New Supreme Court ruling, doesn’t bridge gap between legislators, Superintendents

first_imgby James Jordan, Sumner Newscow — The Kansas State Legislature passed a budget this week that solved a projected shortfall. It added money for legal fees in the school funding lawsuit, but did not put in any additional funding for schools. That was perhaps an answer to the latest salvo in the school funding issue that has been going on in Kansas for several years.Last week, the State Supreme Court ruled the block funding formula passed last year does not fund schools sufficiently, and that it harms poorer districts. The block funding grant is a two-year program that fixes funding for two years, meaning there is no adjustment if a district gets more or fewer students.The court said the state needs to add funding by June 30 or schools could be shut down. The state’s adding money for legal fees instead could signal that it is preparing to fight the ruling.While the ruling is the latest in years worth of events, some school officials feel not much is really changing.Alan Jamison, superintendent at Caldwell, said “it kind of feels like we are back to where we were three years ago. It doesn’t seem to be any more court shuffling of the case it has come to an end.”He said districts would still have to wait and see how the legislature reacts before schools can see what the impact will be.Conservatives are continuing to support the formula and feel schools are being funded better than the high court does.State Rep. Kyle Hoffman, (R-Clearwater) said he believes the block grant is constitutional because the state followed the constitution when putting it together.“The legislature voted on it, the governor signed it, and it provides school districts the ability to give students a suitable education, through federal, state, and local funding all the while providing more flexibility to use those funds than they have had in years,” he said.Caldwell was one of the smaller districts that actually benefited from the block grant program. The district had an increase in students before the grant started, so their funding level went up and will stay up for the two years. Jamison said the block grant would allow them to lower taxes a little.However, districts who gained students later would have extra expenses and no money to pay the extra costs.Hoffman believes the state program got money into the classroom to help students, and it did not help the bureaucracy.“The lawsuits that have come have not been about the kids, because they haven’t ever been able to prove any child was harmed by a supposedly “inequitable” education. The lawsuits are about the teachers unions and the education establishment constantly pushing for more money, which I am convinced will never be enough. My priority is the kids, and giving them the opportunities they deserve, which is more than just about money,” Hoffman wrote in an email.Follow us on Twitter. Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (8) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +5 Vote up Vote down oldman · 233 weeks ago Does Mr Hoffman really believe what he said? I love when they add $$ for KPERS and claim they increased funding to education, but when they cut $$ to KPERS they didn’t cut education. Do they really think we have that short of memories or do they think we are that stupid? Report Reply 1 reply · active 233 weeks ago +6 Vote up Vote down Small Town Boy · 233 weeks ago The ones riding the coattails of Brownback think both, I believe. And, yes, that includes Hoffman. Want to find a representative who actually makes his decisions on his own? Check out Ed Trimmer. Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down Turkeyleg · 233 weeks ago The republiecons plan in action, “Take this and shut up”. They have the money for lawyers, well they think it’s their money, it’s actually the taxpayers, then don’t have any for schools. I guess the Bank of KDOT is empty. They got their education but now want to deny the kids of today and tomorrows their’s. Report Reply 0 replies · active 233 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down robert zimmerman · 233 weeks ago THey do think we are that stupid. We need to show them in November.. Report Reply 0 replies · active 233 weeks ago +4 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 233 weeks ago I’m curious how much people think is enough to hand out to the schools? Report Reply 1 reply · active 232 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 232 weeks ago *crickets* Report Reply +1 Vote up Vote down GrandmaD · 233 weeks ago It isn’t about actually educating kids,I have NEVER heard anyone say exactly what would be enough, I don’t think that figure exists. Get the funding to the classrooms and weed out the spending just as you would in your household budget or your business if you want something more. It really chaps me that our tax dollars that were meant for education go to pay for these legal fights. They need to stop spending so much for new expensive buildings and getting the funding for them passed by advertising that the State (which has no money tree expect for taxpayers) will pay the bulk of it. If government can’t be run like a business that MUST turn a profit this will never stop. Report Reply 1 reply · active 232 weeks ago +2 Vote up Vote down BornInASmallTown · 232 weeks ago Government can’t be run like a business. If the government were run like a business, we would all have to pay for services at a price in line with market value. For example, your mail thru USPS would have to be more aligned to the cost of UPS or FedEx. The cost of putting your children in school would be more akin to putting your child in private school. Subsidies for agricultural products would be dismissed and CRP payments would become non-existent as their purpose is not for the government to make a profit. I take your point, but running a government as a business is not feasible without significantly higher taxes to pay for the market value of such services. Report Reply Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img read more

Liverpool striker signing! £30m world class Serie A star, World Cup winner and more possible targets

first_imgWith Daniel Sturridge ruled out for six weeks with a thigh injury, Liverpool’s striker woes have become even worse.Mario Balotelli looks incapable of showing the form which made him one of the hottest prospects in world football, while fellow forwards Rickie Lambert and Fabio Borini are yet to score this campaign in any competition.Manager Brendan Rodgers will now have to have a long think about his options in January but if he does want a new signing there are plenty of strikers out there on the market should he wish to land himself a player who can fire them up the Premier League.So who could the Reds sign in the coming weeks? talkSPORT takes a look…Who would you like Liverpool to sign? Comment below! 6. Gonzalo Higuain on his way out of Napoli… to Anfield? Click the arrow to see more super strikers Liverpool should look at splashing the cash on to save their season! – Liverpool need a goal scorer and they need one fast. With Daniel Sturridge too injury prone and Luis Suarez long gone, the goals have dried up with serious consequences for Brendan Rodgers. In the summer Liverpool took calculated gambles on Mario Balotelli and Rickie Lambert, and now they are paying the price. The lesson should be learned: if at all possible, buy a top quality striker, proven consistently at the highest level. Easier said than done, but the Reds have been linked with a big money move for Higuain, who is said to be unsettled in Italy, amid reports Napoli don’t believe they can keep him beyond this season. Last year he netted 17 times in Serie A last term as well as four goals in five Champions League matches, with eight goals in 15 matches this campaign. The Argentine striker will apparently cost £30m, but for a player of his quality, then that’s worth it, right? 6 6 3. Seydou Doumbia (CSKA Moscow) – proven Champions League class – Click the arrow to see a player Liverpool could target who is regularly banging in the goals – Vanquisher of Manchester City, Ivorian striker Doumbia has been consistent goal scorer for CSKA Moscow since joining from Young Boys and has a stack of individual honours recognising his prowess in front of goal too. The player worth between £15-25million, which would represent great value considering the price paid for the lacklustre Mario Balotelli. 1. Could Marseille’s Andre-Pierre Gignac – 10 goals in 13 games so far this season – With his contract set to finish at the end of the season, there are plenty of clubs sniffing around prolific Frenchman Gignac. Ten strikes in 13 games so far this season means the 28-year-old is looking at his most prolific campaign for Marseille. At 28, Brendan Rodgers may want a younger player considering he has already brought in the experience of Rickie Lambert, but his relatively cheap price tag in January, or a free transfer next summer, could tempt the Reds to make a move now. 6 6 2. Lyon’s Alexandre Lacazzette – 11 goals in just 13 games – Click the arrow to see a possible target who’s already bagged 10 goals this season – A regular goal-getter in France over the last four seasons, Lacazzette is currently in scintillating form. The 23-year-old, who has represented Les Bleus at every level, has managed 11 strikes in just 13 appearances. A new deal signed in September was meant to tie him to Lyon until 2018 but with more excellent displays it may only mean the Ligue 1 side get more money when they sell the talented striker. 6 4. Here’s why Chelsea could be persuaded to sell Andre Schurrle – then click the arrow to see a Champions League talent who could light up Anfield – Liverpool really could sign Schurrle. The proof? Juan Mata’s move to Manchester United. A few years ago the Blues would not have considered selling a top class talent to a potential Premier League rival, but times have changed and the club will consider any deal that could make them a fat profit, in light of Financial Fair Play. Mata was sold for big money when Mourinho decided that he was surplus to requirements and calculated that United weren’t a threat. Likewise, World Cup winner Schurrle is seemingly in danger of falling out of favour with the Portuguese, while Chelsea are well ahead of the Reds in the league. Liverpool would need to break the bank, but they would land a forward who scored three goals and bagged an assist in just 244 minutes of World Cup action last summer, and possesses the dynamism that Rodgers loves in his attackers. 5. Porto’s Jackson Martinez – 53 goals in 70 Portuguese league games – Click the arrow to see another top talent Liverpool should consider breaking the bank for! – The Colombian strike star has been in sensational form in the Primeira Liga over the last three seasons, scoring 53 times in just 70 appearances. His natural ability in front of goal is clear to see with him also scoring ten times in 35 matches at international level. His price tag is certainly high at £30million but with Liverpool’s current issues with finding the back of the net they need a proven goal getter. 6last_img read more