Kansas School Finance: At a Crossroads
by Stephan A. Metzger
I’m back to my roots. Education finance in Kansas has been getting a fair amount of news coverage in recent weeks, and for good reason. The first is that the Governor has created a new committee tasked with doing leg work in creating a new finance formula for the state’s 286 school districts. This is a big deal. It makes the prospect of going back to the old, not at all broken, formula virtually zero (not that the chances were incredibly high to begin with). The second is the the massively important supreme court case that hangs over the state. The importance of this case really cannot be easily overstated. The district court initially threw out a figure of over $500 million to make the old formula “adequate”. That is a lot of money.
Quick aside, the court in no way stated that the $500 million is the only way to fix the problem. That $500 million essentially takes the money a study done more than a decade ago said would create adequate schools and adjusted it for inflation.
There are so many different forces at play here. To adequately cover all of them would make this article about 25 pages long. Instead I want to focus on one interview Governor Brownback recently gave. In it he made several assertions that are dubious in their merits. School finance is likely to be a major sticking point in the elections next year, so both sides are out in force early to try and convince us, the voters, that their side is right. This article will try to simply refute what some of Gov. Brownback said with actual facts. I’ll try to keep the opinion to a minimum.
Photo Credit: David Marx
Now that the background is out of the way, we can delve into the nitty gritty. The big thing Gov. Brownback said in the interview was that he is for merit pay being added to the new formula. Merit pay is one of those things that bring most people together in agreement for obvious reasons. It makes sense that the best teachers should probably make the most money. Just like any business, if you do your job and do it well you should and probably will be rewarded. The problem is this: how does one determine who the best teachers are? Do the administration use test scores? Well that comes with a host of well documented problems. In fact, a merit pay system based on test scores might intensify an incentive that we all do not want, teaching to the test. If pay and good test scores become linked then there is a huge reason to teach students how to take tests, not to think.
What about creating a complicated formula that ties together a whole host of different aspects that make a well-rounded student? That is something that I think many people would welcome, but as of right now does not exist. The problem comes from how to quantify something like “civic mindedness” or even well-roundedness itself.
Even if such a formula is created, how does a district implement it? Is it the same formula at each school? Does that create problems depending on where you teach? Could such a system be open to corruption (i.e. the board really likes this local teacher whose family is a big business guru in the district)? The current system in place regarding teacher pay recognizes that merit is hard to quantify, so a system of proxies was developed to try and represent merit. Experience is the biggest proxy in the system (hence why a teacher with 20 years experience is paid more than a teacher with one), but there are others. A teacher with a master’s will be paid more, and a teacher with a doctorate will be paid more still. All of this is under the assumption that the more education and experience a teacher has the better they likely are at teaching.
This system, in other words, is based on merit as best as whoever created it could quantify. A system by proxy, is of course, not at all perfect. Experience is the biggest determining factor, because, as a society (and teachers as a union), we determined that raises should be somewhat regular, but it is arguably the worst at determining skill as a teacher. With a “new” merit pay system, critics, quite rightly, bring up the questions of whether teachers will continue to receive regular raises as the cost of living increases(as it almost has).
We all are aware of the stories of teachers who coast through 35 years of teaching in order to reach retirement. I’m sure that exists, but damn, that is a lot of work and a lot of time and most importantly very little pay in order to reach a secure government pension.
Photo Credit: Ron Porter
The second thing Gov. Brownback mentions in his article is something that I’m fairly sure I’ve addressed before. The governor has been touting for six months or more, now, the very true fact that the state is spending more money than it ever has on education. He is not lying. The state is spending more than $4 billion on education which has never happened before. However, that is a ridiculous way to justify adequate spending on education. Here is another very true statement. The state is educating more children than it ever has. Here is why that is important. The old formula was doled out on a per student basis. Therefore, the more students, the more money. So while the the governor is correct in asserting that more money than ever is being spent it is not because of any initiative on his part it is because the formula was designed to accommodate increases in students. Which makes sense.
If you take the per student spending, though, a different story emerges. Using the states own numbers, we can compare two different years of funding. In 2007-08, the state spent 4,746.08 per student (note: this is NOT the base state aid per pupil number, this is all general aid the state provided to schools divided by the total number of students). In 2013-14, the most recent available year, the state spent $4,439.53 per student. That is NOT an inflation adjusted figure. Those are real dollars. If you adjust for inflation, the state is actually spending only $3,950.91 per student. That is a very real reduction in the amount of money a school has to spend on students.
Additionally, because funding for last year is based on the amount a district received in 2013-14, we can see that last year, the state spent only $4,152.96 (not adjusted for inflation). This is, it should be noted, is only the general state aid. This figure does not include KPERS or supplemental general aid. However, general state aid makes up half of all state spending on education.
Again, these are the state’s own numbers, not mine. How much the state is spending relative to what it WAS spending is likely to be an important factor in the upcoming State Supreme Court case. If you feel inclined to contest my numbers, feel free. I’m not using any special data that I’ve collected. I’m using the information on the Kansas Department of Education’s website.
Photo Credit: IATull
The final point Gov. Brownback made is that more money needs to go to the classroom, and less on “administrative overhead”. I can understand that sentiment. We all want more money to go directly to teachers and their classrooms (in other words, the students).This is something that is most consistently brought up by those who feel spending on education is adequate. This, to me, is a fancy way of encouraging consolidation. I am of that opinion because in consolidation pushes, a major reason proponents cite in favor of consolidation is savings at the administrative level of schools. However, in Kansas, like most places, calling for consolidation outright is a political death sentence. Especially for a governor who has emphasized his small town Kansas roots.
Administration, however, is not a place in the budget likely to accumulate huge savings for districts or for the state. There are most certainly districts in the state that could really benefit from consolidation, but those districts are few and far between. The districts with the highest administration costs relative to the rest of expenditures are those districts that have small student populations over a large area. A district needs a certain number of administrators (secretaries are included in this budget item). There are, of course, innovative ways to save money. Districts could share superintendents and principals, but the savings from such a program are so minimal that they’re hardly worth losing a dedicated administrator over.
What much of Governor Brownback is saying revolves around choosing. The state needs to choose between a well funded KPERS or a well funded classroom. The state needs to choose between well funded administration, transportation, and special education funds or stretching them all to their functional limit. The state needs to choose between a formula that is based on changing demographics and a recognition that schools are dynamic, or a formula that is easily predictable and not a threat to the state’s limited budget.
This is all self-inflicted. It is no surprise to anyone that the tax cuts in 2012 have forced the state to operate under a budget that has not kept up with the needs of the state. In 2014 we, as Kansans, had an opportunity to choose a different direction. We chose to stay the course. Now we must wrestle with the fact we have to choose between tax cuts for a minority of Kansans, or a well funded education system.
Read This 
Great article. Good synopsis of the mess the ALEC/Koch Bros tools have gotten us in to. In addition to your astute assessment of the practical problems of implementing merit pay, I would add that even if you could design a system that was “fair” and “objective”, its unlikely to generate better outcomes for students. A few articles I recently came across discuss the problems with merit pay, not only for teachers, but across economic sectors. Check ’em out, they have lots of citations for further reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/ravitch-why-merit-pay-for-teachers-doesnt-work/2011/03/29/AFn5w9yB_blog.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-merit-pay-for-teachers-sounds-good–but-isnt/2011/10/09/gIQAVb72YL_blog.html
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/performancepay/
Nice try, but those aren’t the facts. The author admits that he is only looking at general state aid, which is like saying you have fewer dimes in your pocket while ignoring the fact that you have a lot more quarters, nickels, pennies and half dollars. The State Supreme Court says all funding sources must now be considered toward adequacy, not just BSAPP or general state aid. Total aid per pupil last year was about $13,200, or roughly $1,000 more per pupil than his chosen base year of 2008. Funding that year was based on the old Augenblick & Myers cost study used by the Montoy courts, but the State Supreme Court now disregards that study, saying it is “more akin to estimates than the certainties envisioned” by the lower court. Some people don’t like to count KPERS even though the Supreme Court says it does count, but consider this – even without counting a dollar of KPERS, funding went from $9,433 per pupil in 2005 to $12,660 (estimated) in 2015. That is a 34% increase while inflation was just 21%….a large, real increase in spending per pupil. All the while no one knows what it really takes to achieve required outcomes while making efficient use of taxpayer money.
I suppose the main argument I would have with that assessment, Mr. Trabert, is that JUST keeping up with inflation probably isn’t adequate (this will, I think, be the topic of my next post). Keeping up with inflation presumes that all other factors are equal which they have most certainly have not been. Since 2005, in addition to higher inflation, the state has seen more bilingual students, a poorer student population, and more students in general. All of which cost more money to educate (I’ll admit that this is probably an oversimplification, but trying to compensate for every factor that goes into educating a student is probably impossible).
You’re right in saying that no one knows how to balance those two, but obviously the court is going to make that determination. In this case that is the court’s job. The state and the people have a disagreement over the meaning of a Constitutional provision, and the court must step in to resolve such a disagreement. Sometimes it works in favor of the state, sometimes it does not.
Haha, Dave Trabert, with your track record on accurate budget and economic numbers, there is no reason to take anything you have to say remotely seriously. I mean, you are one of Arthur Laffer’s biggest cheerleaders and that guy can’t do a study that would pass a freshman econ class – failure to account for population growth, failure to use inflation adjusted numbers, failure to exclude federal tax rates from studies ABOUT state tax rates (that one’s a CLASSIC!). The list just goes on and on, but in the world of faith-based economics, where the high priests don’t have to wear any clothes, it’s all just business as usual. Keep on smoking that supply-side ganja you guys got. Reality is no place you’d like to experience.
[…] If you’re curious about Gannons I (sort of) and II, you can read my posts about them here and here. I’m not going to use this post to talk about what exactly the court said because it […]