Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, March 30, 2013

Letter: Well-defined plan

March 30, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

In its editorial of Sunday, March 24, “Bond reservations,” the Journal-World takes the position that the arguments in favor of the school bond are not “overwhelmingly persuasive.” The editors use misleading phrases. They claim that the bond issue “seems to be throwing money at a variety of undefined problems.” They wonder if there’s a better way “than simply to pour money into aging facilities.”

Did any of the authors of this editorial attend any of the 15 informational sessions held at schools throughout the city? Did any of the authors read “A Community Plan,” the 14-page document sent to Lawrence households and available on the district website? Did any read the 14-page “Lawrence Public School News Letter” of March 2013, which was distributed as an insert in their own newspaper? It’s difficult to believe that they did. Had they, they might have realized that the district and the school board have worked tirelessly to leave as little as possible undefined. The plan details current and projected enrollment, technological needs and classroom space, right down to architectural renderings and specific budgets by school. Undefined?

This plan is absolutely comprehensive. Look at it. The Lawrence Chamber of Commerce has, and they’ve endorsed it.

Comments

Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

When economic times get rough people seek to better themselves with additional education. Making available the most productive environment is a smart choice.

We know economic times can get rough so why not prepare our children for these times by teaching them to think by providing the most productive environment.

It's a known given that new industry examines local educational opportunities so let's NOT allow USD 497 to slip down toward Brownback levels.

Breaking ground that will allow our young students to learn at their own paces is a long over due concept. Bring it on!

This argument about killing educational opportunities will reduce our taxes is at best questionable. Lawrence can not indulge in another 10-15 years of negligence regarding USD 497 taxpayer owned properties...... this would reckless beyond belief.

Should the bond fail the rehab must move forward at a slower pace and maybe a property tax increase that would be short term however getting the same objectives completed. This might be a plan B scenario that would be wise NOT to encounter.

grimpeur 1 year, 9 months ago

Chamber endorsement? snicker

I do not think this means what you think it means.

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

And yet there's overly broad language - "necessary and related expenses" in the bond issue.

If it's as specific as claimed, there's no need for that language, and it shouldn't be in there.

ReadingSports 1 year, 9 months ago

I've posted in other topics about this issue. But I feel strongly that the district wastes money. Please see some of my other postings.

I was initially for this bond issue, but seeing how much time the school has spent on information sessions, and talking with some teachers, I will vote against this bond issue, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

VOTE NO!!!

Mike Myers 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, I don't see why we need to spend money on education or school buildings. We need to send a strong message to the children that they aren't worth our time or money. We should really stick it to the administration too. It will be so awesome to have a whole bunch of dumb kids failing in crumbling, leaky, outdated buildings. That will really show the rest of the state what Lawrence is all about. Vote NO to further the cause of ignorance in Lawrence!

ReadingSports 1 year, 9 months ago

Ignorance, so you're calling me stupid then? Troll-ron. This is state of debate in the United States, if I don't agree with you then I must be stupid.

What a joke! It's a school bond issue. Get real. And as for the rest of your stupidity. If the bond issue passes students will succeed, students will fail. If the bond issue fails students will succeed and students will fail.

And the bond issue won't affect student performance at all. If you think it will then... You are mistaken and misled.

And thank your for your thoughtful, reasoned, and respectful response to my post.

Attitudes like yours are why I'm voting NO. Thanks for the motivation.

Mike Myers 1 year, 9 months ago

So spending time to educate voters is bad how? Isn't that the districts obligation? I have yet to meet one educator who isn't completely behind this bond. Lastly, the word I used was ignorant. There is a difference you know. I'm ignorant about many things but I'm not ignorant about this bond. It's good for kids, good for adult learning, good for neighborhoods, good for business, good for property values. It is supported by both sides of the political isle. If you would take some time to study it and talk to real teachers, the chamber of commerce, businesses leaders, your neighborhood leaders, district officials, and BOE members you would be behind it and vote YES as I will do. The time is right, the buildings need renovations, the portables need to go away.

ReadingSports 1 year, 9 months ago

Quote: "So spending time to educate voters is bad how? Isn't that the districts obligation? I have yet to meet one educator who isn't completely behind this bond. "

Errr. Call me crazy, but isn't the school district supposed to educate children? You know reading, writing, arithmetic and prepare them for college and professions?

Not advocate for political causes.

No teacher is going tell you that they're opposed to the bond issue. They have been told what to say about this issue. There have been staff meetings where the teachers were told to vote for the bond issue and to tell everyone to vote for the bond issue.

IreneAdler84 1 year, 9 months ago

The district needs to make sure that you know what is in the bond, so you know what you are voting for. Given the amount of misinformation about the intentions of the school board, what the bond is intended to do, what you can use bond money to pay for, and how school budgets work, it is clear that this is necessary.

KSManimal 1 year, 9 months ago

"No teacher is going tell you that they're opposed to the bond issue. They have been told what to say about this issue. There have been staff meetings where the teachers were told to vote for the bond issue and to tell everyone to vote for the bond issue. "

You're either parroting what some ignorant person told you, or you completely fabricated this statement. No truth to it whatsoever.

Let me guess, ReadingSports,....you'd be first in line to condemn teacher due process (a.k.a., albeit incorrectly, "tenure") - since doing so is towing the anti-public education line. Guess what? Due process protection is exactly why what you've said is nonsense. Teacher's can (and do) say whatever they want on this and other issues, and they don't have to worry about unjust reprisal.

GMom05 1 year, 9 months ago

I for one, never said repairs weren't necessary. I am also in favor of improved security, technology, and the Vo-Tech building. What I am NOT in favor of is the other $40 Million they are going to spend on enlarging the 6 core schools when we have 3 elementary buildings that are not being used for their intended purpose all because they are "not in the right place." Talk about vague. If the bond was for everything but increased capacity in the central core you'd cut it down to $52.5 M and then I'd vote for it. I suggest they try again in 60 days. In the meantime I'll be voting NOOOOOOOOO.

Bigdog66046 1 year, 9 months ago

Also i think it is funny that they asked for the MAXIMUM they could. Not what was needed! But they want the very most they could get. That tells me not enough planing has been done!

GMom05 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, well-defined does not a good plan make. It can still be a well-defined bad plan.

Mike Myers 1 year, 9 months ago

They aren't asking for the maximum. The bond issue could be more. They are asking for as much as they can without changing the mil levy. They have pared back from all of the various needs and public comment to the maximum without a tax increase. This is fairly prudent. I would still vote yes if there was a modest mil increase. The needs are extensive. I want to belong to a community that values education enough to provide great facilities for all parts of town, all kids.

GMom05 1 year, 9 months ago

Then why is so much going to the 6 schools in the middle of town? It doesn't take that many millions to handle deferred maintenance, replace a roof, put in an elevator, or even build a kitchen or three. The money aside, there is no reason to build to increase capacity in central/east schools when we already own three elementary schools, that by someone's standards aren't apparently in the "right place." What part of town is the least 'right,' I wonder? So much for valuing facilities in all parts of town. This bond clearly mainly values the central and east parts.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.