A February 2010 study on K-12 spending in Kansas concludes that schools statewide are spending as much as $717 million more than is necessary, and that implementing the “best practices” of more efficient districts could eliminate the need to raise taxes or cut spending on other essential services. The study also shows that the majority of Kansas school districts allocate only about 55% to instructional costs.

Volume 3: Analysis of K-12 Spending in Kansas also finds that, despite district claims that they are underfunded, most districts haven’t spent all of the money they received in past years. A preliminary version of this study was released in January based on 2007-08 spending; the study has been updated with newly-released data from the 2008-09 school year.

The Kansas Policy Institute study is consistent with the findings of studies by the Kansas Division of Legislative Post Audit, and the fact that schools have dramatically increased their cash reserves strongly refutes the validity of asking suing the state for higher funding.

Spending on Instruction

In 2005 the legislature took several steps to monitor how schools spent the additional money that was being appropriated. The 2010 Commission was established to advise legislators on a number of school finance issues, including whether weightings used to calculate school aid were equitable and whether the system was efficient and effective. A statutory policy goal was also adopted as Article 72-64c01 of the Kansas Revised Code, declaring that at least 65% of the total amount appropriated be spent “… in the classroom or for Instruction.” At the time, this concept was being promoted around the country as a means of increasing efficiency and improving achievement. Most schools and some policy experts question the efficacy of attempting to force schools to direct larger portions of their budget to Instruction, partly because there is considerable disagreement over what costs should be classified

as ‘Instruction.’

This analysis does not explore the merits of the so-called 65% solution. However, since the legislature clearly intended that schools use the increased funding to devote larger portions of their budgets to Instruction, the spending trend warrants investigation. Elsewhere in this analysis we have included all capital outlay costs as long-term spending rather than allocate portions to current spending as reported by school districts, but both methods are shown here in order to fairly measure districts’ efforts to comply with the Legislature’s intent. The statewide portion of total expenditures spent on Instruction shows relatively little change but there has been more of a shift within specific districts. As shown in Table 7, which considers all capital outlays as long term costs, there is a general shift upward among the various spending brackets. The percentage of students in districts that allocate 60% or more of their budgets to Instructional costs rose from 9% to 11%. The majority of students continue to be in districts that allocate less than 55% to Instructional costs, although the total has dropped from 57% to 52%. These gains are offset, however, by the fact that 89 districts with 117,531 students now devote a smaller portion of their budgets to Instructional costs than they did four years ago.

Please sign up for email updates for more information.