Wrong lesson
Online classes may be convenient, but what are they teaching students about the world?
A new online program certainly makes it easy for Lawrence high school students to retake classes they failed during the last school year.
Maybe a little too easy.
Instead of enrolling in traditional summer school, 130 local high school students will need to interact only with their computers to complete their “class” work. No troublesome one-on-one interaction with teachers will be required.
Students taking summer classes from the Lawrence Virtual School will simply load material onto their computers. All communication with teachers will be by e-mail unless a face-to-face meeting is requested.
This system is perfect for the students it serves, according to a teacher at the Virtual School because “For some of the kids the very reason why they’re here is because they can’t be at school.” But it doesn’t seem they are physically unable to come to school or even have some other commitment that prevents their attendance.
“They don’t like being in a classroom,” the teacher continued. “They don’t like having to be on time or within a certain time, so I think those kids will really flourish in this kind of program.”
Yes, but does this prepare them to flourish in life?
In life, particularly when they have jobs, people have to be present and on time. In most cases, they also need to interact, at least somewhat, with actual humans, not just computer screens.
The virtual summer school may help some students graduate. They may even learn something in their self-study program, but what are they losing out on?
The recent study conducted by the school district’s Administrative Task Force on Technical Education comes to mind. Local employers were asked whether they would like the school district to provide additional technical training to prepare students for the working world. What the employers said was that advanced technical training wasn’t nearly as important as producing students who would arrive at a job on time, with a positive attitude and an ability to solve problems.
Catering to students by offering school work with few deadlines, no attendance requirements and nothing but e-mail communication just doesn’t seem to address that need.
It’s ironic that in an age where we can instantly communicate around the world, we too often are bypassing the interpersonal skills that bond our societies together and keep the world running smoothly.
Virtual school? It has its place, especially for students with special needs, but it seems like a weak replacement for the interaction and discipline of a live classroom.
Listen up
If the Kansas Legislature didn't get the Kansas Supreme Court's message at the beginning of the session, it should be crystal clear now.
Apparently, in the eyes of the Kansas Supreme Court, the 2005 Kansas Legislature just didn’t get the message about school finance.
So, on Friday, the justices released a unanimous decision spelling out the details that legislators failed to grasp.
When we said to raise school funding, the justices said, we meant by more than the $142 million the Legislature approved this year. In fact we meant to increase funding by more than twice that amount. You apparently didn’t get that message, legislators, so now you can have a special session and figure out how to provide $285 million in additional school funding. And we need to have that done by July 1 so that local school districts have the money in time to plan their budgets for the next school year.
We also said we wanted additional funding to be distributed in an equitable way that didn’t favor districts with higher property valuations. On the contrary, we find that your plan to allow selected districts to use property taxes to raise their own local option budgets actually “exacerbates the wealth-based disparities between districts.” Therefore, the court is blocking that provision along with provisions to use cost-of-living weighting and “extraordinary declining enrollment” to determine funding.
Are you listening, legislators?
The ruling released Friday is a clear message from the Kansas Supreme Court. Its instructions to the state were to base funding for public schools on the actual costs of providing that education, not on political posturing. Because the only study the court has on record to determine those costs is the Augenblick and Myers report, that’s the only report the justices can use. That report said in 2002, that the state needed to boost education funding by $853 million (adjusted for inflation). The court determined that one-third of that amount was a reasonable increase to mandate for next year.
The Legislature has commissioned a new analysis of school costs by the Division of Legislative Post Audit to be ready by the start of the next session, but the court was unwilling to wait for that study. Further, the court said that if the post audit isn’t completed in a timely fashion or is legally determined not to be a valid cost study or if legislators fail to act on the new study’s findings, the court plans to order full funding (an additional $568 million) of the Augenblick and Myers study.
The mandate for action doesn’t get much clearer than that. Some observers probably will argue that the court is overstepping its authority by so specifically telling legislators what to do, but in the court’s view, when left to their own devices, legislators just didn’t do the job.
It will be interesting now to see how legislative leaders will respond to the court’s mandate. Facing a four-week deadline, lawmakers will have to decide quickly whether to defy the court or call a special session and raise the money. And if raising the money is the answer, they will have to decide what taxes to raise or what spending to cut.
In its ruling the court said “the compelling arguments of immediate need : remind us that we cannot continue to ask current Kansas students to ‘be patient.'” The Kansas Supreme Court clearly believes – as do many Kansans – that the time for patience is past and the time for action has arrived.
Too political?
Appointments to public boards are, by nature, somewhat political, but residents hope appointees come to their work without a predetermined agenda.
Saying something is “political” isn’t usually a compliment in today’s society. In fact, it tends to raise the specter of red-blue philosophical divisions that have been squeezing out collegial statesmanship at all levels of American government.
The “politics” card was played here last week, after Lawrence Mayor Boog Highberger announced his appointment to the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission. A former mayor, Ernie Angino, had completed one term on the planning board and was eligible and willing to serve a second. Although such reappointments have been considered somewhat traditional, Highberger decided to “make his mark” on the Planning Commission by replacing Angino with Lisa Harris, a publications editor with the KU Transportation Center who also has a planning background.
There are no set qualifications for planning commissioners and there’s no reason to think Harris won’t serve that body well, but Highberger’s decision drew a somewhat pointed response from Angino:
“I think the Planning Commission has become a tool of the City Commission : My views are not in line with their desire to have a rubber-stamp board.”
It also raised questions by other Lawrence residents about whether the Planning Commission was becoming too political, too easily swayed by the political agendas of those making the appointments – the current mayor and County Commission chairman.
After making the appointment, Highberger said, “The Planning Commission is one of the few areas that the mayor has his opportunity to make his mark, and I felt like I wanted to take advantage of that.” Was he trying to sway the planning body with his appointment? Maybe. If so he surely wouldn’t have been the first to do so.
On the other hand, it’s hard for any single mayor or County Commission chairman to have a huge impact on the Planning Commission. This likely is the only appointment Highberger will make to that body. It’s also interesting that, although the Planning Commission is viewed as an extremely powerful public board, almost all of its decisions are only recommendations to the city or county commissions. That’s where the politics really come into play.
One of Angino’s strengths as a planning commissioner was his willingness to speak his mind and raise issues. We would like to think that everyone who serves in both appointed and elected positions in local government would have the ability and courage to exercise his or her independence and examine issues with an open mind. Angino served with distinction as a city commissioner and mayor and did his homework on all issues that came before him on the City Commission as well as the Planning Commission.
When people talk about the Planning Commission becoming too political, they probably really are concerned that too many of its members are coming to the board with a predetermined agenda or approach to planning issues. We want people who are committed to listening to all sides and making decisions that benefit the city and county as a whole. In the polarized climate that has invaded our federal government, as well as our state Legislature, we worry about losing the deliberation and judgment of the people in the middle.
Is the Planning Commission too political? It’s natural for mayors and commission chairmen to appoint people they trust and respect as individuals to various public boards. Let’s just hope they also choose to appoint people who are smart, independent and evenhanded, and not beholden to a predetermined agenda.
On the front
Women in combat? It's hard to know where the front lines are anymore, and women can handle most jobs quite well.
The editorial page cartoon in a recent issue of USA Today speaks volumes about the perils and caprices of modern warfare, particularly the American involvement in Iraq.
One helmeted soldier is saying to another: “Congress wants women off the front lines.” Responds his comrade: “Where are the front lines?”
In most past conflicts, there have been “fronts” and more protected areas “to the rear.” In many instances, fewer than 10 percent of the men and women in the armed forces might have seen actual combat. The others in the ranks provided support in various ways.
That all has changed with the terrorist operations in areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan. There is almost 100 percent involvement now. “The front” can turn out to be the devastated offices of headquarters, living areas for various troops, police stations, training sites or the main street of what seems to be a secure city. Anyone who might be in a given area can become a target in a hurry because of “insurgent” activity where life – theirs or ours – is considered the least valuable commodity. Terrorists willing to commit suicide to achieve some alleged goal know no boundaries and the casualty rates for both men and women show that.
Traditionalists contend that despite all the changes in recent decades, the American public is not prepared for women in combat. Yet some 35 women have died in action and many others have been injured in the Middle East while serving in many capacities, such as vehicle repair and operation, transportation and medical service. They can be given key roles and have responded well to their assignments. As war is now conducted, there is no hiding place from “the front.” Congress in deciding this issue needs to consider that carefully.
Women willing to train and perform their duties in the armed services have the right to take part in whatever operations are needed. They accept these challenges and want to be allowed to carry them out.
Old-style tactics such as trench warfare and head-on charges have been knocked out of most military lexicons and skill, experience, intelligence and flexibility have become the new watchwords.
As the cartoon soldier asks: “Where are the front lines?” Those who willingly train and prepare to operate in such a theater, male or female, deserve every chance to do their job.
Recipe for disaster
Inaction could spell doom for many areas of rural Kansas.
A group of economists at Kansas University recently had many interesting insights on the plight of rural Kansas.
But none was more interesting than an observation made in the Journal-World last Sunday by Peter Orazem, a Koch visiting professor of business economics at KU.
The statement about rural Kansas was simple: “Business as usual is a recipe for disaster.”
It is an interesting thought because it brings up the question of what is business as usual when it comes to reviving rural Kansas? What is the state’s strategy for pumping new life back into western Kansas?
The state’s strategy largely seems to be lots of talk but little action. That may seem harsh but consider this: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and her two predecessors all have commissioned special reports on the downfall of rural Kansas. That’s nearly a 15-year period where the issue has been studied, but how much has really improved in that time?
Many of the large issues that could pump new life into the region are still surrounded by more questions than answers. Issues like: whether we’re truly going to be serious about developing wind energy – and the needed electric transmission lines to make it feasible – in the region; what new crops the state may promote to deal with the decreasing water levels in the Ogallala Aquifer; what untapped industries exist that would find the area’s wide open spaces and low density population attractive; and what, if any role, does school or county consolidation play in revitalization?
In fairness, you will find programs that attempt to address the issue. The Kansas Department of Commerce has several – ranging from agritourism grant programs to efforts to create new economic development organizations for rural parts of the state. Many individual communities also have become aggressive with land give-away programs to attract new residents.
But the depopulation of Western Kansas is a stark problem that demands bolder solutions. Residents of the state’s many fine small towns need to continue to work hard to grow their communities, but this is a problem calling out for a comprehensive, statewide effort.
Of course, saying we’re going to make it a priority is the easy part. Spending the money to make it so will be the difficult task. It will require a champion – the governor, the speaker of the house, a U.S. senator – who has power and a bully pulpit to get the entire state to understand what is at stake.
And make no mistake, the stakes are high for all of us. In the long run, eastern Kansas residents have much to lose by a continuing population decline in western Kansas.
In addition to losing a valuable part of our agricultural heritage, the state will be put in a position of providing services – everything from roads to social services – for a minuscule population that makes an even more minuscule contribution to our tax base. If Kansas hopes to be competitive on a national level, it can not afford to be so inefficient.
It is an expensive problem that will become more expensive if the state doesn’t soon replace talk with action. It has been said that talk is cheap. In this case it certainly isn’t. Good, hard-working Kansans who watch their small communities shrink on a daily basis, can attest that talk without action is costing them dearly.
Medicaid catch
Faced with escalating Medicaid costs, state officials should be focusing on how to provide at-home care, often at a lower cost, for people who otherwise will end up in nursing homes.
There’s just something wrong with a system that will pay for a person’s nursing home care but is unwilling to pay the same, or usually less, to allow that person to maintain a more independent lifestyle outside of a nursing home.
That’s the situation with the Medicaid system, which is funded jointly at the state and federal levels. Mandates protect some Medicaid payments, including those for nursing homes, hospitals and doctors, but there is no such protection for in-home services for people who are elderly or have disabilities. Even though the in-home care often would be less expensive, reduced payments for in-home services may force more people into nursing homes.
It’s understandable that state officials are concerned about recent increases in Medicaid budgets. In Kansas, Medicaid payments account for about one-fourth of the state budget. Increases of 8 percent to 12 percent have been common in recent years. These expenditures are eating into state funds that could be spent in other areas.
Rather than attacking and trying to change the policies or trends that have created the Medicaid beast, however, at least some state legislators are taking aim at Medicaid recipients. State Rep. Barbara Landwehr, R-Wichita, chairs the Kansas House subcommittee that oversees welfare spending. She told the Journal-World last week that some Medicaid waivers are “out of control.”
“We’ve got people who are being paid to help an elderly person buy groceries even though that person has a son or a daughter living in town who are perfectly capable of doing it,” she continued. She also cited situations where senior citizens are being counseled to spend down their assets – including such unwarranted moves as purchasing a new car – in order to qualify for Medicaid.
Aging officials dispute that such cases exist and say they are unable to offer assistance to truly needy people because Medicaid funds aren’t available. Certainly, the state should be vigilant about Medicaid fraud and people who are taking advantage of the system, but it would be wrong to make too many assumptions about, for instance, an elderly person’s ability to rely on children – even children who live in the same town – to provide essential support. Every family and every situation is different.
Rather than assuming that fraud and people trying to get around the system are causing the Medicaid problem, perhaps officials should consider the effects of rapidly rising medical costs. More and more people are unable to afford care, prescription drugs or the insurance that would help defray those costs.
Providing care to those people is an expensive business and state officials are right to be concerned. But if the main focus is to lower costs, why would the government be willing to pay for nursing home care but not spend less money to allow a person to live independently?
It just doesn’t make sense.
Notable response
Kansas University sources have been quick to tout the quality of the school's existing foreign language programs.
Several recent letters to the Journal-World’s Public Forum have responded to the May 14 Saturday Column calling for Kansas University officials to place more emphasis on foreign language instruction. The letter writers, all university faculty members, have defended the university’s offerings, with one writer suggesting KU already was one of the nation’s leaders in this area.
This is debatable, but if indeed the school is doing a good job in offering languages and is a national leader in this field and, as some letter writers have said, is placing more emphasis on Chinese, Arabic and Russian, this is good news. Those in charge of languages at KU are to be congratulated.
However, it would be wrong for these language people to think they are meeting all the needs. In fact, it is just a start, particularly in some of the critical languages fields such as Arabic, Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese and a few of the more than 50 minority “ethnic” languages such as Uiqhur and Tibetan), Korean and Japanese. How many teachers does KU have in these fields? And how long have some positions been open?
Hopefully, the strong defensive response to the column concerning KU’s efforts in teaching foreign languages is a signal KU officials recognize the importance and reality of current world conditions, as well as future challenges, and that they are becoming more aware of the importance of giving KU students the best foreign language preparation to enter the highly competitive international environment.
However, as much as some KU officials may want to suggest this new interest in foreign languages originated within the KU campus, it should be acknowledged there has been at least a slight, if not a very strong, nudge urging this action by some off-campus interests.
But again, congratulations, and hopefully this is just a start on a major increase in the school’s foreign language focus.