Olentangy Levy: the truth using district data

Given all the nonsense, threats, and lies coming out of the district, I decided to once again provide a simple explanation regarding the supposed need for a levy in March. And, I am going to use the district's own numbers so that you can easily verify what I am saying.

By law, the district must file a Five-Year Financial Forecast every October. Here it is: http://www.olentangy.k12.oh.us/pdf/finance/5YrFcst29Oct2007.pdf

Please note line 10.010 for FY09. That entry shows the ending deficit as $2,059,854 -- not the $10.5 million that the superintendent is claiming.

State laws requires districts to show no deficit in the first projected fiscal year; the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2009 (FY09). To remove the deficit, a district can make cuts, avoid new costs, find other funding, etc.

On page 7, you will note that base salary increases account for $1,929,246 million of new expenditures in FY09 (this does not include an additional approximately $270,000 that the district pays into state retirement systems due to these salary increases - page 7).

Also note that step and education increases provide $2.6 million for teachers, even without any base salary increase. So, teachers will still receive salary increases even with a zero percent increase in base pay. In fact, they will receive almost the 4% increase that is standard in the private sector.

By way of comparison: When the state was going through a period of fiscal problems, they negotiated a zero increase for all state workers. Zero; no step increase, no education increase, nothing.

In addition, health insurance increases account for another $2.4 million -- the district is assuming a 12% increase in its contribution per employee covered (page 8) -- note: taxpayers contribute $1005 per month for family coverage.

So, salary increases (base salary plus state contributions) and health insurance are the root cause of the deficit. It's not growth or any other factor. It's simply salaries and benefits.

To protect salaries and benefits, the superintendent is proposing cuts to programs. On top of that, he has created the illusion that he must cut $10.5 million in order to right the deficit.

Look for yourself, the deficit is only $2 million. The $10.5 million is a threatened punishment for not supporting the superintendent.

The district's financial situation is an expense issue, not a "district on the edge" issue.

It's all there in the district's Five-Year Forecast. The truth is easy to discern despite the district's spin and lies. A really convenient truth at that.

Response to Sol Stern, et al

Response to a listserve that posted Sol Stern's latest education article in City Journal from The Manhattan Institute:

It's amazing how many people confound laissez-faire with I-don't-care.

Laissez faire refers to systems where government and its minions -- the self-described experts -- stay out of the way. It doesn't mean that the simpletons -- those like me -- will lay down in the fields and die.

In a free market, I-don't-care is actually a pretty safe attitude for most things. It relates to the division of labor ...

I don't care about circuits, data storage, etc., yet someone does. And they are the ones who push improvements of handheld media devices, etc. You don't have to be an expert in everything, or anything for that matter, for the free market to work. Someone else always picks up the slack.

I don't care a bit about motor oil, yet many, many people do. And, I benefit due to motor oils that improve year after year..

In addition, I don't have to concern myself with writing textbooks, supplements, etc., since hundreds of entrepreneurs are willing to do that for me.

However, I do care enough about my children to attempt to make the right decisions for them. Nevertheless, I can guarantee that some of those decisions stand opposite the so-called experts, but what are they really experts of?

Can they burn circuits, design new storage devices, improve motor oil, or, get this, write textbooks that I would even consider purchasing? Hmmm. Wouldn't that be the true test? Yet, the failure of their books to sell would be perceived as additional proof that the simpletons are idiots.

The experts need government. They need some entity -- the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion -- to force those like me to purchase their wares.

The experts -- Hoxby, Ravitch, Stern, Peterson, et al. -- get so upset when others do not pick the programs these experts deem to be best. So, these experts quickly jump to the conclusion that parents are idiots. I find that to be very insulting.

According to the experts, the parent who simply wants his child out of a dangerous school, regardless of the educational outcomes, is making an uninformed, irrational decision. Huh.

By the way, under the government solution, my local district is showing English Lit students Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth under the guise of persuasive writing -- I guess it is better than the R-rated movies they have been showing; movies with rape scenes, nudity, etc. Amazing.

Still, some folks believe this blob will change under pressure. I suspect that these folks have no experience in a government work-setting. The blob never changes, regardless of which political persuasion is sitting in the head office. On the other hand, the manager at McDonalds is only too glad to help.

A Convenient Truth: Indoctrination in Olentangy

I think we all can agree that the UK is liberal, if not socialist. But even in the UK, a London High Court judge ruled that schools can only show the Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth if they provide the opposing view. According to the judge, there are nine significant errors that place the film in the category of indoctrination, not education, unless the teacher guidance notes are changed to put the film into context.

Yet, in Olentangy, taxpayers are paying to English literature students watch the film without such guidance. Is it happenstance that the NEA supports Gore's nonsense, and then the film ends up being shown to district students.

Education or indoctrination. You be the judge, the London High Court already voiced its opinion.