Advertisement

Entries from blogs tagged with “education”

School board notes: AVID; weeds; Langston Hughes project

The Lawrence school board meeting Monday night was dominated by discussion of the school finance bill that state lawmakers recently passed, but Gov. Sam Brownback is still yet to sign or veto.

But there was other activity worthy of note, much of it buried on the consent agenda, meaning there was no discussion because they were matters the board had discussed previously. Among the more significant items:

• AVID expanding to middle school: "Advancement Via Individual Determination" is a college-readiness program designed mainly for students who need a little extra push to help them get ready. It includes an elective course for what might be called "C" students, or those in the academic middle, as well as under-served populations that often aren't represented in college prep courses, especially immigrant students and those who would be the first in their families ever to go to college.

Lawrence schools implemented the program in both high schools and district officials say it has been successful. Starting next year, it will also be available in each of the four middle schools. That will involve spending $53,428 this year for start-up costs, including membership fees and library materials.

• Turf, tree and landscape management: Last month, the board deferred action on a proposed landscape management plan, mainly over concerns about the use (or non-use) of fertilizers and herbicides in residential areas.

The district maintains more than 135 acres of lawn scattered throughout the city, and in a town like Lawrence it's an issue that can cause friction with residential neighbors either way. In some neighborhoods, residents are vehemently opposed to spraying chemicals for any number of reasons. And in other areas, neighbors get upset if the schools don't spray for weeds because that means the dandelions will just spread onto their property.

So the new policy tries to thread the needle by leaving the decision up to school site councils. They'll be able to opt for: (A) Organic fertilizers only; (B) No fertilizer and herbicides, either organic or EPA registered; or (C) EPA registered fertilizers and herbicides.

• Langston Hughes project: This will be one of the first construction and remodeling projects to be started as part of the district's recent $92.5 million bond issue. Construction is scheduled to get underway this month. McCown Gordon Construction is the "construction manager at risk" on the package of projects that includes Langston Hughes, meaning they are in charge of hiring contractors, overseeing the project and bringing it in within budget.

The initial budget for that project, which includes adding two new classrooms, was just over $2.9 million. But when bids were received April 1, they came in a little higher than expected, with a guaranteed maximum price of $2,938,387, which includes a 5-percent contingency for unforeseen events that may crop up later. As a result, the board approved a contract amendment reflecting the $18,176 increase.

Assistant Superintendent Kyle Hayden, however, said he is confident the overall bond-funded construction program will remain within the budget.

Reply

KNEA uses ‘thunderclap’ to spread word on education bill

At 6 p.m. Tuesday, there was an unusual spike in the Twitter hashtag #ksleg, which reporters, lobbyists and other political junkies use to highlight items about the Kansas Legislature.

That spike, which shows up in the graphic below, was no accident. It was the result of a new kind of social media strategy known as a "thunderclap" that was organized by the Kansas National Education Association, the state's largest teachers union.

But it remains to be seen whether the thunderclap campaign achieved its stated goal, which was to bring pressure on Gov. Sam Brownback to veto a provision of the recently passed school finance bill that repeals teacher tenure rights.

The idea was to get as many people as possible to post messages on Twitter and Facebook using the hashtags #ksleg and #Brownback.

Based on data from hashtracking.com — an analytic tool that can be used to track the use of specific hashtags and key words on Twitter — there was an obvious spike in the use of #ksleg right at 6 p.m. For the period that covers 30 minutes on either side of that time, #ksleg was tweeted or retweeted 108 times to more than 185,000 followers. KNEA's goal had been to get 100 mentions reaching 75,000 followers.

It's probably doubtful that Brownback will weigh that in as he decides whether to sign or veto the bill. He has already stated publicly that he likes the bill, although he has been noticeably silent on the question of the additional policy amendments that were added to it, including the teacher tenure provision.

Even thornier is the question of whether Brownback wants to test the limits of his constitutional authority by using a line-item veto of a policy measure that is buried inside an appropriations bill. A plain reading of the constitutional language would suggest the framers probably never envisioned they were giving the governor that kind of discretion.

"If any bill presented to the governor contains several items of appropriation of money, one or more of such items may be disapproved by the governor while the other portion of the bill is approved by the governor."

Still, the broader objective of KNEA's "thunderclap" campaign probably had less to do with influencing Gov. Brownback, and more to do with raising public awareness of the issue and motivating voters in this year's elections.

To know whether or not that was successful, we'll all have to wait until November.

According to hashtracking.com, use of the hashtag #ksleg spiked at 6 p.m. Tuesday, the designated time of the Kansas National Education Association's "thunderclap" social media campaign.

According to hashtracking.com, use of the hashtag #ksleg spiked at 6 p.m. Tuesday, the designated time of the Kansas National Education Association's "thunderclap" social media campaign. by Peter Hancock

A word cloud graphic from hashtracking.com shows people using the hashtag #ksleg were also using the words "gov," "veto," "teachers" "policy" and "bill."

A word cloud graphic from hashtracking.com shows people using the hashtag #ksleg were also using the words "gov," "veto," "teachers" "policy" and "bill." by Peter Hancock

Reply

State board member says Common Core battle not over

Topeka — Kansas State Board of Education member Ken Willard said today that the legislative battles over the new Common Core standards are far from over this year.

Willard, from Hutchinson, is considered a reliably conservative Republican, but he has broken ranks with the majority of his party by openly supporting the new curricular standards for reading and math, which are officially known here as the "Kansas College and Career Ready Standards."

Last week, the Kansas Senate passed one version of a school finance bill that included language to prohibit spending any money to implement the Common Core standards or to administer tests aligned with those standards. But that language was quickly stripped out during conference committee negotiations with the House.

In February, though, Rep. Willie Dove, R-Bonner Springs, requested introduction of House Bill 2621, which would repeal the standards in their entirety and have states revert back to the standards that were in place before October 2010 when the state board adopted the Common Core. It also would repeal the Next Generation Science Standards, which the state board adopted in June 2013.

That bill was the subject of a hearing Feb. 14, but no further action has been taken. But the bill was "blessed" by House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stillwell, which means it remains alive for the rest of this session. "Blessing" refers to a procedural maneuver that exempts the bill from the normal "turnaround" deadline for bills to pass from their original chamber.

During Tuesday's state board meeting, Willard said he has been told there will be a "big confab" while the Legislature is recessed to discuss the anti-Common Core legislation.

At the same time, Willard noted, there is federal legislation pending that would prohibit the U.S. Department of Education from using public funds to incentivize - some have used the word "coerce" - states into adopting the Common Core.

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who is running for re-election, is one of the co-sponsors of that bill.

Reply

School finance: How solving one constitutional problem can create many more

As the Kansas Legislature tries to fix one set of constitutional problems with education funding, it'll be interesting to see whether they create a whole host of new ones, or at least open up a can of constitutional worms, simply in the way they're going about it.

The Kansas Supreme Court recently ruled that lawmakers have violated their duty under Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution by failing to provide "equitable" funding in two areas of public school finance. But in their attempt to solve that problem, lawmakers may be creating new problems stemming from Article 2 of the Constitution dealing with legislative powers: the ban on multiple subjects in a single bill and the limits of the governor's line-item veto authority.

Article 2, Sec. 16 provides that, “No bill shall contain more than one subject, except appropriation bills and bills for revision or codification of statutes.” (Emphasis added.) The problem is that the school finance bills now wending through the House and Senate do both – appropriate money and revise existing statutes.

Attorneys in the Revisor of Statutes office, the Legislature's official legal counsel, are saying that's okay, as long as the appropriations and the statutory changes all relate to the same topic, in this case “education.”

But here, lawmakers may be pushing the limits on that. On the Senate side, at least, the policy changes relate directly to the school finance formula itself - tweaking (or eliminating) different "weightings" that affect how different types of students are counted.

But on the House side, often the more ambitious and less disciplined chamber - GOP leaders are going after broader policy changes, such as teacher licensing requirements and setting up a new, independent "commission" outside the authority of the State Board of Education to recommend ways schools can become more efficient. Earlier version of the House bill included a massive expansion of charter schools and authorization for incentive-based bonuses that principals, at their sole discretion, could dole out to favored teachers.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that those measures pass the one-subject-per-bill test, they would still raise another question: How much authority, if any, does the governor have to “line-item veto” any of those measures - or any individual paragraphs within them - without rejecting the overall bill in its entirety?

Article 2, Sec. 14(b) states: “If any bill presented to the governor contains several items of appropriation of money, one or more of such items may be disapproved by the governor while the other portion of the bill is approved by the governor.”

Two key phrases here are “several,” and “such items?”

The standard rule in journalism is that “several” means at least seven or more, but that's just journalism. In the Legislature, "several" could easily mean anything more than one. And each of the bills now pending in the Legislature contain exactly two: one for capital outlay funding; and one for local option budgets.

But these bills contain many “items” besides appropriations. So where the Constitution says the governor can veto one or more “such items,” does that refer only to items of appropriation, or any "items" in the bill, whether they appropriate money or not?

A plain reading would seem to suggest the former. But this is where previous Legislatures have already made a mess of things, and thereby established precedents that may not be to anyone's liking. They're called “provisos,” and here's how they work:

“There is hereby appropriated for the (fill in agency's name here) the sum of $1 million, provided that no such money shall be spent unless or until said agency adopts a particular policy that a tiny cabal of low-level legislators would like, but the other chamber would never accept unless we use this amateur tactic to hold the entire budget process hostage until we get what we want, at least for one year.”

Kansas lawmakers have made increasing use of the proviso over the last 10-15 years by using the entire state budget as a bargaining chip to get a policy change in one or more area of government. And as they have done so, governors have claimed a corresponding expansion of their line-item veto authority. That is, they have line-item vetoed the proviso language without vetoing the money attached to it.

Former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, did that on more than one occasion, much to the consternation of Republicans who thought she was stretching her constitutional authority. But the pending school finance bills have the potential to elevate this power game to a whole new level.

Take, for example, the language calling for a new “efficiency” commission: If that were presented to the governor as a stand-alone bill, he could either sign it or veto it in its entirety. He could not strike out individual paragraphs – like the ones giving minority party leaders appointments to the commission – while leaving the rest of the bill allowing Republican leaders to make appointments in tact.

But could he do that to language inside a mega-bill that also contains appropriations? Officials in the Revisor of Statute's office wouldn't opine on that question Monday. And as for the governor's office? “We are not commenting on pending legislation,” Brownback's press secretary Sara Belfry said via email. “The Governor will carefully review and consider all aspects of this bill once passed by both legislative houses.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers can take solace in one historical fact. It is rare for courts to strike down any legislative act for violating the one-topic-per-bill rule, and rarer still to do so strike down an illegal line-item veto. Because before any court could do so, some "aggrieved party" would have to challenge it in court. And in this case, someone who's aggrieved by one aspect of the bill likely has an interest on the other side, and therefore doesn't want to risk seeing the entire act overturned on a technicality.

That is the art of compromise.

Reply 2 comments from Mary Nall Devin Wilson

Court compliance deadline comes earlier for schools than for Legislature

The Kansas Supreme Court has given the Legislature until July 1 to correct two problems in the state's school funding system, but school districts themselves are facing an earlier deadline, and it's one that Lawrence Superintendent Rick Doll says he'd rather not even think about.

By May 16, under Kansas law, school districts have to notify any teachers whose contracts they do not intend to renew for next year. And if Kansas lawmakers don't fix the equity problems in the Local Option Budget formula, a lot of teachers could be getting those notices.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling last week, if lawmakers haven't fixed the problem by July 1, the district court "should enjoin operation of the local option budget funding mechanism ... or enter such other orders as it deems appropriate."

Translation: If lawmakers fail to fix the problem, the entire LOB funding mechanism gets shut down. Districts will no longer have them. In the Lawrence school district, that would mean a loss of nearly $24 million. Statewide, it's a little over $1 billion, according to Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis.

The constitutional problem is that lawmakers haven't been fully funding the "equalization formula" for LOBs — additional aid the state kicks in for lower-wealth districts so that rich and poor districts can levy roughly the same property tax rates to raise similar amounts for their LOBs. Because of the under-funding of that formula, poorer school districts have either had to levy higher taxes or cut their budgets. Either way, the court said, students and taxpayers in those districts are being treated unfairly.

It would cost the state an additional $104 million to fully fund that formula, but the court allowed for the possibility that lawmakers could find some other way to solve the equity problem. If the Legislature does anything less than restore full funding, the issue goes back to the district court for review to determine whether the new funding amount is still unconstitutional.

The concern for school districts is that when May 16 rolls around, they still may not know whether lawmakers have fixed the problem. And at that point, Doll and his fellow superintendents around the state may face some difficult decisions, like how many pink slips to hand out and who should get them.

So, here are the dates to keep in mind as the deadlines approach:

Friday, April 4: The scheduled last day of the regular session. After that, lawmakers typically take a break for about three and a half weeks before returning for the "veto session." In recent years, though, most big budget issues have remained unresolved at this point in the session.

Tuesday, April 15: The day lawmakers get the new, official revenue estimates for the upcoming fiscal year. By law, whatever budget they pass has to balance with these revenue figures. And because of tax cuts that lawmakers approved in 2012, experts have projected that next year's revenues could fall as much as 6 percent.

Tuesday-Wednesday, April 29-30: Approximate date for the start of the wrap-up session. The exact date hasn't been set yet. Traditionally, the wrap-up is only supposed to last three or four days, but in recent years, it's dragged on for considerably longer. The main task during the wrap-up is to hammer out a final budget that balances with the new revenue estimates. This is when lawmakers will have to decide whether, or to what extent, they want to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Friday, May 16: Deadline for school districts to notify teachers of nonrenewal of their contracts.

Tuesday, July 1: Deadline set by the Supreme Court for lawmakers to cure the inequities found in the current school funding mechanism.

Reply

Committees act on local elections; discuss teacher licensing

Topeka - A Senate committee today advanced a bill that would change the election cycle so that school board, city government and other municipal elections would be held in November of even-numbered years so they would coincide with state and federal elections.

But the panel agreed not to include a provision that had been considered earlier to make those races partisan elections.

Currently, those elections are held in April of odd-numbered years, with the primaries being held in February.

Supporters of the bill hope it will increase voter turnout, which is typically very low. In the municipal elections held last April in Douglas County, for example, voter turnout was only 16.58 percent of registered voters.

Opponents, however, say they're concerned that races for school boards and city commissions will get drowned out in the advertising blitzes that usually accompany races for president, governor and Congress.

The Lawrence school board has expressed vocal opposition to changing the election cycle. Among other things, members note that the bill would make their terms of office begin in January - in the middle of an academic year. School board terms currently begin and end on July 1, which is the start of the their fiscal year.

The bill started out as a Senate bill, but the committee put the contents of it into a House bill - a process known around the statehouse as a "gut-and-go." That means if it passes the full Senate, the House could simply concur in the Senate amendments without sending it through another round of committee hearings on the House side. The bill is now known as Senate Substitute for House Bill 2141.

Teacher licensure: Education lobby groups that normally agree on most issues that come through the statehouse took opposite sides today on a bill that would loosen some requirements for getting a teacher's license.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee held a hearing today on Senate Bill 430, which would exempt certain people from having to earn a college degree in education to obtain a license. Specifically, it would exempt:

• Those who already hold a license from another jurisdiction and who pass the required Praxis Series of tests.

• Those who hold an industry-recognized certificate in a technical profession and have at least five years of work experience in that field.

• And people who hold at least a bachelor's degree in science, technology, engineering or math - the so-called STEM fields - and have at least five years of related work experience.

Both the Kansas Association of School Boards and United School Administrators of Kansas testified in favor of the bill, saying they have long supported more flexibility in licensing teachers. KASB added, however, that it thinks teachers admitted to the profession through alternate routes should be subject to more frequent performance evaluations and should have to be rated as "effective" or better in order to keep teaching.

But the Kansas National Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, opposed the bill.

KNEA lobbyist Mark Desetti said the organization opposes any attempt to lower the standards for being admitted to the profession. While acknowledging there are shortages of qualified teachers in certain fields, and in certain parts of the state, he said the same is true for other professions, including doctors, but few people suggest lowering the standards to enter those fields.

The committee has not yet voted on whether to send the bill to the full Senate.

Reply

Court ruling may be political success, but educational failure

The Kansas Supreme Court accomplished one remarkable thing with its school finance ruling last week. It threaded the needle so carefully that nearly everyone — at least in the political arena — walked away feeling like they'd won a little something.

That's not bad, considering that before the decision nearly every news outlet, from the Winfield Courier to the New York Times, was predicting the decision could lead to a constitutional showdown with the Kansas Legislature.

Instead, Republicans walked away feeling validated that the court had paid due deference to the Legislature's role in setting budgets. And Democrats walked away armed with new ammunition to claim Republicans have underfunded schools, especially poorer schools.

Politically, it was a master stroke that avoided a potentially bitter confrontation that could have permanently damaged the court itself. But it may have come at a huge cost to schools. Because by backing away from the “actual cost” model of determining adequate funding, and instead adopting the so-called “Rose” factors, the court lowered the bar for what can be deemed a constitutional level of funding in Kansas.

The Rose factors lay out a set of educational outcomes that the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled was sufficient for that state in 1989. They specifically reference outcomes in reading and writing, social studies and government, health, the arts and vocational training. They suggest that students coming out of Kentucky public schools should have sufficient knowledge, skills and training in those areas "to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization," and to "compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states."

Here are three things to remember about the Rose standards:

First, they were established 25 years ago, before advent of the Internet, and before the subsequent shift in the United States to a knowledge-based economy.

Second is the noticeable absence of two key words from those standards: “science” and “mathematics.” They appear nowhere in the seven-point Rose test. Nor, for that matter, do the words “technology” or “computer literacy.”

And third, they mention nothing of the fact that students in the 21st century are expected to compete in a global marketplace, not just against those in "surrounding states."

So by adopting the Rose standards as the constitutional touchstone for school finance in Kansas, the Supreme Court has made Missouri and Oklahoma the standards of acceptability for educational outcomes, even though students' primary competitors today are more likely to be found in places such as China, India and the European Union.

By harkening back to Kentucky at the end of the industrial age to set 21st century educational standards for Kansas, the Court ignored one fact. We already have an institution in Kansas endowed with constitutional power to set such standards. It's called the Kansas State Board of Education, a democratically elected body that has already established curriculum and accreditation standards, including science and math, that far exceed those envisioned by the Rose court.

The question now is to what extent the Kansas Supreme Court has undercut the state board by giving the Legislature a free pass to fund Kansas schools at a lower standard.

Reply 4 comments from James Howlette Deb Geraghty Mark Rainey Dave Trabert

Poll shows most Kansans want court to order more school funding; Davis has slight lead over Brownback; Roberts faces challenge

A new poll out today shows that by a wide margin, most Kansans believe public schools are underfunded and want the Kansas Supreme Court to step in by ordering more funding.

The survey by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm based in North Carolina, found 59 percent of those responding believe that public schools in Kansas are not adequately funded, and an equal number think the Kansas Supreme Court should rule that funding for public schools needs to be increased.

The court is currently considering an appeal of the case Gannon vs. Kansas in which a trial court ruled in January 2013 that the Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional duty to make "suitable provision" for financing education. The trial court ordered the Legislature to add more than half a billion dollars a year to the K-12 education budget. A decision by the Supreme Court is expected at any time.

The survey of 693 Kansas voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percent. It included telephone interviews as well as internet responses to capture voters who do not have land-line telephones.

Other findings of the PPP Kansas poll included:

• Democrat Paul Davis of Lawrence holds a slim lead over Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, 42-40.

• While Brownback suffers from a 51-percent disapproval job rating, 59 percent of those surveyed don't know enough about Davis to have an opinion of him one way or another.

• Brownback's tax policies are unpopular among voters, with only 26 percent saying they have been successful and 47 percent saying they have not.

• Former Kansas governor and current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now has a 55 percent disapproval rating. While she was governor from 2003 to 2009, polls routinely showed her job approval rating in the upper 50s or low to mid 60s range. She is occasionally talked about as a potential Democratic challenger to GOP Sen. Pat Roberts, but has never made any public indication that she's thinking about a Senate bid.

• Roberts may have a challenge on his hands for re-election. Although he leads his GOP challenger Milton Wolf, 42-23 percent, PPP says that appears to be a function of name recognition, since only 24 percent of GOP primary voters are familiar with Wolf. Roberts' own job approval rating is split: 29 percent approve; 38 disapprove; 32 percent are not sure. That's a 12-point drop in his approval rating from a year ago.

Reply 2 comments from Paul R.  Getto Peter Hancock MerriAnnie Smith Ksfbcoach

NEA president’s letter on Common Core sparks discussion

Critics of the Common Core standards for reading and math probably think they got a boost this week when the head of the nation's largest teachers union called for a "course correction" on how they are being implemented.

In a statement posted online Wednesday, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel wrote:

I am sure it won’t come as a surprise to hear that in far too many states, implementation has been completely botched. Seven of ten teachers believe that implementation of the standards is going poorly in their schools. Worse yet, teachers report that there has been little to no attempt to allow educators to share what’s needed to get [Common Core State Standards] implementation right. In fact, two thirds of all teachers report that they have not even been asked how to implement these new standards in their classrooms.

Van Roekel's statement was timely in Kansas since it was posted on the same day the Kansas House Education Committee held a hearing on H.B. 2621, which calls for nullifying the standards in Kansas. The Kansas NEA — the state chapter of the national union — has been a vocal opponent of that bill, and generally a strong supporter of the Common Core standards.

Rob Bluey of the conservative Heritage Foundation promptly misinterpreted Van Roekel's statement by posting on his blog that the NEA is no longer a cheerleader for the standards and that he was calling the standards themselves "botched."

That column, in turn, has since been tweeted and re-tweeted throughout the social media universe to the point where, by now, it's probably accepted wisdom — at least among people who don't bother to follow the original links — that the NEA is now a Common Core opponent.

That, however, is not the case. As Van Roekel goes on to say:

It would be simpler just to listen to the detractors from the left and the right who oppose the standards. But scuttling these standards will simply return us to the failed days of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), where rote memorization and bubble tests drove teaching and learning. NEA members don’t want to go backward; we know that won’t help students. Instead, we want states to make a strong course correction and move forward.

The thing that most concerns teachers unions — and probably doesn't concern the Heritage Foundation or other conservative groups — boils down to one thing: teacher evaluations.

Under terms of federal waivers from No Child Left Behind that most states have received, not to mention legislation enacted in many states, teachers throughout the country are now being evaluated, at least in some part, based on how wells their students are performing on standardized tests.

Most authorities agree that the Common Core standards are tougher, more rigorous standards. So in states like New York and Maryland, where tests have been implemented before the curriculum was fully developed and teachers were fully trained in them, test scores immediately plummeted, leading to widespread public backlash from both parents and educators.

But that hasn't been the case in Kansas, where the state Department of Education is now seeking to delay its new teacher evaluation scheme to give time for the Common Core standards to set in, much to the satisfaction of Kansas NEA President Karen Godfrey.

"The implementation hasn't been mishandled on a state level in Kansas, in our opinion," Godfrey said in an email to the Journal-World. "In some districts, there could be improvements, and teachers should have more voice in how it's implemented in those districts. Our state has also delayed accountability for the assessments for teachers, which is helpful as we transition. The state department has been very clear that the assessments are only a part of the measure of student growth and has resisted demanding a specific level of importance for the tests for all districts. Teachers and districts will have more control under our State Department's plan."

Reply

Anyone can read the Common Core standards; here they are

State Rep. Willie Dove, R-Bonner Springs, who is leading an effort to nullify the Common Core state standards for reading and math, is now denying he ever told the Journal-World that he hasn't read them.

At least that's what the Wichita Eagle is reporting in a story posted on that newspaper's website today. The story gives no indication that Dove now claims he actually has read them — only that he believes he was misquoted by the Journal-World.

For the record, Dove did say those exact words, which were recorded in a taped interview conducted on the floor of the Kansas House around 11 a.m. Friday, Feb. 14.

Since that story was published, Dove has apparently come under some intense criticism, a sample of which is reflected in the reader comments that were posted online. Many people seem surprised that he would initiate legislation to repeal standards that he himself has not even read.

But in the maelstrom that has surrounded the Common Core debate, that actually is not unusual. Many of the people who have spoken out against the standards during "citizens open forum" times at the Kansas State Board of Education have made similar comments. They either have no particular objection to the content of the standards, or haven't even read them. But they do object to the process that was used to bring them about — and especially the after-the-fact efforts by the Obama administration to encourage, or even pressure, states into adopting them.

So, for the benefit of anyone else who hasn't yet seen them, but would like to, here they are. And they are not that difficult to understand:

English Language Arts

Math

The standards describe what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade.

In English language arts, for example, the standards cover reading skills for both literature and informational text; writing skills; and speaking and listening. They say that by the end of fourth grade, a student should be able to "explain major differences between poetry, drama and prose, and refer to the structural elements of poems (e.g., verse, rhythm, meter) and drama (e.g., casts of characters, settings, descriptions, dialog, stage directions) when writing or speaking about a text."

Examples of reading material appropriate for students in fourth and fifth grade include Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Carl Sandberg's poem "Fog." By middle school, students should be reading and understanding books like Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women." And by high school, they should be up to books like John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath."

Those are examples, mind you. The material suggested does not constitute a Common Core "required reading list."

In math, the standards suggest that kindergartners learn to count, at least up to 19 to gain the foundation for place values. By third grade, they should start doing basic multiplication and division. And by fifth grade they should start developing fluency with fractions.

The Kansas State Board of Education adopted those standards in October 2010. This spring will be the first time Kansas students will take state assessments aligned to those standards.

Reply 6 comments from Paul R.  Getto Nancy Hamilton Scott  Morgan Frankie8 Eric MacDonald Phillip Chappuie

Education panels to discuss data privacy, sex education, Common Core, charter schools

The Kansas House and Senate Education Committees will be busy this week discussing data privacy, sex education, the Common Core standards and charter schools.

Concerns about data gathering and student privacy have been part of the conservative backlash against the Common Core standards, with many groups claiming falsely that the standards require the collection of massive amounts of personal data about students including, some have alleged, their families' religious and political affiliations.

In truth, there is no data-collection requirement in the Common Core standards. There is, however, an unrelated effort underway by the nonprofit organization inBloom — with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — to collect and synthesize student data as a way to improve individualized learning.

The Kansas State Department of Education has never been part of that program, which appears to be sputtering anyway and is now down to only three participating states. And Education Commissioner Diane DeBacker has said repeatedly that Kansas will not collect any more data about students through its assessment program than it has been collecting for years. That mainly includes the student's name, age, grade, race, gender, socio-economic status if available, and scores on the tests.

Nevertheless, two bills are being discussed this week that would limit the department's authority to collect and disseminate personally identifiable student data.

Today, the House Education Committee conducts a hearing on House Bill 2606, the Student Data Accessibility, Transparency and Accountability Act, which would limit the department to using only "aggregate" data when reporting "to any federal agency, state or local agency outside the state of Kansas, or any other out-of-state organization or entity."

On Wednesday, the Senate Education Committee holds a hearing on Senate Bill 367, the "Student Data Privacy Act." It would prohibit schools from collecting any kind of "biometric data" about students without their parents' written consent.

On Tuesday, the House panel will hear testimony on House Bill 2620 which would essentially impose an "opt-in" policy for instruction in health and human sexuality. That means schools would be prohibited from providing instruction in that course, "unless written consent has been received from the parent or legal guardian of such student, clearly stating that such parent or legal guardian allows such student to participate in the health and human sexuality education class."

Kansas currently requires one unit of physical education and health for high school graduation, but families are allowed to "opt-out" if a physician certifies they should not participate, or if the family claims a moral or religious objection. Beyond that, however, local districts are allowed to set their own policies regarding health and human sexuality curriculum.

On Wednesday, the House panel hears testimony on House Bill 2621, nullifying the Common Core standards for reading and math, as well as the Next Generation Science Standards, and establishing an Advisory Council on Curriculum Content Standards. You can see our story from Sunday for more background on that bill.

And on Thursday, both panels will have a joint meeting to hear a presentation from Rick Ogston, founder and CEO of Ohio-based Carpe Diem Learning Systems, LLC, a private, for-profit charter school management company.

Kansas currently has one of the more restrictive charter school laws in the country. Charter schools here must be organized within the structure of a unified school district and must have the approval of both the local school board and state department of education.

But the Senate committee is considering Senate Bill 196, which would greatly expand charter schools by giving other entities authority to establish charter schools, including cities and counties, as well as public or private post-secondary institutions.

Reply

Instructions for online practice exams; anti-Common Core bill

As we reported this week, Kansas University's Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation recently unveiled online practice versions of the new state reading and math assessments that students will take this spring. But if anyone followed the hyperlink in the story we published, they may have had trouble finding the instructions that go along with it.

The pathway to the instructions document is kind of odd, so here's the direct link.

First, you need to download the KITE client application, which is how you get into the system. Choose the one that goes with your operating system.

Once you've installed that on your computer, you need to launch the client and follow the rest of the instructions, which include the user names and passwords needed to access each of the practice tests.

The new tests are being developed in alignment with the Kansas College and Career Ready Standards — a.k.a., "Common Core" — that the Kansas State Board of Education formally adopted in 2010.

Coincidentally, though, at about the same time that CETE's Marianne Perie was briefing the state board on the status of developing those tests, a new bill was introduced across the street in the Statehouse that would declare those standards null and void and prohibit schools from administering any tests associated with them.

House Bill 2621, would also do away with the Next Generation Science Standards the state board adopted last year.

Henceforth, according to the bill, the state could only give tests "identical to the statewide assessments that were utilized by the state board of education in school year 2012-2013."

The bill is even more expansive than the one introduced last year that failed to pass the House. During her presentation to the state board Wednesday, Perie was asked about political efforts at both the state and federal levels to block implementation of the Common Core standards.

That's when she noted that if the state can't ask test questions related to Common Core standards, it could no longer ask them to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle, plot algebraic expressions or convert decimals to fractions — all standard math skills that students have always been expected to learn, and which are included in the Common Core math standards.

Actually, though, Perie clarified in a subsequent email that the way the bill is written, the state would simply go back to using tests aligned to the old standards.

Reply 1 comment from Brad Greenwood

Lawrence board opposes changing election cycles

Lawrence school board members indicated Monday night they plan to submit a joint written statement to a legislative committee opposing a bill that would change the election cycle for municipal elections.

Board member Shannon Kimball testified against House Bill 2227 Monday during a hearing before the House Elections Committee. It would change the date of city and school district elections from April of odd-numbered years to November of odd-numbered years.

It would also change the terms of office for school board members so that new terms would begin on Jan. 1 following an election. Under current law, board members' terms begin on July 1 following an election.

The bill was first introduced in the 2013 session. At that time, Kimball said, it also called for making city and school elections partisan races, although that provision has been deleted this year.

Before the start of the session, the school board adopted a legislative agenda that calls for continuation of non-partisan elections in the spring.

Board president Rick Ingram said he's concerned the language calling for partisan elections could be added back to the bill at any time.

"These things get added at the last minute," Ingram said. "I don't know many people who think we have too little partisanship in government."

Kimball said supporters of the bill hope it will increase voter turnout, which is typically very low in spring elections.

In last spring's elections, according to Douglas County voting records, only 16.58 percent of registered voters cast ballots in local city and school district elections, including the $92.5 million bond election in the Lawrence district.

But Kimball said passage of the bill would disrupt the work of school boards throughout the state because it would mean new terms would begin in the middle of an academic year - and in the middle of a budget year. They would also begin at about the same time most boards begin their superintendent evaluations and contract negotiations with teachers.

Although the committee hearing was held Monday, Kimball said the committee would accept written comments on the bill through the end of the business day Wednesday.

Rep. Scott Schwab, R-Olathe, who chairs the Elections Committee, has not yet announced when the panel might vote to advance the bill to the full House.

Reply

New food policy could affect school fundraisers

The Lawrence school board is considering a new policy that could cut into some fundraising activities like bake sales and pizza parties.

The policy would prohibit the sale of "competitive foods" — defined as any food or beverage service available to students that is separate and apart from the district’s nonprofit federally reimbursed food service program — from being sold at the same time schools are serving breakfast or lunch.

District officials say it's intended to address direct competition — pizza being sold when the cafeteria is serving pizza, or cake slices for sale when there's cake in the cafeteria. But the initial draft of the policy, which the board could vote to approve Feb. 10, would appear to apply to any type of food or beverage that's being offered at the same time as school meals.

In fact, districts throughout the United States are now looking at similar policies since the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed new Smart Snacks in School guidelines about food sold in school vending machines, snack bars and other venues.

Lawrence officials, however, noted that Free State High School and South Middle School are the only school buildings in the district that have vending machines, and those are already turned off during breakfast and lunch periods.

And those machines already comply with the proposed federal guidelines, which ban certain kinds of junk foods and beverages that are high in sugar, salt or fat, while encouraging healthier options like fresh fruit, whole grains, juices and bottled water.

The proposed district policy would not affect food that students bring from home for their own consumption. It would also continue to allow snack foods and other items to be sold during nonmeal periods, or during nonschool hours. It also would not affect concessions sold at sporting events, plays or other after-school activities.

Reply

In pre-State of the State remarks, Brownback sought common ground with school superintendents

TOPEKA - A few hours before his State of the State address Wednesday, Gov. Sam Brownback addressed a gathering of school superintendents in an effort to find some kind of common ground, or at least mutual respect.

At the same time, though, he acknowledged that he has a different view than most of the education community of what has happened to school funding in the three years he's been in office.

"I've been saying every year that I've been in office, we've put more money in K-12. And we have," Brownback told the Council of Superintendents. "Your experience has been, 'I've gotten less money,' which is true."

The main difference, he said, concerns how people count money put into KPERS - the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, which funds pensions for state, municipal and school district employees.

Basically, he said, the Legislature and his administration were putting more money into KPERS at the same time the federal government was phasing out the stimulus money it had been providing states to cushion them from the impact of the Great Recession.

"And you're saying – and I'm quoting one of you – 'Well, that doesn't put diesel into the bus tank'," Brownback said. "I understand."

But he offered no apologies for that, saying it was important to shore up KPERS because of its massive unfunded liability.

"Ultimately, where state and local governments have really gotten hurt is they don't take care of their pension systems. This is Detroit's problem," he said, referring to the Motor City, which recently declared bankruptcy. "You've gotta fund your pensions."

He also offered no apologies for the fact that, as the federal government phased out the federal relief it had been getting from the federal government, he and the Legislature chose not to replace that money with state revenues, which had begun to recover by that point, and instead to pass a massive tax cut.

"Now, other places went different ways on this formula," he told the superintendents. "I'm saying that basically, on the long term, we've got to get growth happening in Kansas again. And if we're based on growth, we can fund things. If we're based on raising taxes, or if we're based on the same declining overall strength, we're going to have great trouble doing this over a long period of time, but your transition is hard."

Before the recession began in 2008, base state aid per pupil was $4,400. By the time Brownback took office, it had fallen to $3,937. In the first full year of the Brownback administration, it was lowered $3,780. It is currently set at $3,838.

But Brownback did offer an olive branch, of sorts, saying there needs to be more communication between the K-12 education community, and less litigation.

"My plea with you is, honestly, to have a lot more communication, and that it be a lot more specific," he said. "Maybe start out pretty general, maybe getting to know each other's names. … We just have not had enough communications in the system, I think, in particular between K-12 and the Legislature."

The meeting was attended by what appeared to be most of the state's 286 superintendents. They listened politely, and quietly, as Brownback spoke for about 20 minutes. During a brief question-and-answer session that followed, a few thanked the governor for his career and technical education initiative, but none tried to engage him directly on the school finance issue.

That question is now pending before the Kansas Supreme Court in a lawsuit that seeks to restore all of the money cut since the start of the recession — more than $500 million a year. If that should happen, the question then will become whether the Republican-dominated Legislature will comply with the order, or defy the Supreme Court.

Reply

The good news about high school graduation rates, in two maps

This week, the Lawrence school board and the Kansas State Board of Education will discuss graduation rates and other statistics that are indicators about how well schools are performing. There are troubling signs in those numbers, especially those that point to wide disparities between racial and economic classes.

But here's some good news: Over the past two-plus decades, the United States as a whole has made huge strides in raising educational attainment rates in almost every part of the country. The U.S. is more highly educated today than it was a generation ago. Portions of the Deep South and Appalachia, unfortunately, remain outliers.

These "heat maps" from the Census Bureau show that in nearly every other part of the country, including Kansas, the number of adults with at least a high school diploma or equivalent has grown dramatically. The darker the color, the higher the percentage of graduates. The light yellow that dominates the 1990 map indicates less than 75 percent; the darkest brown in the 2012 map indicate more than 95 percent.

1990 population age 25 and over with a high school diploma or higher, by county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

1990 population age 25 and over with a high school diploma or higher, by county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. by Peter Hancock

Estimated 2012 population age 25 and over with a high school diploma or higher, by county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Estimated 2012 population age 25 and over with a high school diploma or higher, by county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. by Peter Hancock

Statewide in Kansas, it's gone from 81.3 percent in 1990 to 89.7 percent in 2012. In Douglas County, which traditionally has a higher rate of educational attainment overall, for obvious reasons, the proportion has risen from an estimated 88.8 percent to 91.3 percent.

You can zoom in or out for more detailed numbers at the Census Bureau website.

Kansas Education Commissioner Diane DeBacker offered a few theories about this during a conversation last week. The first was that it indicates how much more important a high school diploma is today than it was a generation ago.

Remember, the maps are based on census counts of people age 25. The 1990 map, therefore, is counting people who should have been on track to graduate in 1983 or earlier when "not everyone was expected to graduate from high school – the stakes weren't nearly as high."

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was still possible for someone to get a blue collar job – or at least a minimum wage job with chances for advancement – without a diploma, although it was still harder. That simply isn't the case anymore, and DeBacker said social norms have changed with the new economy.

"We've changed our message since 1990," she said. "A high school diploma is absolutely essential to opening any doors in employment, let alone postsecondary ed."

Another factor was No Child Left Behind, the 2001 federal law that most people identify with mandates for standards-based testing in reading and math.

But another part of NCLB that received much less attention was the mandate that states and individual school districts raise their graduation rates. It was one of the requirements for making Adequate Yearly Progress – and thus qualifying for federal education money. And it remains a requirement under the waivers that Kansas and other states have received since 2011.

"I think you can say that had an impact on it because it was one of the requirements of high schools," DeBacker said. "It was a requirement of states to set a level and hold states accountable."

Reply

No new faces on House panel to push for charter schools

Education lobbyists at the Kansas Statehouse were surprised to hear Monday that there will be no changes in the makeup of the House Education Committee, where a bill to greatly expand the state's charter school law failed last year by a single vote.

Republican House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, announced a host of committee changes Monday, prompted mainly by a large turnover in House seats since the end of the 2013 session.

All told, Merrick shuffled 31 assignments on 18 committees, but none of them affecting the Education Committee, where Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, will stay on as chairwoman, and Rep. Ward Cassidy, R-St. Francis, remains vice-chair.

House Democratic leaders also made no changes to their Education Committee assignments, which means Rep. Ed Trimmer of Winfield will remain the ranking minority member. No Lawrence-area House members serve on the committee.

The failure of the bill to advance out of committee came as a surprise to many because it had been a high priority issue for some GOP leaders, including Kelley.

Charter schools are generally thought of as publicly-funded private schools. They are often managed on contract by outside, for-profit companies, and in some states they are allowed to set their own administrative and employment policies, meaning they may not be required to bargain with teachers unions.

Kansas, however, has one of the most restrictive charter school laws in the country. Only public school districts can apply to open a charter school, and while they may managed by outside companies, they are ultimately governed by local school boards.

The Lawrence Virtual School is a charter school managed by K12, Inc., but it's governed by the Lawrence school board.

House Bill 2320 last year would have revamped that law allowing charter schools to be set up under the auspices of city or county governments, the Kansas Board of Regents, or the governing body of any public or private postsecondary institution.

Charter schools established under the law would have been exempt from most state laws and regulations that apply to other schools, including the requirement that they accept students who need special education services.

Reply 5 comments from Luckenbach Andrew Dufour Gary Denning Kate Rogge

Top three ways Supreme Court could avoid school finance showdown

One week out from the start of the legislative session, and everyone is still waiting with bated breath for the Kansas Supreme Court to rule in the school finance case. Which leaves pundits and gadflies little else to do for the time being than to sit around and speculate about what will happen, and then what will happen next.

The conventional wisdom currently takes two forms: a slam-dunk win for the plaintiffs, with an order to increase funding by hundreds of millions of dollars, leading to a constitutional showdown between the court and the Legislature; or a slam-dunk win for the state, overturning the court's previous ruling in Montoy vs. Kansas (2005), and holding that the court has no authority to question the political judgment of the Legislature regarding appropriations.

The latter, of course, seems to be little more than a pipe dream even among conservatives who take that view. Judging by conservative blogs, and the very nature of the latest Kansas Policy Institute public opinion poll, even they are bracing themselves for an adverse decision, and are girding themselves for the constitutional battle to follow.

But let me suggest there are at least three ways the court could conceivably rule that would avoid the whole showdown between the legislative and judicial branches and thereby leave both sides a little disappointed. First, however, a little review about how we got here:

In Montoy, the Court said that for funding to be constitutional, the Legislature must consider two factors: the actual cost of providing an education, including reasonable administrative costs; and the equity with which those funds are distributed. Adequacy and equity.

The equity piece applies not just to the base funding the state gives to school districts, but also to other parts of school budgets that the Legislature has authorized, namely Local Option Budgets, or LOBs, and capital outlay budgets.

Both of those are somewhat discretionary funds, and it's up to each local school board to decide how much it needs. But in property-rich districts like those in Johnson County, it takes a much smaller mill levy to raise any given amount of money than it does in poorer districts. Thus, the Legislature provides "equalization aid" to subsidize those budgets for poorer districts, so that 1 mill of property tax in Galena, or even Kansas City, yields roughly the same amount of revenue as 1 mill in Olathe or Blue Valley .

In the current case, Gannon vs. Kansas, the plaintiffs argued -— and the trial court agreed — that since 2008-2009, the Legislature has walked away from both of those commitments, slashing base state aid without any regard for the actual costs of running schools, and failing to fully fund the equalization formulas. The LOB formula is now only partially funded, and the capital outlay formula has gone completely unfunded for years.

So how can the court untie this knot without bringing down the wrath of a vengeful governor and Legislature? (Think constitutional amendments; changing the way Supreme Court justices are selected; lowering the mandatory retirement age for justices to force a few of them out to pasture; messing with their pension plans ... etc.) Here are some possibilities:

Dismiss for lack of standing: This was an argument Solicitor General Steve McAllister raised during oral arguments. He said the plaintiffs made a huge procedural mistake by failing to put anything in the record about who the named plaintiffs, Luke Gannon et al., even are, let lone how they individually have been harmed by the alleged constitutional violation. At most, this would be a delay move by the court because it would just force the plaintiffs to refile the case, take a few depositions by those plaintiffs and go through the whole lengthy, and costly, process again, leading in all likelihood to the same result anyway. However, it does seem that if a majority of justices wanted to take that route, they would have done it already. It wouldn't take three months to write that opinion.

Uphold on equity; punt the rest: The equity issue is really the least defensible for the state. The equalization formulas still exist in statute, suggesting the Legislature still acknowledges they are necessary. It just hasn't funded them, and it really has provided no plausible rationale for that, other than saying it just doesn't want to. If the court acts only on that issue, it would be hard for others to argue that the justices are "legislating from the bench." The Legislature enacted those formulas; the court has previously upheld them as constitutional. According to the Kansas State Department of Education, fully funding the LOB equalization would cost $103.9 million next year. Capital outlay equalization would be in the range of $25 million. That's still a chunk of change, but less than the full package and a little more defensible politically. That would leave only the big-ticket item of base state aid unresolved, to wit:

Remand for a new cost study: In Montoy, the Court used two different cost studies that the Legislature itself commissioned to come up with a base funding level that lawmakers eventually adopted. That's what led to the statute that is still in place saying base state aid today should be $4,492 per pupil, instead of the $3,838 the state is actually funding.

At the Gannon trial during the summer of 2012, however, the plaintiffs relied on one expert witness to update those cost studies, and it was a witness who wasn't involved in either of the original reports. They also presented school officials from plaintiff districts who testified that costs have gone up and current funding was inadequate, but not by how much. The state, for its part, offered no alternative evidence to suggest that $3,838 is an adequate figure, other than the self-evident fact that schools seem to be getting by with it anyway, so what the heck.

One conceivable middle path out of that problem would be to demand new evidence. Remand the case — either back to the trial court, or to the Legislature itself — and tell both sides to put new, current cost estimates into the record and come up with a new figure that is supported by evidence.

That, in essence, is what the court really did in Montoy, a case that was heard by the Supreme Court, in one form or another, five times before it was finally dismissed in 2006 — and then a sixth time in 2010 when the court refused to reopen it.

Reply 1 comment from Devin Wilson

KPI admits to faulty poll question

Last week we ran a story about a poll on school finance issues conducted by the conservative think tank Kansas Policy Institute, including reaction from education advocates who said the questions were loaded with false or misleading information that appeared aimed at eliciting a negative response.

At the time, KPI defended the wording of the question, as did the polling firm SurveyUSA. Since then, however, another education advocacy group, the Kansas Association of School Boards, has weighed in with more information, prompting KPI to concede that one question was misleading. In a phone call with the Journal-World Friday afternoon, KPI spokesman James Franko said the group would soon post a clarification on its own blog.

The text of the question read:

A state court has effectively ordered legislators to increase school funding by $443 million, which would also automatically increase local property taxes by another $154 million. Regardless of whether you believe schools are adequately funded, how would you respond to this statement: It is appropriate for the courts to have final say on decisions of how much taxpayer money is spent on education.”

Many observers objected to the idea that local property tax increases would be "automatic." It was based on the assumption that if the courts order an increase in base state aid, all districts would continue levying the same percentage for their "local option budgets," or LOB's. Ten districts, including Lawrence, are allowed to levy up to 31 percent of their base state aid; the others are capped at 30 percent.

But as KASB's Mark Tallman pointed out in a recent blog, the issue gets more complicated than that, and it speaks to the very heart of a couple of key issues in the lawsuit itself.

Base state aid is currently calculated at $3,838 per pupil, far lower than the $4,492 required by law. That's because when the Great Recession hit in 2008, state revenues plummeted and the Kansas Legislature cut funding. But the cuts were complicated.

In short, while the state is funding base budgets at $3,838 per pupil, it allowed districts to continue levying LOB's as if base aid had gone up, as scheduled at the time, to $4,433 per pupil. Therefore, if the Kansas Supreme Court orders the state to increase its base aid formula to $4,492, where it's supposed to be now, local districts wouldn't get that much more taxing authority. They've already gotten the increased taxing authority that would flow from most of that increase.

Tallman estimates there would only be $14 million worth of new local taxing authority statewide - not the $154 million that KPI plugged into its polling question.

For its part, KPI says before it put the poll in the field, it confirmed its estimates with Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis. And they forwarded an email from Dennis in which he confirms that he overlooked this quirk in LOB law when he spoke with KPI.

But there are still a few points worth noting:

First, local school boards must take affirmative action every year to decide where they want to set their LOB percentage. If base state aid goes up as a result of a court decision, some districts - possibly including Lawrence, which traditionally levies the maximum amount, whatever that may be - will continue to do so.

But others are likely to come under intense pressure from local voters to use the additional money for tax relief. That's likely to be the case in poorer districts that were forced to raise the LOB's in order to make up for the state funding cuts that began in 2008-2009. So it is false to say there is anything "automatic" about any LOB increases.

Second, one aspect of the lawsuit that often goes unreported concerns "equalization aid" for poorer districts. That's another thing the Legislature has cut, and it's something the plaintiffs are suing to get back. It amounts to a subsidy for lower-wealth districts that would otherwise have to impose huge property taxes to raise the same amount of money as a wealthier district of the same size. So if the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs on that issue, as the trial court did, those districts could continue levying the same LOB, and they would see an automatic tax cut.

Third, even with the polling question loaded with that false and inflammatory premise, nearly half of all respondents still preferred to let the courts, as opposed to the Legislature, have the final say in determining how much money is spent. The split was 50 percent to 47 percent against giving the courts that power, well within the 4.5-percent margin of error.

And finally, many observers — including this one — think it is dangerous to assume anything about how the Kansas Supreme Court will or won't rule. During oral arguments in October, it appeared there were a number of justices looking for some graceful way to wash their hands of this case entirely.

Reply 6 comments from MerriAnnie Smith Steve King Dreber Dave Trabert Caughtinthemiddle Bluekansas

Kansas 42nd in teacher pay

The average teacher in Kansas made a salary of $47,464 during the 2012-2013 school year, far less than the national average, and less than their counterparts in almost any other state.

That's according to the latest estimates from the National Center for Educational Statistics, which ranked Kansas 42nd among the 50 states and the District of Columbia for average teacher pay.

The report also shows Kansas has been slipping in relation to other states for at least the past few years. It was 41st in the previous school year, and 39th in the 2009-10 school year.

That can be the result of several factors, including the size of annual pay increases as well as the number of new teachers in the pool, since new teachers tend to make less than their more veteran colleagues.

Kansas ranked slightly behind Missouri, which posted an average salary of $47,517. The nine states ranking below Kansas were: North Dakota, Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi and, bottoming out the list, South Dakota, at $39,580.

The figures are based on a survey by the National Education Association and do not include the cost of fringe benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off and other benefits, many of which are difficult to quantify and categorize.

In the Lawrence school district, the average base salary for a teacher last year was $46,064, district officials said. Total compensation, including benefits, was $55,564.

Average teacher salaries, by state, for the 2012-2013 school year. Data from National Center for Educational Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.asp

Average teacher salaries, by state, for the 2012-2013 school year. Data from National Center for Educational Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.asp by Peter Hancock

Reply 64 comments from Barbaragordon Jhwkdoc1964 Mropus Wan Dreber Merrill Gregdivilbiss Amy Elliott Devin Wilson Alan Geist David Juiliano and 3 others

Prev 1 2 ...7