The conservative think tank Kansas Policy Institute has been running ads the past couple of weeks asserting that the state has low academic standards in reading and math, an assertion that state officials have repeatedly dismissed.

The ads, which have been running in the Kansas City, Topeka and Wichita media markets, refer back to the KPI website, where viewers can see longer videos spelling out the group's case that Kansas has low standards.

KPI spokesman James Franko said the group's policy aim "is to give parents and student more freedom to achieve their individual educational goals - i.e. school choice in all of its forms - and make sure Kansas is spending its K-12 resources effectively and efficiently."

The phrase "school choice" generally refers to programs that offer students and parents a publicly funded alternative to the regular public schools in their area, either through vouchers to offset the cost of a private or parochial school, or "charter schools," which are usually public schools operated by outside groups or private companies that can be exempted from many rules and regulations that apply to public schools.

So far this year, Kansas lawmakers have turned back one such bill: Senate Bill 22, which would have established a scholarship program for certain lower-income students to attend private schools. That bill failed to advance to final action in the House, but was then sent back to the House Education Committee, where it remains available to be advanced again.

Franko said the ads began running about two weeks ago and are scheduled to continue through "the next couple of days." That would take them right up to the start of the Kansas Legislature's wrap-up session.

In a nutshell, KPI asserts that Kansas schools are not preparing students for college or careers because it has low academic standards. For evidence, the group points to actions by the Kansas State Board of Education in 2002 and 2006 when, KPI says, the state "lowered" academic standards.

State officials counter that they did not "lower" their standards - that the level of performance needed to score in the "meets standards" category did not change - but the method of classifying scores was simply re-calibrated in 2002 to align with the new No Child Left Behind law. The standards were revised in 2006, and new assessments were written to go along with them.

But what the ads do not mention that the standards were revised again in 2010 when Kansas adopted the new Common Core state standards in reading and math, which are specifically designed for "college and career readiness."

"We did not lower our standards – not in '02 and not in '06," said Kathy Toelkes, spokeswoman for the Kansas State Department of Education.

Although she had not personally seen the ads, she said, "we're focused on where we're going. We adopted new standards in 2010 that raised the bar for students in terms of ensuring students will be college- and career-ready upon graduating from high school."

The ads point to a series of studies by the National Center for Education Statistics that attempt to compare state assessments from all 50 states with a uniform benchmark, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, exams.

State officials argue there are major differences between the NAEP test and the state assessments, the most important of which is that NAEP is not aligned to any specific set of educational standards. Further, it's a test that is only administered to a random sample of students in each state, and therefore any comparison of scores between the tests requires a great deal of estimation.

Nevertheless, the reports do indicate that a student who scores at the "meets standards" level on a Kansas reading or math test, at either the 4th or 8th grade level, would only score at or below the "basic" level on the NAEP exam.

That, however, is also true for many states. In fact, according to the most recent (2009) study, no state has a proficiency standard equal to or greater than the NAEP standard in either 4th or 8th grade reading. Massachusetts is the only state in the union where proficiency standards in math exceed the NAEP standards.

Teachers and staff in the Lawrence school district will not be allowed to carry firearms on school property, even if they have a concealed permit.

That was the word from school board president Vanessa Sanburn who said the district would not change its weapons policy, despite passage of a new state law that would allow teachers and other employees with permits to carry firearms.

On April 16, Gov. Sam Brownback signed HB 2052 which, among other things, requires municipal governments to allow people with permits to carry concealed weapons into public buildings, unless those buildings have metal detectors or other security measures to prevent anyone from bringing weapons inside.

The law is mandatory for city, county and state buildings (except the Statehouse itself). Public schools are not required to allow concealed carry, but school districts may allow licensed employees to carry concealed handguns if they choose to do so.

After four years, the law will also apply to university buildings.

Sanburn said during Monday's board meeting that she had received several phone calls and emails from people asking whether teachers in Lawrence would be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

She said the board had no intention of changing its current policy, which prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement officer to possess a weapon, "in or on any school property, school grounds, or any district building or structure used for student instruction or attendance or extracurricular activities of pupils, or at any regularly scheduled school sponsored activity or event."

That prohibition includes concealed weapons, even if the person has a legal permit.

More Education News

I can remember thinking as a kid that there must be some divine order to the way school calendars are constructed — the way Easter comes on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox ... or Election Day coming on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

It never occurred to me then that someone actually has to decide when the first and last days of school will be, how many days they'll have for winter break, and when to schedule those all-important (to somebody) "professional development" days.

Judging by Tuesday night's school board meeting, I now realize the process is only slightly less delicate than negotiating peace in the Middle East. It's almost mind boggling how many rules have to be followed and how many competing interests have to be served.

Of course, by the time the issue got to the school board's agenda, all of the heavy lifting had already been done behind the scenes. Still, it was interesting to hear Woodlawn School principal Jeanne Fridell and Kennedy School teacher Jill Anderson, co-chairs of the "calendar committee" (yes, that's who does it), explain how it all falls into place and how district officials do, in fact, listen to feedback from parents.

Fridell and Anderson were there to present suggested changes to the calendar for the next two academic years - changes the board approved.

For the upcoming 2013-14 school year, the new calendar makes two changes from what had been planned originally:

• Winter break: Typically, schools are out a total of eight days during the winter break. The first day of the break is usually the day before Christmas Eve. Then classes resume a day or two after New Year's Day. The problem this year is that Christmas Day and New Years Day both fall on Wednesdays, which meant classes were scheduled to resume on Friday, Jan. 3.

That apparently didn't sit well with people trying to schedule holiday travel. So the revised schedule calls for moving a staff development day from Sept. 3 to Jan. 3. The up side is that students will get a full two weeks off for winter break. But they will only get a three-day weekend for Labor Day instead of a four-day weekend.

• Sixth- and ninth-grade orientation: In the past, Lawrence schools have set aside a half-day before the regular first day of school as an orientation day for students moving up from elementary to middle school, or from middle school to high school. But that will change next year.

Instead, sixth- and ninth-grade students will have orientation for the first two hours on the first day of class, which is Wednesday, Aug. 14. Students in the upper grades at the middle and high schools will start their day two hours later. Elementary schools will have a regular day of class that day.

For the 2014-15 school year, the revised schedule calls for continuing that staggered day schedule for the first day of class, which will be Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2014.

The new calendar calls for the regular two days of parent-teacher conferences in the fall semester, but only one day of conferences in the spring semester. Fridell and Anderson said participation is typically lower in the spring, so there is less need for two full days of conferences.

The 2014-15 calendar also allows for two make-up days for snow: April 17 and May 1. It was noted that April 17 is also the day of the Kansas University Relays, so if there is no need to make up a snow day, students and staff can attend the track meet.

Finally - and perhaps most controversially - the last day of class for the 2014-15 school year is scheduled for Thursday, May 28. That means students and staff will have to be at school the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday after Memorial Day.

More Education News

On Wednesday, I reported about a number of school districts other than Lawrence where voters decided on bond issues this week. Late in the day, we received an even longer list from the Kansas State Department of Education.

From that list - which includes only those districts that had to seek permission from the state in order to exceed the legal debt limit of 14 percent of the district's assessed valuation - at least four more school districts successfully passed bond issues on Tuesday:

• Seaman school district (Shawnee County), $57.485 million, passed with 66 percent of the vote.

• Goodland school district (Sherman County), $14.995 million, passed with 53 percent of the vote.

• Osawatomie school district (Miami County), $3.2 million, passed with 69 percent of the vote.

• Oswego school district (Labette County), $3.25 million, passed with 65 percent of the vote.

One thing notable about the above list: Unlike Lawrence and a few other districts, they receive substantial subsidies from the state to pay off their bonds. The state calls it "equalization aid," a formula that holds down property tax mill levies for debt service payments in districts that have relatively low valuations.

In Oswego, a district with only $11 million in assessed valuation and about 500 students, the state of Kansas pays 63 percent of the bond payments.

At Seaman, a middle-class suburban district north of Topeka, the state pays about 27 percent.

The next big round of bond elections will be June 4. That will be after the legislative session ends, and voters will have a better idea of how much of the various kinds of state aid schools will be getting next year. Here's a list of the school districts, the size of the bond issue they are seeking, and the percentage of debt service payments funded with state aid:

• West Franklin school district (Franklin County), $14.32 million - 25 percent state aid.

• Central Heights (Franklin County), $1.75 million - 46 percent state aid.

• Ellis school district (Ellis County), $10 million - No state aid.

• Lyons school district (Lyons County), $13.25 million - 39 percent state aid.

• Galena school district (Cherokee County), $7.5 million - 68 percent state aid.

• Riley County school district (Riley County), $7.5 million - 68 percent state aid.

Lawrence wasn't the only school district in Kansas to pass a bond issue Tuesday night, and the 72 percent margin by which it passed wasn't the widest by any means. In fact, school bond elections appear to have been popular with voters in the last several months.

According to a story posted by the Salina Journal, bond proposals also passed this week in the McPherson and Goessel school districts by wider margins than the one seen in Lawrence.

In the McPherson district, which has about 2,300 full-time-equivalent students, voters approved $13.25 million in new bonds by a margin of 81 percent to 19 percent.

And in the tiny Goessel district, with about 257 FTE students, a $3.3 million bond proposal passed with 92 percent of the vote (337 to 29).

But at least one bond proposal did fail narrowly Tuesday night. In the Ellsworth school district, voters rejected a $4.8 million proposal, 47 percent to 53 percent.

A few theories immediately pop to mind that might explain this. One is that spring municipal elections produce extremely low turnout, so the returns only show the sentiments of the most ardent, committed voters. It may be easier to get people to turn out in droves to vote for something rather than against it.

Another is that school boards include some politically savvy people who only put a bond proposal on the ballot when they are fairly confident it has public support.

But another theory — and one that seemed to be popular among the Yes for Lawrence crowd Tuesday night — is that Kansas voters are much more willing than their elected representatives in Topeka are to invest tax dollars in public schools.

That was the message from Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, and co-chair of Yes for Lawrence, when he gave an impromptu victory speech at an election watch party downtown Tuesday night.

"Sandy and I have had so much fun being involved in this," Davis said, referring to the committee's other co-chair, Republican Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger of Lawrence. "We are dealing with that realm of politics over in Topeka, which is not always uplifting."

It's also interesting to note that just over a year ago, in January 2012, voters in two Johnson County school districts, Blue Valley and Gardner Edgerton, approved large local bond issues.

In Blue Valley — a rapidly growing district where the school board likes to keep bonding authority in the bank, on the assumption they're going to need it within the next 10 years or so for another new building — voters passed a $271 million bond issue with 62 percent of the vote.

And in Gardner Edgerton, a much smaller district with about 5,000 students, voters OK'd a $72.8 million bond issue with 54 percent of the vote.

Those are noteworthy because those districts also are home to some of the most conservative lawmakers in the Kansas Legislature.

Blue Valley's legislative delegation includes House Speaker Ray Merrick, as well as Reps. Scott Schwab and Marvin Kleeb, among others.

Schwab is a sponsor of a bill mandating certain social studies lessons during Celebrate Freedom Week. Kleeb is the House Commerce Committee chairman who recently agreed to hold off on a bill limiting collective bargaining rights for teachers.

Gardner Edgerton's delegation, meanwhile, includes Sen. Julia Lynn, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee which also heard a number of bills this year targeting teachers' unions.

So far, Kansas lawmakers are not talking about making any further cuts to K-12 funding. But neither are they talking much about complying with a district court order in Gannon vs. Kansas to restore funding back to levels agreed to in the Kansas Supreme Court's 2006 Montoy school finance decision, at least not while the Gannon case is still on appeal before the Court.

Still, according to the Salina Journal, concern about the possibility of future cuts in state funding for education generally was a motivation for districts in north-central Kansas to seek bonds that would put more money into their own local schools.

All of which may reinforce the theory that the voters who turn out for off-cycle school bond elections are a different crowd of people from the ones who turn out for legislative elections in November.

Or it could point to another truism about American politics. Like the voters who say they distrust Congress but keep re-electing their own congressman, maybe the lesson here is that Kansas voters strongly support their own school districts, but distrust everyone else's.

Enrollment for the Lawrence school district's preschool program at Kennedy School, 1605 Davis Rd., is under way this week.

To be eligible for the program, children must be 4 years old on or before Aug. 31, 2013. The preschool program is free for families who are eligible for the free lunch program, as long as the child is not attending another preschool program. It is also free for families who qualify for reduced-price lunches, as long as they meet at least one of these criteria:

• The custodial parent is not married.

• The family is being referred by the Kansas Department for Children and Families, formerly known as Social and Rehabilitation Services.

• The child was born to a teenage parent.

• The parent lacks a high school diploma or GED.

• The child qualifies for migrant status.

• English is the child's second language.

Kennedy also operates a tuition-based preschool program for children and families who do not qualify for the free program.

The "peer model" program is open to 3- and 4-year-old children who demonstrate age appropriate play, social behavior, speech, language and motor skills. Peer model students model appropriate language and behavior for children with special needs while in a typical classroom.

Tuition for the peer model program is $150 per month, due on the first of each month starting in September.

For more information about the preschool program, contact Kennedy principal Cris Anderson at 832-5760.

Kindergarten roundup

Parents of children who will enroll in kindergarten next year can visit the schools and meet teachers and staff during Kindergarten Roundup, which begins this week.

Children who are 5 on or before Aug. 31 are eligible for kindergarten enrollment. Once enrolled, parents need to provide proof of residency, a certified copy of the child's birth certificate, the child's immunization records and a health assessment conducted by a physician or health care provider within one year before entering school.

The schedule for roundup dates is:

• April 3, Pinckney.

• April 4-5, Sunflower.

• April 11-12 Langston Hughes.

• April 12, Deerfield.

• April 17, Kennedy.

• April 18, Prairie Park and Quail Run.

• April 19, Broken Arrow and Sunset Hill.

• April 25, Hillcrest and Woodlawn.

• April 30, New York.

• May 2-3, Schwegler.

• May 3, Cordley.

For anyone who still doubts that Lawrence is nuts about Jayhawk basketball, there is this bit of news: South Middle School has postponed a dance that was scheduled for Friday evening because it conflicts with the Sweet 16 game between Kansas and Michigan.

Julie Rea, the school secretary at South, said they just didn't think the dance would be well attended, considering the Jayhawks will be on TV at the same time. The dance will be rescheduled for another time.

The dance was scheduled for 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Friday. The game is scheduled to start around 6:35 p.m. on the TBS channel.

Although candidates and political action committees active in the Lawrence city commission races have filed campaign finance statements, the public will have to wait until December to learn who is contributing to school board candidates and a campaign promoting the district's $92.5 million bond proposal.

Benjamin Lampe, deputy of elections in the Douglas County Clerk's office, said that's because Kansas statutes treat the two kinds of elections differently.

The Kansas Campaign Finance Act only applies to elections for state offices, cities of the first class and school school districts with more than 35,000 students - which is to say, the Wichita school district. That law requires filing periodic reports leading up to an election and 30 days after the election.

But campaigns for board seats and ballot initiatives involving all other school districts fall under a different statute, K.S.A. 25-901, which only requires them to file an annual report on or before Dec. 31 each year.

Furthermore, Lampe said, three of the four candidates running for the school board this year - Kristie Adair, Bob Byers and Vanessa Sanburn - have already filed notices that they'll be exempt from having to file reports because they intend to raise and spend less than $500 on their campaigns. That means Adina Morse is the only candidate who will have to file a year-end report.

Sanburn also is working actively with Yes for Lawrence, which stated publicly that it raised about $600 on the first day the committee organized. Other committee members said the group hopes to raise and spend about $15,000 in support of the $92.5 million bond proposal.

Yes for Lawrence is co-chaired by Rep. Paul Davis, the Kansas House Democratic leader, and Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, a Republican. The committee recently began running a TV commercial supporting the bond proposal.

More Education News

Lawrence schools are on spring break this week, a fact that sparked some fear in the newsroom that there wouldn't be much education news for a few days. But Kansas lawmakers appear to be picking up the slack.

Specifically, the Kansas Senate Education Committee worked through a pile of bills Monday, including one that would create new opportunities for establishing charter schools in Kansas.

Senate Bill 196, the Kansas Public Charter School Act, is nearly identical to a bill that the House Education Committee rejected last week. It's based on model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

ALEC is a conservative, free-market-oriented organization made up of legislators, corporations and foundations. It produces model legislation usually geared toward lowering taxes and reducing government regulation that has been introduced in statehouses around the country.

For those who aren't familiar with charter schools, they are a special type of school, usually set up within a public school district but operated independently, either by a private company, nonprofit organization or some other public entity. Most are exempt from some laws or regulations that govern traditional public schools.

Charter schools have been a favorite topic of conservatives for several years, for several reasons. Advocates tend to like the idea of injecting free-market competition into the public school system, breaking up what they see as a government monopoly on education funding. Charter schools also provide a testing ground for a fundamental free-market principle: the idea that removing the shackles of government regulations - including things like collective bargaining for teachers - will unleash innovative thinking and creative ideas that will improve education overall.

Critics, on the other hand, view charter schools skeptically. They say there is little evidence to suggest the schools perform any better than traditional schools when they deal with comparable student populations. And they fear that the charter school movement is really aimed at busting teachers' unions and channeling public education dollars to what are essentially private schools.

To date, Kansas has had a fairly limited charter school law. Public school districts are the only entities that can authorize a charter school. Many districts, including the ones in Lawrence and Topeka, have authorized their own. But outside organizations have to petition their local district and get permission to open one. And even then, the State Board of Education has the final say on approving the charters.

SB 196 would open up the process by giving the Kansas Board of Regents, cities and counties and the governing board of any public or private post-secondary institution the power to authorize a public charter school.

The State Board of Education would still have the final word in granting a charter, but the bill would greatly limit the board's discretion in making that decision.

The nugget of the bill, though, lies in two other key provisions.

One would provide a 100 percent tax credit for private contributions to a public charter school. That means that for every dollar donated to a charter school, the state general fund would have one less dollar with which to fund education and other state services.

The other is an almost blanket exemption from any state laws or regulations governing public schools, except those related to public health and safety, civil rights and nondiscrimination and handicapped accessibility. There would be no requirement for the charter schools to recognize teachers' unions.

Last week, an almost identical bill failed to win passage in the House Education Committee. But the Senate Education Committee is now working on its own version. The Senate panel was expected to vote on the bill Monday, but that vote has been delayed until Tuesday.

More Education News

One of the first things an outside observer notices about the political culture in Lawrence is that besides having the standard set of local units of government — a county commission, a city government and local school board — this town has an abundance of volunteer "citizens advisory committees" that have to study various issues before they are ever placed on a governing board's agenda.

Whether you're talking about designating bicycle routes on city streets, naming a new park or deciding which social service agencies should get funding, it sometimes seems like hardly a decision is ever made by elected officials here unless it is first run through at least one, and sometimes multiple advisory panels.

The advantage to such a robust "participatory" style of self-government can be to add legitimacy to any given decision — and lend political cover to the elected officials who voted for it — by knowing that major decisions have popular support, and that voices from all the various "stakeholders" were heard before the decision was made.

But there are always questions about how much authority those unelected bodies should be given, and where the line is between soliciting community input and ceding governmental authority that elected officials have no authority to give away.

That was the question at the Lawrence school board meeting Monday night when board members considered, but then backed away from, an idea to give its Finance Advisory Council a direct, hands-on role overseeing how the proceeds from a proposed $92.5 million bond issue would be spent.

The school board established that council last year to act as a kind of sounding board on various financial and budget issues. The council has five community members appointed by the board, and two ex officio members from the administration. The current chairwoman is former school board member Cindy Yulich.

Forming the council came on the heels of a process where the board had not one, but two different advisory groups study and make recommendations about closing and consolidating school buildings: one recommended doing so; but the second balked at deciding which specific schools should be closed, and so recommended investing money to upgrade and modernize existing schools.

That, in turn, led to the upcoming $92.5 million bond proposal that will be on the April 2 ballot, which calls for not only modernizing the elementary schools, but upgrading technology throughout the district and expanding career and technical education programs offered through the two high schools.

The Finance Advisory Council itself didn't play much of a role in developing that bond proposal. It was just getting formed, rounding up members who were willing to serve on it, and trying to figure out exactly what its overall mission should be.

But in recent weeks, the school board has started to sharpen its focus on the finance council and define some very specific responsibilities. During Monday's meeting, for example, the council offered a fairly comprehensive review of the district's overall financial position, comparing the Lawrence district's finances with those of 21 other districts in Kansas of various types and sizes.

The school board also plans to rely heavily on the council as a sounding board for ideas on how to cut school budgets if, as most board members now expect will happen, the tax cuts that were enacted last year force the Kansas Legislature to start cutting school funding again.

That led to a discussion Monday night about whether it should have a direct role in monitoring how bond proceeds are spent - assuming that voters approve the bonds on April 2 - to make sure the money is spent on those projects the voters are being asked to approve.

It was also suggested the council should make recommendations about how any excess funds should be used. That would be in the event the projects come in below the expected cost, or the district is able to earn interest on the deposit of bond proceeds before they are spent.

Board president Vanessa Sanburn, who is also up for re-election April 2, said the idea was in response to a lingering perception in Lawrence that the last time voters approved a school bond for building improvements, the money was used instead to build new athletic facilities.

This time, though, most of the other board members, along with the administration, said that would be going beyond the legitimate scope of an advisory committee.

Board member Bob Byers, who is also running for re-election, said giving the council "oversight" authority would imply a level of control or supervision, something he said should be the job of the elected board and the administration.

Mark Bradford, who is stepping down from the board when his term expires this year, seemed to agree, at least in part. He thought the council's role should be strictly internal, offering advice and counsel to the school board, but he was hesitant to give the council the role of soliciting input and ideas from the public.

Meanwhile, superintendent Rick Doll reminded the board that in a major construction project like this - which is actually a collection of several projects at multiple locations - the board will approve contracts with a general contractor or construction manager, and that contract will include an "owner's representative" who will be in charge of day-to-day monitoring of the project to make sure it stays within the bounds of the intended purpose.

More Education News

The conservative think tank Kansas Policy Institute has been running ads the past couple of weeks asserting that the state has low academic standards in reading and math, an assertion that state officials have repeatedly dismissed.

The ads, which have been running in the Kansas City, Topeka and Wichita media markets, refer back to the KPI website, where viewers can see longer videos spelling out the group's case that Kansas has low standards.

KPI spokesman James Franko said the group's policy aim "is to give parents and student more freedom to achieve their individual educational goals - i.e. school choice in all of its forms - and make sure Kansas is spending its K-12 resources effectively and efficiently."

The phrase "school choice" generally refers to programs that offer students and parents a publicly funded alternative to the regular public schools in their area, either through vouchers to offset the cost of a private or parochial school, or "charter schools," which are usually public schools operated by outside groups or private companies that can be exempted from many rules and regulations that apply to public schools.

So far this year, Kansas lawmakers have turned back one such bill: Senate Bill 22, which would have established a scholarship program for certain lower-income students to attend private schools. That bill failed to advance to final action in the House, but was then sent back to the House Education Committee, where it remains available to be advanced again.

Franko said the ads began running about two weeks ago and are scheduled to continue through "the next couple of days." That would take them right up to the start of the Kansas Legislature's wrap-up session.

In a nutshell, KPI asserts that Kansas schools are not preparing students for college or careers because it has low academic standards. For evidence, the group points to actions by the Kansas State Board of Education in 2002 and 2006 when, KPI says, the state "lowered" academic standards.

State officials counter that they did not "lower" their standards - that the level of performance needed to score in the "meets standards" category did not change - but the method of classifying scores was simply re-calibrated in 2002 to align with the new No Child Left Behind law. The standards were revised in 2006, and new assessments were written to go along with them.

But what the ads do not mention that the standards were revised again in 2010 when Kansas adopted the new Common Core state standards in reading and math, which are specifically designed for "college and career readiness."

"We did not lower our standards – not in '02 and not in '06," said Kathy Toelkes, spokeswoman for the Kansas State Department of Education.

Although she had not personally seen the ads, she said, "we're focused on where we're going. We adopted new standards in 2010 that raised the bar for students in terms of ensuring students will be college- and career-ready upon graduating from high school."

The ads point to a series of studies by the National Center for Education Statistics that attempt to compare state assessments from all 50 states with a uniform benchmark, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, exams.

State officials argue there are major differences between the NAEP test and the state assessments, the most important of which is that NAEP is not aligned to any specific set of educational standards. Further, it's a test that is only administered to a random sample of students in each state, and therefore any comparison of scores between the tests requires a great deal of estimation.

Nevertheless, the reports do indicate that a student who scores at the "meets standards" level on a Kansas reading or math test, at either the 4th or 8th grade level, would only score at or below the "basic" level on the NAEP exam.

That, however, is also true for many states. In fact, according to the most recent (2009) study, no state has a proficiency standard equal to or greater than the NAEP standard in either 4th or 8th grade reading. Massachusetts is the only state in the union where proficiency standards in math exceed the NAEP standards.

Teachers and staff in the Lawrence school district will not be allowed to carry firearms on school property, even if they have a concealed permit.

That was the word from school board president Vanessa Sanburn who said the district would not change its weapons policy, despite passage of a new state law that would allow teachers and other employees with permits to carry firearms.

On April 16, Gov. Sam Brownback signed HB 2052 which, among other things, requires municipal governments to allow people with permits to carry concealed weapons into public buildings, unless those buildings have metal detectors or other security measures to prevent anyone from bringing weapons inside.

The law is mandatory for city, county and state buildings (except the Statehouse itself). Public schools are not required to allow concealed carry, but school districts may allow licensed employees to carry concealed handguns if they choose to do so.

After four years, the law will also apply to university buildings.

Sanburn said during Monday's board meeting that she had received several phone calls and emails from people asking whether teachers in Lawrence would be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

She said the board had no intention of changing its current policy, which prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement officer to possess a weapon, "in or on any school property, school grounds, or any district building or structure used for student instruction or attendance or extracurricular activities of pupils, or at any regularly scheduled school sponsored activity or event."

That prohibition includes concealed weapons, even if the person has a legal permit.

More Education News