State legislators haven’t spent much time this session talking about how to deal with the public universities’ $584 million maintenance backlog, letting a loan proposal die without a vote. While they wait — and they can’t wait forever — the tab has gone up: The storm that hit the University of Kansas campus in Lawrence earlier this month left $6 million in damage to fix. Meanwhile, the state’s 19 community colleges and 11 technical colleges say they have deferred maintenance needs, too, perhaps $55 million or more. Maybe this is too big a chore for legislators in this election year. But like any maintenance problem, ignorance will only make the repair job grow bigger.
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
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Jed on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
43 Comments
For the love of Pete! When will it EVER be enough money for these educrats (and their willing accomplices in the press). I mean, good grief. Budget money correctly and you won’t have this problem. Lack of preparation on the Regent’s part doesn’t constitute an emergency raid on my checkbook.
Joe,
Education at manjor public univesities is a mavjor atttractor to business and individuals. In addition, most universities supply a great deal of their own money through grants and research funds. It may surprise you to know that the sciences and engineering typically have over 40% “shaved” off of their research funding to support university operations. That means an individual researcher who gets a 4 year grant for $250K/yr loses $400K of that grant to keep English, history, philosophy, and the grounds up and running.
Never mind that university breakthroughs stimulate business activity. Did yo know there are KSU researchers working on practical large scale white LED lighting…something that will cut your electric bill to miniscule proportions. Or did you know that there are research physicists looking to make nuclear fusion a reality?
The money spent on university research is undeniably one of the investments with highest returns on investment in the world. To make matters better, universities don’t usually hold the patents tooo tightly or require too much residual from the invention.
Run to your local university and find a good project to make you and your associates rich !!
“Budget money correctly and you won’t have this problem”
Well damn joe, they have to have money to budget in the first place. Let’s see, cutting taxes for business while under court order to fix education. Would that be more smart budgeting?
Perhaps if the universities had been BUDGETED MONEY sufficient for repairs and maintenance in the past, there would be no “emergency” to raid your checkbook.
Kansas routinely jumps over a dime in order to save a penny in an election year. Over time, that creates a back log of deferred spending. Kinda like funding education for one year and relying on vague “future earnings” to pay the rest of the bill.
And when the eventual and inevitable bill for all that deferred spending comes due, and when the bare budget birds fly home to roost?
Kansas taxpayers squeal like stuck hogs, the legislators run like scared rabbits and local governments act like bleating sheep without a leader. And governor leadership? She hides out like a chicken and issues vague clucks.
Kansas government. What a zoo!
Of course, if anyone actually had a good idea to solve the problems in kansas, no one would act on it.
Pearls before swine, ya know?
I actually think they need to spend more money on Universities and less on K-12. They need to consolidate the school districts down to under 50 as a start.
Amen, farmgirl. And think what TABOR would have done to Kansas–bankruptcy was my first thought. When are we going to realize we can’t starve ourselves to prosperity? We budget money like Calista Flockhart diets.
Well Steve, we are still not out of the woods on bankruptcy. Kansas’ credit rating has dropped to just one notch higher than California, which is at the bottom. We can only go one notch lower on the damn scale!!
But by all means, let’s cut taxes while increase spending. It works so well for bushco in washington, why not dougieco in topeka?
I think you’re right, Joe. The real waste is K-12 with all these small rural school districts. There’s way too much parody and inefficiency when entire school districts in western KS have fewer students than one highschool in Wichita.
K-12 needs to be strong so our kids don’t grow up idiots (i.e. end up state legislators), but our universities need to be stronger. That’s where our leaders are born, and like Brian was saying, where most innovation and research is being done.
Wow, farmgirl, that’s a comforting thought, isn’t it…One notch above CA?? Ouch. Way to go legislators!!
Here’s another thought, let’s cut taxes, increase spending, and completely ignore the situation by getting sidetracked making sure gay people can’t get married and other sinners can’t gamble! It’s good that we have our priorities straight!!
I dont think you all have to worry about the schools in western ks sucking up YOUR education dollars.
The way this region is bleeding population, and the remaining population is getting older, soon schools west of salina will be a thing of the past.
Of course, all those people leaving the west are not coming to YOUR town, so YOUR schools and YOUR tax dollars are safe. The kids who used to be educated here will be living out of state, where their parents found jobs.
But the cost of shutting down all of western ks, the cost of maintaining miminal roads and ag infrastructure, the loss of property and sales tax revenue from the west….
Those will be YOUR costs too. ALL OF THEM. I wonder if you all will be sorry when the bill comes due. Who ya gonna blame when the west is gone?
Brian is absolutely right about economic development and business innovation being sourced at universities. I am not so familiar with kansas colleges, but in Texas, UT has hundreds of “technologies” on the shelf just waiting to be commercialized.
They had a whole “technology transfer” division that helped commercialize things that were developed at the university. Entrepreneurs can indeed have access to them for free, or almost free, with few royalties or licensing fees.
They also have seed capital and incubators (IC2) to get those businesses going. And access to debt financing and equity financing like angel investor networks and venture capital to sustain those businesses as they grow.
And most importantly, they have an ample supply of well educated people for the modern day workforce needed to support those new and growing businesses.
And it all starts with the universities…just ask any company looking to relocate.
In Kansas? We have KTEC and the newly formed biosciences group in the land of creationism.
’nuff said.
The West will be gone on the fault of themselves. Kansas isn’t going to struggle or care if Western Kansas dries up. Because every county in Western Kansas is a net importer of state tax money. You guys won’t even have water out there.
But just like Nebraska and Colorado that has huge swath of land perviously inhabited that longer is, those States are doing just fine. I’m sorry, but cities are the producers of our world now. Even globally, the world at the 1st time in history have more people living in cities than the countryside. Kansas just past the pivot point in their Legislature, where the balance has shifted to the urban areas. Take in the fact that Kansas will lose a Congressional district in 2010, rural life is not going to come back.
You’re right farmgrrl, that people moving out of Western Kansas are most likely moving out of State, the rest will just die. But the vast number of students at KU when graduated don’t stay in Kansas also. So that investment is going out the door too.
Kansas is not a business friendly state thanks to the socialism of the ag industry and unions. Lots of old money in Kansas that doesn’t go nowhere or build new industries.
This whole focus on school funding (while the post audit study says that rural district are taking in to much money from the State) is really a jobs program for the rural towns.
If you’re not a farmer or rancher in western Kansas, then you most likely work for the government in one form or another. That be public schools, county, or State. With the exception of beef packing and feeding and gas fields (which is going to go bye bye pretty soon), there is nothing there. I guess that explains why meth is so common in rural areas.
Hee hee, it always boils down to drugs, alcohol and cigs for joe.
Joe dear, I am not arguing that the west is responsible for its own demise. It certainly is. Just dont think there arent any costs that will accrue to YOU when the shutdown is official.
I dont see ANYONE doing any calculation on what those costs, both hard and opportunity, will be for YOU ALL.
Here is a little food for thought with regards to western ks being a net drain on state tax money. Have you looked at kansas’ ratio of federal money received to federal money paid in? For over twenty five years, kansas has received more federal dollars than it has taken in.
Given the current federal budget, and the fact that even a TWO year old knows how kansas will vote, do you see any REAL economic future for the entire state?
“Budget money correctly and you won’t have this problem”
Well damn joe, they have to have money to budget in the first place.Killer Farm Girl Argument
Kansas spent more than $700 million from State General Funds on Regents institutions. Damn, I remember when $700M used to actually buy something!
Farm Girl, plow, make yourself useful. We need smarter people here.
By what measure are colorado and nebraska doing fine? Cite some facts here joe, not opinion.
I dont actually think colorado and nebraska are any farther along the rural shut down curve than we are. Has anyone asked colorado and nebraska about their shutdown costs?
Nebraska is the home of the national Center for Rural Development and the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship. They have a very successful economic development program called Hometown Competitiveness that is being used as a model for other states.
I dont think they are willing to let western nebraska go quietly into that good night. Much less give ‘em a shove on the way down.
And colorado has put some effort into recruiting PEOPLE to eastern colorado, and guess what? With no more water than western ks, parts of eastern colorado have GAINED population recently. Do you know what they did? Can you find those facts?
Sigh. But in kansas, we’ll just write off 2/3 of the state because it is “their own fault”. We’ll do that, rather than the harder task of instead of asking ourselves how we can make that asset pay for itself.
And we will bitch about those shutdown costs, and cling to our business tax cuts, all the way to the poor house.
Can you say “federal bail out”?
The reason why Kansas is a net importer of federal tax money is because of the rural areas. Look at all the states that are and you will see that all of them are rural states like Kansas.
farmgrrl. We are already feeling the effects of the decline of Western Kansas. School finance issue is just one of them. $500 million dollars needed and nobody knows were to get it from. N.E. Kansas or South Central Kansas doesn’t bring enough tax revenue to close that funding gap. Western Kansas? They are just waiting for the check.
We are in a real funding delemma and have been for the past 5 years.
About Meth in rural areas. Don’t blame me, I just see the “Meth Watch” signs every time I go in a small town in western Kansas. That tells me something.
So BJ, er, I mean JB…
Good dog. Now we know you can look up figures (although we dont know where you got that one). Can youa also interpret what you read? Bark once for yes, two for no.
What was the period of time over which that money was spent? Was it allocated in one lump sum, over time, and what line item spending was mandated? How much of that was for maintenance? How much of that went to pay for maintenance that was previously deferred? How much was that compared to what universities needed? How much does post audit say the universities need? What do other states spend on their universities and maintenance? How was that money divided up among institutions?
So let me throw out a number..um…sixhundredeightyseven!
What does that raw number mean?
“500 million dollars needed and nobody knows were to get it from.”
Williams, you crack me up. Is that the amount of money that goes to western ks schools? The shortfall for western ks, or is that the shortfall for the entire state?
Take the state’s contribution, subtract the amount actually sent to western ks and what remains is the amount that goes to you all. You can divide up the shortfall proportionally. THAT will tell you how much of the shortfall belongs to you, and how much belongs to us.
“Western Kansas? They are just waiting for the check.” Gosh, the last time I checked, the biggest share of my local property taxes went to schools, followed by the county. What percentage of your school budgets are local dollars vs. state dollars? Is that higher or lower than from western ks?
“We are in a real funding delemma and have been for the past 5 years.”
No argument from me joe. But I hardly think it is the fault of western ks. The legislature has been underfunding ALL schools. That is the problem, not western ks.If western ks was lopped off, you would still have the same problems, and you would still pay out the wazoo, but you wouldnt have anyone to blame.
This concern about education dollars again from the man who supports the iraq war indefinately, no matter what the cost!
Do you just hate education joe?
Joe, about the meth thing. We are the PRODUCTION area, but that doesnt mean we are the USAGE area. We might be a net importer of tax dollars but I think we are net exporters of meth and pot.
And you say we aren’t entrepreneurs….
Drug production and drug usage problems are not unique to western ks. I think you all have a few of your own over there on the right coast of kansas. :)
I am really laughing now! Joe, it is the RED states that are net tax dollar importers. BLUE states like NY, CA, MA, etc. PAY more federal tax dollars than they get back.
They are also starting to get mad as hell and threatening not to take it anymore. But welfare states like ks need not worry…
Our SHRINKING congressional delegation can whip theirs anyday.
BWHAHAHAHAHA
As far as KU’s storm damage, they do have insurance, right?
The Governor’s Budget Report, page 117.Read. Weep. Farm Girl, don’t challenge me on my numbers again or I’ll be forced to make you look foolish. Again.
Joe, let me take you on a personal tour of one of my childhood memories: the “Frankenstein room” at the K-State power plant, built in 1889, STILL IN USE, nearly 30 years after my late father retired as an electrican from K-StateFeel free to touch the 3-foot switches…it could be a “shocking” experience :)
I’m doing a BLOW by here. I don’t know alot about this issue. But I’m gonna pop in pop off and blow away…..kinda like Joe’s blow does on every thread I’ve seen him on to date.
I wonder at BJ his special devotion to this particular issue. Three whole posts! Gotta be a record for ya JoeB.
My take? Fund the schools, all the schools. And if that makes ‘ol Joe open up his I’m guessing fat wallet then that is a good thing ….funding a good thing.
Typical libs. You want proof. You’re shown proof. You don’t like the proof. You make personal attacks against those that are your intellectual superiors. Sigh.
Congratulations blow. You can provide one raw number.
Can you tell us what that number means?
I think ignoring the other questions only makes you look foolish blow. again.
You are the same blow who has challenged people here on economics and got your ass handed to you by StevenE and proudlib. You bloviated about “not arguing constitutional law with me” and then got your ass handed to you by brian.
Do you want the todd treatment? Do you want me to post the links to where you let your alligator mouth overload your alligator brain? You probably dont care since facts mean nothing to you.
Again, what does that raw number mean, blow? Answer the questions.
Woah, why the hatin’ all of a sudden, farmgirl? I wasn’t saying western Kansas is to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. I just question the sense behind no plans for widespread consolidation of small western Kansas districts. You have to admit some of these districts are tiny, tiny, tiny. And the fact that there are so many of them leaves the door open to inefficiencies such as duplicative administration and teaching staff.
It just makes no sense to me that our district, with 50,000 students and issues rural districts never have to face, receives LESS money per pupil than rural districts. Maybe without the inefficiencies of the rural districts, things would be EQUAL. That’s all I’m saying.
I do have to agree, though, what you’re saying about no one backing up their arguments with facts. Then they disregard someone else’s facts. That’s my pet peeve about these boards. Glad to know someone else sees the same thing.
Steve, sorry if you thought any of those blasts were directed to you. They were not.
Williams and I frequently disagree, and I am not mad at him and dont “hate” him either. He does make me crazy with unsubstantiated claims, but he is in good company here with that. :)
(actually I only “hate” joe, terry, fred and bonbon..heheheh. The rest of the “horsemen of hate” I find amusing but annoying.)
Joe blow? Well, I’ll let his posts speak for themselves. Bloviating would be a better nic.
Steve,
I dont disagree with making schools more efficient, and combining administrative functions AND attendence centers when it is appropriate. THAT needs to happen all over the state. It is called continuous improvement.
I do get really upset though when people in more populated areas dont see any value in western ks. It is just nuts to think that abandoning western kansas is the answer to the state’s budget problems. Or to say that it is the rural areas of the state dragging down the urban areas. ALL of kansas is adept at shooting itself in the foot.
So many people just want to say that we are a bunch of dumbasses in the west who caused our own demise. Heheh, you get no argument from me on that!
But if anyone thinks it wont cost anything to shut down everything west of Salina, just wait. No one has studied the issue enough to even KNOW what those hard and soft costs will be. Just declaring it “buffalo commons” isnt possible or fiscally responsible. No one talks about HOW to shut down the west.
If someone thinks abandoning half the state wont have consequenses for everyone….
…I have a beach front farm in western ks I’d like to sell you.
Hell, I’ll throw in the brooklyn bridge for free!
“Maybe without the inefficiencies of the rural districts, things would be EQUAL”
Steve,I think there are plenty of inefficiencies in urban districts too.
And rural schools just have DIFFERENT needs for their pupils. It doesnt make them less expensive than the needs of your kids. Costs are costs.
You can only bus kids so far and so long in a day. I know. I used to ride the school bus three hours a day! And that was in the sixties! Parents will either home school, or move to a different home. And likely, they wont move to another place in ks. They will move out of state.
How’s that working for us?
So if we are just going to shut down the west, and the west doesnt have enough votes to matter, why does state government even fund economic development out here? We spend THOUSANDS trying to draw new business and new residents without success I might add. And then we cut off the funds for their schools? Isnt that like driving with one foot on the gas and one on the brake?
How stupid, when cutting off their schools will kill little towns faster than anything. Why are we petting small towns with one hand and slapping them with another? If you all in the east just want us gone, call a spade a bloody shovel and get on with it!
I gues if the rural districts were gone, the legislature could EQUALLY underfund education. Thinking that the west takes something away from the east is zero sum thinking.
The pie could be made bigger to accomodate everyone. Of course, many here think that is communism, not common sense.
ksfarmgrrl,Steve is not saying to shut down western Kansas. I think he is saying that some schools in rural areas get the same amount of money that urban schools do and they do not have to deal with the same problems that districts like Wichita and Topeka have to deal with.I have relatives in Western Kansas near LaCrosse and Larned. I care extremely about western Kansas. I just don’t think that schools that have 10 or 12 kids total deserve the same money as schools in Wichita and Hutchinson.
Keith, I think what you mean is that small districts shouldnt get more PER PUPIL than large districts.
I am ok with that as long as the costs per pupil are the same or at least close.
I dont know of any schools or districts, anywhere in the state, with 10 students that are not slated for closure. Do you?
Steve said: “Maybe without the inefficiencies of the rural districts, things would be EQUAL”
And I am gonna repeat here, that there is inefficiency ALL OVER THE STATE, not just in rural areas. It isnt the rural schools that are dragging down the city schools. If the rural schools were gone, the city schools would still have budget problems.
Do you know how much that extra money for small schools amounts to in total? How far would that go if it were added to and spread around ALL the urban budgets?
I dont know offhand either, but I bet it wouldnt amount to much per urban student.
Kansas needs solutions, not zero sum games.
My other point, and I apologize for not being clear, is that the subsidy for small schools is FAR cheaper than continuing our insane practices in rural economic development.
If we keep doing the same ineffective things in rural development, and if one by one, we shut down all the rural school districts, that is tantamount to shutting down all of western ks.
I know Steve isnt advocating shutting down western ks. But gradually shutting down the schools out here will have the same effect.
So…lets think about and deal with the problems that shut-down will create. Or deal with the ones we have now.
How about if we just look realistically and deal with SOME of our problems in this state? :)
How about if the legislature just does its job and funds a suitable education for ALL students? Including those at the university leve!
You have a good point, farmgirl–even the urban districts have budgetary problems. I’ll have to agree with that. Our district is by no means a model of efficiency :-)
I really do need to clarify because I did a piss poor job of explaining myself earlier. I’m not saying western districts need less money–I’m saying things should be equal. We all have our issues to deal with, you have rural issues and we have urban issues. But why is the state telling us the rural issues are more important by dishing out more money per student to rural districts? Isn’t the lack of equality why the Supreme Court shot down the current formula (that’s not a rhetorical question, I’m honestly asking)? I wonder if we didn’t get ourselves into this mess partly because we thought just throwing more money at declining districts would solve their problems.
Well, if that’s the case it hasn’t worked. ALL districts in this state need more money, but they ALL need to look at how they use this money as well. We have serious issues here in Wichita with gobs of money being spent on special education and these so-called “magnet” schools that specialize in some area of emphasis (never mind the kids later in life will change their college major 3 times–on average). We need to stop doing the dumb things that aren’t federally mandated at least.
I think rural schools need to address how they are going to deal with declining enrollments. I had more people in my highschool auto mechanics class than some western Kansas districts have in their entire graduating class. Exagerating to make a point. Consolidation needs to be a buzzword out west.
We need to be realistic. Rural life is declining everywhere, not just Kansas. It’s not a problem unique to Kansas, so maybe it’s just a natural change in our society. But there are areas of western Kansas growing rapidly–Garden City is a great example, huge growth in the past 10-15 years. Not too far in the future, they are going to have issues more similar to Topeka and Wichita than Colby or Great Bend. I have heard the argument that towns which might lose their school will die, but I’m not buying that at least in every situation. Consolidation has happened–rarely–in Kansas, and when it has the towns that lost their schools didn’t die. People adjust, and life goes on. It’s a little less convenient, but I don’t think people live in small town America because it’s convenient–the exact opposite is true it seems.
Anyway, long post, sorry. But let me say one more thing. Don’t feel Wichita is against Western Kansas. Most people here feel it is Johnson/Wyandotte/Shawnee against everyone else. I feel closer ties to Garden City than I do the bozos in Overland Park because at least you guys acknowledge the rest of the state exists. Now, with that being said, I’ll admit a lot of that is our own fault. Most of our legislators from around here can’t agree that the sky is blue. The Johnson/Wyandotte/Shawnee trifecta do a spectacular job at working together, to their credit…and at everyone else’s expense. The only way things can change is if Wichita metro reps can actually agree with eachother AND get on board with you fine folks. Until then, ultimately, we’re ALL screwed.
Why dont Univ. use some of the Millons coming in on NCAA sports to fix the roofs and leaky facuets
Steve
“But why is the state telling us the rural issues are more important by dishing out more money per student to rural districts?”
First off, there are, as of last session, more lawmakers from urban areas than from rural areas. I hardly think that anyone is saying rural issues are more important than urban. :)
Second, as to why rural gets more per person than urban, I honestly dont know, but I thought I read somewhere it was to compensate for the extra costs per person.
I agree with you on the following:
“ALL districts in this state need more money, but they ALL need to look at how they use this money as well.”
And this…
“I think rural schools need to address how they are going to deal with declining enrollments.”
But this?
“Consolidation needs to be a buzzword out west.” How about combining administration and consolidation in urban areas too? It is actually easier there due to economies of scale and fewer miles to cover.
“We need to be realistic. Rural life is declining everywhere, not just Kansas”
Steve, populaton is declining, not rural life. :) That is an important distinction to me.
“I have heard the argument that towns which might lose their school will die, but I’m not buying that at least in every situation. Consolidation has happened–rarely–in Kansas, and when it has the towns that lost their schools didn’t die.”
Rarely since 1966 Steve, but that was the big one. And yes, almost all the towns that lost their schools in that round did die, unless they were near a more urban area.
But I think we may not have the same definition of “die”. They are still listed on the map but… is Arnold dead? McCracken? Palco? Collyer? Selden? Yes, by any measure, even though they may still have their post office. Those are just a few, and the list could go on.
I agree that people dont live out here for convenience. But you cant put a kid on a bus for two hours to Colby or one hour for Hays, or three hours to Salina. Well, hehe, you can, but the parents, as I said, will likely home school or move unless there is some compelling reason to stay. More population bleeding.
Southwest kansas is currently the fastest growing regional economy in the state (after joco!) but it grows on the back of irrigation, and that is not going to last much longer. The packing plants and feedlots use LOTS of water and depend on irrigated corn and feed.
Given the water situation down there, the nations newfound will to crack down on illegal immigrants, and the industries that depend on both water AND illegal labor…we have another looming fiscal crisis for ks, and the SCHOOL portion of it is the small cost!
Steve, you and I may agree on another thing. Unless the state comes up with an innovative solution that no other plains state has tried….
and unless there is some unforseen end to the demographic and economic trends out here….
and unless we get ten years of “hundred year” rains in a row…
It doesnt take a genius to figure out that YOU ALL will pay the price during the end game of the great american desert.
THAT is why I am raising the issue of shutdown costs. ALL of them. Because it is coming without a significan course correction for the state.
If, in eastern ks, the realization is dawning that, as the great Meatloaf said “there aint no coup de ville hiding at the bottom of the cracker jack box”…
Dont you think we all ought to be planning for that future?
Steve, I like your posts.
Joe Aistrup, the head of political science at k-state does a GREAT presentation of some research he has done about rural communities and population trends, nationwide and in ks.
Essentially he says that ks has a few population centers, and whether or not a small town lives or dies depends on two things:
How closely they are located to one of these population centers,
and second,
How well that center performs as an economic growth engine.
The only two population centers that dont do their job, as it were?
Hays and Colby.
All other communites that were regional centers generated growth in their outlying areas. Those two sucked the area economies dry.
Joe did his research nationally to verify, and he found essentially the same trends nationwide. Survival for rural communities depends on how close they are to a “good” population center. “bad” population centers suck the life out of their neigbors.
The judgement words of good and bad are mine, not joe’s. :)
I wish I had a link because it is something everyone in ks should read.
Here’s a link to a Joe Aistrup story in the Winfield Courier:
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w060114/Fri1.html
Aistrup is explaining the benefits Winfield and Cowley Co have had due to partnerships with Wichita. Aistrup is a Winfield native.
His approach kind of reminds me of a newfound interest I have – Social Network Analysis. This latter technology is finding applications in things as diverse as tracking terrorists to team building in businesses.
Thanks DD. Joe and I frequently disagree (go figure) but he is brilliant.
The Center for Rural Development people are applying social network analyis to rural development. Same with entrepreneur support systems at the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship.
Kaufman Foundation is doing some good stuff along those lines as well. But you probably already knew that :)
Brilliant people. They have some approaches that would work but the ks dept of commerce is WAY overinvested in the Siroli stuff to invest in Hometown Cometitiveness, which has a much better track record of success.
Damn I cant spell or type tonight!
“…as to why rural gets more per person than urban, I honestly dont know, but I thought I read somewhere it was to compensate for the extra costs per person.”
That’s exactly my point, farmgirl. Funding needs to be equal, and each district needs to figure out how to live within its means. If rural districts have higher costs, then they need to consolidate (where appropriate, I’ll give you that) and take other action to get these costs down. At the same time–don’t get me wrong–each district needs more funding.
“…almost all the towns that lost their schools in that round did die, unless they were near a more urban area.”
You’re probably right about the urban area. I was thinking of a consolidation in particular that happened pretty close to Wichita. But separating the decline of rural “life” and rural “population” misses the point, with all due respect. Did the towns you had in mind die just because they lost their school, or were they already in decline due to factors largely beyond our control (societal changes)? If the government should bail out rural “life” or “population”, a pretty good case needs to be made as to why. Are we simply trying to preserve this way of life because it is nostalgic, or does it serve a purpose for national security? Does it stabilize our society? Does is sustain our economy?
Farmgirl, BTW, really appreciate your posts and I truly respect your points of view. Its good to have people on these blogs who give and take, back up what they say with facts, don’t just assume they know everything, and don’t form opinions based on presuppositions and assumptions.
Steve, ditto on your posts. Sorry for the ramble hereafter. I have contemplated writing a book about this, but cant seem to organize my thoughts. So, since I think we are the only ones reading here, thanks for letting me ramble.
No, I dont think the government should artificially support any lifestyle, rural or otherwise. I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. :) Otherwise known as a freemarket liberal. :):) (two smiles there.)
I dont think we necessarily disagree on this point, but SOMEONE needs to be looking at what the consequenses are of the end game out here. I’m not asking for handouts, just a reality check that there are costs to the entire state for doing nothing.
I say let the market work and quit fighting it. Work WITH the market and trends for a change. The Center for Rural Development says small towns MUST make themselves an “attractive choice” for both business and residents.
The “attractive choice” is where rural areas fail. They just whine about the good old days, and dont ask themselves what could be done to get people to choose them. And there are things that make these towns attractive choices to outsiders.
Problem? The “insiders” or people who live there, dont value what the people they are trying to recruit value. Long discussion here, but the locals have no clue what would make their town an attractive choice for NEW people. For example, they cry about taxes, but sometimes, whether or not a town has a good coffee shop is more important to potential new residents, like urban telecommuters, than the property taxes.
The locals just do what THEY want and not what the market wants. They wont hire someone to do development who actually knows something about the “outside world” as THEY say here. They hire somebody’s wife for a part time job, send her to meetings, print brochures, and call it economic development.
They dont market themselves to people, just to a mythical pool of businesses they think are just ITCHIN’ to relocate, and they think all they have to do is have a brochure and those “businesses” will come flocking.
Yeah. That is how e.d. was done in the god damn SIXTIES. How is that working for us in this century? So rather than doing something that actually works, they do the same failed things harder and faster.
Joe Aistrup also says that NO ONE will move to your town because you have a good football team, but many people will move to your town if you have great math scores in your schools.
We need to STOP doing what doesnt work. Like the state tossing a bone to rural areas and pissing away huge amounts of money on rural economic development that will realistically never happen.
Maybe they should take the money these little counties spend on attracting industry (when’s the last time THAT worked?) and use it to subsidize their own school districts. That could be an option available to rural areas as well as joco.
If rural towns really want to survive, spending e.d. money on schools is a WAY better strategy than printing up a brochure for some hypothetical tourist who never shows up. Or getting a grant to put a sign on a pasture that says “industrial park”. heheheh.
I agree that the costs per pupil should be reasonably equal. Some consolidation is needed in many districts, but I am not sure that even if you wiped out redundancy and subsidy of rural districs, it would really result in significant revenue for the urban districts.
As noted before, I grow weary of doing research, (maybe you do too!) but I would like to know the total amount of “subsidy” or extra money per pupil that rural students get. Then I would like to know how much that would add to the urban districts budgets. I bet it isnt a significant amount even divided among the smaller pool of at risk students.
I know the info is available, I’m just lazy today.
Thanks for indulging me Steve. I like to hear what you think when you have time.
Forgot to post links. These are not my original ideas. Rebecca Ryan is a genius as far as I’m concerned.
http://www.nextgenerationconsulting.com/ngc_solutions/hotjobs-coolcommunities/
So is Richard Florida (Rise of the Creative Class), and Peter Senge and Betty Flowers (Presence. Combine those reads with the Hometown Competitiveness program from the Center for Rural Development, and there is a possible winning formula for rural ks.
There is no cut and paste model that is fully formed and ready for plug and play. But by culling the best thought and research and combining it with stategic (read non-political) implementation and rigorous evaluation and continuous improvement, we might have a chance to thrive, not just maybe survive.
If we keep doing what doesnt work?
Road kill.