See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
I do not want to answer questions to read a news article.
I agree. I subscribe to the print edition; I like to read online as well. The questions that I have to wade through to read the articles online are absurd.
Really? I LOVE the questions before an article. They are completely irrelevant and sometimes I like to lie in my answer in hopes that I'm skewing somebody's research/marketing project. In fact, after I answer the questions and the article that I was looking for pops up, I find myself wanting to answer another irrelevant question!
I haven't read a single google question, though I've given plenty of responses ... Anyone else with me on this tactic?
People who are uneducated or illiterate wind up being incarcerated at a much higher rate than those who are educated. The costs of keeping someone in prison are far higher than the costs of a basic education. Here's just one article: http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2010/11/18/75-of-inmates-are-illiterate-19-are-completely-illiterate-ruben-rosario/
I was trying to make the point that an educated populace is a productive populace. People who are uneducated are unemployable for the most part and have a greater tendency to use illegal drugs, participate in crime, and wind up in prison. Those who are educated tend to get jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to society. And, yes, the savings from not paying for incarceration are worth considering. What is it now per prisoner -- something like $60K per year?
There are a lot of factors that have contributed to the economy of today, including the Wall Street and Big Bank fiascoes over the years.
Curious statement: "To this point in time, more people are on government assistant than are working to fund the people on assistance."
Provide unbiased data to prove this assertion.
Otherwise you're part of the problem.
An educated population IS pro-growth and pro-business. Too bad the governor and those that make up the majority of the legislature didn't learn that lesson in school.
Just say NO!
Now there's a well-argued policy proposal. Next?
Heck, they should just add in another ten million and make it a nice round number.
To add a little more perspective that KSDE ignores, total taxpayer support of public education set a new record in 2012 at $5.771 billion and Dale Dennis says another new record was set in 2013 at an estimated $5.816 billion...or $12,738 per-pupil. If pressed, KSDE will admit that state funding of public education was $6,983 per-pupil in 2012. Details are at http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/School%20Finance/data_warehouse/total_expenditures/d0Stateexp.pdf. The 2013 data was sent to us via email by Dale Dennis and is summarized at http://www.kansaspolicy.org/ResearchCenters/Education/EducationDataWarehouse/d97240.aspx?type=view
The state has dramatically changed how schools are funded over the years...and in such manner that invalidates simple comparisons of Base State Aid. Data provided by KSDE in Open Record Requests is summarized at http://www.kansaspolicy.org/ResearchCenters/Education/EducationDataWarehouse/d93221.aspx?type=view and shows how funding has changed since 1998. KPERS and Bond & Interest are extracted and shown separately.
Schools always provided service for special education, bi-lingual, At Risk, etc. but funding for those services once were included in Base State Aid. In 1998, schools received $3,670 per-pupil in Base and $178 for everything else (plus KPERS and Bond). In 2012, schools received $3,780 in Base and $2,176 for everything else (plus KPERS and Bond). So not counting KPERS and Bond, state aid per-pupil increased 55%...from $3,848 to $5,956.
The State Board of Education and KSDE also ignore the fact that student achievement on independent national tests are relatively unchanged since 1998 despite billions more in funding. http://www.kansaspolicy.org/ResearchCenters/Education/EducationDataWarehouse/d93220.aspx?type=view Despite a real (inflation-adjusted) increase in per-pupil spending of 35%, test scores are unchanged. The same applies to ACT scores...virtually unchanged.
It costs a lot of money fund schools but it's how the money is spent that matters...not how much.
There's a reason he cites 1998 to now. He'll say it's as far back as his data goes, but the real reason is so he can ignore the big jump from the Montoy decision. Kansas was unconstitutionally underfunding schools in 1998.
So if you look at 2007 (the year after the Montoy decision took effect) and compare it to 2012, you'll see funding has decreased.
In 1980 we spent 3.5% of our income on public education. Right now we're spending 3.1% of our income on public education.
Percent of income spent on education is a meaningless statistic. It has nothing to do with the amount that's needed to be successful. Also, personal income includes a number of things that are not available to spend on anything. PI includes payroll taxes paid by your employer, pension and healthcare payments made by your employer to name a few. If those elements increase faster than the rate of increased spending on education, it artificially appears that the percentage of PI spent on education has gone down.
Percent of PI is a measurement used by those who prefer not talking about how much education spending has actually increased.
It also doesn't include any state taxes by your biggest donor, the Kochs. Or the taxes paid by your "social welfare" organizations, ALEC and KPI.
Ad hominem and a non-sequitur.
Do you believe it's an insult to have your biggest donor be the Kochs? Or do you believe it's an insult to be part of 501(c)(3) organizations that do not pay any taxes? Or do you believe it's irrelevant to any conversation to ask cui bono when a professional lobbyist shows up to the conversation?
Is it irrelevant to point out that you advocate primarily for the benefit of the rich corporate donors you represent with both ALEC and KPI and wish to engage in conversations about spending taxes your main donors and organizations presently do not pay?
Please clarify for us where the ad hominem and non-sequitur are to be found.
It's not surprising that your response was just more ad hominems and non sequiturs.
Ad hominem is ignoring the facts and attacking the messenger. Non sequitur is trying to divert attention from the facts (education spending in this case) to an unrelated topic.
Insults don't bother me; it's an unfortunate consequence of standing up for economic freedom. As you know, we don't discuss our donors and no one but our donors know who they are; please don't mistake my ignoring your claims about our donors to be any type of confirmation. No 501(c)(3) pays income taxes on its regular operations; that's why the IRS refers to 501C organizations as non-profit. And we do not "advocate primarily for the benefit of rich corporate donors." We advocate for all the economic and educational freedom of all citizens.
In other words, yes, you are part of a large, tax exempt lobbying group that advocates for radical libertarian policy changes and writes legislation that benefits your undisclosed corporate donors, including the Kochs. Thank you for disclosing your clear conflict of interest in this discussion. Now let's get to that discussion.
You've had this pointed out time and time again. 1998 was before the Montoy decision. Of course there was a jump between 1998 and 2012. The courts found that schools were underfunded, so a more adequate comparison of funding levels would be from 2007 to today.
You state that national testing rates remaining constant while funding goes up indicates that spending more money isn't helping. You don't know that to be the case. A propter hoc argument, speaking of fallacies. Spending less money could very well result in score slippage, and increased funding needs could be explained by increased federal or state mandates, such as those imposed by NCLB or the 2004 changes to IDEA. It's also worth noting that the independent test scores that have remained relatively steady show that our schools in Kansas are performing well nationally.
I wish it was only 3.5%. We're spending 70% of our state budget on public education. And we've learned that reading isn't expected until after the fourth grade.
You did know they teach reading in kindergarten now, right?
IMO....the only thing surprising about the board vote was that it wasn't 10-0. OKAY...maybe not...given the politics of the State of Kansas....Ken Willard (for example).
With that being said, I keep saying over and over again how I can't wait for the KS Supreme Court decision on the school funding. Given that two studies (I believe that is the case) have shown that the schools are underfunded...I see another decision (thinking it will happen early next year) in favor of the plantiff. Probably be unaminous again.
Can't wait for Brownback and Co. response! They are going to have a real mess (financially/politically) on their hands come early 2014.
Don't be so sure on that....
Like I said, the KS Supreme Court should have a decision around early 2014 (that's the estimated time for now). I think it is very, very likely (probably a 7-0 ruling) that the Court will remedy the case by making the Legislature increase funding. If the legislature refuses (initially)...the Courts will set a timetable to close the schools.
How far the battle goes....it's anyone's guess.
"“I would love to see us get to where we can spend this kind of money on schools, but I don't think we can do it in one fell swoop,” Republican board member Ken Willard of Hutchinson said. “I'm reluctant to vote for this because it represents a humongous tax increase.”
How in the world can it create a large tax increase? Where did the money go?
Woo-hoo! Man, you just can't make this stuff up.
Brownback and the legislature know damn well that the Court will rule against them. They don't care.
I predict that they will simply ignore the court order, setting the state for the worst constitutional crisis in Kansas since the Civil War.
Brownback and the GOP leaders are radical revolutionaries bent on destroying state government and privatizing as many functions as possible.
I'm still waiting for Dave Trabert and the Koch Brothers' libertarian, market-based solution for people with developmental disabilities and severe cognitive issues.
That $3852 is pretty misleading in many situations. The figure, with low-enrollment weighting, LOB and other source of revenue is closer to $10K in many districts.
...and that's just the portion counted as state aid. Total taxpayer support averaged $12,656 in 2012. Amounts for each district can be downloaded at http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/RevenuePerPupil/tabid/1270/Default.aspx
gee, Dave is quoting his own website -- here's the whois for kansasopengov.org
Created On:05-Mar-2009 20:34:58 UTC
Last Updated On:01-Mar-2012 15:59:05 UTC
Expiration Date:05-Mar-2014 20:34:58 UTC
Registrant Name:Dave Trabert
Registrant Street1:250 N. Water St.
Registrant Street2:Suite 216
Registrant Postal Code:67202
what a joke, but then the whole basket of ALEC, Kansas Policy Institute, Koch Brothers LLC -- all one group, quoting each other. Funny but dumb;
I wish Dave trabert and his ilk understood that nobody likes pays taxes. We all agree that as individuals, it would be better to keep our hard earned money. Unfortunately, we don't live in isolation from one another. We live in an interdependent society. A society that relies on taxes to provide services to its citizens that its citizens expect to have. Is there waste ,fraud and abuse? Probably, but that is hardly the point. We expect roads. We expect public education. We expect law enforcement. Humans are involved in providing these things and our governmental system was designed to be inefficient to limit governmental power. Low tax societies always end up like Afganistan, Mexico, and North Korea. Guess what? I don't want to live in Afganistan, Mexico or North Korea. If Dave finds their low tax, lower service, truly corrupt approaches more appealing, then perhaps he should live there instead of here. Food for thought.
I see that mr. Trabert has no quippy answer for my post. Maybe he's moved to north Korea...I don't think they have reliable Internet access there either...
I know it would be a truly unique idea, at least in the last 30 years, but how about we actually teach students? Not coddle, coax and cajole them, but teach them.
Either turn in your school work or fail. It's that simple. No having until the end of the quarter to turn in assignments from the first week.
How about we stop awarding students for simply breathing and actually reward success? If last place gets just as much recognition and praise as first place, what is the freaking point of competing in the first place?
If that requires more funding, and more buildings and more teachers, then by all means, jack my blasted taxes up. Just don't do it to defend stupid arse nonsense like thumbing your nose at the courts and refusing to do what is constitutionally required.
Mr. Dave is right. It's how the money is spent, but let me clue you, Mr. Dave. You can't pay 150 bucks in bills if you only have 75 in your pocket. Something has to give somewhere, and it comes in the form of fewer school and fewer teachers. Yes, there are federal programs that are throwing monkey wrenches around like their are made from Styrofoam, but why in the name of all that is good would you gleefully grab up a few truckloads of socket wrenches and start pitching them into the machinery? It's not going to help.
Look up the term sabotage. Find it's beginnings in modern speech. The only difference is no one is throwing a physical shoe. Yet.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·