First in Education, The Kansas Way

1. First in Education,The Kansas Way Regional Education Summits October 2011 Kansas Association of School Boards

2. Measuring State Educational Attainment • All data from national sources. National Assessment of Education Progress, ACT and SAT tests, annual Condition of Education report from U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Census Bureau. • Multiple measures rather than single test or statistic. • Allows focus on states truly achieving at high levels across all areas: “benchmark against the best.” • Most recent data from 2008-10. • Comparable over approximately 10 years, can be updated.

3. Index: Average rank on 11 indicators Mastering the Basics before High School • Two indicators: % all students scoring basic or above on 4th and 8th grade National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reading and math tests, plus free/reduced lunch only. High School Completion • Three indicators: two 4-year high school graduation rate estimates, plus % of population under 25 with high school diploma or equivalent. Preparation for College • Three indicators: State average scores on college entrance test (ACT or SAT) taken by most students in each state, percent taking majority test, plus number of high scoring students per 1,000 graduates. Adult Education Attainment • Three indicators: % of population 25 and older with high school diploma or equivalent, bachelor’s degree or an advanced degree.

4. Which Are the Top Seven States?

5. National Rankings in Ten State Region • Minnesota - 4 • Kansas - 7 • North Dakota - 8 • South Dakota - 9 • Nebraska - 10 • Colorado - 11 • Iowa - 15 • Missouri - 24 • Oklahoma - 38 • Texas - 41

6. Kansas spends less than higher-ranking states

7. Kansas has higher child poverty than higher ranking states

8. Key Findings Unlike many, Kansas in Top 20 on all measures. Examples: Florida and Texas rank 17th and 24th for mastering basics before high school, but bottom 10 in graduation and bottom 5 for college preparation. Pennsylvania 11th in high school completion but 35th in preparation for college. Kansas ranks highest on national tests. Mastering basics before high school: 9th for all students and 5th for low income; shows positive impact of at-risk programs. College preparation: 5th highest among ACT states, sixth best for high ACT and SAT scores per 1,000 graduates. Index recognizes states for percent of graduates taking either ACT or SAT; scores tend to decline the more students tested. (Six states tested all graduates on ACT.)

9. Key Findings Kansas lowest in high school completion: 15th Most states ranking higher have less poverty, fewer minorities or spent more money. Two measures of students who graduate in four years or less; third measure adds students who graduate or get GED by age 24. Kansas does better in completion by young adults; impact of “drop-out recovery” programs. Missouri does better in 4-year graduation, much lower in graduates by age 24. High attainment high school through college. Kansas ranks 13th in adult attainment (16th for high school, 14th for bachelor’s degree, 16th for advanced degree). In region, only Colorado and Minnesota are higher. Most states either high in high school and low in college completion, or the reserve. Other regional states better in high school completion, but much worse in college degrees. Kansas has less of a “brain drain,” keeps or replaces college graduates.

10. Key Findings More charter schools doesn’t improve results. In top 10 states, 4 have no charter schools, 2 have lower percentage of students in charter schools than Kansas; only three higher in charter enrollment. In 11 states with most students in charters, six are in bottom half in performance and six fell in national ranking since 2000. Funding private schools doesn’t improve results. In top 10 states, only 1 has vouchers for private schools (only for towns with no public schools) and only 1 has tax credits for private school tuition or scholarships. In 11 states with vouchers or tax credits, six declined in national rankings since 2000.

11. Why education matters:U.S. average income by education level

12. Why education matters:U.S. unemployment rate by education level

13. What education matters – state income

14. Why education matters – state poverty

15. Why education matters – regional income

16. Why education matters – regional poverty

17. First in Education – the Kansas Way • Kansas public schools stand out for high achievement, high value for spending. • Other states are also improving; Kansas students must complete with the best in the nation and world. • Despite progress, many students still leave school without all skills they need. • We can’t be satisfied with 7th in the nation- we want to be first in education!

18. Reason for celebration

19. Reason for concern

20. How do we become First in Education? Working to answer that question: • KASB Legislative Committee – 15 regional representatives met July 9, meets Nov. 5 to finalize report after hearing from members, and – • KASB study committees of board members and superintendents – reports to Board and Legislative Committee on Nov. 5, PLUS last year’s Committee on Funding Public Education. • KASB Delegate Assembly Dec. 3 in Overland Park – members should study, discuss, attend and vote!

21. What Kansans believe about education • Review of state constitution. • Kansas Conversation – thousands of Kansans answered three questions: • (1) What are schools doing to improve education, (2) what do we need to add or change, (3) what should we stop doing? • Public opinion survey of 500 Kansas voters. • Regional meetings of school leaders.

22. Key Constitutional Provisions • Educational Improvement. Legislature shall provide for educational improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools. (Article 6.1) • Suitable Finance. Legislature shall make suitable provisions for finance of the educational interests of the state. (Article 6.6.b) • Local Leadership. Public schools shall be maintained, developed and operated by locally elected boards, under the general supervision of an elected state board. No public education funds may be controlled by religious organizations. (Article 6.5, 6.2.a, 6.6.c)

23. Kansans spoke about school improvement • Overwhelming support for public schools, high evaluations for quality, safety, citizenship. • Support for broad curriculum, preparation for career and life, extra-curricular programs and electives are important – don’t narrow the focus. • Provide more individual instruction to help all students learn, improve teaching basics and life skills. • Stop emphasis on narrow reading and math tests under No Child Left Behind. • Improve educator effectiveness and accountability. • Increase public understanding and support.

24. Legislative Committee Recommendations: Improvement • Broader curriculum. Maintain the current breadth of courses and activities and expand focus from college preparation to broader career education and personal life skills. • Individual student focus. Strengthen support programs based on individual student needs, from early childhood to preparing all students for success beyond high school. • New Accreditation and accountability. Move from the current narrow focus on annual reading and math tests to more meaningful assessment of student growth and 21st century skills. • Effective educators. Improve teacher training, licensure, evaluation and retention policies while providing appropriate protections and benefits, including the state retirement system. • Public engagement. Increase public understanding of educational issues and support for improvement.

25. Kansans spoke about suitable finance • Funding for public schools should be top priority, funding cuts are hurting quality. • All students should have access to high quality instruction, buildings and technology, regardless of where they live. • Funding to help students with learning deficits is critically important. • Public education is worth the investment in tax dollars.

26. Legislative Committee Recommendations: Suitable Finance • State educational interests. Fund as state responsibility all educational interests as defined by requirements of the Legislature, State Board of Education and federal government, including educational outcomes. • Funding Equity. Balance increased local funding options with increased state equalization aid. • At-Risk Students. Provide funding that recognizes the impact of economic disadvantage and other factors in student success, and does not punish students and schools for improving outcomes. • Tax Policy. Improve understanding of the impact of narrowing the state tax base, and support a tax system that balances economic development with constitutionally suitable education funding.

27. Kansans spoke about local leadership • Decisions about public education should be made at the local level. • Unfunded mandates should be funded or eliminated. • Schools have much more flexibility to be innovative; should challenge the status quo.

28. Legislative Committee Recommendations: Local Leadership • State mandates. Review state mandates and identify candidates for possible repeal. • Local decision-making. Support local choices in education policy and use of funding unless the school persistently fails to demonstrate improvement. • Innovation. Promote flexibility under supervision of local boards, rather than outside of local accountability. • State Supervision. Maintain an independent State Board of Education, directly accountable to voters, with authority over the Commissioner and Department of Education for general supervision of schools. • Public funding and non-public education. Maintain both the independence of religious and home schools from public funds and the accountability of education funding through local boards.

29. Education Improvement Committee: • Require boards to have local professional learning plans for board members. • Support basic directions of proposed new school accreditation, focus on MTSS model and career/tech education, will need funding and KASB input. • Support increased parent engagement for success. • Identified 8 priority issues from Governor Parkinson’s Drop-out Prevention and Graduation report.

30. Tax, Education and Economic Development Committee: • Continue to favor balanced tax system – require solid evidence of success before changing mix, phase-in changes. • Consider role of education and infrastructure in economic development as well as “low taxes.” • Work with business and economic development leaders to ensure funding is provided for necessary skills. • Concern over cost of federal and state mandates.

31. District Partnerships for Increased Efficiency Committee: • Post Audit efficiency studies of peer groups helpful. • Center for Innovative School Leadership efficiency review – about 10 per year. • KASB services: workers compensation, gas purchasing. • Recommendations to promote consolidation, shared services, and implement efficiencies through incentives.

32. What’s next? • Local boards: discuss Legislative Committee proposals for final action by KASB Delegate Assembly; endorse by board action. • Build partnerships with supportive organizations at all levels. • Work with State Board of Education, Board of Regents, Governor and Legislature on specific proposals. • Create community plans to advocate for and implement education improvement strategies.