In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled that the education of Kansas schoolchildren was in peril because the Kansas Legislature had not spent enough on the state's schools. Despite the fact that by every recognized measure, Kansas schools already were near or at the top in most state rankings, the court imposed spending increases that are now helping push the state into a deep budget crisis.

The court's only evidence was a discredited school audit that had been dismissed by the Legislature, which had commissioned it, as impractical and dangerously expensive. The audit's figures had been compiled by asking school administrators how much money they would like to receive to achieve a range of outcomes. Critics condemned the audit - and the court's imposition of a funding increase based on it - saying in most cases there was no provable relationship between funding and achievement.

Now, according to a new study released Tuesday by the University of Kansas, it turns out the critics may have been right.

Research conducted for the University of Kansas Business School’s Center for Applied Economics by Dr. Florence Neymotin, a Kansas State University assistant professor of economics, shows the massive increase of school funding in Kansas between the years 1997 and 2006 so far has had "little evidence of improving student outcomes as measured by test scores."

The findings do not come as a surprise to Neymotin, who has studied school finance and achievement relationships on both a state and national level before.

“I think this particular study is in keeping with a lot of literature in the area in that funding change doesn’t necessarily impact achievement,” Neymotin told Kansas Liberty. 

The CEA study, "The Relationship between School Funding and Student Achievement in Kansas Public Schools," examined the relationship between funding and performance by using a statistical method which analyzed data from the Kansas Board of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics to examine specific characteristics of school districts during times of funding infusions. 

The method allowed researchers to examine schools as if school funding and student achievement were the only defining differences within the school district.

Neymotin said the method, known as "ordinary least squares regression," is a standard method used by economists. In the current study this method is used to complete a point-in-time analysis as well to look at changes occurring over time.

“This allows us to see what the relationship is when moving from point 'A' to point 'B' in time, instead of other methods that look at what a relationship is at point 'A' in time,” she said.

Neymotin said she hopes her research is used as tool for legislators and educators to consider how funding should be allocated to schools.

“I think there is a tendency for us to fund education in the hopes that it will increase student achievement on a one-for-one basis, as in people thinking that if we put 10 percent more funding into schools we will get 10 percent better achievements,” she said. “But I think you rarely see that happen and this is just one more study which confirms that.”

But Sue Gamble, an outgoing Kansas State Board of Education member, disputed Neymotin's findings. Gamble said that she thought when dollars were allocated in the correct manner they should make a difference with student achievement.

“Research shows you cannot make a relationship between achievement and funds if you are just throwing a bunch of money around, but that’s not what we have done in Kansas,” Gamble told Kansas Liberty.

“What we did as a board was to focus in on what we felt made a difference with student achievement and that’s professional development, school leadership, providing educators assistance in the classroom and providing students with additional time to learn," Gamble said. "The Legislature has increased funding and focused money specifically to at-risk kids and has allowed districts to use funding in very focused ways.”

Gamble said that the possible decrease in school funding, that Kansas districts may face due to the government’s large deficit, would probably not cause an immediate, visible impact on students. “It usually takes about three years for a change in something to be reflected in testing,” she said.

Gamble echoed the arguments made by supporters of the court-ordered funding increase in 2005.

“If this is a long term pull-back from school funding then we are not going to have adequately prepared citizenry to participate in our democracy, and our kids are literally our future, so if we don’t help them now they are not going to be able to take the reigns of this global, complex society we have today,” she said.

Rep. Deena Horst, R-Salina, and co-chair of the education committee, said she believed school funding could help improve student outcomes to a degree but that the people involved with providing education should be granted even more credit for creating student achievement.

“I don’t necessarily think that an increase in school funding means an increase in student achievement,” Horst told Kansas Liberty. “You can’t just throw money at an issue and expect it to change. When we target one thing as the driver for positive things that are happening, we really leave out all the other possibilities. I go back to the fact that it's individuals that make differences in people's lives and not money.”

Horst said regardless of the role funding plays in student achievement, Kansas schools may have to adjust to having less funding in the near future.

“We are going to have to recruit people in the community to come forth and help schools until we can find our way back economically,” she said. “Districts need to start looking now at what the possibilities are and start talking about it, and I think we can keep from having achievement losses because of loss of money.”

The KU study is the first to analyze the recent amendments to the School District Finance and Quality Performance Act.

Though funding seemed to have little effect on most outcomes, Neymotin's research did find a slight improvement in graduation rates, which she thought might be attributable to increased funding.

“During the years 1997-2006," the study said, " there was an increase in total revenues per student in schools of approximately $7,500 per student in 1997 to $8,700 per student in 2006. This time period also displayed a steady increase in the high school graduation rate starting from a graduation rate of approximately 89.7 percent in 1998 to one of approximately 91.7 percent in 2005.”

- Holly Smith

Resources:

• Read the CEA study 
• The University of Kansas Center for Applied Economics
•  The School District Finance and Quality Performance Act: http://kansasliberty.com/resources/issues-of-interest/education/k-12-education-finance

The Week in Review