The Kansas City Star, March 15
Anti-bullying measure is a sneaky plan to allow school vouchers in Kansas
The Kansas Legislature is considering a new school finance bill that’s deeply problematic for several reasons, including this: It would establish a private school tuition program for students victimized by bullying.
Bullying in schools is a serious issue. It can lead to depression, poor performance, even violence. Bullying needs the attention of teachers, administrators and parents - attention aimed at victims and the anti-social behavior of bullies.
The school spending bill, now being heard in the Kansas House, sidesteps these approaches. Instead, it establishes a taxpayer-supported scholarship program that would pay most of the tuition costs for bullying victims who want to attend private schools.
There are several flaws in this approach.
? It assumes that bullying doesn’t exist in private schools. There is absolutely no evidence this is true. A bullying problem in public school could continue to be a problem in a private classroom.
“Where will we transfer students who continue to be bullied in the private schools they are transferred to?” asked an article in Psychology Today. The answer isn’t clear.
? A private tuition program would give public school administrators less incentive to address bullying problems. Principals and counselors might simply tell a bullied child and his or her parents to take their problems somewhere else.
? Some are worried parents will falsely allege their children have been bullied. While the bill includes some investigative duties for school officials, there is a possibility of fraud.
? The bill establishes only limited public oversight of private schools. “Nothing in this act,” the bill says, “shall be deemed to limit the independence or autonomy of a qualified private school.”
The lack of public supervision is a serious concern when public dollars are involved.
And it’s especially concerning given the recent decision of the Catholic bishop in Kansas City, Kansas, to bar a child with same-sex parents from attending a parochial school. Public dollars cannot be used to support any institution that openly, clearly and cruelly discriminates against children.
The real purpose of the school bill is evident. It isn’t designed just to protect victims of bullying; instead, it’s intended to introduce the idea of public vouchers for private- and parochial-school tuition costs.
Vouchers are a bad idea. They divert money from public schools, making it harder to educate children, and they can unconstitutionally mix religious and secular teaching.
Private and parochial schools have value and are an important part of the mix of education options available to families. Parents who want to send their children to private schools are free to do so.
But taxpayers should not be required to subsidize them.
Bullying is a problem, but sending kids to private schools isn’t actually a solution. Trying to sneak vouchers into state law isn’t a good idea, either.
Instead, Kansas lawmakers should focus on proven remedies: increased funding for counselors and mental health professionals in public schools, better teacher and parent training and more help for kids who need it.
____
The Topeka Capital-Journal, March 15
Editorial: Moran stood on constitutional principles
U.S. Sen Jerry Moran should be commended for his vote against President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration at the Southern border.
The president’s move - meant to fund his promised wall - confounded lawmakers across the political spectrum. Emergency declarations had previously been used in narrower circumstances and not as a way to redirect money that Congress had expressly refused to authorize as part of the usual budget process.
Moran’s decision to stand up and take a vote against the president, a member of his political party, was a brave one. He was one of 12 Republicans who similarly took a stand on principle, not political expediency. While the Senate vote to end the emergency declaration will likely be vetoed by the president, lawmakers were wise to draw a line in the sand.
There may, or may not, be a good case for a wall. Voices have been raised and opinions expressed on both sides. But politics is ultimately about finding a common path through a minefield of partisan bickering. Republicans and Democrats had agreed on a budget plan that included some funding for the wall, but not as much as the president wanted.
Going after those funds at any cost - rather than continuing to engage with appropriators in the House and Senate - was unwise. It opened the president to charges of hypocrisy, given previous criticism of President Obama’s executive orders, and it raised constitutional questions.
Could future presidents likewise declare national emergencies to divert funds for their key issues? Could a Democratic president declare a national emergency over climate change and unilaterally enact the Green New Deal?
Moran decided that enough was enough. His vote, and the handwritten explanation of it he shared on Twitter, shows a lawmaker who ultimately puts the Constitution and the rule of law ahead of party, politics or presidents.
In many ways, the senator himself put it best toward the end of his statement.
“If the Constitution means one thing in the Obama administration and another in the Trump administration, the enduring value of the Constitution disappears and another generation of Americans will be less free. … How we do things - even good things - matters. We were raised that the ends don’t justify the means.”
We believe that Republicans and Democrats want the best for this country. They may disagree often. But the structure of our government exists to resolve these disputes and channel compromises into policy.
Those structures, and that government, are more important than any single leader.
____
The Lawrence Journal-World, March 17
Editorial: Paying college athletes creates a host of problems
If you want to watch the best basketball in the world, watch the NBA. If you want to watch the most passionate basketball in the world, watch a college basketball game.
Passionate basketball - as evidenced by Selection Sunday hoopla - is the brand for the NCAA and all its Division I basketball programs. That is an important point to remember as the NCAA continues to receive pressure to begin paying college athletes.
All this talk of paying athletes to play a game threatens the integrity of higher education. The world of higher education is one where you can’t swing your tassel without hitting five administrators who are complaining about being underfunded. Yet, we will find money to pay college athletes while everybody else’s tuition continues to increase. Will anybody ever again believe college leaders when they say they’re truly concerned about the cost of a college degree?
In fact, even the current system risks college leaders being labeled hypocrites. The cost of a college degree is high and is a burden to many families. Full-ride scholarships are scarce and demand far outstrips supply. Every time a one-and-done athlete gets a full-ride scholarship, that’s one less scholarship that is available to someone who was truly committed to getting a college degree.
Proponents of paying college athletes often say it is unfair that these student-athletes don’t get paid for their talents. What is unfair is many feel forced to spend one to two years in college simply because they think it is something they have to do to get to the NBA. Playing professional basketball is a young person’s game. They should be allowed to embark on that career as soon as they are adults. What will make the system more fair is if young phenoms are encouraged to enter professional basketball directly. It allows them to take advantage of more of their prime earning years. If you want to yell at someone, yell at the NBA and its age restrictions. Even if the NBA doesn’t lift those restrictions, there is still the minor league basketball system and overseas leagues that are options as starting spots for a professional basketball career.
Proponents also argue that the real unfairness is that the schools make so much money off these student-athletes, yet they don’t get paid. That argument gets a little weaker when you look at an athletic department as an entire system rather than a collection of individual sports. Most student-athletes don’t make any money for their schools. The scholarships athletes on the women’s tennis team, for instance, aren’t cash machines for KU.
But the argument could be blunted even more if the higher education community would have the gumption to make some systemic changes. Colleges should adopt a policy from the NBA - spending caps. In the NBA, they are used to control player salaries. In college, they could be used to control athletic department budgets. Create a formula that determines how much schools of certain sizes and types can spend. Give schools a bonus based on graduation rates and GPAs. Any money the athletic departments collect above the spending cap would be transferred to the university’s general fund to be used for academics and other purposes that are facing funding shortfalls.
KU fans should support such a system. Kansas Athletics is at risk of getting outspent and outbuilt in the world of college athletics. A spending cap would lessen that risk. It also would make intangibles such as tradition, game day experiences, and rabid fan bases more important in recruiting battles. KU is intangibly rich, at least in the basketball world.
Arguments that such a system would cause college sports to shrink in popularity are likely false. The popularity of college sports really isn’t about the one-and-done phenoms. It is about the passion of the fans. As long as they still believe their teams have a chance to win a championship, as long as a David still has a chance to take down a Goliath, the sport will still be full of passion. And, if the passion continues to exist, CBS will still pay the big bucks for the right to televise it.
If college athletics takes the other path of paying select student-athletes, it risks destroying its brand. Why watch the second-best professional league, with a mascot named hypocrisy?
Please read our comment policy before commenting.