3-mill tax increase considered / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, July 5, 2007

Harold Nelson, a counselor at Quail Run School, helps Alex Tomaszewski with an assignment while his class is at recess.

July 5, 2007

Three questions with ... Linda Robinson, school board president

Linda Robinson, school board president, talks about the proposed 3 mill increase in the 2007-2008 budget, mostly due to the extra facilities money added to the state finance formula.

Reader poll

It comes down to spending more to get more.

At least that's the philosophy Lawrence school officials are working under as board members consider next year's budget.

This coming school year, the school district will receive an estimated $1.6 million in new state funding to help offset the cost of opening the new South Junior High School and other new classrooms. This will be the first year in the two-year state funding program.

But that state aid will flow into the district's general fund. And the growth in that fund means local taxpayers could face a tax increase.

That's because the district's local option budget must equal 30 percent of the general fund to qualify for certain money. So as that fund grows, the LOB also must increase. The LOB is funded by local taxpayers.

So the board is considering raising local property taxes by 3.086 to 3.586 mills.

"The only way to not have that increase would be to say, 'Keep your money,' which we have to have new desks and you have to put things in the building," board president Linda Robinson said of the new facility funding from the state.

Kathy Johnson, the district's division director of finance, said because the two-year state program isn't permanent, the money can't fund ongoing costs, such as salaries.

"The intent was that it helps school districts with all those startup costs for new schools and new classrooms," Johnson said.

The proposed property tax increase this year of about 3 mills is less than the increases of more than 5 mills each the last two years.

According to early projections, the owner of a $150,000 home in the district would see an annual increase of about $50, and total annual taxes to the district of about $1,000. A mill is $1 in taxes for every $1,000 of assessed valuation.

With teacher-contract negotiations still ongoing, board members have not yet taken action on a list of new requests, including $815,184 for 16 full-time learning coaches in the district to help teachers at elementary schools and East Heights Early Childhood Center.

School districts are people-intensive. The Lawrence district, for example, spends 86 percent of its budget on salaries and employee benefits, Robinson said.

"It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for the new requests," she said.

The district will offer all-day kindergarten at eight elementary schools because of about $600,000 in funding for at-risk students coming from the state.

Board member Scott Morgan said in general that the board should carefully consider local property tax increases.

"You've got to make real sure you need (the taxpayers) because you're asking a lot of them, particularly those on fixed incomes," he said.

Board members next will discuss approving a maximum district budget at their July 23 meeting. A public hearing will be Aug. 13.

Local government budgets have been a hot topic the last few months. Leaders in both the city and county also have signaled they may seek property tax increases.

County Administrator Craig Weinaug has proposed a budget to county commissioners that asks for a 0.75 of 1 mill increase to help fund economic development initiatives and more jail staff for transitional service programs.

At City Hall, leaders have mentioned a 1 mill increase to offer a 2 percent to 3 percent increase in salaries for city employees and to alleviate proposed cuts to the Lawrence Transit System. City Manager David Corliss is expected to release his proposed budget this afternoon.

- Staff writer Mike Belt contributed to this report.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

6 July 2007
at 12:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pinecreek (Anonymous) says…

Unreal…how does a district with declining enrollments continue to consume ever-increasing amounts of money? This district needs to go on a diet and get back to the basics of education and stop fleecing the taxpayer. They just don't seem to get it, we're tired of paying ever more taxes for mediocre services. But what's a voter to do? We just can't seem to get anyone that understands or cares.
6 July 2007
at 1:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

No.

Especially not from this corrupt city commission.

They want it for P.L.A.Y. and Farmland Industries and a $30 million library.

They want it to enrich the developers who own them.
6 July 2007
at 1:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

The Lawrence taxpayer sheep will buy into this AND the sales tax increase. When have they ever not? If I remember correctly the average home appraisal in Lawrence is around $200,000 and three mils on every home is a HUGE chunk of change. And don't think because you rent don't think you won't be impacted, your landlord will pass this and all other increased costs off to you in higher rents.

Taking this amount of money out of the private local economy leaves less for trips to Local Burger, Local Coffee, and Loco Merc and likely more shopping at WalMart or other discount retailers. Less retail sales will mean decreased sales tax revenues. Less sales taxes means less money to buy polluted fertilizer plants and less corporate welfare for the empTy. The economic impact will last long after these politicians have moved on to higher office.

Come on Lawrence, wake up and smell the fiscal crisis looming in the future.
6 July 2007
at 5:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

458casul (Anonymous) says…

screw this every one needs to tell them no
6 July 2007
at 6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Every time I hear ” fund economic development initiatives” I beg for more clear concise itemized details.
6 July 2007
at 7:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

perhaps jefferson county… i can't afford this town anymore
6 July 2007
at 7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

All this is going to do is push people out of Lawrence. Taxes keep on climbing at a steady rate making it horribly expensive to live here. This is crazy. $50 here, $30 there starts adding up very quickly. No more taxes!!!!!!

6 July 2007
at 7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

“:which we have to have new desks and you have to put things in the building,” board president Linda Robinson said :”

Uh…where are the desks and furniture they were using in the old building?

No thanks. I'm doing my best to make ends meet as it is.
6 July 2007
at 7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lawrence_citizen (Anonymous) says…

I don't understand why the 2 year funds have to go to the general fund. The money is intended for new school startup costs, it should go to a special fund just for that. Is this a flaw in the state policies? Or a choice made by the school district?
6 July 2007
at 7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

willie_wildcat (Anonymous) says…

Time to move out of the money pit known as Lawrence…..I agree with craigers it is getting too expensive to live in this town and this will do is push people out to surrounding coummunities.
6 July 2007
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

No. This is as stupid as it gets. And we will take that no to the polls. Plan on it.
6 July 2007
at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

common_cents (Anonymous) says…

Wasn't it just last year that someone on the board stated (after the judgement by the state supreme court) something to the effect:

“We have plenty of money now, but we're going for broke.” (in reference to a mil increase last year)

Can someone find this. This is truly unbelievable - WHERE did all that money go already?
6 July 2007
at 8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Lawrence is not worth it anymore. It simply costs too much. After all, it's still just Kansas!
6 July 2007
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

common_cents (Anonymous) says…

What would it take to get something on the ballot to require voter approval for school board mil increases?
6 July 2007
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Luxor (Anonymous) says…

Hays, here I come!

6 July 2007
at 9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Wow, truly amazing. I guess when stupidly voting in favor of everything that is “for the kids” it is important to look into the details. What exactly does this mean-“help offset the cost of opening the new South Junior High School and other new classrooms.” You mean when they float a bond by us they don't factor in such costs? Just hidden till after the fact. And didn't I read the other day that there will be huge savings in energy from the new buildings? Are they taking that into consideration before coming back to the supposedly most education population in Kansas with their hands out asking for more? Is there any place to actually find the school districts budget line for line? Maybe they could take money from the bizarre “need a laptop in every kids hands” budget to help offset whatever costs they are talking about. Remember when using a computer really did mean you knew something about technology? Now all you have to know is how to click an icon. Maybe for the education administrators that seems high tech which makes me wonder how much they know about anything. Obviously from looking at many of the posts on the JW people who aren't too computer savvy are able to figure them out without having to replace actual brain skills with instant messenger skills. Yeah kids, that will take you far: Employer-do you have instant messenger skills Interviewee: why yes I do, very profecient in it. Employer- you are hired! Eureka, instant messenger skills, just what we have been looking for all along. What a crook!
6 July 2007
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

If you build a bigger building, such as South Junior High, or any of the additions to the junior highs, you will need new furniture for the new space, as your old furniture will not be enough. I don't think they are getting rid of it, but bigger space needs more furniture, or do you want them to sit on the floor?
6 July 2007
at 9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

So build it and the taxpayers will come. I'm curious, is enrollment going up that we need more furniture? Is that for all the administrators if there isn't an increase in enrollment? It still cracks me up to drive by the “virtual school”. I remember when it was real but now it must be just a hologram.
6 July 2007
at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

salad (Anonymous) says…

Roundmouth!!! The gaping maw that can never be filled or satisfied. Interstate tolls, parking tickets, mysterious service fees, and school district mill levies- all to feed roundmouth. We could give this district a billlion dollars, and I bet you cash money they'd come back next year sayin',
“we need more money! It's for the children!”
6 July 2007
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

Can we blame it all on the no child left behind act?
6 July 2007
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Wow. Only government bureaucrats would create a system whereby extraordinary events - like constructing a new school building - require spending more money on everything ELSE!

In the “real” world, a credit for the value of the replaced school would be placed on the books so that the net increased budget would be quite small. Here, nothing in the budget recognizes that a capital asset (the existing building) has been lost thereby creating a budgetary reality at variance to the “real” reality.
6 July 2007
at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Are there studies that show a kid learns better in an newer school building instead of an older school building? Funny how many bright people came out of schools worse than old South. I admit South was goofy but it was just an other trend from the trendy generation and now being replaced with new gimmicks. If I wanted to improve test scores I don't think putting money into buildings is the answer. But then again I'm old fashion. Still think a kid will learn more from reading books and doing math by hand then surfing the net and having the computer do the thinking.
6 July 2007
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“It comes down to spending more to get more.

At least that's the philosophy Lawrence school officials are working under as board members consider next year's budget.”

With the wisdom of our school officials exposed by this statement, it is patently clear why public schools are failing. It is also clear why they can't manage a budget.

6 July 2007
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

To be fair to the District, we must acknowledge that costs are increasing (regardless of what enrollment is doing): it costs more to run buses, it costs more to purchase textbooks and supplies, costs of food have increased, utility costs have gone up, and it takes a larger salary to recruit and keep a teacher even than, say two years ago. We also know that Standard & Poor's recent study found that not only does Lawrence's USD spend its money highly efficiently, but it also outperforms most Districts in the State in that regard (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun…).

Incidentally, this is a USD decision, not a City Commission decision. Demonstrating an understanding of the different levels and responsibilities of governmental bodies would lend extra credibility to the positions represented here.
6 July 2007
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

my kids always hated it when they had math homework and they would try to use a caculator and I said no do it with your brain, of course they always said the teacher said it was ok and I would say well to bad she is not here.
6 July 2007
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Wilbur looking back over that report I'm still puzzled what it meant. It is like everything else in education now days, lots of talk but no details. It also listed the 100% efficient schools, most of, if not all, smaller schools. They have to be efficient because Lawrence and Overland Park have managed to suck a lot of money out of the system. It is rather astonishing to me that Lawrence cut out the trades and only now replacing them in Lawrence fashion with a tie to JCCC so we can produce more chefs. Have they thought about tying in with Kaw Valley Tech in Topeka like so many schools around us do so kids that want to learn jobs that my get their hands dirty have a chance of getting the best training they can get? Is that just more of the Lawrence elite trying to form this city the way they would like to see it? Suppose taxing that element out of town is one more technique to do that.
6 July 2007
at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rlmtyco (Anonymous) says…

Harold Nelson, what a nice guy. He was my counselor when I went to Quail Run and headed up the Chess club, he is a super nice guy, was hoping the article would of had something on him in it.
6 July 2007
at 10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Earth to school board (and all others who “serve” the public) stop raising taxes.

I am going to keep harping on this until I am blue in the face.

Is inflation eating up money faster then it can be printed? Yup. Are there fewer people paying into the tax till? Yup. Are the demands for services from the government the same, or more, then they used to be? Yup.

So what IS the solution?

The government - and the people - MUST learn to live within their budget/means. There is no magic tree of money that will never stop sprouting green. We COULD come up with more money, if forced to do so, for a few more years. However, eventually (and sooner then later) the whole system is going to come crashing down.

It is time - way past time in my opinion - that families and government stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. No more living on credit. No more increase in spending to keep up with all the wants. We may no longer be able to pay for our needs, let alone the wants, if spending like drunk sailors doesn't stop. If we do not do something about the out-of-control spending habits (of our nation, state, county, city, school boards, families and individuals) were are going to be bankrupt (or worse) in short order!
6 July 2007
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jmadison (Anonymous) says…

Part of this problem relates to the imperial judiciary in this state mandating a tax increase for schools.
Vote to remove the judges at every chance available.
6 July 2007
at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jaehde (Anonymous) says…

Actually, yes, the kids could sit on the floor. It's not the surroundings that promote learning.
Making do is some of what made us a great country.
Use the previous furnishings and make do!
What is an insignificant amount to some is breaking the backs of some of us, especially those of us on fixed incomes, and whose salaries don't rise at the same rate as cost of living.
What an inane attitude, new surroundings=all new equipment. Perhaps that could have been budgeted.
Is it ever enough?!
6 July 2007
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

The judiciary is not imperial—it is Constitutionally proscribed to interpret the laws of the State and its Constitution. It has done that—the Constitution requires the Legislature make sufficient provision for an adequate education; a group of interested parties contended the Legislature had failed in its Constitutional obligations; the Kansas Supreme Court heard both sides and determined that the Legislature had failed its obligation. Neither did the Supreme Court “mandate” a funding mechanism—only an amount of funding that it interpreted to be adequate. Note (interestingly, I believe) that the Legislature failed to achieve the amount the Court decreed, and the Court's response was something close to “well, good enough.” Again, hardly imperial.

jmadison, your namesake, the former President, noted that “A well-instructed people alone can be a permanently free people.”

6 July 2007
at 10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

I think James Madison would be shocked to see how much money we spend on education and still most the kids don't know who he is, what his concerns were for a republic that allows lobbyist, like the NEA, to railroad the agenda, and the history of ideas that we derive our freedom from. What the court did was very questionable. We could rely on an other study to see if more money is making a difference or you can just go out and ask a random sample of high school graduates, heck even college graduates, and see if the basic principles Madison thought were essential to maintain our republic are being taught.
6 July 2007
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Wilber -Nether
Guess what?
The cost of living is going up
the cost of taxes are going up
the cost of water is going up
the cost of trash pickup is going up
the price of crappy cars is going up
the cost of clothing is going up
the cost of food is going up
the cost of electricity is sky rocketing
the price of auto fuel is sky rocketing
the price of home heating fuel is sky rocketingthe price of housing in Lawrence is out of control,
and now you want the citizens to buy into some disguised report and fork out more money without accountability?????
the pay for working is not going up (except for teachers and administrators)
the price of living as a human being is out rageous in lawrence kansas and needs to be dealt with rather than just rolling over and playing dead like you want us all to do. Rather bend over grab our ankles and let the cost keep rising without any “kisses” or accountability.
so excuse me !!!
MY A** has all the reaming it can take from this school district. do you read me????
6 July 2007
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

mom of three

WHat are you talking about???? “do you want the kids to sit on the floor”????
The number of kids do not exceed the number of desk.
your logic is, the rooms are bigger so they need more desk.
SO, how do 30 children occupy 60 desk??????? and this is just so the room doesn't look empty???? Are we supposed to farm kids from another district? ohhhhhhhhh i get it. More creative school closings. We don't have enough children at X-school only 798 kids there. So lets close that school, and move them to another school where we can say “gee it is overcrowded here at Y school. very creative. but also very lame>
6 July 2007
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

This system is not working we the people are being screwed royal and I have had enough of this town great place to visit but can't afford to live here. one year and I'm gone! Shawnee Heights is close and you can get more house for less money. Ottawa even sounds good at this point.
6 July 2007
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

I doubt the School Board hears what is going on here and the conversations going on at the kitchen tables, coffee houses and bars around Lawrence.

Here's the School Board's email addresses, give them a shout…and I mean shout. Perhaps if we clog up their inboxes, they will have to think for a change.

http://www.usd497.org/district/boardo…
6 July 2007
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HangingOnToHope (Anonymous) says…

mommaeffortx2
“Can we blame it all on the no child left behind act?”
Partially, yes. Legislators are elected to write laws and they like to but they don't like to fund them.

Jaehde says:
“Actually, yes, the kids could sit on the floor. It's not the surroundings that promote learning.”
Sure they could but then you open up a can of worms, West side kids have more then the East side kids. I've fought that one for too long. Furnish and finish the new building!

Wilbur_Nether
“… and it takes a larger salary to recruit and keep a teacher even than. “
I'm hearing all the complaints out there. Try having your taxes raised to fund your own pay increase. It adds up to no raise.
“Incidentally, this is a USD decision, not a City Commission decision. Demonstrating an understanding of the different levels and responsibilities of governmental bodies would lend extra credibility to the positions represented here.”
Wilbur, I thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent comments.

So far Wilbur has been the only one who seems to be looking at this rationally and with a knowledge base. He must have been in the schools and/or attended board meetings, learned about school budgets and state laws. Many of you talk sounding like you have experience but your logic doesn't match what I experience in the schools everyday. Have you spent some time in the classroom lately? If you too have acquired this knowledge, then you should be running for school board and leading the way to improvements. Or if you feel the need to move out of Lawrence, then go. I'll be staying put despite the property taxes and people that devalue teachers. Don't bash the profession or the people doing the job until you yourself has done the job.
6 July 2007
at 3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Well hangonahope, I'll assume when you go the shop to have your clutch changed and they charge you $500 more then they quoted to fix it forgetting to include what it cost to get the transmission out and back in and just estimated what it the clutch cost you'll be fine with that too because you can't question the mechanic unless you are one! Seems we hold people working in the trades to a higher standard then we do high dollar administrators with PhDs!
6 July 2007
at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

The myth of attracting and keeping quality teachers by paying more money is nothing more than a myth. Show me some correlation that equates quality to money when it comes to teaching. YOu have the powerful NEA bribing congress to perpetuate that myth. What about spending more money to hire and retain quality firefighters/police officers/janitors/ fry cooks????? Who by the way work 12 months out of 12 months for lousy wages and don't try to sell me that in service crap it doesn't fly. I live next door to a teacher and I know plenty of teachers they take part time jobs, garden, leave for the summer, or what ever they want. So please don't say they have part time jobs because of the poor income. Poor income is the para professionals who do all the dirty work teachers are “too busy to do” ha ! They don't get paid 12 months for 9 months work. so cut me some freakin slack! that old saying “can you read? thank a teacher” what it should say is “Thank the federal government” for requiring children to attend school. Can you read what ever you want to ??? THank a soldier of the all volunteer military. There is someone who deserves a raise and praise for what they do.

6 July 2007
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

consumer1, you have convinced me (along with some of Jaehde's comments): learning can occur regardless of the quality of environment, and quality teachers are not interested in money.

I am now fully prepared to support an entirely-volunteer teaching staff for this District. Let's start the petition—replace every teacher in the District with volunteers who are willing to perform! And, since kids can sit on the floors, let's do one better and sell off the desks,chairs, tables, and other niceties they don't really need. Hey, come to think of it, we could even sell off the school buildings for nice little profits and save a ton of money by using tents—we'll have to buy camp-stoves for them in the winter, of course—because as Jaehde so cogently pointed out, “It's not the surroundings that promote learning.”

And if this point of view appears to be reductio ad absurdum—congratulations, you got my point.
6 July 2007
at 4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

salad (Anonymous) says…

hangingontohope….what perfect semantic congruency. Perhaps you're hanging on to the hope that some of that coin will trickle down to you? It won't. It goes to administrators and bloated administrator projects. I mean seriously, does an elementary school need to look like a palace?!?! 30 million for a Jr. high?!?! Are tax payers getting their monies worth when the average pay for all administrators is over $80,000/yr?!?! NO, NO, and hell NO!!! Why won't the JW print salaries for these people on the public dole????
6 July 2007
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Interesting the “rational” people have taken people's concern about the non stop spending spree in this town by the city and school district and have made it look like people are against the kids, teachers, and learning in general. But I've noticed that kind of arrogance in the school system in general. We can't possibly understand what it takes to educated a kid so we need to sit quietly while the “experts” take charge. Then they wonder why we get pissed when taxed more and more and we are also paying more out the pocket for books, meals, bus, and activities. Shoot, the school district is even entertaining PLAY! Where is all this money going to? The whole special bond issue to bring more computers into the schools is an example to me that education is all about gee wiz and that is how we got stuck with a building like old South. Now it is computers. You will not learn what a 300 page book has in it on a freakin computer. If that is really the direction of education we will be nothing but a bunch of trivial fact reciters which probably would work well in the void of what is called pop culture. Seems a lot of pop culture is now the focus of education, heck we even have a rock band class now during regular school hours.
6 July 2007
at 5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

salad, the LJW doesn't have to print those salaries. They are available to you for the asking under the Kansas Open Records Act.

And I'm curious—how much does a building of that size get built for these days?
6 July 2007
at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

max1 missed the point of my 9:28 a.m. post. Which, incidentally, wasn't much more than “Because costs have gone up, it is more expensive to run a school today. And Lawrence's District is doing so more efficiently than most.”

But at least max1 got a nice swipe in there.
6 July 2007
at 5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

How fascinating. Two weeks back, offtotheright thought I was a welfare king. Today, max1 thinks I'm unsympathetic to the impoverished. To max1's remark “you don't want to address poverty issues,” I reply only that I would have been happy to discuss—fairly and openly—any issue offered as something to be discussed as opposed to bait. The issues here (including poverty) are complex, and limiting the terms of the conversation is counterproductive.
6 July 2007
at 8:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

No Child Left Behind is a huge waste of money. The feds do not fund it. The children do not benefit. The teachers now teach only to the test, and all creativity and flexibility are removed from the classroom. An inordinate amount of time and other resources are spent shuffling kids around to get rid of them so a school won't see its score lowered, and in bring a few kids up to speed. The rules are ridiculous.

The only ones who benefits from No Child Left Behind are the folks at the Center for Educational Testing at KU who have the multimillion dollar contract to write and store the tests. Everybody else loses: teachers, students, taxpayers.
6 July 2007
at 9:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Take more money from one pocket to justify taking more money from another one. Either way, the taxpayers are screwed. I am trying to decide whether Linda Robinson is stupid, immoral or corrupt.

6 July 2007
at 10:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Yabut (Anonymous) says…

$815,184 for 16 full-time “learning coaches”? That's a salary of $50,949 each! How can I apply for one of these positions?
6 July 2007
at 11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

I'd rather pay more taxes for the school district than to pay for the city commission to buy a toxic waste site, a $30 million library, a multimillion dollar ice rink, and more infrastructure so developers can continue to overdevelop our town.
6 July 2007
at 11:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Obviously most taxpayers have short term memories or they would be knocking on the school boards door after getting the 5.9mill increase on their December 2006 property taxes. Yes the schools were given 2.8 million for programs and at the same time to rebuild (at least they claim they had rebuild)a $31.9 million new South Junior High. Spending like taxpayers money burns their hands and they now ask for more. NO.
7 July 2007
at 12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“No Child Left Behind is a huge waste of money. The feds do not fund it. The children do not benefit. The teachers now teach only to the test, and all creativity and flexibility are removed from the classroom.”

Is there someone you believe you're convincing? This surely is the silliest comment of the day. (You're not a teacher, are you?)
7 July 2007
at 5:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Yabut wrote that “$815,184 for 16 full-time 'learning coaches'? That's a salary of $50,949 each!”

Which would be true if that $815K went only to salaries. I suspect it is instead the total compensation package, which then includes the benefits package, as well. Assuming the benefits package costs about 35% of the total compensation, that would make the salary itself come out to just under $33,117. (Please note: I don't know the actual value of the benefits, but 35% seems to be in the ballpark of a lot of companies.)
8 July 2007
at 3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

multiagelearner (Anonymous) says…

Why don't we ask Linda Robinson how much the district is going to pay KU in tution for all the teachers they are requiring to become ELL certified. The state will compensate next year, but not all the KU tution money.
Linda Robinson board president—wow, what a sad state for the city of Lawrence.
8 July 2007
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

multiagelearner, your last post seems obtuse. Would you mind clarifying the relation of your post and the story for us?
8 July 2007
at 11:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

multiagelearner (Anonymous) says…

The district is raising the mill because they are out of money. However the district and last years school board, (with Linda Robinson) voted to require 45+ teachers to attend graduate level course work for the next 5 years. Which will equal 15 credit hours at KU's tution rate. The district will receive money from the state eventually, however if this district is running on such a tight budget, and in need of money don't you think they could be a little creative on this program. When it was brought to a vote Linda Robinson and Sue Morgan didn't have a problem finding the funds to pay for all teachers, instead of phasing the program in which is what surrounding districts have done. Maybe the new school board will be a bit more logical. If you'd like more details call Bruce Passman at the “Palace”….a.k.a. ESDC.