Comment history

Public input on bond issue sought

"I wouldn't put it pass Doll and the school board(this is Doll's shot at building a new school,so he can put it on his CV"
Nor would I, but in addition, listen for the school board whispers of 'over-capacity.' And read 'Let's build a new school.' I mean really, why's that? Gosh, if they hadn't closed a school recently, would we really be 'over-capacity'? While some of what they propose may be very valid, e.g. all the deferred maintenance they haven't done, this should not be an opportunity to take additional tax money, when I could use the DECREASE, in the name of building a new school. I'm sorry, but the year before last, Doll and the district closed a school that needed NO REPAIRS or maintenance in favor of keeping open ones that did. And now they are making noise about new buildings and additions. This will not lower class sizes, this will just be an opportunity to cram more kids into slightly bigger buildings and close another school. Watch out New York, your enrollment is sitting just where Wakarusa's was when they pulled the plug on us. This district owns perfectly good buildings. Why should Waky not be used as an elementary? Why should Boys & Girls club get East Heights for a $1.00? Why shouldn't my taxes go down when the current bonds retire? Watch the wording here. The bond will be vague. It'll hit the nice high points and skim past the stuff they don't want you to dwell on. If they would just be honest and not try to slip controversial things past us we wouldn't have to have all these discussions. Just do what you said you we're going to do last year and fix the buildings you should have fixed over the last 10 years. Period.

October 10, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board urged to seek millions in school funding

So are you suggesting that this increase would only go into the pockets of KNEA and KASB and not the classrooms of our children? Are you prepared to explore other reasons for the, lackluster achievement, as you seem to describe it, other than money? Perhaps Reason X is the reason for the perceived shortcomings and not the money at all, but with Reason X AND no money we'd be in even worse shape? Anyway, how do I know that your numbers are even meaningful? As with most people, you will only pick the numbers that support your argument, right?

July 5, 2012 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

State board urged to seek millions in school funding

Perhaps our school board should have waited to hear the outcome of this inevitable case or even have waited for the Governor's final budget before voting to spend all this money. We'll be able to do it for a year or so on reserves but their decision is not sustainable. Within a year or two we'll be saying good bye to all-day kindergarten or other programs, and certainly more elementary schools as we always want to balance the budget on the backs of our youngest during their foundational years, don't we? I absolutely agree we should have more money at our disposal and Brownback shouldn't have taken it away by cutting income taxes, but the fact remains he did, and this district is planning our children's future on money we know we won't have. Now, how's that going to work?

July 5, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Enrollment increase, money management have enabled school budget reversal

Yes, what that board did last year was unforgiveable. And what this board won't un-do is also unforgiveable. They are all to blame! I'm sure glad at least someone else's children will benefit while our children suffer the consequences. What I'd really like to know is where to they plan to put all these children? This district grew and is still growing. Physical space is an unaddressed issue. If this district keeps growing and special needs kids are now receiving services in the hallways, don't you think perhaps we should reopen Wakarusa?

May 1, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence school district names new administrator to replace outgoing chief academic officer

Holden sounds like a top-notch candidate and I'm sure he's worth every penny, but we keep talking about the budget and financial planning here and I'm thinking perhaps we'll be paying the 'Assistant Superintendent' more than our outgoing "Chief Academic Officer?" Does anyone know? Can we really afford someone with his qualifications? If $111,000 is his base salary, how high can it go? And as of Monday night, we also rehired a director of instruction, for $92,000. How long is Holden's contract and how are we going to pay for it and any increases in the long run? It seems since the start of this budget crisis there have been lots of cries to 'Cut the Fat' in the district office and keep our money in the classrooms with the children. These two hiring moves seem far afield of that. Honestly, I'm not sure what money tree we have stashed up at McDonald Drive, but lots of big ticket purchases this week. Sounds like a really good guy though.

April 24, 2012 at 11:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence school board votes to extend all-day kindergarten, reduce class sizes, hire more teachers

What they'll do is turn around and close a school next year. Everyone whose head was on the chopping block this year, will be right back there next year. This is not a sustainable plan, as was stated above. Where does the money for this programming come from? You understand, you all asked for this. You wanted smaller class sizes. You wanted all-day kindergarten. This is the price you pay! (Yes, dramatic, I know, but I'm starting to see patterns here, this is apparently how the game is played. And BAM, before you know it another school bites the dust.)

April 24, 2012 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence school board votes to extend all-day kindergarten, reduce class sizes, hire more teachers

The reality of this is truly as Doll said; it is unsustainable. The board sure looks good right now, but what about the future board that has to close schools to sustain this? Even these moves right now aren't realistic because we're also talking about physical space, or at least I am anyway. Where exactly are Deerfield and Langston Hughes going to put all those full-day kindergarteners? We have classrooms, you say, because the last board had the foresight to kick the 6th graders up to middle school, thereby providing open classrooms and the justification for closing a school. But sorry folks those rooms haven't been sitting empty this year. You know who uses those rooms? Other at-risk kids. If your child has an IEP, goes to OT, PT, Speech, ISA Reading, ISA Math, Gifted, or any other services in a 'resource room,' you can forget it now, you're child will be sitting in the hallway or at best a closet. I'm not discounting the good the board is trying to do with these moves, but don't look at this through rose-colored glasses. Like everything else, it is a trade-off. We just gave a leg-up to one at-risk group and knocked the other at-risk groups down a peg. If you really want to impress me, get rid of the portables, open up the school's that have been closed, spread the kids out across the district and see that all children, all at-risk groups, itinerant teachers, and everyone else, have a reasonable space to work and learn. If I remember correctly the district's motto is, "Learning for All." Why not make a plan that actually supports that? Oh, wait, long term (and financial) planning has not exactly been our strong suit.

April 24, 2012 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Teachers ask district for $3,250 pay boost

Sadly, I don't know where the money will come from. While I agree teachers work VERY hard, how do you get blood from a stone? Perhaps the district will step up and show us the real books. But, otherwise, I don't get it. It looks entirely possible that Brownback, who is not a supporter of K-12 education, will kill a bi-partisan bill that would have raised base state aid per pupil, so no help there. The district is talking about adding full-day kindergarten to four more schools, the class sizes are way too high and need to be lowered (as teachers well know!), and they decided not to close anymore schools (good thing). You don't have Wakarusa Valley to kick around any more, so now what?

April 20, 2012 at 7:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence school board asked to take vote on consolidation

Yes, closing Waky had nothing to do with saving money. They just chose not to spend it on those kids any longer and to put it somewhere else. Another elementary? Maybe a Jr. or Sr. High? Maybe up at the admin office? Those Wakarusa kids have definitely not seen any benefit from the closure of their school. It is in fact much, much worse. These children don't even like going to school any more. I predict this board will throw the original Elementary School Task Force decision out the window. The prior board's worthless decision to close Wakarusa Valley and 2 or 3 other schools was orchestrated to meet the not-so-hidden agenda of others, and as such deserves to be thrown out. BUT, will this board have the guts to reverse the whole decision or just the part that saves THEIR children's schools? Too bad no one living on the south side of town has a representative on the board. Just say no to bond issues, building new schools, and to Broken Arrow and Sunflower's continued overcrowding and yes, to equity and Learning For All. Please reopen Wakarusa and do what's right for everyone's children. Please right the wrong, now!

April 8, 2012 at 11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence school board asked to take vote on consolidation

"Even if the school board would decide to move forward with consolidation, it probably wouldn’t be in time to close a school before the start of next school year."

What?? And yet, they had no problem closing Wakarusa Valley on March 28th last year!!! Oh yes, a whole week earlier, sheesh. I'm not in favor of closing, I'm just saying they had no problem throwing our children under the bus last year at this time. I LOVE how every other school in this district gets more consideration than Wakarusa students ever did and still don't.

April 8, 2012 at 10:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )