Voice For Liberty

Tag: Education

  • Suitable education in Kansas

    Kansas Judicial Center in snowToday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on SCR 1608, a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would remove the ability of courts to order the level of spending on schools. Specifically, the proposed amendment adds this language: “The financing of the educational interests of the state is exclusively a legislative power under article 2 of the constitution of the state of Kansas and as such shall be established solely by the legislature.”

    The key sentence in the Constitution reads “The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” Proponents of increased school spending in Kansas interpret that to mean the state guarantees Kansas children a suitable education, and the state must spend whatever it takes to accomplish that result.

    But that’s not what the Constitution says. In the following audio excerpt from today’s hearing, Sen. David Haley questions Sen. Steve Abrams, who was testifying to the committee in his role as chair of the Senate Education Committee. Abrams clarifies what the Constitution actually says.

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/steve-abrams-senate-judiciary-2013-02-13.mp3″]Sen. Steve Abrams responds to Sen. David Haley.

    Also providing testimony to the committee was Dave Trabert of Kansas Policy Institute. He told the panel that the courts’ decisions, both in the 2005 Montoy case and the just-decided Gannon case, were based on a flawed cost study by the consulting firm Augenblick & Myers (A&M). And the courts knew this, as explained in Trabert’s written testimony:

    “A&M openly admitted that they deliberately deviated from their own Successful Schools methodology and delivered artificially high spending numbers by ignoring efficient use of taxpayer money. Amazingly, the Montoy courts still based their rulings on ‘evidence’ that was known to be worthless. And now the Shawnee County District Court is following that legal precedent in its ruling on Gannon.”

    Trabert also explained that there has been no school cost study that considered to cost of schools operating in a cost effective manner, including another study that courts and school spending advocates have relied on:

    To this day, no study has ever been conducted in Kansas to determine what it would cost for schools to achieve required student outcomes and have schools organized and operating in a cost effective manner.

    A Legislative Post Audit study conducted in 2006 is often cited as a basis for determining school funding requirements, but LPA made it quite clear (on page 2, where it is hard to miss) that “… it’s important to remember that these cost studies are intended to help the Legislature decide appropriate funding levels for K-12 public education. They aren’t intended to dictate any specific funding level, and shouldn’t be viewed that way. Finally, within these cost studies we weren’t directed to, nor did we try to, examine the most cost-effective way for Kansas school districts to be organized and operated.” (emphasis added)

    Opponents of the proposed amendment will testify tomorrow.

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/dave-trabert-senate-judiciary-2013-02-13.mp3″]Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

  • Do not criticize the Wichita school board. It’s disrespectful.

    Do not criticize the Wichita school board. It’s disrespectful.

    When she was president of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, Betty Arnold let citizens know the real purpose of board meetings, and how citizens should behave.

    At the meeting, citizens had criticized the board for large and important issues, but also for such mundane things as the amount of the superintendent’s monthly car allowance. Arnold admonished citizens for speaking about things like this in public. It’s not respectful, she said.

    Finally, after directing a uniformed security guard to station himself near a citizen speaker, Arnold told the audience: “If we need to clear the room, we will clear the room. This board meeting is being held in public, but it is not for the public, or of the public. And I hope you understand that.”

    She then reminded the speaker: “Again, I am asking your comments to please be respectful. No accusations are necessary.”

    This certainly lets citizens know the applicability of the term public when it comes to our public schools.

  • Wichita school board candidates on spending

    At a forum for candidates for the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, several candidates showed they were not informed on the level of school spending.

    A questioner asked specifically for per student spending from all funds.

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/john-crane-school-spending-2013-02-08.mp3″]Wichita school board candidate John Crane.

    John Crane answered the question this way: “Last year I believe, and I’m not for sure on this, but it was $3,000 and something that we spent per child. … We’re back down to the 1970s when it comes to cost per children.”

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/mike-rodee-school-spending-2013-02-08.mp3″]Wichita school board candidate Mike Rodee.

    Mike Rodee answered: “I believe the budget for 2012-2013 was $3,808 per student.” He added that “there’s some of the numbers we’re not 100 percent sure on. We’re just getting information now.”

    Here are the actual numbers according to the Kansas State Department of Education: For the 2011 – 2012 school year, USD 259 spent $12,734 per student. Of that, $7,501 came from the State of Kansas, $1,531 from the federal government, and $3,702 from local taxes.

    The figure Crane and Rodee referred to (the actual number is $3,838) is base state aid per pupil. It is the starting point for the Kansas school finance formula. It’s often cited for two reasons: It’s a lot less than the actual spending, and it has gone down in recent years. See Wichita school spending: The grain of truth.

    But it doesn’t really mean much by itself. As you can see, Wichita schools received $7,501 from the state per student when base aid was $3,838. That’s an additional 95 percent over base aid.

    Whether you think school spending is too high or too low, facts are facts. Spending is what it is. If we can’t agree on the level of school spending, we can’t have a reasoned discussion.

    While surveys have shown that the average person has little knowledge of the level of school spending, we might ask that candidates for school board have the correct information. Sadly, even school board members and legislators are either uninformed or misinformed.

    Wichita school spending, as reported by Kansas State Department of Education.

  • Why don’t Kansas children have options?

    School

    School choice programs in some states are targeted at children with special needs, as in Oklahoma with its Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program.

    Children in Kansas don’t have the same opportunity that Oklahoma schoolchildren have.

    The following video illustrates the difference school choice can make to special needs students. Visit WhyNotKansas.com to learn more.

  • Kansans’ views on role of government

    Kansas Policy InstituteKansas Policy Institute has released the results of a public opinion poll asking Kansans for their views on some issues that are currently in the news. Following is KPI’s press release:

    Kansans’ Views on the Role of Government
    K-12 funding should be based on efficient use of taxpayer funds; narrow opposition to judicial reform; overwhelming support for “paycheck protection”

    Wichita — A new statewide public opinion survey shows strong support for having K-12 funding decisions based on efficient and effective use of taxpayer funds. This is especially noteworthy in light of the fact that no study has ever been conducted in Kansas to determine what it costs to achieve required student outcomes and have schools organized and operating in a cost-effective manner. The survey was conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf Kansas Policy Institute between January 24 and January 27; 500 adults were surveyed with a ±4.5% margin of error. The complete survey and interactive crosstabulations are available here.

    Asked whether cost-effectiveness should be the basis for school funding decisions, 74% agreed and only 23% disagreed. Responses were very consistent across political and ideological lines.

    Participants were also asked “If the Kansas Legislature is not basing school funding decisions on what it costs to hit required achievement levels and also have schools operating in a cost-effective manner, should the Legislature conduct such a study and fund schools accordingly?” A strong majority, 59% said “yes” while only 19% said “no.” Again, responses were very consistent across political and ideological lines.

    The Shawnee County District Court based its recent school finance ruling on the 2005 Montoy decision, in which the State Supreme Court relied on a flawed 2001 Augenblick & Myers cost study. A&M admitted they deviated from their standard methodology and threw efficient use of taxpayer money out the window. A follow-up study by Legislative Post Audit very specifically said that they “… weren’t directed to, nor did we try to, examine the most cost-effective way for Kansas school districts to be organized and operated.”

    KPI president Dave Trabert said, “In addition to funding schools, legislators also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer money is used efficiently. Lawsuits and hundreds of millions more in taxpayer funding have … and will continue to have .. little impact on student achievement. The only way to determine whether schools are effectively and efficiently funded is to conduct a thorough student-focused review of the current system examining all of the inputs (not just money), make any necessary adjustments and cost it out.”

    Key findings on Judicial and Court Questions
    A series of questions relating to the courts produced much more divided opinions. Kansans believe that courts should not have final say on how much money is spent on public education (54% vs. 44%) and courts should not have final say on the specific way that money is spent on education (56% vs. 40%). Interesting though, 54% of Kansans believe it is “… in citizens’ best interests to have judges recommended for appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals by a majority-attorney panel” while 39% disagree.

    Even self-identified conservatives narrowly said the current system of appointing judges is in citizens’ best interest (46% vs. 45%) while self-identified moderates and liberals expressing stronger support (53% vs. 41% and 69% vs. 23%, respectively).

    Key findings on Paycheck Protection proposals
    Proposed legislation that would prohibit government from collecting and remitting voluntary union dues intended to be used for political purposes is an extremely controversial topic this year — but apparently, only in the state capitol. Kansans of all political and ideological persuasion overwhelming support some form of change in the current practice.

    Asked whether governments should continue the current practice of withholding union dues, including the portion that is used for political purposes … or withhold regular membership dues only, so that employees wishing to contribute money for political purposes would write their own personal checks … or withhold no union dues, even self-identified government employees and union members say current practice should change.

  • It’s not the teachers, it’s the union

    Can there be a point where demagoguery has been spread so deep and thick that no one believes it?

    Kansas National Education Association (KNEA)

    Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union, advises teachers “Be prepared for a long hard ride — they are indeed out to get you.”

    The union also wrote: “But beyond this, you need to ask your legislator if he or she has any respect for teachers at all. The war now being waged against public school teachers by the House is offensive and disrespectful. Within weeks of witnessing teachers in Newtown, Connecticut die for their students and a teacher in Taft, California put himself between his student and a gunman, the Kansas legislature seeks to de-professionalize the teachers of Kansas.”

    In another email, KNEA wrote: “It gets worse! This is Day 11 in the War on Kansas teachers and the dawn was greeted with the introduction of HB 2123 — the Scott Walker Act of Kansas. … All of these bills are political payback for the public sector workers who, through their unions, tried to present an alternative view of Kansas’ future.”

    In another: “Battle for free speech continues — HB 2032 — ‘silence the teachers‘ — heads for the full House.”

    KNEA, can we talk? It’s not teachers that Kansans dislike. It’s you — the union and its leadership — that citizens recognize is a harmful force: First, to Kansas schoolchildren, and second, to Kansas taxpayers.

  • Kansas teachers union: No competition for us

    Kansas National Education Association (KNEA)Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union, is an effective force that denies Kansas parents the choice as to where to send their children to school. The union also works hard to deny teachers choice in representation.

    In Bullying Teachers: How Teachers Unions Secretly Push Teachers and Competitors Around, Joy Pullmann states the problem: “In routine tracking of education-related legislation, The Heartland Institute’s School Reform News has uncovered evidence that teachers unions across the country routinely inhibit teachers from joining or speaking out about competing, nonunion teachers associations.”

    Pullmann explains legislation from 2011 when Garry Sigle, who is Executive Director at Kansas Association of American Educators, supported equal access to teachers.

    In 2011, House Bill 2229 would have given the state an equal access law regarding teacher associations. It stalled in the Senate and found no sponsors this year. In the meantime, public school principals in Kansas have refused to let Garry Sigle, executive director of the state’s AAE affiliate, even enter their schools because the local union affiliate would file a labor grievance against the schools if they did. Similar and repeated instances in the state are documented below.

    The legislative page for this bill is Substitute HB 2229 by Committee on Federal and State Affairs — Teachers; professional employees association; equal access act. The last notation on the calendar is “Died in Senate Committee.” The bill would do these things, according to the supplemental note prepared by Kansas Legislative Research:

    To give equal access for all professional employees’ associations to the professional employees physical or electronic school mailboxes;
    To allow equal access for all professional employees’ associations to attend new teacher or employee school orientations and other meetings; and
    To not designate any day or breaks in a school year by naming or referring to the name of any professional employees’ association.

    KNEA opposed this legislation. The committee in which it died was chaired by Pete Brungardt. Brungardt’s campaign was supported by KNEA, but he was defeated in the August 2012 primary election.

    Reporting more about Kansas, Pullmann writes:

    Many superintendents and principals in Kansas will not even let Garry Sigle give teachers information about his nonunion teacher organization. One superintendent told Sigle, “Why would I want to [let you talk to teachers in my district] if I knew that would create an issue between me and a union I have to negotiate with?” Sigle said. He asked the superintendent how many of his district’s teachers were in the NEA. Thirty or 40 percent, the superintendent said. So Sigle asked to speak to the others. The superintendent wouldn’t allow Sigle to speak to even nonunionized teachers. In one school, Sigle had an appointment to speak at a teacher in-service. “When the local NEA found out, they raised such a ruckus that [the principal] had to call and cancel me.”

    Sigle’s alma mater, Fort Hays State University, would not let him speak to students in their teaching program “because they have a student NEA group and just can’t seem to find time in their schedule.” Smith also highlighted access difficulties with student teacher programs in Utah. “I don’t think, as a school of higher education, it’s your job to limit the information your students get,” Sigle said. “It baffles me that a school would do that.”

    A principal has told Sigle if he stepped foot into her school she would have to report him or the school’s NEA chapter would file a contract grievance against her. “She said, ‘I can’t even let you come into the building,’” Sigle said in astonishment.

    Sigle’s op-ed in the Topeka Capital-Journal explained the problem in a different way, opening with:

    As employees in a right-to-work state, teachers in Kansas have a choice about which employee association, if any, they wish to join. However, current state law does not treat all employee associations the same way.

    In fact, the Kansas National Education Association has an unfair advantage, having state-sanctioned monopoly access to public school employees.

    Kansas schools are lacking choice: none for students, little for teachers, topped off with coercion for taxpayers.

  • Public employee unions should be a non-partisan issue

    Writing in Hoover Institution Policy Review, John O. McGinnis and Max Schanzenbach state what few seem to recognize: Everyone would be better off without public employee unions:

    For conservatives, taking on public employee unions provides a way to eliminate inefficient spending and create a polity of low taxes and lean government. For liberals, it provides a way to redirect spending to effective public goods, like better educational outputs, that public employee unions frustrate.

    The authors explain how teachers unions, in particular, are harmful to taxpayers and — most importantly — children in public schools:

    Public employee unions impose even more substantial costs on states beyond the unjustified direct benefits their workers receive. Their worst consequence is the distortions they create in the public policy arena. Because of their concentrated influence, they are able to substantially direct — indeed sometimes dictate — the shape of public policy in the area in which they are employed.

    The most notorious example is public education. Teachers’ unions are the single greatest obstacle to improving education in this country. Unions are almost universally associated with seniority pay, job tenure (including layoffs based on seniority), inflexible work rules, and lack of productivity-based pay. Teachers’ unions are no exception: They make it difficult or impossible to fire bad teachers, pay good teachers more, or conduct layoffs in a rational fashion. Media reports have recently highlighted the difficulties in New York City. There, teachers earn tenure after only three years on the job, and a hearing to dismiss a teacher take years and costs hundreds of thousand dollars (teachers are paid in full for the duration of such hearings, although they don’t actually do any work). Although the city has stepped up its effort at dismissals, very few teachers are fired for incompetence. In many places, union rules on teacher assignments make it more difficult to match teachers with the pupils for whom they would make the most difference. The unions also make it harder to create flexible schedules that would make more efficient use of school facilities. In some states, such as Minnesota, unions have made it impossible for their educational systems to participate in the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program. In short, the teachers’ unions make the public school rigid, unproductive, and hidebound at great monetary cost to taxpayers and at educational cost to the children that they are supposed to teach.

    In addition, because government controls the vast majority of education spending, teachers’ unions can use political power to throttle competition. Because private schools and charter schools do not necessarily employ union members, teachers’ unions see the growth of such schools as a danger to their size and resulting political power. As a consequence, they have tried to obstruct such initiatives at every turn. A recent shocking example is their ability to exert influence over the Democratic Congress in order to end the small-scale school voucher program for low-income students in the District of Columbia.

    One does not have to believe that vouchers or charter schools are the solution to problems in education to see the influence of teachers’ unions as pernicious. The nation simply does not have full information about the most efficient way to educate its children or the best way to address a host of social problems. Democracy works through informal experiments. But teachers’ unions make it hard to conduct the necessary experiments, because their focus is simply on protecting the perquisites of their members. And teachers’ unions are extremely powerful. As Steven Brill pointed out in a recent New York Times Magazine article, they have contributed $57 million over the last 30 years to federal campaigns — more than any other union or corporation. And their contributions at the state level are even larger.

    Teachers unions wrap themselves around an unimpeachable issue: the welfare of schoolchildren. The unions’ actual conduct, however, harms schoolchildren.

    Full article at The Case Against Public Sector Unions.

  • Kansas teachers union rallies members

    Kansas National Education Association (KNEA)

    Under the email subject heading “Special edition! Action needed!” Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), our state’s teachers union, rallies its members to take action against legislation under consideration by the Kansas Legislature. Kansans ought to be aware of the faulty arguments the union makes.

    The legislation is HB 2023. The fiscal note for the bill summarizes it as follows: “HB 2023 relates to professional employees’ organizations (PEOs). The bill makes it unlawful for any PEO to use any dues, fees, assessments or any period payment deducted from a member’s paycheck for the purpose of engaging in political activities. If a member wishes to donate money for political activity by the PEO, a specific donation must be made to a separate fund so designated. The bill defines political activity for the purpose of enforcement of its provisions. The bill amends the Public Employer-Employee Relations Act (PEERA) to make it unlawful for a public employee organization to spend any of its income to engage in public activities.”

    Here are some of the claims and arguments KNEA uses.

    KNEA: HB 2023 takes away a worker’s control over his or her own paycheck.

    It’s laughable that an organization whose primary purpose is to garner as much tax revenue as possible would complain about control over paychecks. KNEA, where is your concern for taxpayers’ paychecks?

    KNEA: Aren’t Republicans all about keeping government OUT of our personal lives?

    No. Many — okay, most — Republicans support all sorts of intrusions into our personal lives.

    KNEA: Why does this bill restrict union political activity while corporate political activity is entirely unregulated even if the corporation derives much of its income from government contracts?

    This argument fails to recognize the difference between government and the private sector. The public schools are the embodiment of government, even though they hate the term “government schools.” Their revenue is conscripted from unwilling taxpayers. While taxpayers might also dislike paying for everything the government purchases from corporations, most government contracts are put for competitive bid. I wonder: Would public schools be willing to compete for students, like corporations must compete for government contracts? The answer can be found in the KNEA’s attitude towards school choice, which is absolutely not.

    KNEA: Why does this bill restrict union political activity while corporate political activity is entirely unregulated even without the consent of stockholders?

    In most situations stockholders are able to voluntarily select the corporations whose shares they want to own. But taxpayers are not able to choose whether to support public schools and their unions.

    By the way, in defined benefit pension plans like KPERS, which teachers belong to, there is no choice in the investments the plan makes on your behalf.