Thursday, April 28, 2011

Reason #4 why the levy is not needed

The Ohio Department of Transportaton produces a report for regular education transportation. Sorted by the efficiency ratio statistic, Olentangy's transportation department ranks 303 in transportation efficiency.

Oletangy needs to improves its transportation department and give the efficiencies back to the taxpayers.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Based on what criteria? Looking at the link there isn't a district close to our size that is also a rural/suburban district with the distances involved.

Maybe we should take any savings and use them to offset the state budget cuts that Kasich has foisted upon us.

Jim Fedako said...

3:59 --

Research before writing. From the Ohio Revised Code:

(I)(1) The department annually shall establish a target number of qualifying riders per assigned bus for each city, local, and exempted village school district. The department shall use the most recently available data in establishing the target number. The target number shall be based on the statewide median number of qualifying riders per assigned bus as adjusted to reflect the district’s rider density in comparison to the rider density of all other districts. The department shall post on the department’s web site each district’s target number of qualifying riders per assigned bus and a description of how the target number was determined.

Your concerns have already been addressed.

Anonymous said...

So when mom drives little Johnny to school she is hurting our efficiency. Interesting.

I think we should do away with busing in any subdivision connected to the school but the last time they proposed that the people revolted.

Craig H said...

You referenced the BuckeyeInstitute.org website. I went out there and came across an interesting report published in February 2011.

It has actual 5-year projections from all the Ohio school districts. There lots of talk on this website and other sites against the levy how OLSD doesn't need this levy and will be fine thru 2013.

According to this report, which basically assumes districts don't find any additional revenue streams, in 2011 -- OLSD is projecting a deficit of over $2 million dollars. By 2015, that deficit grows to $60 million.

When your site talks about OLSD not being in any trouble until 2013 -- what exactly are you referencing?

Anonymous said...

Yeah--it's not levy-related, but it's entertaining teacher union stuff nonetheless.

From the Daily Caller:

"Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal."

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/teachers-support-cop-killer/

Anonymous said...

A gripe to consider: "have" versus "have nots", or "earn" versus "earn nots"?

In the course of a conversation with my child, I was informed that a classmate with behavioral issues has been assigned a personal desk (not a shared table), and is permitted to listen to his Ipod during class and study time because "...it relaxes the child and helps the child study better". Yes, and now it's come out that this Ipod-listening student is creating additional distractions to the class with toe-tapping (caused by listening to said music).

Why are behaviourally challenged students "celebrated" (a term thrown at me years ago when my older child was bitten without provocation by another 12 year old)?!

I received a letter from Wade Lucas in today's mail stressing how important it is to pass the levy, in part, so we OLSD does not have "have" and "have nots"; and keeps offering ALL students the same opportunities. My child doesn't get a personal desk and Ipod during class. And I'm certain if my child behaved the way the Ipod student has been reported to have behaved, my child would be in the Principal's office in a heartbeat; and it wouldn't be to "celebrate" how bad he could have behaved.

Unbelievable. No, no, NO to your levy request, Wade.

Jim Fedako said...

Craig,

Please go to the district website and review the Five-Year Finacial Forecast. You are confusing the district spending down its csh balance (which is part of every levy cycle) with a true deficit.

Also, please note the assumptions in the forecast -- they are what is being challenged here (5% to 6% salary increases, staffing ratios, etc.).

Craig H said...

Hi Jim. Thanks for the info. I will check that out. What is your background? Did you used to serve on the school board?

Dear 5:56 pm ... If you child wanted a personal desk and needed an ipod to help them learn, I GUARANTEE you he/she would have because that's the kind of district OLSD is and that's what it stands for.


There are many things affected by this levy besides sports, band and choir as lots of people like to point out. Literacy programs to help children having problems reading will be cut, aides in special education classrooms will be cut.

I've never seen a district that cares more about each and every student while still spending less per pupil than most in central ohio.

I just encourage everyone to do their own research and not base things off of what your children say when they get home from school because there's just as many success stories as there are complaints.

Craig H said...

Jim. I looked at the 5-year forecast and it matches the one I found on the BuckeyeInstitute.org website.

Starting in 2011, OLSD is facing less revenues than total expenditures. Cash reserves are used in 2011 and 2012 to pay the differences and in 2013 ... there won't be enough cash reserves to cover everything.

What exactly is your position/alternate plan? Have you outlined that information for everyone on your site? Are you saying that we simply need to freeze the rate increases between now and 2015?

Jim Fedako said...

Craig --

I am a former board member.

Levy cycles include excess revenue of expenditures in the early years, with the opposite in the later years.

Before I answer (and there are many folks providing means to reduce costs), I ask you to review the expenditure assumptions in the forecast and see where you think the district is out-of-line with current realities.

We can then discuss further.

Anonymous said...

5:56 -- I'm not sure you really wish your child had special needs that required special accommodations.

The fact is that we have had special need children in school for decades. We can discuss mainstreaming but I really doubt questioning accommodations for those children and comparing them to your children is really where we want to go.

But I am reminded about the person who posted here a while back who complained about school spending and then that her special needs child did not get the individual attention she felt they deserved.

Anonymous said...

10:14pm,
Ipod child is not "special needs", as behavior is not a handicap. The "ADD" or "ADHD" labels that many run to are not applicable in this scenario, so don't bother strumming the "poor special needs child" guitar.

Children with the inability to succeed in a regular classroom will and are sent elsewhere for schooling. I didn't invent that, and it already occurs. Talk to your administration if you aren't informed on that topic.

OLSD pleads to pass an uneeded levy in part for equality for ALL students (no "have" and "have nots"); yet there are countless classroom and school related disparities that are labeled in such a way (as you've done with Ipod child) to attempt making everyone feel better about about what is being done.

Your rose colored glasses mentality is rampant and perhaps what will pass the levy and drive concerned, involved, and informed taxpayers like myself in a financial hole.

Anonymous said...

Craig H:

OLSD has a habit of coming to the voters early, just in case it doesn't pass. This will allow them to reformulate a new levy in Nov. Collections for May or Nov levy will not start until February...thus the true revenue will not be realized until the beginning of FY'13.

Look at the 2008 levy and the budget forecast...they said they would be short revenue(not cash) by ~$2m...they ended the FY with ~$4mil revenue(cash not included)surplus. The budget is padded annually to allow them to look good by making "cuts"! Example, in 2008 they didn't fill 2 senior administrator positions prior to the levy vote and touted them as "savings". Within 6 months, they filled the positions with 2 $110k+++ FTE.
Fast forward to today, they are touting savings by not filling a senior elementary curriculum position and their communication's director position. Notice they say "filling the position", not eliminating the position. I promise you, levy passes, those jobs will be filled.
Jim said it earlier, the fluff in the early years, post levy. It is a dangerous pattern and will be continued unless this May levy goes down and they know the community means business.

Anonymous said...

7:13 - Do you know the diagnosis of this particular child? My children have had several kids in their classes that when I was in school would have been in the "spec ed" class.