That is not what I said. I am describing why districts are reporting that they are feeling squeezed. I am glad that the KPERS funding gap was closed. I don't really have an opinion on what per-pupil spending should include, just that it should be consistent over time for comparisons sake. I absolutely agree that it is "education spending" in the sense that someone, somewhere is paying for it and it is a benefit to teachers.
The post does a good job of explaining why, from a school district's budgeting perspective that is tangential.
Well, I'll agree with you that the post does a good job of explaining the absurd "reasoning" of the teachers' union. But they can't have their cake and eat it too - if the money is spent on teacher benefits, there's less money to spend on other things. (Actually, I guess they can have their cake and eat it too as long as they and the Supreme Court continue to pressure the legislature to spend ever growing gobs of cash on education, which is the whole point of this dishonest campaign.)
1. The link I posted was a response sent out by the central office of Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS). Consider it to be the words of the superintendent's office. That is the chief representative that a teacher's union would bargain with (against/in opposition to) to determine the benefits/salary working conditions within a district.
2. KPERS is not bargained at the local level and has nothing to do with school district budgets. It is a retirement pension plan that the state of Kansas set up for government employees and that since 1970 has included teachers. It is entirely under the purview of the state legislature and while benefits are promised/guaranteed to members that have already been vested, it is not guaranteed in perpetuity for new workers. In other words, the legislature has the power to change it to a 401k style program at any time for non-vested members. I'm not sure exactly how it would work for people that are already vested, but it isn't guaranteed by the constitution, so my understanding is the pension is pretty much entirely within the purview of the legislature. They exercise control of it.
3. It is perfectly fine to note that when looking at the totality of dollars, the legislature just spent money on KPERS, and that KPERS relates to education and to even label that "education spending." It is absolutely true that the money ultimately comes from the same source-- taxpayers. No qualms with any of that thinking. But it has anything to do with districts or why they are having budget issues, which was what I was talking about.
HTH
