Welcome to our online chat with Lawrence school board candidate Sue Morgan.The chat took place on Wednesday, March 26, at 4:00 PM and is now closed, but you can read the full transcript on this page.

Moderator: Hello and welcome to today’s chat with Lawrence school board candidate Sue Morgan. We have several questions ready, so we’ll get started.

Mother of two: Hi Sue-

How do you feel about the neglect of the older schools? Was it right to be building new schools before bringing the older ones up to date? Or was this all part of the long-term plan for closure?

Sue Morgan: I can’t speak for the past board members who made those decisions, but I honestly doubt it was any kind of plan to get schools closed! What I suspect was that it was an effort to keep the tax rate down by funding school growth out of the Capital Outlay budget rather than passing bond issues to do it! in hindsight that is kind of a penny-wise pound-foolish approach, because using the money that should have been going to maintenance of older buildings to pay for the growth created the problems we now have with very deferred maintenance issues! Neglect of older schools should never be the case! That’s part of what this bond issue should help us do — get us back on track toward equitable facilities.

old school: The Barker Neighborhood has undergone a demographic shift with many new young families with infants and preschoolers. Despite many attempts, I was unable to get any statistics from the school administration on the increased number of preschoolers here. How can you justify closing a school, Centennial, when so many new children are almost ready to attend? This may drive these families away. How can you expect children from both schools to attend Centennial while Cordley is remodeled? Why didn’t you buy land around older schools for expansion such as across from East Heights or lots near Central such as the greenhouse? By the way, you told me during the last election that you were against closing neighborhood schools and got my vote. I won’t be fooled again.

Sue Morgan: The population projections that the district has received using census, planning department, and Kansas Association of School Board numbers, all point to a decrease in the school age population in Douglas County for the next 10 years. Are they right? Don’t know, but they are the experts in doing these projections so it’s the best information we’ve got. As to specific neighborhood projections, there is very slight growth (less than 5 students to the best of my recollection) for maybe two of the east-side schools, and declines for the others. Bottom line is that the capacity of the schools that will remain should accommodate the population base for many years to come. Remember that a class graduates every year so you need new families and kids moving in or starting school just to stay even! As for my “promise” during the last campaign, I said I was not looking to close schools — and I wasn’t. I also said, as I have said in this campaign, that I cannot tell you how I will vote for the next four years. Things change and you have to make the best decision you can given the context in which you function and the priorities you believe are important. I believe what we are proposing will serve kids well, particularly kids attending the east neighborhood schools.

Mark: Hi Sue. With the budgets becoming so tight, high school athletics is bound to be hit hard. Do you have any ideas to help keep sports as a viable aspect in our schools? Cooperative efforts between the school and the city seem to be a direction we could benefit by. For example, the agreement to use the Lawrence Indoor Aquatic Center. What would be your thoughts of a centralized sporting complex for all the schools to utilize??

Sue Morgan: We talked about a sports complex during the facilities plan. It would be great, but it is also a very expensive proposition! As you may know, Topeka has gone this way, as have several other districts. We took a middle ground for the immediate future and included in our planning the idea that each sport would ideally have practice facilities on campus or close by, and that competition venues could be shared between the schools in an effort to get the most bang for our bucks. We do have cooperative sports agreements with the city now and have for several years — Holcomb and the Free State baseball field, etc — and we will try to do more of that in the future. The school board actually sent a letter to the city asking about their interest in upgrading the Free State baseball complex as a joint venture, but we were told that the city does not have funding in place for that at this time so we did not include it in this bond issue. One possibility we are looking into for keeping as many of the sports activities as we can is whether joint practices under the same coaches would be feasible for some of the sports. If you have any good ideas, please bring them on! We’re looking for creative solutions!

Colleen H.: Although I am supportive of the bond issue, I also recall the opposition to the last bond issues and how many times one had to be presented before one was palatable enough to pass. That being said, why didn’t the board learn from that experience and put forward a bond issue JUST for the improvements at the junior highs, which a vast majority of bond opponents agree are necessary?

Sue Morgan: I guess we will all learn next Tuesday whether we have presented a palatable package. I think there are always items to love and to hate in a bond issue if you are really taking care of business. The way I look at it is that we are a DISTRICT for a reason. As a school board member, I am answerable to provide for all the students, not just one neighborhood and not just elementary or secondary levels. The fact is we have big-time needs in several areas. We did our best to prioritize the over $100 million in needs that were uncovered by the study, and to address the various areas of need in a way that provided some equity and the best value to students. There is never a lack of controversy and passion when you are dealing with people’s children, neighborhoods, and money! But we need to stay true to our focus on educational outcomes and equity throughout the district and that what we have tried to do in this proposal.

¢ 6News video: Candidates Sue Morgan and Lee Gerhard participate in online chats

Tess: Sue, I’m looking at candidate Rich Minder’s campaign material. it says bond advocates are “undermining children, families.” Can your respond?

Sue Morgan: I believe Rich’s comment relates specifically to the school consolidations. We obviously differ, because I think we are supporting children through the consolidations. How? My goal is to “institutionalize” the support structure that our at risk and low SES student populations need by creating two-section schools with a sustainable population base, and then giving those schools greater resources than our three section schools because the needs are greater! Right now, there are schools that are so small they defy sustaining staffing levels, staffing continuity, consistent class sizes, and other critical elements to student success particularly with the financial pressures we face. I believe we can secure the future stability of our east side schools and their QUALITY (which I think is more critical than quantity!) by consolidating. It will help us individualize curriculum delivery, it will help us keep class sizes lower, it will help us recruit and retain quality staff because most teachers do not want to teach in a one-section school, and it will help us use our resources for programs and staff rather than building overhead. Each of those school will still be “small” by educational research standards and virtually every family will still be within one mile of an operational elementary school. I don’t think that constitutes abandoning our core neighborhoods. I understand the emotion and the pain of these changes. But educationally, I think it will support the strength of those neighborhoods and the education of our children there for the long term.

Leah: Hi Sue. I was just wondering, you are a staff member at a church. Considering this, what is your take on whether creationism or evolution should be taught in school?

Sue Morgan: I do not believe that creationism should be taught in schools. In formulating our curriculum in science, math, social studies or any subject matter, I believe we need to look at our determine our desired outcomes as a community, look at the state standards that we are held accountable for, and then use the recognized authorities and experts in the subject area field to guide us in determining what content best educates our students in that discipline. I think scientific research and scholars have established evolution as basic scientific curricula. Matters of scripture and faith should be left to families and churches.

Bill: What do you think is the most outlandish piece of misinformation regarding the bond proposal?

Sue Morgan: Wow, there is so much to choose from I’m not sure where to start! I guess the most basic misinformation is that we can and should be spending this money on teacher salaries and other programs. The real story is that… we would if we could but we can’t! State statute says school districts have general fund money for operating expenses including staff and supplies, etc. And we have capital outlay and bond interest money for buildings, equipment and capital improvements. We can propose a bond issue for capital expenses. We cannot levy a tax or otherwise increase our operating funds EXCEPT for the local option budget, but we are at the maximum allowable level for that and we have been for several years! In its simplest form, the State controls our operating expenditure ceiling very tightly. We have much more latitude in controlling our capital expenditures. There are lots of voices saying just raise more money. But I don’t see how you can commit a district contractually (teachers have contracts by state law!) to expenditures if the money is “soft” (dependent on contributions or fund-raisers and you have no control over it. Can’t think of ANY business or family that would operate that way. And, by the way, $3 million to $4 million is A LOT of fund-raising!

Moderator: Thanks to everyone who is participating for all of your questions. This next question will be our last.

Howard: What are you most proud of during your four years on the school board?

Sue Morgan: Thanks for asking this one, Howard! It’s nice to end on a positive note. I am most proud of the progress we have made in curriculum delivery and student achievement. We certainly have lots of room to improve, but particularly over the past three years, under Randy Weseman’s leadership, we have really focused on moving EVERY student forward in their learning. The reading initiative has improved our curriculum and instructional techniques in reading, incorporating phonics through animated literacy and other approaches. New math curriculum was adopted last year which has been enthusiastically celebrated by our teachers and which is a huge improvement over our former ofter piecemeal approach to math concepts. We are moving kids out of the basic performance levels consistently. That is what we need to focus on. Move everyone forward consistently, no matter where they start. I think we are doing a much better job of that today than we were four years ago and that is what I am most proud of!

Sue Morgan: My thanks to all of you for participating in this chat. if everyone took the time to get informed before they make their decisions, we would better serve our kids and our community. Wherever you fall on the issues, thanks for working to get informed. And remember to vote next Tuesday!