Leaders of three mainline Christian churches gave a huzzah to education during their recent conference.
Good for them. Too bad there is no evidence that they did not call for shifting attention from funding systems that aren’t working very well to funding children.
From the KC Star:
TOPEKA — The fourth time was the charm Thursday for the Kansas Senate in its efforts to adopt a school-funding plan.
A $466 million proposal passed 24-16 following three previous unsuccessful votes last month. Several weeks ago, a $558 million bipartisan proposal crafted by Democrats and moderate Republicans was approved by the House.
So legislators have the option of choosing between more, and more.
Actually, there are other differences as well.
At risk funds: $101 million, Senate; $173 million, House
Total increase in basic state aid over 3 years: $86 million, Senate; $77 million, House
The article includes other differences that may be worth noting.
Members of the Kansas Senate decided to shelve the idea of uncoupling the certification of schools from the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Under NCLB, states must achieve 100 percent student proficiency by 2014. (States are able to set their own standards of what is proficient, a point the Eagle story did not make.)
Here’s the challenge for schools: “In future years, schools could lose [state] accreditation for failing to meet those proficiency requirements.”
NCLB is a case of good intentions colliding with the real world. It is widely assumed that 100 percent proficiency is not achievable. And that assumption is most likely correct. On the other hand, the law lets states create their own definition of proficiency. Some definitions are closely tied to a national standard, the NAEP. Others lower the bar, considerably. That’s understandable, but it also fosters cynicism about education.
Judges are educating from the bench, says Jay P. Greene.
But what are we learning in these classes? Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Greene, a professor of education reform, addresses the phenomenon of “adequacy” lawsuits, such as those that have entangled Kansas for years. Here’s a portion of the concluding paragraph:
… elected leaders have ceded control over the size of education budgets to unaccountable courts. Judges and the consultants they require are not easily held responsible for misusing evidence or wasting taxpayer dollars. As long as this continues, expect to spend more on education and see less in return.
Jim Barnett senator from Emporia and gubernatorial candidate, has come up one vote short in his school finance plan. Over three years it would increase school funding by $466 million.
Barnett, not surprisingly, says “The best bet for the Kansas Senate is to pass the Barnett education plan.”
Says the Hutchinson News, “Senate GOP conservatives also have expressed dismay that some of their caucus’ leaders voted against Barnett’s proposal, instead favoring a House plan supported by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.”
In the veto session, will the legislature come up with a school finance package that will please the court?
“It’s not my goal to be acceptable to the court. That is always a moving target, and we don’t know what that target is.” — Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe.
More, Senator, More. That’s the target.
The Ark City Gazette offers some details of a plan making the rounds. SB 584 would:
- increase by $50 for each of 3 years the base funding amount for each pupil (this is in addition to various weightings that are also applied to student counts)
- raise the state’s obligation of special education funding from 92 percent to 95 percent (another increase for districts)
- increase the FTE count for kindergarten students (another increase). Currently, these students are counted as half a student, for funding purposes. The bill would increase that number from 0.5 to 0.65.
From the Kansas City Star:
Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland on Monday asked an ethics panel to investigate the conduct of a fellow justice. In a meeting of the court Thursday, Lawton Nuss, 53, of Salina, withdrew from the ongoing school finance lawsuit after revealing that he had talked to two senators about proposed legislation.
The two senators are Steve Morris (R-Hugoton), who is also senate prsident, and Pete Brungardt (R-Salina).
This isn’t the first time that questions of judicial ethics have arisen in the school finance case.
Lawton Nuss, a member of the Kansas Supreme Court, has made the ongoing school finance controversy more interesting.
Why? He will recuse himself from further deliberations, after meeting with two members of the legislature in which the three men discussed the school finance case.
Karl Peterjohn, of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, had already called for Nuss’ recusal, as well as that of Donald Allegruci, whose wife has worked for Gov. Sebelius.
Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, said “He should have recused himself long before this,” though Alan Rupe, attorney for the school districts that sued the state, said that this would make no difference in the outcome of the case. He’ s probably right.
The Lawrence Journal-World said that the disclosure rocked the capitol. As well it should. Doug Mays, speaker of the House, said “This is a serious breach of the separation of powers.”Then again, some would argue that a breach was already established with the Montoy decision.
Not that one wrong deserves another, but perhaps it does signal a need to reconsider alternate ways of remedying the first wrong. Rupe uses the occasion to criticize the legislature (that’s his job), while on the Salina Journal’s blog space, KSMeadlowLark says this should have happened a long time ago.
For what it’s worth, 2006 Kansas Teacher Working Condition Survey is out. Kansas City InfoZine has a synopsis of the results.The survey was conducted with the cooperation of the NEA. The results are predictable: teachers want more time off to prepare, and less responsibility (fewer students).
That doesn’t make teachers bad. It does, however, make them human. As professionals, perhaps it is time that they are subjected to the market test, along with accountants, lawyers, engineers, and the like.
In Hutchinson News article about the state board of education race, current SBOE member Sue Gamble comments in an attempt to confuse the question of charter school expansion with the controversies in curricula.
Sue Gamble, a moderate school board member from Shawnee who sits in the minority and also attended Tuesday’s event, charged that the majority gets “distracted by ideological wedge issues.” Such issues include the possible creation of charter schools and whether sex education in schools should require parental “opt-in” permission, along with the evolution question.
Not quite the same, Ms. Gamble. Sex education and the evolution questions are about school content. The question of how hard or easy it should be to open a charter school is one of school governance.
Apples.
Oranges.
Don’t confuse the two.
Here’s another reason why we need school reform:
… in rankings with other developed nations, the U.S. falls toward the bottom in 12th-graders’ performance in math and science.
The Kansas City-based Kauffman Foundation is spending $15 million on programs in metropolitan schools to beef up their programs.
Fortunately, at least some of the money is going towards use at private schools. Technological innovation thrives on competition. Putting competition to use in K-12 education would ultimately help the U.S. performance in science and math.
The Wichita Eagle offers a review of Bob Corkins’ tenure as state school superintendent.
“I came into this position expecting a huge challenge, and it has been exactly that. It’s been six months of pretty intense work,” he said.
With opinions on education splinted on questions of finance, curriculum, and governance, how could be otherwise for Corkins? Or anyone, for that matter?
But of course Corkins bears one additional burden: he has asked if some schooling might better be delivered through vouchers and charter schools. That, in the view of the Kansas Alliance for Education (quoted in the article) and others, makes him an enemy of education.
Says a KAE spokesman, of Corkins: “He came in with a pre-existing bias against public education, and some of his activities since then have demonstrated that he still holds those opinions.”
Without passing judgment on Corkins’ actions in office, let us say this: “public education” as we know it — tying money for students to one particular school district, and brooking no competition — does not always serve the public. Likewise, expanding the opportunities for students to learn from a variety of providers will end up as a boon to the goal of educating the public.
Another case of erroneous thinking is offered by SBOE member Bill Wangon, who says:
“He is driving all professional staff out of the (Education) Department, and he embarked on a fool’s errand to expand charter schools and exempt them from accountability.”
If charter schools aren’t up to the job, they are closed. That is accountability. What happens to other public schools if they aren’t up to the job? They get more money.
How is that an accountability system?
The Wichita Eagle offers a rosy piece on District 259:
Wichita elementary and middle schools continued to show far more improvements than setbacks in state scores in 2005. The percentage of elementary school students scoring passing grades — proficient or above — in reading increased 22.6 percent over 2004, according to The Eagle’s calculation of Kansas State Department of Education data.
On the other hand, lots of students are still scoring “unsatisfactory” or “basic,” which is to say, not up to grade level.,
7th grade math: 44.3 percent
10th grade math: 66 percent
5th grade reading: 29.6 percent
11th grade reading: 43.7 percent
Check out the report card for more information.
AP writer John Hanna says that “we should blame politics for school finance limbo.” No kidding.
What does school finance require? One, it requires determining how much to tax people ($100 million? $1 billion?). That’s a political question. Two, it requires determining how to spend that money (special education, regular education, weightings or straight per-pupil support, etc.) Three, it requires determining where to spend that money (urban versus rural, etc.) Four, it requires setting school funding in the context of other spending priorities, such as roads or universities or what have you.
These … are … all … political questions.
And yet,
In the Supreme Court’s view, as expressed in past orders, politics aren’t supposed to determine what schools receive. The court ruled last year that legislators had failed to live up to their constitutional duty to provide adequate funds and to distribute the money fairly.
Politicians making decisions that are … non-political?
By the way, “political” need not be a bad word. At its worst, politics is grandstanding and self-enrichment. But at its best, politics refers to resolving differences of opinion on subjects that involves government power.
There is a sense in which politics do negatively shape education, and that is our continued insistence on funneling money to school districts directly, rather than sending it to parents who can then select among a number of options.
How much is enough? At least one measure, Kansans are paying more than their share for education.
According to the Lawrence Journal-World, which cites Census Bureau numbers:
State residents paid $54.17 of every $1,000 they earned to support K-12 schools — better than the national average of $50.53, good for 15th in the nation.
Later on in the story, the LJW notes that Kansas was 26th by this measure as recently as 2002. So clearly, residents are increasing their tax burdens for schooling.
OK then, Kansans are making a better-than-average effort to fund schooling.
But because other states have higher incomes,
Kansas spent $7,518 per student, below the national average of $8,217.
(We think that this number underestimates money spent in Kansas in the name of education, but we’ll let that pass for the moment.)
Expect advocates of ramped-up spending to cite the latter figure and ignore the former. But doing so is unwise, for school budgets do not (or should not, at any rate) exist outside the real world. The real world means that there are a variety of serious and legitimate claims on the public purse and on taxpayer dollars. Demanding X dollars per year for any budget item irrespective of state income as well as other budget priorities is irresponsible.
Alan Rupe, attorney for the “Give us more” campaign, dismisses such reasoning:
“Those [Census] numbers don’t affect the debate; the debate is over the adequacy of funding as defined by the Kansas Constitution.
And how does the constitution itself dictates a specific dollar amount? That’s a whole thorny question.
For some reason, the article introduces the red herring of a lack of a vigorous tourism industry in Kansas:
Lawrence Supt. Randy Weseman said Kansas residents are paying such a high price, in part, because the state lacks the tourism to generate income from out-of-state residents.
What? Yes, tourists can add tax dollars. But there are several questions that Kansans face, and “How can we get more tourism dollars” is not terribly relevant to the education debate. More important are questions such as “How much can we afford,” “Where does education fit within a list of priorities that compete for public funds,” “How do we allocate the money that we are spending,” and “Does the legislature or the court make budget policy?”
The question of whether or not to expand gambling is equally irrelevant.
The Hutchinson News reminds us that Some voters might face special questions at polls on Tuesday. Voters in Dodge City and Marion-Florence, for example, will say yay or nay to bonding proposals. But to boost voter participation, school votes ought to be placed on general election ballots in November.
Something’s definitely wrong here ….
The Wichita Eagle carries three articles about the use of tasers in schools.
North Student Tasered at School describes a recent incident in which a Wichita police officer used a taser to subdue a student.
3 Taser Incidents reviews other incidents in Wichita schools. The family of one student says “Our concern is that Tasers be taken out of schools.”
Police, Schools, Should Meet About Tasers, Brooks Says contains this curiosity: “District administrators and some board members have said that the district cannot tell the Police Department what equipment its officers can or cannot have.”
Columnist Mark McCormick says When schools use tasers, we need to know. Hard to argue with that.
Two correspondents for the Kansas City Star say that School funding crisis boils over.
The two review a few of the forces at work:
Rural lawmakers are locked in a stalemate with urban lawmakers. Lawmakers who would rein in the Supreme Court were outvoted by those who won’’t. Lawmakers who want gambling were stymied by those who don’’t. Throw in elections this fall for the governor and all 125 House districts and you have a political page-turner that’’s primed for paralysis.
Also at play: Johnson County versus voices from the rest of the state, who, in the words of David Klepper and Jim Sullinger, argue that raising the limit on the local option budget “provides an education advantage that their districts and taxpayers can’’t afford.”
Two observations can be made in response to that objection:
1. If Johnson County wants to tax itself more, why should anyone else care? Is this envy (“If I can spend $X, you can’t either,”) at work, or simply …
2. Ignorance of the fact that increased spending on education does not guarantee better results.
The Star’s team offers a summary of the latest report on school finance:
A January audit suggested that small, rural schools were receiving too much money while schools in urban, high-poverty areas weren’t getting enough. It suggested that lawmakers needed to find an additional $400 million to meet actual costs. However, most of the plans being examined provide more money for rural schools and don’’t provide as much for urban, high-poverty districts as suggested in the audit.
Here’s an alternative: set a per-pupil funding level that the state treasury will support. Hand that money out to parents, in the form of tax credits ( refundable, if need be) or a voucher. Give families with special needs children an extra amount. Then let parents decide where the money will be spent.
Nancy Kassebaum Baker calls for higher tax rates for schooling.
Why are the opinions of a former U.S. senator noteworthy? Because the report from the Lawrence Journal-World continues several error-ridden themes:
1. The public goal of education is synonymous with the current approach of tieing tax money to school districts rather than students.
2. Education is so valuable that it’s not subject to standard reasoning of economics. Education is indeed important, but so are roads, public health, and so forth. The word “education” should not cause us to forget the basic truths that resources are finite, not infinite.
3. It ignores the possibility that an increase in spending on education could be funded by cutting back on other areas, rather than simply raising taxes.
Here’s how this puff-piece starts:
Even with a long record of opposing taxation and overspending during her years as a U.S. senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum Baker knows education trumps everything - including fiscal conservatism.
“None of us like to raise taxes,” she said. “But we have to be sure we have the incentives to bring the very best.”
Yes. Excellence is good. But in the rest of the world, we rely on competition, and the threat of losing customers, to prompt organizations to perform excellently. In education, we act as if the normal rules don’t apply. No, education doesn’t trump “everything.” You couldn’t abolish the Bill of Rights, for example, on the grounds that it would somehow improve education. Likewise, we must use economic sense when considering how to fund education.
RSS Feed