With great attention being focused these days on the Kansas educational system, how to raise millions of dollars to augment what state legislators already have appropriated and how to determine what is a “suitable” education, perhaps it is time to think about some other far-reaching and challenging questions facing Kansas.

State lawmakers are in Topeka for a rare special session trying to figure out how to meet a Kansas Supreme Court order to increase funding for K-12 schools by $143 million.

There’s no easy answer or any answer that doesn’t carry with it some interesting or complicating side issues.

The reason for bringing up the school funding matter is to suggest it might be the right time, if not past time, for state leaders to take a close look at many state policies, practices, boundaries, etc., that were designed or written into law many years ago. Unfortunately, many of these do not meet today’s needs or circumstances. Times change, conditions change, and the state has changed in so many ways. Might it make sense to review these years-old ideas, policies and practices and bring Kansas up to date?

Why not have a blue-ribbon group of true leaders, lawmakers, judges and politicians take a hard look at Kansas and make suggestions about how to create a state blueprint that better meets today’s needs and challenges.

Doesn’t it make sense to try to have a state where policies related to boundary lines, school districts, taxing matters, transportation, education, water conservation, etc., have been updated to meet the conditions of the 21st Century?

Granted, there are a tremendous number of challenges to such a task, but why not have Kansas be a first? Why not have Kansas get its state up to date, rather than operating on blueprints and visions created years ago?

Take a piece of dirt 400 miles by 200 miles, in the middle of the nation. Bordering this piece of real estate are Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma. After 144 years of statehood, we know our position in the country, our strengths and weaknesses, our competition from other states and many of the challenges ahead. We have far greater appreciation today of the importance of fresh water, protecting the environment, achieving excellence in education and developing a healthy, diverse work force. We also know the costs of running a government, paying for a sound education system, building large reservoirs to store fresh water and many other matters that are vital to the state’s future growth.

It may sound impossible or like a dream, but why can’t a state take a look at itself and have the vision and courage to investigate the possibility of updating its operation? Old houses are renovated, new models of almost everything constantly are introduced to the public. Why not consider a remodeling job for the state?

Granted, state legislators and the courts make changes or modifications all the time, and city bodies are constantly making changes or designing new planning guidelines to help communities meet the needs of tomorrow.

But how about a truly giant remodeling job for the state? Just because no other state has done it isn’t a valid excuse not to give it a serious thought. Why couldn’t Kansas be the first and provide a model for the entire country?

¢ For years, Kansas University anthropology professor Felix Moos has been calling for greater emphasis on world affairs at KU. He has tried to stress the importance of foreign language and for students to learn the history, culture, religion and politics of other parts of the world so that today’s university graduates are well prepared to meet international competition.

The lack of such skills has been painfully apparent in this country’s failure to be on top of developing political and economic situations around the world. It also is reflected in the tragic and embarrassing inability of so many of this nation’s military and intelligence personnel to speak or understand many of the world’s major languages such as Arabic and Chinese.

Some at KU have been critical of Moos, but this probably is largely a case of envy, jealousy, egos and turf wars. Anthropologists around the world have entered the debate on a plan fashioned by Moos and Sen. Pat Roberts to boost the nation’s intelligence efforts by giving added support to the training of college students in foreign languages and cultures.

It is becoming increasingly clear that more and more of our senior politicians and military officials have come to the realization that something must be done to improve language training.

Last week, a headline in one of our nation’s major newspapers said, “Terror war still short on linguists,” and reported that increasing number of senators are calling attention to the need for greater focus on teaching foreign languages.

Senators such as Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Thad Cochran of MIssissippi and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii want to start a National Foreign Language Coordination Council. Dodd pointed out, “despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred is only 1 percent of all degrees.” He cited a Pentagon report that noted, “Conflicts against enemies speaking less-commonly-taught languages and thus, the need for foreign language capability will not abate.”

Moos has been right on target for years in trying to focus more attention on foreign languages if this country is to be better prepared to meet the growing economic competition from countries such as China and to have individuals skilled and knowledgeable about the cultures, politics and history of other parts of the world.

His critics may enjoy finding fault with his vision, but, inwardly, they probably acknowledge he is right.

Why can’t KU be a national leader in the effort rather than have so many on Mount Oread defending their current efforts?