Suitable education funding at risk
“Explain cuts to students” (Jan. 18 Eagle Editorial) was a well-reasoned call for our legislators and the governor to do their constitutional duty in funding public education for all our children.
With 18 percent of Kansas schoolchildren living in poverty, it is particularly galling that the governor and his legislative allies seek changes to our laws to appoint political favorites to seats on our Court of Appeals and the Kansas Supreme Court. Our courts have consistently and correctly ordered state legislators to do something they do not want to do: perform their constitutional duty to fund suitable public education. If the governor gets his way, the constitutional right of children to a suitable public education can be overturned by his political appointees to the appellate courts and public schools further underfunded.
With Texas as a role model, our governor thinks during a state budgetary drought he helped create that the money for Kansas public schools will grow on magical tax-cutting trees. I gladly pay taxes to help educate my neighbors’ children, and I commend The Eagle editorial board for exposing these shamelessly false political prophets pretending to lead us to a new prosperity by denying poor and middle-class kids a decent public education.
Digital Access For Only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
MICHAEL L. SNIDER
It appears that The Eagle editorial board now thinks that USD 259 needs to be the welfare program and provide food, shelter, clothes, plus school supplies, and that the state should increase the amount paid per student to provide it (“Explain cuts to students,” Jan. 18 Eagle Editorial). The school’s function is to educate. It is not a welfare program.
If families need assistance, the schools should certainly provide information on how to receive it. If families are not qualified to receive support from the state because of citizenship status, then the schools should give them information about those sources that can and do provide help from donation – not taxation.
Sending people to the correct place for assistance lessens the chance of fraud from those who attempt to receive aid from multiple support sources at taxpayers’ expense.