Advertisement

pittstatebb

Follow

Comment history

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. ( | 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. ( | suggest removal )

Statehouse Live: Republican leaders considering constitutional change to thwart school finance ruling

The checks and balances come into rulings based upon the constitution as written. This is what has currently happened. No matter what semantics you use, the court cannot appropriate money. They have said that a certain amount of money needs to be appropriated to make the law in question constitutional. They have not appropriated money.

Now you could argue that by giving a dollar amount they have overstepped their reach. However, what would happen if they didn't give a dollar amount. How many times should be go through this cycle of lawsuit, ruling, change law, lawsuit, ruling, change law . . . Is it not better for the court to simply say, this is what you will have to do before we see this law as constitutional.

January 14, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Statehouse Live: Republican leaders considering constitutional change to thwart school finance ruling

The court can order the closure of the schools. They threatened this the last time around.

January 14, 2013 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Court: Kansas Legislature's level of funding for schools unconstitutional

What the court would do . . . close the schools. That is exactly what they have the constitutional authority to do.

Not every school district has plenty of money, or new buildings or upper level jobs. In fact most districts are small, rural districts. Most districts are not Lawrence or Blue Valley or Maize. Most districts look more like Chetopa or Washington or Scott City.

The problem we have with our funding system is that, after the Montoy decision, our land rich school districts (Prairie View, Holcomb, Burlington) were given money they really didn't need. Instead of rewriting the funding laws to give more money to the schools that needed it the most (land poor, high density poverty, etc) the legislature gave everyone more money.

January 11, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback, senators refused to help Topeka school district in grant application for federal funds

But . . . the reasoning given by Jon Hummel is invalid. These standards have already been adopted. Either Hummel is misquoted or completely misinformed.

Possibly he is refering to a study on which assessment platform to use (Smarter Balanced or ACT), but there is no way around the fact that CCSS have already been adopted in Kansas (Oct 2010).

The Federal govenment is going to require a NCLB test (whichever the state chooses). The cost of said test should have no weight upon whether the Governor will support a RTT grant application by USD 501. WE HAVE ALREADY ADOPTED THE STANDARDS AND HAVE TO GIVE A TEST.

Our Senators' reasoning that RTT grants come with too many strings attached (which they do) is suspect also because these same strings were the ones attached to the NCLB waiver that Kansas (as a state) voluntarily applied for and recieved. WE ARE ALREADY SUSPECT TO THESE SAME STRINGS AS A STATE AS A WHOLE.

Why do you think the superintendent wanted this article published? The reasoning she received from these 3 elected officials makes absolutely no sense. They would have been better off to just stick with the state's right arguement.

December 6, 2012 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback, senators refused to help Topeka school district in grant application for federal funds

That quote comes from commoncore.org, the link I mistakenly placed in my reply above (now since corrected). I will not blame centerville for using it, it just does not really have any relevance to the topic at hand.

I still would like centerville to explain why he belives common core standards are worthless.

December 6, 2012 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback, senators refused to help Topeka school district in grant application for federal funds

Some facts to add to this discussion that seemed to have been left out.

1) The CCSS were adopted by KSDE in Oct of 2010. Either Jon Hummell is misinformed or he was misquoted by Scott Rothschild.

2) The RTT grants does not coerce states to use something that they have already voluntarily adopted.

3) The CCSS were initiated by the National Governor's Association (of which Sam Brownback is now a member). They do not keep local districts from using more rigorous standards, they simply say you will be held to at least this level. I see this as a good thing, not a bad thing.

4) The cost associated with CCSS will come from implementing an assessment to test these standards. Currently that test is being developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (smarterbalanced.org). There is an alternative movement in the state to use the ACT battery of tests instead. However, no decision has been made at this point.

In my personal opinion you are very misinformed on this topic. Please go to corestandards.org and smarterbalanced.org if you would like to become more informed.

December 6, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP suggests it might lose seats in Kansas House

Unless, the goal is not only control the chamber, but to also have a 2/3 majority so that you may pass amendments to the constitution of the state. For example, defining the definition of "suitable" as it applies to education, defining a "person" as a fertilized egg, etc.

November 1, 2012 at 8:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )