Four years ago the district had 4,000 fewer students, so perhaps that is the reason, as it doesn't appear to be slowing down any time soon. Even though housing starts are down, enrollment is not. It isn't logical that they can operate on the same amount of funds when their enrollment continues to grow. If more students continue to enroll what would you suggest that the district do in response when it must educate these students? I am not being sarcastic, I am looking for an earnest response.
Interesting question. Keep in mind that the district realized years ago that home start (as well as additional tax revenue that new home bring) would not keep pace with student growth. Yet, and this is a big yet, the district spent as if the reality it is experiencing today would never arrive.Well, it's here. Keep in mind that when tax revenue was rising, the district gave employees, on average, 6.5% raises.Without rising evaluation (new homes and business), the district will have to come back for more and more tax levies. And this will accelerate once growth stops (explained in earlier posts).Even this year, employees, on average, received 3.5% raises.So now that the district is not flush with cash, it is time that it reduced its salary costs to an amount that is in line with the job.Did you know that there are counselors and librarians making over $100K for a 203 day year, less 15 sick days and three personal days?That, my friend, is one of the cost drivers.
I see. That makes sense. So they need to let teachers go or not hire new ones, then? I assume that means that they will then need to cut programs or increase class sizes. Or they need to not take pay increases to cover the new enrollment. Which is the most likely scenario?
They will threaten cuts to programs. Keep in mind that if the illusory increase in property values had not occurred in the early to mid 2000's, the programs to be cut wouldn't have been initiated to begin with.Also, keep in mind that current teachers will likely not be cut. The cuts will be to proposed new hires. So the members of the bargaining unit will demand continued wage increases. Why wouldn't they?
The reform is not new. It started in the early 1900s when John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s Director of Charity for the Rockefeller Foundation, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board. In 1913 the organization was incorporated into the General Education Board. These boards set in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America”. In Frederick T. Gates’ “The Country School of Tomorrow” Occasional Papers No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) was a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote: “Is there aught a remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our moulding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.”Yes. The powers-that-be have been at work for over a century revamping our schools into indoctrination centers for which we are taxed into poverty. And instead of recognizing what's happening in the centers most of us are voting for more taxes to allow even more indoctrination. And the people believe this is for the benefit of their children.
Da Man: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255968/who-ron-paul-interview
Jim, please do not mix apples and oranges. Your thoughts regarding the likely outcome being threatened program cuts, cuts to new teachers and more increased wages are indeed the status quo, but your comment on the rising property valuations is off target. The increase in valuations is offset by a decrease in millage so Olentangy does not receive significant additional revenue. I appreciate the validity of your other opinions but you degrade your credibility when you obfuscate facts to embellish your points.
And I see that Hilliard's Paul Lambert saved their collective behinds by tipping them off. The O. Bd. of Ed., I mean. Thanks, Paul. Solidarity with your buds on the board at Olentangy.
12:11 --Huh?This is not a discussion over what constitutes the tax duplicate, the difference between carryover valuation and new valuation, or effective millage. Please read for comprehension before making comments.
Check this out! www.olsdlevy.com
It's interesting but it does not explain the cost -- he assumes the cost that the district proposes as the ultimate given.It is missing healthcare and employee/student ratio changes. These are big cost drivers.One thing to note is the inevitable collision between the assumed need for between 21 and 25 additional mills over the next 3 years and txpayer reality.One has to wonder how the levies will be advertised. The "We are the lowest taxed" selling point is gone.
The more I look at it the more I am convinced that it is a poor model. I keep noting flaw after flaw. How about this one: He does not tie student growth to state funding ... hmmm.
Actually, it's really, really poor.
I keep finding material errors. It is next to useless.
Post a Comment