Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas National Education Association

  • Kansas teachers union doublespeak not hard to decode

    Reading the Kansas National Education Association’s — that’s the teachers union, also known as KNEA — report Under the Dome is becoming an exercise in decoding doublespeak.

    Today’s issue, which you can read by clicking on Under the Dome Today for April 23, 2009, contains some 417 words that hope for something to happen, without using the words that describe the thing hoped for.

    Instead, today’s issue hopes for the Kansas legislature to implement “revenue solutions.” Here’s a little sample:

    The Senate Ways and Means Committee meeting today took a different approach. They reviewed a laundry list of possible revenue solutions and called for introduction of a number of them as they have debated their version of the omnibus budget for 2010. This action notifies the tax committee in the Senate that they want certain revenue solutions brought forward, allowing them to adopt a smaller cut to education and other state services than that passed by the House.

    The word “solutions” is a positive word, conjuring up a mental image of someone making progress towards fixing a problem. In the past they’ve used “adjustments,” but that doesn’t have the positive connotation that “solution” has.

    “Tax hikes” — that’s what these revenue solutions are — is a negative phrase. The writers of “Under the Dome” are smart enough to recognize that most people don’t want to pay more taxes, especially to support an under-performing and bloated government monopoly.

    The KNEA and its members don’t want to share in the budgetary sacrifices that the rest of Kansans are being asked to make. In order to make its case, the public school spending lobby will dangle the possibility that Kansas schoolchildren won’t be able to learn anything if cuts are made.

    Thinking people realize, however, that shaving a few hundred dollars off the Wichita school district’s annual spending of over $13,000 per child isn’t going to hurt anything. At least not anything that matters.

  • KNEA’s attitude towards Kansas taxpayers

    The Kansas National Education Association — that’s the teachers union — shows again that it has little respect for Kansas taxpayers.

    The issue of Under the Dome for April 17, 2009 reveals this organization’s appetite for tax revenue is large, and they’re always on the prowl for more.

    After last week’s bad news about Kansas revenues, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius reminded legislators they had “left a significant amount of money on the table by not considering revenue adjustments that she had proposed in her budgets.”

    Just look at the perspective of Sebelius and the KNEA. They can’t bring themselves to use the phrases “tax hikes” or “delay tax cuts already signed into law.” Instead, they use the euphemism “revenue adjustments.”

    Also, by not increasing taxes they “leave money on the table.” They don’t view money as belonging to the people of Kansas. They view it as theirs, and they’re being short-sighted when they don’t rake it in.

    KNEA and Sebelius also want Kansas to “decouple” from the federal tax code. That’s because when the federal government cuts taxes, Kansas taxes get cut too because of the coupling. The KNEA reminds us that if Kansas had decoupled, it could have saved $80 million from the effects of last year’s federal stimulus bill.

    There it is again — the attitude the state has first claim on your money. If the state was able to avoid giving its citizens tax cuts, it’s called “saving” by the KNEA.

    KNEA likes to hide behind a unimpeachable motto like “Making Public Schools Great for Every Child.” We need to realize, however, that this teachers union works to keep the public school monopoly on the use of taxpayer funds in education, and they always want more.

  • KNEA, the Kansas teachers union: more taxes are needed

    The public education spending lobby in Kansas is always looking for more tax dollars.

    A recent edition of the Kansas National Education Association newsletter Under the Dome for March 30, 2009 lays out the education spending lobby’s plans.

    This group is fearful that an upcoming meeting of the consensus revenue group may produce bad news for Kansas revenue. It’s thought that the state may need to reduce spending or increase taxes.

    Spending, according to this newsletter, has “already been cut to the bone.” So the KNEA proposes “adjustments to the revenue stream” as follows:

    • Reject all new tax cuts.
    • Freeze the implementation of current tax cuts that are being phased in.
    • Decouple from particular parts of the federal tax code.
    • Consider modest tax increases.

    Which of these approaches does the KNEA prefer? No single measure would be sufficient: “The best approach might be a combination of all of the above.”

    KNEA believes that Kansas has a “structural problem” in its tax system. The newsletter explains in length, but the basic problem that KNEA sees is that Kansans are not taxed enough to support all the things KNEA wants to do.

    It’s difficult to take the KNEA seriously, but it and its allied organizations such as the Kansas Association of School Boards are powerful lobbies in Topeka. But let’s look at a few things.

    Despite the KNEA’s tale of woe, the fact is that spending on public schools in Kansas has been increasing rapidly, much faster than enrollment or inflation. From 2003 to 2009, Kansas general fund spending on public schools increased by 54%. Charts below provide illustration.

    School officials don’t like to talk about this, as it is embarrassing for them to have to admit how much funding the schools really have.

    Then there’s the school lobby’s constant reminder that we need a quality educational system. We do. But there’s nothing that says these schools have to be all government schools. Private schools and charter schools do very well, usually with far less money than public schools. But the KNEA and its allied organizations do not want the state to share public funds with private schools, forcing many Kansas parents to pay for private schools and public schools.

    These non-government schools are rarely unionized. Schools without teachers who belong to unions are not in the KNEA’s interest.

    Furthermore, it’s an open question as to how good are Kansas schools. Rising test scores are claimed. But across the country, states have watered down the tests used to measure progress. Is this the case in Kansas? We don’t know, but we do know this: while measures based on the Kansas tests rise, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test for Kansas students remain flat.

    We must also remember that the KNEA is a teachers union. Education reformers — and you can almost count President Obama among them — realize that the policies that teachers unions have put in place across the country are universally harmful to schoolchildren. A teachers union, with its narrow interests, is hardly a source we should trust for information about education policy.

    Kansas school spending per pupil outpaces inflation

    Kansas school state aid per pupil outpaces inflation

  • In the Wichita school district, supplies must be really tight

    On the front lines in Wichita KS (Blake West on Blake’s Blog at the Kansas National Education Association)

    This post describes West’s visit to Hamilton Middle School in Wichita, where, because of an architectural issue, students have to attend classes in a different building.

    He writes “all of the educators forced to leave their old classrooms were not allowed to reenter their old building to retrieve ANY of their teaching supplies (many purchased at their personal expense.) … Most amazing to me was the tremendously positive attitude of the educators. They actually shouted for joy when United Teachers of Wichita President Paul Babich brought each member a ream of paper to help them survive the shortages.”

    Two questions:

    With $13,000 to spend each year per pupil, why do teachers have to spend their own personal money on supplies?

    Does the Wichita school district really have to rely on the teachers union for supplies such as paper?

  • KNEA doesn’t care for Proposition K

    You can often tell how good a measure will be for taxpayers and prosperity by how strongly the people who live on government spending protest. When they distort arguments to the point of lying, you know it’s going to be really bad for them if a measure passes — and really good for everyone else. Proposition K, a proposal to reform property tax appraisals in Kansas, is such a case.

    An example is the Kansas National Education Association. This organization is one of the most powerful lobbies in Kansas, and across the nation, for that matter. Their document Proposition K in focus: Destroying the Kansas tax base serves to illustrate the lengths to which these people will go to protect their revenue stream.

    For example, here’s something: “Kansas schools depend to a large extent on a statewide 20 mill property tax levy augmented by the local option budget (LOB) which is also a property tax levy.”

    But what do the actual numbers say? The Governor’s Budget Report for 2010 tells us that for the fiscal year 2009 budget (approved), total school funding (general state aid, special education aid, local option budget, KPERS employee contributions, and capital outlay aid) totaled $3,779,346,641. The 20 mill property tax levy generated $560,060,359, or about 15% of the total spending.

    Adding the LOB spending gets to about 24%. Is this the “large extent” that the KNEA writes about?

    Here’s something else. Proposition K would limit the rate of growth of property value for tax purposes to 2% per year. Evidently the KNEA thinks this also limits the growth rate of property tax revenue to the same rate: “This means that the revenue collected under any property tax levy — including the 20 mill statewide levy — could not increase more than two percent. Therefore, state revenue to schools could not increase more than two percent in any year.”

    This ignores a few things. First, property tax revenue increases not only from the increasing value of existing property, but also from new property as homes and other structures are built. This has amounted to about 3% growth each year. The KNEA doesn’t mention this.

    Second, spending on schools in Kansas has increased much more rapidly than property tax revenue. It’s not the only source of school spending.

    Then, of course, governments — state and local — are free to increase tax rates any time they wish. The KNEA document acknowledges this, but I think they realize this isn’t likely to happen as often as the KNEA likes.

    Kansans should wonder if the KNEA is exaggerating for effect, or if they aren’t aware of the facts, or if they’re simply lying.

  • Kansas school lobby: not enough spending, not enough taxation

    In Topeka, the Kansas Association of School Boards rarely misses an opportunity to complain that spending on government schools is too low. The same goes for the Kansas National Education Association, the teachers union.

    Also, taxes aren’t high enough, they say.

    A recent note from KNEA regarding a possible sales tax holiday in Kansas stated: “Our primary concerns are related to the bill’s fiscal note which indicates a loss of more than $57 million in revenue to the state should such a holiday be enacted.” The message goes on to suggest some reforms in Kansas sales tax law, as long as the inflow of dollars is not reduced.

    In another message, we see that the education lobby in Kansas doesn’t understand the fiscal climate in Kansas at all. Here’s what it said:

    Fix the state’s funding system:

    The financial crisis was NOT caused by spending too much money on education.

    The economic downturn is NOT the sole reason for the state’s budget woes.

    Legislators must refuse to give any more tax breaks, must freeze all tax cuts.

    Legislators giving more tax breaks will make our situation worse.

    In the long run, we must fix the tax structure to support needed services in our schools and communities.

    (“Fix the tax structure” is code for figuring out ways to get more tax revenue. )

    The message here is we’re not overspending. Instead, we’re not taxing enough. (You can tell they really mean this because they use all capital letters.) This is despite the fact that school spending in Kansas has been growing very rapidly the past few years. Here’s a chart of per-pupil public school spending in Kansas, along with a line showing how this growth in spending far outstrips inflation:

    Kansas school spending per pupil outpaces inflation

    Sometimes the government school lobby likes to use just the spending by the state, as these numbers are lower. Here’s a chart that shows state aid per pupil, again with a line indicating inflation:

    Kansas school state aid per pupil outpaces inflation

    Despite this growth, the public school lobby works every day in Topeka to get more spending and resists all measures that would let parents decide themselves how to spend this money.

  • Kansas Education Lobby Always Prowling for Tax Dollars

    In Topeka, the Kansas Association of School Boards rarely misses an opportunity to reach deeper into the taxpayer’s pocket. The same goes for the Kansas National Education Association, the teachers union.

    Here’s a report from one of these groups: “In the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee it was KASB lobbyist Mark Tallman representing both organizations in support of the reauthorization of the 20 mill statewide property tax levy for schools. This has to be done every two years. Tallman suggested that a one mill increase in the statewide mill levy would equal about $47 per pupil on BSAPP [base state aid per pupil] and such a modest increase could offset most of the $66 cut that was in SB 23.”

    Despite the fact that some school districts such as Wichita will spend $13,000 per student this year, another $47 is needed, according to the education lobby.

    And they still talk about greedy Republicans not wanting to adequately fund schools.

  • Still more Kansas National Education Association candidate questions

    The “Kansas Political Action Committee,” a group associated with the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) has a questionnaire it asks candidates for the Kansas legislature to complete. After reading a few of these questions, it became clear to me that the questions are formulated to advance the interests of the teachers union and others wrapped up in — and profiting from — the public school bureaucracy and its monopoly on the use of state education funds.

    Here’s another question they asked:

    Legislators have recently proposed that certain teachers be given “bonuses” or “incentive pay” based on their license and endorsement. For example, a bill in the 2008 session would have encouraged school boards to circumvent the collective bargaining process, taking salary funds off the table to provide salary boosts to only math and science teachers. A new recommendation would do the same thing for only English as a Second Language teachers.

    These plans have the effect of paying some teachers more by taking salary potential away from most teachers. They ignore the fact that elementary and middle schools also need teachers that have strong backgrounds in math and science in order to build solid foundations and to encourage students to pursue these areas of study. Success in math and science relies heavily on strong reading skills. We want the best and brightest in ALL classrooms, not just in one or two content areas.

    Research shows that pay plans crafted without employee involvement and agreement are less successful in meeting the desired outcomes. KNEA believes that compensation systems — including any bonuses or incentives — must be subject to local negotiations between the teachers association and the local board of education. KNEA further believes that calls for retention incentives are indicative of the poor state of teacher salaries in general and that the appropriate approach to the recruitment and retention of teachers is first to dramatically increase the salaries of all teachers. KNEA therefore opposes any effort to undermine the collective bargaining of compensation through legislative mandates.

    Will you oppose efforts that weaken collective bargaining by legislatively imposing or encouraging bonus or incentive pay?

    I find it interesting that this question uses the term “teachers association” instead of “teachers union.”

    More importantly, this question illustrates the union’s opposition to anything resembling market processes in the hiring and paying of teachers. This is an example of the union opposing the dynamics of markets that work very well in the private sector. Instead, the union insists that all teachers be paid the same — distinguished only by length of service and educational credentials. They oppose attempts to reward teachers who distinguish themselves.

    Also, teachers are not paid enough, the union claims. There’s really no way to evaluate the validity of this claim. That’s because the public schools have the same problem as does any public agency: they are not able to perform economic calculation to properly evaluate their use of resources. They are not able to calculate profit or loss, so we really don’t know if they price inputs — such as teacher labor — correctly.

    Besides, the myth that teachers are underpaid relative to other comparable jobs has been exposed for just that. Jay Greene, in the book Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn’t So, reports that based on U.S. Department of Labor data for 2002, accounting for the number of hours worked, school teachers earned about $31 per hour. That is more than architects, economists, biologists, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and chemists.

  • More Kansas National Education Association candidate questions

    The “Kansas Political Action Committee,” a group associated with the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) has a questionnaire it asks candidates for the Kansas legislature to complete. After reading a few of these questions, it became clear to me that the questions are formulated to advance the interests of the teachers union and others wrapped up in — and profiting from — the public school bureaucracy and its monopoly on the use of state education funds.

    Here’s a question they asked:

    KNEA opposes private school vouchers or tuition tax credits. Such proposals will divert needed resources from public schools. KNEA believes that every child in Kansas deserves a quality public school.

    Here’s what is wrong with this question: School choice programs like those mentioned in the question save states money!

    Recently the The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released the study School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006. According to the executive summary: “Every existing school choice program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce a substantial savings.”

    How can this be? The teachers union and education bureaucrats would have us believe that vouchers would kill public education. That’s the premise of the question illustrated above: Such proposals will divert needed resources from public schools.

    Here’s the answer, from the same study: “In nearly every school choice program, the dollar value of the voucher or scholarship is less than or equal to the state’s formula spending per student. This means states are spending the same amount or less on students in school choice programs than they would have spent on the same students if they had attended public schools, producing a fiscal savings.”

    So at the state level, school choice programs save money. They don’t cost money to implement; they save money.

    At the local level, schools districts have more money, on a per-student basis, when school choice programs are used: “When a student uses school choice, the local public school district no longer needs to pay the instructional costs associated with that student, but it does not lose all of its per-student revenue, because some revenue does not vary with enrollment levels. Thus, school choice produces a positive fiscal impact for school districts as well as for state budgets.”

    Also, when schools are overcrowded, school choice programs can provide a way to solve this problem at no cost. This is illustrated in my article Will the Wichita Public School District Consider This Method of Reducing School Overcrowding? (The arithmetic of school choice in Wichita)

    Why does the teachers union and Wichita school board ignore evidence like this? Whose interests are they looking out for?