WE Blog

Simple. We are tired of being taxed to death. We see administrators getting pay raises, increasing the administrative staff and salaries while teachers have to buy their own supplies. We see the administration numbers swell while the teacher to student ratio gets larger and larger.

We are tired of being taxed to death.

This has NOTHING to do with being for or against the kids or public education! It doesn’t have to do with more money. It has to do with how the money is spent. There are MANY unanswered questions – too many!

They can’t make good decisions with the money they currently have. Why should we entrust them with more? Winston Brooks is not well suited by either education or experience to lead United Spending District 259.

Their very best chance of getting this passed is to hold that expensive special election and hope for low voter turnout. Let’s turn out in droves and make sure this decision is one that is made by a majority!

What does Leoti Kansas have to do with USD 259? It’s not even in the same county.

I usually vote yes to pass school bond issues, time passes by, things change and stuff needs fixing or replaced.

I agree with several of you – it isn’t a matter of taxes, not entirely. It’s a matter of what they do with the tax money. Unfortunately our kids are the ones that suffer and the teachers as well.

Linda, you said it well – its all about trust. The administrators need to prove that they can be fiscally responsible with the money they have and they aren’t even close.

No, Leoti isn’t here in Sedgwick County, but they are dealing with the same issues we have to deal with. But it seems like they are about out of time given the apparent state of the schools. I certainly wouldn’t vote for a tax increase to repair the schools when it costs less to build new ones, but they need provisions to see to maintenance and upkeep. They have to do something – the kids have to have schools.

But either way it’s a difficult choice.

Taz, you’re not the only one thinking 259 is top-heavy (e.g. high admin/teacher ratio). It’d be different if you could actually get things done from the top.

(Ok, there are SOME really exceptional people in the admin end, but a lot are just like a compaq computer–only good as a boat anchor)

There are all kinds of issues swirling around the proposed bond issue. While I agree that some buildings need to have renovation to enlarge libraries, build more classrooms, and other improvements of this kind, and I agree that there exists the need to build new buildings on the East side to alleviate overcrowding due to population increase, there are other problems with the proposal that will cause me to vote no. One is the athletic facility improvement issue, which, notwithstanding the statements that having better facilities is crucial to tie some students to school (same argument made in support of better fine arts facilities), this obscures the real question of why these students need the “tie”. While I speculate the reasons that exist for needing such a tie are beyond building more facilities and likely beyond the district’s ability to overcome, I ask for numbers of students who would otherwise drop out if these facilities are not provided. Merely saying some unquantified portion of the student population doesn’t do it for me.

Inefficiencies exist in the district, as in any large organization. Savings from eliminating these won’t do much to alleviate some of the real problems that do exist with overcrowding, etc. Linda, while we are in agreement that there are teachers who do not teach in a classroom, I am aware that in at least some buildings, there are no rooms where these teachers might teach if returned to the buildings. In other buildings, these folks could be “on a cart”, going from room to room to take advantage of the same being not in use one period a day, and thus a teacher could be teaching and utilizing the unused rooms, if one accepts the premise that there are sufficient students in the subject to be taught by such a teacher; but, I ask, what if there are sufficient numbers of students for, e.g., English, to justify an English teacher one period; then, another number of students to justify an American History teacher one period; then, another number of students to justify a Math teacher two periods. No one teacher will, at the high school level, be able to take care of the need in that building by him or herself; and, is it fair to ask teachers with the appropriate certifications to travel among several buildings to be “on a cart” just so s/he can teach a full load? Maybe it is, but I assert this is another thing about which to think.

Like a ditz, I posted this on today’s Open Thread. Sorry! I’ll post here where it belongs.

Is building huge schools on even larger parcels of property the wisest way to spend our money?

Why don’t we have ONE school where English as a second language is taught until each of those students can learn in a regular classroom? Why handicap every classroom with students who can’t learn in English?

Is it time to split USD 259 into smaller parts that can be more easily managed?

Linda, I’m not sure that splitting USD 259 into smaller parts (that is, into smaller districts) makes economic sense. If 259 would be split into smaller districts, there would be duplication of administrators, etc., in each of these districts. There would be many problems with taxing jurisdictions and the like as well.

If, however, your question is aimed towards creating efficiencies in areas such as ESL, then, yes, there are some positives. I like the idea of having one location or a limited number of locations, if one location is too unwieldly, where all ESL students go until they are “proficient” in English. I think that approach would benefit not only the ESL students, but all students in the district.

I’ve read/heard that the most efficient size for a high school at least is an enrollment not to exceed 600 students. This is of sufficient size to offer the needed classes, but small enough the students are known, and don’t just get lost. Could the large comprehensive high schools take advantage of this (as seems to be attempted at West, for example, where there are separate academic parts where students enroll) by dividing the enrollment into two or more “schools”, yet continuing the efficiency gained by one large building with the shop, etc., areas, so that more buildings don’t need to be built? I don’t know the answer to this.

In the above vein, smaller schools that is, would this require additional new buildings be built over those proposed? IIRC, there is discussion of two new high schools, both of approximate enrollment of 850. If one looks at a 600 maximum, does this require three, not two, new buildings?

I also recognize that there will be the popularity of athletic programs and fine arts programs in the schools, notwithstanding my views on the same. Does it then make sense to have one or two centralized locations where the schools might play or practice, similar to the Blue Valley districts in JoCo, rather than having one at each school? I think this needs to be explored.

Within EASY (less than 5 short blocks!) walking distance of my home are three 259 elementary schools. One of these was called out in a recent Eagle article as having lower population than capacity. The article I reference never said the few schools called out were the ONLY schools with lower populations than occupancy — another question I have. So, IF we got the full, complete facts about where there is overcrowding and where there is additional room, would that HELP?? I think so!

And, IF we build these very large schools today, how long will those be needed by the populace? If the schools in my neighborhood were once needed and today aren’t so much, could that happen again? Maybe the way we’ve always done things isn’t smartest for our future? It hasn’t been smartest for our past in my opinion.

And even if we do nothing but redraw attendance areas or redistribute magnet schools or somehow think outside our box, don’t we owe our children that kind of thoughtful process?

NO ONE has shown me any of this has been done! NO ONE seems wiling to answer the questions I have. They answer the questions they want me to have and I’m not falling for it!

Sometimes, being allowed to make an active choice, as in choosing a magnet school or even choosing a neighborhood school, increases parental interest. They have stock in their choice.

Linda, one would think that by choosing a magnet school, the interest of the parents would be increased. That, from experience at NEMHS, isn’t true in all cases.

While the rate of attendance at parent teacher conferences at NEM would be the envy of any of the comprehensive schools, it isn’t as high as one would expect. Other examples: the very low number of parents involved in planning of and putting on the “Project Graduation” for the seniors; the low attendance at Site Council meetings. I know the latter are not necessarily indicia of parental involvement, but it would seem a few more parents might be interested given the choice made to send the student there.

Speaking of the Wichita County dilemma that opened this thread, the person quoted is correct in one particular thing. If a community loses its school, that’s a death knell for that community. Sure, it may survive a while, but dwindling population due to there being no school in the town will cause a community to resemble a ghost town at some point in the future.

I don’t know but speculate that the reason the question keeps being brought up is that the old building is in such disrepair that logically a new building makes sense. See the estimates for repair vs. a new building given above. I’m further speculating that there exists a real probability that the existing structure may be condemned due to the termite infestation and code problems, leaving no school in the town, with the need then to transport the students to a different location.

I’d like to think that the local school board has an alternative plan, but none is given in the beginning piece of this thread. I speculate again that it is the closing of the building and transporting students to another location, but from what little information we’re given, it’s hard to know if this has been made fully known. If it has, I’d speculate further that the local BOE isn’t being believed.

It would be interesting to know also if the locals have a capital improvements budget funded by a part of the property tax specifically set aside for this purpose, or if there is just the general fund (which, I’m sure under the school finance plan that existed until Montoy was flush with money) from which the local residents expect all costs to be paid.

Oh my goodness! Roll up the sidewalks. Not carpets.

Looking at the results of a Google search, there is but one district in the county; the elementary, junior high and high school are all located in Leoti. There are no other public schools in the county. The nearest public high schools, at least, are some 25 to 35 miles from Leoti. While the size of the district cries out for consolidation, under one plan I’ve heard discussed by those “in the know”, each county would be entitled to one district, with populous counties such as Sedgwick, basically allowed to retain the districts now present (or some minor administrative consolidation thereof, perhaps).

“So, it is up to the residents there,”

Vaughn, this is entirely true, but not true.
Yes, the local citizens can approve a bond for repair, upkeep, improve their schools.

But is also true – that the state will help subsidize the bond with state funding. Additionally, these schools will continue to be supported with state (and federal pass through) dollars.

So is it really the local citizens decision?

We all have to pay for it.

Time to work some cost benefit analysis and figure out some ROI’s on consolidating school districts.

Then, those not economical to keep, but vote for improvements do so but WITHOUT a state match. Also without continued state funding.

It’s interesting to see some people on here who have been so negative about those who don’t support just throwing more money at the broken education system now saying hold on a minute. You can be for both children and accountability. You can also be for school choice without being anti-public ed. Choices always drive improvement in markets. A market approach to education would be good parents, students, teachers, and the tax payer.

I have been reading all the posts above with great interest. Maybe one of you can answer my question; is there no other way to raise the money? Can we not have a sales tax instead of raising property taxs? Everyone needs to pay for the schools, NOT just the property owner! Is there a law that says we can not have a sales tax for school funds? I too have a grandchild in the USD 259 school system with another startingin the fall and have had my two children graduate and I want the best for them in school. But to some of us who own a home this bond, tax whatever you want to call it can be a big burden. My grandson’s teacher supply list included copy paper (2 reams), dry erase markers (4 colors) and kleenex (2 boxes). Now let me know if I am wrong, but shouldn’t the school system be suppling these things and not the students? Is this not a free school system? I don’t mind buying these things, but it really angers me that the administration is making the $$$ they are and the teachers have to supply their own things and on a lousy salary to boot! If the downtown arena can make more money than projected, then why can’t the school system do the same thing. At least the schools will be used.

Debbie Knipp, Boy I feel your pain! Most of us do. Those who rent do pay property tax as the owner of the property passes those costs along in the rent. I think in a roundabout way everyone pays.

Our teachers are a dedicated bunch of professionals who care about the children and do whatever it takes to get the job done. It’s sad they have so little support from the administration. Lots of money that should go to the classrooms doesn’t seem to get there. It makes me angry that they have $200,000 to pay for a special election but can’t supply classrooms! Our teachers and our students seem to get the raw end of the deal.

We all need more answers than we’re being given. Instead of answerring our questions they seem to want to rush to a vote. I don’t trust them! They’ve given me NO reasons to trust them.

And we need to be sure we go vote — even if they set the vote for that special election in May! The decision should be made by a majority of the people who care enough to vote. Everyone gets so busy. We all must remind one another to get out and be part of the decision!

This rush to a vote will work for them if there is a low voter turnout.

Everyone who is paying attention needs to remind someone who may not have had time to realize there will be a special bond issue election on May 9th.

Let’s get out the vote! This is an important vote and we can’t let a few make a decision that will affect us all!

MAY 9TH — VOTE! PASS THE WORD!