State of Kansas Finances

[shocker3]

I don't have time to properly digest this, so tell me if I got it right ...

Legislators work about 5 years (on average), investing $5400/yr × 5 yrs = $27,000 in order to receive a lifetime pension that would normally be granted to someone making about $90,000/yr?

If a legislator worked for 5 years, when they turned 65 they would receive a pension of $7875 per year. ($90,000*(.0175*8)). That would be the same pension that a regular state employee who worked for 5 years making $90,000 per year would get.

The pension is figured by taking the years of service (5) x the pension mulitplier (1.75% for all state workers) x the average salary for the 4 highest paid years of work (Approx. $90,000 for legislators).

It is possible for all state employees including legislators to get a reduced benefit starting at age 55.

[shocker3]

Where in the Kansas Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court gets to dictate school funding levels? Hint: it doesn't.

If the legislature passed a bill calling for K-12 tuition, the Supreme Court could say "no, that's unconstitutional".
If the legislature passed a bill calling for the abandonment of state funding, leaving it all up to local government, the Supreme Court could say "no, that's unconstitutional".

Deciding whether to spend $12,000 or $13,000 per student is not for the Supreme Court to say. That is clearly the Legislature's job. They decide, and if voters don't like their decision, voters can vote them out of office.

I actually favor increases to certain areas of education, such as teacher pay, but it is lawlessness when one branch takes on power that isn't theirs. The Supreme Court has no right to take this role on itself, and it is disturbing when people allow abuses of power simply because the abuse aligns with their political goals.

The courts aren't determining the amount that should be spent, they are determining whether the amount the legislature is currently spending for education is equitable and/or adequate. So far in the current school finance case, they have only ruled that the distribution is not equitable, they have not ruled on adequacy yet.

But in the previous rulings on adequacy in 1992 and around 2005, the court used the studies commissioned by the legislature to determine if they were meeting the adequacy test. In the late 1980s the legislature paid a company called Augenblick and Myer to determine how much the State should be spending on schools. The study came back and said the state needed to greatly increase school spending. The legislature ignored its own study. Schools went to court, the court ruled based on the legislative study that the legislature needed to spend more.

Move ahead to around 2005. The same thing happened again. This time the legislature directed its own Post Audit division to determine how much the state should be spending on schools. Post Audit came back and said the state needed to spend a lot more on schools. The Wichita school district came out particularly well in the post audit study. Again the legislature ignored its own study and again the courts ruled against them.

The courts rule based on the evidence presented to them. So far they have used the legislature's own studies that say they are not spending enough on schools to make their determinations. They are not pulling numbers out of the air.

[Aargh]

The current Supreme Court ruling on school finance does not address amounts being funded. It only addresses whether those amounts are being provided on an equitable basis so that all K-12 students have about the same educational resources. That is a requirement in the State Constitution and it is appropriate for that to be a reviewed by the Supreme Court if there are questions regarding equitable distribution of state funds by the legislature.

It is not the Supreme Court that is forcing an increase in spending on schools by the legislature. It is some Johnson County legislators who are refusing to budge one penny on funding for Johnson County school districts. That is the main district receiving excess funds under equity.

Since the Johnson County legislators are refusing to let the State reduce funding to their schools, the State has to increase funding to other schools to match the excess funding that Johnson County is getting. It is not the Supreme Court demanding that more money be spent, it is some Johnson County legislators who are forcing the increased spending and claiming it's the Supreme Court's fault. Some of the most conservative, anti-tax, cut spending legislators are refusing to cut state spending in their district, even when it's determined their district is being excessively funded.

When the bill comes due for the tax policies currently in place, it will be brutal. We're going to have to put the money back into KDOT or we're going to have a lot of closed roads and bridges. We're going to have to pay back the billion dollars Brownback and the legislature have borrowed and spent.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The current Supreme Court ruling on school finance does not address amounts being funded. It only addresses whether those amounts are being provided on an equitable basis so that all K-12 students have about the same educational resources. That is a requirement in the State Constitution

No, it's not.

I'm not necessarily arguing that equitable is a bad idea, but you will not find "equity" or "equitable" in the Kansas Constitution. It's just not there.

The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state. No tuition shall be charged for attendance at any public school to pupils required by law to attend such school, except such fees or supplemental charges as may be authorized by law. The legislature may authorize the state board of regents to establish tuition, fees and charges at institutions under its supervision.

I'd be happy if they amended section 6b to add more detail, but the current text does not give the Supreme Court authority to declare equality between districts a requirement. All it says it that the legislature shall ensure education is in place for K-12 across the state tuition free. I'd even be open to arguments that the Supreme Court has authority, based on the current text, to declare poor districts "insufficiently funded" and "not fully suitable for the educational interests of the state", although I personally still think that is the legislature's job to determine, and then the voter's job to ultimately decide. Like I said before, the Supreme Court is there to enforce what the text actually says, such as to enforce that tuition is not charged. Courts all across this country are too eager to overstep their bounds.

The State Constitution simply does not say districts have to be equal. If poor districts have enough to get by, and richer districts raise extra on their own, and therefore have more, nothing in the Constitution says that has to be remedied.

Words have meaning. It takes a very twisted and wishful view of section 6b to find the concept of "equitable" anywhere in that text, regardless of how much one might want it to be there. THAT is my problem with what the Supreme Court is doing.

[shockmonster]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-martin/kansas-school-funding_b_6481840.htmlJ

JH4P

Here is a blog for you to argue with regarding this issue.

[RoyalShock]

I may be off base here (and I know little of the state Constitution besides what has been presented in this topic), but the issue, as it appears to me, is in the ambiguity of the Kansas Constitution. It says "suitable provision", without giving an explanation, nor defining a standard for what is "suitable". The courts then have to decide what constitutes a suitable provision, which it seems they have done. If the legislature wants that responsibility, then they should either go through the amendment process, or draft legislation that will meet the current court's standard.

[shockmonster]

I may be off base here (and I know little of the state Constitution besides what has been presented in this topic), but the issue, as it appears to me, is in the ambiguity of the Kansas Constitution. It says "suitable provision", without giving an explanation, nor defining a standard for what is "suitable". The courts then have to decide what constitutes a suitable provision, which it seems they have done. If the legislature wants that responsibility, then they should either go through the amendment process, or draft legislation that will meet the current court's standard.

The state legislature is their own worst enemy. Their very own last study stated that it takes more funding to educate impoverished children. Then they revert to block funding that favors children in Johnson County.v Leader Merrick is one smart dude.

[WuDrWu]

Why can any child under the age of 18 go to Coleman Middle School and have a free breakfast and lunch during the summer? ANY CHILD. During the summer.

Are children being more effectively educated today as compared to 10-30 years ago when there far fewer management staff within the schools?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Thanks for the link @shockmonster.

From the blog.

The courts of Kansas, including its Supreme Court, have held that the obligation to “make suitable provision” means that funding must be both adequate and equitable

This is my frustration. The courts have added equitable, something not actually in the Constitution. The courts have overstepped their bounds.

Reasonable people may disagree with what constitutes adequate funding for education. But in the state that gave rise to Brown v. Board of Education, it is difficult to imagine anyone today seriously defending inequitable education. And to argue that the courts have no business judging the issue is to ignore the obligations imposed by the Constitution of Kansas, and to exhibit ignorance regarding the fundamental role of an independent judiciary in a constitutional democracy.

That's a silly comparison. Brown v BOE established that you can't make educational decisions about a child based on his/her race. If I live in a certain neighborhood, I get to go to the nearby school, regardless of my skin color. Brown v BOE never promised that school districts will all be equal, just that race will never be used as a factor in who attends. It should be obvious that there will be inequalities between different people living in different places.

It is one thing to support giving poorer districts EXTRA money in order to help offset their lack of local funds. It is quite another to claim this EXTRA money is already somehow required of the State Legislature when such language is nowhere to be found. To merely declare it a requirement, and then threaten to shut down schools if the Legislature doesn't meet this demand, is a horrendous abuse of power.

The State of Kansas isn't giving poorer districts less state funding. They are merely refusing to give poorer districts ADDITIONAL funds to the EXTENT that the courts desire. Determining how much extra to give (if any at all) is not the court's business.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I may be off base here (and I know little of the state Constitution besides what has been presented in this topic), but the issue, as it appears to me, is in the ambiguity of the Kansas Constitution. It says "suitable provision", without giving an explanation, nor defining a standard for what is "suitable". The courts then have to decide what constitutes a suitable provision, which it seems they have done. If the legislature wants that responsibility, then they should either go through the amendment process, or draft legislation that will meet the current court's standard.

I partially agree that more specificity in the constitution would be a good thing, at times. People seemed to need things perfectly outlined or they will find ways to disagree on interpretation. However, the text of 6b is brief and is framed in the context of tuition. The standard for "suitable" is merely that schools are established tuition free. The constitution doesn't go into more detail because it is left to the Legislature to listen to the voters and determine the rest of the details from there. If voters want more school spending, fine. Less spending, fine. The Constitution doesn't get into those details, so it isn't the Court's job to inject their opinion either.

[KraRam]

Thank you all for having a good debate without all of the name calling. I have learned quite a bit.

[WSU and Reds Fan]

Why can any child under the age of 18 go to Coleman Middle School and have a free breakfast and lunch during the summer? ANY CHILD. During the summer.

Are children being more effectively educated today as compared to 10-30 years ago when there far fewer management staff within the schools?

I guess the other solution would be to let those kids go hungry and roam the streets while Mom is at work. I know that the reply is that the parents should be taking the responsibility to feed the kids, and this is correct.

But, why punish the Kids because of stupid parents.

I cannot answer as to whether kids are more effectively educated today than in the past, but in 2007 the amount spent per child was $12,155 which is $13,960 in today's dollar, and it is budgeted in 2016 for $11,969 which is 15% more efficient.

This amount is less than what we spend per prisoner. So are we as a society rewarding bad behavior?

[Aargh]

My mistake on the equitable thing. I thought it was in the Constitution, rather than a previous Court ruling.

But, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is meant by the Constitution. If the Supreme Court has previously ruled that "suitable" implies and, necessarily, includes "equitable", then "suitable" means "equitable. It's been decided. If that's not the intent of the legislature or the voters, then you amend the Constitution to correct the interpretation.

If I'm recalling my history (from life experience) correctly, part of the "equitable" concept came about from the repercussions of Brown. Schools in poorer neighborhoods had substantially less funding, substantially worse outcomes, and were, in some cases, not actually educating the students. To no one's surprise, those poorer neighborhoods were primarily populated by minorities."Separate but equal" hadn't worked because the poorer areas didn't have the resources to approach equality with wealthy districts.

I suspect that at least a portion of the basis of equitable funding was done to ensure that minorities had equal access to educational resources as those living in more affluent communities. If equitable funding is not enforced, then kids in Johnson County might have virtually unlimited K-12 resources, while kids in Galena sit in classrooms with their thermostats set at 62 degrees in January, and the schools can't afford to buy markers for the white boards in the classrooms. That's not a good formula for breaking cycles of poverty.

[WuDrWu]

I guess the other solution would be to let those kids go hungry and roam the streets while Mom is at work. I know that the reply is that the parents should be taking the responsibility to feed the kids, and this is correct.

But, why punish the Kids because of stupid parents.

Why does it have to be "go hungry and roam the streets"? That's the only other option? This kind of thinking is what's killing us.

I think you might have missed (some or all of) my point. ANY kid can go get 2 meals a day. ANY kid. My kid doesn't need it...but she can go get it. Is that the way it should be?

And who around Coleman is really going hungry? That's a pretty decent area. I doubt any 9 year old is walking from 21st and Grove to get lunch at Coleman. There's a little lower income housing across the way, but not much. And if mom is dropping off the kids in an SUV for a couple of squares, maybe there should be a little means testing going on?

I want to take care of the kids that need it. All but the craziest of people do (and they do a better job of it than libs) .....but that's not what's going on here.

And maybe, just maybe, if we asked a little more of the parents, they might step up? I know, that's just too much to ask.

I cannot answer as to whether kids are more effectively educated today than in the past, but in 2007 the amount spent per child was $12,155 which is $13,960 in today's dollar, and it is budgeted in 2016 for $11,969 which is 15% more efficient.

You do realize that I could send my kid to Collegiate for almost that amount? Certainly to any Catholic school, Trinity or Independent. Private schooling for $12,000. Class size would be about 2/3 or less on average.

We, as an American society, cater to and measure ourselves against the least common denominator, and that HAS to change. We pull down so many people it is frightening.

This amount is less than what we spend per prisoner. So are we as a society rewarding bad behavior?

I hope your question was rhetorical, but yes, WITHOUT QUESTION we are rewarding bad behavior ALL the time.

[shockmonster]

Why can any child under the age of 18 go to Coleman Middle School and have a free breakfast and lunch during the summer? ANY CHILD. During the summer.

Are children being more effectively educated today as compared to 10-30 years ago when there far fewer management staff within the schools?

I believe that the food/lunch program is a federal program and not a part of what was being discussed.

Additionally, if someone did the research, I believe that they would find out that the demographic at Coleman, Marshall, Hadley, Curtis, Meade, and Wilbur (for examples) has totally changed in the past 30 years. Now, those demographics are probably similar to Andover, Maize, Goddard, etc.