Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey

Next Tuesday, four members of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, seek to be elected again to their current posts.

These members — Lanora Nolan, Lynn Rogers, Connie Dietz and Betty Arnold — are part of a board and school district that is increasingly out-of-step with education reforms that are working in other parts of the country. Their policies and actions are harmful to both Wichita schoolchildren and Wichita taxpayers.

At the time when most of the country is starting to realize that quality teachers, not the number of teachers, is what makes the biggest difference in student outcomes, the Wichita school district is going the wrong way. The bond issue, with its focus on reducing class size, will force the district to hire more teachers. This makes it more likely that schoolchildren in Wichita will be taught by poorly-performing teachers.

Its contract with its teachers union forbids any type of merit pay that might induce the best teachers to stay in teaching. Instead, all teachers are paid the same. Only length of service and extra education credentials allow teachers to earn more. Now researchers have found that length of service and the credentials earned at university schools of education make very little difference in student outcomes.

Across the country parents can take advantage of school choices programs such as charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits. These programs give parents — instead of school administrators and politicians — choice as to where to send their children to school. In some cases, they allow parents to decide how their own tax dollars should be spent. The Wichita school district, including its board and the incumbent candidates that stand for election next week, are firmly against these type of programs that have benefited many students and parents. They prefer a government monopoly.

The Wichita school district and its board are miles behind other school districts and governmental agencies regarding transparency and openness. Its recent search for a new superintendent was conducted in such a secretive manner that even the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman — one of the district’s several apologists at that newspaper — was critical.

The district and board’s attitude towards citizens is nothing less than hostile. In particular, board member, now board president, Lynn Rogers has told citizens that records requests are a burden to the district. When citizens ask for evidence of claims the district makes, Rogers advises them to use Google to look things up for themselves.

The board gets even little things wrong. For example, the board’s agenda that’s posted on the USD 259 website holds appendixes, which are usually attached files that hold additional information such as a Powerpoint presentation. But these files are removed quickly after the meeting. Most governmental agencies leave them available for eternity.

Three board members, in their joint campaign materials, state they are proud of 11 years of rising test scores. Across the country school districts and states have watered-down testing standards in response to political pressure to produce rising test scores. Is this the case in Wichita and Kansas? We don’t know. But as scores rise on tests administered by the state, they remain unchanged on the national tests that are immune from local political pressures.

The fact that all of the candidates facing election challenges have advertised jointly is evidence of another severe problem on the Wichita board of education: Rarely is there controversy or evidence of independent thought by board members. Consider the bond issue from last year, which passed narrowly (51 percent to 49 percent) when voted on by the public. Board members were unanimous in their support of the bond issue. What are the odds of that? (Well, board member Jeff Davis initially dissented, but only because he thought his district didn’t get its fair share. His straying from the board’s groupthink mentality was short-lived, however, as at the next meeting he changed his vote.)

Then there’s the bond issue from last year. One analysis found that 72% of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, came from contractors, architects, engineering firms and others who directly stand to benefit from the new construction. The board rewarded Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture for its efforts in passing the bond issue with a no-bid $3.7 million contract to manage the bond issue.

As large as the bond issue is, to board members it’s not enough. Board members started with a list of projects that totaled some $550 million. These projects are on the back burner, and as soon as this board senses the time is right, it will propose another bond issue. Count on it.

We should remember the board’s conduct during the election. Calling a special election to be held in May, the board delayed it when it appeared the political landscape was not in their favor — after their opponents had mobilized and spent resources. The board appeared to rely on a hapless citizen group during the summer months for recommendations. Despite the district’s denials, huge amounts of district resources, all provided by taxpayers, were used to promote the bond issue.

This Wichita school district and its board is an institution firmly rooted in and preferring a big-government style of education monopoly. It ignores evidence of reforms that work, preferring to remain beholden to special interests such as the teachers union, education bureaucrats, and firms that benefit from school construction. None of its members deserve re-election.

Tagged as: Betty Arnold, Connie Dietz, Kansas Open Records Act, Lanora Nolan, Lynn Rogers, Rhonda Holman, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

{ 3 comments }

For Wichita school contracts, it helps to pay

by Bob Weeks on March 8, 2009

USD 259, the Wichita public school district, has recently decided on some architects to award contracts to for work funded by the 2008 bond issue.

Citizens might have wondered why so many architectural and construction firms had such a high degree of interest in public schools. But these firms know that if you want to get contracts, it’s not required, but it sure helps to make some campaign contributions.

The following chart shows that while the correlation isn’t perfect, it helps to make a large contribution if you want to get a large contract. The outlier data point is Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. This firm made the largest campaign contribution. It also snagged the project management contract for the bond issue. This contract was awarded without any competitive bidding. This contact pays the firm 1% of the total value of all bond projects, and no doubt helps the firm obtain the most lucrative architecture contracts, too.

And to think I was about to believe that it was all about the kids.

USD 259 contributions and contracts

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

Wichita school bond finance report omits a big contribution

by Bob Weeks on December 31, 2008

Yesterday, Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE) filed their campaign finance report. This group was in favor of the bond issue to benefit USD 259, the Wichita public school district.

There are some interesting details in this report, but there’s one glaring omission: there’s no mention of the campaign contribution made by the taxpayers of USD 259.

The administration of USD 259 says they spent nothing on a campaign to pass the bond issue. They say what they did was merely an educational and informational campaign. But what USD 259 did had all the characteristics of a political campaign except the explicit appeal to vote “yes.” Anyone who saw the materials produced by USD 259 got the message loud and clear: vote yes for this bond.

The assertion that USD 259 ran an educational and informational campaign is ridiculous. The campaign materials contained nothing that was negative or even neutral towards the bond issue. Is that because no such facts exist? Of course not. An honest informational campaign would have given consideration to them. But that’s not what the Wichita school district wanted to provide.

Now I can understand architecture firms like Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and construction companies making contributions to the bond issue campaign and not wanting negative or neutral information provided. These firms promoted the bond issue solely out of self-interest. They’ll design and construct buildings whether they’re useful or not.

But schools — their mission being education instead of politics and self-interest — should be different. Schools should seek to teach the truth, and the only way to do that is to provide balance. That’s not what the Wichita school district provided the public during the bond issue campaign.

We’ll probably never be able to learn how much USD 259 spent promoting the bond issue. In the future, when taxpayer-funded entities like USD 259 run informational campaigns, we’ll need a method for balanced information to get to the voters.

Click here to download CARE’s campaign finance report.

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

{ 4 comments }

Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture Wins. Who Lost?

by Bob Weeks on December 11, 2008

In what must be the most unsurprising news reported in Wichita this year, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture was awarded the contract for plan management services for the USD 259 (Wichita public school district) bond issue. Their fee is one percent of the total of the bond issue, or about $3.7 million. If this contract is anything like the one from 2000, they can also bill expenses.

This is the same role this firm played in the 2000 bond issue, as reported in Wichita School District’s Favorite Architect Stands to Win Big.

It’s little too late to ask this question, but I wonder if any firm other than Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture was considered for this contract. Or, was there any thought given to competitive bidding for this contract?

Given this firm’s role in promoting the bond issue (the Wichita school district effectively outsourced the campaign to Joe Johnson, the head of this firm), there was little doubt as to who would get this contract. This raises a few questions:

First, did Joe Johnson and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture believe this bond issue was in the best interests of Wichita’s schoolchildren and the citizens of the district, or is the bond issue just a way to earn fees?

Second, did Joe Johnson and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture always know they’d be awarded this contract if the bond issue passed? Were they worried that some other firm might make a bid?

The close relationship between the Wichita school district and this firm raises suspicions that this is just another example of crony capitalism in Wichita.

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

Kenneth A. Kriz: Tax Increment Financing: Its Effect on Local Government Finances
Dye, Richard and David Merriman: Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development
Dye, Richard and David Merriman: The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development
Danny Santivasci: Tax Increment Financing: Private Investment at the Expense of Local Community

Jeff Fluhr’s Decision

by Bob Weeks on December 9, 2008

in Wichita city government

At the December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Jeff Fluhr, the new president of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, spoke on behalf of the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

Attending the meeting with him were several members of that organization’s board of directors, headed by Joe Johnson of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. This board, emblematic of the “good ol’ boy” network, is stocked with those who seek to profit in the halls of government power rather than in the marketplace where consumers rule. It’s easier that way — no pesky consumers with their varied wants and desires.

The problem Mr. Fluhr faces is that in order to lure developers to downtown Wichita, incentives must be offered. Now some on the Wichita city council act as though incentives come at no cost. The proceeds from TIF financing, they say, are used only for infrastructure, as though this is something the city is obliged to provide. But as I show in my post Many Wichita Developers Pay for Infrastructure, market-based developers pay for their infrastructure. The city doesn’t give away much to them.

The TIF developers, they being the political entrepreneurs, are privileged to use their own property taxes to pay for their infrastructure, and for other things, too. This sets up a situation where the city, through its attempts at centralized planning, thwarts the will of the people by forcing Wichitans to subsidize developers who are lured — “incentivized,” as one city council member put it — to develop where politicians want them to.

This sets up a tension. Citizens are starting to realize the reality of the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the political entrepreneurs, and they don’t like it. They’re starting to realize that public/private partnerships mean the public takes the risk, and the “privates” earn the profits. This is far removed from capitalism, which is what we need to build the wealth of our city. “Crony capitalism” is a better term for the relationship between the TIF district developers and local government officials.

Then there’s the defect in the process surrounding the public hearing before the Wichita city council. As Randy Brown wrote about this meeting: “Among other transgressions, we had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue.” Mr. Fluhr needs to decide if he’s on the side of open and transparent government, or whether he’s in favor of crony capitalism and the good ol’ boy network. If he would request that the City of Wichita withdraw this TIF district until a proper public hearing is held, we’d get a good indication of his thinking. Of course, if he doesn’t make such a request, we’ll know just as well.

Finally, Mr. Fluhr stated in his presentation to the Wichita city council: “[The TIF district] will greatly contribute to Wichita’s development as a destination river city, which will in turn enhance the economic vitality of downtown and the community at large.” (emphasis added)

I would ask that Mr. Fluhr and the citizens of Wichita familiarize themselves with the research to the contrary. A number of studies tell us that TIF districts, while good for the subsidized developers, are not a good deal for the city as a whole. As economists Dye and Merriman (see below) found out: “We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.”

Tagged as: Capitalism, Downtown Wichita arena, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Tax increment financing, TIF districts, Wichita city government, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation

Wichita school district’s favorite architect stands to win big

by Bob Weeks on October 31, 2008

Shortly after USD 259 (the Wichita school district) passed a bond issue in 2000, a contract was formed between the district and its favorite architectural firm, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. The contract, portions of which you can read here, pays this firm one percent of the bond amount for “Project Management Services.” Plus expenses, I should add.

In addition, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture earned huge fees for being the architect on many school buildings. Their contract with USD 259 for their role as the architect of Earhart school gives their fee as about $420,000. The construction cost of this school was given as $8.3 million, so that’s five percent to the architect.

In addition, this firm undoubtedly earned its one percent fee for project management services on this school, that fee earned by managing themselves.

So it’s little wonder that Joe Johnson and Kenton Cox of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture are at the forefront of the effort to pass this bond issue. It means a great deal of money for their firm if the proposed bond issue passes this year.

But wait, you may be saying. Won’t this project management contract be put out to competitive bid?

Won’t the contracts for architectural services for each school project be competitively bid?

I don’t know the answer to these questions. Something tells me, however, that Joe Johnson already knows.

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

{ 1 comment }

Raising Wichitans’ Taxes in a Recession is Not A Good Idea

by Bob Weeks on October 21, 2008

“Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.” (Associated Press, September 7, 2008)

Contrary to assertions by Wichita school interim superintendent Martin Libhart and school board president Lynn Rogers, Wichita can’t tax and spend its way out of a recession that may or may not be forthcoming. Not even Barack Obama believes that, as shown in the news story quoted above.

Still, bond issue supporters say that’s what happened after the last school bond issue. There’s even a Wichita State University study to prove it.

(There’s no doubt that some individuals and firms did well after the last bond issue. No doubt Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, one of the firms most prominently pushing for the current bond issue, fared very well.)

But what they don’t tell you is that the WSU study doesn’t account for the payment of the bond issue. All it looks at is the spending. Spending, of course, drives economic activity. If government spends money, economic activity happens. But without mentioning the cost, the study is meaningless.

In fact, it’s worse than meaningless. It’s dangerously misleading. It leads citizens to believe that government spending can save us from harm. If that’s true, why don’t we go for a bigger bond issue? Why stop at $370 million? Why not go for the full $550 million in needs that was identified?

Tagged as: Lynn Rogers, Martin Libhart, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Taxation, Wichita and Kansas schools

In Wichita schools, smaller classes mean adding on — and subtracting

by Bob Weeks on September 23, 2008

Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a story about the need for additional classroom space to support the initiative of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, to reduce class size.

Presenting to the board was Kenton Cox of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, the school district’s favorite architect. This firm stands to earn millions in fees and commissions if the bond issue passes. Their motives must always be kept in mind.

Smaller class sizes seem like a great idea. Teachers like them, as it means less work for them. Teachers unions like them, as it means more teachers paying union dues. Parents love them. Who doesn’t like the idea of more individual attention given to their child? This is the reasoning that Wichita school board member Barb Fuller uses, and mentions constantly.

But what does evidence tell us about the effect of small class sizes on student achievement? After all, that’s what counts. It’s not about the teachers or the parents. It’s about the students — or at least it should be.

The Tennessee STAR experiment is the most frequently cited evidence that small class sizes are better. But this study has many problems, and these are not mentioned by the education bureaucrats and teachers unions that rely on it.

For one thing, the study shows that incentives make a difference in education, something that many people deny. The teachers in the experiment knew that if it was judged a success they would get more funding for small class sizes in the future. Researcher Caroline Hoxby writes “More importantly, in the Tennessee STAR experiment, everyone involved knew that if the class-size reduction didn’t affect achievement, the experimental classes would return to their normal size and a general class-size reduction would not be funded by the legislature. In other words, principals and teachers had strong incentives to make the reduction work. Unfortunately, class-size reductions are never accompanied by such incentives when they are enacted as a policy.”

Researcher Eric Hanushek found these problems with STAR’s methodology, which serve to overstate benefits from class-size reduction:

Between 20 and 30 percent of the students quit the project each year, with less than half the original number remaining at the end.

The students who quit tended to be below-average achievers, giving the smaller classes a perceived boost in achievement.
No pretests were conducted on any students upon enrollment, which provided no benchmark to assess their level of achievement.
Neither the teachers nor the schools chosen for the project were selected randomly.

So relying on the Tennessee STAR experiment as a basis for formulating policy in the Wichita school district is unwise.

What about the new teachers that will be hired to support smaller class sizes? If the district hires the most-qualified teachers first, then by definition the new teachers to be hired will be the least qualified. So more students will be in classrooms lead by less-qualified teachers.

Further, class size reduction is very expensive. What Wichita school bond supporters don’t tell us is that the bond issue is just the start of the costs of class size reduction. There are ongoing costs: maintenance, utilities, janitorial service, and the personnel costs of more teachers, teachers aids, and instructional coaches.

Reducing class size is great for teachers and their union, school administrators, architects, and construction companies. But for taxpayers and students, it’s a different story.

Tagged as: Barb Fuller, Education, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture: Wichita School District’s Favorite Architect Has Hand in Everything

by Bob Weeks on September 21, 2008

Recently I obtained the contract for the construction of Stucky Middle School for USD 259, the Wichita public school district. Something I observed is that Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture was not the architect. Instead, it was Gossen Livingston Associates, Inc.

Gossen Livingston was one of the hosts for the kickoff of the “Yes For Kids” pro-bond campaign in August. Was this firm inspired by a sense of civic duty and concern for the children of Wichita? Or by the prospect of earning architectural fees?

Something I also noticed in this contract was the naming of an “owner’s representative.” I spoke to a person heavily involved in commercial construction, and he said it’s not unusual for there to be an owner’s representative. They’re often called “project manager,” and that’s the role they play. He did say it’s a little unusual for an architectural firm to serve in this role.

What’s not unusual, though, is the identity of the architectural firm serving as owner’s representative: none other than Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. This firm is heavily involved in promoting the current bond issue. They stand to earn millions in fees if the bond issue passes. Now we know they earn not only as architects, but also as owner’s representatives.

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

Records Requests Sent Today

by Bob Weeks on September 15, 2008

Today, I’ve made two records requests under the Kansas Open Records Act.

The first, to USD 259, the Wichita public school district, is this:

All correspondence between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and its representatives from July 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture’s email accounts at sjcf.com, and also email accounts of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture representatives such as Joe Johnson, Kenton Cox, and Ken Arnold that may not be at an sjcf.com email address.

Then, to the City of Wichita:

All correspondence between the City of Wichita and HH Holdings, LLC and its representatives from January 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between the City of Wichita and Kevass Harding at both business and personal email addresses, between the City of Wichita and Key Construction and its representatives at both business and personal email addresses, and between the City of Wichita and Landmark Commercial Real Estate at both business and personal email addresses.

Tagged as: Kansas Open Records Act, Kevass Harding, Open records, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, TIF districts, Wichita and Kansas schools, Wichita city government

Mark McCormick’s Wichita School Bond Bias

by Bob Weeks on September 10, 2008

Writing from Scottsdale, Arizona

Today’s Mark McCormick column in the Wichita Eagle (Opponents of school bond skip specifics) provides an example of this columnist’s bias, and how this bias leads to his rapidly losing credibility among Wichitans.

Bias is okay for a columnist. Everyone is entitled to a point of view. After reading a few of McCormick’s columns you get used to his way of looking at the world. Then you can either read his column, filtering it as you do. Or, like many people tell me, they’ve simply stopped reading his column. Sometimes they stop the entire newspaper.

Here’s one of the problems with this column: In allowing Wichita school board president Lynn Rogers a “big-league rebuttal,” McCormick wrote “The board members, who aren’t paid for this work, are responsible for answering the most pressing challenges.”

This makes it sound like the bond issue has been planned and managed only by volunteers.

This ignores, however, the huge staff at USD 259, many highly paid to advance the interests of the public school bureaucracy and monopoly, many now working on educational campaigns for the bond issue.

This ignores the tremendous effort by Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture in promoting the bond issue. They are working for free, but this firm stands to earn millions in fees if the bond issue passes. As shown in the posts Wichita School Bond Issue Economic Fallacy and Wichita School Safe Rooms: At No Cost? this firm’s head, Joe Johnson, often says things that make me wonder in amazement.

This ignores the efforts of many construction companies and contractors that have, at least according to their sponsorship of an event, lined up behind the bond issue, hoping to profit from the building of public works — whether they’re needed or not.

The bond issue opponents are the true volunteers, if that makes any difference. As outsiders, we don’t have access to the type of information that Lynn Rogers and USD 259 insiders have. And, as I’ve illustrated, getting information from this district is problematic.

Tagged as: Lynn Rogers, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools, Wichita Eagle opinion watch, Wichita news media

{ 4 comments }

Wichita School Safe Rooms: At No Cost?

by Bob Weeks on September 9, 2008

Writing from Scottsdale, Arizona

At the September 8, 2008 meeting of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, safe rooms were on the agenda.

A few things I learned: It appears that it was by serendipity that the district discovered that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would help pay for the hardening of safe rooms. If not for that discovery, would these safe rooms be under consideration?

Joe Johnson, head of the school district’s architectural firm Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture gave a presentation highlighting the benefit of FEMA paying $18 million towards hardening the safe rooms. The district receives the hardening for free, because the federal government pays, according to Mr. Johnson.

I wonder if Mr. Johnson has ever considered where FEMA gets its funds.

Then, by using Google, I found that many school districts are counting on FEMA to pay for a portion of their safe rooms, just like Wichita.

As it is so often, the government takes from one party and gives to another, and the receiving party is grateful — until they have to pay for someone else’s safe rooms.

I fully support safe rooms or some other type of storm shelter for Wichita schoolchildren. That’s because with compulsory attendance laws, children must attend Wichita public schools unless they are able to make other arrangements. The district, then, must be responsible for their safety.

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

{ 1 comment }

Carol Rupe, Kansas School Board Member, Speaks for the Wichita School Bond Issue

by Bob Weeks on September 2, 2008

In a letter to the Wichita Eagle, Kansas school board member Carol Rupe makes the case for supporting the Wichita school bond issue.
It’s not remarkable that a member of the public school bureaucracy would support increased spending on schools. Her letter is remarkable, however, in what it says, and what it doesn’t say.

For example, Ms. Rupe says “I think I know who will be giving money to the group supporting the bond issue.” She then lists a few parties, but leaves out a few who have a huge interest in passing the bond issue: architects like Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and Gossen Livingston Associates, Inc. are two firms that come to mind.

She writes that it is easier to recruit businesses to a city with good schools. That is probably true. It’s quite a leap, though, to make the case that this bond issue will improve student achievement, which I think is what parents really want. There are many low- or no-cost steps the school district could make that would increase alternatives for schools, but the district does not consider these.

Ms. Rupe writes “Some [contributors] will be businesses that realize a bond issue will help boost the local economy.” This fiction that a bond issue boosts the economy is often repeated by the school district and bond issue boosters. But as explained in several posts (Wichita School Bond Issue: Is Economic Impact Real?, Wichita School Bond Issue Impact Is an Illusion, and Wichita School Bond Issue Economic Fallacy), the bond issue simply transfers economic activity from the private to the public sector. No wealth is created; in fact, wealth is lost.

“Some will be families in near-northeast Wichita who don’t have enough neighborhood schools to stop forced busing.” Well, the district stopped forced busing this school year. How did that happen if there aren’t enough schools? And if new schools are in fact needed, they can be built without the very expensive bond issue being proposed.

“Some will be retired folks who don’t wish to pay any more in taxes but who know they will pay more anyway if businesses leave.” What is the evidence or reasoning for this? I know of no firms threatening to leave Wichita because of the schools. In fact, Wichita routinely offers tax incentives to new and existing businesses that allow them to escape paying a lot of tax.

Thankfully, Ms. Rupe decided not to run for re-election this year. Having been a member of the state board of education since 2001, Ms. Rupe must have sat through countless meetings bickering over minor issues such as science standards, and oversaw a huge increase in spending on schools. At the same she didn’t speak out in favor of reforms that other states have adopted.

Tagged as: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools, Wichita Eagle opinion watch

Increasing the Wichita School Bond Issue: Why Was Courage Required?

by Bob Weeks on August 14, 2008

Talking to news media during a break in the meeting of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, on Monday August 11, 2008, Connie Dietz referred to her surprise motion to increase the amount being asked for by $20 million, remarking “I knew what I wanted to do, and I guess I was trying to find the courage to do it.”

Personally, I want to take Ms. Dietz at her word when she says that her motion was unplanned. But I’ve talked to quite a few people in the community, and no one I’ve talked to believes that the board’s action at Monday’s meeting was not scripted in advance. I can understand how people might feel this way. The interplay between the actions of a citizens group and the board this summer rightly heaps suspicion on both groups, not to mention on Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, who many suspect is really directing the action in this drama. This architectural firm has a huge financial incentive for passing the largest bond issue possible.

But here’s my question: I wonder why it took courage to make this motion. After all, it’s for the “kids, kids, kids,” as board president Lynn Rogers said. And according to news reports, the district started with a list of $550 million in needed items, and then cut that down to the $350 million originally proposed for this bond issue. So this motion gets things closer to what the district believes it really needs.

So why the need for courage? Why stop at $370 million?

Could it be that Ms. Dietz realizes that the way the Wichita public schools raise money is through the force of government coercion?

Could it be that Ms. Dietz realizes the Wichita school district already has a tremendously large budget by any measure, and that asking for more would appear greedy?

Coould it be that Ms. Dietz has become aware of the Wichita school district’s monopoly on the use of public money for education, and how harmful this is to Wichita schoolchildren?

Tagged as: Connie Dietz, Lynn Rogers, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, Wichita and Kansas schools

How to Pass the Wichita School Bond Issue

August 11, 2008

For tonight’s meeting of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, a resolution has been prepared that calls for a vote on a proposed bond issue to be held on November 4, 2008. I don’t know if the board will vote to approve this measure or if they will even take a [...]

Wichita School Bond Issue: What We Don’t Know

July 30, 2008

In a recent article I wondered Who Runs the Wichita School Bond Issue Campaign? Reporting in today’s Wichita Eagle (Technical ed at center of bond changes) makes me even more concerned about this. At Monday’s school board meeting, representatives of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE) revealed their recommendations for the revision of a proposed [...]

Who Runs the Wichita School Bond Issue Campaign?

July 28, 2008

As reported in the Wichita Eagle in May, the co-leaders of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE) knew very little of the details of a telephone survey their group conducted to discover Wichitans’ attitudes towards a school bond issue. That they knew so little gives the citizens of Wichita cause to question who is in [...]

CARE Dropped Ball on Educating About Wichita School Bond Issue

July 26, 2008

My friend Helen Cochran of Citizens for Better Education contributes this article, which appeared in the Wichita Eagle. In this article, Helen analyzes the work of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education, a group that supports the Wichita school bond issue. As Helen notes, attendance at the four educational meetings CARE held was low. In one [...]

Wichita School District: Tax Rates Not Increasing, But Taxes Paid Are

July 22, 2008

According to the Wichita Eagle article School board plans no tax increase for coming year, USD 259, the Wichita public school district, does not “plan to raise property taxes” to pay for school operations next year. Now if you read that and that alone, you might want to congratulate Wichita school officials for respecting the [...]

Wichita Business Journal: Please Explain the Wichita School Bond Impact

June 30, 2008

Mr. Heck must be relying on reporting from his own newspaper, for a few months ago it printed the article “Brooks: Bond issue possible in spring” (December 28, 2007 Wichita Business Journal) in which Brooks and Joe Johnson, head of the school district’s architectural firm Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture say that the bond issue in 2000 did, indeed, save Wichita.

This is nonsense of the highest order. Government spending cannot create prosperity. Borrowing against future tax revenue only compounds the problem.

Wichita School Bond Issue: Who Is Running the Survey?

May 28, 2008

A recent newspaper article reports on a telephone survey regarding a proposed bond issue for USD 259, the Wichita, Kansas public school district. (“Pro-bond group conducts survey,” May 22, 2008 Wichita Eagle.) The article starts as follows:

The citizen group that supports a proposed $350 million bond issue for Wichita schools is conducting a telephone survey to gauge public opinion of the bond.

Sarah Olson, co-coordinator of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education (CARE), said the survey is “part of our ongoing campaign strategy” and was paid for with donations.

But both Olson and co-coordinator Randy Thon said they don’t know who is conducting the survey, how much it cost, how many people will be called, or the nature of the questions being asked.

With the two leaders of CARE knowing so little about this survey, Wichitans are justified in wondering who is really conducting this survey. Is it the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district? Or is it Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, the school district’s architect, and who happens to share the same street address as CARE?

Mr. Thon is also quoted in this article as follows: “We’re putting all our efforts forward in doing this right the first time — getting information out to people and getting them to understand how important it is,” he said. I might remind Mr. Thon that on February 11, 2008, the Wichita school board called for a special election to be held on May 6 so that voters could express their support — or not — for the bond issue. So there has already been a “first time” for this bond issue. That “first time” was postponed at the request of Mr. Thon’s organization.

Wichita school bond issue economic fallacy

January 12, 2008

I have no doubt that the school bond issue in 2000 was a tremendous benefit to Mr. Johnson’s firm. I’m sure Superintendent Brooks, in some way that I don’t understand, benefited from the bond issue, too.

As to the rest of the community, however, the benefit claimed by these two men doesn’t exist. It never existed. It is only a fantasy flowing from an economic fallacy.