessed valuation per pupil (AVPP) would have to levy over 46 mills to raise $1,202 per pupil, compared to just over 3 mills for a district with $350,000 AVPP. The statewide average would be about 16 mills. Beginning in 1993, even before the Kansas Supreme Court ruled such differences would create unconstitutional inequities for students, the Kansas Legislature created a program to help lower-wealth districts pay for school construction bonds.

 The original formula was amended by the Legislature in 2015. Under the new formula, the LOWEST district in assessed valuation per pupil would receive 75 percent state aid, meaning the state would pay for 75 percent of the annual bond payment. The "aid ratio" drops by one percent for every $1,000 in increase in AVPP.

The next lowest AVPP district for last year, 2017-18, was $25,800. The difference between $25,800 and the lowest AVPP of $1,000 is approximately $25,000. Subtracting 25 percent (1 percent for each $1,000) from 75 percent, means the second lowest current district is eligible for about 50 percent state aid.

Without state aid, a district with AVPP of $25,000 would need to levy about 47 mills to raise the state average per pupil annual bond payment of $1,202. With 50 percent state, the required mill levy drops to about 23 mills.

The aid percentage continue to drop until AVPP reaches about $76,000. In other words, the rate drops from 75 percent at $1,000 per pupil to zero at $76,000 per pupil. There are about 140 districts below $76,000 in AVPP, out of 286, which means that approximately half of districts receive NO state aid, and half receive aid between 50 percent and zero. There are only about 20 districts below $40,000 AVPP, which means most districts that get state aid receive less than 35 percent.

It is important to remember that while lower wealth districts receive an increasing percentage of aid, it does not mean their taxpayers pay less in taxes. In fact, even with state aid, these districts still require a higher mill levy than wealthier districts.

The chart below shows the approximate mill levy required to raise the average bond and interest payment of $1,202 per pupil without any state aid (blue bars), and the levy required with the current state aid formula (orange bars). No aid is paid for districts over about $76,000 per pupil and as AVPP continues to rise, the mill levy continues to decrease.

As the table shows, this program is far from “fully equalized.” Wealthier districts can still raise more revenue per mill, or equal revenue at a lower tax rate; and the poorest districts still must pay more than to raise the same amount. However, it does allow those lower wealth per pupil districts to pay for school construction with tax rates closer to the state average.

Information about specific districts can be accessed through the Kansas State Department’s Data Central portal, here. You can select reports on assessed valuation, bonded indebtedness and bond proceeds.

School districts increase staff to help students, improve outcomes

Since 1998, the number of school district employees in Kansas has increased by over 9,500 full time equivalent positions, or about 16 percent. Student enrollment increased by over 22,000, or about five percent.

Schools have added staff at a faster rate than students for three basic reasons:

• Reducing general class size, which helps improve student learning.
• Providing more intensive instruction for students with special needs, most significantly due to new requirements and more identification of special education students, but also for additional services to other at-risk students. The number of special needs students has grown much faster than regular enrollment.
• Additional expectations for schools such as technology, school safety and social services; and expanding transportation and nutrition programs.

There is strong evidence these investments have paid off:

• A higher percentage of students are graduating high school, the highest on record.
• More students are prepared for college based on ACT tests.
• More students are entering and completing postsecondary education than ever before.
• These changes have occurred despite a large increase in students who have traditionally been less likely to graduate, to prepare for and to complete postsecondary education (low income, disabled and minority students).
• Data shows that the most successful states in student outcomes have more staff employed for their student populations than less successful states.

School employment has changed as follows:

• The biggest increase in school staff was for instruction, especially in early childhood and special education.
• Schools added more support for student social and emotional needs and school safety.
• Districts boosted support for improving curriculum, instruction and technology.
• Principals have been reduced while other school staff increased.
• Districts reduced maintenance staff and added to transportation.
• Districts reduced general administration and central services support staff.

How have school employment positions changed by type of function?

From school district reports, the Kansas State Department of Education provides the number of all school districts employees for each district by job titles in just two categories: certified (or licensed) and non-certified.

KASB categorizes job titles and numbers by school district budget “functions,” based on KASB’s assessment of how the position title compares that function. Other organizations have grouped these staff titles in different ways. Each is a judgment call.

(Note: these positions are reported as “full-time equivalent” or FTE positions; in other words, a person who worked on half-time would be considered 0.5 FTE. Because many school jobs are less than full time, the total number of employees is higher.)

The following chart shows that about 75 percent of new positions (about 7,000) have been in direct instruction of students, divided between licensed teachers and non-licensed instructional staff including special education paraprofessionals and teacher aides.

About 2,200 positions were added in student support (such as counselors, nurses, speech pathologists, social workers, etc.) and instructional support (libraries, curriculum support, and technology support). There have been small increases in school administration and the combined total of operations and maintenance, transportation, and food service; and a decrease in general (district) administration, central services like the business office and all other positions.

A table that shows how KASB assigns all KSDE-reported positions in these function categories, the number of FTE employees in 1998 and 2018, the change in number and the change percent is provided at the end of this report.

What do staff changes show about school district programs and priorities?

The biggest increase in school staff was for instruction, especially in early childhood and special education.

Out of over 7,000 new positions, more than 1,300 have been for early learning, including 775 kindergarten teachers as districts expanded all day kindergarten; 425 pre-kindergarten teachers as preschool programs were added, and 163 in Parents as Teacher programs. In special education, 683 teachers were added, along with 2,758 paraprofessionals. Another 853 regular classroom aids were added.

Special education paras and classroom aide positions have grown faster than teachers for three reasons. First, Kansas has long faced a teacher shortage in some areas, especially in special education. In many cases, more teachers are simply not available – and that problem is getting worse. Second, paras and aides can take over “non-teaching” duties from teachers, allowing them to focus on instruction and more individualized work with students. Third, paras and aides are not licensed and have lower salaries, offering a more cost-effective staffing option in some cases.

Schools added more support for student social and emotional needs and school safety.

Out of nearly 1,100 increased student support positions, schools added about 400 counselors, social workers and other social services staff, 179 nurses, and 78 school resources officers. Also added were over 200 audiologists, psychologists and speech pathologists, and about one clerical support position for every 10 professional positions.

Districts boosted support for improving curriculum, instruction and technology.

Out of 1,077 positions in instructional support, districts added over 950 positions in technology, titles that didn’t even exist in 1998, to accommodate the shift to internet-based learning, individual student computers and wired classroom. Districts also added over 240 instructional coordinators and supervisors and curriculum specialists to improve teaching and focus on curriculum standards and added 79 library media aides while cutting 307 library media specialists.

Principals have been reduced while other school staff increased.

Districts cut 80 principal positions but added 174 assistant principals, reflecting closure of smaller buildings and adding assistant positions that usually work in areas like student discipline, activities and staff supervision.

Districts reduced maintenance staff and added to transportation.

Schools have found ways to operate and maintain buildings with less staff, reducing positions by over 100. There has been almost no change in school food service total staff despite serving more students. (Districts may also be outsourcing some of the functions.) Districts have increased school transportation staff as more students are bused for reasons of safety, school attendance and expanding school choice.

Districts reduced general administration and central services support staff.

Districts have eliminated over 40 net superintendent, assistant and association superintendent positions and nearly 350 clerical and business support positions, while adding less than 100 business managers, directors, coordinators and supervisors.

Have districts added more “management” positions than other positions?

In some areas, districts have reduced positions like clerical, food service and operations and maintenance, while adding more positions titled director, coordinator or supervisor. It is important to note those positions do not mean a new “layer of bureaucracy.” These positions are often not exclusively “supervisory:” the person may be doing considerable “hands on” work and be all or most of the district’s staff in the area, but have a title and salary reflecting higher skills and responsibility.

These changes reflect larger trends in the U.S. economy: increasing technological and other efficiencies are reducing lower skills jobs and shifting more duties to higher skill, more independent and “quasi-management” positions. It has been reported that virtually all net employment growth since the great recession of 2008 has been in higher skill jobs. School districts have followed the same pattern as the private sector.

How do changes in school funding impact school employees?

For decades until 2009, Kansas school funding increased faster than inflation most years, which allowed districts to add employees, provide more individualized focus on students and expand programs, which in turn increased educational attainment, earnings and state economic growth. From 2009 to 2017, school funding was flat or declining compared to inflation and school staff was reduced, and student achievement outcomes weakened. Staff numbers began to recover last year when the Legislature provided increased funding.

School employment has not grown uniformly. The chart below shows employees by function annually since 1998. Positions increased with higher school funding around 2000 and after the Montoy school finance case in 2005 but were reduced when school funding was cut following the post-911 recession and great recession of 2008, and during the block grant period that froze funding.
Most of the long-term increase in school employment has been in instruction: teachers, aides, paras and a few other positions involved in direct instruction of students. Other areas of increase are student and instructional support. Most other areas have been flat or declining. General administration and central services are at the bottom and represent a very portion of school employees.

What Kansas education cost studies found and how they have been used by the courts

Some legislators, candidates and organizations are complaining that the Kansas Supreme Court, rather than the Legislature, is setting the level of school funding in the state. However, it is important to understand that the court’s decisions have relied almost entirely on the evidence in studies requested and paid for the by the Legislature itself.

Since 2000, the Kansas Legislature has commissioned and funded three major education cost studies. 

The first was conducted by the consultants Augenblick and Myers and released in 2001. It was commissioned by the Legislature before the Montoy case reached the courts. It used two methods – professional judgment and successful schools model – and said the state needed to add about $229 million, or 8.1 percent more funding, to reach goals set by the Legislative Educational Planning Committee, the legislative body which oversaw both K-12 and higher education.

With no other study or other evidence of education costs, the district court and Supreme Court accepted the A&M study as credible evidence in finding that the state was not providing constitutionally suitable funding.

In response, the 2005 Legislature and a special session reached an agreement with the Supreme Court to increase school funding AND commission a new study, this one conducted by the Legislature’s own audit and research agency, the Legislative Division of Post Audit.

The second study was released in early 2006, and also used two methods: an "inputs” approach based on the costs of providing state required courses and services, and an “outcomes” approach based on meeting student assessment and graduation rate targets required by the federal No Child Left Behind act. The study said funding would need to increase between $316 million and $399 million to meet the state’s educational goals.

Although the study did not find a national consensus among researchers about the link between funding and student achievement, it DID find in KANSAS a nearly one to one correlation” between funding and results.

Based on this study, the Legislature agreed to a three-year plan to increase funding and a fourth year (2010) with an inflation adjustment in the base aid per pupil. The Supreme Court then dismissed the case. However, by 2010 state school aid was being reduced due to the recession and tax cuts, and has never fully recovered when adjusted for inflation. This led to the Gannon lawsuit.

Although the 2017 Legislature added about $300 million to school funding spread over two years, the Supreme Court said the state had not shown clear evidence that amount would provide suitable funding. Last December, the Legislative Coordinating Council hired another consultant, Dr. Lori Taylor, to do a third cost study with the assistance of WestEd, as well as an independent peer review of that study.

The Taylor study was designed to find the cost of achieving student test scores and graduation rates based on the Kansas State Board of Education’s federal plan for student achievement, the achievement of the top performing Kansas districts, and improvement that occurred when the system had been constitutionally funded after Montoy. It determined that it would cost an additional $400 million to raise graduation rates to 95 percent, $1.7 billion to get 90 percent of students to grade level on state tests, and $2 billion to get 60 percent of students to “college ready” on state tests.

The study also specifically found a “strong, positive statistically significant correlation between funding and results,” and that Kansas school districts were highly efficient, among the best in the nation. The study methods were validated by the independent peer review.

However, the Kansas Legislature decided not to use this much more expensive study as the basis of increased funding, but instead approved a five-year funding plan based on getting back to the 2010 level as determined by the LPA study, adjusted for inflation through 2017. Although the Gannon plaintiffs wanted the Supreme Court to use the new study to order even more funding, the court did not do so. It only said the Legislature must also adjust the five-year phase-in to keep up with inflation from 2017 until it is implemented.

To summarize, all three education cost studies requested and funded by the Legislature itself have found that K-12 funding was not adequate to meet the state’s educational goals for students. Two of the studies specifically found that in Kansas, at least, funding does make a difference in student success. The most recent study also found that Kansas schools are highly efficient.

In other words, the Kansas courts are not telling the Legislature how much to spend based on an amount judges make up on their own, or even requested by the plaintiffs. They are telling the Legislature it must fund schools based on its own evidence of what it costs to achieve the state’s educational goals.