Private schools proposed as an escape from bullying, but opponents see a grab for public funding


by Stephan Bisaha, Kansas News Service

A bill in the Kansas Legislature would let students escape bullying by transferring to a new school, either public or private.

But critics say the bill is little more than an attempt to send state dollars meant for public schools to private alternatives.

The Kansas Hope Scholarship Act, sponsored by two Republican representatives from Wichita, would require schools to inform parents and students about transferring after a case of bullying has been reported. That would occur regardless of whether an investigation by the school found any evidence of bullying.

The student could transfer to either a public or private school. If the student chooses a private school, most of the state aid that goes to the public school for that student would go into an account run by the Kansas treasurer.

Those funds can then be used by the student to pay for tuition and supplies, such as books. Extra funding is also provided for transportation to the new school.

“This serves notice that this is a serious problem,” said Chuck Weber, director of the Kansas Catholic Conference and a former state legislator. “We want to give them options to get out of that bullying situation.”

Opponents call this a voucher program, meant to take public school funding and deliver it to private schools. They say that would damage the finances of public schools and make those tax dollars less accountable because they would be in private hands.

“We strongly oppose any voucher-type bill,” said Devin Patrick Wilson, the legislative chair of the Kansas State PTA. “That removes transparency and accountability.”

Dealing with bullying by having victims leave their school has also been criticized.

Wichita Public Schools board member Ben Blankley wrote an email to state lawmakers opposing the bill. Blankley said that as a student at a public middle school in Iowa, he dealt with severe bullying. He thinks that encouraging bullied students to transfer will only empower bullies.

“That was the very first thing that the bullies wanted is us gone,” Blankley said. “They wanted us out of the environment, and this would encourage that kind of behavior.”

National advocates for bullying victims said transferring out of school to escape bullying can be a legitimate solution. Distance from a bully can provided needed relief for students afraid to attend a school.

But they say that should be a last resort. Advocates are concerned that bringing up the transfer option during the first reported incident could lead parents to transfer their child before families have gone through other steps, such as working with the school to solve the problem.

“The first option would send the bully a message that he or she is a hero,” said Rolss Ellis, founder of Stomp Out Bullying. “I would try and work it out in every possible way before I sent my kids to another school.”

Defenders of the bill say having an exit option is necessary. Adding private schools also gives students a wider selection of schools for finding one they feel safe in.

And while proponents say it wasn’t their original intention, letting public schools know that they’re at risk of losing some state funding if bullying isn’t dealt with could get those schools to better address the issue.

There aren’t any estimates for how many students would take the transfer option. Gov. Laura Kelly’s budget office said it would take at least 1,200 students for the program to fund itself because some of the transferred state aid would cover administrative costs.

Rep. Susan Humphries of Wichita, one of the bill’s sponsors, has heard concerns that the bill uproots victims while ignoring the bullies. She said Kansas has enacted other anti-bullying legislation that focuses on bullies, but there needs to be legislation that provides relief for victims.

“In no way is the bully in control here,” Humphries said. “It’s the parent and the person being bullied. They’re the ones that chose to either stay or they may go if that’s what they want to do.”

Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished at no cost with proper attribution and a link back to kcur.org.

See more at https://www.kcur.org/post/private-schools-proposed-escape-bullying-opponents-see-grab-public-funding.

Community seeks equitable funding for storm water

Views
Opinion column

by Murrel Bland

In 2005 I was working with a friend who had the contract to produce a technical manual for the Vactor truck. Part of that project was to show how this truck cleans out sewers and catch basins. The Vactor truck is manufactured in Streeter, Illinois.

I had arranged for a photo shoot near 17th Street and Central Avenue that would show the truck in action. I hadn’t been at the location more than a few minutes when area residents approached me — they thought I was from the Unified Government. They wanted to know when I was going to solve their sewer problems — when it rained a lot, storm water mixed with sewer water.

This problem continues today, particularly in the eastern areas of Kansas City, Kansas. This became painfully apparent to Jeff Fisher who became public works director for the Unified Government about two and one-half years ago.

One of the first things Fisher did after taking the job here was to establish priority for needed infrastructure. Among other things, he visited the Argentine community where a home was immersed in two feet of storm water.

Fisher commissioned Black and Veatch, a consulting engineering firm based in Overland Park, to study how to deal with the storm water problem in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently everyone in Kansas City, Kansas, who receives a water bill from the Board of Public Utilities receives a monthly charge of $4.50 for storm water maintenance. The Unified Government is saying that such a flat fee is unfair as the charge is not proportional. The Unified Government has suggested a proposed fee based on the size of impervious areas. An impervious area is all types of hard surfaces such as pavements, buildings, patios, driveways, compacted soil and gravel.

Most residential properties would pay $5.90 a month according to the new proposed fee schedule. A typical non-residential property would pay $49.50 a month.

There has been a substantial objection to high fees that non-residential properties would have to pay. That was quite evident from meetings convened by the Kansas City, Kansas, Area Chamber of Commerce at Kansas City Kansas Community College. Businesses hit particularly hard have included The Woodlands, the Kansas Speedway and car dealers in Village West. The Community College, which has about 125 acres covering its two campuses, would pay about $71,000 a year in storm water fees.

Fisher told the chamber members and other interested parties that he has agreed to reduce the amount of fees by about half. Eric Gentry, who owns two auto dealerships in Village West, said that the reduction is a move in the right direction, but that it needs to be more.

Phil Gibbs, a consulting engineer who has done considerable work in the Village West area, said that businesses in the area should receive discounts on their efforts to control storm water. Rusty Roberts, owner of Reece Nichols Roberts Realtors, said that he had to invest a substantial amount of money in a retention pond that is near his office building.

The low-lying areas of Kansas City, Kansas, have long suffered from the storm water problem. About one-fifth of the city’s land mass is in a flood plain. During the 1950s, there was a push to develop a flood control program by building a series of upstream reservoirs. One of the strongest supporters of this program came from the Fairfax Industrial Area.

I recall taking a geological course at the University of Kansas in Lawrence in the early 1960s. The instructor was Dr. Andrew Ireland. He was adamantly opposed to the reservoir plan, saying that it was taking thousands of acres of quality farmland out of production. He railed about substantially interfering with the natural flow of water. Dr. Ireland said anyone who builds in a flood plain runs the risk of being flooded.

When I was doing research for my book on “The 50s in Wyandotte County,” I talked with Rex Buchanan, who was then the director of the Kansas Geological Survey. He said that the reservoir system has worked fairly well in preventing floods. However, the reservoirs have serious silting problems. And the dam at the Tuttle Creek Reservoir near Manhattan is built on an earthquake fault.

Kansas City, Kansas, dodged the flood bullet in 1993. During that same period, the BPU nearly lost its water system. That motivated the utility to build a new water system that wasn’t vulnerable to flooding.

The argument can be made that development should not have been built in a flood plain. But now that it has happened, it makes sense to protect what is there, even though it will be quite expensive. The Unified Government is to be commended for facing the problem. However, its proposal is too much too soon. And those in the Village West Area who have invested in infrastructure to deal with storm water need to receive more credit for their efforts.

Murrel Bland is the former editor of The Wyandotte West and The Piper Press. He is executive

Master Gardeners to meet March 7

The Wyandotte County Extension Master Gardeners will meet for a program from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Thursday, March 7, at the Sunflower Room, Wyandotte County Extension Office, 1216 N. 79th St., Kansas City, Kansas.

The topic will be “What’s New in Annuals, Perennials and Vegetables,” presented by Megan Glavin from Suburban Lawn and Garden.

The fee for the program will be $5, which will be waived for currently certified Extension Master Gardeners.

For more information, call 913-299-9300.