Voice For Liberty

Tag: Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey

  • Wichita school district’s favorite architect stands to win big

    Shortly after USD 259 (the Wichita school district) passed a bond issue in 2000, a contract was formed between the district and its favorite architectural firm, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. The contract, portions of which you can read here, pays this firm one percent of the bond amount for “Project Management Services.” Plus expenses, I should add.

    In addition, Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture earned huge fees for being the architect on many school buildings. Their contract with USD 259 for their role as the architect of Earhart school gives their fee as about $420,000. The construction cost of this school was given as $8.3 million, so that’s five percent to the architect.

    In addition, this firm undoubtedly earned its one percent fee for project management services on this school, that fee earned by managing themselves.

    So it’s little wonder that Joe Johnson and Kenton Cox of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture are at the forefront of the effort to pass this bond issue. It means a great deal of money for their firm if the proposed bond issue passes this year.

    But wait, you may be saying. Won’t this project management contract be put out to competitive bid?

    Won’t the contracts for architectural services for each school project be competitively bid?

    I don’t know the answer to these questions. Something tells me, however, that Joe Johnson already knows.

  • Raising Wichitans’ Taxes in a Recession is Not A Good Idea

    “Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.” (Associated Press, September 7, 2008)

    Contrary to assertions by Wichita school interim superintendent Martin Libhart and school board president Lynn Rogers, Wichita can’t tax and spend its way out of a recession that may or may not be forthcoming. Not even Barack Obama believes that, as shown in the news story quoted above.

    Still, bond issue supporters say that’s what happened after the last school bond issue. There’s even a Wichita State University study to prove it.

    (There’s no doubt that some individuals and firms did well after the last bond issue. No doubt Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, one of the firms most prominently pushing for the current bond issue, fared very well.)

    But what they don’t tell you is that the WSU study doesn’t account for the payment of the bond issue. All it looks at is the spending. Spending, of course, drives economic activity. If government spends money, economic activity happens. But without mentioning the cost, the study is meaningless.

    In fact, it’s worse than meaningless. It’s dangerously misleading. It leads citizens to believe that government spending can save us from harm. If that’s true, why don’t we go for a bigger bond issue? Why stop at $370 million? Why not go for the full $550 million in needs that was identified?

  • In Wichita schools, smaller classes mean adding on — and subtracting

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a story about the need for additional classroom space to support the initiative of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, to reduce class size.

    Presenting to the board was Kenton Cox of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, the school district’s favorite architect. This firm stands to earn millions in fees and commissions if the bond issue passes. Their motives must always be kept in mind.

    Smaller class sizes seem like a great idea. Teachers like them, as it means less work for them. Teachers unions like them, as it means more teachers paying union dues. Parents love them. Who doesn’t like the idea of more individual attention given to their child? This is the reasoning that Wichita school board member Barb Fuller uses, and mentions constantly.

    But what does evidence tell us about the effect of small class sizes on student achievement? After all, that’s what counts. It’s not about the teachers or the parents. It’s about the students — or at least it should be.

    The Tennessee STAR experiment is the most frequently cited evidence that small class sizes are better. But this study has many problems, and these are not mentioned by the education bureaucrats and teachers unions that rely on it.

    For one thing, the study shows that incentives make a difference in education, something that many people deny. The teachers in the experiment knew that if it was judged a success they would get more funding for small class sizes in the future. Researcher Caroline Hoxby writes “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.”

    Researcher Eric Hanushek found these problems with STAR’s methodology, which serve to overstate benefits from class-size reduction:

    • Between 20 and 30 percent of the students quit the project each year, with less than half the original number remaining at the end.
    • The students who quit tended to be below-average achievers, giving the smaller classes a perceived boost in achievement.
    • No pretests were conducted on any students upon enrollment, which provided no benchmark to assess their level of achievement.
    • Neither the teachers nor the schools chosen for the project were selected randomly.

    So relying on the Tennessee STAR experiment as a basis for formulating policy in the Wichita school district is unwise.

    What about the new teachers that will be hired to support smaller class sizes? If the district hires the most-qualified teachers first, then by definition the new teachers to be hired will be the least qualified. So more students will be in classrooms lead by less-qualified teachers.

    Further, class size reduction is very expensive. What Wichita school bond supporters don’t tell us is that the bond issue is just the start of the costs of class size reduction. There are ongoing costs: maintenance, utilities, janitorial service, and the personnel costs of more teachers, teachers aids, and instructional coaches.

    Reducing class size is great for teachers and their union, school administrators, architects, and construction companies. But for taxpayers and students, it’s a different story.

  • Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture: Wichita School District’s Favorite Architect Has Hand in Everything

    Recently I obtained the contract for the construction of Stucky Middle School for USD 259, the Wichita public school district. Something I observed is that Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture was not the architect. Instead, it was Gossen Livingston Associates, Inc.

    Gossen Livingston was one of the hosts for the kickoff of the “Yes For Kids” pro-bond campaign in August. Was this firm inspired by a sense of civic duty and concern for the children of Wichita? Or by the prospect of earning architectural fees?

    Something I also noticed in this contract was the naming of an “owner’s representative.” I spoke to a person heavily involved in commercial construction, and he said it’s not unusual for there to be an owner’s representative. They’re often called “project manager,” and that’s the role they play. He did say it’s a little unusual for an architectural firm to serve in this role.

    What’s not unusual, though, is the identity of the architectural firm serving as owner’s representative: none other than Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. This firm is heavily involved in promoting the current bond issue. They stand to earn millions in fees if the bond issue passes. Now we know they earn not only as architects, but also as owner’s representatives.

  • Records Requests Sent Today

    Today, I’ve made two records requests under the Kansas Open Records Act.

    The first, to USD 259, the Wichita public school district, is this:

    All correspondence between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and its representatives from July 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture’s email accounts at sjcf.com, and also email accounts of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture representatives such as Joe Johnson, Kenton Cox, and Ken Arnold that may not be at an sjcf.com email address.

    Then, to the City of Wichita:

    All correspondence between the City of Wichita and HH Holdings, LLC and its representatives from January 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between the City of Wichita and Kevass Harding at both business and personal email addresses, between the City of Wichita and Key Construction and its representatives at both business and personal email addresses, and between the City of Wichita and Landmark Commercial Real Estate at both business and personal email addresses.

  • Mark McCormick’s Wichita School Bond Bias

    Writing from Scottsdale, Arizona

    Today’s Mark McCormick column in the Wichita Eagle (Opponents of school bond skip specifics) provides an example of this columnist’s bias, and how this bias leads to his rapidly losing credibility among Wichitans.

    Bias is okay for a columnist. Everyone is entitled to a point of view. After reading a few of McCormick’s columns you get used to his way of looking at the world. Then you can either read his column, filtering it as you do. Or, like many people tell me, they’ve simply stopped reading his column. Sometimes they stop the entire newspaper.

    Here’s one of the problems with this column: In allowing Wichita school board president Lynn Rogers a “big-league rebuttal,” McCormick wrote “The board members, who aren’t paid for this work, are responsible for answering the most pressing challenges.”

    This makes it sound like the bond issue has been planned and managed only by volunteers.

    This ignores, however, the huge staff at USD 259, many highly paid to advance the interests of the public school bureaucracy and monopoly, many now working on educational campaigns for the bond issue.

    This ignores the tremendous effort by Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture in promoting the bond issue. They are working for free, but this firm stands to earn millions in fees if the bond issue passes. As shown in the posts Wichita School Bond Issue Economic Fallacy and Wichita School Safe Rooms: At No Cost? this firm’s head, Joe Johnson, often says things that make me wonder in amazement.

    This ignores the efforts of many construction companies and contractors that have, at least according to their sponsorship of an event, lined up behind the bond issue, hoping to profit from the building of public works — whether they’re needed or not.

    The bond issue opponents are the true volunteers, if that makes any difference. As outsiders, we don’t have access to the type of information that Lynn Rogers and USD 259 insiders have. And, as I’ve illustrated, getting information from this district is problematic.

  • Wichita School Safe Rooms: At No Cost?

    Writing from Scottsdale, Arizona

    At the September 8, 2008 meeting of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, safe rooms were on the agenda.

    A few things I learned: It appears that it was by serendipity that the district discovered that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would help pay for the hardening of safe rooms. If not for that discovery, would these safe rooms be under consideration?

    Joe Johnson, head of the school district’s architectural firm Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture gave a presentation highlighting the benefit of FEMA paying $18 million towards hardening the safe rooms. The district receives the hardening for free, because the federal government pays, according to Mr. Johnson.

    I wonder if Mr. Johnson has ever considered where FEMA gets its funds.

    Then, by using Google, I found that many school districts are counting on FEMA to pay for a portion of their safe rooms, just like Wichita.

    As it is so often, the government takes from one party and gives to another, and the receiving party is grateful — until they have to pay for someone else’s safe rooms.

    I fully support safe rooms or some other type of storm shelter for Wichita schoolchildren. That’s because with compulsory attendance laws, children must attend Wichita public schools unless they are able to make other arrangements. The district, then, must be responsible for their safety.

  • Carol Rupe, Kansas School Board Member, Speaks for the Wichita School Bond Issue

    In a letter to the Wichita Eagle, Kansas school board member Carol Rupe makes the case for supporting the Wichita school bond issue.
    It’s not remarkable that a member of the public school bureaucracy would support increased spending on schools. Her letter is remarkable, however, in what it says, and what it doesn’t say.

    For example, Ms. Rupe says “I think I know who will be giving money to the group supporting the bond issue.” She then lists a few parties, but leaves out a few who have a huge interest in passing the bond issue: architects like Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and Gossen Livingston Associates, Inc. are two firms that come to mind.

    She writes that it is easier to recruit businesses to a city with good schools. That is probably true. It’s quite a leap, though, to make the case that this bond issue will improve student achievement, which I think is what parents really want. There are many low- or no-cost steps the school district could make that would increase alternatives for schools, but the district does not consider these.

    Ms. Rupe writes “Some [contributors] will be businesses that realize a bond issue will help boost the local economy.” This fiction that a bond issue boosts the economy is often repeated by the school district and bond issue boosters. But as explained in several posts (Wichita School Bond Issue: Is Economic Impact Real?, Wichita School Bond Issue Impact Is an Illusion, and Wichita School Bond Issue Economic Fallacy), the bond issue simply transfers economic activity from the private to the public sector. No wealth is created; in fact, wealth is lost.

    “Some will be families in near-northeast Wichita who don’t have enough neighborhood schools to stop forced busing.” Well, the district stopped forced busing this school year. How did that happen if there aren’t enough schools? And if new schools are in fact needed, they can be built without the very expensive bond issue being proposed.

    “Some will be retired folks who don’t wish to pay any more in taxes but who know they will pay more anyway if businesses leave.” What is the evidence or reasoning for this? I know of no firms threatening to leave Wichita because of the schools. In fact, Wichita routinely offers tax incentives to new and existing businesses that allow them to escape paying a lot of tax.

    Thankfully, Ms. Rupe decided not to run for re-election this year. Having been a member of the state board of education since 2001, Ms. Rupe must have sat through countless meetings bickering over minor issues such as science standards, and oversaw a huge increase in spending on schools. At the same she didn’t speak out in favor of reforms that other states have adopted.

  • Increasing the Wichita School Bond Issue: Why Was Courage Required?

    Talking to news media during a break in the meeting of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, on Monday August 11, 2008, Connie Dietz referred to her surprise motion to increase the amount being asked for by $20 million, remarking “I knew what I wanted to do, and I guess I was trying to find the courage to do it.”

    Personally, I want to take Ms. Dietz at her word when she says that her motion was unplanned. But I’ve talked to quite a few people in the community, and no one I’ve talked to believes that the board’s action at Monday’s meeting was not scripted in advance. I can understand how people might feel this way. The interplay between the actions of a citizens group and the board this summer rightly heaps suspicion on both groups, not to mention on Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture, who many suspect is really directing the action in this drama. This architectural firm has a huge financial incentive for passing the largest bond issue possible.

    But here’s my question: I wonder why it took courage to make this motion. After all, it’s for the “kids, kids, kids,” as board president Lynn Rogers said. And according to news reports, the district started with a list of $550 million in needed items, and then cut that down to the $350 million originally proposed for this bond issue. So this motion gets things closer to what the district believes it really needs.

    So why the need for courage? Why stop at $370 million?

    Could it be that Ms. Dietz realizes that the way the Wichita public schools raise money is through the force of government coercion?

    Could it be that Ms. Dietz realizes the Wichita school district already has a tremendously large budget by any measure, and that asking for more would appear greedy?

    Coould it be that Ms. Dietz has become aware of the Wichita school district’s monopoly on the use of public money for education, and how harmful this is to Wichita schoolchildren?