Voice For Liberty

Category: Education

  • Book review: Class Warfare

    Class Warfare
    Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence
    J. Martin Rochester
    Encounter Books 2002

    In Lake Wobegon, “every child is above average,” Garrison Keillor says. In my personal experience, I can’t think of any parents I know who don’t have children who are not gifted or doing much better than average. After learning about the theory of Multiple Intelligences in chapter four of this book, I now know why all children are gifted.

    Multiple Intelligences is a theory, just over 20 years old, that says that besides the traditional areas of intelligence — linguistic and logical-mathematical — there are these additional areas to consider: spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. To this list might soon be added naturalist intelligence, and maybe others.

    On the surface, this seems reasonable. Not everyone is good at the same things. We generally believe that besides the three Rs, it is also good to learn about physical fitness, the arts, and music. What MI does, however, is to treat all abilities as equal. If a child is not good at writing or math, they may possess some other of these intelligences, and that’s just as good.

    MI leads to teaching exercises where, for example, to help learn punctuation symbols, the students might form punctuation marks with their bodies. That’s using bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Or students might assign an animal sound to each symbol, thereby using naturalist intelligence. If the only way that some students might learn the punctuation symbols is to engage in exercises like these, I can see how that would be good. But with MI, all students must do these things, even if they already understand.

    As an example, the author’s son, for studies in Greek mythology, was assigned a project where he was to “produce a cut-and-paste collage that consisted of pictures, newspaper clippings, or any other items they could cull from newspaper sources that contained references to ancient Greek culture and showed the relevance of that culture to today’s society.” This was the “capstone project in a high school class whose subject was English and which was an honors class no less.” Evidently exercises like these have replaced the written essay or term paper, even for motivated students.

    Other examples: “Choose a chemical element and write two paragraphs telling why it is your favorite. Be creative.” “For homework in the science class, students created collages and drew pictures of scientists.” “… the Clayton High School English teacher who had students produce bright yellow Cliff Notes covers and the CHS history teacher who had students draw a picture of any structure in their neighborhood that had meaning for them” “… required her students to do a project expressing their feelings about prejudice, using any ‘communication’ medium they wanted. This was classical progressive education — note the emphasis on personal affective, emotive learning; the social, ideological agenda of combating prejudice; and the child-centered license to express oneself even if it is not really using language as such.”

    At a time when American students are being outpaced in math and science by students in other countries, when many young people have difficulty composing a coherent sentence, when large numbers of college students must complete remedial work in writing and math before taking regular college courses, this is the present and future of American K-12 education.

    I learned a lot from this book, although I did not read every page of it due to time constraints.

    Does the theory of Multiple Intelligences influence Wichita public schools? It appears that it does. Quite a few schools mention it on their websites. Here is a portion of the Mission/Vision statement from Wichita’s McCollom Elementary School: “Staff will enhance students’ performance using research-based instructional strategies that include multiple intelligences, hands-on and real world experiences.”

    Supplementary reading: Reframing the Mind.

    A joke, the source of which I do not know:

    A Logger Sells a Truckload of Lumber

    1960: “A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?”

    1970 (traditional math): “A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price; in other words, $80. What is his profit?”

    1970 (new math): “A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100, and each element is worth $1. Make one hundred dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of the costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M, and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?”

    1980: “A logger sells a truckload of wood for $100. His cost of production is $80, and his profit is $20. Your assignment: underline the number 20.”

    1990: “By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? (Topic for class participation: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?)”

  • How one school found a way to spell success

    In the October 14, 2005 Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger wrote about an elementary school in Little Rock, Arkansas that experienced a remarkable turnaround in student achievement. This poor school, where 92% of the students live at or below the poverty level, was able to increase its scores on an achievement test by 17% in one year.

    What did Meadowcliff Elementary School do? Did it build new buildings and hire new teachers to reduce class size? Did it implement new curriculum? Did the local board of education hire an extra assistant superintendent to oversee the school? Did it increase teacher pay?

    It’s the last that the school did, although not in the way the teachers unions would dictate. Instead, the school was able to implement a bonus system, whereby teachers would earn extra money based on student performance. Mr. Henninger reports the results: “Twelve teachers received performance bonuses ranging from $1,800 to $8,600. The rest of the school’s staff also shared in the bonus pool. That included the cafeteria ladies, who started eating with the students rather than in a nearby lounge, and the custodian, who the students saw taking books out of Carter’s Corner, the ‘library’ outside the principal’s office. Total cost: $134,800. The tests cost about $10,000.”

    The bonuses were funded by a private donor, which allowed the school to bypass the teachers union. The teachers union opposed the second year of the bonus program because it was to be paid from the school district’s regular budget. The union insisted that the teachers at Meadowcliff vote for a contract waiver, and 100% of the teacher voted for the waiver. The fact that the teachers union would oppose something that was demonstrably beneficial for the students gives us another clue as to the union’s true constituency.

    This experience shows that sometimes little, simple things can make a huge difference.

    More information: PEF Announces Student Achievement and Teacher Reward Project, LR elementary scores bonuses for test gains.

  • How teaching math is politicized in public schools

    The Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “Ethnomathematics” (June, 20, 2005, available at this link, although registration may be required) tells us of the transformation of mathematics from a universal language and tool for understanding and problem-solving to a “tool to advance social justice.”

    For example:

    In a comparison of a 1973 algebra textbook and a 1998 “contemporary mathematics” textbook, Williamson Evers and Paul Clopton found a dramatic change in topics. In the 1973 book, for example, the index for the letter “F” included “factors, factoring, fallacies, finite decimal, finite set, formulas, fractions, and functions.” In the 1998 book, the index listed “families (in poverty data), fast food nutrition data, fat in fast food, feasibility study, feeding tours, ferris wheel, fish, fishing, flags, flight, floor plan, flower beds, food, football, Ford Mustang, franchises, and fund-raising carnival.”

    Now mathematics is being nudged into a specifically political direction by educators who call themselves “critical theorists.” They advocate using mathematics as a tool to advance social justice. Social justice math relies on political and cultural relevance to guide math instruction. One of its precepts is “ethnomathematics,” that is, the belief that different cultures have evolved different ways of using mathematics, and that students will learn best if taught in the ways that relate to their ancestral culture.

    Another topic, drawn directly from ethnomathematics, is “Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood.” Others include “The Transnational Capital Auction,” “Multicultural Math,” and “Home Buying While Brown or Black.” Units of study include racial profiling, the war in Iraq, corporate control of the media, and environmental racism.

    It seems terribly old-fashioned to point out that the countries that regularly beat our students in international tests of mathematics do not use the subject to steer students into political action. They teach them instead that mathematics is a universal language that is as relevant and meaningful in Tokyo as it is in Paris, Nairobi and Chicago. The students who learn this universal language well will be the builders and shapers of technology in the 21st century. The students in American classes who fall prey to the political designs of their teachers and professors will not.

    If you do not want your children to attend schools where this type of mathematics is taught, you may not have much choice if your family is of modest means. If you want to send your children to a schools where meaningful, traditional mathematics is taught, you may not be able to because of the near-monopoly that government has on schools. It is time to end the government’s monopoly on education and bring meaningful schools choice to parents. Parents who are happy with the type of education the government is presently providing will still have that available for their children, if that is what they want.

  • Corruption in the Public Schools: The Market Is the Answer

    Corruption in the Public Schools: The Market Is the Answer
    by Neal McCluskey
    Click here to read the article.

    This is an excellent article that shows how free markets can provide the best education for our children.

    On the surface, it would seem that having government bureaucrats in charge of educating children would produce good results. For a time in America, it did. But not now. As Milton Friedman said in his commentary “Free to Choose” published in the Wall Street Journal on June 9, 2005:

    “A Nation at Risk” stimulated much soul-searching and a whole series of major attempts to reform the government educational system. These reforms, however extensive or bold, have, it is widely agreed, had negligible effect on the quality of the public school system. Though spending per pupil has more than doubled since 1970 after allowing for inflation, students continue to rank low in international comparisons; dropout rates are high; scores on SATs and the like have fallen and remain flat. Simple literacy, let alone functional literacy, in the United States is almost surely lower at the beginning of the 21st century than it was a century earlier. And all this is despite a major increase in real spending per student since “A Nation at Risk” was published.

    “A Nation at Risk” was published in 1983.

    The executive summary of “Corruption in the Public Schools”:

    One of the most frequently voiced objections to school choice is that the free market lacks the “accountability” that governs public education. Public schools are constantly monitored by district administrators, state officials, federal officials, school board members, and throngs of other people tasked with making sure that the schools follow all the rules and regulations governing them. That level of bureaucratic oversight does not exist in the free market, and critics fear choice-based education will be plagued by corruption, poor-quality schools, and failure.

    Recently, news surfaced that appeared to justify critics’ fears. Between the beginning of 2003 and the middle of 2004, Florida’s Palm Beach Post broke a slew of stories identifying corruption in the state’s three school choice programs. The number of stories alone seemed to confirm that a choice-based system of education is hopelessly prone to corruption. But when Florida’s choice problems are compared with cases of fraud, waste, and abuse in public schools — schools supposedly inoculated against corruption by “public accountability” — choice problems suddenly don’t seem too bad.

    So which system is more likely to produce schools that are scandal free, efficient, and effective at educating American children? The answer is school choice, precisely because it lacks the bureaucratic mechanisms of public accountability omnipresent in public schools.

    In many districts bureaucracy is now so thick that the purveyors of corruption use it to hide the fraud they’ve perpetrated and to deflect blame if their misdeeds are discovered. However, for the principals, superintendents, and others purportedly in charge of schools, bureaucracy has made it nearly impossible to make failed systems work. Public accountability has not only failed to defend against corruption, it has also rendered many districts, especially those most in need of reform, impervious to change.

    In contrast to our moribund public system, school choice isn’t encumbered by compliance-driven rules and regulations, which allows institutions to tailor their products to the needs of the children they teach and lets parents select the schools best suited to their child’s needs. And accountability is built right in: schools that offer parents what they want at a price they are willing to pay will attract students and thrive, while those that don’t will cease to exist.

    From the conclusion:

    When examples of fraud, waste, or abuse are uncovered in school choice programs, they typically set off firestorms of criticism from people who oppose educational freedom. Critics quickly hold up any example of malfeasance in choice schools as proof that the market can’t provide the level of accountability supposedly guaranteed in public schools. But public schools’ accountability, as has been demonstrated constantly in districts around the nation, is a myth. Worse, it’s a myth whose propagation not only blinds people to the system’s failure to control corruption but also ignores bureaucracy’s disastrous toll on educational effectiveness. Ironically, though, there is a way to have both educational effectiveness and accountability, and it’s the very thing people who oppose school choice most fear: true choice-based education.

  • The school productivity crisis

    As the Kansas Legislature prepares to meet to consider school financing, it is a good time to reflect upon the state of our public schools.

    This interview (How to Improve School Productivity? Caroline Minter Hoxby) with noted Harvard economist Caroline M. Hoxby teaches us that American public schools have poor and declining productivity. As she states:

    The main symptom of the productivity crisis is the fact that productivity has fallen almost 50 percent in the past 30 years. We measure productivity by dividing a measure of student achievement by per-pupil spending in inflation-adjusted dollars. Regardless of which achievement measure we use, we find a decline in productivity of 40 to 50 percent. This is because achievement has been flat or slightly declining, while costs have been escalating rapidly.

    When asked how schools are able to increase costs without increasing the quality of the product, she responds:

    Schools don’t face enough competition. Just imagine competing grocery stores. If one of them decided to increase its prices but offer exactly the same products, people would go to the other grocery stores and the store would quickly go out of business. Unfortunately, parents do not have sufficient opportunity to change schools so that they can say, “My school is more expensive than before and it doesn’t seem to be doing better than other competing schools. Therefore I’m going to send my child to another school.” In other words, competition in the education industry is too weak to be an effective brake on costs.

    Regarding teacher unions:

    … the teacher unions can be very demanding for their members, who often want contracts that are not best for students. There’s no effective brake on the teacher unions because they are not forced to negotiate contracts that permit their schools to remain competitive. There is just not much of a competitive marketplace out there.

    On class size:

    The evidence suggests that class-size reduction has no effect on student achievement. There are literally hundreds of studies of class size, which have been very effectively reviewed by Eric Hanushek, that suggest that reducing class size does not raise achievement.

    I have a study in which I examined every change in class size at every elementary school in Connecticut over a 20-year period. In schools, class size varies from year to year because enrollment varies. Therefore, with 20 years and 800-some schools, there is a tremendous amount of variation in class size to examine.

    I found there was no effect of class size on achievement at all, even when children were in small classes for all six years of elementary school.

    There really is only one study in which a class-size reduction improved student achievement: the Tennessee STAR experiment. But the effect on achievement was tiny–a 10 percent reduction in class size raised achievement by two one-hundredths of a standard deviation in achievement test scores.

    More importantly, in the Tennessee STAR experiment, everyone involved knew that if the class-size reduction didn’t affect achievement, the experimental classes would return to their normal size and a general class-size reduction would not be funded by the legislature. In other words, principals and teachers had strong incentives to make the reduction work. Unfortunately, class-size reductions are never accompanied by such incentives when they are enacted as a policy.

    Also, it is worth keeping in mind that class-size reduction is very expensive. A 10 percent reduction in class size typically costs about $850 per year per student. For such a large amount of money, we could fund programs that are much more likely to raise achievement.

    Reducing class size is a perfect example of a policy that the teacher unions like, but that lowers school productivity. The unions like it because each teacher has less work and more teachers have to be hired.

    On school choice and vouchers:

    From 1998-1999 onwards, the schools that faced the most competition from the vouchers improved student achievement radically–by about 0.6 of a standard deviation each year. That is an enormous, almost unheard-of, improvement. Keep in mind the schools in question had had a long history of low achievement. Yet they were able to get their act together quickly. The most threatened schools improved the most, not only compared to other schools in Milwaukee but also compared to other schools in the state of Wisconsin that served poor, urban students.

    Milwaukee shows what public school administrators can tell you: Schools can improve if they are under serious competition.

    A theme that appears in Dr. Hoxby’s remarks is that competition is the way to improve schools. The way to create competition is to give parents real choice in where and how to educate their children. Providing substantial, meaningful vouchers is a way to do this.

  • Beneath the Radar

    Beneath the Radar
    by Richard Nadler

    On June 3, the Supreme Court of Kansas issued a ruling requiring the state legislature to appropriate an additional $853 million per year to Kansas schools, K-12. The basis of the decision, said a unanimous court, was a clause in the Kansas Constitution: “The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.”

    The increase equals roughly 20% of the state’s entire general revenue budget.In comes at the end of a fifteen year period during which Kansas’ expenditure per pupil doubled, exceeding the rise in consumer prices by 29%.

    In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court refused, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, to “equalize” school spending. No trend better illustrates judicial activism than the steady stream of state school finance decisions that followed. From Connecticut to California, liberal courts have broken legislative budgets and spending caps.“Equalization” has served as a pretext for tax increases in some states, and for attacking local control of schools in others.Indeed, “school finance litigation” has become a multi-billion dollar business, commanding its own corps of specialty lawyers and expert witnesses.

    To a large extent, these developments passed beneath the radar of conservative opinion makers. The fights are sporadic and local.Moreover, conservative icons want no part of them. Victory against the education lobby carries a political price; grumbling acquiescence to a court does not.Thus, the most prominent conservatives in Kansas – men like Attorney General Phill Kline, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Sen. Pat Roberts – have absented themselves from public debate over the Kansas court’s actions.

    The rationales state jurists present for assuming control of legislative functions have become bolder.In its June 3rd decision (Montoy v. Kansas), the state supreme court spills as much ink justifying its jurisdiction as its remedies.The latter are predictable and formulaic:more money for public education; less local control for district patrons.But the former are bold and exciting.In explicating their takeover, the Kansas Supremes cite a growing body of literature from law journals and other states, as well as their own precedents.Fans of republican government should take note.

    In the Sunflower State, judges, legislatures and schools co-existed for a century and a half without it entering the heads of the first to replace the role of the second in appropriating for the third.But today, Kansas courts assume a right to determine public policy on the basis of the presentations of litigants before the bar.Explicitly adopting the rationale of a Kentucky court, the Kansas justices quote it:

    “…[In this case] we are asked – based solely on the evidence in the record before us – if the present system of common schools in Kentucky is ‘efficient’ in the constitutional sense.… To avoid deciding the case because of ‘legislative discretion,’ ‘legislative function,’ etc., would be a denigration of our own constitutional duty.To allow the General Assembly (or, in point of fact, the Executive) to decide whether its actions are constitutional is literally unthinkable.”

    In other words, the “record” that is presented in the course of litigation not only can, but must, replace the form of “fact finding” that goes on in state legislature.To refrain from a decision based on the limitations of the knowledge base available through litigation is “unthinkable.”

    In fact, the imperfection of the legislative process provides the rationale for intervention.“Specifically,” say the justices in Montoy, “the district court found that the financing formula was not based upon actual costs to educate children, but was instead based on former spending levels and political compromise [Italic mine-RN].”

    The rules-based actions that legislative bodies apply to base-line budgets are thus structurally suspect.A process so arbitrary invites review.But once a case has been presented, how are the constitutional duties of the three branches of state government defined?Once again, the Kansas court cites its Kentucky peers:

    “The judiciary has the ultimate power, and the duty to apply, interpret, define, and construe all words, phrases, sentences and sections of the Kentucky Constitution as necessitated by the controversies before it.It is solely [italic added by the Kansas justices – RN] the function of the judiciary to so do. This duty must be exercised even when such action serves as a check on the activities of another branch of government or when the court’s view of the constitution is contrary to that of the other branches, or even that of the public.”

    Now, the relevant entries of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary define “Apply” thus: a) “to bring into action, to put into operation or effect (as in a law);” andb) “[to] put to use, especially for some practical purpose.”

    These phrases describe the traditional function of the executive branch in our state constitutions.What the Kansas Supreme Court has substantively claimed is an exclusive right to make law on any case brought before it.The constitutional oaths state executives take, like those of legislators, are in vain.

    States are a particularly promising venue for this brand of juridical monopoly.The Kansas Justices cite a 1991 Harvard Law Review article to explain:

    [U]nlike federal courts, state courts need not be constrained by federalism issues of comity or state sovereignty when exercising remedial power over a state legislature, for state courts operate within the system of a single sovereign.”

    So our “single sovereign” is liberated from lesser sovereignties, as well as the constitutional claims of its co-equal branches of government.

    For how long can the court claim this license? Harvard Law explains: “… the Court too must accept its continuing constitutional responsibility… for overview… of compliance with the constitutional imperative.’

    To summarize:The public policy dicta of a state court need not be constrained by the messy squabbling of elected legislators, nor by facts neglected by the litigants-at-bar; nor by the constitutional duties of its co-equal branches; nor by lesser political subdivisions; nor by time itself.

    It was a persistent dream of socialist and fascist thinkers of the twentieth century to replace the noisy, class-influenced machinery of democracy with a professional corps of experts who would design economic and social institutions in the interests of the people.In Montoy, the Kansas Supremes set their hands to it.But the best they could produce was a rehash of fragments of the legislature process, ripped from their moorings in popular sovereignty.

    The court adopted a single study by a single committee of the legislature.The justices treated its proposals as law, and rammed them down the throats of all concerned.Montoy’s policy prescriptions – more funding for public schools, less local control – would have surprised the U.S. Supreme Court justices who rejected a “remedy” in 1973. For the majority, Justice Powell wrote:

    It is also well to remember that even those districts that have reduced ability to make free decisions with respect to how much they spend on education still retain, under the present system, a large measure of authority as to how available funds will be allocated. They further enjoy the power to make numerous other decisions with respect to the operation of the schools.The people of Texas may be justified in believing that other systems of school financing, which place more of the financial responsibility in the hands of the State, will result in a comparable lessening of desired local autonomy. That is, they may believe that along with increased control of the purse strings at the state level will go increased control over local policies.

    But then, Powell was constrained by those silly federalist principles.

    — Richard Nadler is president of America’s Majority, a not-for-profit dedicated to building the demographic base of the conservative movement.

  • Wearing a Black Robe to Make Sausage

    Wearing a Black Robe to Make Sausage
    by Bob L. Corkins
    April 22, 2005

    Want to create new laws without legislators? Then watch the Kansas Supreme Court for the next few weeks to see how it’s done.

    Like pride for trophies on a mantle, trial lawyers boast of cases where they convinced a court to declare the birth of a new duty. Persuade a jury that somebody owes a responsibility to someone else, even if there’s no agreement, precedent, or statute providing a basis, then collect damages after showing the duty was breached.

    If the decision holds up on appeal – Presto! – a new law is born. You don’t even need to mess with a jury when a single judge is tabbed as the official “finder of fact”.

    Plaintiff school districts found just the judge they were hoping for when they filed their billion dollar Montoy v. State case challenging the fairness of Kansas’ K-12 education funding plan. The trial judge ruled that the state aid formula was both inequitable and under-funded. The Kansas Supreme Court now appears ready to uphold that result, but with one major twist in reasoning.

    Any discrimination of our laws is traditionally evaluated with the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. In the Montoy trial court’s opinion, disparities in K-12 funding caused “a clear denial of equal protection of the laws in contravention of both the United States and Kansas Constitutions”.

    Many disagree with this conclusion and formed solid legal reasons for their disagreement. How? By applying well known standards that the Judiciary has reinforced for generations when interpreting Equal Protection.

    When the Supreme Court did this for the Montoy appeal in January, it specifically reversed the trial court by writing “We conclude that all of the funding differentials as provided by the [Act] are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose. Thus, the [Act] does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Kansas or United States Constitutions.”

    It would seem, then, that the only question left is whether Kansas’ overall spending on K-12 is enough to satisfy Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution by being “suitable”. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that current funds are not suitable, then gave the Legislature a few months to make it good.

    Further word from the Supreme Court was issued, perhaps ominously, on April 15, tax day for millions of Americans. It ordered additional briefs responding to many questions, including demands for justification of: disparities in K-12 funding between districts; the “weighting” of some categories of students more or less than others; failure to automatically increase special education funds by annual inflation; and, all disparities based on actual costs per pupil.

    All are Equal Protection questions. Are these really the same judges that just gave the finance plan a clean Equal Protection bill of health? The Court throws logic out the window when it says all funding differentials are rationally related to legitimate purposes, then sneers that they are the result of political bargains.

    Explanation: the Court’s upcoming decision will probably make new constitutional law.

    The Court’s only remaining path of legal reasoning to indict the K-12 formula is with Article 6 which says “the legislature shall make suitable provision for finance”. There is no legal precedent for interpreting this phrase. None from Kansas; only a couple other states that use the term “suitable” in this context and none of their cases offer guidance either.

    Thus, the Supreme Court is free to declare that “suitable” means whatever it chooses. Maybe they’ll pluck from their favorite dictionary definitions. “Suitable” could easily become like Equal Protection on steroids, meaning anything the Court might eventually consider “fair”. There’s no current standard for evaluating it, so the Court can use it to reject any fix the Legislature might negotiate. At least when the plaintiffs first filed suit, they were shooting at a stationary target. And when the trial court ruled, however wrong its conclusion, at least it was using an established legal standard.

    Worse still, consider the Court’s deep inquiry into the fairness of finance plan details. Its recent questions sound like those posed by someone wanting to micro-manage the Legislature’s response. But the separation of legal power is not like that strip of border grass that sometimes you mow, sometimes your neighbor does. It must be a constitutional firewall.

    One of the court’s questions last week was more revealing and politically charged than the rest. What’s the “constitutional significance” of failing to name a future source of K-12 funding? The answer should emphatically be “None”. Only judges pretending to be legislators would ask that question in the first place.

    ###

    Bob L. Corkins is executive director of the Freestate Center for Liberty Studies. The Freestate Center is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit, Topeka based research institute for advancing the Constitutional principles of limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise and traditional family values. Freestate is organized under IRS ‘ 501(c)(3).

  • More from Rep. Frank Miller

    A press release from Kansas House Member Frank Miller, Republican from Independence.

    Further Regarding The Sebelius Court Order
    June 9, 2005

    Thank you for your many responses to my last press release. I appreciate getting both those that agree with me as well as those that disagree with me. The responses are running about half agree and half disagree, however most of the “disagrees” are from educators. The pile of agree responses cut across a broad range of constituents in my district. As far as my meetings with individuals, the consensus is running almost 100% agree that the Sebelius Court has overstepped its authority. Let’s face it – most voters want to hold their elected legislators responsible for making laws, levying taxes, and appropriating funding. Who wants to have a few non-elected judges make these kinds of decisions?

    Some have asked me “have we read the Constitution” – the answer is “YES”. Some say the legislature must obey the Sebelius court if they have a genuine concern for the children – the answer is “we do”, but we also have a concern for the parents of the children, and for those couples who have no children and retired citizens. The amount of tax that comes out of the pockets of the parents also hurts the children.

    The really big problem is not about money! The really big problem, which has been imposed upon the Legislature by the Sebelius Court, is a “Constitutional Crisis”. If we acquiesce even in one small amount to this court order then we have agreed with the court and set a precedence that will make next year and all future years more difficult for the legislature. I do not want to leave that kind of legacy for the legislator that will follow my steps. For this reason I have no plans to acquiesce to the court.

    The really big funding problem will come next year 2006-2007 when the court has ordered that the legislature fund the entire funding increase recommended in the Augenblick & Myers report of $853 million. One constituent suggested that we raise the cigarette tax to pay for this increase, which would necessitate increasing the present tax of $0.79 per pack to about $8.00 per pack. Kansas would collect zero revenue from this levy since no one would buy their cigarettes in Kansas. I fear many citizens and Supreme Court judges have little understanding of the magnitude of tax increase that would be needed to fund this kind of spending. So here goes! According to the Kansas Legislative Research Department, any one of the following tax increases would yield the required $853 million:

    The current State Sales tax of 5.3% would be increased to about 10%, and local taxes would be added to that. Here in Independence that would be a tax increase from 7.55% to about 12.25%! Or the current State property tax of 20 mills would be increased to 65 mills! The current local LOB taxes would remain unchanged and in place. Or the State could impose a 45% surcharge on every person’s income tax!

    None of these make any sense and would definitely make Kansas the “CHAMPION OF HIGH TAXES” in our five-state area. It would spell economic suicide for small business and according to projections from Beacon Hill Model – Flint Hills a loss of about 20,000 jobs. Currently our population growth is stagnant at best and school enrollment is actually declining, but these kinds of tax increases would cause a sucking sound to resonate all over Kansas and our schools as families move out to lesser taxed states.

    “We are using scare tactics” some will say! Or, “we are overly negative”, others will cry! “No”, what has just been stated is REALITY, and the best way to turn something bad into something good is to first recognize truth and then act on correcting the problem. We need to make major reforms in our schools and our government in order to make them more efficient and eventually lower taxes across the board. A tough business-minded governor could force this to happen, but it would not be easy. We need to pass the TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) bill in 2006, but that is another subject I will be discussing more during the summer.

    It is very important that I hear from you and that you let your voice be heard by your representative and senator on this Sebelius Court Constitutional Crisis issue.

    To contact Rep. Frank Miller write, telephone, or email to P.O. Box 665, Independence, KS, 67301, Tel: (Home) 620-331-0281; Email frank@frankmiller.org, or see webpage www.frankmiller.org.

  • Base School funding on research, not feelings

    On the surface, it would seem like smaller class sizes would produce better educational outcomes. Intuitively, this makes sense.

    Research tells a different story, however. Research by Harvard economist Caroline M. Hoxby titled “The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 :4 (2000), 1239-1285, which can be read here: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/effects.pdf makes a different conclusion. Some quotes from the study:

    I identify the effects of class size on student achievement using longitudinal variation in the population associated with each grade in 649 elementary schools. I use variation in class size driven by idiosyncratic variation in the population. I also use discrete jumps in class size that occur when a small change in enrollment triggers a maximum or minimum class size rule. The estimates indicate that class size does not have a statistically significant effect on student achievement. I rule out even modest effects (2 to 4 percent of a standard deviation in scores for a 10 percent reduction in class size).

    Using both methods, I find that reductions in class size have no effect on student achievement. The estimates are sufficiently precise that, if a 10 percent reduction in class size improved achievement by just 2 to 4 percent of a standard deviation, I would have found statistically significant effects in math, reading, and writing. I find no evidence that class size reductions are more efficacious in schools that contain high concentrations of low income students or African-American students.

    As we in Wichita and Kansas prepare to make important decisions on school funding, let’s use research, not feelings, to make informed and rational decisions.