By
"It will take a long time to wade through the 139-page ruling, but even a cursory examination makes it clear that the three-judge panel didn’t let the facts get in the way of their decision. Instead, they made what amounts to a political decision that says the Legislature must increase funding by at least $548 million to meet the Rose standards even though school districts don’t know how to measure those standards." http://kansaspolicy.org/KPIBlog/124008.aspx


Kansas school funding decision ignores facts in arriving at a political decision
www.kansaspolicy.org
Today’s ruling on Gannon v. State of Kansas in which the Shawnee County District Court declared school funding to be unconstitutionally low ignores a long list of facts that disprove school districts’ contentions.  The three-judge panel ma
Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:14:11 +0000
By
KPI president Dave Trabert on today's ruling in the on-going school finance litigation, "This ruling willfully ignores a long list of facts that disprove school districts' contentions. The judges may even have ignored the State Supreme Court's order that adequacy is to be determined on whether outcomes - as defined by the Rose capacities - are being met. The judges essentially dusted off their original decision that was rejected by the Supreme Court and added some new legal jargon attempting to justify their original action in arriving at what is little more than a political decision."

Stay tuned for more analysis...
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:26:35 +0000
By
Gov't can provide quality service while saving taxpayers money.


A plan for balancing the Kansas state budget

Kansas Policy Institute President Dave Trabert presents KPI's plan to balance the state's budget without service reductions or tax increases. Trabert spoke a...
Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:34:52 +0000
Last Refreshed 2/1/2015 7:22:56 AM
KPIBlog
Print
School Lunch Controversy Shows Problems of Centralized Planning
Posted by John LaPlante on Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Students in Sharon Springs, Kansas, have produced a YouTube sensation mocking school-lunch guidelines laid down by the federal government.In the video, students collapse from hunger while playing school sports, or even sitting in a classroom. Critics say the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" is leaving students hungry by  limiting the calories they can get, and restricting their intake of protein, fats, and carbohydrates. Even so, some students and school officials say the problem, if it exists at all, is overblown. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Fowler) has introduced legislation to overturn the law. He says it represents "a perfect example of what is wrong with government: misguided inputs, tremendous waste and unaccomplished goals."

He is right about that, but the controversy also illustrates the dangers of centralization. Most schools participate in the federal school lunch program, and many even often breakfast, all on money taken from local communities, cycled through Washington DC, and then returned to communities, but with federal strings attached.

As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Or to update that, he who buys the lunch gets to decide what goes on the cafeteria tray.

What should we do? Perhaps it's time to do away with the federal program, let states and local governments make up the difference (if they wish), and stop the idea that everything, including what goes on a high school student's lunch, should be influenced by the federal government.

Would that mean hungry kids? If the video is any indication, the new school lunch program is already producing hungry kids.
Archives