1) State Science Standards: Do you support the teaching of evolution in the science classroom? Do you support the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom? Please give yes/no answers and explain your reasoning.

Do you support the teaching of evolution in the science classroom? YES
Do you support the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom? NO

I support the current science standards, especially in regard to the teaching of mainstream evolutionary science–a scientific theory that is well-accepted in the scientific community and which impacts our daily lives in numerous ways. I do not find Intelligent Design, nor young-earth creationism, to be scientifically credible.

I accept the mainstream scientific conclusions that the earth is over 4 billion years old and that all of life, including humankind, is biologically related via common descent back to the beginning of life. This will undoubtedly upset some people who believe their view of the world is the only “correct” view, but my life experience has taught me there can be many views of reality, all of which contribute to a holistic understanding of the question and help provide answers which advance the worth and dignity of all.

The U.S. Constitution provides that everyone has the right to believe in whatever form of religion they choose. However, the First Amendment also protects all of us from the zealotry of religious intolerance that wishes to impose itself on all the citizenry. Since my return to Kansas ten years ago I have watched the drama over our science standards as a small, well-organized minority has tried to impose their religious views on our children in the guise of science. This effort made Kansas a national and international laughing-stock and raised serious issues about the manipulation of the democratic process.

My religious views were formed by my parents, by lessons taught in my Sunday school classes, and by academic study. I see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the belief that the world was formed by a supernatural power. To me, the two ideas complement one another.

2)  Sex Education: What level of sex education, if any, do you believe belongs in our school system and at what ages and in what context do you believe it should be taught?  

Substantial evidence regarding the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education has recently emerged in the research literature. Comprehensive sex education addresses both abstinence and age-appropriate, medically accurate information about contraception. Comprehensive sexuality education is also developmentally appropriate, introducing information on relationships, decision-making, assertiveness, and skill building to resist social/peer pressure, depending on grade-level. I believe that comprehensive sexuality education should be part of the curriculum beginning in Kindergarten and conclude when young people are college aged. I believe sexuality education needs to be part of the primary, secondary and tertiary education.

The primary educators of children in the matter of sexuality and relationship building should be parents. In Kansas, local school boards determine the content of sexuality education programs. The State Board of Education through the Department of Education provides technical support for teachers and school staff and provides guidance to Kansas school districts as to which programs are the most effective in reducing teen pregnancy and the transmission of disease.

3)  How much importance should be placed on taking standardized tests in Kansas schools? 

I firmly believe that accountability needs to be part of our education system. To a certain degree, that aspect of No Child Left Behind has been positive. It has forced many teachers and districts to look at their instruction and improve their instructional strategies and curricula. However, I believe that accountability needs to be based upon multiple measures of student learning and school success, not on a single test score. In order for education to be successful it must be able to compliment the learning styles of the young people; standardize tests do not reflect such a reality and penalize those students who do not come from the economically advantaged class. I will work to reform NCLB in order to give states the flexibility to design systems that produce results, including deciding in which grades to administer annual statewide tests are administered.

Moreover, I support the use of growth model results - over single test scores - as a guide to revise instructional practices and curriculum, to provide individual assistance to students, and to provide appropriate professional development to teachers and other educators.

4)  How would you balance school funding interests between small, rural school districts and larger, urban districts?

The Kansas Constitution, Article 6, adopted in 1966 by the people, charges the legislature to "provide for the intellectual, educational, vocational and scientific improvement by establishing and maintaining public schools, educational institutions and related activities." As a result of this article, in Kansas every child has an equal constitutional right to education. No one can be turned away. Because this is a benefit provided to everyone, every taxpayer shares in the cost of public education.

Thus the way in which to balance the competing interests is for the Legislature to do their constitutional responsibility and fully fund education. However, the conservatives who control the Kansas legislature and their allies on the State Board of Education have repeatedly failed to provide the funding necessary to meet the constitutional responsibility outlined above. As a result, a group of school districts sued the state for that failure and in a series of court decisions from 2003 - 2005 finally ending in the Supreme Court forcing the legislature to do their responsibility. At the same time the legislature narrowed the tax base, thus forcing a smaller portion of the population to pay the taxes needed to fund education.

I support the actual state funding model for our public schools which begins with an equal funding amount per student, referred to as: Base State Aid Per Pupil. To this amount adjustments - weightings - are added for students who are "At-Risk" (students who live in poverty), districts with low/high student enrollments, vocational education, transportation, English Language Learners, etc., to come up with the final total.

This model works when it is properly funded. The Kansas Base State Air Per Pupil is $500 below the national average. While school spending has increased, it has not increased when compared to personal income in Kansas. Even after the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the legislature to provide for "suitable finance," district spending compared to personal income is almost exactly the same as in 1975, about 3.6%. We must increase investment in our schools, which employ 3.6% of the total employment in the state and provides 4.5% of wages paid in the state. The legislature must broaden the tax base so that all Kansans, including corporations and businesses, support our education system.