Tag: United Teachers of Wichita

Two weeks ago, while the Kansas Legislature was working on budget and tax issues, Larry Landwehr, president of United Teachers of Wichita, the union for Wichita public school teachers, addressed the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district.

Landwehr referred to “difficult decisions” the board had to make in the past few months, presumably due to budget cuts the district believed it needed to make. His remarks were based on a false premise, however. Many of these cuts were not necessary, as school districts have money to spend, if they want.

During the present school year, according to figures released at the end of April, schools in Kansas were able to increase spending by an estimated $320 million. This was in spite of the fact that revenue to Kansas school districts declined by about $50 million. $370 million in fund balances were used to boost total spending by $320 million.

These are the fund balances that school districts and school officials have said cannot be used. But districts have used them, and there’s more that can be used. There is no need to make cuts to teachers and programs.

In his remarks, Landwehr also issued a threat to legislators who “chose re-election over providing a quality education for our students.” He added “I hope they [voters] respond accordingly in the summer and spring elections.”

There’s a few issues here that deserve discussion. First, while the teachers union may believe that public schools in Kansas are producing a quality product, the rest of us need to dismiss this illusion. While Kansas reports rising test scores on state-administered assessments, these test scores are certainly fraudulent, as scores on tests the state does not control do not match this trend.

Furthermore, only 26 percent of Kansas students that take the ACT test are ready for college-level coursework in all four areas that ACT considers.

This is not a record of achievement that Wichita and Kansas school districts and teachers unions should be proud of.

There’s also the issue as to whether Wichita school board meetings should be used for political campaigning. While Wichita public schools hate to be called “government schools,” the fact that this behavior is permitted at school board meetings show us that public schools are, in fact, creations of, and expressions of, government.

At yesterday’s meeting of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, members heard descriptions of district policy on how a reduction in force — layoffs, in other words — world be accomplished if the district decides to use this method of reconciling its budget.

Several speakers, including superintendent John Allison, remarked how unfortunate it was that on a night the district recognized excellence in teaching, it also discussed methods of reducing the number of teachers.

Board member Betty Arnold, now a candidate for the Sedgwick County Commission, said she was troubled by the possibility of laying off a promising first-year teacher when more senior teachers who might be on a disciplinary plan would be protected. Allison said that was the policy of the district’s contract with the teachers union, and a change would have to be negotiated.

Allison said that new teachers who might be laid off might leave Kansas or the teaching profession altogether. This, combined with upcoming retirements, creates a “real problem for ourselves” far beyond the implications of this year and next year. A short-term budget issue can blossom into a long-term problem, he said.

Board member Lynn Rogers said that a $25 million cut in wages, combined with potentially more cuts in other school districts in the county, harms the business community. State officials, he said, have “been willing to give the shop away and not look forward to the future.”

Arnold said she reads in the newspapers about incentives being given to employers. “The district is an employer. Where is our incentive?”

Analysis

Government spending is paid for by the private sector, as government — at least the Wichita school district — has no way to create money of its own. Therefore, every dollar the school district spends is a dollar taken from the productive private sector. This leads to a reduction of economic activity and jobs in the private sector. Contrary to the argument of board member Rogers, government jobs like those in the Wichita public school system do not generate wealth or prosperity.

Government spending also leads to a loss of economic freedom, as the ability of people to buy the goods and services they value is reduced by the spending of government. Consider especially the case of low and moderate income families struggling to pay private or religious school tuition for their children, and then being told they must pay even more taxes to feed the government school spending machine, something they personally have no use for.

There may be those who think that government spending is more productive or efficient than private sector spending. This may be the case for a limited set of public goods. Education, however, is not such a good, as the private sector has a record of delivering education effectively and efficiently.

Board member Arnold, in wondering out loud about the whereabouts of the government school district’s incentive, might choose to become aware of these facts: First, some of the incentives given to employers take the form of escape from paying some taxes. This is in recognition that taxes reduce economic activity. Regarding this, Arnold might want to recall that the school district is exempt from paying all or nearly all taxes. So there’s no taxes to abate with economic incentives.

Second, granters of economic development incentives make the case that the new employment increases the prosperity of a region. There’s the possibility of that as long as the jobs being subsidized are private sector jobs. But when the jobs being subsidized are government jobs, no stimulative effect occurs.

In fact, it is folly to say that it would be possible to provide an incentive to government jobs. Since they are totally paid for by taxpayers, there is no way to reduce the cost of government employees like private sector incentive programs are designed to do. Any reduction in employment cost would simply be born by the taxpayers who pay for cost of the incentives.

Superintendent Allison’s concerns about a short-term budget problem causing long term problems should lead us to wonder why the district doesn’t make use of millions in fund balances the district holds. School spending advocates criticize those who advocate use of these fund balances by noting that the balances are not a long-term solution to school finance problems. That’s true. They are a short-term fix, which, as we now see, is what the superintendent says the district needs.

Finally, we must note the irony of the Wichita school district building new schools and classrooms at the same time it can’t afford to keep the teachers it has.

Larry Landwehr, president of United Teachers of Wichita, the union for Wichita public school teachers, recently addressed the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, regarding teacher morale and working conditions.

Now that the district and the teachers union have reached an agreement on a contract, Landwehr said it’s time to look at other issues, those not part of the contract negotiations.

Employee morale, he said, is a major concern today. Specific factors he cited were “current economic conditions that teachers face, the long negotiations, the increased paperwork and workload placed upon educators over the past few years, the decline in academic freedom and professional judgment of the teachers, and the added pressure of meeting AYP.”

(AYP, or adequate yearly progress, refers to the standards set by the No Child Left Behind legislation.)

He hopes for “serious discussion,” working to create an environment that is best for all stakeholders.

Landwehr’s concerns over teacher morale and working conditions are not unique to the Wichita school district. Earlier this year the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice published a study titled Free To Teach: What teachers say about teaching in public and private schools. This study revealed sharp differences in attitudes towards working conditions between public and private school teachers. Some of Landwher’s expressed concerns are mentioned in this document.

In my coverage of the report I wondered this: Since nearly all public school teachers belong to a union and practically no private school teachers belong, what are the teachers unions doing? Don’t the unions care about the working conditions of their members?

Landwehr’s message to the board is that working conditions are a concern to Wichita teachers. I’ll be surprised, however, if the union model of labor relations is able to provide a solution to this problem.