Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas National Education Association

  • Wichita schools, despite claims, find cost savings

    Despite claims that school spending has been “cut to the bone,” USD 259, the Wichita public school district, found a way to save $2.5 million per year by adjusting school starting times, thereby saving on transportation costs.

    School spending advocates have claimed that it is not possible to cut spending without affecting students. It starts at the top with Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson’s repeated claims that spending has been “cut to the bone.” He says it’s not possible to make more cuts.

    Other school spending advocates repeat this theme of having cut as much as possible, repeating the “bone” theme. An issue of the Kansas National Education Association newsletter Under the Dome for March 30, 2009 claims that spending has “already been cut to the bone.”

    Kansas Board of Education Chair Janet Waugh said “Districts have already cut to the bone,” according to a Kansas Reporter article.

    Last year Representative Jim Ward, a Wichita Democrat, former Wichita school board member, and Assistant Minority Leader of the Kansas House of Representatives, stated in a KAKE Television news story “If you cut $10 million, you’re now cutting into the bone, the marrow, and you’re going to have a significant impact on the ability to deliver education.”

    The Wichita Eagle editorial board has said several times that cuts to Wichita school spending will hurt students. Referring to the possible need to cut $25 million from the Wichita school budget, Philip Brownlee in March wrote “Cutting that much money — or even a third as much — could cause great harm.”

    Despite these claims, by adjusting school starting times and transportation schedules, the Wichita school system was able to save a great deal of money without impacting the classroom. The $2.5 million savings just discovered by the Wichita school district is 30% of the “one-third of $25 million” that Brownlee says cutting would cause great harm. It represents 25% of the amount that Ward claimed would have a significant impact.

    We should now ask these questions:

    First, are there other cuts like this that can be made? It seems unlikely that this change is the only cost savings the Wichita school district — and other districts — can find.

    Second, the Wichita school district did not participate in a voluntary school audit program. What other costs savings might have been found if Wichita had participated?

    Third, why wasn’t this savings discovered and implemented in past years? Does it take a budget crisis to force public schools to seek ways in which to operate more efficiently?

    Finally, private sector businesses face the never-ending discipline of market competition and seek ways to operate more efficiently even in good times. Government institutions such as public schools, however, don’t face this discipline. Should Kansas find a way to introduce market discipline to our state’s schools?

  • Tax cuts are a cost, says Kansas teachers union

    For those who believe in the principle of self-ownership, taxes are a violation of that principle. But to those who depend on government for their funding, taxes are viewed differently. To them, any move to reduce taxes is viewed as a cost to government. People who value economic freedom, however, view tax cuts as the government allowing citizens to keep more of what is rightfully theirs.

    The Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) is one such organization that believes that cutting taxes is a cost to Kansas state government instead of a benefit to citizens. Yesterday’s issue of KNEA’s “Under the Dome Today” provides an example of this type of thinking:

    The most interesting statement of the day came from Rep. Richard Carlson (R-St Mary’s) who told the committee, “In six and a half hours of debate on the House floor yesterday, not one motion was made to increase taxes so this is where we are.” Carlson himself did offer a tax amendment during that six and a half hours of debate. Carlson’s motion was to eliminate the corporate income tax — a motion which, had it passed, have cost the state in the neighborhood of $250 million!

  • Kansans, including governor, rally for school spending, taxes

    Kansas long-term debt per person

    Today in Topeka supporters of more taxes for Kansas public school spending marched from the headquarters of Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union), to the Kansas Capitol, where they heard from speakers including Governor Parkinson. The crowd, braving the windy and cold weather, was estimated at 1,000 by the Topeka Capital-Journal.

    The theme of the rally — besides more taxes and more spending — was the chant “We want what’s right, not what’s left!” I don’t think the participants detected the irony.

    Kansas Senator Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat and a schoolteacher, said that keeping class sizes small, keeping quality teachers, and making sure that all children have an equal opportunity to succeed are the right things to do. Early childhood education and more technology are needed. He advocated for increasing state funding of Kansas schools instead of reliance on local property taxes.

    He said that investment in education is less expensive than paying to house prisoners.

    Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson acted as cheerleader for the crowd. He said that the outcome of the school funding battle will define the type of state we want to be: “Do we want to be a state that tears down our schools and refuses to fund education for our schoolchildren, or do we want to be a state that lifts up our schools, lifts up our teachers, and provides an education for every kid?”

    He asked whether we wanted to be a state where only the children of the wealthy can get a good education. He urged the group to go into action by emailing, writing, and calling legislators. He said the message to give them is not only to support education, as all legislators say they support education. Instead, Parkinson said to ask them: “Will you raise taxes to save schools?”

    He said we can do this — saving schools, presumably — with just a one cent increase in the sales tax. He said that the “so-called economists” on the right will say that a one cent sales tax will tear down our economy. He referred to the Sedgwick County sales tax used to build the Intrust Bank Arena, saying that people told him they didn’t know when the tax went on and off, claiming that no one noticed it. “Where are our priorities? If we can raise taxes one cent to build an arena, surely we can raise taxes on cent to help every schoolchild.”

    Several speakers stressed the importance of education for the future well-being of our economy and country.

    Analysis

    The Kansas teachers union’s role in this rally is ironic to the point of absurdity, as it has been one of the major impediments to improving public schools. A recent letter in the Wall Street Journal described how the teachers union and its rules has harmed Topeka schools.

    School spending supporters spend a lot of time talking about investing in education. But spending on public education is not really investing. It’s simply government spending on government schools. It results in jobs being transferred from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector.

    We must also disagree with the governor when he minimizes the impact of a sales tax on the economy. Despite the governor’s contention — I’ll chalk it up to rhetorical excess — I certainly noticed when the Sedgwick County sales tax started and stopped. A sales tax increase does result in lost private sector jobs. It results in lost economic freedom, as explained in Tax increases will cost Kansas jobs, economic freedom.

    If a sales tax increase could be used to fund increased spending on schools without harming the economy, why stop at a one cent increase? Why not three or four cents? Or ten cents on the dollar? As we’ve seen, no amount of increased spending will satisfy the school spending lobby, at least not until all private sector wealth is transferred to the government.

    Finally, for those who are willing to cast the lot of Kansas schoolchildren with the current system, consider the Adequate Yearly Funding website created to support this rally. The creator of this site, apparently Noah Slay, a third grade teacher and one of the rally organizers and speakers, evidently doesn’t know how to correctly form the plural of a word like “logo.” Twice the site erroneously creates the plural form of this noun using the greengrocer’s apostrophe: “If you’re creative and enjoy creating interesting and catchy slogans and logo’s …”

    Related: Kansas school spending rally examined in video, story.

  • As Kansas teachers union rallies, schools stagnate under its rules

    Today in Topeka about one thousand supporters of higher taxes for more Kansas public school spending rallied at the Kansas Capitol. Their march on the statehouse started at the headquarters of the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union), and KNEA president Blake West spoke at the rally. It’s quite ironic that the teachers union would be so involved in a rally for the improvement of Kansas schools, for as the following letter from the March 12 Wall Street Journal tells us, the teachers union has been a primary factor in the destruction of public education, in this case, the Topeka public schools.

    Early on in my 42-year career teaching in public schools, my principals actually took reading groups, helped with math, were present in classrooms, halls, lunch rooms and on playgrounds. They came into one’s classroom unannounced and stayed sometimes for half a day, and they were taking notes. Their background was in teaching and they knew what they were looking for. By the time I retired, the union had required an administrator to give three to four days advance notice, right down to which period he’d be observing. Yearly evaluations became nothing more than a check sheet, and everyone got about the same score.

    Our nation has some of the finest teachers in the world, and a goodly number of the worst. Unless and until teachers are evaluated based on what they accomplish, nothing will change.

    Cherrie Wiese
    Topeka, Kan.

  • Kansas school district consolidation, reorganization testimony heard

    Last week the Kansas House Education Budget Committee heard testimony on HB 2728. The key provision of this bill is that Kansas school districts would be required to have a minimum of 10,000 students. It also requires conforming to a common chart of accounts, and that school finance information be placed on the internet.

    Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, a Democrat from Kansas City, testified as neutral on the bill. He said that Kansas is “bottom-heavy” in terms of the number of governmental units, and school districts are part of these. He said that in the business world, mergers and consolidations take place every day as companies seek to become stronger and more competitive. Voluntary consolidation can be haphazard. He advocated for a business-like approach.

    Kansas State Board of Education Member Walt Chappell testified as a proponent of the bill. He said this is a time to “think outside the box.” We need to make good use of the limited resources we have, he said. This reorganization is not a new concept, he said, as it has been thought through for years.

    “We’re in a real financial bind,” Chappell said. After Montoy (the Kansas Supreme Court decision in 2005 that ordered increased spending on schools), he said we’ve been spending more that we have revenue coming in. The Montoy spending amounted to an extra $1 billion, and that’s not sustainable. A second factor is that we’ve hired 6,000 new employees in Kansas school districts, with only 2,000 of those being teachers. He said that $587 million went to non-instructional staff.

    Chappell said that the goal of the bill is not to close schools and shut down small towns. “We need to make best uses of the resources we already have.” The goal is to not duplicate administrative services and non-instructional activities and staff. We should reduce those expenses and put more money in the classroom for the teachers and the kids. This bill would would give students an opportunity for a balanced curriculum, with opportunities for vocational education or college prep. Teachers would be able to do just one or two class preparations instead of four or five. “Right now our teachers in small schools, many of them are stretched thin. They have to prepare for several different subjects in each day. It’s very hard for them.”

    We’re trying to find a way to optimize instructional and non-instructional resources so that we don’t duplicate services, Chappell said. This could lead to savings of $300 million per year.

    Chappell said that based on research from school superintendents who have examined this issue, savings are found not by closing schools, not by shutting down small Kansas towns, but by making sure that you don’t duplicate services and resources for administrative and non-instructional activities.

    Chappell said that only about half of school district employees are teachers. By becoming more efficient in administrative tasks, more resources could be spent on teachers. Removing duplication of effort is the key to this goal.

    The 10,000 student minimum size of the new school districts is important. There are many small school districts in Kansas, he said. A large district creates a large and sustainable tax base. Small school districts are not able to offer a sustainable curriculum. Large districts are also able to obtain the benefits of the division of labor. Finally, combining two very small districts to create a district that’s still very small doesn’t do much to realize the efficiencies of a larger district.

    Chappell’s written testimony is available at Kansas School Reorganization Testimony.

    Testifying as an opponent to this bill, Kansas Association of School Boards lobbyist Mark Tallman said “School districts are not merely administrative units. They are units of government.” He expressed concern that the administrative office, where school board meetings are held, would be far away from many people.

    Tallman showed a map of a hypothetical large district in northwestern Kansas, which he said would encompass 16,000 square miles. This district would lose $21 million in low-enrollment weighting. He presented evidence that the savings in administrative costs would not be large. He also said that since teachers in larger school districts are paid more, the teachers in the new, large districts would need to be paid more. He also said there’s no evidence that these larger districts would improve students achievement.

    Linda Kenne, superintendent of the Victoria school system, said that the bill does not mention the word “child.” She urged the committee to replace the word “school district” with the word “children” in the proposed legislation, saying that this changes the connotation of the bill. She said that education is not an expense, it is an investment.

    Bill Bohne, vice president of USD 449 school board (Easton, in Leavenworth County), said that the goal of consolidation is to save money, not improve education. He said that consolidation, in fact, will cost money. He referenced a Kansas Association of School Boards document that said that teacher pay will move to that of the highest district. Differences in the textbooks used will result in more cost.

    He also claimed that the regional education service centers created by this bill would violate the Kansas Constitution, going so far as to say this bill makes local boards of education a “sham.” He also said that the accounting provisions of the bill would violate the Kansas Constitution. He said this about the changes: “In effect, you have removed us from the general supervision of the state board.”

    Bohne said that his district has no desire to join with USD 453 (Leavenworth) schools, which he said has much lower performance.

    In conclusion, Bohne stated: “Kansas public education has a national ranking many other states are envious of — we are ranked seventh in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) scores. And if we compare ourselves internationally, Kansas is ranked sixth in the world in fourth grade math and eighth in the world in 8th grade math.” He said that the future of our education is sacrificed by this bill.

    In questions, Representative Gene Rardin asked Chappell about how his claimed savings of $300 million is more than a legislative post audit study said might be achieved. Chappell replied that the study looked at smaller levels of consolidation that what this current bill provides for. He also reiterated that the bill is not about closing schools. He said that the savings are in the areas of bus scheduling, payroll, food service, and maintenance of buildings, for example. He referred to the Kennedy and Little study, which found savings of $1,000 to $2,000 per student.

    Chappell also said that the NAEP scores tell us that only one in three students are proficient, notwithstanding Bohne’s claim.

    KASB’s Tallman backed up Bohne’s claim of the ranking of Kansas schools by citing an analysis that showed Kansas students doing very well compared to international students. Committee member Arlen Siegfreid made this remark about this claimed lofty performance of Kansas schools on the international stage: “I’m also a little amazed that we managed to lose a lawsuit on the suitability of funding of education while we’re hitting those numbers.”

    Written testimony in support of this bill was provided by two former Kansas school officials, and is available at Morris L. Reeves testimony on Kansas School Reorganization and Gary W. Norris Testimony on Kansas School Reorganization .

    Analysis

    Tallman’s contention that school districts are “units of government” is at odds with most public school officials, who bristle at the use of the term “government schools.” This hearing also lets us know that KASB uses NAEP scores when it suits their cause. Otherwise, it dismisses them as not meaningful. The biggest problem for Kansas schools spending advocates is the discrepancy between the rapidly rising Kansas state assessment scores and the flat or slowly rising NAEP scores.

    Bohne — the Easton school board member — made some claims about the constitutionality of the bill that are not reasonable, in my opinion. His claims that consolidation will increase cost instead of reducing it are not based on actual evidence.

    Consolidation is a controversial issue, no doubt about it. The school spending lobby, lead by KASB’s Tallman and Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) resists any change, no matter how beneficial it might be. In the issue of KNEA’s Under the Dome Today that covered this hearing, we see the appeal to emotion instead of reason: “in northwest Kansas, 18 counties would need to merge together as one district!” The newsletter also asks: “which towns will die? How many hours will kids spend on buses? How many miles will our high school students have to drive to reach the new high school?”

  • Kansas schools fail to make cut for grants

    Last year Secretary of Education Arne Duncan created a program named “Race to the Top” which would make grants to states that are willing to make certain reforms. Two such reforms prominently mentioned by Duncan and President Barack Obama are charter schools and merit pay for teachers.

    We now know that Kansas was not selected to receive a grant, at least not in the first round. Kansas had applied for $166 million.

    Kansas is falling behind the rest of the states in the types of innovation that Race to the Top was designed to promote. Specifically, the Kansas charter school law is weak. Anyone wishing to start a charter school must seek approval of the local school district. Most school districts in Kansas, especially the Wichita district, are hostile towards any lessening of the government school monopoly. As a result, there are very few charter schools in Kansas. It is likely that this played a role in the decision not to award a grant to Kansas.

    Kansas is also unlikely to implement any sort of merit pay for teachers. As I reported last year in Kansas school establishment rejects reform: “In particular, the document Teaching in Kansas Commission: Final report, makes it clear that teacher merit pay in Kansas is not desired unless it is so watered-down as to be meaningless.”

    Besides resisting merit pay, the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) is also opposed to charter schools. The national teachers union is too, as the Wall Street Journal reported last year: “NEA President Dennis Van Roekel told the Washington Post last week that charter schools and merit pay raise difficult issues for his members, yet Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said states that block these reforms could jeopardize their grant eligibility.”

    It turns out that the prediction of Secretary Duncan was fulfilled. Kansas, with a teachers union that blocks reform at every step, is failing to keep up with innovations in education. Kansas should implement these reforms for their own good.

  • Kansas advocates for disabled face well-funded challenger

    Friday’s press event held by ACT (Advocates in Communities Team) of South Central Kansas provided an opportunity to learn about disabled Kansans and their families, and the challenges they face from reduced spending by the state.

    The stories told at the event and in supplementary materials are compelling. If there is a role for government-provided services to those who can’t help themselves, these are the people.

    But a problem that advocates for the disabled face is that the major recipient of Kansas general fund spending — that’s the K through 12 public school spending lobby — has enormous resources at its disposal. And it doesn’t like to share.

    Legislators tell me that the budget this year is a battle between the school spending lobby and everyone else. I spoke to several advocates for the disabled, and they assured me that it’s not a battle between these two competing interests. But the schools have, so far, fared very well. Figures I obtained in December from the Kansas State Department of Education indicate that spending, on a per pupil basis, is estimated to drop by 3.43% for the current school year. That’s not a lot, despite the claims of the school spending lobby.

    The school lobby is well-funded and the most powerful in the statehouse. The Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) has a political action committee, which spent, according to IRS filings, $344,941 on political activity in 2008. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. KNEA itself has revenue of over $8 million annually, and can afford to pay at least four employees salaries over $100,000.

    KNEA’s sister organization — they share a well-paid lobbyist — the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) had revenues of $4,167,025 in 2007. It can afford to pay its executive director $201,927 in salary and benefits in 2007, along with an expense account of $11,331.

    In addition, some school districts like Wichita USD 259 employ full-time lobbyists.

    The primary purpose of these organizations and lobbyists is to keep the river of taxpayer money flowing to the government schools at the expense of everyone else, including disabled people and taxpayers. Even if a “revenue solution” (that’s a euphemism for a tax increase) is found, schools will be out front arguing that they should get the largest share.

    Cuts to schools mean that parents might have to pay for schoolchildren to participate in athletics. It might mean that class sizes grow a little, which is not a bad thing, despite schools’ claims. The school districts that have passed bond issues might consider delaying their building booms a few years.

    None of these things seem as important as care for the disabled in Kansas.

  • Kansas school spending advocates exaggerate employment losses

    Yesterday I reported how Kansas school spending advocates lie about facts in order to score political points with their constituencies. Today we again see how the school spending lobby distorts facts, this time in a very substantial way concerning an important matter.

    The Kansas Watchdog piece Debunking Education Employment Claims uncovers a significant gap between numbers self-reported by Kansas schools and numbers gathered by a different source.

    The Kansas State Department of Education asked school districts how many employees they will cut for the current school year. The answer — 3,701 employees to be cut across the state — is widely cited by school spending advocates like the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) and the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) as evidence that public schools are making their share of cuts along with everyone else. Further, they say, more cuts will be harmful to the education of Kansas schoolchildren.

    But evidence gathered by the Kansas Legislative Research Department finds that the actual decline in employment is only 875 jobs. That’s a lot different from 3,701.

    The magnitude of this gap — the self-reported number is over four times the actual number — gives us yet another reason to carefully examine the facts that the school spending lobby produces and cites.

  • To Kansas school spending advocates, criticism comes fast and loose

    As the debate over the funding of Kansas public schools goes on, sometimes facts get lost in the shuffle, and school spending advocates sometimes invent “facts” in order to score political points by criticizing those working to bring inconvenient facts to light.

    Besides spending advocates, journalists can get caught up in this. In a recent news story in the Hays Daily News, the paper reported a claim made by Linda Kenne, Victoria USD 432 superintendent. Here it is:

    One particular corporation seems to drive the efforts. Kenne said, “Koch Industries’ address is the same as the Kansas Policy Institute.” “Do you want the state to be owned by Koch Industries?” she asked.

    The reporter of this story, Dawne Leiker, quoted a government official who said something. I guess that constitutes news. But responsible reporting and journalism requires that there be at least some factual basis underlying the statement, or the reporter needs to say so. In this case, the facts are that the two organizations do not share the same address.

    It’s worth noting that Leiker writes for the leftist blogs Everyday Citizen and Kansas Free Press. At Everyday Citizen you may read her poem Ode to Conservatism, in which she likens conservatives to “pit bulls, bedecked with luscious lips” who are offended by the existence of poor people, and that opportunity goes to those who beg for it, presumably from rich conservatives.

    It’s tempting to feel a little empathy for school spending advocates like superintendent Kenne, as Kansas Policy Institute has uncovered and given publicity to large fund balances that schools could be using if they want to. And it’s not just KPI that says so. Kansas Deputy Commissioner of Schools Dale Dennis agrees.

    But that’s not an excuse for playing fast and loose with facts.

    Kenne may be taking her cue from the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union). It, along with the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB), is at the forefront of defending the status quo in Kansas public school spending — that being a rapid rise. Their lobbyists and publications also show little regard for facts when scoring political points by criticizing those who uncover facts inconvenient for them.

    As an example, a recent edition of “Under the Dome Today” referred to the “Kansas Policy Institute whose board of directors includes Koch Industries executives.” The facts are that of the members of the KPI Board of Trustees, two are former Koch industries employees. Neither has worked there for many years.

    Misreporting simple facts like this should give us reason to question the facts used to support their larger and more important arguments.

    Underlying this is the puzzle as to why Wichita-based Koch Industries is the subject of so much criticism from Kansas school spending advocates. With some 2,100 employees in Wichita and owning a large amount of property, Koch Industries and its employees pay many millions in taxes that go to school districts and other functions of government.

    The company is involved in other ways, too. In 1991, Charles and Elizabeth Koch founded (and a Koch Family Foundation continues to fund) Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas, which “teaches free enterprise fundamentals through hands-on experiences and encourages students to start their own business, enhance their business skills for future career opportunities and continue into higher education.” YEK is present in many Wichita and surrounding area public schools.

    As another example of Koch Foundation generosity, a page on the Wichita public school website tells of Education EDGE Koch Focus mini-grants given to support classroom projects in several areas.

    Further, a recent letter appearing in the Wichita Eagle told of this: “Thanks to the support of USD 259’s administration, the financial generosity of the Koch foundation, and the expertise of Gilder Lehrman and the Bill of Rights Institute, programs such as these are having a profound positive impact on history and civics education.”

    We need to carefully examine the facts and arguments advanced by school spending advocates. They could also learn to say “thank you” now and then.