The Friday (Saturday) Five

1. The Republicans in the Kansas Legislature are blowing it in regard to education. All they talk about is the court is overstepping its authority (which it is). All Kansans are going to hear is "the court ordered more money for schools, the Governor wants more money for schools, and the Republicans don't want to fund schools." As I pointed out earlier this week, even certain State Reps. don't understand the seperation of powers, how do you expect the fine points of an arcane issue like that to resonate with voters. If Republicans want to win this issue they need to focus on talking about the children and what will be in their best interest.

2. Democrats in Congress are going to blow Social Security. The Republicans are beginning to put out real proposals on Social Security and they sound pretty good. This week they gave some options including reducing benefits for the rich balanced with increased tax benefits from saving, so those who can support themselves have an incentive to do so while those who can't receive help from the government. The Republicans also finally realized that they should be talking about funding private accounts using the Social Security surplus. This is the first time a real "lock box" has ever entered the discussion in Washington, actually it would be 280 million little lock boxes but unlike the one big one, they would all actually have locks on them and Congress wouldn't have the keys. The Democrat response: no plan, just political talk. The Dems are going to lose this one.

3. Oil hit $60 per barrel, and it isn't because of hedge funds. Oil is at $60 because of 20 years of Chinese development towards a free market economy and 30 years of US complacency.

The good news is that at $60 oil may be expensive enough to stimulate private entrepreneurs to profitably produce new oil saving technologies.

4. In the last week two very different people, both of whom I respect a lot, have praised Jim Cramer's Mad Money on CNBC. One thinks Cramer is really talking about core strategic issues and the economics of the businesses on his show, the other thinks Cramer has the pulse of the market and produces great trading ideas. Either way, CNBC plays the show three times a day so it is easy to catch.

5. Last week I did it, I switched to Fire Fox. It was easy to do, and the tabbed browsing and ability to open a whole section of your favorites makes it a great product for anyone who reads a lot of news, or a lot of link heavy blogs.

timothyb@timothyburger.com

Confusion in Education

Today the Kansas Legislature began a special session to deal with the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling ordering the Legislature to increase funding for Kansas public schools.

Any nation, any state, any city, any group that wants to compete in the global economy must make excellence in education a top priority. Kansas lawmakers would be foolish to do anything less than provide for the best possible education for Kansas children.

However the Kansas Supreme Court ruling is a classic example of confusing additional funding with progress toward excellence. The Kansas Court declared that since the State of Kansas funds public schools at a lower level than the funding level recommended by one group of consultants, the state is failing to provide even an adequate education for the children of Kansas. The court decided to define the quality of an education by the amount of money spent on that education, not based the outcomes that come from that spending.

Understandably, Kansas educators support the court ordered additional funding. If you asked lawyers if we should spend more money on lawyers I'm sure they would say yes, if you asked McDonalds employees if we should spend more on fry cooks I'm sure they would also say yes, it's rational self interest. However the important contradiction is that Kansas teachers also claim that they provide students not just with an adequate education, but an excellent education.

From today's Lawrence Journal World:

"Deena Burnett, who will teach at West Junior High in the next school year, urged legislators to increase funding.

"It's evident we have one of the premier education systems in the entire United States. We can't continue short changenge it," Burnett said."

The NEA even has statistics attesting to the comparative excellence of Kansas schools:

""Do the right thing," Kansas NEA President Christy Levings said. "We need solid, stable funding for our schools."

She said Kansas teacher salaries were 44th in the nation, while the state routinely ranks in the top 10 states in student performance."

The problem is that if Kansas is in the top 10 states in student performance, it is hard to see how we are failing to even provide a suitable education for our students. In comparison to other states Kansas provides an excellent education, in comparison to other nations Kansas probably provides a mediocre education but that is another discussion.

Are Kansas teachers underpaid, I don't know. 44th in the nation sounds bad, but the cost of living in Kansas is also dramatically lower than in many other parts of the nation. If teachers are underpaid, then we should increase their pay, but it seems like the salaries Kansas teachers earn are adequate to motivate highly qualified individuals to enter teaching, and once they enter the profession it seems like they are doing a more than adequate job at teaching our children.

The point is that the court has chosen an arbitrary standard that has little to do with educational excellence and gotten in the middle of the political process, a process that requires the balancing of many interests, and a process the Supreme Court is unqualified to deal with.

If Kansas education is really sub par, then it needs more than a few million dollars, it needs a real shake up and a lot of these less than adequate teachers should lose their jobs. If Kansas is providing a suitable education and our teachers are as good as we think they are, then the court should step aside and let the legislature set the appropriate level of funding.

Timothy Burger

Stephanie's Civics Lesson

From State Representative Stephanie Sharp's Sharp Report:

"Myth #2: The Court cannot tell us what to do, they are overstepping their bounds.

Fact: Are they? What I remember from high school civics is that the legislature makes the rules and the courts enforce them. From the Court?s perspective, the Augenblick and Myers Study is the only measure we have of how much a suitable education costs. Whether we officially adopted it as the standard is neither here nor there. It is the only thing the Court has to go on ? and as they see it, we?re not following our own rules. Especially considering the lawsuit, I don?t think the Court had a choice."

While I am not a constitutional law professor, I'm pretty sure that the executive branch enforces laws while the judiciary traditionally interprets laws (a the power not granted by the constitution). Does anyone else have a problem with their legislators misunderstanding the separation of powers? How can you have an informed opinion on this issue as a constitutional question if you think the courts enforce the laws? You must not remember much about your high school civics class.

Since the court made the Augenblick and Myers Study the law and now seems poised to order enforcement of that law I think it seems reasonable to believe that the court has over stepped its bounds. I think it is also reasonable to ask that Stephanie Sharp and Kathleen Sebelius both need to reread the constitution and their high school civics book.

Timothy Burger