The questions asked by the reporter were different from the questions on the Midwest Democracy Project, but both interviews dealt with the funding (or lack of ) issues that all districts are experiencing. As I said in the interview, I don’t think we necessarily have a funding issue- we have an efficiency and spending issues.

Our district needs to look for overlap in services and consider consolidating positions that don’t directly impact student learning. Did you know that Kansas ranks 8th in the nation for the highest number of FTE (full-time equivalent) jobs per 100 students?

As of 2007, Kansas had 16.15 FTE jobs per 100 students.

That’s a lot of overhead, which means that the district could potentially consolidate positions and create more efficiency. States at the middle of these rankings have just over 14 FTE jobs per 100 students.

Between 2005 – 2010, Kansas teaching jobs grew 4.5%, but non-certified jobs grew 12.9%, and employment within all districts grew 8.9%.

According to reports provided to the KS Dept. of Education, our district has 138 FTE non-certified staff. For a district our size (approximately 2500 students), that’s 18 FTE non-certified staff for each student. Obviously, the school board needs to look at specifics, but it seems like there is room for consolidation of positions. You can see these reports over at the KS Dept of Education website.

You can read my answers at http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/candidates/troy-thompson/survey-results/. Overall, I didn’t have a problem with the questions, although one or two of them seemed to be loaded questions. For example, this question: “Do you support the leadership and work being done by the superintendent?”

If I say “Yes” then those voters who are unhappy with the current superintendent won’t vote for me. But if I say “No”, then the superintendent may encourage voters to vote against me. It’s a no-win situation… but I guess that’s part of being a public servant.

How did I answer? Head on over to the Midwest Democracy Project to find out…

There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to get well compensated (though the portrayal of teachers as just trying to get a “fair wage” is a little rich given that on an hourly basis they make more than such professionals as accountants and insurance underwriters). But please, spare us the heroic tripe about this being about “defending” students. Teachers paying relatively little for their benefits, and even worse, allowing unions to maintain a monopoly over teachers — some of whom probably deserve to get paid much more than the union-negotiated rate — is not at all about defending students. It’s about teacher, and especially union, self-interest, pure and simple.

The teachers always use the ‘we’re doing this for the students’ argument, but the public is getting tired of hearing it. Now, to be fair to many (most?) teachers, they only go on strike when their union leadership tells them. But that’s the main problem with collective bargaining- a minority can overwhelm the majority. Furthermore, the individuals that benefit the most is the union leadership. I’m not talking about the teachers that act as bargaining reps for their local school districts. I’m talking about state and national leaders whose salaries are paid by union dues. Think about that for a minute- the individuals responsible for guiding negotiations at all levels are the ones who benefit the most by maximizing what school district’s spend on teacher salaries.

If union leadership was compensated according to student performance, you can be sure they the truly would be ‘doing it for the students’. Poor teachers would be pressured out of the system, new teaching methods would be embraced, and we would likely see an increase in student performance across the board.

At least the State Superintendent is saying the right things:

“Sometimes so much of the federal and state laws focus on lower- and underachieving students, and we should be focused on them,” State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick said. “But we cannot reduce the opportunities for our students who can achieve at very high levels.”

We’ll just wait and see if the school district changes its mind…

Many programs face extra funding woes | Washington Examiner.

An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation that requires a state or local government to perform certain actions, yet provides no money for fulfilling the requirements. When a federal government imposes a law or regulation without necessary funding, it becomes the responsibility of the state or local government to pay for the implementation of the law. In the end, it is local taxpayers who end up footing the bill.

Some provisions of NCLB and other educational requirements handed-down by the US Dept. of Education are examples of unfunded mandates. These requirements place undue hardship on school districts, especially in times of economic uncertainty. As a member of the school board, I would ask that we review every ‘unfunded mandate’ to determine our compliance requirements. If we accomplish the same goals without extra compliance requirements, we are providing a better product and ultimately improving our community.

Districts all over the country are fed up with ‘unfunded mandates’ and some of them are even billing the federal government!

Concord Monitor – District sets out to collect on fed pledge