Comment history

School board adopts $148.8 million budget

It isn't the district doing things backwards, it is the way the state funds public schools. The state gives the district a set amount based on how many students enroll. That amount does not have anything to do with the actual cost of providing services to students at a particular level. The legislature decides how much the base state aid per pupil will be, and says okay now districts do what you must with this amount of money. No business would ever be run that way, and in fact not even the city or county is constrained in that way because those governments have the ability to raise property taxes to pay for services. Moreover, the district doesn't know with certainty how many students it will have until after school starts, which is a month plus after the start of the fiscal year. School funding is unique, so it is not reasonable to expect the budgeting process to resemble other government entities, and even less reasonable to compare it to private enterprise.

August 13, 2013 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No concealed carry in Lawrence schools

And let's be absolutely clear--SROs are paid for by the city, not the school district. Cuts to SROs in the schools have been because of CITY budget cuts, not school budget cuts.

April 24, 2013 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Public airs questions over $92.5 million school bond issue

Bond money cannot, by state law, be spent on teacher salaries.

March 28, 2013 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Public airs questions over $92.5 million school bond issue

Langston kids are NOT going to be bussed to Sunset Hill. That is not part of any of the plans.

March 27, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Public airs questions over $92.5 million school bond issue

If it does not pass, your property tax will go down by about $100 per year on a $150,000 house. If it passes, the bond and interest mill levy for schools will NOT go up. If it doesn't pass, I suspect the board would try again because the needs are not going away, and only getting worse over time. With rising construction and borrowing costs, you will get less for the money you spend later. And, if the bond question is not on the ballot for a regular election, the school district has to pay for a special election.

March 27, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sound Off: Debt per student

Such false logic underlies this question . . . The accurate way to think of the investment would be to divide the dollars invested by the total number of students who will use the facilities affected over the facilities' useful life. You cannot judge a long term investment by a single year's student data.

March 3, 2013 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Board to discuss bond issue strategy

It won't be a "special election." There are city commission and school board races on the ballot in April, regardless of a bond issue.

October 8, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Question time

We must have been watching different meetings because that is not what was said. I do agree, though, that they wil give it careful thought and keep the students' best interests in mind.

March 14, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Question time

Actually the response was that the district will need another ESL site in the next 1 to 3 years because the Hillcrest site now has 60%+ ESL students.

March 14, 2012 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Final report from school consolidation group doesn’t include closings

Please put this argument to rest. If you read the exact language of the ballot for that bond, it clearly states the money could only be used for junior highs, high schools, and repairs and renovations to Broken Arrow Elementary:

That bond could not have been used for the items the working group refers to at the elementary schools.

February 21, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )