Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Brownback: State school aid has increased since 2011

August 5, 2014

Advertisement

— Total state funding for public schools has increased since Gov. Sam Brownback took office in 2011, administration officials say, although the increase is due mainly to new funding this year that was ordered by the Kansas Supreme Court.

Brownback's budget director, Shawn Sullivan, and spokeswoman Eileen Hawley pointed out those numbers in response to a July 29 story in the Journal-World that quoted an analysis by former budget director Duane Goossen.

That analysis said the increase in total state funding for public schools was entirely attributable to increased funding for the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, which provides pension benefits for school employees.

But Sullivan and Hawley pointed out that Goossen's analysis was written before the Kansas Legislature acted this spring to increase certain school funding that targets lower-wealth districts.

The new funding, which takes effect this year, was in response to a Kansas Supreme Court ruling in March that declared a portion of the school finance system unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to increase funding for "equalization aid" that subsidizes the capital outlay and local option budgets of lower-wealth districts.

That funding — about $130 million — was included in a bill that also made significant education policy changes such as eliminating teacher tenure and adding tax credits for corporations that fund scholarships for private and parochial schools.

When that money, plus additional state money paid into the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System are included, administration officials say, total state funding for K-12 schools will be $3.18 billion in the current fiscal year, up from $2.97 billion in fiscal year 2011, the first full year of Brownback's administration.

That is still below the pre-recession peak of $3.23 billion that was budgeted for fiscal year 2009, but was later cut by Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson when the financial industry collapsed and state revenues began to plummet.

Meanwhile, base state aid to public schools — money that funds each district's general fund budget — has been cut about $20 million since 2011, from $1.89 billion to $1.87 billion.

The July 29 story was prompted by a campaign mailer sent out by the Kansas Values Institute, a political action committee with ties to Democrats and moderate Republicans, which criticized Brownback for making, "the largest cuts to Kansas public schools in state history."

During Brownback's first two years in office, the base state formula was cut from $4,012 per pupil before he took office to $3,780 in fiscal year 2012. That was mainly due to the phase-out of federal stimulus aid, which Congress approved in 2009 to shore up state budgets during the Great Recession.

Base fund has gone back up slightly since 2012, and this year's budget funds base state aid at $3,852 per pupil.

Comments

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 2 weeks ago

More lies from this administration, if you takes out the payments to KPERs funding has gone down every year

7

Richard Heckler 1 month, 2 weeks ago

Come on Kansas Rt Wing GOP pay up and stop stonewalling !!!!!

4

Shawn Sullivan 1 month, 2 weeks ago

Peter Hancock still did not present the entire picture of K-12 spending. Following is the information that was provided to him:

Peter Hancock’s July 29 article, Independent Groups Active in Governor’s Race, contained several inaccuracies which I would like to correct.

The article references a K-12 education spending analysis completed by former State Budget Director Duane Goossen stating “Since fiscal year 2011, when Brownback was elected, general state aid to schools has been cut about 4 percent, or $85 million” and that “total spending on schools, including contributions to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, has gone up about $12.9 million, or 0.6 percent” during the same timeframe. That analysis was used to validate a political mailer from the Kansas Values Institute that presents an inaccurate picture of education funding.

The numbers used by Goossen and quoted by Hancock appear to be from an analysis completed in March 2013 and are inaccurate, outdated or both.

The facts show that total approved spending from State and Federal funds on K-12 students is $4.01 billion dollars for the current fiscal year. The total spending in fiscal year 2011 was $3.83 billion dollars. This is an increase of $187.8 million dollars, which is much higher than the number used in the article.

When breaking down this total K-12 funding down to a per student basis, the total approved spending per student for the current fiscal year is $8,711 as compared to $8,416 per student in fiscal year 2011. This is contrary to the information provided in the article, which stated “total spending on a per-pupil basis has gone down slightly.”

Many have made the argument that the State’s increased investment in pension costs counted in the total spending does not constitute a proper comparison in school spending. Even removing the cost of KPERS from the equation, the total funding and the funding per student in the current fiscal year is still higher than that from fiscal year 2011: for the current fiscal year budget, approved spending without KPERS is $3.62 billion dollars and the spending in fiscal year 2011 was $3.56 billion dollars.

The source of this information can be found at the Kansas Division of the Budget Website.

Shawn Sullivan State Budget Director

2

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Claims that KPERS is driving school funding increases are simply not true. Table 3 of our 2014 Public Education Fact Book excludes federal funding and local money approved by voters. Even excluding KPERS, per-pupil funding increased each of the last three years. http://www.kansaspolicy.org/ResearchCenters/Education/EducationDataWarehouse/d116460.aspx

7

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

Looking at your table base aid has gone down every year sine 08-09, now of you add in the bonds and other income sources (not provided by the State) that's different, but also not true state funding

3

Philipp Wannemaker 1 month, 1 week ago

AS expected the brownies budget director{liar) the Koch chief liar both promptly showed up with their usual propaganda.

7

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Why do you call facts propaganda?

5

Philipp Wannemaker 1 month, 1 week ago

I was simply using a polite term for your "facts", should I have said prevarication? Wiki definition is probably very accurate. "Prevarication is when someone tells a lie, especially in a sneaky way."

8

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

So is there anything inaccurate in the numbers I posted?

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

Just in how your are attempting to use them, you are purposefully trying to say that the State is funding schools at a higher level but you are adding in numbers from other sources of income to make that argument. That would be like me trying to say I make $1 million a year by adding in loans that I took out, I may have a $1 million in my bank account but it's not all from my salary.

3

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Thanks for acknowledging that the numbers are accurate. State funding is higher, however.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

Thanks for acknowling that your are purposfully trying to trick the general public in to beliving that the State is providing more funding for students, when your own numbers say otherwise. Base student aid continues to drop

5

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Because you always call propaganda facts.

1

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Since you didn't answer the question, does that mean you cannot refute the facts from KSDE?

The facts that I posted come from KSDE. Are you accusing KSDE of inaccuracy or propaganda?

0

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

I did answer the question. I'm accusing YOU of propaganda, Dave. You. Also strawmanning.

If the numbers from the KSDE spoke for themselves, we wouldn't need you to come here and pretend to interpret. You frame numbers misleadingly and then pretend like all you're doing is giving us facts. You're simply not being honest.

2

Shawn Sullivan 1 month, 1 week ago

Phillip- feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

1

Shawn Sullivan 1 month, 1 week ago

"That is still below the pre-recession peak of $3.23 billion that was budgeted for fiscal year 2009, but was later cut by Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson when the financial industry collapsed and state revenues began to plummet."

Total spending from state and federal sources in the current fiscal year on K-12 students is $4.01 billion. Total spending from state and federal sources in fiscal year 2009 was $3.64 billion. Total spending per student approved in the current fiscal year from state and federal sources is $8,711 per student. In fiscal year 2009 it was $8,097 per student. If we take out KPERS from state and federal funding sources, the total spending per student approved for the current fiscal year is $7,847, which is more than the $7,559 per student without KPERS in fiscal year 2009.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

We are talking about STATE funding stop trying to add in federal numbers, and don't add in money for communities because again we are talking about State funding, so only the money that the State gives for education (not retirement) is being discussed.

2

Shawn Sullivan 1 month, 1 week ago

The data that I look at gives two options- state general fund and all funds. I used all funds in my response as the state general fund doesn't include all state funding categories that goes to K-12 students. If anything, including federal funding props up 2011 numbers at it had $92 million included for a Education Jobs fund, $52 million going to General State Aid and $54 million going to Special Ed. To your point, I did not include local mill levy funding.

0

Larry Sturm 1 month, 1 week ago

You can put figures together and add up anything thar you want. I don't see anything added in for inflation. KPERS should not be added into per student funding.

4

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Especially when it's backfill KPERS funding. They're making up for the can that has been kicked down the road for decades. From all political parties, to be fair. Still. That money won't make an iota of difference towards instruction.

3

Shawn Sullivan 1 month, 1 week ago

The article did not include an analysis on inflation, but I will be happy to look at that.

0

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

The Kansas Supreme Court says all funds...including federal and KPERS...must be counted toward adequacy.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

But that doesn't not make it State funding, it just makes it funding in general, they are two separate things

1

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

All funding comes from taxpayers. Government has no money of its own.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

LMAO you will go to any extent to keep this smoke screen on funding up won't you, it's pretty sad

5

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

It doesn't come from the Kochs anymore. They're not state taxpayers. They shouldn't be paying you to be part of this discussion.

3

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

TWO aggressive number crunching campaign defenders on a local newspaper column? Could it be that someone is feeling a tad vulnerable after nearly losing a primary to a barely funded pot legalization candidate?

5

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Or maybe to distract us from another credit downgrade? http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/aug...

Awesome funding ya got there, Brownie.

3

Chris Alexander 1 month, 1 week ago

Here’s what Dave and Shawn and their fellow Kock lackeys do. They understand that school budgeting is complicated, and take advantage of that to obscure the truth about school funding. They do this by throwing oranges (and various other fruit) in with the apples and tell us to look at the increase in apples they have provided.

But here is what is important to understand. The only money that comes from the state and that goes into operating expenses is base state aid per pupil (BSAPP). This money goes into the classroom to pay teachers, and for things like putting fuel in the busses and to keep the lights on. It cannot go for things like construction or repair of buildings. In addition to BSAPP, local communities pony up for the local option budge (LOB), which goes into operating expenses. But the LOB does not come from the State – it comes from mills from each LOCAL community. Now it is true that the state has to equalize the LOB (because communities with high property values can provide higher LOB amounts than can low property value communities). This does provide a small amount of funding for operating expenses, but rather than congratulate this administration for that, congratulate the Supreme Court which told the state that they had to do. The local community can also pony up to fund buildings through bonds, like the one that Lawrence recently passed. But again, these are funded through the local mill levy and cannot into the classroom. The State is mandated to fund the retirement system (KPERS) but this does not go into the classroom.

People like Dave and Shawn like to combine all of this funding and say “see see funding has increased”. Sometimes for good measure they even through in money that comes from the federal government. But the real measure is BSAPP, the part that comes from the state and that goes into the classroom. That is the measure on which we can compare apples to apples. So, Dave and Shawn, how do you like them apples? And by the way, what is the current BSAPP and how does it compare over the last few years?

8

Shawn Sullivan 1 month, 1 week ago

Many people disagree that only BSAPP goes into the classroom. However, if I follow that logic and use General State Aid and Supplemental State Aid, both of which go to the classroom, the current fiscal year total is $2.478 billion compared to $2.123 billion in 2009, which is what many are using as the baseline year.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

But what is the per student aid, I can say I gave a school of 100 student $100 in 2011, and increased it to 101 by 2013, but if that school now has 200 students then my funding when down.

2

Chris Alexander 1 month, 1 week ago

Uh, Shawn, but can you answer the question? Okay, I'll help out. 2009-10 BSAPP $4012, 2014 BSAPP $3852.

3

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Just to show that funding is up even without federal and KPERS (even though it all counts per Kansas Supreme Court)....

Table 3 of our 2014 Public Education Fact Book reflects the money that is authorized by the Legislature...no federal dollars and no local money approved by taxpayers (although even that is authorized by the Legislature. http://www.kansaspolicy.org/ResearchCenters/Education/EducationDataWarehouse/d116460.aspx?type=view The money recorded as Local is only in that column because the Legislature hasn't had the money sent to Topeka for distribution; if they did, the number recorded as State would be much higher.

In 2010, funding based on Legislative authority was $4.342 billion. In successive years, it went to $4.430 billion...$4.658 billion....and $4.806 billion in 2013. On a per-pupil basis, that's $9,577....$9,737...$10,216...and $10,496. No federal...no KPERS...no local-voter-approved money...just State Authority.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

You seem to have trouble figuring out bigger and smaller, here is the State funding from YOUR chart

2008-09 $4,400 2009-10 $4,012 2010-11 $3,937 2011-12 $3,780 2012-13 $3,838

so the numbers for 2012-13 are only higher than 2000-01 ($3,820) and 2011-12 ($3,780) this is the base funding so what in the world are you talking about?? You can't add Bonds, and Other state aid because that only goes to select schools, we are talking about funding per student, so you have to look at your numbers for the funding you give per student.

5

Chris Alexander 1 month, 1 week ago

Amy, he can't do that because then his argument falls apart.

5

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

You are just not being honest about this. You are trying to claim that BSAPP is the only state funding and we all know that that is not true.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

We also all know that not all schools have bond, not all schools get extra funding from the state, so when you are looking at how much the state is giving to all students you need to look at what every student is getting, you don't get to pick and choose like a fruit basket. We can also bring up the fact that the percentage the state spends from his general fund is inflated due to the huge tax cuts which is creating deficient in the state budget

4

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

I don't think you understand how the budget works. Revenue variances do not change the percentage of money spent on budget items.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

actually it does, if you are giving the school $50 and you only have $100 then you are giving 50% of your budget to them, however if you give them the $50 they need and you have $200 then you are only giving them 25% of your budget. With the State now bring in far less money it will appear percentage wise that the State are killing the budget, but that is not the true picture and we both know it.

1

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

No, that's not how it works. Expenditures are measured against the expenditure budget, not revenue.

0

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Ten percent of 100 is less than ten percent of 200, yet the percentage remains the same. So either the state overspends when revenue decreases (which would be unconstitutional) or the amount of spending does vary when revenues decrease. Which is it, Dave?

1

Chris Alexander 1 month, 1 week ago

Nice bait and switch Dave. First you say that that it is a matter of just sending the LOB money to Topeka and now you are talking about just doing away with LOB and increase property taxes for everyone. Two very different things. This will never happen by the way. Partly because Johnson county will not allow it.

And I never said BSAPP was the only state aid. But, what I did say is we need a way to compare apples to apples, and we can do that with the base. You're still throwing oranges in the apple basket, but we realize that's all you've got.

4

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

No, you cannot do a fair comparison of just the base because you are trying to make the base out to be the only money that gets to classrooms, which is absolutely false.

0

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Are you saying he's not using KSDE numbers, Dave? Which of his numbers do you think is incorrect? Is he not citing facts from government sources? How dare you accuse him of incorrectly framing those numbers!

4

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

No, I said no apples-to-apples comparison of just the base can be fairly made because districts have been given other money and that also must be taken into consideration to understand the impact of funding.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

so to be clear your saying his numbers are correct.

3

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Since you didn't answer the question, does that mean you cannot refute the facts from KSDE?

1

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Not bait and switch...two entirely different but plausible scenarios.

0

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

"You are just not being honest about this..." Irony award goes to Dave.

2

Chris Alexander 1 month, 1 week ago

"The money recorded as Local is only in that column because the Legislature hasn't had the money sent to Topeka for distribution; if they did, the number recorded as State would be much higher." I hand to Dave for being honest on this one. Topeka will take the local money, send it right back and bingo, state funding goes up.

2

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

that wouldn't make it State money because it is money that is collected local is strictly for the school district which that area serves. If you neighbor owes you $5 and I collect it from them it give it to you, that doesn't mean that I paid off your neighbors debt, I just handed the money they gave me for you over.

2

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Actually, the state could do away with the LOB as it is known today and substitute a statewide mill rate, then distribute it it all as state aid. Every district could get state funding for its adequacy needs and only go to taxpayers for anything 'extra' they want to do.

0

Nancy Hamilton 1 month, 1 week ago

The problem, Dave, is that you and your ilk have far different definitions of words like "adequate" and "extra" than most of the rest of us.

5

Tracy Rogers 1 month, 1 week ago

That's the way it was supposed to work back when it started. Only problem is that the state hasn't kept up with inflation and the changing times, so the LOB funds have had to go towards the essentials instead of the extras.

4

Tracy Rogers 1 month, 1 week ago

Why has it taken 2 lawsuits to get the state to increase funding or to make it equitable???

5

Steve King 1 month, 1 week ago

So Dave. How underfunded is KPERS?

2

Steve King 1 month, 1 week ago

$9.2 Billion right?

How does that work in your projections?

2

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Actually, it was closer to $10.2 billion the last time I looked. That is why we support reforms that put new hires in a defined contribution plan, eliminate various spiking options, raise minimum retirement ages, eliminate double dipping and other options that would reduce funding needs and close the gap.

0

Philipp Wannemaker 1 month, 1 week ago

Does "we" mean anyone other that the Koch brothers and their pad flunkies such as you and brownie? Dave, however I must give you credit for your dedication to your well paid job in spite of what it does to your ethics and honesty.

4

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

He has no ethics or honesty, he is a snake oil salesman

4

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

'We' is Kansas Policy Institute and no one else.

0

Philipp Wannemaker 1 month, 1 week ago

KPI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, privately owned by the Koch brothers.

6

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

And not totally incorrect, either. KPI is a think tank funded by the Kochs, with a mission supported by the Kochs, part of the state policy networks, but technically it is not part of Koch Industries on paper, although it certainly wouldn't exist without the Kochs.

5

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

He was already a disciple of the church of Koch long before they hired him. I think he really doesn't know how dishonest he is because his thinking has become so biased with his own selective information sources. It's really very sad.

5

Steve King 1 month, 1 week ago

Raise minimum retirement ages. Ah, so we have to work longer...

Great solution. Put it on our shoulders.

2

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

It also ignores the fact that they already did raise retirement age for new hires. Now he wants to turn it into a crappy 401k style plan, which has the added bonus of causing a financial crisis for future retirees in the defined benefit plans. Great plan.

2

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Actually, many new young workers prefer a 401k plan over defined benefit plans. People are much more mobile now and either plan to only work a few years at a job...sometimes to start a family. Others don't see themselves working for the same employer for a long time. These folks like 401ks because there is no vesting...they take their money with them whenever they leave.

0

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

"Many new young workers" is not a statistic. It's an argumentum ad populum. Seems like encouraging longevity would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Workplaces with less job churn tend to be a lot more productive and save money in the long run with less need for constant new hire training.

401k plans are bad for the employee in the long run, and bad for the state when trying to fund existing pensions. Vesting is currently, what, five years? That's not a punishingly long time, Dave. Your argument is just weak.

6

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

just keeping up with private sector taxpayers who foot most of the bill

0

James Howlette 1 month, 1 week ago

Except for your Koch funders, who no longer pay state taxes.

7

Rob Chestnut 1 month, 1 week ago

It is clear that state funding has not kept up with rising costs, and this fact is setting Kansas behind in education. However, I think it is unfair to blame this administration exclusively for the unfunded KPERS situation. Many administrations have passed on addressing an unfunded balance that has been growing for decades.

It is difficult to address issues like minimum retirement age, double dipping and other benefits that have been available to teachers in the current scheme. But, it is also unfair to the taxpayers of Kansas to perpetuate a benefit structure that is not being supported by current funding and leaves future administrations with a bill that will come do in the future.

The future is now as so many people in the system are now approaching retirement age.

4

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

Spending has more than kept up with rising costs. Some people have claimed spending is at 1992 levels adjusted for inflation, but it is actually 43% higher. 1992 spending (adjusted upwards for KPERS) was $5,416 per-student; inflation would take that to $8,918 in 2013 but it was actually $12,781.

And if districts actually spent of the money they received (instead of using it to increase cash reserve), spending would be ahead of inflation even on more recent comparisons.

0

Tracy Rogers 1 month, 1 week ago

If schools actually spent all the money they received then no one would get a paycheck for several months. There would be no food to start the school year with. They would close schools down before the end of the school year when the State is late or cuts back payments to districts.

1

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

going from your lovely table 3 from your own numbers, in 1007-08 your total without KPERS was $10.340 and 2012-13 was $10,494. Do you really believe that inflation really hasn't happened at all since 2007? And if you look at just base aid (which is more accurate to what all districts get) in 2000-01 it was $3,820 and 2012-13 it was $3,838 so your really saying inflation hasn't been in issues and hasn't been addressed at all with the funding.

1

Dave Trabert 1 month, 1 week ago

But if districts hadn't put over $300 million in the bank since 2008, they would be spending more than inflation. Also, the fact that districts spent that much doesn't mean that they needed that much. That funding level was predicated upon an inflated cost study from Augenblick & Myers and the Supreme Court has since abandoned the entire concept.

0

Amy Varoli Elliott 1 month, 1 week ago

Regardless of how much the schools have in their emergency funds state funding has hardly changed at all in the last 14+ years. Plus there is nothing that says all this money came from the states, schools need money in the coffers for things that may pop up during the school year. The last couple winters have really hurt schools with added now removal and extra heating cost.

3

Tracy Rogers 1 month, 1 week ago

"Also, the fact that districts spent that much doesn't mean that they needed that much."

Oh my God, you are truly delusional. Have you even been in a school building in the past 20 years or so? Do you know how many supplies that teachers pay for themselves? Do you know how much in fees parents pay because there's not enough money coming to districts from the State? Do you know of the cuts that have been made in districts in the past 5-7 years? Do they do all this just because they want to sit on money in the bank?

6

Jim Schilling 1 month, 1 week ago

Using usinflationcalculator.com it shows that $10,340 in 2007-08 would be $11,617.40 in 2013. Looking at base aid the $4374 in 2007-08 would be $4914.36 in 2013. If you go back to 200-01, the $3820 in base aid would be $5027.66 in 2013.

1

Greg Cooper 1 month, 1 week ago

Dave, you might be interested in the following article, written by your dad, I mean, employer, I mean benefactor, about the Kansas economy. A very small part addresses school funding, which is apropos to the current "discussion". A very large part addresses the rest of the economic boondoggle foisted on Kansas by your cabal.

See, Fact checking is going on everywhere. The unfortunate part of your ravings is that you don't care about facts, except as redefined by KPI, the neo-Republican party, and those who care not a whit for the truth.

2

Larry Sturm 1 month, 1 week ago

State funding hasn't increased until it gets above the $4,012 per student funding plus inflation.

3

Commenting has been disabled for this item.