By Eve

November 16, 2010 2:30 PM | Link to this

My daughter is a sophomore at Lakota East. I am one of the parents scrambling to find a solution to the transportation problems next year. I understand the predicament the school is going through that is why I voted yes to the levy. The risks our children will be encountering next year should worry all parents. I can imagine children driving even though they are not prepared to drive. I can see kids walking and become easy prey to predators. I can see them waiting in school until dark for someone to pick them up (if this is even allowed). Clearly, this is something that has to be solved and we need the school to help us. After all, Lakota is as concerned for our children as we are.

By me

November 16, 2010 6:04 PM | Link to this

The school system is not responsible for getting your child to you…YOU ARE. There is no law or constitution saying it is required for schools to supply transportation. Figure it out and stop whining.

By me

November 16, 2010 6:05 PM | Link to this

The school system is not responsible for getting your child to you…YOU ARE. There is no law or constitution saying it is required for schools to supply transportation. Figure it out and stop whining.

By lakota parent

November 16, 2010 10:34 PM | Link to this

Once again, Lakota makes sure the pain is felt first by the community, the parents and the kids. Administrators and Teachers are least affected by busing cuts. It worked before!

By Bibsy

November 16, 2010 10:51 PM | Link to this

The district is using busing to manipulate parents into begging for the next levy. It’s a dirty shame what they are doing.

By Bibsy

November 16, 2010 10:55 PM | Link to this

When the truth comes out that they could have held off in making the busing cuts, the district should ask for multiple resignations.

By Capitalist

November 16, 2010 11:50 PM | Link to this

me, did you even read Hilty’s post? Lakota IS legally obligated to transport some children. Regardless, what’s unfortunate is had Lakota more effectively dealt with many of the LEA’s more unreasonable, locally controlled costs years ago (above inflation avg. wage growth; equal rewards for all teachers regardless of performance; RIF policies protecting tenured teachers, not best; less intellectually challenging classes like elementary gym costing nearly $90k a year to deliver; Lakota paying a high percentage of employee’s health care costs; leave policies allowing sale of 300 plus days at retirement; costs associated to teacher’s high absenteeism rates – Lakota’s avg. 9 days out during 178 days of class time, etc., etc) its operating costs would be millions less now. Instead, Taylor et al make decisions like this all while saying there’s little else they can do. Frankly, that insults the intelligence of even people who voted yes, especially those of us with business experience.

By Just Leave!!

November 17, 2010 6:51 AM | Link to this

Folks, if possible make your lives more stress free from theses worries as Lakota schools will only spiral downward. The NEW Talawanda HS is gorgeous!from the school, to its setting, and the athletic field.And also, academically a top performer in the state! Thats where we are going with our kids..football-basketball, & VBall players!!

By Just Leave!!

November 17, 2010 7:01 AM | Link to this

Bibsy!! I hear what your saying, manipulation it may be but one thing is certan, they will cut busing, cut sports, and make it rediculous to pay to participate in your school sport, then your stuck if you cant handle these things and by the OHSAA rules on a transfer IF your already a HS student it is a real thorn in your side to move based on all the rules behind it. Just ask Edgewood folks about the threat,,,and barely they’re levy passed the following year.

By jackbo

November 17, 2010 7:15 AM | Link to this

lakota is making it difficult for the students and the parents; theonly inconvenience for the employees is that they may have to leave a bit earlier to get to school with there being more traffic; all they have to do is cut a couple of highly paid administrators, assistant pricipals/ superintendents, athletic directors/sports information people and they could save the $800,000 the busing cuts will save this year - but they won’t or each employee could give back 1% of their pay and no busing cuts would be needed, but they won’t

By Facts please

November 17, 2010 7:41 AM | Link to this

Please check the facts posted on Lakota’s web site and the current October 2010 5 year forecast. You will find that FY12 is 4 million in the negative however after you remove allday kindergarten it is 1 million negative. Lakota does NOT need these cuts in FY12 to maintain current busing or programs! FY13 is another story and even if you passed all 12 million of the proposed cuts in FY12 you will not fix FY13. Review the facts and call or email Lakota and tell them to stop playing games with our children and display some leadership in budget planning.

By Bibsy

November 17, 2010 10:49 AM | Link to this

I think they would have a chance passing a levy in May if they unfolded their arms and quit saying “Our way, or no way”. I am convinced that they don’t have the right people running the district to deal with change. They don’t understand that a lot of people just don’t trust their judgement and decision-making capability.

By Credibility Gone.

November 17, 2010 11:12 AM | Link to this

Lakota’s “facts” are key to its problems. Earlier this year, Lakota announced a $28 million deficit in 2012. In the spring, it was $10 million. Just prior to the election it was $4 million. Lakota attempted to defend those projections but given its other revelation a few months ago that it failed to see millions going uncollected from the county — for three years, and its spending decisions since the last levy passed (notably giving in to union’s 2008 threats despite known financial problems) it’s no wonder people increasingly question Lakota’s financial prowess, the credibility of its facts and ultimately, the decisions they continue to make on them. Frankly, heads of those in charge would have rolled long ago in the real world. It’s time some did now staring with Powell.

By Capitalist

November 17, 2010 2:16 PM | Link to this

Lakota may not legally be able to charge for transportation but does that also mean it would turn down private monies to fund what it cut? If parents of students losing transportation contributed an average of $100 per child into a pool more than $900,000 would be collected, more than enough to cover what Lakota will save next semester. Now, let’s take that a step further in dealing with many of its other draconian cuts. If the 18,525 people who voted yes for this past levy put our money where our votes were and contributed an average of $250 each into a newly created non-profit foundation for Lakota more than $4.6 million would be generated. The caveat here is this foundation’s board would direct how the money would be spent, not Lakota. These monies could be directed to fund specific teaching positions not unlike how universities fund chairs. It could also be targeted toward transportation costs and anything else this foundation’s board and/or donors designate – which could also include corporate cash and/or in-kind donations. And perhaps this is the best way to fill financial gaps until this board brings its contract with the LEA more in line with reality, one voters would more willing accept and approve. It’s also not a bad path to pursue well beyond that too. Of course, the pessimist in me says Lakota’s board and the LEA would not willingly accept this money as that would lessen their hold over us, yet another reason why something like this should be pursued.

By gordon

November 18, 2010 5:23 PM | Link to this

Yes, Talawanda has a new high school building and kids who cannot make a sports team at Lakota have a better chance to make the team at a smaller school; but educationally, this is still way behind what they are doing in west chester.

By don

November 19, 2010 9:38 AM | Link to this

Get rid of the unions——-problem gone

By null

November 19, 2010 5:25 PM | Link to this

I am a single parent that has only been able to locate contract employment assignments for the past 3 years. I can bearly keep a roof over our heads. There is no way I can afford to pay someone to transport my child or buy my child a car. I bet if we all stood our ground and refuse to send our children to school, the district would find a way to bus our children! It’s the district’s fault for building all the expensive buildings and paying the high salaries. Wasteful spending and our children pay the price! Shame on you!

By Richard Dukmajian

November 20, 2010 6:53 PM | Link to this

This is the typical tried-and-true Lakota response to a failed levy: sucker-punching the parents. They never, EVER cut bureaucrats - they always cut programs and services that hurt the parents. It has always worked - after cutting busing and sports the parents will finally capitulate and pass the levy. Remember the last one? As soon as they got it passed, all the bureaucrats immediately got a raise. Here’s an idea Lakota: KEEP programs. KEEP services. CUT BUREAUCRATS! The district is TOPHEAVY with them.

By Student Strikes Needed?

November 22, 2010 11:43 AM | Link to this

Lakota teachers threatened strikes to get their way. Lakota’s board is in effect doing it now. Yet, Lakota’s kids – who’ve unduly been used by both for too long, have not threatened any of their own and maybe they should, starting when the next cuts take effect: January 18th. In all seriousness, who would blame them if they all waited outside school before going in at once, went to school an hour late, bagged their lunch, stayed home and or routinely engaged in other peaceful protests to express their displeasure? Teacher’s unions, through their costly demands and protections, long-ago placed their needs ahead of kids. And Lakota’s school board and administrators, the ones entrusted by taxpayer’s to keep and protect kid’s needs first shirked their fiduciary responsibilities, allowing the LEA to do it. Both groups need to step back and remember who they work for which is our kids. Both need to change their ways, something Teens for Lakota missed as they only focused on the revenue side (even yes voters overwhelmingly knew it was the LEA’s contract too). And frankly, kids shouldn’t pick sides, they just need to put pressure on both to solve it now – not in May nor two years from now. Else, how much more will be cut until both sides finally create a plan voters will approve?

By pat elliott

November 24, 2010 9:41 AM | Link to this

Hey out there…get a grip! I worked and had children in 2 different schools..no they didn’t walk we CARPOOLED! New idea??? Stop whinning and get up in the morning and get dressed and Ladies state your engines…..

By Terry

December 14, 2010 7:00 AM | Link to this

Pat - I am assuming you are a man. Did it ever occur to you that “ladies” actually work since that is the demographic you specifically addressed. I am a single mom and only bread winner in my house. Perhaps I should quit my job to get my children to school so people like you in the district can support me. As far as whining - I note your statement that you worked therefore it seems you do not currently have children in school. Apparently it is of no concern for you that the district has sold out our students safety. Better yet - lets get a young and inexperienced driver a car in which they will drive their friends and see what happens. Their blood will be on the hands of people like you. Hey me (since you did not post a name and I am sure not a valid e-mail address) up above - Did you get to school on a bus? Probably did and you probably don’t have kids so why give a damn for safety of students in the district where you live. Capitalist - that is a great idea which I would fully support.

By heniShewhelry

May 29, 2011 8:43 AM | Link to this

CHEAP LUCKY STRIKE CIGARETTES CARTON