Too many principals in Kansas schools? Not for successful students

A spokesperson for Kris Kobach’s campaign for Governor says that twelve principals and assistant principals for two Wichita schools is “clearly excessive.”

However, data shows that compared to state and national averages, those two schools actually have fewer principals than would be expected, based on enrollment.

According to reports requested from the Kansas State Department of Education’s Data Central (link), Wichita East and Wichita North High Schools have a combined enrollment of 4,508 (2,331 plus 2,177). That means 12 principals and assistant principals would be responsible for 376 students each. (4,508 divided by 12).

Statewide enrollment reports indicate a total of 518,712 headcount students in Kansas. State personnel reports show 1,187.5 principals and 606.2 assistant principals statewide, for a total of 1,793.7. That means on average, Kansas principals and assistant principals are responsible for 289 students. (518,712 divided by 1,793.7) In other words, if there are 12 principals with over 4,500 students in two high schools, those buildings have fewer building leaders for the number of students compared to the state as a whole (376 versus 289).

How does Kansas compare to national data? The most recent reports are from 2014-2015. At that time, Kansas had nearly 100 more principals and assistant principals (1,899) with lower total enrollment (496,444), or 261 students for every principal and assistant principal. Nationally, the ratio was slightly higher (287 student for every principal) than Kansas in 2015, but almost identical to what was last year. The national average was also far less that the average at Wichita East and North.

However, the top achieving states on 15 educational outcomes had an average student/principal ratio of 260, below that national average and Kansas. The ten lowest achieving states had an average ratio of 306, higher than the national average.

In other words, the top achieving states have more principals compared to their enrollment, and the lowest achieving states have fewer.

Why would more principals and assistant principals be associated with higher student performance?
Research shows school leadership makes a difference in student achievement. Scholars at McREL, a non-profit education and research center in Denver, analyzed 70 studies involving approximately 1.1 million students and 14,000 teachers, and found a substantial relationship between leadership and student achievement.

Principals have these key roles in school buildings: providing overall leadership for all staff in the building, guiding, evaluating and supporting teachers, and dealing with students in areas such as discipline, safety, policies and activities.

A first-person description of what assist principals do today in today’s public school system is provided here (link).

Here is most recent national data on the number of principals and other school staff. (Link) Here is national enrollment data. (Link)

It should be noted Kobach's initial claim during a debate broadcast live throughout the state was that one Wichita high school had 12 assistant principals. The Wichita Eagle found that to be incorrect. Kobach has yet to publicly acknowledge his mistake. But a campaign spokesperson after acknowledging the initial claim was wrong, still contended 12 principals and assistants for two large high schools was excessive. The question becomes, excessive compared to what? The facts show that the number is much lower compared to the rest of the state and nation.

Kansas schools ALREADY spend less on non-instructional programs

Critics of Kansas public education sometimes claim that too little funding goes directly to teachers and too much to other programs. By cutting non-teaching programs and shifting that money to instruction, some say education could be improved without spending more money.

But national reports (link) show that Kansas already spends less on those programs than other states, including both the top states in student achievement and those most like Kansas.

This data supports the finding of the Legislature’s recent education cost study, conducted this earlier this year. The authors said Kansas schools are among the most efficient in the nation, producing nearly 96% of their potential output, on average. Kansas ranks in the top half of the nation on each of 15 student success indicators and ranks number nine overall, while total funding per pupil is 30th.

Most educators agree that “non-instructional” programs – principals, counselors, nurses, social services, speech pathology and audiology, libraries, food service and transportation, as well as operating school facilities and general administration – also have a big impact on student learning. The most recent data from other states (2016) finds Kansas spending trails other states in these areas.

Here is what Kansas spent on major parts of school operating budgets outside of instruction compared to other states, as reported by National Center for Education Statistics.  Kansas funding is compared to the U.S. average, the nine highest achieving states on 15 measures of student success, states bordering Kansas and other Plains states, “peer” states most similar to Kansas in population characteristics, and the 10 states with the lowest student success. (For details of the comparison states, see below.)

General Administration. It is the smallest item in every group. Kansas spent $242 per pupil, $20 more than the national average but lower than the highest achieving states, border/Plains states and peer states, and higher than the bottom performing states. (Note that the lowest spending states spend the least on general administration and the top performing states the most.)

School Administration. Republican candidate for Governor Kris Kobach has criticized some schools as being top heavy with principals, but Kansas spending of $583 per pupil on school building administration is less than any group except border/Plains states (which spent just $8 less). Research indicates that school principals are critical to student success.

Transportation. Kansas spent about $400 per pupil on transportation, less than any comparison group of states, including the U.S. average.

Operations and Maintenance. Kansas spent about $1,000 per pupil to heat, light, cool, clean, maintain, insure and secure school facilities – less than every group except border/Plains states.

Instructional support. This is funding for libraries, media centers, professional development, technology support, and assessment. Kansas spent less than $400 per pupil – much less than any other group.

Pupil support. This area includes counselors, social workers, attendance staff, health and other programs for students needing help outside of instruction. Kansas spent $519 per pupil, about the same as border/Plains states, less than every other group – and only about half what the most successful states provide.

Food service and all other. In addition to funding for student meals, this includes “central office” functions like bookkeeping, payroll and human resources. Kansas spent $579 per pupil, between $100 and $200 less than every comparison group.

Total. Kansas spent a total of just under $3,900 on these “non-instructional” programs, about $350 less than the nearest group (border/Plains states), $700 less than the national average and almost $2,000 less than the highest achieving states.

Impact of reducing non-instructional support

This data indicates that cutting non-instructional programs, which are already funded lower than most states, would not increase efficiency but reduce services. Among the consequences:

• Closing school building to reduce operations, maintenance.
• Reducing student services like counseling and health, which are not “academics” but critical to improving preparation for postsecondary education and addressing issues like suicide.
• Cutting school administration, which reduces teacher supervision and feedback and resources to address discipline, bullying and other student issues.
• Cutting professional development (continuing education) for educators, making it more difficult to redesign schools for improved student success and improve teaching.
• Eliminating transportation for students where not required but provided for safety and attendance.
• Consolidating school districts (which saves little funding because it is already the lowest area of expenditures). Closing small, rural districts reduces connections to local communities. Larger school districts actually begin to have higher costs as enrollment increases, according the Legislative study.

Comparison state definitions

The U.S. is the national average.
Top achieving states are nine states with higher overall achievement than Kansas on 15 measures of student success: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Vermont.
The Plains states are North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, with the border states of Colorado and Oklahoma included.
Overall peers are states most like similar to Kansas in student demographics, adult population characteristics and geographic population distribution:  Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Bottom achieving states are the ten lowest-ranked state on 15 measures of student success: Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Oregon.

Dollars to the Classroom

The issue of “dollars to the classroom” has been a topic for years, with critics charging that not enough education spending is reaching the classroom or students. The issue is back again in this fall’s election campaign for Governor.

In various statements, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach has said he will push for requirement that 75 percent of school funding to be spent in the classroom. What would that mean for Kansas schools?

KASB has always maintained that school spending has impact on the classroom, and at least 75 percent of current spending directly supports student and teachers. What would change under Secretary Kobach’s proposal depends on two other questions: What is meant by “the classroom?” And, 75 percent of what?

Since 2005, there has been a state law that it is a “public policy goal” for the state – not an actual requirement on each district – that 65 percent of funds provided by the state should be spent “in the classroom” or “for instruction.”

Aside from the fact this law has never been a binding requirement on individual districts, there are two big questions.

“In the classroom”

First, that “or” suggests that “in the classroom” OR “for instruction” are two different things. If they are identical, why list both? But because “in the classroom” is not defined, the only thing that can be measured is “instruction,” which is defined using federal government school accounting guidelines for all states and school districts.

This definition of instruction includes spending on all teachers, aides and paraprofessionals, coaches, and materials and supplies directly dealing with the interactions of teachers and students, including co-curricular activities.

But the definition of instruction excludes all “student support” programs such as counseling, heath, social workers and special education services not provided by classroom teachers (such as speech pathology); libraries, media centers, technology support or professional development; transportation and food services; building operations (utilities, safety, maintenance, insurance), building construction, and all school or district administration, leadership and central support services.
In other words, if “in the classroom” only means “instruction,” all of those other activities are excluded. But all of those have an impact on students, teachers and learning.

65 percent – of what?

The second big question is that the law does not define “moneys appropriated, distributed or otherwise provided by the state to school districts.” As a result, it is unclear what funding this “goal” should apply to. There are at least three choices.

First, does it refer to all school district expenditures? When some say that only about half of school funding “gets to the classroom,” they are using the most expansive definition of expenditures under the law, and the narrowest definition of “classroom.” But considering all expenditures, includes federal funding not provided by the state, local tax revenues raised by school boards or approved by local voters, and non-tax revenues like student fees.

Second, does it refer to state aid? That seems to be the clear meaning of money “provided by the state.” But it can be argued that all local money is, in effect, provided by the state by authorizing local funding. However, many state funds cannot be spent on instruction, as will be explained later.

Third, does it refer only to “current” funding or “operating” dollars? The Kansas State Department of Education reports the percent operating budgets by function, which makes some sense because it would exclude “capital costs” like debt service and building construction that vary significantly among districts for reasons like enrollment growth, and age of buildings. But that is not clear from the law.

How are districts currently using their funding, and how do we know?

Federal and state accountability guidelines require school districts to report expenditures in several major categories called “functions” which are based on the various activities districts are required to do. The chart and table below contain these functions, the percent of all expenditures each function makes up and the total dollars spent in 2017, the last year data is available.

Those functions most directly involved with students and teachers (instruction, student and instructional support, transportation, food service and school administration) account for 74.2 percent of total expenditures. Functions associated with building and operating school facilities (operations and maintenance, facilities acquisition and construction, and debt service) account for 20.8 percent, and central office and general administration account for 4.5 percent.

Differences among school districts

These percentage are statewide averages. There are many factors which can cause major differences that are not simply management choices. These include:

Bond issues. Passing a bond issue for school construction or improvement due to growth or building replacement automatically raises the percent of funding for debt service and reduce for instructional and everything else, regardless of how the district allocates operating funds.

Maintenance. Older, less energy-efficient buildings may cause higher utility and maintenance costs.

Transportation. Districts with low pupil population density will likely have higher transportation costs, as will districts that transport more children for reasons of safety and other considerations.

Support services. Districts with more special needs students, such as high poverty rates, may need to spend more on social workers, resource officers, and special education.

Food service. High-poverty schools may have more students eating meals at school or choose to subsidize meals to keep costs lower for families.

District size. In small districts, a single superintendent or principal may “do it all,” so general and school administrative expenditures are higher but other costs are lower.

Individual district information

Each district’s budget at a glance document, available for all districts here. On page 2 is summary of total expenditures by function. For example, below the summary for Erie USD 101 for last year. On page 2 is summary of total expenditures by function. For example, below the summary for Erie USD 101 for last year.

 How much money could be shifted to “the classroom,” (however defined) and how much could not?

About 20 percent of current funding could not be shifted, at least under current law. That includes the following major areas:

• Unless districts defaulted on debt, they would not be able to shift $589.7 in debt service payments.
• Except for a limited amount of transfers from other funds, most of $248 million in food services spending could not be shifted because it is paid for by federal funds and student fees.
• By law, districts must provide transportation services for students living more than 2.5 miles from school (over $100 million) and special education students and teachers ($68 million).
• There are at least $45 million in federal funds earmarked for non-instructional programs like teacher professional development.
• Districts provide $80 million from special education funds and $28 million in special education cooperative funds in student support services (not instruction) based on student individual education plans.

These areas account of over $1.1 billion, or 19 percent of total expenditures, and do not include the fact that most of $141 million in facilities acquisition and construction is funded by capital outlay revenue that could only be used for limited instructional purposes without a change in state law.

What would be required to reach 75 percent of funding to instruction only?

If a state law was approved that required 75 percent of school funding to be spent in the classroom and the law did not include student support programs, transportation costs and the cost of school buildings, then school districts statewide would have to shift $1.3 billion from other budgets areas.

As noted above, over $1.1 billion could not legally be shifted, so the change would have to made in the following areas:

As a result, most of the $1.3 billion would have to come from the following areas:

• Student support – $294.9 million (minus $15 million of these expenditures from federal funds for non-instructional services)
• Instructional support (libraries, media centers, technology support, professional development) - $202.9 million (minus $30 million of these expenditures are from federal funds that are earmarked for teacher support)
• Transportation of students living less than 2.5 miles from school, activities - $80 million
• Operations and Maintenance of Buildings - $532.6 million
• School administration (principals, school office staff) - $296.9 million
• Central services (human resources, payroll, etc.) - $147.3 million
• General administration (superintendent, district leadership) - $125.9 million

If school districts could somehow eliminate ALL central office, district leadership and superintendent costs, which would be impossible both legally (districts are required to have superintendents, board clerks and treasurers) and practically (organizations cannot function without paying staff and other bills, for example), they would still need to shift more than $1 billion from the remaining $1.4 billion in all other available areas to comply with spending 75 percent of funds on instruction.

If it were somehow possible to reduce building operation and maintenance cost from $532 to $400 million by extensive school closing (which would certainly increase transportation costs), all other student support, instructional support and student transportation not required by law and school principal and school office costs would have to be completely eliminated.

How does Kansas compare with other states?

First, the most recent national data available (2016), Kansas ranks 30th among all states in revenue provided per K-12 pupil from all sources (state, local and federal), spending less than the U.S. average, the highest achieving states, and “peer states” most like Kansas.

Kansas ranks quite low in the percent of total revenue going to current operating expenditures (47th).

A major reason is that the state of Kansas and federal funding largely control how much districts can spend on operating budgets, but districts have not been limited on how much can be approved for local bond issues, which are not part of operating budgets. There is also a mill levy limit on capital outlay funding, but not a spending limit.

As a result, school district capital funding, which is mostly determined by local voters, has grown much faster than operating budgets, which is mostly controlled by the state. These capital funds can’t be switched to operating purposes (including instruction).

However, Kansas ranks much higher (18th) in the percent of current operating funds going to instruction (60.9%). That is a higher percentage than the U.S. average (59.5%), adjacent states (59.3%) or peer states (59.8%).

The Kansas percentage of current expenditures for instruction is slightly lower (0.4%) than the average for the nine top achieving states based on multiple student outcomes, but those states all provide a much higher total revenue per pupil (over $5,000 more).

The percentage of funding going to instruction compared to other states is likely to rise in 2018 and 2019 because of increased operating aid provided by the Kansas Legislature.

What is the current state law?

Here is a link to the full statute.

School Administrators Part 3: How the ratio of school management employees to all employees compares to the overall public and private sector in Kansas.

In Part 1 of this series, KASB looked at how school district superintendent numbers and salaries compare to all Kansas employees, both public and private sector. In Part 2, we looked at salaries of all employees, and how leadership salaries compare to all employee salaries in school districts and all Kansas public and private organizations. In this third part, we look at the ratio of “management” employees to all employees in school districts compared to the overall public and private sectors in Kansas. In other words, we wanted to see if school districts appear to be “top heavy” compared to all public and private organizations.

We use data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, specifically the State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Kansas. The most recent report is from May 2017 (Link). The BLS estimated the total number of Kansas employees, public and private, was 1,369,110. Those positions are broken to 22 major occupational groups, including “management occupations” and hundreds of specific occupational titles within those groups.

We then compared that to data from the Kansas State Department of Education on school district employees and expenditures.

Here is what we found.

1.      Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics occupation titles, there are fewer school district management employees per 1,000 employees than for all private and public employees.

According to the BLS report, out of those 1.37 million total Kansas employees, 62,800 are in the “Management Occupations” group, or 45.871 per 1,000 total employees. In other words, 4.6 percent of Kansas employees are considered “management” by the BLS report.

Determining the comparable number of school district “management positions” is more difficult because the position titles do not exactly align with BLS positions. One approach is to simply use the BLS report, which said there are 2,370 employees in Kansas under the title of “Education Administrators, Elementary and Secondary School.” The position is defined as “Plan, direct, or coordinate the academic, administrative, or auxiliary activities of public or private elementary or secondary level schools.”

Using this BLS occupation category, there are 34.292 elementary and secondary school administrators  per 1,000 school employees, well below the 45.871 management employees per 1,000 in the state as a whole.

2.      A broader list of school management positions also remains below the overall average for all state employees.

However, the BLS number cannot be directly equated to public school district administrators for several reasons. First, a portion of these employees work for private schools rather than public schools. The Kansas State Department of Education lists approximately 150 private accredited and non-accredited schools with principals or other administrative positions. (There about ten times as many public schools.) Second, this description does not seem to include other district-level administrative positions. For example, school superintendents align with chief executives.

To address these issues, KASB identified the following district and school building level administrative positions from KSDE employee reports: Superintendents (252), Associate and Assistant Superintendents (86.6), Principals (1,188.5) and Assistant Principals (604.2), Directors or Supervisors of Special Education (224.2) or Career Technical Education (21.1), Director and Supervisors of Health (13.7), Curriculum Supervisors and Coordinators (224.2) and all other supervisors, directors and coordinators not specified (367.5).

The assumption is that these positions would include not only BLS “Education Administrators,” but also other positions that would fall into BLS “Management Occupations” categories such as Chief Executive, General and Operations Managers, and others.

These positions total 2,874, which would equal 38.838 management positions per 1,000 school district employees. That is over four more “management positions” per 1,000 school district employees than the BLS list, but still well below the 45.871 management occupation positions per 1,000 total private and public sector employees in Kansas.

3.      The numbers above exclude the following school district employees that are comparable to occupations not included by the BLS as “management occupations.”

The BLS report does not define “management occupations.” Instead, it simply lists 35 of such occupations under that category. However, this category clearly does not include ALL jobs with any kind of supervisory duties – because there are a number of occupation titles with supervising responsibilities that are NOT listed under management. These include the following BLS jobs which overlap with various school district positions:

·        BLS Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations; Chefs and Head Cooks; First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers. Compare to School district food service directors/coordinators/supervisors (280.4).

·        BLS Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations; First Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers, and BLS Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations; First-line Supervision of Mechanics, Installers and Repairers. Compare to School District Operations and Maintenance Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors (409.0).

·        BLS Transportation and Material Moving Occupations; First-line Supervisors of Transportation and Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo Handing Supervisors. Compare to School District Transportation Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors (173.5).

·        BLS Business and Financial Operations Occupations (various), BLS Office and Administrative Support Occupations (various). Compare to School District Business Managers and Business Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors (254.4)

·        BLS Computer and Mathematical Occupations (various). Compare to School District Technology Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors (252.2)

Matching school district positions to BLS occupations is, of course, somewhat subjective. Some individual school district employees in these non-management groups could be considered as part of “management,” depending on their actual job assignments. Likewise, some positions we included in the “management” group, especially “coordinators” would fall into non-management categories, depending on their actual duties. For example, the BLS reports 1,230 “instructional coordinators” in Kansas that are not considered “management occupations.” However, KSDE data does not breakout “coordinators” from supervisors and directors.

If all the school district positions listed above were considered school district managers, the number would be 61.404 per 1,000 school district employees. However, if such occupations are considered “management” for school district purposes, then similar non-school district occupations should also be considered “management” for comparison purposes. That would increase the number of “managers” in the overall economy as well.

Bottom line: the data suggests school districts have fewer total management positions compared to all Kansas organizations.

School Administrators Part 2 – How school district employee and management pay compares to overall public and private organizations in Kansas

In Part 1 of this series, KASB looked at how school district superintendent numbers and salaries compare to all Kansas chief executives and employees, both public and private sector. In this part, we compare numbers and salaries of all employees, and how leadership salaries compare to all other employee salaries. We use data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, specifically the State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Kansas. The most recent report is from May 2017 (Link). (Prior year data can be found here.) The BLS estimated the total number of Kansas employees, public and private, was 1,369,110. Those positions are broken to 22 major occupational groups, including “management occupations” and hundreds of specific occupational titles within those groups.

We then compared that to data from the Kansas State Department of Education on school district employees and expenditures.

Here is what we found.

1. On average, school employees earn about the same as all public and private employees, but their pay has increased less since 2001.

The BLS estimated an average annual wage of $44,570 for all Kansas employees, up from $31,010 in 2001, or 43.7 percent.

School districts had total “full-time equivalent” employment of 69,111 last year. The BLS glossary definitions of wages, salaries and earnings appear to exclude benefits, and its definition of benefits is “nonwage compensation.” If benefits are not included, Kansas school districts in 2017 paid $3.063 billion in salaries to 69,111 employees, or $44,325 per FTE employee. In 2001, 64,150 employees received total salaries of $2.048 billion, or an average of $31,918.

That means average school salaries increased 38.9 percent between 2001 and 2017, or about five percent less than all Kansas employees, and dropped from about $900 more than overall average salaries in Kansas to about $250 less.

By the way, the consumer price index increased 38.4 percent over that period, which means average school salaries just barely kept pace with inflation over that 16-year period, while overall Kansas salaries rose slightly more.

Note: KSDE reports the FTE number of employees. Because many school employees work less than full-time, salary per actual “headcount” employee would be somewhat higher than the FTE number, which means the average salary would be lower. These salaries do not include retirement contributions, such as KPERS for school employees or any pensions or 401(k) contributions in the private sector.

2. School administrators earn less than overall “management occupations” in the state.

One of the employment categories listed by the BLS is called “management occupations.” The annual average wage of the management occupations group in Kansas was $103,530 for May 2017. Within the main management group is “elementary and secondary school administrators.” The BLS reported 2,370 employees in Kansas in this occupation, with an average annual wage of $84,280.

Another occupation within the “management” group is “chief executive.” In Part 1 of this series, we compared chief executives with school superintendents.

Except for superintendents, the only specific salary for school administrators reported by KSDE is for principals. The average school district principal’s salary in 2017 was $87,111, which is $3,000 more than the BLS salary for all “elementary and secondary school administrators.” The average principal salary would likely be somewhat lower if assistant principals were included. In any case, it is over $15,000 below the average for all “management occupations” in Kansas.

3. Salaries for all managers, including chief executives, compared to all employees have risen much faster than school administrator salaries compared to all school district employees.

The average superintendent salary in 2001 of $78,662 was 247 percent of the average school district salary of $31,918. In 2017, the average superintendent salary of $113,245 was 256 percent of the average school district employee salary of $44,325 – a nine percent increase.

The average of Kansas chief executive salary of $105,140 in 2001 was 338 percent of the average Kansas employee earnings of $31,101. In 2017, the average CEO salary was $170,170 was 382 percent of average wages for all employees of $44,570 – a 43 percent increase.

The average principal’s salary in 2001 was $60,465, or 189 percent of the average district employee salary. In 2017, the average principal salary of $87,111 was 197 percent of all salaries – a seven percent increase.

The average Kansas “management occupation” salary in 2001 was $63,640, or 205 percent of the average for all employees. In 2017, the average management salary was $103,503, or 232 percent – a 27 percent increase.

In other words, the pay difference between all public/private sector chief executives and managers salaries and all employee salaries in Kansas is wider than the gap between school leaders and school employees. In addition, those gaps have widened since 2001.