The eagerly awaited legislative audit of school finance was released this morning. The news was good for schools, bad for lawmakers hoping the $290 million more they found for schools for fiscal 2006 would be good enough going forward. The audit concludes that $316 million more a year is needed to provide the “suitable” education mandated by the state constitution. And if the state wants to truly leave no child behind, as mandated by Congress, the Legislature would need to spend an additional $399 million a year. Lawmakers who’d earlier touted the validity of the audit, including some anti-tax conservatives, now must decide whether to live by it, and how — perhaps by forcing consolidation, expanding gambling or raising taxes. And what will the Kansas Supreme Court make of what lawmakers do, especially if it’s spread over multiple years or some act of judicial defiance? In any case, the audit will be hard for the Legislature to ignore.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
14 Comments
The first thing Kansas should do is require all PRIVATE schools to cut tuition to zero . . . because after all the right-wing keeps saying that spending has “no relation” to outcomes.
Since the right-wing often sends their kids to private schools, they should be demanding that those schools cut tuition since “money doesn’t matter.”
I still think the best cost cutting idea is the one Phillip wrote about on January 1: rationalizing (consolidating) school district admininistration roles across the state. Not only are admin the best paid of all district employees – and thus a rich source of saved wages dollars – but I think that often the function of any one administration employee is redundant to that of the employee the next district over. (in some cases maybe the next couple districts over.)
‘Course I couldn’t tell Phillip about it then because apparently certain Eagle employees took New Year’s Day off and their relief obviously don’t do blog. ;)
This idea relieves the revenue side of school financing by cutting costs in ways that minimize any negative impact to Kansas education. Kansas taxpayers win, school kids don’t lose, and unfortunately certain admin people lose their jobs. (the multiplier effect of such cuts could be significant, however; the biggest negative effect would likely be in W. Kansas as businesses like flower shops, furniture stores, hometown clothing shops, hairdressers, the odd day spa, etc., would feel the pinch most)
Finding and then, when necessary, cutting support resources back to an organization’s true production curve, however, is a fact of American business life. Any business that hopes to survive in the long term must constantly know its own and react accordingly.
Any business that serves the entire state (e.g., KGE, Dillons, Rainbo bread, etc.) has been there, done that for at least a decade now.
We’ve all been through it; they’ll survive theirs.
The parochial schools have always been fiancially supported by the church. When I was growing up, some families paid nothing to educate their children. If one is a church member, the only requirement is to tithe, so tuition is still charged on a “sliding scale”. Outcomes in private schools have more to do with the quality of teachers, involved parents, and higher expectations for students. Money is not the biggest factor, bacause parochial schools manage to do a lot more with less financing than public schools. You can throw money at the public school system all day long and it won’t make that much difference in the outcomes if the teachers are inadequate, the parents don’t give a rip, and kids know they’re going to get passed on no matter how little effort they put forth.
Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
Flike, with all due respect, this audit drops a bombshell on western Kansas that is more than just a “negative effect”. I know consolidation of administration is different from consoliation of attendance centers, but this is a looming disaster for the state’s rural areas, primarily western Ks.
The front page of the Hays Daily News tonight says this:
…one of the stipulations in the audit was calling for reducing the amount of extra dollars small districts of about 1,600 students or below receive because of their low enrollments.
Coincidentally, that number includes every single district in northwest Kansas, with the exception of Hays USD 489.
The article quotes the Victoria Ks superintendant as saying:
“The problem I’m seeing is that the whole rural Kansas way of life is really going to be under attack,” Kenne added. “What we’re talking about is a division between urban and rural districts.”
She asks the question:
“What are they going to do – make boarding schools out here? If you consolidate out in counties like Thomas, Sherman, Gove, you’re talking about kids being on the bus for a very, very long time.”
Bernie White, superintendent of Ellis USD 256, said it’s an understatement to say that smaller districts will be hurt by the current audit.
“It’s the districts with the most amount of wealth that are going to receive the most benefit.”
And what does “governor leadership” say?” Last week, in a Harris News Service article about her concerns for the economics of western Kansas, she says:
“It’s not very realistic in rural Kansas to talk about closing schools and putting a second grader on a bus for an hour to and from school,” Sebelius said. “Some of the consolidation, frankly, is more of an urban issue.”
Last year was the first Ks leg session where urban lawmakers outnumbered rural lawmakers. It will be that way in the future as well. Wanna bet where the burden is gonna fall?
Ksfarmgrrl, that makes for a sticky situation, doesn’t it?Hypothetical question:Do we sacrifice the good of many for the good of a few?Honest question.
This summer my son and I were doing volunteer work for a few days in Goodland, KS. The locals said the size of their graduating Senior class is down to around 80 kids and not too many years ago the size was usually between 130 & 150. It sounded as though there has been a significant loss of people out there. I wonder why they are losing so many.
All you have to do is take out one sentence of the 1964 school consolidation act (which allows school districts to be defined as having $1 million in asessed valuation)–and then enforce it. This would force 31 school districts with less than 300 students to consolidate with other districts. The big savings would be in federal mandates, which, as one school superintendant told me, comprise “70 percent of the budget, 80 percent of the paperwork, and 90 percent of the headaches”.
Steven, part of the loss is because young people are leaving the farm. Farmers get old, the kids don’t want to try to make it in farming, and the land goes to bigger farmers or conglomerates. If the young aren’t staying, there aren’t as many kids, and school enrollment dwindles.Schools are what anchor small towns. If the school goes away, the town is dead.
I went to school in a town of 900 people. There were 52 people in my graduating class. The “old folks” would sit around the cafe, the drug store, or the bar and all they’d talk about was their glory days in high school (and the Vietnam war). Something sad about people in their 50s-60s reliving their school days.
X-This is so old I dont know if anyone is reading it anymore, but I will try to respectfully answer your honest question. Let me just start by saying that the kind of “either or” choices you offer are why the christian taliban controls the state.
It isnt either “us or them” when it comes to western ks. “Sacrificing the many for the few” is one more way of playing the progressive fear card, x. What you are saying is, if we dont let them die, we wont be able to survive”. That is so much bull****
Some of you love to narrow the choices and play a zero sum game. In case you havent noticed, people wont vote progressive out of fear as the conservatives have that territory staked out. You cant “out scare” the right. People will only vote progressive out of hope. These “either or” choices are artificial and they squash all possibility of meaningful change.
I will skim the reasons why western KS is already dead, (not dying) as the reasons are obvious, begining with population. Economic development out here ALWAYS involves bringing new business. The faulty logic in that is the belief that people follow businesses.
Richard Florida in “The Rise of the Creative Class” pretty well debunked that myth and proved that business actually follows people, not the other way around. If you are chasing business to bring people, you should be chasing people to bring business. Dumb asses.
Population is a function of quality of life, not just jobs. The Hays e.d. director is quoted as saying they have more jobs available than they can fill and some companies may leave due to workforce issues. But the quality of life sucks in Hays, and all those jobs dont do them any good without people living in or near their community. Quality of life issues start with schools, hospitals, housing and good government. Jobs are way down the list.
The reason “the many” or eastern Ks should care is that this portion of the state is becoming an economic net drain, and you will soon be paying the costs for western Ks. You will be paying the costs of “shut down” and you will pay the costs to absorb this displaced population.
The population out here is aging as you noted. Big drain on Medicaid and other public resources. They bring little or nothing to the state’s economy other than their little social security checks. Especially after all the farm land is sold to pay the nursing home.
Do you really want all these people moving to your community and draining your resources? It would require more hospitals, school expansion, nursing homes, etc. for you to pay for. Just shuttting down the west will not be cheap. Those people and businesses out here will still need care, whether they live here or in your town. And you all will be footing the bill in either case, with either choice.
Why not keep western ks livable and use the infrastructure already out here? It would be cheaper for you taxpayers to do so rather than try to absorb all of us when the big fence and “keep out” signs go up. Schools and health care are the major quality of life issues. Jerk them, and “they will not come” for any reason. Or stay for that matter.
Oil is out here too, and most of the state’s farm acreage. Who will make those assets produce tax revenue for the state? Young, single men with no families?
I have predicted the “airstream” scenario where there would be a 24 year old boy in an airstream trailer stationed out here every 100 miles. They will have big equipment to farm the countryside, and Cargill will drop off their groceries twice per month. Medivac will be available to Wichita, Salina or Denver. It pisses people off out here when I say it, but denying the truth doesnt fix it.
Clearly this section of the state, which covers more than half of the land mass in KS, can not pull itself out of this ever more expensive death spiral. The end of this opera has already been written. All that is left is the mop up, and you all in the east get to decide how that is done.
You decide for yourself if it is cheaper to subsidize our schools and hospitals, or if it is cheaper to just admit defeat and start signing the welfare and unemployment checks, and issuing bonds for new infrastructure in your community. And those costs will be on top of the ag subsidy welfare checks already being written by the U.S. taxpayer.
Isnt there some other scenario, some choice, some possibility to make 2/3 of the state live? Is shutting down everything west of Salina really the only answer? I guess it is if you are not willing to try creative solutions. Or if you just want to scare people in eastern ks.
Or if what you really want is for the water to flow from west to east with no stopping for those pesky people or wildlife out west. At the end of the decade mark my words, because this east vs west divide is really about water. Dont even get me started on this state’s abysmal record on beneficial water use. See “farm bureau”, “big ag” and the Kansas Water Office on that one.
Recreational tourism could be a big revenue generator for the state, and western ks is where that will play out. But…in the short run, big ag will buy the state policy makers so irrigation can continue unabated. And Cedar Bluff Reservoir (a net revenue generator for the state) will be sacrificed, along with Webster Lake and Sebelius Lake. More decline in the quality of life here.
It was Sebelius’ first chief of staff who told me point blank that “there arent enough votes in western kansas to matter.” That was said in a discussion of water usage in the west. I think that tells it all. How is that mindset working for ks right now?
Ok, so when will our buyouts start? I’d be glad to offer my farm and my town first. As soon as eastern ks sees the cost of shutting down western ks, well, there wont be much enthusiasm, and I want my money first, just like the R’s. :)
Thanks for asking the question. It really requires a longer answer than I can give here. And for the record X, I too think it is sad for everyone out here to be singing “Glory Days”. That is why I am so adamant about having effective leadership in the gov’s office.
Remember it was a very popular Dem president who quoted the Bible by saying “where there is no vision, the people perish.” What is Kathleen’s vision for the west? Or hasnt she gotten her vision statement yet from Joe Harkins?
Ksfarmgrrl, thanks for your straighforward and informative answer. You make some very interesting points.
Sometime, I’d like to discuss water issues with you. I think we probably agree that’s a huge sleeper issue. It’s about to slap us right in the face and most people don’t even notice.
Thanks again for your discussion.
ksfarmgrrl.How sweet it is to read a voice of reason with regard to the mess western ks has made of itself. Besides the fact that there aren’t enough votes, it is so die hard red that even eastern reds blush.
The water issue is a disaster of unimaginable proportions. It is going to take decades to resolve and clean up, if they ever decide to fix it. Read a book called, “Cadillac desert”. It’s the story of water, mostly western states, but can be applied anywhere. I real eye opener.
Thanks for the awesome post. r
ksfarmgrrl,
I concur with the posters above. Thanks for your points.
Awwwww….shucks y’all, yer makin’ me blush.
Seriously, I will discuss water issues anywhere and anytime. It will be the biggest issue in this century. You may think it is heading your way now, but it is already in our faces out here.
Tip o’ the hat Walker. Western Ks has no one to blame but themselves, but the problem will eventually be everyone’s.
Thanks again.