Board to talk through budget options / LJWorld.com

Archive for Sunday, March 7, 2010

Board to talk through budget options

The Lawrence school board will present the options for budget cuts during its meeting this week. Cuts are necessary for closing a $5 million gap.

By George Diepenbrock

March 7, 2010

School closings on the line in Lawrence

With a $4 million budget deficit growing to $5 million, the likelihood of school closings seems to be increasing.

As Bob Kidder and other Wakarusa Valley School parents have spent the past months examining the Lawrence school district budget, they say one thing is clear.

The district has too many administrators. Instead of closing any elementary schools, Kidder says, board members should concentrate their cuts at the top as they try to close a $5 million budget gap before next school year.

“I’m not convinced that the people who are dealing with the kids, our teachers, would all of a sudden not be able to perform their jobs,” he said. “I think they would continue to be able to perform their jobs and excel in that.”

Lawrence school board members have heard several pleas not to close schools or make classes much larger, and on Monday they will talk through a lengthy list of proposed budget cuts to try to reach a consensus.

School board President Scott Morgan has already mentioned a scenario of closing Wakarusa Valley and Sunset Hill schools for next year, plus closing the East Heights Early Childhood Center and moving those programs in to New York School, which would become a school for students up to second or third grade.

He says board members likely will have to look at a combination of raising the student-teacher ratio and possibly closing schools because of the severity of the state budget crisis. Otherwise many student support services and programs would need to be cut, he said.

“I don’t think this community wants to go there, so the board has to figure out one or the other,” Morgan said.

Budget crisis

Administrators have presented a list of options of $3.6 million in cuts to school programs, district administration and support services like guidance counselors, nurses and librarians.

Several groups, including the Wakarusa Valley budget committee and Save Our Neighborhood Schools, want board members to look at deeper administrative cuts and other savings without closing schools or cutting teaching jobs.

Morgan says the district’s expenses in administration are in line with comparable districts and that the board is already considering plenty of administrative cuts anyway.

Major savings proposals

• For each closed elementary school, the school district would save $400,000 to $600,000.

• Increasing the student-teacher ratio by one student across the district saves about $1 million and cuts about 20 teaching jobs. At the first increase, retirements would take care of most of the teaching positions no longer needed.

This option would mean larger elementary classes and fewer courses at secondary schools.

• Administrators also have presented a list of about $3.6 million in school program and administrative cuts and ranked them in four tiers.

• Some groups say board members can cut deeper in other areas, like administrative costs, for savings without closing elementary schools or cutting teaching jobs.

• Board members will talk through all of these proposals and try to reach a consensus on cuts at 7 p.m. Monday at district headquarters, 110 McDonald Drive. Public comment will follow the board’s discussion.

Kidder has criticized board members for looking too quickly at one option every time the state begins hurting for money. The district last closed three elementaries, Centennial, Riverside and East Heights — when it was an elementary school — in 2003.

Morgan and board member Mary Loveland lost their re-election bids after that decision.

“They’ve taken the budget crisis and used that to close or consolidate elementary schools, which seems to be a theme for some reason,” Kidder said.

He says the district’s expenses have continued to increase every year since 2003. The district can show savings in certain areas because it got rid of certain costs for running those schools, but overall the district’s spending has increased too rapidly up to its $141 million budget for this year, Kidder said.

Morgan, who along with Loveland won a seat on the board again in 2007, said several other factors are in play, such as increased state aid as a result of a major school finance lawsuit that some school districts pursued.

Morgan said because the district’s budget consists of 85 percent personnel costs, board members have found other ways to spend the money saved on the schools such as adding positions and salaries.

“The proof in the savings is in the fact that (the schools) haven’t reopened,” Morgan said.

Long-term budget issues

During their recent budget forums, board members have heard an outcry against closing any schools.

Other parents have voiced concerns about any increase in the student-teacher ratio having a greater effect on the size of classes in the district’s larger schools, including Quail Run, Sunflower and Langston Hughes. Some of those parents say board members should look at things like boundary changes to spread out class sizes if they don’t close schools.

Critics of closing schools say the district is moving too quickly especially as the board is still considering whether to move ninth-graders to the high schools and sixth-graders into junior high.

Board member Vanessa Sanburn said she would like to make cuts this year without closing schools and then have more community input in the next year to study school reconfiguration and the district’s makeup.

Morgan said a major focus of the discussion will center around whether students are affected more by having fewer support services or being moved to a new school because of a closing.

“That’s a legitimate argument that we need to have as to what helps that kid or hurts that kid more,” Morgan said. “And that’s what the board has to struggle with.”

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

Mr_Moderate 3 years, 3 months ago

Closing schools would increase class sizes in the remaining schools--and most of these schools are already packed. But the Board can balance the budget without hurting kids, without cutting school programs, without increasing class sizes, and without closing schools. Check out the budget ideas at www.saveourneighborhoodschools.com. No nurses cut. No kids' programs cut. No classes increased in size. Nothing radical--the ideas are being used in other districts. Why not Lawrence?

merrill 3 years, 3 months ago

Administrative Services Expenditures

Top USD 497 Admin Officials could use some trimming back I’d say considering such high dollar salaries:

Chief Officers - 2 = $ 278,047

Coordinator - 1 = $76,808

Director, Assistant - 3 = $276,461

Directors - 3 = $ 279,240 / $72,612 paid from local funds

Division Directors - 9 = $988,797 / $74,367 paid from Food Service funds

Specialist - 6 = $ 494,209 / $150,908 paid from Federal Funds

Superintendent - 1 = $174,706 / Required by Statute

Supervisor = $ 96,521

Total Pay in USD 497 tax Dollars = $2,660,789

There are a lot of “directors” positions in this equation. Chief Officers??

================================================================= I would suggest early retirement for a host of directors and some of the many many many assistants which in fact may out number teachers. Surely some of the assistants are qualified to do a directors tasks.

This is a large list:

USD 497 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & DISTRIBUTION CENTER

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7lBXMFRc2IMJ:www.usd497.org/documents/2010ESDCServices.pdf+USD+497+Planning+Division+Director&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiOggJNWJoJH49MEcWaECXScBhGgPxnfiDfzpgQsCSgY86mIgLeRV65pg2xkKUBxAHdi3iJpWIrunywXI6pMAbXV075ID2WiDOXDLuhpnAzdBxrAlkXvZ2LPosCL8R6pHXZCL-Q&sig=AHIEtbTxJysxmsR8asSKUxVrReAPp9IK5A

merrill 3 years, 3 months ago

Leave our children alone. Children are not as invincible as some adults may think..

In addition to early retirement for a host of directors and some assistants:

USD 497 admin building is the building to close. If the BOE says it cannot be done that is simply not true. It would make a lovely new office building or it could become a convention center for Holdiay INN.

The admin building is the most practical and valuable piece of real estate USD 497 can offer therefore makes it the responsible choice.

OUR current budget crisis could use that building on the market to reduce the principle by several million on the sports expansion project thereby reducing the interest being paid on the principle. The interest of $250,000 a year coming from the general fund was an irresponsible decision. Now those who made that decision should make the sacrifice in the name of maintaining reasonable size classrooms. Whatever activity the admin building is housing can surely be accomplished in the virtual school building.

Maintenance/USD 497 vehicles can be parked at the new LHS parking lot. No doubt the virtual school can house some of the supplies.

There is no possible way to justify keeping that building on OUR tax dollar expense list. The decision to purchase that expensive piece of property was questioned in the first place as to the real life necessity.

Putting the admin building on the market now is the fiscal responsible decision. Because of the location,design and parking available it will bring the most money of any USD 497 property.

Let’s make the most fiscal responsible decision and leave the children alone.

guess_again 3 years, 3 months ago

Whenever I read statements like "But the Board can balance the budget without hurting kids, without cutting school programs, without increasing class sizes, and without closing schools" I want to assure the Save the Schools group that they just loose credibility among normal thinking adults. And I am one in a neighborhood whose school could close.

One-year accounting tricks (using existing balances, or counting two-years of revenue in a single year, telling the foundation to magically raise money beyond what it raises now) to reach the budget target needed by the board are all foolhardy. So are these suggestions of "just sell the administration center." And I also believe anyone who labels this situation as "temporary" to be either speaking without knowledge, or in a disingenuous manner.

It seems to me that many in this group may not want to face or discuss the true costs of the of maintaining these existing smaller attendance centers, which will be reflected in fewer teaching positions for the district.

It seems to me this is the trade-off which needs to be understood.

Since some do not want to confront those issues and concerns, they raise a number of straw men (including attacking the motivations of school board members) to confuse the situation and take advantage of the emotions and motivations of those who are genuinely concerned about the possibility of their schools being considered for closure.

Sure, I am all for trimming all around, and a few of their ideas have some appeal to me. I'm all for having administrative staffing reviewed and trimmed. But if I recall, some significant reduction had already been recommended.

This is not a "temporary" problem. Even assuming passage of a sales tax increase in Topeka this year, which is not even an assumption, there will be no new money for education, just a hope that this prevents more state cuts in the next year. And unfortunately, I do not believe an analysis of the current political climate in Topeka suggests anything but further reductions over the next several years.

School Board members did not run, nor were elected, because they want to harm the district or children. Instead, they are all school district advocates. But they find themselves in the unenviable position where they must adjust expenditures to revenues, and make difficult decisions in so doing.

If they do not do so, they simply will magnify the problem for themselves 12 months from now.

Hoping for fairy dust, or that things will magically change, or asking for our allowance twice in a single week, may be attributes we enjoy in our 7-year old children, but not in our elected officials.

guess_again 3 years, 3 months ago

The repeated contributions by this person "Merrill" do nothing but underscore my views as expressed just above.

Fairy dust and magic are for the movies. Not for the school board budget.

Did_I_say_that 3 years, 3 months ago

"Morgan said because the district’s budget consists of 85 percent personnel costs, board members have found other ways to spend the money saved on the schools such as adding positions and salaries."

The School Board closed three schools in 2003 to save $4 million district wide. The very next year an additional $3 million district wide; a $7 million variance from the claim made prior to closing the schools. The following six years, through close of books in 2009, they have increased spending at twice the rate of COLA (39% vs 18.3%). Had Administration and the School Board shown any fiscal responsibility there would be a surplus today rather than a deficit.

kugrad 3 years, 3 months ago

This could well be a temporary problem for one reason- the congressional delegation in Topeka is elected and would respond to sufficient public pressure to provide adequate funding to our public schools. Events like those in Lawrence are occurring all over the state. People are beginning to realize the vision some lawmakers in Topeka have for the future of our public schools, and few approve. Yes, I know it sounds crazy, but there really are people like Rep. Michael O'Neal who at least appear to prefer to cut funds to public schools so much that they cannot perform. I am uncertain of their motivations, perhaps it is because they feel doing so would open the door to privatization of our schools. Perhaps they put their personal career above the children of the state and want to be known for their tax-cutting prowess. Perhaps they truly think what people want is a very stripped down school system that resembles the inadequate system of the 1950's. We don't really know as there has been no honest discussion of these issues in Topeka. SONS people and people who believe in public education. Within a month or so, we will hear the dire predictions, which will be accurate, of tax revenue shortfalls for the next year, which will mean another round of cuts. A few people will say that this is inevitable, there is nothing we can do about it, and schools should just cut the fat. We know there is little fat to cut. We know that children will be hurt this year by budget cuts and it will only get worse. Well, we need to take some of the blame. How many of us were involved in fighting for education funding before our children's schools were threatened? There were a LOT of Sunset Hill parents at the Squeaky Wheel rally yesterday. Where were you before that? The Lawrence community, including most parents and teachers, have been very complacent as the funding base for education has eroded and as tax cuts that have come back to hurt us were being passed. Let's not repeat this irresponsible behavior. Let's continue to organize and fight for increased revenue for the state to be used to fund public schools. Yes, we need tax increases following a 20 year run of cuts, many of which were not responsible and did not achieve their desired effect. The time has come to pay the piper. This problem can be temporary if we express our expectations for school funding to our elected representatives. Right now they appear to feel they are employed by Koch industries or their political party, but we need to remind them who put them there. Anti-education officials, like Anthony Brown who represents Eudora, and parts of eastern Lawrence, need to be replaced. People like Roger Pine who say one thing when running and do another once elected need to be replaced. We can fix this problem if we fight hard enough.

Robert Kidder 3 years, 3 months ago

From the article: "“The proof in the savings is in the fact that (the schools) haven’t reopened,” Morgan said."

Mr. Morgan, the Board has reopened two of the schools that were closed in 2003 - Centennial and East Heights - although for different purposes. If you believe what you said, one of our positions is two-thirds right and one is two-thirds wrong.

However, that is anecdotal at best. The proof in the savings would have been the stated desire: to save $4 million district wide; that did not happen. The District spent $3 million more the very next year; a $ 7 million difference from the expectation of closing three schools.

funkdog1 3 years, 3 months ago

Why is Deerfield never mentioned as a west side school that will get more kids? According to the district's own information, if Sunset Hill grade school is closed, those kids will be split between Quail Run, Deerfield and Hillcrest. Langston Hughes doesn't even play into that scenario.

West side parents: pay attention!

spiderd 3 years, 3 months ago

guess_again- You are falling prey to the most common error in our current political climate. You hear one thing from one person and assume that one thing speaks for an entire group. You then have an easy cherry-picked argument to which you can counter and paint an entire group as misguided. This happens all of the time on all sides of many political issues. I agree with a lot of what you say but your tactics are not any more just than those you rail against. The point you're missing is that there are significant educational benefits to the elementary school system we have now... its not broken. Yes, schools may eventually have to close but if its possible to get through this year and have an actual honest conversation about whether to do it, or how to do it and do it well, we'll all be better off.

spiderd 3 years, 3 months ago

jackson5 3 years, 3 months ago

Interest comes out of the bond and interest fund, not the general fund. Bond& interest is funded by local property taxes.

But here is how spending on sports facilities, parking lots, and admin. building improvements hurts the general fund: The state provides additional general funds for two years when new construction is completed for use as classrooms. For Lawrence this year, it would have been at least $1200/student who used the new space.

If we had spent the capital outlay on elementary space instead, we would have MORE money in our general fund.

We have hundreds of kids in school trailers all over town. The school board decided not to spend on elementary schools. This decision cost us money from the general fund for two years because we lost the extra funding from the state.

I don't blame the board though. They are great people who care about our schools. I doubt that anyone at the board office took the time to explain to them that the state subsidizes construction of educational spaces by increasing the general fund by 25% for affected students.

Building fields, renting trailers, and spending on the administrative building rather than investing in educational space does hurt the general fund. We lose out on state subsidies to the general fund for two years. Granted it is only for two years but that is more of a payback than we get for our other capital outlay expenditures.

cammieb 3 years, 3 months ago

In speaking to state legislators over the years, I've heard the following:

Anger over the lawsuit brought on by school districts to seek fair funding. They blame superintendents.

Assertion that superintendents are overpaid, there are too many administrators in districts, and that school districts are hiding money.

Push to consolidate small school districts.

Anger that public education is such a large portion of the state budget.

Many speak with soundbites of information with little basis for fact. They say things like: We don't need kindergarten. Kindergarten is just for social activities. We should recruit faith-based organizations to volunteer to work in early childhood programs (4-year-old At-Risk Preschool and Parents as Teachers). We don't need to be spending as much money on our children. If we raise taxes in Kansas, people will move out of state.

kugrad is right. School districts all over the state are looking at how to take on an additional cut per pupil. In a report released by the Deputy Education Commissioner, Dale Dennis, districts will have to cut music, arts, athletics, counselors, nurses, early childhood, Parents as Teachers, programs for at-risk, after-school and summer school, vocational, foreign language, and much more. This will cause over 5000 people to lose their jobs. That's 5000 fewer people who will be paying taxes or spending money in Kansas. Many of these 5000 will need to access state aid. And cutting education programs will cost the state much more in the long-run.

Kansans must contact their legislators. Let them know you understand the need for cuts in state funding. Ask them for across the board cuts vs. large cuts to education. Let them know you support the Governor's budget plan to raise state revenues. And thank them for being willing to serve in this difficult role to make these difficult decisions.

Legislators are very stressed and hearing from angry people. We, as Kansans in this difficult time, must be reasonable and willing to do our part to help improve our state economics: Spend our money in Kansas and be willing to cut back where we can in state spending. However, we can not afford to take anymore large cuts in education. That will only worsen the situation.

merrill 3 years, 3 months ago

So long as Topeka continues to cut taxes aka mismanagement of the states budget this will be a recurring situation.

Which dictates long term solutions such as selling of the admin building to help reduce the principle on the sports facilities project @$250,000 interest per year out of the general budget. USD could put the athletic improvements on the market however would they bring anywhere near $18 million in resale value..... get real no way jose! ALWAYS put these matters before the voters in the future!

The existing structure aka the Virtual School will adequately house our USD 497 administration offices and staff.

The state perhaps could authorize local funding to supplement what Topeka fails to supply which of course is not the law but local districts should be allowed to help themselves in times of distress.

Should the controlling majority find the discipline to restore taxation back to 1997 levels that might put Kansas back to square one which could save the day and public education.

Property owners in the areas of closed public schools will lose 10% of property value by this decision according to Kirk McClure. Property owners cannot afford this, the city cannot afford to lose the property tax dollars and USD 497 cannot afford the loss of tax dollars.

Our bought and paid for school buildings are worth millions upon millions upon millions in tax dollar savings to USD 497 taxpayers.

Building larger schools will not save tax dollars instead will cost approximately $10-$12 million each. Where is the money? Not in my tax dollar wallet!

merrill 3 years, 3 months ago

Governor Parkinson.... Yes I support the governors call for the one cent temporary sales tax in order to buy us time.

I know this is considered regressive however there are so many tax dollar loopholes attached to other taxation that which prevents the cookie jars from filling up. It is hard for me to determine which is most regressive. Tax dollar loopholes must increase other taxes and/or user fees in order to make up for the shortfall loopholes produce.

Of course it would be best to cut off sales tax exemptions and loopholes I speculate.

I was hoping for our sales tax to be applied to all online sale items across the board regardless of which state Kansans make a purchase however was informed this cannot happen.

guess_again 3 years, 3 months ago

Spider says: "The point you're missing is that there are significant educational benefits" __ Why do you think I have missed that? I agree there are benefits. And there are also costs. This is exactly what should be being discussed, rather the Pollyanna avoidance of the issue, as many of the save schools individuals and group seem to be doing. Many seem to believe there are no costs.

Spider says: "Yes, schools may eventually have to close but if its possible to get through this year"

I agree that from a cash basis perspective that the school district could get through this year without closing schools.... by spending your balances. By spending the balances, you increase the possibility that next year's cuts would need to be even greater.

"waiting to make a decision" in my view is making a decision. A bad one. And one I disagree with, for the reason I just expressed.

kugrad says: "This could well be a temporary problem for one reason- the congressional delegation in Topeka is elected and would respond to sufficient public pressure to provide adequate funding to our public schools."

This is totally Pollyanna. This debate has been ongoing for years. It is not waiting to start. You need to accept the political realities of where we are today relative to the Legislature's inclination of raising taxes, for public education, for higher education, for social services, for the aged. I don't agree with it, but I accept the reality of it. I have followed it in some detail for some years. I would be glad to share notes.

The modest tax increase proposed just this week by Senate leadership, which is not at all a certainty, does nothing to help the Lawrence situation, only prevent additional cuts. Where do you think the political support will come for making the substantial additional increases for state taxes? Are you planning on the feds to extend their substantial K-12 stimulus funding beyond next year? I think you are foolish if you do in the current climate.

Yes there are meetings going on all over the state. And many districts have already made programmatic cuts to their curricula and program far larger than Lawrence will experience. The State Board of Education last week estimated that up to 5,000 positions will be eliminated.

And just yesterday, there was a public meeting with legislators in Wichita, which is looking at about a $50 million dollar school budget hit. And guess what..... there were also lots of tax protesters in attendance, ready to push back on the school advocates.

Again, that is not my preference, but it is not productive to not acknowledge or mis-state the current state of the political climate in Topeka. I think kugrad does this.

This isn't all just little Mike O'Neal. He is continually reelected in his home district, and was elected by his colleagues. They all knew who they were voting for.

That is reality.

kugrad 3 years, 3 months ago

guess_again I respectfully disagree with you. I suggest that public input could change the climate regarding revenue increase in Topeka. In response, you write,"___This is totally Pollyanna. This debate has been ongoing for years. It is not waiting to start."

 You are only technically correct. Yes, the debate has gone on for years. What has been missing is public input. Only a very small number of people are involved. The legislature has been reporting that they receive very few letters on the topic. By saying it is "pollyanna" you are arguing that our system won't respond to public input. I disagree. I think it will be difficult and take large numbers, but I don't think is is impossible. I also think those who support public education outnumber the anti-tax crowd, as polls have consistenly shown, but those in support of public education have been inactive. To summarize, I believe the legislature would be forced to listen to the public if the outcry was loud enough and that public input has been very limited in the last decade or more.

Your write, "This isn't all just little Mike O'Neal. He is continually reelected in his home district, and was elected by his colleagues."

Yes, but he is one of the primary movers in the orchestration of anti-public education policies. He is the chair of key committees. He has recently purged all members of his own party from those committees who do not share his views on cutting education funding. So, he is not just your average representative, he is one of the key anti-public education players. You say you follow education, but if you are unaware of his influence on education funding, perhaps you aren't following that closely. I DO acknowledge the current political climate. Don't misunderstand that. I just think it can be changed, whereas you have a defeatist attidude posing as realism.

People in western KS are starting to be negatively affected by school funding. Their participation is essential in making any significant changes. This is not pie-in-the-sky, it just requires organizing.

I don't know why you are so negative about SONS, even to the point of saying they are disingenous. I suggest you attend at least one of their meetings, often at the public library, and just talk to them. They are not some lunatic fringe, but well-educated people making a difference. They would be glad to speak with you and would not attack you for having different beliefs, but would work constructively with you. The best way to resolve disagreements is through dialogue and I think your point of view might change if you knew more about some of the thinking of this group. The poster who said you were cherry-picking comments and putting up straw men seems to have a point as you are too dismissive of their efforts.

guess_again 3 years, 3 months ago

kugrad: I have no doubt that you disagree with my opinion. And as you seem to be perplexed by my views, I am perplexed by yours. And yes, I do think counting two years revenues as a way of balancing a one year budget is very disingenuous. I think assuming arbitrary increases in fund raising levels is Polyanna, if not disingenuous. And when I read your belief that Topeka attitudes will change this year and make this go away, I do believe it is very Pollyanna.

But I do not want to dissuade you. Please organize and make the fight. I support your objectives.

It is not, however, a reason for the school board to defer what is legally required for them to do in adopting the district's budget.

I'll check back in with you upon the legislature's adjournment, and we will see who is right. Hopefully I will be wrong. But I really don't think so.

JimRusso 3 years, 3 months ago

kugrad asked: How many of us were involved in fighting for education funding before our children's schools were threatened? There were a LOT of Sunset Hill parents at the Squeaky Wheel rally yesterday. Where were you before that?

I'm a parent at Sunset, and I understand why you ask this question. Frankly, I think people at so-called "safe" schools are naturally inclined to feel like the issues don't concern them. Even when Sunset was specifically mentioned for closure, a fair number remained unaware of the possibility, and others felt powerless to do anything.

But, a good number of the people at the rally yesterday were people I had also seen marching in the parade weeks ago, when the closing of Sunset wasn't really on the radar. Furthermore, rather than make arguments about why the school board would be better off closing any other school except our own, parents and neighbors have supported the position of SONS--let's try to keep all the schools open.

Complicating matters is the demographic of the neighborhood. Sunset Hill was the Langston Hughes of 1955: the new school on the edge of town surrounded by new homes full of kids. Some of the original owners are still here, and some feel they have enough of their own problems to worry about, but a lot of the ones whose children are now 60 still support the school. Also, many young families are moving into the neighborhood (our block went from 1 child just 5 years ago to 8 today), and they understand the importance of a nearby school not just for our neighborhood, but for every neighborhood.

I understand your perspective, and largely agree with it, but I hope that our neighborhood's sudden interest in the issue will prove to be a positive factor in the move to keep ALL the schools open.

spiderd 3 years, 3 months ago

My apologies for the many posts. My computer/ljwebsite was unresponsive when I tried to click send... so I clicked again... and again... It took several minutes to finally work. I always wondered how it happened to other people and now I know.

kugrad 3 years, 3 months ago

Guess_again Perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying or I have not been clear. I am not suggesting that we can turn this around through political action in time for next year; I think that is quite unlikely. When arguing that there won't necessarily be long-term revenue issues I was looking further than the current fiscal year and the next. I think somethings could be accomplished next year and the following year that could stabilize the situation after that. I agree that next year will show another revenue shortfall, which I thought was implied in my first post. At any rate, I am assuming nothing - surely not that there is currently any reliable chance of increased funding. What I am saying is that I think the political momentum in favor of increased funding is at an all-time high (for recent years) and that people around the state could be rallied at this time to push for change. I am saying people are frustrated enough that we could see change, not that we can count on it (which I never said, nor implied). You respond to me and to the SONS arguments the same way; by mischaracterizing and/or misrepresenting what we said. For example, the SONS proposals (which I had nothing to do with) are very clear about saying this is just to buy time, not a long-term fix. Similarly, you wrote this about my comments," And when I read your belief that Topeka attitudes will change this year and make this go away, I do believe it is very Pollyanna." Well, that is not my belief, nor did I ever say that. You added in the "this year" part, just as you overlooked SONS clear understanding that their suggestion is to buy time.

No one, including you, knows how long this will last or how long the new lawsuit will take and what the outcome will be and so on, but I think some legislators are beginning to understand that they have hit bottom in terms of what the public is willing to accept and that is a start. I am simply saying that we should fight the fight before giving up the battle.

kugrad 3 years, 3 months ago

JimRusso, I agree with everything you said and I didn't mean to pick on Sunset Hill (although I was at the march and saw many more Sunset Parents I know yesterday and at recent forums than ever before) but was just using the example to show the general trend among all schools. I am very pleased that SONS chose not to make this issue school vs. school and that Sunset parents responded in kind. Excellent choice. What I am saying is that we live in a state that elected people who think the world is 5000 year old to the state school board and last election narrowly escaped allowing them a majority again. Similarly, here in Lawrence we came fairly close to having at least one extremist with a similar anti-science agenda on the local BOE in the last election. Those few who have been active in pursuing the school funding issue between crises and between election cycles know how few people are truly active in state politics. We can change this and we can change attitudes in Topeka and it is my hope that those seeking change can keep the recent momentum going and transfer this energy beyond the local level into influencing people in other parts of the state to push their local legislators for change. We should also try to oust those local politicians who have not voted to support education. In politics the people who do the work are the people who generally succeed. It will take an enormous amount of work to turn the tide on education funding, but it isn't impossible.

guess_again 3 years, 3 months ago

kugrad: I apologize for being confused by your position, and evidently SONS. So these recommendations are "to buy time, not a long-term fix." OK. And you agree that there it is not likely that additional revenues will not occur to reverse these level of cuts, I think. OK.

But my reaction to the proposals themselves are just the same. A number of the suggestions are one-time ponies, and do not confront the central imbalance between revenues and expenditures of the board annual budget. I believe utilizing of a number of such proposals in an attempt to reach a $5 million reduction number to be foolish and very poor policy. I believe the board must address a $5 million dollar reduction with a recommendation which anticipates that $5 million dollar reduction on an ongoing base budget. I believe that is their legal and political responsibility. If that is not "buying time" I guess I am not for "buying time."

I look forward to seeing your efforts in Topeka. Because without them, I fear we will be back here in 12 months looking at further reductions. The same for 24 months.

JimRusso 3 years, 3 months ago

guessagain said about the SONS budget proposal: "A number of the suggestions are one-time ponies."

I'll admit I'm no accountant, but I'd ask guessagain to specify which of the cost-saving measures he/she considers to be one-time solutions. The proposals are outlined at http://www.saveourneighborhoodschools.com/budget-outline/

If I understand correctly, most of these savings, with the exception of the $400,000 from the contingency reserve funds, are ones that could be continued into the future. (I.e., No one is proposing that the school board spend a $5 million rainy day fund and empty the cashbox.)

As for buying time, the board has to deal with a incredible crisis in a very short amount of time, and their solutions could have some incredible long-term consequences for all of us. If closure is inevitable, I'd rather they use that contingency money to buy some more time to develop a clear policy of how to proceed.

sherlock 3 years, 3 months ago

what happened to the 2005 bond election? Yeah have you all forgotten? The portables are just unsafe, and with the new money from the bond election " we will rid the district of all portables.." Sure we will! First they purchased another one for Hillcrest because the parents just didnt want to move their children to a less crowded one, so another portable! In fact did they do away with any when they passed the bond? I read where there are apparently many at the schools still? Is that right? Yet they saved some $2.3 million back so they could have their athletic fields, which had been on the agenda all along instead of using it to fix up elementary schools that they mentioned needed work. What happened to the bond election before 2005----had to have a maintenance building, just had too! But suddenly that money went to purchase the milk barn, because they suddenly found out they couldnt add on to the old Elks bldg. offices and the district has NEVER built a maintenance bldg. So folks realize that the school board doesnt always do as they say, but "what they want to do in the first place." Yep they are not always honest in what they state!

kugrad 3 years, 3 months ago

Guessagain I think it is ok for the board to, as SONS suggest, hit the "pause" button for this year and provide time for the kinds of discussions Scott Morgan has suggested need to occur. Discussions about what sort of schools we really do want to have and how to mesh that vision with fiscal reality. No one really anticipated the size of the shortfall. They thought it was going to be 3 million short from the state, it ended up to be 7 (the other million comes from estimated insurance premium expenditures). Given the short time frame in which the events took place, I think it isn't unreasonable to buy some time in the short term. They can't do this twice, but it might lead to better long-term decisions. One really good example is the reconfiguration issue. It makes no sense at all to me for the board to deal with reconfiguration after closing schools. They should reconfigure first, then make the 6th grade decision (whether or not to move them to middle schools), THEN decide what building to close if that still appears to be a need. The current crisis is pushing them toward doing this backwards, which could quite easily result in them selecting the 'wrong' building(s) to close in terms of future plans, building maintanence, quality of existing structure, ability to build on the property and so on. I don't really think our positions are so far apart. It is just that, having attended many recent board meetings and meetings at individual elementaries, I honestly don't think the board is adequately prepared to make good long-term decisions. They need more time or they are very likely to get it wrong. I hope they won't have to close any elementaries, and I'd really like them to look harder at the secondary level for programs to trim. However, if cuts have to be made I'd like them to take the time to get it right. The clock is ticking on this year and they haven't even obtained adquate information about the relative benefits of each building, let alone established what Mr. Minder referred to as an "ethical framework" for decision making, which I personally endorse as a good idea. When I look at other districts in the state I see that their administrations presented plans which the board then debated. Here we seem to be doing it, at least in public, the other way around. The board is deciding everything and the administration is at least pretending that they have not given any input the board didn't specifically ask for. I'm not certain what to make of this.

commuter 3 years, 3 months ago

In 2003, the district closed 3 schools.

In 2005, the district & the LEA agreed to a pay raise for the teachers that costs the district 8.1% more than the previous year.

The board has reduced the number teacher to student ratio, thus costing us more money.

merrill 3 years, 3 months ago

Why put the admin building on the market now?

1.The admin building is more attractive for corporate office space than any public school building.

2. Doing it now provides ample time to relocate admin staff and services to Centennial

3. The sooner it goes on the market the sooner an interested buyer can be found.

4. With all Lawrence neighborhoods growing we’ll need both New York School and East Heights. Changing boundaries could provide some student population relief to other elementary schools.

5. It has substantial market value vs a school building

6. USD 497 taxpayers need relief of the athletics investment because tax payers cannot afford
the annual interest at $250,000. Need to cut the principle asap.

The money could be applied to this debt or could be used to rehab existing buildings both of which are necessary.

7. Centennial has enough space to perform whatever services are performed at the current admin site.

8. USD 497 cannot sell off the new athletic project because it has little market value.

9.Keeping East Heights and New York school buildings is essential to Lawrence,Kansas because they are bought and paid for. Lawrence,Kansas is not a dying community nor are any neighborhoods dying.

plus:

* seeking early retirement for some directors and other staff
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7lBXMFRc2IMJ:www.usd497.org/documents/2010ESDCServices.pdf+USD+497+Planning+Division+Director&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiOggJNWJoJH49MEcWaECXScBhGgPxnfiDfzpgQsCSgY86mIgLeRV65pg2xkKUBxAHdi3iJpWIrunywXI6pMAbXV075ID2WiDOXDLuhpnAzdBxrAlkXvZ2LPosCL8R6pHXZCL-Q&sig=AHIEtbTxJysxmsR8asSKUxVrReAPp9IK5A

*Save Our Neighborhood Schools has identified cost savings of over $5.5 million. There are many ways to bridge the budget gap and these are just a few suggestions. We hope the board considers cost savings that protect students, teachers, schools and neighborhoods.

What does this potentially accomplish?

We’re looking at way more than $5 million which puts the district in a much better position for the following budget year rather than always being put on the defensive.

At least it does appear as though this is a top heavy admin so why not get a bit leaner now. Let’s push for as many early retirements as possible.

We’re planning ahead in order to preserve an excellent public education system that which is necessary to attract good paying new economic growth.

drawkcab 3 years, 3 months ago

One more time for those of you that still don't understand...

The budget has two parts.
Maintenance and Operation (M&O)- this is for people, supplies and consumable purchases. Capital Outlay - this is for buildings, land, items that are fixed assets.

The money from each area cannot be commingled and must be spent on only those items that it is intended for. How money is allocated to these two funds is determined by the state.

Closing or selling the ESDC, tearing down or selling football fields will not help alleviate the budget short falls associated with the M&O side of the budget. The only way to fix these issues is to reduce human resource costs. 85% of the M&O (Maintenance and Operation) budget is spent on people. The other option is to encourage families with young children to move to Lawrence.

Some of our schools are underutilized and desks sit empty. It is irresponsible for schools that are underutilized to remain open. I applaud the school board for addressing this issue. They are focused on what is best for the children in this community. They also realize that if we do not address this issue our budget issues will only continue to get worse. This is not a short-term problem.

Did_I_say_that 3 years, 3 months ago

"Some of our schools are underutilized and desks sit empty."

That is a boundary issue; especially when some schools are crowded.

commuter 3 years, 3 months ago

Sure sell the admin building. Next let's sell all of the Empty T buses. Then Merrill will have more to constantly complain about.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 3 months ago

"merrill (anonymous) says…Building larger schools will not save tax dollars instead will cost approximately $10-$12 million each. Where is the money? Not in my tax dollar wallet!"

You mow lawns for a living, you pay little to no taxes. You have no children in the district because you home school. Quit embarrassing yourself.

JimRusso 3 years, 3 months ago

drawkcab is correct about the distinction between capital and M & O funds, and the alternative savings measures that have been proposed reflect those realities. Ironically, some of the funds that are currently coming out of the general fund could be coming out of capital outlay (for example, $200,00 spent on equipment, furnishings, and repair), and some of the revenue going into the capital fund, could be going into the general fund (don't quote me on this, but I believe that the district receives rental for a cell tower at Free State, and the money goes into capital).

As for underutilized buildings, isn't some of this the result of the way boundaries were drawn? Plus, I understand that many of the teachers at New York are ones with longer tenure, and thus higher salaries. The costs of paying them will not disappear when they are transferred to another school.

These are really complicated issues, and I don't claim any expertise at all (nor do I speak for any school or the SONS organization). But I do think that both sides have viewpoints that merit more discussion.

hear_me 3 years, 3 months ago

Am I missing something? I have not seen anyone suggest that we look at the athletic programs. Why are they special? Don't they cost anything? How much would be saved if we eliminated some of the team sports and saved athletic programs that all students have access to?

edufocus 3 years, 3 months ago

Centennial...The site has become the home of Johnson County Community College, LVS, FSHS and LHS special education programs and district professional development activities. OH yeah and LHS has a baseball field and tennis courts there! I am not sure where you think you are going to fit the admin building staff.