Legislative Report, 4/3/01, Report on Education #4
Doug Patterson
Kansas State Representative 28th District
Johnson County
12712 El Monte
Leawood, Kansas 66209
913-897-6905
_________________________________
State Capital Room 174W
Topeka, Kansas 66612
785-296-7631
DougPatterson@House.State.KS.US
_________________________________
Committees:
Judiciary
Commerce, Business and Labor
Health and Human Services
KANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/index.cgi
http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/status/status.cgi
____________________________________________________________________________
REPORT ON EDUCATION #4
Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Thank you for your letters and e-mails concerning the proposed education finance plans. Your continued work to contact all legislators in Topeka will be important this week since we will be working on all versions on the education funding proposals this Wednesday, April 4, 2001.
We have the Governor's Task Force on Education which issued its report last fall that would raise the Base by $180.00. The Governor’s initial initiative announced in January would raise the Base by $50.00. Then On March 13, 2001 Governor Graves announced his education initiative. It represents a considerable change from the plan described in his January State of the State presentation. Governor Graves’ education proposal increases the Base by $60 in addition to the $50 recommendations made in January’s budget recommendation. Therefore, the total Base under his initiative would be $110 per student. It brings the current Base of $3,820 to $3,930. This is a very good beginning! This represents a $112 million increase above the initial $68 million proposal originally suggested. Therefore the governor’s plan brings the total funding increase to $180 million.
On March 19, 2001, House Speaker Kent Glasscock, along with House Minority Leader Jim Garner announced an additional K thru 3 school improvement plan. The cost of this initiative is $7.5 million in the coming fiscal year and $18.4 million the year after. The initiative is not necessarily above Gov. Graves announcement on March 13. In fact, the Glasscock proposal appears to be separate and distinct from the Governor’s initiatives involving an annual increase of $180 million funding. These two proposals are, as it has been described, "apples and oranges". Therefore, the Glasscock proposal represents a $26 million program over two years for grades K-3 whereas the plan suggested by Gov. Graves representing an additional annual initiative for all grades K-12.
NOW GET THIS. On a 63-60 vote , the House Friday passed its school property tax bill with an increase to $30,000 from $20,000 the homestead exemption (this will lower tax receipts) and the 2002-2003 school year 18-mill statewide levy. Current rates are 20 mills. We are suppose to be supporting school funding, yet a majority on the House lowered the mill levy to schools by 2 mills. Obviously, I did not support the measure. And on top of that, Friday, the The House Tax Committee passed the Senate's school finance bill, including cigarette, liquor, beer, 2 cent a can pop tax ( a brand new type of tax) and sales taxes. The bill is known as the "Pop for Tots" program. Pretty sad isn’t it.
I share your passion for education and realize that properly funding K-12 and placing qualified teachers at the head of our classrooms are two of the most important issues the legislature will address this year. I assure you, the Legislature is working very hard each day to make sure every child in the State of Kansas has the best education possible.
Kansas has a long tradition of providing superior education to the families and children of Kansas. As both a legislator and a parent, I have a stake in the educational opportunities we as Kansans enjoy, and I pledge to continue fighting to ensure that we do what is right for Kansas.
In this challenging budget year, I believe we can continue to provide quality education, but at the same time remain fiscally responsible. The legislature often hears charges that we do not spend enough on education. Most of the time these allegations are based on either incomplete data or data that has been misrepresented to show a false reality.
Remember that in my last newsletter I suggested that we all do some homework. I did my assignment, and I submit the following:
My staff and I have been working diligently to get the most updated and correct information about school funding. Here are some highlights that showcase exactly how much money the state of Kansas is spending on our K-12 children.
According to the March 16, 2001, Kansas Public Policy Institute report, A Real Student-Centered Focus For Kansas K-12 Finance, AK-12 spending commands more than half of the state general fund budget. For the last complete fiscal year that meant $2.24 billion out of a $4.39 billion general fund, or 51%. But the State of Kansas spends much more on education. The K.P.P.I. itemized the different sources of school funding:
Total School Revenue 1999 - 2000 School Year
Local Ad Valorem Taxes $831,998,000
Prorated Property Taxes $79,470,000
State Aid-General Fund $2,139,232,000
State Aid-Other Funds $2,872,000
Federal Aid $199,293,000
KPERS (est. U.S.D. Portion) $87,889,000
Grand Total $3,340,754,000
Kansas USD’s had at their disposal an aggregate $3.34 billion for the school year that began in August of 1999. It is not fair, nor accurate, to only look at pieces of state funding, such as the $2.139 billion in general state aid, and expect to correctly portray the price Kansans pay to educate their children in public schools.
Another completely false, yet all too familiar claim, is that the funding provided by the Kansas Legislature has failed to keep up with inflation since 1992. Data compiled by the Kansas Legislative Research Department refutes this claim:
Net USD Expenditures
(In Thousands)
Percentage Increase
USD Expenditures
Percentage Increase
CPI (a
Percentage Increase
KPI (b
Year
1992_1993
$2,449,981
__
__
__
1993_1994
2,561,481
4.6%
3.1%
6.6%
1994_1995
2,651,888
3.5%
2.6%
3.9%
1995_1996
2,750,796
3.7%
2.9%
5.2%
1996_1997
2,840,462
3.3%
2.7%
5.5%
1997_1998
2,975,138
4.7%
2.9%
5.9%
1998_1999
3,158,047
6.1%
1.8%
5.6%
1999_2000
3,302,692
4.6%
1.7%
4.8%
a) Consumer Price Index
b) Kansas Personal Income
Many detractors claim that we can only improve Kansas education by spending more money on whatever problems are causing the sky to fall at that particular time. Deficiencies often cited are average spending per student and teacher salaries. The K.P.P.I. , in its report previously cited, identifies the statewide average price per pupil for the 1999-2000 school year at $7,447 per student.
I will be the first to say that you must be careful when using average numbers, but the
number is certainly reflective of what an average taxpayer is experiencing on an annual basis to fund schools. The total expenditures for K-12 have increased from the 1992-1993 to 1999-2000 over 36%, while at the same time the consumer price index increased less than half of that percentage at only 15.4%. We should have an open and honest discussion about school finance, and the sources of funding for schools, but to say that school funding has not kept pace with inflation, and that the Legislature has neglected schools during the 1990's is misleading and inaccurate.
Here’s how much we’re spending in the Blue Valley and Shawnee Mission school districts according to the Kansas Department of Education, printout #L9770, January 24, 2001:
District # District $ Per Pupil
384 Blue Valley $ 8,942
512 Shawnee Mission $ 7,191
Again, I state my understanding that averages can be misleading, but no matter how you count, either the state wide numbers or the local averages, we spend much more on education than most people realize. Any serious debate about school finance reform must start with the recognition of how much is being spent today, where it is coming from, and what is received in return.
Another allegation often heard is that teacher salaries across Kansas are not competitive with private sector jobs requiring equal or less training. This claim is also a misrepresentation of the data. The claimants fail to account for the fact that the seemingly higher paying private sector salaries are based on a 12 month work period whereas the instructional salary is based on a shorter time period. If the instructional salary were converted to a 12 month work period the salary would be much more comparable with the private sector.
The 2001 Congressional Quarterly State Fact Finder cites Kansas teachers’ annual salary for the 1998-99 school year at $37,405, with the average nationwide at $40,582. In that same report, the State Fact Finder calculates the comparison of teachers’ salaries in our neighboring states:
Colorado $38,025
Kansas $37,405
Missouri $34,746
Nebraska $32,880
Oklahoma $31,149
While it is true that Kansas is experiencing a shortage of teachers, this shortage cannot be automatically attributed to inadequate salaries. The teacher shortage is not a Kansas problem, it is a national problem. In fact, staffing shortages are not even unique to the teaching profession. Nearly every sector of the national workforce is experiencing staffing shortages due to an economy which has been running near full employment for the past several years.
The data above clearly shows that not only has funding kept pace with inflation, but it has surpassed it. In 1992 the Kansas Legislature made a promise to adequately fund Kansas Public Schools and we have kept that promise and will continue to do so.
Additionally, the "Quality Counts 2000" survey gave Kansas a D- minus for allocation because only 57.5 cents of each educational dollar goes to classroom instruction. Perhaps, the most important issue at hand is not how much we spend, but rather where we spend it. It is curious that while Legislators are accused of turning our backs on our children by not keeping a promise we made to them almost ten years ago, our Kansas students continue to rank among the nation's top performers. I see this as further evidence that both fiscal responsibility and quality education are being maintained.
I look forward to our continued dialogue concerning these important educational issues and am certain that by working together we can achieve the goals we all have for the children of Kansas. We share the same priority of meeting the needs of K-12 education. However, our efforts will continue to be frustrated if we allow the misinterpretation of data to be the starting point of our conversation. I am open to any and all creative ideas that are responsible, accountable, and right for the children of Kansas.
The Following table describes the education bill we will be considering by the House tomorrow as contained in our bill briefs:
House Bill 2064
Taxation; WOR-AM; modifies the school finance formula, addresses other education policy matters, contains appropriations, and increases certain taxes in connection therewith, i.e. the Senate Pop for Tots Plan. This bill is the Senate education bill which is the substitute for HB 2051. In other word, HB 2051 was put into this HB 2064. Many of you have written and support this Bill. Please read the footnoted to this bill brief for HB 2064. This bill received no recommendation from the House Taxation Committee. This bill will raise $140,000,000.00 for education.
House Bill 2578
Taxation; WOR; modifies the school finance formula, addresses other education policy matters, contains appropriations, and increases certain taxes in connection therewith; the "Tools for Tots" version. This is the Governor’s reccomendation. It will raise approximately $107,000,000.00 but recieved no reccomendation from the House Committee on Taxation. Read the footnotes on this portion of the bill briefs for this HB 2578.
Enclosed please find a recent report from Mr. Mark Tallman (Kansas Association of School Boards) for your information and use. I think you will find it full of many interesting facts and figures. Thank you for your concerns and for your service to the educational needs of all of the children of the Blue Valley School District, the Shawnee Mission School District and the entire State of Kansas.
Please feel free to forward and if you have e-mail addresses of other interested members of our community, please send them to me for inclusion in this address book.
Respectfully,
Doug Patterson
State Representative
enclosure: Tallman Report
THE TALLMAN REPORT:
Kansas School District Expenditures:
Basic Facts
Prepared by the Kansas Association of School Boards in support of the School Finance Coalition
Prepared by the Kansas Association of School Boards in support of the School Finance Coalition
January, 2001
January, 2001
Introduction
Introduction
The school finance coalition is a group of education organizations and school districts that believe the quality of public education in Kansas can be sustained only by raising educator salaries, helping all children reach high standards, supporting technology and insuring safe schools. The coalition has adopted a position that over $650 million in additional state funding is required to assure that each child receives a high quality education.
A task force appointed by Governor Bill Graves also addressed many of these issues. The recommendations from this group would increase state spending on education by approximately $200 million. In addition, the task force endorsed a number of proposals in the State Board of Education’s Fiscal Year 2002 budget request totaling over $100 million. The Task Force also recommended that the state fund a study to determine cost of providing a "suitable" education in each school district in Kansas. This study could find that even an even greater increase in state funding is necessary.
Implicit in the positions of the coalition, the Governor’s Task Force and the State Board is the concern that school district funding has not kept up with needs since the current system was adopted in 1992. For example, the base budget per pupil has fallen far behind inflation since 1992-93. However, some reports indicate that school funding has increased more than inflation over that period, and note that state aid to public school districts has nearly doubled. Which position is correct?
Actually, both are. This paper reviews the basic features of the Kansas school finance system and how those features changed between 1992-93, when the current law took effect, and 1999-2000, the last year complete figures were available from the State Department of Education. It demonstrates the following basic facts:
The base budget per pupil is the foundation of the school finance system, and is determined by the state.
Although total school district expenditures have increase more than inflation, most of this growth has been in restricted use areas of the budget, not available for general education needs.
General, or discretionary spending has slightly exceeded inflation only because school districts have increased local option budgets, which increase property taxes.
Even within the general fund, much of the increase has been directed to specific programs, such as at-risk and correlation weighting.
Much of the increase in state aid has been offset by reductions in local revenues, specifically reducing the statewide mill levy from 35 mills to 20 mills.
The base budget per pupil is the "foundation" of the school finance system.
The base amount is multiplied by the total of the actual full-time equivalent enrollment plus various weighting factors and other adjustments in each district to determine the general fund budget. Districts may adopt a local option budget (also called the supplemental general fund) which is a percentage of the general fund, up to a maximum of 25%. Therefore, the value of the base determines the value of weighting factors and the LOB.
The base budget per pupil is determined by the State Legislature.
The base is currently set at $3,820 by state statute. To change the base, the Legislature must pass a bill. Although the base budget per pupil is set in law, the Legislature must also pass a separate appropriations bill to actually fund the base each year. (Any change in law or appropriations requires a majority vote in both the House and Senate, and is also subject to the Governor’s veto. The Legislature can override a veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.) If the Legislature does not appropriate enough money to fund the required state aid in every district, the base is prorated (proportionately reduced for each district).
State aid is not the same as the base budget per pupil.
In addition to setting the base, the Legislature also sets a uniform mill levy on property in all districts. To fully fund the base at the statutory level each year, the Legislature must appropriate enough money to make up the difference between the general fund budget and the amount raised by the statewide general mill levy in each district, plus a few other revenue sources. This appropriation is called "general state aid." (If the statewide general fund mill levy raises more in a district than is required to fund the general fund budget, the excess amount is "recaptured" by the state and used to fund general state aid for other districts. This occurs in only a few very districts with very high property valuations - probably only one in 2000-01.) The legislature also provides assistance for local option budgets, based on the property valuation per pupil in a district. The wealthiest districts do not receive any "supplemental general aid."
The general fund and local option budget are the "discretionary" parts of school budgets.
The general fund and supplemental general fund (if any) combined represent the "discretionary" portion of a school district’s budget, although a portion of these funds must be transferred to other funds restricted uses. Last year, total general fund expenditures of all districts was $2.174 billion, and supplemental general fund expenditures totaled $320.9 million. Combined, these funds represented less than two-thirds (63.9%) of all school district expenditures. All other expenditures are restricted to use for very specific purposes outside of general or regular education, such as building construction, food service and special education.
Restricted purpose funds are important, but cannot be used for regular education costs.
Expenditures outside of the general and supplemental general funds are almost always restricted to very specific purposes. This does not mean they are unimportant, but it means they are not available for general education costs, such as regular teachers= salaries. Major examples of these "restricted use" funds include:
Special education aid, which may only be used for special education teacher salaries, transportation and related costs. ($248.4 million last year)
Capital outlay, which may only be used for equipment, construction, and repairs or remodeling. ($136.9 million last year)
Food service, which provides meals for low income children and meal preparation support. ($152.2 million last year, mostly provided by the federal government)
Bond and interest costs, which pay off the debt on construction projects approved by district voters. ($183.4 million last year)
Other federal programs, such as Title I aid for disadvantaged children. ($100 million last year)
In addition, districts received $136 million within the general fund through Aprogram weightings’ that must be used on specific programs, such as bilingual and vocation programs and student transportation. Districts also had to transfer approximately $36 million to cover additional special education costs that exceeded special education aid provided by the state.
Restricted expenditures have increased much more than discretionary expenditures.
Total "discretionary" expenditures (general and supplemental general fund) have increased from $1.939 billion in 1992-93 to $2.495 billion in 1999-00, or 28.7%. Because enrollment increased statewide, this represents a per pupil increase of 23.7%, from $4,454 to $5,561.
However, total expenditures from all funds increased from $2.498 billion to $3.403 billion (36.2%). Total per pupil expenditures increased from $5,791 to $7,585 per pupil (30.9%). This means that a decreasing portion of total district expenditures is available for discretionary purposes. General "discretionary" spending fell from 77.6% of the total in 1992-93 to 63.9% in 1999-00.
Not only do total expenditure figures contain many funds with restricted uses; these funds are not equally available to all districts. For example, only districts with outstanding bonded debt have bond and interest expenditures, and most federal funds are distributed on the basis of student poverty. These two items alone account for 12.8% of total district expenditures, up from 9.1% in 1992-93.
Discretionary spending kept up with inflation only because of the Local Option Budget
Since 1992-93, total expenditures per pupil have increased 30.9%, considerably more than the consumer price index, which increased 19.4%. However, discretionary expenditures (general and supplemental general fund) per pupil have increased just slightly more than inflation (23.7%).
This increase has been possible only because of increased use of local option budgets. Total LOB expenditures (supplemental general fund) increased $97.9 million in 1992-93 to $320.5 million in 1999-00. Without the LOB, discretionary general spending would have fallen behind inflation. From 1992-93 to 1999-00, general fund spending per pupil (excluding the LOB) increased from $4,267 to $4,846, or 13.6% - only about 70% of the increase in the CPI. The base budget per pupil increased just 4.7%, from $3,600 to $3,770.
Much of the increase in the general fund has also been restricted to specific programs.
Total general fund expenditures increased more than the base because of changes in enrollment weighting factors. Between 1992-93 and 1999-00, general fund expenditures increased by $304.9 million. Without changes in enrollment or weightings, the increase would have been just $87.8 million. The additional increase in the general fund expenditures result from the following changes since 1992-93:
FTE enrollment rose statewide by 17,810 students (approximately 4%). In addition, the legislature approved a declining enrollment feature to help districts phase in budget reductions when enrollment falls. These two changes added $88.3 million.
The Legislature created a "correlation weighting" feature to assist districts with enrollment over 1,725 because it believed these districts were underfunded by the original 1992 finance act. This change added $73.5 million, all for districts with enrollment over 1,725.
More students are enrolled in approved bilingual and vocation programs, at a cost of $16.8 million.
The Legislature increased the at-risk weighting factor from 0.05 to 0.09. This factor is applied to students who quality for free lunch and must be used for approved programs to assist students at risk of academic failure. This change added $23.2 million.
Higher costs for busing children to and from school added nearly $10 million to the transportation weighting.
Weightings to assist districts with the special costs of opening new buildings
added $14 million.
State aid increased more than district expenditures because of reductions in property taxes.
In addition to changes in total school district expenditures since 1992-93, the sources of funding have also changes. Total state aid for school districts rose by just over $1 billion, or 90.8%. Federal funds also rose by $81.8 million, or 69.6%. But school district revenue from local sources B primarily property taxes B fell by $196.5 million, a decline of 15.6%.
A significant portion of increased state aid for districts was used to reduce local property taxes. For example, in 1993-94 state aid rose 33.6%, but local revenues dropped 22.2%. In 1997-98, state aid rose 15.9% while local revenue dropped by 11.9%. As a result, state aid increased from 44.9% of the total expenditures in 1992-93 to 62.9% in 1999-00
| Home | Biography | Legislature | Newsletter | Media | Register | Links | Contact |
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Doug Patterson, Dave Imhoff, Treasurer