Focus on student outcomes first in the Kansas school funding debate

Meeting the needs of students, teachers and families should be the Kansas Legislature’s paramount consideration in resolving the school funding matter amid competing interests. But it may not be possible to please the state’s Supreme Court with that approach.

The court may try to close schools unless funding is increased by at least $600 million. School lawyers want over $1 billion, and a new cost study commissioned by lawmakers has options as high as $2 billion.

History shows, however, that simply spending more money has never caused student achievement to improve.

Funding continues to set records exceeding $13,000 per pupil. It has grown far more than inflation over the last 20 years, but independent tests show achievement is stubbornly flat. Only about a third of students are proficient in reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which the Kansas Department of Education deems valid and reliable. Students’ ACT scores are the same as 20 years ago, and only 29 percent are college-ready in English, reading, math and science.

Money matters, of course, but it’s how money is spent that can make a difference. Even the authors of the latest cost study say, “funding alone is not enough; … if one fails to consider how well resources are used, then increasing how much resources are provided may have a limited effect on student outcomes.” That’s vitally important because districts aren’t held accountable (as in, there’s a consequence) for effective use of resources, and the education lobby resists every such attempt. By the way, administrators only allocate 54 percent of total spending to interactions between teachers and students.

With this preface, the Kansas Policy Institute suggests the following:

▪ If lawmakers choose to increase funding beyond the $293 million increase approved last year, it should be based on what the Legislature deems appropriate, and not the $600 million or more the court wants.

▪ Adopt student-first budgeting requirements. Districts should certify they’ve allocated sufficient funds to have non-proficient students reach proficiency standards.

▪ Hold districts accountable at the building level for improving outcomes, and reward teachers for improvement.

▪ Ensure schools can remain open and give parents options to send their kids elsewhere if a district doesn’t open.

The constitution grants the Legislature sole authority to appropriate money and state law prohibits courts from closing schools, so the court’s actions certainly seem to qualify as significant interference with the Legislature’s authority. And the state Supreme Court itself says one branch of government “has a duty to resist” interference with its constitutional authority by another, which it did when the Legislature attempted to change the process of selecting local chief judges.

Also, the court’s financial demand is based on outdated cost studies that didn’t consider efficient use of money. School administrators routinely spend more than necessary on goods and services. Administrative structures are duplicated across 286 districts, and several hundred million dollars of prior years’ aid is carried over in cash reserves.

The new cost study was supposed to estimate the minimum cost of meeting adequacy but instead, it focused on aspirational goals, including the State Board of Education’s target graduation rate. Still, the study says current funding is adequate to increase the graduation rate from 86 percent to 92 percent.

Aspiration is great, but not at the cost of enormous tax hikes or other funding cuts, and especially not when simply spending more never has — and never will — cause outcomes to improve.

This story was originally published April 1, 2018 at 8:30 PM with the headline "Focus on student outcomes first in the Kansas school funding debate."