MYTHS & FACTS

Here are some facts to refute the myths circulated by those who oppose state funding for public schools. MYTH: The Kansas Supreme Court was an “activist court” that took unprecedented action and overstepped its authority when it ordered increased funding for Kansas public schools and struck funding provisions that favored certain districts FACT: The Kansas Supreme Court showed extraordinary restraint and acted within the scope of its powers as the branch of government vested with authority to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and to issue orders to correct or remedy violations of the Kansas Constitution. The Kansas Supreme Court merely held the legislature accountable to the people of Kansas for failing to satisfy the constitution’s requirement to provide enough funds for Kansas public school children and to fairly allocate those funds among the schools. The Supreme Court order requiring the legislature to appropriate more funds for schools, and striking certain discriminatory aspects of the state school funding law, was reached only after offering the legislature ample opportunity to correct the inadequacy and inequity on its own. The court found the law unconstitutional in January 2005, but did not order a remedy until June 2005 after the legislature had a full legislative session to enact amendments that would increase and more equitably distribute school funding. Even then it took legislation enacted in special session to give effect to the Court’s order. The Court did not exercise any legislative power. These restrained actions by the Kansas Supreme Court are in the mainstream of cases across the country in which state courts have been called upon by public schools, children and families to order legislatures to perform their constitutional duty to adequately and equitably fund public schools. Beginning as early as 1971 and continuing through 2005, state courts in 25 states, including Kansas, have found state public school funding laws to be unconstitutional. Since 1989, plaintiffs have won about two-thirds of the cases challenging state school funding laws. To remedy constitutional defects, state trial and appellate courts have ordered state legislatures to increase and/or more equitably distribute funding for public schools. Among the more recent decisions ordering such remedies are cases in Montana (Columbia Falls v. State, 11-9-04) and North Carolina (Hoke County Bd. Of Educ. v. State, 7-30-04) which involve facts strikingly similar to the Kansas situation. The Kansas Supreme Court’s actions in the Montoy case merely follow this clearly established line of decisions which is fully consistent with the appropriate role of our state’s Supreme Court as defender of the Kansas constitution. MYTH: A “Taxpayer Bill of Rights,” or TABOR, would benefit Kansas taxpayers by forcing government to be more efficient. FACT: TABOR is an ideological scam that has been floated for years, but so far only one state out of 50 – Colorado – has fallen for its too-good-to-be-true promises. The results there have been a disaster. In the 10 years since TABOR passed in Colorado, its ranking among the 50 states fell from 25th to 37th in high school graduation rates, according to the American Legislative Issue Campaign Exchange. Colorado highways deteriorated to the point that the American Society of Civil Engineers gave its roads a “barely passing” grade. Dollars and Sense Magazine reports: “According to David Bradley and Nicholas Johnson at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, between 1991 and 2003—a period in which the percentage of children who are uninsured declined nationally—the proportion of low-income children who lack health insurance in Colorado rose from 15% to 27%. Colorado now ranks 48th in its level of taxpayer support of colleges and universities, down from 35th in 1992.” Now, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican Conservative and one-time TABOR supporter, is leading a statewide campaign to suspend the law’s taxation and spending limits for five years to give the state’s economy an opportunity to recover from the damage TABOR has wrought. MYTH: A “Taxpayer Empowerment Act,” or TEA, would help enforce the will of a majority of Kansas taxpayers and voters. FACT:The TEA proposal floated by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and State Rep. Brenda Landwehr would in fact allow a mere 40 percent of the electorate, or of the legislature, to block the will of the majority of voters or their representatives in the legislature. Under the TEA proposal Landwehr described to the Wichita Eagle, either 44 percent of legislators, or 41 percent of voters in a referendum, could veto a budget approved by the majority of voters and legislators. The small group obsessed with reducing any and all government spending could block the construction of prisons, the hiring of state troopers or emergency response measures for coping with tornadoes or floods. Why are they pushing this dubious legislation? Because they know that a majority of responsible Kansans does not support their extreme anti-tax, anti-government philosophy, and they need the “minority veto” provision to exert their will over the majority. MYTH: Kansas residents prefer tax cuts to educational excellence. FACT: In statewide polling of Kansas voters in the fall of 2004, 54% favored a tax hike for education while 43% opposed it. In addition, 59% of respondents had a positive view of Education, while only 38% had a negative view. MYTH: State spending on public education has increased dramatically since 1990. FACT: Kansas changed its school funding formula in 1992, shifting the bulk of the responsibility for education from local taxes to state taxes. This created an increase in state spending completely offset by a corresponding reduction in local spending. Unfortunately, many of the people who oppose support for public schools will often attempt to mislead the public by comparing recent state education spending to figures from 1990 or earlier. These comparisons paint an utterly false picture of what has really been happening with educational support. These same individuals fail to mention the federal mandates that our schools are now required to meet without full funding from the federal government, such as the No Child Left Behind Act. You will also hear the argument that school spending has outpaced the consumer price index. That is not a valid comparison because: CPI is calculated for major metropolitan areas and virtually ignores rural areas, where a great many Kansas school children live. This is not an appropriate measure for calculating schools costs in a state like Kansas where major price differences exist between urban, rural and suburban areas. CPI measures the cost of given quantities of goods that represent typical family purchases. However, the goods that schools purchase are very different from the typical family. The largest component of school spending is teachers’ salaries. The CPI is not an accurate tool to use when discussing public education costs, according to both the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) “There are many problems with applying the CPI approach to education, especially the change of relevant products over time (item substitution) and the uneven growth of inflation for different occupational areas. Education is one of those occupations that has been strongly influenced by changes in technology. This makes it difficult to track inflation since the supplies bought today (such as the computer or VCR) are not really comparable to the supplies of a few decades ago (such as the typewriter or projector).” (1) “The CPI frequently is called a cost-of-living index, but it differs in important ways from a complete cost-of-living measure. BLS has for some time used a cost-of-living framework in making practical decisions about questions that arise in constructing the CPI. A cost-of-living index is a conceptual measurement goal, however, not a straightforward alternative to the CPI. A cost-of-living index would measure changes over time in the amount that consumers need to spend to reach a certain utility level or standard of living. Both the CPI and a cost-of-living index would reflect changes in the prices of goods and services, such as food and clothing that are directly purchased in the marketplace; but a complete cost-of-living index would go beyond this to also take into account changes in other governmental or environmental factors that affect consumers' well-being. It is very difficult to determine the proper treatment of public goods, such as safety and education, and other broad concerns, such as health, water quality, and crime that would constitute a complete cost-of-living framework”(2) (1) National Center on Education Statistics (2) U.S. Dept. of Labor ~ Bureau of Labor Statistics MYTH: Kansas spends far more money on educational administration and other non-classroom expenses than other states. FACT: This is another classic apples-to-oranges comparison that does not take student performance into account. The latest fad “solution” to this non-existent “problem” comes from politicians proclaiming the need to send at least 65 percent of all school spending to the classroom. It sounds good on the surface, but here’s what you need to know about their definition of 65%: Kansas does not list the salaries of nurses, librarians, speech pathologists or counselors in classroom expenditures; although we all know their contribution to students makes a tremendous difference to those children while they are in the classroom. Kansas also does not count transportation in classroom expenditure, however if children aren’t transported to school there is no experience in the classroom. Consider the impact that rising gas prices have had on your personal budget, and you’ll understand how it affects school districts across this state, especially rural districts that transport students long distances. Kansas also doesn’t include Food Service in classroom expenditures, yet we know how important a healthy nutritious lunch plays in learning in the classroom. For some students living in poverty, the school lunch is the only decent, nutritious meal they get all day. Many rural superintendents perform more than one function in their school districts. For example, a superintendent may also teach in the school district, but codes his entire salary as administration; this inflates the administration cost and deflates classroom expenditures as his salary is not being split between classroom and administration. Only two states spend 65% or more of their dollars in “classroom” expenditures: New York and Maine; both spend far more money on education in general. New York - $11,961 per pupil and Maine – $9,344 per pupil annually. (Source: National Center on Education Statistics) MYTH: We shouldn’t raise taxes for education because state government wastes too much money on unnecessary frills. FACT: Once again, comparing the spending habits of big government to those of local school districts is like comparing apples to oranges. Education funds are collected and distributed by the state, but the spending decisions are made by elected school boards in local communities – your friends and neighbors, who are parents and homeowners, too. Our local school districts do not maintain large, wasteful bureaucracies like federal or even state government agencies. They’re doing the best they can to take care of their own communities’ children. The fact is Kansas schools are a bargain. The excellent reputation of our public schools has been a key factor in our state’s economic development. TELL YOUR LEGISLATOR TO CEASE THE POLITICAL RHETORIC AND ADEQUATELY FUND OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS!