Arkansas takes over the state's schools

Trackside commentary...

Arkansas takes over the state's schools

By John D'Aloia Jr.

On the heels of Judge Bullock's preliminary decision finding that the method used by Kansas to fund education was unconstitutional, the Associated Press article out of Arkansas must be bouncing around the halls of the capitol like a hot potato. The Arkansas courts, after giving the legislature over a year to resolve constitutional funding issues, took over the school system. A special master will be appointed to determine a course of action which will, no doubt, include opening up the wallets of Arkansas taxpayers by imperial edict , not by the actions of a representative government.

A friend asked if I thought that the Arkansas situation will spook Kansas legislators into doing something that they might not otherwise do. My response was that the Arkansas case will scare more than one legislator. These legislators will be looking for any excuse to roll over and do whatever they can, including throwing as much money as they can at the judge, to prevent being branded at election time as the reason the court stepped in. These legislators will be acting blindly. They probably do not comprehend that besides the adequacy of the amount of money, there is the equally challenging demand that whatever is done, the money has to be distributed equitably - they can send the state into a depression by throwing all the money they can extract from taxpayers at the schools, but if it is not distributed equitably and rationally, Bullock will still use the word "unconstitutional."

Article Six of the Kansas constitution states that the legislature "shall provide for intellectual, educational, vocational and scientific improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools..." and "shall make suitable provision for the finance of the educational interests of the state." Just how much money does it take to do this? With a bit of outside-the-box thinking, the size of the current pot is probably big enough if K-12 education shed itself of all the mission-creep programs that really do not have much to do with an adequate education. The yelling and screaming of the KNEA and the educrats at the mere thought of doing away with their politically-correct programs would just be further proof that their power and jobs are more important than educating children. I think it is safe to say that legislators are going to be beaten over the head with the Arkansas court decision time and again, in an effort to soften them up to the demands of the Guv and the educrats.

Few are those legislators who actually have a good grasp of what constitutes an adequate education and have the backbone to stand up and try to offer a solution that will educate children in a constitutional manner, and yet, not send the state's economy into a tailspin. A state-wide depression would certainly not do any child any good. These few, and others, will actually think about the problem and come up with the proverbial "innovative" solutions. Their numbers limited, they will be drowned out by the drum beat of those shouting the mantra "for the children, more money." The cheerleading will be lead by the educrats and sycophant politicians who see the opportunity to increase their power and control over society by getting their hands on a greater chunk of the state's tax revenue, while pointing to the courts as cover.

One person thinking outside-the-box to solve the constitutional issue is Bob Corkins, Executive Director of The Freestate Center for Liberty Studies. Rather than have politicians or judges make a decision that, by its scope, has to be one-size-fits-all, let parents make the decision for their own children - implement a school choice program. Corkins wrote: "A Kansas school-choice program could squarely address Bullock's concerns with the state constitution. It could put the "opportunity" back into "equal educational opportunity" by giving people a real choice for their future." School choice is really not an innovative idea. It has been around for a long time, but it certainly is outside-the-box in which the education establishment has trapped students, parents, and taxpayers. Government schools are not the end-all. Maybe they would actually get competitive, both financially and academically, if forced to compete against each other, and against private-sector schools.

Then again, maybe the nations entire K-12 education system is so beholden to federal dollars and federal edicts that a state - created school choice program is not obtainable, that parents who subject their children to government schools have absolutely no say in how they are educated, with local school boards but an illusion, kept in place to keep the peace. I pray, not as parents, in the end, are the only ones who have the responsibility for the education of their children.

See you Trackside.

..."the legislature "shall provide for intellectual, educational, vocational and scientific improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools..." and "shall make suitable provision for the finance of the educational interests of the state."
======================================

All, Another example of a "judge" that should be impeached for not knowing the meaning of words. The words "the finance of the educational interests of the state" in no way, shape, or form mention anything about "equal" education. Nor, for that matter, even equal opportunity for students. But, this allpowerful judge has taken the law into his own hands rather than upholding the law as written. Rule by one man rather than the rule of law. Peace and love, George.

Rather than have politicians or judges make a decision that, by its scope, has to be one-size-fits-all, let parents make the decision for their own children - implement a school choice program.
=================================================

Guys, This is, as of now, the best solution to a problem created by educrats over the last few years. Barring home school anyway. But, I imagine that vouchers from federal godgov will come with the same strings attached as are attached to government schools anyway. Peace and love, George.

If the Ark. Leg. forces Arkansans to "open their wallets" for education, they will be performing another of the many exposed tricks of politics; throwing money at a problem - ANY problem - has not necessarily proven to be the answer in all cases; especially education.

There are myriad stories of children being educated beyond the level of their peers in one-room schools with few books or other resources. What it takes is a staff of teachers who want to teach and will do whatever it takes to educate the kids. Money isn't necessarily the problem and, quite frankly, I would love to know just how much money is being thrown at the education system. So much money is being thrown at the system that all of our kids should be Rhodes scholars, not just barely scraping the bottom.

The Arkansas Legislature is the most incompetent of all the legislatures in the 50 states. Traditionally, the vast herd of legislators are incompetent buffoons who end up being controlled by a few intelligent criminals amongst their number. The legislature has been completely and overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats for 150 years. Originally the party in power were former Confederates, which was then followed by a corrupt political machine, which was then followed by cults of personality, which was followed by bureaucratic raiders, which is now an anarchy of incompetence. The office of Governor in this state has about as much power as the Governor of Texas but where Texas has a powerful Lt. Governor Arkansas has none.

The legislature this time around raised our taxes through the roof and STILL did not manage to keep the courts out of our wallet. Go figure.

Now that they have raised our state taxes skyhigh they will say that the Bush federal tax cuts did no good in spurring our economy here. Imagine that.

This never-ending Democratic monopoly government here has no idea why we cannot attract business or industry. Businesses always look at Arkansas and Texas and end up going to Texas. Wonder why? Could it have something to do with Arkansas having an income tax and Texas having none? Duh!

The legislature has had to give Texarkana a special "border city" tax break on the income tax because the Arkansas side was DRYING UP AND BLOWING AWAY. Nobody would build anything on the Arkansas side because THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE INCOME TAX. The legislature is too dumb to understand that the pain of income tax IS SCALABLE TO THE WHOLE STATE. The effect occurs ALL OVER THE STATE....IT IS JUST MORE VISIBLY OBVIOUS in Texarkana since you can look at both sides of Stateline Avenue and SEE.

Thank you for listening, I'll go screaming into the night now.

It depends on what you want to do. Texas has a higher franchise fee than does Arkansas so you might want to go to the Arkansas side if you are opening a McDonalds. Texas has a higher property tax so if you are going to retire to a big house you might go to the Arkansas side. If you are going to have a high income, you might go to the Texas side. Arkansas unemployment insurance is higher so if you have a lot of employees you might want to go to Texas.

It is my understanding that a lot of banks land on the Arkansas side because of the income tax border-city thing. Which is something the rest of us in Arkansas don't enjoy. If the choice is between Texarkana, TX and Hope, Arkansas the choice is Texarkana. If its between Texarkana, AR and its border-city exemption and Texarkana, TX then the choice is more even.

With the border exemption they try to even things up. My point is that they don't even things up for the rest of Arkansas and the rest of Arkansas has to compete with Texas also.

I hate to bust bubbles here, but the No Child Left Behind federal law also allows the state takeover of public schools deemed "failing" by its standards. (For starters, all 20+ suburban school districts in the St. Louis area were recently declared "failing" by NCLB - which is ridiculous.)

NCLB also mandates payment of private tutorial services to bring students in "failing" districts up to par (after the districts have been deemed "failing" for a certain number of years.) What will happen when there's simply no more money in the state to do that?

You guessed it - the feds will force the raising of taxes, even when state constitutions (like MO's) say that taxes may *only* be raised when the people vote to do so.

Very little construction going on on the Arkansas side of town and only one new bank recently has been built there as far as I know...most new construction is taking place on the Texas side (and it is booming). There has been constroversy for years over the tax exemption for folks who live in the city limits of Texarkana, Arkansas but work in surrounding smaller Arkansas towns--I worked a couple of years on the Arkansas side of town and because I lived outside the city limits on the Texas side, I had to pay Arkansas state income tax...funny thing was when I quit that job, the state sent the entire amount back to me...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.