Eudora News and Informationwww.eudorareporter.com

At Thursday evenings School Board meeting, Superintendent Don Grosdidier presented to the Board, the Administration’s proposal for cuts in next year’s budget.

Grosdidier explained at length about how decreases from the state in school financing and the ending of new facilities money will create a projected $1.3 million loss in revenue in the next budget year.

Grosdidier outlined some administrative level cuts which included not replacing some district staff that have decided to retire and modification of or cancelling some of the contracts the district currently holds.  While these cuts will provide approximately $750,000 in savings to the district, there is still a little over $500,000 in costs that need to be addressed.

The Superintendent went on to state that while expected attrition at the Middle and High School levels can help alleviate the shortfall, the Elementary School will suffer the most, due to lack of retirements or expected resignations.

The proposed cuts for the elementary school will be five current classroom teachers and slightly expanding class sizes next year. Grosdidier did point out during his presentation that while increasing the class sizes in Eudora, it would still be either lower or similar to other area districts such as De Soto, Baldwin, Spring Hill and Basehor-Linwood.

At the Middle and High School level, the cuts would be a part time Social Studies position and a part time Spanish teacher position.  The Middle School would additionally cut a 6th grade keyboarding teacher and a language arts teacher.  The High School is looking to also cut an art teacher and one English teacher position. The plan also calls for reducing the Family and Consumer Sciences position to part time and reduce the Choir Accompanist time by half.

After the presentation of possible cuts, Grosdidier talked about options to increase revenue. Grosdidier went on to explain that any increases in revenue, could change the number of positions cut.  One proposal brought to the board was to increase the fee for All Day Kindergarten.  Currently, the fee is $100 per student per year.  The proposal was to increase that fee to $250 per semester.  Other fee increases were also mentioned, but none discussed as much in depth as the All Day Kindergarten fee.  Some of those included raising fees for KSHSAA activities and student instructional fees and possible charging transportation fees.

Grosdidier did state that he was not in favor of fees in regards to transportation since all three schools have limited access like K-10 and 10th Street and could cause safety issues with kids walking on these streets as opposed to using District transportation.

After the presentation, the Board gave Administration the consensus that they would seriously consider raising the All Day Kindergarten fees to $250 per student per semester.

Grosdidier added that these cuts are only proposals and any changes the State makes to the financing formula and base state aid could either add or subtract to the proposal.

The possible cuts and adding of fees will be brought to the Board at their May meeting to vote on.

Print Friendly
Share

One Response to Eudora News: School District official propose cuts

  • Let me start by saying that the Eudora Reporter is a welcome addition to my daily media awareness and another story about our poor, frustrated school board and administration is just what I need to get more of my lack of respect for our school board off my chest. If you have read my comment of the previous story then you can understand some of my amazement of how this and previous boards have enjoyed spending your and my hard earned tax money without regard to frugality or future interests. For example, drive by the original “new high school” and look at the wall that runs along the sidewalk in front and tell me what it’s purpose is. I am sure this wall cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars, and for what? Is it artistic? There are more examples but that is off the point of which I am trying to make.
    First of all, I wish to thank L.B.J. for the comment to my previous rant so I know it was not all in vain, but my point was not that we did not need these new schools. My point is we needed some sort of reasonable spending to get them done.
    Now we are planning on cutting the number and hours of the teaching staff and enlarge the class sizes of the subjects that will still be available after all the cuts. They compare our class sizes to other schools in the area. We should have a school system, with all the money spent for first class schools, which was built to draw a first class teaching staff, that other schools in the area are jealous of, not used to say that we are just as good as them. The school board promised us first class, so what happened?
    Fewer teachers and classrooms needed is also about to take place. That means more empty space that we, the taxpayer, have spent hundreds of dollars per square foot to build. Doesn’t the school district have enough storage space in the 3, at least, buildings that are sitting empty now? And remember, someone is still paying for the utilities on these unused spaces. I hear there is a business downtown that is looking for a new place, maybe we could move them into one of them and at least let them pay the utilities so the taxpayer is off the hook for that bill. Would that help, o’ glorious school board? Just a suggestion.
    Just so readers know that I am a fair person, raising kindergarten rates is not an objection of mine as kindergarten is not a requirement of the state and is cheaper than daycare where most children learn very little. And learning to nap in the afternoon prepared me for the later years of my life.
    Now for my main pet peeve….Charging for transportation… This is an utterly imbecilic, and if any of the board members are reading this that means way beyond stupid, suggestion. The school board built these schools on this land knowing what the logistical problems would be at the time. They had it all worked out, so we were informed, to build a ramp from the ball fields on S. Elm st. across 10 hiway and W. 20th st. for both foot and bicycle traffic. So knowing of these logistical problems with the location of the “original” and the “now we need a bigger” high schools, why in the h%ll did you screw up the location of the new grade school so bad? Is it helping fund schools by having the new speed traps in these locations? I wish someone could explain why these locations.
    I will end my rant here and not get into other problems I have had with the dealings of “our” school board. Whether you agree or disagree with my opinions, I would gladly welcome a response, or and reasonable answer to my many questions. Thank you for reading.