To the editor:
We ask the school board to amend the charge of the Consolidation Working Group for the following reasons:
• The original charge was based on inaccurate figures. Last year’s Elementary School Facility Task Force estimated that elementary schools would be at 80.3 percent capacity this year and at 83.6 percent in 5 years. More accurate data from RSP demonstrates that we currently use 86 percent of our capacity and will be at 90% capacity in 5 years. There is not capacity to consolidate six schools into four or fewer.
• School closure savings come primarily from raising class sizes and firing teachers. The board and administration have repeatedly indicated small class size as a priority, especially in schools with high numbers of at-risk students. Five of the six schools considered for consolidation have significant populations of at-risk students.
• Closing and consolidating schools raises class size across the district. The increase in class sizes at Broken Arrow and Sunflower as a result of the Wakarusa Valley closure is a perfect example, and contradicts the District’s stated preference for small class size.
• Even with budget cuts over the past two years, the district continues to operate in the black.
The Consolidation Working Group has worked tirelessly to address the charge given them, but if the school board acts without amending the charge, the results may do lasting damage to business, personal, and community relationships. Let’s strongly consider whether pushing forward with a flawed charge is the right direction to take for our children and our community.
Comments
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.
GardenMomma (anonymous) says…
Good points. I hope the Board responds.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Thanks for the public letter. Go for it!
To maintain a superb system parents must remain active which means we cannot allow school boards to dictate what will be. As taxpayers we are also the most important stakeholders who elect school boards to carry out our wishes not the other way around.
Our founding fathers wanted to insure Democracy for our country. Benjamin Franklin created the public library, the purpose being no citizen will be secluded from public knowledge. He also founded the public school, the purpose being no citizen will be without a basic education.
Voters and taxpayers are the primary stakeholders no matter what. Always let the voters decide how reckless or not we wish to be.
Before spending or asking for additional tax dollars to build or repair buildings USD 497 best wait until they know what exactly is transpiring in Topeka. Our buildings can be rehabilitated over a 3-4 year period on current property tax dollars which is a respectful approach.
USD 497 taxpayers need to think of nurturing our teachers which has not been adequately addressed in some years. Some kind of a pay increase method may need to be a matter for consideration should the legislature open those doors.
2 examples of recent reckless spending performed by the previous usd 497 boe: Mark Bradford, Scott Morgan, Mary Loveland,Vanessa Sanburn,Rich Minder Bob Byers, and Marlene Merrill.
1. $23,000 per acre for 75 acres of unimproved land
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec...
2. $20 million on the PLAY athletic project
http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2007/ma...
Yet no support for public teachers:
http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2003/ma...
Again always let the voters decide how reckless or not we wish to be.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
"To maintain a superb system parents must remain active which means we cannot allow school boards to dictate what will be."
Are you serious? Duly elected boards of education have absolute control over everything within their jurisdiction, and no non-board member can force them to do or not do anything. The answer is for the parents and other taxpayers you're talking about to run for the board, get elected, and make a difference by serving on the board.
kansanbygrace (anonymous) replies…
The School Board needs public input. Parent/Teacher organizations have an enormously powerful potential which has been demonstrated frequently.
The Board is not made of all-knowing prescients, and as a representative body, rather than a delegated authoritarian power, must consider the input of those needing the service they oversee and who have direct knowledge of whether or not those services are working.
The Board is only as good as the information it receives from the public and most important, the parents and taxpaying citizens they represent.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
School boards are only as good as the people who sit on them. If people are dissatisfied, they should kwittheirbitchin and run.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
Really, Cato? Elect them and then just sit back and let 'em rip? Your comments usually run counter to reality, but this takes the cake. Should we gas up the car, turn it on, and then just let it go where it will? Good grief, man, try, just for once, to think logically before you crtiticize. If you truly believe we have, or should have, no input or control of elected officials, you are more out of touch than your usually thoughtless comments would indicate.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Can you read? What I said was that if you do wish to achieve control, then run for the board. That shouldn't be that hard to understand, even for you.
parrothead8 (anonymous) replies…
Yes, but you said in it a way that denigrated people wishing to be heard. You ridiculed a comment that said parents should remain active for a school system to be a good one. What's the problem with that?
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
I didn't denigrate anyone. Parents and other interested parties have the right to be heard and should make every effort to do so. The problem is that, invariably, after they haven't been listened to (which happens frequently within USD 497), all they do is whine about it instead of running for the board themselves. That's the only way that they can be assured of making a difference, which certainly isn't that difficult to understand.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Sounds to me like cato and parrothead are saying the same thing: the board has been nonresponsive on this and other issues and that needs to change. I posit that perhaps the issue is also compounded by the administrative professionals who do not allow their own goals to be altered by the input from the school board. Buffering the administrative staff from political pressure overall is an important principle, however if they are ignoring important input from the community, then the board needs to change that in no uncertain terms, which includes cleaning house when nothing else works.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies…
Agreed, especially with regard to "administrative professionals."
merrill (anonymous) says…
The $20 million spent on PLAY could have addressed a real pressing issue instead of being ignored:
How should the school district pay for a $16.5 million maintenance backlog in elementary schools?
http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2007/oc...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/oct...
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
If we close any schools now, we'll just be looking to build another one in the next 5 years.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
We need more citations to years-old LJW articles on this thread!
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
good lte. you got it exactly correct.
spinmama (anonymous) says…
Great letter, thank you for writing it. I hope the Board and administration will listen with open ears.
Getaroom (anonymous) says…
One of the best LTE's we have had in a long while - thanks for your efforts and clarity!!!
PFC (anonymous) says…
All accurate points, although none of this would have mattered to the old board who pushed through the charge on their way out the door. However, I suspect that at least a majority of the new board will have a different view. And one more thing; don’t amend the charge, eliminate it all together.
spiderd (anonymous) says…
Word.
toosense (anonymous) says…
Deerfield, Langston Hughes, Quail Run, Sunflower, Schwegler, Broken Arrow, and Prarie Park communities, we should all realize we are not insulated from this conundrum. We need to speak against "consolidation" as much as those on the chopping block. We ALL have a lot to lose, or maybe a LOT of class size to gain.
citizen1 (anonymous) says…
Excellent letter. I have never understood the math from the school board. The whole point is to save money, yet to consolidate schools we have to float major bond issues to pay for consolidation. No pune is really intended here, but is that "fuzzy" math or is that "new" math.
This whole consolidation issue is an embarrassment.
Toto12 (anonymous) says…
Great Letter. We're to the point that any more consolidation is going to do much more harm than good.
KrampusLawrence (anonymous) says…
This LTE contains more reporting than the recent articles covering the subject. I really hope that members of the public, school board, school district, and Consolidation Working Group read this letter and take note.
nativeson (anonymous) says…
The letter omits several details. Classroom size is growing across the district, just not in schools that have absorbed school closures. This increase is a direct result of a lack of action on consolidation. Secondly, total increase in percentage of capacity will mean higher class sizes where population is growing, not across the district. It is not an even distribution. Some schools must close over time in the best interest of all students.
PFC (anonymous) replies…
To actually save money, you have to lay off teachers. This is what happened after WV was closed, and class sizes went up. Closure increases class size plain and simple. Closure might make sense if enrollment was decreasing, but makes no sense wen enrollment is increasing as it is in Lawrence (with projections showing increases for the next five years).
aryastark1984 (anonymous) replies…
You are missing the point. When you close one school, even a small school there is a ripple effect that affects multiple schools and in ways that the district seems unable to predict, at least in the past. The RSP projections should be a cautionary tale and show just how dramatic these changes would be if you closed one more school. The reality is that virtually every school would experience boundary changes.
Aside from the effects of Wakarusa, the district has been generally slow on the uptake about where growth is occurring and where it is not. They made staffing decisions based on the assumption of flat growth or reductions (loss of 6th grade) and staffed accordingly. It turns out that they were way off in many cases. Again, this shows the hazard of planning based on faulty assumptions.
Districts close and consolidate when they are losing student population, not when they are growing. As the LTE stated, we must stop making decisions based on faulty assumptions.
kansasfaithful (anonymous) says…
I would encourage parents who can leave the public school system to leave and push the legislature to allow parents to use their tax dollars to travel to schools of their choice either private or public. Both of these ideas are exactly what some have requested of the tax paying parent. Take control of the situation. Teachers need competition and more jobs. But if the only jobs are in the public schools you will continue see larger classes and less money for your efforts. Why you say, because tax payers like myself simply are not going to vote to increase funding of a school system designed a century ago. We can't afford public healthcare, public schools, public food stamps, SRS, health departments, etc, and expect any of these programs to be worth a darn. We are simply adding services to a funding source that is drying up. That source is the tax payer.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) replies…
Like your hero Sam - to hell with the poor, disabled and elderly, huh, KF?
My Jesus will turn away from you as you have turned away from those in need.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
Have the real facts been offered to the public on the demographics of future students? If , in fact, Lawrence is attracting retirees (hahaha) why would there even be a need for bigger schools and/or consolidation?
The realtors play a big role in the future of the schools in Lawrence. USD 497 is in the real estate business and not in the business of education. I would be willing to bet that if the school board had the guts to cut their budget by 25% and cut the mill levy, the things would work out just fine and Lawrence could still turn out Alan Mulally's and other well schooled kids who would have worthwhile trades and jobs.
Lawrence doesnt have the guts to become the model for education but rather is becoming a joke for spending aka the Poster Child of Excess Spending.
pace (anonymous) says…
Very good letter, solid points.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
"Last year’s Elementary School Facility Task Force estimated that elementary schools would be at 80.3 percent capacity this year and at 83.6 percent in 5 years."
As I recall, that estimate came from the administration. The numbers were provided in such a way as to achieve the administration and board's goal: close WV. Figures don't lie; but liars can figure.
As for the rest of the letter: Welcome to the world that Wakarusa Valley students, parents, and staff lived in for over two years, beginning with Scott Morgan's "accidental" use of WV as an example. The letter is the same exact arguments made by WV's champions for the two years preceding its closing. Correction: preceding its conversion to LVS.
Where were you then?
Yet, there may be hope. The new board members "appear" as if they listen to the community and can think for themselves.
Cant_have_it_both_ways (anonymous) says…
Seems like the school system had plenty of money to buy some land south of the K10 bypass a couple of years ago, and now its whining and has its hand out again.
FormerTiger (anonymous) says…
Here's an interesting research-based read that calls into question the efficiency argument.
http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Poli...
EllaAsks (anonymous) says…
FormerTiger just posted some research. It has it's flaws, but it's more than we've seen from the district on the success of the closure of Wakarusa. Further, where is the evidence that there is a fiscal crisis? I'm beginning to think that this "close schools" trumpeting has been sounded by developers who want to build new shiny schools. The district has brought in experts and consultants in RSP and Gould who have produced very little. No real, solid numbers. Everything comes with a correction, an asterisk or footnote, and I'm beginning to think, a wink and a nod to the interests they represent: suburban growth, new building, and whatever Pinkney wants.
Forenza (anonymous) says…
We recently moved to Lawrence, so I'm missing on the particulars. So, Lawrence closed a Wakarusa school last year to consolidate -- like some sort of 'test close'? ""ellaasks"" asks how that went. Did the money the district earned from that closing, go back into the school that Wakarusa joined? We happened to rent west of Iowa to start. Everyone looks at schools when they buy. If we'd bought one east of Iowa and now that was maybe going to be closed, I would be very upset.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Families for Education
Kansas Families for Education, Executive Director, Kathy Cook.
15941 W. 65th Street, #104 Shawnee KS, 66217. 913-825-0099.
http://www.fundourpublicschools.com/i...
This is quite an active organization. Probably 10 years of active duty on behalf of public school funding. This group does work tirelessly on school funding issues.
Kansas Families for Education does spend time in Topeka,Kansas.