Budget provision would block state funding for Common Core standards

You know google is your friend. It would have taken about ten seconds to find out that states must adopt "standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and compete in the global economy". Notice nowhere was Common Core referenced. Kansas did implement CCSS in October of 2010. Kansas did not receive any RTTT money. I would kindly suggest you read more.

May 18, 2013 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Budget provision would block state funding for Common Core standards

You really need to get non-biased information about the common core standards. Each state may add up to 15% of additional standards if they feel they need additional standards. Kansas was making recommendations along the way to the standards writing group of what they wanted to see added to the documents. In each case, these suggestions were incorporated. Kansas saw no need to add additional standards.

When you compare these standards to the state's previous standards, I think you will find an emphasis on reasoning, problem solving, and communication (both in math and english). The old standards emphasis was more placed on fact recall. If you think these standards are going to somehow lower the academic achievement of the students in Lawrence, then you must be reading a different set of standards than I have.

May 17, 2013 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Budget provision would block state funding for Common Core standards

And yet, all that you have written has is not relevant to Common Core State Standards. These are not Federal Government standards. No matter how some people wish it, these standards were developed by a coalition of states. The attempt to not allow schools to spend their money as they see fit it the EXACT same issue as the Federal government not allowing states to spend their money as they see fit. Either we have local control of education in this state or we do not. This bill should not pass constitutional muster.

May 17, 2013 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Sound Off: Teacher contracts

The vast majority of schools do not have "middle management". The creation of these non-teaching jobs could add a significant cost to K-12 education. The alternative that has been presented by our elected officials has been to offer non-negotiated contracts. I have never been able to understand how a bill could be presented that would allow a district to opt out of negotiating with anyone (even an individual). Of course, once you see the qualifications of the House chair of the education commiteee . . .

April 7, 2013 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Sweeping abortion bill approved by Kansas House committee

Is going through an abortion not a consequence?

March 7, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Local government employees racked up more than $3 million in overtime in 2012

Please reread what you wrote. I would argue (successfylly I hope) that every private sector employee is indeed paid by taxpayer money.

Now, before you blow a gasket, remember you did not say tax money. You said taxpayer money. If you do not see the difference, then please remember that the private employee is paid by their employer whose income is generated through selling goods or services. Now who do you think buys those goods or services? Could it be "taxpayers", which I would argue every adult either pays directly or indirectly.

Of course, I understand what you are saying and agree with it. But as one of those "leeches" on society who is paid through tax money, it does rub me the wrong way when people use taxpayer money (which is essentially all money in circulation) instead of tax money.

February 24, 2013 at 7:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Statehouse Live: Committee chairwoman says business-backed, anti-union bill needs more study

So if my "donation" is periodic (automatic deduction from my bank account), that money cannot be used to political activities? Does periodic mean annually (which to a math teacher it does)? If it does mean annually, what if I "donate" different amounts each year? Is that still periodic?

Do you see why people (rational ones that is) might think this bill is a poorly worded bill and have reservations about it?

Alas, at least I will still be able to join my local golf course with a periodic payroll deduction.

February 6, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Statehouse Live: Committee chairwoman says business-backed, anti-union bill needs more study

Please read my reply to Dave below, what is your opinion of how Section 2 (which allows "professional organizations" to collect payment for political activities) work with Section 3 (which does not allow political activities from "public employee organizations").

February 6, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Statehouse Live: Committee chairwoman says business-backed, anti-union bill needs more study

I would have no problem changing this policy if I could not also have a payroll deduction to pay for my membership to my muni golf course. Doesn't that take the same amount of effort, time and money for my employer to organize and enact? Why the pettiness, why not a ban on all payroll deductions? Why state interference in an local issue?

But, this is a moot point. The real purpose of this bill in Page 3 line 22. The payroll deduction is a distraction.

So Dave what is your interpetation of Section 3 Part D Paragraph 1 and 2?

February 6, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Statehouse Live: Opponents of anti-union bill say it could shut down nearly all union political speech

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013...

Here is the link to back up KSmanimal's statements. Reading is a wonderful thing to be able to do. Thank the teacher that taught you.

February 5, 2013 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )