It’s campaign season! Here are some translations to help you interpret phrases you may see on postcards or hear from candidates.

Campaign Claim #1: “Rep. X is anti-education or voted against education funding because he voted against HB 2506.” Translation: Rep. X is actually pro-education and voted against HB 2506 because of the harmful policy provisions and tried to ensure passage of a clean or compromise education finance bill.

Campaign Claim #2: “Rep. X is pro-education because she voted for HB 2506 and put more money into classrooms.” Translation: Rep. X voted for additional funding for schools only after being ordered to do so by the Kansas Supreme Court. In coming up with the funding, Rep. X voted for cuts to at-risk funding. Rep. X was willing to vote (and perhaps advocated) for a bill containing harmful policy provisions (corporate tax credit “scholarships”, elimination of teacher due process). Most of the funding that will go to classrooms is actually not being provided by the state but will happen only if school districts are able to pass local property tax increases allowed by the bill to help hide the fact that many districts would otherwise see a reduction in funding from this bill.

Campaign Claim #3: Candidate X is pro-education because he supports school choice. Translation: Candidate X will support massive expansion of charter schools, vouchers and tax credits for those attending private schools. Candidate X will demand public schools be held accountable for their results while ignoring increasing numbers of students in poverty, ELLs and special needs students. Candidate X will not require charters or private schools receiving state funding directly or indirectly to be held accountable financially or academically and will not require those schools to address the needs of all students.

Campaign Claim #4: “Candidate X is pro-education because she supports local control.” Translation: Candidate X will not support state-level funding increases and supports shifting more responsibility for funding to the local level. This has the added “benefit” to the legislature of taking credit for low state income taxes, while blaming local districts for increasing property taxes to make up for funding shortfalls.

Campaign Claim #5: “Candidate X is pro-education but wants to ensure our schools operate efficiently and get more money into the classroom with less wasted on administration.” Translation: Candidate X believes our schools have more funding than they need and will not support increasing school funding. “Efficiently” means as cheaply as possible without fully appreciating the level of education Kansans want their schools to provide. Candidate X either doesn’t know (because he is working from talking points provided by others) or won’t tell voters what positions he includes within “administration” such as nurses, librarians, counselors, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, aides, speech pathologists and others.