Overview: How school districts used increased funding to improve schools and educational results

Posted Date: 01/05/2021

Over the past two decades, Kansans have asked their public schools to better prepare children for success in an increasing complex and competitive world. In response, school districts used increased funding to add staff and programs as enrollment increased, especially for high needs students; kept salaries and benefits competitive; and improved school facilities.

KASB reviewed Kansas State Department of Education data and other sources to see how increased funding was used and what results were achieved. Here are the highlights.

1. With additional spending, long-term Kansas educational attainment increased. High school completion and college degree attainment has increased overall and for major groups, boosting personal income. Some short-term measures, such as state and national tests scores, were increasing as funding rose in the 2000’s but have declined after funding lagged behind inflation from 2009 to 2017 and have not recovered.
2. School funding increased in part because total student enrollment increased, and the number of students with greater needs such as special education and poverty, increased much faster. In response to requests from parents, Legislators and others, schools hired more people and contracted with more providers to enhance services for students and families. These include more early childhood programs, more counselors and health staff, more technology support and more transportation.
3. Most district spending goes to salaries and benefits, which increased more than inflation to stay competitive with other employers. District paid salaries and benefits have increased at a slightly lower rate than overall employment costs. Districts have also increased funding for contracted employee services.
4. Voters approved improvements school facilities, reflecting higher construction costs, shifting populations and changes in educational needs.
5. The state of Kansas has had to increase funding for the state public employees’ retirement system to make up for years of past underfunding. These funds are included in school district budgets, but they simply “pass through” from the state to KPERS.
6. Kansas has had to keep up with other states in K-12 funding. The national and regional average per pupil funding has increased more than Kansas funding per pupil. Without additional funding, Kansas would have fallen much further behind.
7. Although school funding has increased more than inflation, it has not increased more than total income of Kansas residents. In fact, Kansans are spending a smaller share of income on K-12 education than they were 20 years ago.

These investments were possible because total Kansas school funding has increased more than inflation since 1990. But a closer look at school funding is more complicated. Most of that increase occurred between 1999 and 2009, especially after the 2005 Kansas Supreme Court’s Montoy decision, which found funding constitutionally inadequate. But following the recession of 2008-09, state tax cuts and slow economic growth, funding fell behind inflation from 2009 to 2017. Base operating funding, which excludes building and pension costs, meals and federal aid, fell even further behind.

Following the Gannon decision, the Legislature and Supreme Court agreed a plan to restore base funding to 2009 inflation-adjusted levels by 2023, and school again began rising more than inflation in 2018 to 2020.

Total school spending has risen nearly $2 billion more than inflation since 1999 but only surpassed the 2009 level last year (2020). School district general funding, local option budgets and special education, which provide most of the funding for day-to-day operating budgets, remain below inflation-adjusted 2009 levels, but have still increased about $1 billion more than inflation since 1990.

Of the just under $2 billion in additional school funding beyond inflation from 1999 to 2020, approximately 75 percent was for personnel. The largest increase was for new school districts positions (33 percent of the total). The next largest area was additional KPERS funding, mostly to address past under-funding of the system (21 percent). Higher salaries for existing staff to remain competitive accounted for 18 percent and higher spending on professional services to remain competitive was 2 percent.

The rest of additional funding was for school facilities. Higher construction costs based on 1999 spending accounted for 5 precent of the total and additional enhancements to school facilities the remaining 20 percent.

For details on increased school funding, continue to the full report of this summary.