November 7, 2006
For Immediate Release

Last week we published an article entitled "Education Council Recommends Continued Cheating." The harsh headline and article generated an exchange with a superintendent, which is published below.

Date: November 1, 2006
From: A Kansas School Superintendent
To: Ken Daniel, Publisher, KsSmallBiz.com
Subject: Continued Cheating

"Education Council Recommends Continued Cheating". Now that is a balanced headline!!

You might want to show some evidence. Maybe you could actually check out the process that is used in determining free and reduced lunch in schools. Instead of demonizing the people involved you could actually dig a little deeper and find out why there is a discrepancy between the numbers from the Census Bureau and school lunch.

But unfortunately your purpose is not to find an explanation, it is simply to demonize school officials. It is so easy to call people names, but much more difficult to really make an effort to understand. But it makes good copy for your readers because it plays right into their preconceived notions that school officials are all cheaters.

I apologize to you that education costs money. Some people actually feel that it is worth it and don't mind a little sacrifice. But that requires that we care about someone other than ourselves.

Date: November 2, 2006
From: Ken Daniel
To: Kansas School Superintendent
Subject: Continued Cheating

Dear Superintendent:

I have done extensive research on this subject. I have furnished my research to various school officials, advocates, and state officials for more than two years. It was furnished it to the At-Risk Commission at the request of Senator Vratil. The Legislative Division of Post Audit is conducting a study on it right now. I have "shown the evidence" repeatedly in KsSmallBiz.com articles and on the KsSmallBiz.com website.

Now, if you have information that shows why there is a discrepancy, I am extremely anxious to see it, because no one else in the education community has been able to furnish it.

I also did a lot of research into the "free lunch" process in schools, and found that it not only invites cheating, it institutionalizes it.

I did not "create" this issue. It has been well established for many years that the system is permeated with cheating.

Your district reports about 50% more free lunch kids than the Census Bureau says are in the district. The Census Bureau includes a bunch of kids that don't even go to your schools. However that happened, you are now aware of it.

Your district is getting shortchanged in a major way because more than 200 of the 300 districts are reporting a higher percentage of phantom free lunch students than yours is. In other words, your district is not very good at it compared to a lot of others.

If we are going to keep poverty as our basis for at-risk, which we absolutely should not, we need to use honest figures that are not subject to falsification by parents, teachers and school officials.

Since when does pointing out flagrant and rampant dishonesty have anything to do with whether someone "cares about someone other than oneself"?

I'm sorry you are so embarrassed and ashamed. You could try to fix it instead of attacking me.

Dates: November 5 and 8, 2006

(The superintendent sent a fairly lengthy response to Daniel on Sunday, November 5. Daniel's responses follow each paragraph of the superintendent's letter.)

Superintendent: I'm not sure where you get the idea that I am embarrassed and ashamed. Quite the contrary. I have absolutely no embarrassment for anything we do regarding the school lunch program. We follow the rules we are given and often take a great deal of flack for doing so. And we do everything in our power to help kids succeed, often in situations where these kids have no one else to guide them. I don't apologize one bit for that.

Daniel: I thought you would be embarrassed and ashamed that more than 90% of Kansas school districts, including yours, are reporting falsified free lunch figures and are being rewarded for it with huge amounts of taxpayer money. Whether you personally falsified these reports is beside the point. You are the superintendent, and the buck stops with you. I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by the tactic of hiding being the old "we follow the rules we are given" and "we do it because we love kids" excuses.

Superintendent: But back to the issue of cheating. You called me and other educators cheaters and even indicated I'm not a very good cheater. I'm going to do something you never do and grant a partial point. There are probably a few who cheat, just like there are some small businessmen who cheat. But there are very few. I'm sure in your research you have discovered that the federal poverty guidelines are quite different from the free lunch guidelines. And I'm also sure you must realize that foster children automatically qualify for free lunch. So this may have a lot to do with the difference in numbers. I'm sure you also understand that school officials do not have the authority to investigate the information parents give us. They fill out the forms with verification and we have to accept that. Then we get audited every year and the vast majority turn out to be legitimate but some of the parents have fudged. When they do they are taken off free lunch and off our at risk count.

Daniel: True, I called you cheaters, and indicated that you are not a very good cheater. I could soften the language, but this situation merits strong words to get the attention of school officials and others. Years of "nice" criticism has yielded nothing. And I detest cheating by business people just as much as I detest cheating by school officials. As to poverty guidelines, I used the Census Bureau numbers for kids at 130% of poverty or less, which is the identical standard as for free lunches. There are only about 4,000 foster children in Kansas. But the Census figures include about 8,000 5-year olds at 130% of poverty or less, and kindergartners only count as half a kid, or 4000. The figures cancel each other out. Finally, I am intimately familiar with the "verification" and "auditing" methods and know that they cannot possibly catch more than a tiny fraction of the cheaters.

Superintendent: You need to be with me when I take the angry phone calls of parents who have been denied free or reduced lunch even though the information they provided does not meet the guidelines. It's not a pretty sight and has sometimes involved threats. And yes, I know quite well about the various Legislative Post Audit efforts, including the one which indicated schools needed more money. You didn't like that one. And I don't think you are going to like the one on at risk either because what they are finding out is that the students who are receiving at risk services is far above the number that show up on free lunch.

Daniel: I'm sorry you have to deal with parents who are angry that you will not let them cheat. I, too, am angry with cheaters who threaten me. You think I didn't like the LPA report because it indicated schools needed more money. You need to go back and read my extensive writing on the subject. I didn't like it because it was very amateurish, unscientific and just flat wrong. It awarded huge new sums of money to the wrong schools, to the most flagrant cheaters. Since your district is bad at cheating, you got shortchanged. I don't understand why you aren't extremely angry about that. Furthermore, if you will study the LPA report to see why districts are reporting far more at-risk students than are on free lunch, you will find that districts lied about that, too, especially Wichita.

Superintendent: I don't really know what your agenda is; whether you really care about this issue or you are just trying to save a few dollars on taxes. But I can assure you that the vast majority of educators follow the guidelines we are given. Schools get audited more than any other business or government entity that I know of. We follow the rules we are given and do the best we can possibly do in the midst of a society that blames us for every ill and then asks us to cure every ill, and then complains about what it costs. And you know what? We just keep on trying because we truly care about our students and the future of our society.

Daniel: My agenda is that I want our schools to be funded fairly and honestly, and our teachers who work face-to-face with students to be top priority for the funding. I want teachers to teach, and administrators to support them. I want the schools to stick to their knitting and not adopt , then hide behind every social trend that comes along, even when they have absolutely no chance of fixing those things. I want kids to be responsible for their own failures so they can function in the real world. I want poverty to be discarded as the criterium for funding, and actual at-risk kids to be substituted in its place. I grew up very poor, and my friends were poor, and it is an insult for school officials to claim it is poverty that causes poor school performance. It isn't. I want public schools to quit short-changing "average" students - the ones that will be running our state and country when they grow up. I want as much or more money for "average" kids as for illegal aliens. I want taxpayers to get value for the incredible amount of money we are pouring into public schools. I want to hire high school graduates who can read and write and do math and type and do useful things. And, I note you trotted out the "only doing what we are told" and "we care about children" cards again.

Superintendent: I don't really expect you to be moved by any of this but I am not going to let you call me and my colleagues cheaters without a challenge. Say you don't like the system and try to change it. But let's try to act like adults and quit calling people names. I'm sure you are probably a good and honest person just like I am and as are the vast majority of people in education. Do yourself a favor by sticking to the issues instead of using inflammatory words like "cheaters". I'll bet you'll have a lot more success and people will take you a lot more seriously than they do now. Maybe the people you were trying to influence on this issue would have taken you more seriously if you were a little less inflammatory. They probably read your posts occasionally.

Daniel: I've explained why I've resorted to strong words. I'll quit calling school officials cheaters when they quit cheating. Believe me, I HAVE been saying that I don't like the system, and I have been working very hard to change it. For a long time I tried playing nicey-nice on this issue, but was completely ignored. I seriously doubt if I would have heard from you otherwise.

Superintendent: Have a great day. I probably won't respond anymore because I really don't have time for this. I'm busy trying to help kids succeed.

Daniel: You have my respect for engaging with me on this. It has been very, very hard for me to have my concerns heard. Maybe there really is a chance for me to make a difference.