Analysis of new Kansas Policy Institute opinion poll

UPDATE: After this bog was posted on January 2, the Kansas Policy Institute informed KASB on January 3 that a statement would be issued regarding the first question in the opinion survey reported below. KPI indicated a portion of the question was based on a misunderstanding of current law regarding Local Option Budget authority.

The Kansas Policy Institute recently released a public opinion survey (PDF Version) asking a series of questions about school funding, local advocacy and litigation, school standards and support for charter schools and private school vouchers.  Responses indicate public support for many of KASB’s core positions on higher standards, suitable school funding and stronger local leadership.  However, in some key areas, those responding to the survey appear to disagree with some key KASB positions.

The following is a quick review of the poll results, with a particular focus on how responses compare to KASB policy positions adopted by member school boards, and other recent opinion surveys.  (See an in-depth review of three national opinion polls released earlier this year in the Tallman Education Report.)

The new poll was conducted by Survey USA December 18-19 for the Kansas Policy Institute. Two-thirds of the respondents were reached by home telephone and interviewed in the recorded voice of a professional announcer.  One-third were shown a questionnaire on smartphone, tablet or other electronic device.  Five hundred adults statewide were interviewed.

The results appear to be generally reflective of the Kansas population by age.  However, compared to party registration figures from the Kansas Secretary of State’s office for the 2012 election, the survey under-represented Republicans and over-represented Democrats and Independents.  This page provides a link to 2012 October Registration numbers.

The survey also appears to significantly over-represent persons with a four-year college degree, indicating 50% of the respondents had four years of college, compared to just 30% of the Kansas population 25 years and older.  (U.S. Census Bureau: American FactFinder.)

Response to School Finance Litigation

Question 1 asked: “A state court has effectively ordered legislators to increase school funding by $443 million, which would also automatically increase local property taxes by another $154 million.  Regardless of whether you believe schools are adequately funded, how would you respond to this statement: It is appropriate for the courts to have final say on decisions of how much taxpayer money is spent on education.”

KASB disagrees with the premise that the district court ruling would “automatically increase local property taxes by another $154 million.”  This is apparently based on raising the base budget per pupil from $3,838 to the statutory level of $4,492.  With LOB’s capped at 30% of base aid in all but 10 districts (which are capped at 31%), such a base increase would theoretically allow an increase of $154 million in LOB authority. (UPDATE: KPI has indicated the survey used an assumption of a $154 million LOB property tax increase based on this methodology. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below.)

However, districts are currently allowed to calculate their LOB using a hypothetical base of $4,433. This measure was approved by the Legislature to avoid LOB cuts when base state aid was reduced.  If the court orders the Legislature to fund the base at $4,492, districts would only receive an increase of $59 per weighted pupil for purposes of calculating the LOB.  Assuming a weighted enrollment of 786,000 (including special education aid), this would result in an increase of just $46.4 million on which the LOB can applied.  With an average LOB of 30%, this would provide about $14 million in new LOB authority.

However, the lower court also ordered full funding of LOB state aid, currently underfunded by over $100 million.  If additional LOB budget authority is provided, a portion should also be funded by state aid. Therefore, even if LOB authority increased $14 million, fully funding state aid would reduce property taxes by at least $86 million in the 81% of districts that receive LOB state aid.  Therefore, rather than “automatically” increasing property taxes by $154 million, the court order could lower property taxes by more than $86 million statewide.

Despite the inaccurate assumption of property tax increases, among all respondents, 47% either strongly or somewhat agreed that the courts should have the final say on decisions of how much taxpayer money should be spent on education, while 50% strongly or somewhat disagreed - within the 4.5% plus or minus margin or error.  A majority (55%) of those under age 50 agreed that the court should have the final say on the amount of education funding, while a higher majority (63%) of those 50 and older disagreed.  A majority of those with a four-year degree (51%) and those making over $80,000 per year (61%) also agreed.  Although the percentages were generally close between those who agreed and those who disagreed, higher percentages generally “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed.”

Question 2 asked: “And how would you respond to this statement: It is appropriate for the courts to have final say on decisions of the specific way in which taxpayer money is spent on education.”

Higher percentages of respondents opposed this statement than Question 1, with 36% strongly or somewhat in agreement, and 62% strongly or somewhat in disagreement.  Again, those with the most education and highest incomes were more likely to support the court’s role.

KASB believes the courts should be able to interpret article 6 of the Kansas Constitution, which requires the Legislature to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state,” and require corrective action if the Legislature is found to have failed in this duty, just as the courts may require school districts to spend money or take other action if they are found to be violating laws or contracts.  However, KASB has not supported either the courts or the Legislature directing specific educational expenditures.

Question 3 asked: “If the Kansas Supreme Court orders an increase in taxpayer funding to public schools, what would you most want to see the legislature do in response? Increase your property taxes?  Increase your sales taxes? Increase your income tax? Reallocate spending from other parts of government to get more money into classrooms? Try to find more efficient ways to spend the money already allocated to schools? Or something else?”

The respondents were not allowed to choose more than one option.  The top choice was reallocate spending from other parts of government (36%), followed by finding more efficient ways to spend money already allocated (31%).  Less than 30% supported raising taxes, 13% supported an increase in the state income tax, 10% an increase in sales tax, and 4% increasing property taxes.

This indicates that only about one-third of Kansans support “finding efficiencies” within the school system - which really means cutting some areas within the public school system to give to others.  For example, “efficiency” could translate into further district consolidation and losing your community’s control over local schools, closing more schools in your small town or neighborhood, cutting local jobs and contracts to outsource services.  These may sound like good ideas in the abstract, but look different when it actually happens in your community.  

On the other hand, a majority in the KPI poll support either increasing education aid by shifting funding from other areas of the state budget or raising taxes.  That suggests a majority of Kansans want to see school spending either increased or at least left at current levels.

It’s interesting to compare these results with the 2013 Kansas Speaks survey by the Docking Institute at Fort Hays State University.  It found that two-thirds of Kansans favor increased funding for K-12 education and another 27.5% want funding to remain the same.  It also found that 50% of Kansans favor increased spending on social services, and 45.1% favor increased spending on higher education.  Only 6.0% of Kansans favored decreased funding for K-12 education, 6.2% for social services and 12.7% for higher education.

At the same time, Kansas Speaks found that 44.5% of Kansans want OVERALL state spending to be REDUCED, while only 25.2% want state spending increased.  In other words, while 50% to 60% of Kansans want to spent more on K-12 and social services, only 25% want to increase total state spending.  To put it another way, Kansans want to spend more on specific programs, but not on overall government.  That may be why the new KPI survey found the strongest support for reallocating spending from other areas of government if the court orders increased funding for K-12 education.

However, the three areas of government spending that survey respondents told Kansas Speaks should be either increased or remain the same already account for 88% of the current state general fund budget (K-12 49.2%, higher ed 12.6% and social services 26.2%), according the Kansas Legislative Research Department’s 2013 Fiscal Facts report.  Most of the remaining funding in the state general fund goes to public safety and corrections.  For more information on the state budget picture, review the Kansas Health Policy Institute’s "Budget Puzzle."

Lobbying and Lawsuits

The next two questions asked about the use of public funding for lobbying and school finance lawsuits.

Question 4 asked: “Should counties, cities, and school districts trying to lobby the legislature for a particular policy be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for their lobbying?”

Seventy percent of respondents answered “no,” with just 16% responding yes and 14% not sure.  Those with more education and higher incomes were more likely to favor allowing public funding for lobbying, but a strong majority opposed the issue in each case.

KASB believes school districts should be allowed to use public funding for “lobbying,” which we believe to be communication between one level of government (local elected schools) and another (elected state legislators).  The question is how survey respondents define “lobbying,” which may suggest gifts, entertainment and contributions that most local governments and their associations are not involved in.

Question 5 asked: “Should local school districts filing lawsuits seeking more tax money be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for their lawsuits?”

The results were very similar to question 4, with 71% opposed to school district financed lawsuits and 19% in favor.  However, when asked a similar question, the Kansas Speaks poll found that 61% of Kansans believe such lawsuits SHOULD be allowed, and only 39% opposed. (See link above.)

KASB believes school districts should be able to use public funds to challenge Legislative actions under the state constitution, just as the Legislature may use public funds to challenge federal laws under the U.S Constitution.  School boards are accountable to local voters for the use of tax funds.

Education Standards

Question 6 asked: “Do you favor or oppose the Common Core Educational Standards, referred to in Kansas as the College and Career Readiness Standards?”

Although Common Core standards have become very controversial both in Kansas and nationally with strong opposition from some conservative organizations and leaders, the KPI survey found that 38% of respondents strongly favored or favored the new standards, 34% neither favoring nor opposing and only 16% opposed or strongly opposed.  Another 12% had no opinion or were unsure.

These results are generally similar to national opinion polls released this summer, which found a higher percentage of the population with little awareness of the Common Core or no opinion; but among these with an opinion, support was higher than opposition. (See link to Tallman Education Report above.)

KASB strongly supports the implementation of higher standards for Kansas students, and believes the Common Core standards support that goal.

Question 7 asked: “Who should make academic standards and curriculum decisions for Kansas schools? Local school districts? The Kansas State Department of Education? National non-governmental organizations? Or, the federal government?”

The state department of education just edged out local school districts, 41% to 39%, which is within the margin of error.  Only 8% picked non-government organizations, and 5% the federal government.  Older respondents, Republicans and Independents were more likely to favor local school boards.  Interestingly, union members, those with only a high school diploma, those with a four year college degree, and those with the highest incomes were more likely to favor the state department of education.

KASB believes the question ignores the difference between standards and curriculum.  KASB supports the State Board of Education setting statewide academic standards, but believes local school boards should determine the curriculum taught in schools.  The difference is that standards are the goals or outcomes, while curriculum is the means to reach those goals and outcomes.

Question 8 asked: “Who should decide what qualifications are needed to teach in Kansas schools? Local school boards? Or the state legislature?”

Overall, 49% favored local school boards and 41% the Legislature.  Of all groups, only union members, those with four-year college degrees, and political liberals picked the Legislature.

However, the question does not address the fact that in Kansas, teacher licensure decisions are made by the State Board of Education, based on previous decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the powers of the state board.

KASB supports a state system of teacher licensing and supports the current constitutional powers of the State Board.  However, KASB also supports allowing local districts more flexibility in hiring individuals who may not have completed all traditional requirements but demonstrate competence through performance.

Direction of Kansas Public Education

Question 9 asked: “Thinking about student achievement in Kansas ... are things in Kansas public schools generally headed in the right direction? Or are things off on the wrong track?”

Those responding were almost evenly split on this question, with 36% saying right direction, 38% saying wrong track, and more than one in four (26%) not sure.  Younger respondents - those most likely to have children in school - were more likely to see things positively.  Those under age 50 said right direction over wrong track, 40% to 29%, while 48% of those 50 and older said wrong track compared to 32% who said right direction.  Republicans were evenly split 42%-42%, while Democrats favored right direction 43% to 26% and Independents favored wrong track 45% to 26%.  Conservatives picked wrong track 53% to 28%, while moderates favored right direction (43%) over wrong track (28%) and liberals said right direction over wrong track 47% to 26%).

This question differs from most national opinion surveys because it asks about Kansas public schools generally.  Most surveys find that respondents - especially parents - grade their local public schools or schools their children attend fairly high (A’s or B’s), but grade public schools nationally much lower.  This survey did not differentiate between local or community schools and schools across Kansas.

The survey also did not ask WHY respondents believe schools are going in the right direction or off track.  For example, one could answer “wrong track” because of concerns about “failing” public schools, low standards, lack of discipline, etc.  However, one could also believe student achievement is on the wrong track because of state funding cuts, larger class sizes, and closing community schools.  Another concern is that an over-emphasis on testing basic reading and math skills has narrowed curriculum choices.

KASB data indicates that Kansas public schools have improved in virtually every consistent education measure over past decades, especially given the more challenging student population public schools now serve.  However, KASB believes Kansas must continue to increase the percentage of students who graduate high school and are prepared for college and career requirements.  Unfortunately, student achievement has leveled off in recent years - at the same time funding has also leveled off or declined in inflation-adjusted terms.

School Choice

Question 10 asked: “If you were deciding where to send a child to school, and cost was not a factor, what type of school would you choose to get the best education for that child? A traditional public school?  A traditional public magnet school? A public charter school? Or a private school?”

A majority of respondents picked some form of public school: 41% said traditional public school, 9% said traditional public magnet school, 5% said public charter school.  However 41% picked a private school.  That is about four times the rate of private school enrollment - in Kansas, approximately 10% of students historically have attended private schools (including home schools).  Younger respondents, Democrats, liberals, those with high school education only AND those with a four year degree were more likely to pick public schools.

Again, this question does not ask WHY respondents selected their response.  KASB research indicates that, based on state and local testing, private schools have similar results to public schools WHEN DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  However, respondents may favor private schools for other reasons, such as religious instruction, that public schools cannot address.

Question 11 stated: “Charter schools are public schools that have more control over their own budget, staff, and curriculum, and are exempt from many existing public school regulations.”

The survey indicated that 47% strongly favored or favored (presumably referring to charter schools), 28% neither favored nor opposed, 9% strongly opposed or opposed, and 7% offered no opinion or were not sure.

These responses in support of charter schools are similar to or actually lower than national views of charter schools reported in several surveys this fall.  National polls have long shown support for the “idea” of public charter schools, but there is considerable confusion over what exactly charter schools are.  That is probably because there is a wide range of charter school laws in states across the country, including Kansas.

KASB believes the crucial issue in charter schools is accountability to both state standards and local voters and parents.  The Kansas Constitution indicates that all public schools are under the “general supervision” of the State Board of Education and are to be “maintained, developed and operated” by local elected boards.  KASB supports giving local boards more freedom from state school regulations, in return for higher standards of accountability.  That includes allowing local communities to give public school more control over their budget, staff and curriculum.

Question 12 stated: “A school voucher system allows parents the option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that school is public or private, including both religious and non-religious schools. If this policy were adopted, tax dollars currently allocated to a school district would be allocated to parents in the form of a "school voucher" to pay partial or full tuition for their child's school.”

The survey found that 40% of respondents strongly favored or favored, 23% neither favored or opposed, and 31% opposed or strongly opposed.  More Republicans were opposed or strongly opposed (40%) than Democrats (37%) or Independents (25%).

Question 13 asked: “Sticking with the idea of taxpayer money following individual students, would you support some version of a school voucher to be used for selected student populations such as special needs students, low income students, or students from chronically underperforming schools?”

This question suggests a policy that would offer vouchers only to a limited number of students.  Support for this question was higher than question 12, with 53% answering “yes” compared to 40% strongly favoring or favoring vouchers in question 12.  However, about the same percentage (30%) answered “no” to question 13 as opposed or strongly opposed vouchers in question 12 (31%).  Interestingly, Democrats were more likely to respond yes (57%) than Republicans (53%) or Independents (50%), and Liberals were more likely to answer yes (62%) than moderates (54%) or conservatives (51%).

These rates of support for public funding of private education options are generally higher than national results in polls released this summer.

KASB opposes public funding for private schools that do not have to meet state accountability and operating requirements for public schools or serve all students on an equal basis.  These questions do not address the issue of whether the parent could really choose a non-public school, or whether that choice would ultimately be made by the school through admissions policies or other requirements.  In addition, the Kansas Constitution specifically prohibits public education funds going to religious organizations.

School Boards Adopt Policies for Improving Kansas Education

Delegates to the Kansas Association of School Boards annual convention in Wichita on Sunday approved a set of policy recommendations for improving educational outcomes in Kansas, focusing on raising educational standards, providing suitable finance and strengthening local school leadership.

The association endorsed higher standards for students graduating Kansas high schools and targets for improving state educational attainment to meet projected Kansas jobs requirements over the next decade.

Delegates reaffirmed support for the principles of collective bargaining and due process rights for teachers, but said changes should be made to improve state law in both areas.  KASB leaders said they hope to find common ground with teacher and administrator organizations on these issues.

KASB also voted to support the current constitutional status and authority of the State Board of Education.

Here is the full text of resolution adopted December 8, 2013:

First in Education, Kansas Way

Kansas Association of School Boards – 2014 Priority Issues

Adopted December 8, 2013

PrincIple I.    Raise Standards for Success.  Continue to improve educational outcomes by raising standards for students, educators, schools and districts.

A.  Students Ready for Success.  Set expectations for all students to graduate high school with the skills required for college and careers, as demonstrated by academic preparation, technical skills, employability skills, and interest development; and provide individualized support from early childhood through high school.

1.  Definition:  We support the State Board of Education’s definition that College and Career Ready means an individual has the academic preparation, cognitive preparation, technicalskills, and employability skills to be successful in postsecondary education, in the attainment of an industry recognized certification or in the workforce, without the need for remediation.

2.  Student Expectations.  We support development and implementation over time of a system to ensure all students graduating high school meet a higher standard than currently required.  This should include:  (1) Demonstration of a minimum statewide standard of basic academic skills.  (2) A locally-determined demonstration of employability and citizenship skills for all students.  (3) Demonstration of preparation for postsecondary employment or education (technical certification or industry credential, associate’s degree, baccalaureate degree, etc.) based on the career interest of the student.

3.  Graduation Targets.  We support these goals for Kansas educational attainment, based on projections of employment needs by 2020.  Because employment needs differ by location, individual districts should be responsible for showing proportional increases in attainment rather than statewide targets. (1) At least 40 percent of graduates prepared to pursue a four-year degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of Kansas adults currently; (2) At least 35 percent of graduates prepared to pursue a two-year degree, technical credential or industry certificate, compared to 32 percent of Kansas adults with some college but less than a four year degree; (3) 95 percent of students graduating high school by age 24, compared to 90 percent of Kansas adults.

4.  Career Interest Development Programs.  We support a program to encourage and support districts adopting student career programs meeting standards adopted by the State Board.

5.  Financial Education.  We support a program to encourage and support districts in developing personal financial literacy programs, based on local needs and capacity.

B.  Effective Educators.  Improve educator training, licensure, and retention policies using performance-based evaluation and continuing professional development while providing appropriate protections and benefits.

1.  Student Impact.  We believe state law and Kansas State Board of Education policies should require districts to adopt administrator and teacher evaluation policies meeting standards adopted by the State Board, including a requirement that the most important evaluation factor be impact on student improvement based on multiple measures.

2.  Evaluation Input.  We support removing evaluation procedures from professional negotiations to facilitate improvement in instruction, with administrator and teacher input into the evaluation process independent of negotiations.

3.  Alternative Licensing.  We support options for licensing teachers who have not completed regular requirements for teacher training, provided such teachers annually receive high level evaluations for effectiveness.

C.  School Performance.  Establish a school accountability system for core academic subjects based on achievement, growth, and narrowing differences in student performance.

1.  Accountability Measures.  We support public accountability based on reading and math assessments measuring the movement of students to increasingly higher achievement levels, annual student growth, narrowing the gap between high and low performing students, and reducing the number of non-proficient students.

2.  Intervention and Support.  We support funded interventions to assist low-performing or non-improving schools and districts.

3.  Assessment.  To assess student performance, we support implementation of an improved testing program aligned with the Kansas College and Career Ready standards, measuring college and career readiness and higher-order skills.  KASB supports allowing districts to choose among different assessments equally benchmarked against state standards.

D.  District Accreditation.  Adopt a new accreditation system to encourage and recognize districts for student outcomes, programs and practices that support student success, including school board and district leadership.

1.  Broader Focus.  We support the concepts under development in the Kansas State Board of Education’s “21st Century Accreditation” model to provide a broader measure of school district performance and encourage best practices while minimizing additional state mandates.

2.  Board Development.  We believe the new accreditation system should require locally-developed programs for the continuing education and improvement of school boards and their members.  Such programs would be developed by local boards, and evaluated using the same system as other accreditation areas.

Principle II.  Finance for Success. Provide constitutionally suitable funding for continuing educational improvement in all districts.

A.  State Responsibility.  The state should pay for what it requires schools to do, including costs that rise each year, as part of “base” funding for all districts.

1.  Base Funding.  We support increasing statewide education funding and the per pupil amount for each district, based upon the statutory level approved by previous legislatures and the Kansas Supreme Court and recommended by the State Board of Education, studies of educational costs, funding levels in the highest achieving states; traditional levels of educational funding compared to state income; and annual increases in operating costs and state requirements.

2.  Cost Differences.  We believe the school finance system should provide additional funding through weightings or other mechanisms for higher cost students, districts and programs, particularly those required by the state.

3.  Long-Term Funding.  We support continuation of multi-year funding for school districts.

B.  Funding Equity.  Balance increased local funding options with increased state equalization aid.

1.  State and Local Balance.  We support a balanced plan for school funding increases that provides both increases in base aid and local option budget authority, contingent upon full funding of LOB state aid as recommended by the State Board of Education to reduce disparity in local school district property tax rates.

2.  Capital Costs.  We support continued state equalization aid for capital improvement bonds and restoration of capital outlay aid as recommended by the State Board.

C.  Targeted Aid.  Maintain the successful at-risk funding system based on economic disadvantage and other factors; improve instruction through professional development and mentoring; and promote innovation.

1.  At-Risk Students.  To improve mastering of skills and preparation for college and careers for all students, we support the use of free lunch eligibility as the primary factor for at-risk funding in order to provide stable revenues for these successful programs, supplemented by other risk factors.

2.  Instruction.  To improve instruction, we endorse the State Board’s 2014-15 funding request for Professional Development state aid, Teacher Mentoring and National Board Certification.

3.  Graduation.  To improve the graduation rate, we support state funding for Communities in Schools.

4.  Innovation.  To promote new ways to achieve these goals, we support creating a grant program for innovative programs and strategies.

5.  Program Focus.  We would support provisions in each of these programs requiring a focus on raising student mastery of basic skills, improving instruction and evaluation, and increasing the number of college-and career-ready students.

D.  Efficiency.  Encourage cooperation, services sharing, consolidation and efficiencies, balanced with local needs and priorities.

1.  Consolidation and Cooperation.  We support maintaining current incentives for voluntary school district consolidation, and support additional incentives for consolidation and cooperation.

2.  Sharing.  We support a statewide study of ways to promote school district cooperation and sharing of academic programs, personnel and operations.

E.  Tax Policy.  State tax cuts should not reduce school funding when improving education is vital to the economic health and quality of life for the state, communities and individuals.

1.  State Revenues.  We support state tax policies that provide increasing education funding necessary for increasing educational outcomes.  If current tax policies do not provide revenue to meet these costs, state tax policies should be revised.  Changes in education funding and tax policy should not increase disparity in local tax efforts, and any new revenue source should be equalized.

2.  Tax Policy.  We support efforts to broaden the tax base by reducing special exemptions and credits and oppose further targeted tax reductions.

principle III.  Local Leadership for Success.  Strengthen responsiveness to parents and community needs under locally elected boards and school leadership.

A.  Local Decision-Making.  Support local policy and funding choices unless the school persistently fails to demonstrate improvement; oppose new requirements without clear evidence of effectiveness and funding for additional costs.

1.  Limit State Intervention.  We believe the best response to educational issues is almost always determined at the local level, rather than the state or national level. State policies should address outcomes to be achieved, not methods to achieve them. State intervention should be focused on schools or districts that fail to meet ambitious but reasonable standards.

2.  New Mandates.  To focus on the student mastery of basic skills and college/career readiness, we oppose any new state or federal requirements except for the proposals contained in this First in Education plan.

B.  Innovation.  Promote flexibility in educational programs, accountable to local boards and state accreditation.

1.  Local Flexibility.  We support giving local school boards more flexibility in developing programs and operations.

2.  Accountability.  We support promoting innovation within the public school system so successful initiatives can be replicated, rather than authorizing and funding charter schools and other institutions outside the constitutional authority of local boards.

C.  Employee Relations.  Strengthen board and administrator management flexibility while maintaining core employee rights.

1.  Professional Negotiations.  We support continuation of collective bargaining between school boards and teacher associations.  We believe changes should be made in the professional negotiations act to strengthen professionalism and efficient district operations, which we would seek to achieve through negotiations with teacher representatives.  If agreements are reached that are acceptable to the KASB Board of Directors, KASB will oppose further amendments to the PNA.

2.  Due Process.  We support the current system of due process rights for teachers if the process is clarified to allow boards of education to remove teachers as long as such removal is supported by a preponderance of evidence.  The board's decision should be given deference unless its action was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence.

D.  Constitutional System.  Maintain the elected Kansas State Board of Education for general supervision of public education, the authority of local elected boards over public schools; and prohibition of public education funding for religious organizations.

1.  State Board.  We support an elected Kansas State Board of Education with authority over the Commissioner and Department of Education, with general supervision of local schools as provided by the Kansas Constitution.

2.  Private Schools.  We support the constitutional prohibition of state educational funding for religious organizations. KASB supports the authority of local school boards to provide services to private school students.

3.  Judicial System.  We support the role of an independent judiciary in enforcing constitutional provisions.  We oppose either changing the selection process for judges from the merit selection system, or limiting the ability of the courts to enforce those provisions, which would weaken the traditional separation of powers in Kansas.

E.  Parent and public engagement.  Increase public understanding of educational issues and support for improvement; strengthen involvement of parents, higher education, employers and communities.

1.  Local Engagement. We believe public and parental engagement cannot be effectively legislated but is the responsibility of local schools and districts.

2.  Local Elections. We believe public engagement in school district governance is best served by electing local board members in non-partisan April elections, rather than the November general elections.

Innovative Districts, KPERS Liability Shift to Districts, State Aid Cuts to Locals

Here is a quick round-up of news this week:

Innovative Districts

The Topeka Capital Journal reports that eight school districts -  McPherson USD 418, Blue Valley USD 229, Concordia USD 333, Hugoton USD 210, Kansas City Kansas USD 500, Seaman USD 345, Santa Fe Trail 434 and Sterling USD 376 - have applied for innovative school district status under a bill passed last Legislative session.

Under the procedures set for the the bill (described here), the first two districts must be approved by a majority consisting of the Governor and chairs of the Senate and House education committees.  If approved, the applications goes to the State Board of Education, which in turn must approve the applications if they meet requirements specified in the bill.  Once the first two districts are approved, they constitute a board of the Coalition of Innovative Districts, which must then approve other district applications, followed by approval of the State Board.  Additional approved districts then become part of the Coalition's board.

Key to the bill is that innovative districts must set out education goals and measurements, and then receive an exemption from most state school laws and regulations.  The innovative status is granted for five years, but can be revoked if districts fail to demonstrate student improvement on various measures for two years in a row.

KASB supported passage of the bill. It was opposed by the Kansas National Education Association because it could allow districts to waive laws regarding employee rights.  The State Board of Education has asked the Kansas Attorney General to interpret whether the law overrides authority of the State Board and local boards as set forth in the Kansas Constitution.

KPERS Liability Shift to School Districts Unresolved

After briefing the Legislative Post Audit Committee Tuesday, the executive director of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System says there is still no final decision on whether local units of government must show billions of dollars in unfunded pension costs on their balance sheets, but warned it is a strong possibility this change will be made.

The pending change was prompted by new national accounting standards, but final guidance from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board has not been released and the Kansas Department of Administration has not made a final decision, says KPERS Chief Alan Conroy.  He noted that the KPERS liability is not currently reported by either the state or local employers.

KPERS has released the following issues brief on the new GASB guidelines, including “special situations for schools” on page 2.  The primary impact of such a change would be showing increased liability on the balance sheets of local governments, including school districts, when seeking to issue additional debt through bonds.  There could also be some additional costs for calculating the liability of individual districts.  However, the new rules will only apply to local governments that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and KPERS estimates that only about 300 of 1,500 local governments currently do so.

The reporting change will not, by itself, change who is responsible for making employer contributions.  Currently, the state makes an appropriation to cover the employer contributions for school districts.  These funds are transferred to school districts and then immediately transferred to KPERS.  As a result, school districts shows this payment in their budgets as both a revenue and expenditure.  Other local units of government (cities, counties, etc.,) are responsible for making these payments for their employees without state aid, increasing from $82 million, or 2.3 percent of total school district budgets, in 2000, to $366 million and 6.2 percent of budgets this year.

Because of the significant unfunded liability in the KPERS state and school employee groups, the state has been increasing its contributions in recent years.  KPERS contributions have been the fastest growing part of school district budgets over the past decade.

State Aid Cuts Affecting School Districts

The Kansas Center for Economic Growth has released a new report on the impact of state funding cuts on local services.  Here is a link the report.

According to the Center's report, local governments have seen significant decreases in state government aid that affect neighborhood community health programs, schools, safety initiatives and libraries.   In particular, it notes that school districts have reduced staff and state funding for professional development has been eliminated.

According to KASB analysis of Kansas State Department of Education data, total school district full-time equivalent (FTE) employees increased from about 65,155 in 2002 to 70,409 in 2009 as state funding and local option budget authority increased, dropped to 67,860 in 2012 due to state budget cuts, and rebounded to 68,569 last year.

Total school employees actually increased about 1 percent between 2011-12 and 2012-13 after the Legislature funded an increase in base state aid per pupil and some districts increased their LOB.  However, the total number of school employees is still down 2.6 percent from 2009, even after the 1 percent increase last year.  The total number of employees is still about 5.2 percent above 2002.

For a closer look at changes in school employees over the past decade, see this blog posting, including a detailed chart showing each category of employee at the end.

Special Committee on Education: First Results of New NAEP scores

Yesterday, I attended a meeting of Special Interim Committee on Education, and spoke on Kansas results on the National Assessment of Education Progress.  

Here is link to my testimony from yesterday.

Here is the story from the Topeka Capital Journal, and a report from the Lawrence Journal World.

Also today, the 2013 NAEP results were released this morning.  Here is quick media report.  I'll be doing a more detailed report later.