According to USD 497 the budget is for $5,500,000 dollars a month or $66,000,000 a year or thereabouts.

November 30, 2009

FROM: Dale M. Dennis, Deputy Commissioner of Education

SUBEJCT: Base State Aid Per Pupil Comparison

We have been requested to provide a computer printout (SF0015) which compares the computed general fund budget based on a base state aid per pupil (BSAPP) of: $4,400 (same as 2008-09); $4,218 (amount upon which USD budgets were adopted for 2009-10 school year); and $4,012 (BSAPP following allotments).

As of a November 2009 PDF file: The state will be providing somewhere between $68,893,880($4400 per student),$66,556,666($4218 per student) or $63,910,759($4,012 per student).

$4400 per student is what the state should be furnishing.

USD 497 has $7,000,000 in at least on of the their "stash" contingency funds. In reality using the low number number $63,910,759 USD 497 may only need to pull approximately $2.1 million from their contingency fund of $7 million to cover the school year. According to numbers contained in the PDF file down loaded from the state.

As I see it in reality there is no need to shut down any school this year. The problem is a temporary situation. AND the courts may well order the state to cover the court ordered per pupil amount which I believe is $4400 = $68,893,880.

The State of Kansas also has a rather large set of contingency funds it could pull from if ordered to do so by the courts.

Contrary to popular belief children are not invincible and will be impacted by this move.

Property owners in the area will lose 10% of property value by this decision according to Kirk McClure. Property owners cannot afford this, the city and county cannot afford to lose the property tax dollars and obviously USD 497 cannot afford to lose tax dollar revenue.

Who is Kirk McClure?

Education Ph. D., City Planning, University of California, Berkeley, Department of City and Regional Planning, 1985. Concentrations in Housing Economics and Public Finance.

Master in City Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 1978. Specialization in Housing Policy Analysis.

Bachelor of Arts, University of Kansas, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 1974. Special Major in Urban Studies.

Bachelor of Architecture, Graduated With Distinction University of Kansas, School of Architecture and Urban Design, 1973.

Other thoughts: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan...

USD 497 needs a long term solution to maintain the image of USD 497. Closing schools and enlarging class size will not do that.

Here is one solution:

Teacher Salary Support http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2003/ma…

The average cost of educating our USD 497 children is averaged by overall cost divided by total number of students.

Langston Hughes is bursting at the seams so I'm told and maybe so is Deerfield …still.

Just maybe some of those parents would not mind having their children taught at New York School? Or children from any one of the existing schools could choose New York School?

And USD 497 should put that expensive piece of property back on the market that was just purchased for $1.76 million(more than $22,000 an acre). That was not a smart buy and our existing buildings need rehab work. That money would be better spent on existing buildings.

Well my child does NOT attend Cordley Elementary School, and neither do 95% of other families' kids. We should not allow a recalcitrant minority to dictate important budget decisions, especially in a time of fiscal crisis.

And the not-so-subtle class warfare reference, "This is a burden that should be carried by the entire community, not just residents east of Iowa street," is pathetic.

How about they simply close the school your children attend instead, STRS?

It seems as if you don't have a problem with one area of the city bearing the burden.

jafs,

If it's the fiscally responsible and necessary thing to do, by all means. The decision to close Cordley is not based on East vs. West. It's a matter of per pupil expenditures and building costs.

i have no idea how all this will turn out. the school board will do whatever the hell it wants to.

however, i do think it's disingenuous of these folks to say the cost per pupil is driving the decision making.
since cordley is the example in this letter, it may suprise some readers that cordley is actually smack in the middle of per/cost measures for elementary schools in town.
http://www.usd497.org/AboutUs/MeetTheSchoolBoard/Agenda/2009.10Archives/documents/20100111StudySession/ElementaryCostByBuildingAverageC2.pdf

i also think the board has been disingenuous in they have made no effort to build/renovate the very schools they are discussing for closing.
if they wanted elementaries of a certain "more efficient" size, then why haven't they built the needed classrooms on these existing sites. they had money for 4 new ballfields, and are looking to purchase more land (to the west?), but can't build the schools they say they want in central, east and north lawrence.

very poor leadership for a very long time at usd497.

The previous lawsuit against the state took years to come about. Doesn't matter if the schools take the state to court again because A.) the state has no money (hence why taxes are going up); and B.) even if the state had money, the case will spend years wrapped up in legal issues. Any verdict declaring the "unfunding" unconstitutional wouldn't help for a number of years.

This is not a "short term" problem. Schools are already bare-bones across the state and many will have to consolidate. There are some districts in western KS that have one school district (with one elementary school and one middle/high school) per county--and will STILL have to consolidate across county lines. These are communities that are literally centered around the schools, and closures of these schools many times will mean the decline of the entire city. Imagine having one elementary school, one middle/high school for two or three counties. Lawrence is not the only city with this problem--it's everywhere. Lawrence does not have it as bad as some other places do. Everyone is closing schools, everyone is suffering.

"vvmama (Anonymous) says…gl0ck0wner: While I don't necessarily agree that we HAVE to keep all of our current elementary schools, having a knowledgeable academic share his expertise is NOT political."

So you believe Kirk is a disinterested party without a political agenda? It sure seems like that isn't the case.

I am disappointed. Has anyone who wants to keep the smaller schools open stated they will pay more in taxes for this??

McClure, Merrill, any of the parents??

The most recent input for athletics was approximately $20 million USD tax dollars in 2008-2009.

When is the last time that type of effort was placed in curriculum update/development?

"merrill (Anonymous) says… blah blah athletics blah blah"

Merrill: how many unfortunate children of yours attend Lawrence school district schools?

It doesn't matter whether or not my children or anybody's children attend public schools.

The fact that my tax dollars do help fund public schools which I consider a best bang for the tax buck is what matters. Would I pay a sales tax that supports teaching salaries and reducing school fees? Absolutely.

Education pays back the tax payers.

Two of our children did attend USD 497 public schools during their high school years.

Our oldest did good and is a graduate the Kansas City Art Institute. Had intern employment before graduating and was hired full time upon graduation

Our second oldest is still in college. All of children are excellent students.

As a tax dollar savings to taxpayers all new housing developments should come with land for schools,parks and fire departments provided by the developers. Why? Because developers are creating the need not me the taxpayers. Schools,parks and fire departments help sell homes thus large profits(homes never pay back the taxpayers).