1 / 17

Scott Frank Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit NSAA Annual Conference June 15, 2007

COST STUDY ANALYSIS Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches. Scott Frank Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit NSAA Annual Conference June 15, 2007. COST STUDY ANALYSIS Sneak Preview.

lisandra-chambers
Download Presentation

Scott Frank Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit NSAA Annual Conference June 15, 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COST STUDY ANALYSISElementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches Scott Frank Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit NSAA Annual Conference June 15, 2007

  2. COST STUDY ANALYSISSneak Preview • Background information on the school finance formula, the lawsuit against the State, and the legislation that required the cost study. • A brief summary of the cost study methodology and findings. • An update on what happened as a result of the cost study.

  3. BACKGROUNDSchool Finance and the Kansas Constitution According to Article 6, Section 6(b) of the Kansas Constitution: The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.

  4. BACKGROUNDTwo Important Concepts in School Finance • Schools need adequate funding to help ensure the education they provide is of acceptable quality. • School funding should be distributed equitably so all students get a similar quality of education.

  5. BACKGROUNDBasics of the Kansas School Finance Formula • Base State Aid Per Pupil(BSAPP) – The minimum amount of funding per student that is guaranteed by the State. • Pupil Weights – Additional funding that is provided because it costs more to educate some students (e.g., small school districts, special education, ESL students).

  6. BACKGROUNDLawsuit Against the State In 1999, two school districts sued the State, alleging the funding formula failed to finance a “suitable” education: • inadequate because the Base State Aid Per Pupil hadn’t kept up with inflation. • inequitable because the pupil weights for children with special needs weren’t sufficient.

  7. BACKGROUNDLawsuit Against the State • In January 2005, the Kansas State Supreme Court ruled that funding wasn’t “suitable.” • The Court ordered the Legislature to increase total funding by $285 million for the 2005-06 school year as a “down payment” on new funding. • The Legislature required Legislative Post Audit (us) to do a cost study to help figure out what education should cost.

  8. LPA COST STUDYTimeframe and Resources • The entire audit staff (26 employees) worked on the cost study from July 2005 to January 2006. • The final report was presented to the Legislature on January 9, 2006.

  9. LPA COST STUDY A Tale of Two Cost Studies The cost study legislation directed us to answer two questions: • What should it cost school districts to provide the services and programsmandated by State statute? • What should it cost school districts to meet the performance outcome standards set by the Board of Education?

  10. LPA COST STUDYA Tale of Two Cost Studies Input-Based Methodology • Identify the resources districts would need to provide the required services and programs. e.g., how many teachers would they need? • Estimate the cost of those resources. e.g., how much should each teacher cost?

  11. LPA COST STUDYA Tale of Two Cost Studies Outcomes-Based Methodology • Use statistics to understand the relationship between historical costs and a variety of factors, such as district size, student demographics, teacher salaries, district efficiency, and student performance. • Use these relationships to build a model that estimates what it should cost each district to meet the State’s performance outcome standards.

  12. LPA COST STUDYSummary of Main Results Need significantly more money under either the input-based or outcomes-based approach • additional $399 million Statewide to provide the required services and programs (Input-Based) • additional $469 million Statewide to meet the State’s performance outcome standards (Outcomes-Based)

  13. LPA COST STUDYSummary of Main Results Some of the key pupil weights didn’t reflect actual costs: • Low-enrollment weighting for small districts was higher than cost data would suggest. • At-risk weighting for low-income students was too low. Also found at-risk students cost more to educate in high-poverty, urban districts. • Special education was underfunded because of a flaw in the way costs were estimated.

  14. RESPONSE TO THE COST STUDY RESULTSNew School Finance Plan In May 2006, the Legislature passed a new school finance plan. • Phases in $466 million in new funding over a three-year period. • More than doubles funding for at-risk students. • Adds high-density at-risk weighting for districts with concentrations of poverty.

  15. RESPONSE TO THE COST STUDY RESULTSNew School Finance Plan Key findings the plan didn’t fully address: • No changes to the low-enrollment weighting. • Modest increases in special education funding but no change to the method for estimating costs.

  16. RESPONSE TO THE COST STUDYLawsuit Against the State On July 28, 2006, the Court found that the new three-year plan was in “substantial compliance” with the Legislature’s constitutional obligation to provide suitable funding. It sent the case back to the district court with instructions to dismiss it.

  17. THE END

More Related