1. The operating levy, Issue 17, was 7.4 mills.  That translates to a $530 increase in property taxes for a $234,000 house (Worthington's average home value).

2. Visit the Franklin County Board of Elections for more information.

3. Estimate your new taxes HERE.

4. Download our Levy FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Sheet

5. View our Powerpoint Presentation

6. The Pro-Levy Campaign Finance Report is HERE.

Almost $22,000 raised and nearly $20,000 spent on the campaign.

7. Some of our calculations and data:

   See our Calculations and Data Page

    

8. WSD Data and Reports:

   1. 2008 Popular Financial Report

   2. WSD Levy Planning Meeting Powerpoint Presentation from early 2008

   3. WSD Levy Planning Meeting Powerpoint Presentation from January 2009

   4. The 5 Year Forecast

9. Details of the current WSD contract are HERE.

10. Published Letters and Editorials

Letter: District, like residents, must live within its means

Published: Tuesday, April 28, 2009

To the Editor:

As I read Bob Barkley's letter (Worthington News, April 22), I noticed the familiar sales pitch we have heard so many times before when the district has needed a levy. Mr. Barkley states that voting "no" shows that you "care more about your wallet" than about the children, while voting "yes" is your endorsement for "our community's students."

That message is unfair in light of the fact that all Worthington residents want the best for our children, but we also realize that we must live within our means. The average homeowner will pay about $530 more per year if the levy passes, and we have been told they will need another levy just three years later. Even if we can afford this year's levy, the suggested three-year levy cycle is difficult to support in these tough economic times.

On top of that, Mr. Barkley writes that "the most important factor predicting student success is the quality of the staff." That is an awfully bold message to send, since the students are the ones doing the work, along with the parents in our community who set high standards and encourage their children to achieve. I'm not opposed to teachers earning a fair salary, but to attribute their salary to the district's excellence is far-fetched. In fact, if money were what caused a district to be excellent, Columbus City Schools would be doing far better than it is.

* Our elected officials on the school board approved a three-year contract last August that represents business as usual. The teachers will continue to receive average raises of over 5 percent, which includes their base raises plus step increases, while most of us will receive less than 3 percent. Teachers in Worthington are not underpaid; the average teacher earns $70,230 plus benefits.

If we approve this levy, the school board will have no reason to rethink the way it does business with the teachers' union. Without an incentive to change the way the board spends our money, we will need another new levy in three years, according to the school board itself.

The questions that voters should go to the polls on Tuesday, May 5, to answer are, "Is that sustainable?" "Is that necessary?" and "Is that really good for Worthington, its families and its students?"

Jill Alfred

Letter: Tax increase will be bad for students in long run

Published: Tuesday, April 28, 2009

To the Editor:

It makes no sense to educate our young people by taxing the community so highly while business formations remain low. In Worthington today, high school and college graduates can't find local jobs and are leaving to work elsewhere.

Ohio needs to replace lost manufacturing jobs with information-age jobs, but information-age businesses can locate in many different places and, thus, are tax sensitive. Information-age entrepreneurs can start their businesses in Pennsylvania and pay half the state and local taxes they would pay in Ohio. Businesses have been staying away from Ohio in droves because the total state and local tax burden is very high relative to other areas.

How high are property taxes in Ohio? We just looked at homes in Arlington, Virginia, where our son had to move to find a job. The property taxes on our home in Worthington exceed the property taxes on the home my son is interested in buying, even though the Virginia home is assessed at more than twice our Worthington home.

Congress has passed a stimulus bill intended to encourage spending. Increased spending by members of our community would help support Worthington merchants struggling to cope with the economic recession. In effect, the proposed Worthington school levy would funnel the community's federal tax cuts into higher local taxes. Local merchants would receive no benefit from the federal stimulus, but instead pay higher taxes to the Worthington school district. The economy would deteriorate further and unemployment would continue to be a significant challenge for Worthington graduates.

Additional money will not improve education. Although no country spends more on education than we do, American children are poorly prepared for the global economy. If other countries can educate their children better with much less money, Worthington can do the same.

Our children need jobs when they graduate, not more highly paid teachers while in school. Vote against the proposed levy.

Steven Reiss

Letter: Last levy failure wasn't as crippling as district predicted

Published: Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Twice in the past few weeks, we have all received mailings with the same information from a group representing Worthington City Schools. Unfortunately, the information they are sharing is not telling the whole story, so I hope so share some truthful information.

The acknowledgment that "Worthington City Schools have not received a new operating levy in five years" is a true statement. However, when the last levy was put before voters, district leaders claimed they were in dire need of additional money or they could not maintain excellence in our schools. Residents correctly voted "no" on that levy request, and since that time, the school board proudly admits the district has maintained that desired excellence. Were they not truthful in their need for the previous levy request, or were they needlessly spending $11.4 million from prior levies? The truth is they did both.

Even now, instead of admitting they were not properly spending taxpayer money, Worthington school officials state they "cut cost without sacrificing performance -- saving taxpayers $11.4 million by reducing expenses." That makes their actions sound like praise instead of admitting past failure to control spending.

The superintendent states that this levy will be used to "cover the cost of things like teachers, bus drivers, instructional assistants, the very heart of our schools' operations." Then the Worthington Community for Schools admitted the district is planning to reduce the number of teachers. So why would we need additional money for Worthington teachers when the average teacher's salary is already $70,230 plus $16,314 in paid benefits and when plans are to cut current staff? Then, after paying that average cost of $86,544 a year, why would there be need to pay for "instructional assistants" to complete the job some teachers failed to accomplish?

There are two things we know for sure. The first being that this levy is for additional increases in salary and benefits, which are already 88 percent of the district's operating expenditures. The second is that increasing employees' salaries and-or benefits does not improve the education of a single child. It's time again to vote "no" on a levy that is not needed.

Ed Parsons

Letter: Education is more crucial concern than tax rates

Published: Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The first responsibility of school boards is to the students and to assuring them that the best programs and policies are in place. While also important, only after doing that should school boards attend to the interests of the taxpayer.

However, unfortunately, while still offering a decent program and encouraging innovation along the way, Worthington is missing several worthy programs. Even if passed, the May levy will leave them missing still. So it seems students here will still be losing out to taxpayers.

On that note, a convenient strawman for levy opponents is the percentage of school district budgets that go to employee benefits. That percentage is almost always in the 80s, and anti-tax alarmists cast that as far too high or out of the ordinary. It is neither. Nor is the Worthington school tax rate out of sync with those of comparable districts.

A high percentage of school budgets should be spent on employees in an enterprise that is so highly personnel-dependent. The most important factor predicting student success is the quality of the staff. And, quite sadly, Worthington's competitive status as to attracting and retaining its staff is declining.

Yes, these are tough times for us all, but the last place we should be cutting is the future of our young people. So, care more about your wallet? Vote "no!" Care more about our community's students? Vote "yes!" It really is that simple.

Bob Barkley

Two Items of Interest for District Residents

I read two items in the news recently that caused me to think about the upcoming Worthington School levy. The first was in the Columbus Dispatch:

"Clerical, support and maintenance workers for the Franklin County Sheriff's Office are heading back to the negotiation table in hopes of getting 3-percent annual raises recommended by a fact-finder. …But on Wednesday, commissioners rejected the fact-finder's report, which would have tied the county into a three-year commitment."

If you recall, EducateWorthington.org and others strongly discouraged the adoption of a three year union contract for Worthington Schools (and probably for the same reasons the commissioners were concerned about).

The other item was an article by Thomas Friedman. In that article he writes:

"I live in Montgomery County, Maryland. The schoolteachers here, who make on average $67,000 a year, recently voted to voluntarily give up their 5 percent pay raise that was contractually agreed upon for next year, saving our school system $89 million — so programs and teachers would not have to be terminated."

In case you are wondering; if Worthington teachers decided to do the same thing, the district would save nearly $3 million.

John Herrington, Columbus

 

Letter: District's finances need creativity, not another levy

Published: Wednesday, April 1, 2009

To the Editor:

Some time ago, I wrote a letter about my concern that teacher contracts are negotiated behind closed doors and not in front of the citizens who have to pay for them. Our only referendum is voting on a levy, the current one of which was very predictable. I have to go on record opposing that levy for the following reasons.

First of all, I believe the teachers' union and the school board disrespect the citizens in this school district by keeping negotiations secret. We need changes there.

Second, the schools have a war chest, which will run out eventually, but they are trying to add to that now in economic times that none of us have ever experienced as adults.

Third, many people in this community are already dipping into their personal rainy day funds -- as has been said by others, your 401K is now a 201K. The teachers' union and school board need to adjust their thinking.

Fourth, with the economic news about unemployment, it is not impossible that by December, we will be at 15 percent unemployment, which doesn't count underemployed and discouraged workers, and more houses in Worthington will move into foreclosure.

Fifth, I spent several years as a volunteer strategic planner for Worthington schools. As a researcher, I helped Columbus Public Schools pass three levies in a row, a record not likely to be beaten. Education is the base of the economic pyramid and I am committed to the best education possible for all our children and fully support keeping competent teachers in our schools. But the economic realities dictate that the teachers' union and the school board must get creative and figure out how to maintain our standard of excellence in the budget they have. It is that simple.

I spoke to someone last week who I knew opposed the last levy and asked about yard signs. I was told if I put one up I invite vandalism to my home. It has happened before, I was told. Excuse me? Is that the kind of community I really live in?

Abramo and I are friends, and we also disagree on a number of issues. We're professional colleagues and regardless of our disagreements on any particular issue, we share core values and neither of us would ever violate what we were both taught about respecting competing thoughts and opinions.

We need serious change in this system, and it needs to begin with voting "no" on this levy and again in November when it is brought up again. Otherwise, we will not get change. Whether you vote absentee or in person, please take the time to consider this issue and do vote your conscience.

Dennis Benson

Letter: Teachers more important than athletic facilities

Published: Wednesday, April 1, 2009

To the Editor:

Rob Brown's letter (Worthington News, March 18) is testimony to the axiom that everybody has the right to be wrong, but some people abuse the privilege.

He opposes the pending Worthington school levy because he thinks the system's teachers make too much money. However, Brown wants the school board, which he blames for coddling the teachers, to spend more money improving the athletic facilities. In short, freeze or cut teachers' pay so we can upgrade gymnasiums. Does he not realize that would require a levy the size of which would likely equal to or surpass the one that will be on the ballot in May?

Brown's letter raises several other points. First, if unionized public employee contracts are to be frozen or cut, he should have included the Worthington police -- who, on the average, make more money than Worthington teachers -- and firefighters, as well as any other such city workers in his proposal. After all, those taxpayers suffering from the bad economy must pay for all those salaries and benefits, not just those of the teachers. Next, and this is not sarcasm, it would be interesting to find out how many people have moved into or away from Worthington because of the schools' athletic facilities. My guess is the answer is somewhere around none, but it's worth asking.

Finally, why did Brown move into Worthington and, more importantly, if he's so unhappy, why does he stay? Likely because he knows that moving to a district that has what he wants means his having to pay more taxes than he's paying now, so it's easier to stay in Worthington and complain.

Dick Graham

Letter: 'Step increases' make it hard to empathize with district

Published: Wednesday, April 1, 2009

To the Editor:

In response to Superintendent Melissa Conrath's letter of March 2009, mailed to Worthington voters, my concerns are as follows.

The Worthington Board of Education made a decision to grant raises approximate to 3 percent, plus to grant "step increases" of approximately 4 percent, which apparently over 50 percent of the district employees get. This would total 7 percent.

If 85 percent of the budget is the cost of personnel, what was Conrath thinking to accept the 7 percent raises for over 50 percent of teachers, and then come back to us saying she wants to "avoid making cuts that will impact our current programs." The step raises are ridiculous, and nothing where I work or have worked for the past 29 years is similar.

Three percent raises, "yes." Additional pay for doing the same job, just more years, "no."

Unless someone has a new position, which would warrant additional pay, for a differing job description, there should be no change in pay, other than a 3 percent raise, maximum.

For additional inspiration, look to state and local officials in government, who are taking pay cuts. Look to my employer, an ADAMH-funded mental health agency, which has declared a freeze on raises for 2009.

If the district comes back to us after correcting the above and presents a case, we will listen.

Nancy Mily

Letter: School district must cut back on spending in these tough times

Published: Wednesday, March 25, 2009

A letter from William McDowall (Worthington News, March 18) caused me to send this letter.

He wrote, "... the (Worthington school) district should consider postponing installation of theater-size plasma screens, surround sound systems" and other items until after the May voting, because it may look like they have funds and that would hurt voting for the levy coming up.

What kind of sick thinking is that? With the economy going in the dumpster these days, we all have to cut back.

We the people have to cut back, but what do the school districts do? Let's pass a levy.

We the people have to cut back, but what does the government do? Let's raise taxes.

When will the schools and the government cut back?

Yes, plasma screens in the common area sure are nice and fancy, but does it really help a child's education better than a bulletin board could do? No!

Yes, surround sound is a nice, but does that really help a child's education where normal sound can't? No!

Yes, outings to COSI, parks and other places are nice, but do they really help a child's education in a way that a book or video in the classroom can't? No! Try asking a child a week after they went to COSI or a park or wherever they went, "How was the trip?" I would bet that most would say, "It was fun," and not, "I learned ..."

The district should not postpone installation of luxury items until after the vote in May. The district needs to postpone that kind of "dazzle" until after the economy turns around and all of us get back in better financial shape.

We cut back when we don't have the funds. So should the schools. I am tired of cutting back on my spending only to have school levies get passed and have taxes go through the roof.

Jim Moats

 

Letter: seniors shouldn't suffer due to district's irresponsibility

Published: Wednesday, March 25, 2009

In response to Mr. Dick Graham's letter (Worthington News, March 4), I am appalled at Mr. Graham's letter.

For him to even suggest that any senior citizen cut their income because the Worthington Board of Education has been less than fiscally responsible is, at most, idiotic. Apparently, Mr. Graham has forgotten that Mr. Fennema (Worthington News, Feb. 18) has paid into Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare his whole working life, and he also pays taxes on those funds, thus earning every penny that he receives each month, including the additional $250 "bonus" -- which he will also pay taxes on -- from the federal stimulus bill.

I would like to offer Mr. Graham a deal. If he will accept a cut in his income, including any and all retirement benefits, and give that money to the Worthington schools, then I will vote for the levy, and he can follow me into the booth to ensure that I vote for it. Mr. Graham's letter shows such a lack of compassion for someone living on a fixed income, and he does not understand how raising taxes on a senior citizen can literally send them to the poor house.

Apparently, Mr. Graham has never seen the struggle of a mother, grandmother, father or grandfather who has had to live on a fixed income, and watch as they labor daily to make ends meet. I have to wonder if Mr. Graham applies the same philosophy that the Worthington school board uses to manage his personal finances, and maybe he expects a levy to bail him out as well.

Cheryl Shirk

 

Letter: Board is irresponsible to ask for more taxpayer money

Published: Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The basic rules of engagement have changed for the Worthington Board of Education, but they are still sticking their heads in the sand and they continue to proceed with "business as usual," passing along to the taxpayers new tax levies! They now they want to have us pay for an ill-conceived labor agreement with the teachers' union. They now want us to pay an additional $220 per $100,000 value of our homes. They do not understand or acknowledge the new world that we live in when it comes to the cost of doing business.

It is incredible that they spend 87 percent of the school budget for salaries and benefits. I understand now why our children are shortchanged in their facilities. I am not talking about technology, I am commenting on the pathetic athletic facilities that the students are using. I had a great discussion at the high school the other night with a Worthington resident of 22 years who said that the school board did not recognize that they are falling way behind the surrounding suburbs and still think of Worthington as it was 15 years ago, when it was the place to live and have your kids go to school.

I had several e-mails with the school board and it was obvious that they were not willing to challenge the status quo with the comfy deals they have made with their teachers' union. What they need to do is go back to the union and say they need to re-open the agreement and freeze the wages. Do they not understand that numerous people in Worthington have lost their jobs or had to take pay cuts as they continue to say, "Let's just pass on our poorly thought out labor agreement to the taxpayers?"

Everyone always wants to support education, but sometimes you need to knock some common "business sense" into the school board, and this is one of those times. Until that occurs, it is time to vote "no." We'll listen to the board whine and complain, but until they make fundamental changes in how the district is run, "no" is the correct answer to any request from them to fund their ill-advised approach to running the district.

This coming from a family that has three kids in the schools -- we need to make a statement to the school board, which is clueless when it comes to what is going on in the economy and what needs to happen to really help Worthington schools from their slow decline to mediocrity!

Rob Brown

Letter: This may not have been the best time to install plasma screens

Published: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 

I moved my family to Worthington on purpose. By all accounts, Worthington is a wealthy school district, and I am happy to support it with my tax dollars. I am pleased with the quality education and consistent property values that well funded schools provide. I am also likely to support the levy effort. Having said all of that, allow me to offer the district public relations advice.

I know that there were technological improvement issues passed recently. I know that those funds are used for lighting, microscopes, computers and a host of other necessities. But could they have held off installing the dual 50-inch plasma monitors in the WKHS common area until after the levy? I mean, really -- I do not begrudge spending approved funds. All I'm suggesting is to show decorum this close to voting day.

So to summarize, until May, the district should consider postponing installation of other theater-size plasma screens, surround sound systems, observatories, planetariums or similar displays of prosperity. Please understand that I have no problem with the expenditure, but reckless displays of wealth makes it difficult for supporters to convince neighbors who lean away from levy support. Perhaps a less bombastic and more modest approach to shoring up levy support is appropriate in these economic times.

William McDowall

Letter: School district needs more sustainable financial plan

For nearly three years, EducateWorthington.org has been shining a light on district revenues and expenses. We have stressed the importance of long range planning that avoids the “business as usual” approach of free spending followed up with levy requests every two years. Recently, we emphasized the importance of avoiding long, multi-year union contracts that trap the tax payers into unrealized and unforeseen consequences. Unfortunately, the new contract remains three years, despite our pleas and despite our demonstrating that these long term commitments can cost us millions in unrealized commitments. According to the updated 5 year forecast, we will go from a $105 million annual expenditure to over $121 million by the end of the contract in 2011 (with salaries and benefits consuming nearly 88% of the total).

What is interesting here is the timing: when the current contract expires in June of 2011, the school board will approve another contract in the autumn of that same year. With the new contract negotiated (without input from you and me) and signed (and therefore closed to any reconsideration according to Board President David Bressman), the next levy campaign will begin only weeks later in January of 2012. A cycle that could now go on indefinitely.

With the economy on the skids and the stock market faltering, Worthington residents have lost vast sums in retirement and investment accounts. Using data from the Ohio Dept. of Taxation, median incomes in Worthington fell 4.9% from 2001 to 2007 (not adjusting for inflation). District educators, in the same time period, saw an average salary increase of 23%. The current contract now requires a 2.85% annual base increase each year plus an approximate 2.2% average annual step increase, for a total average of 5% for each of the next three years.

In May, the District will ask us to pay 7.4 mils more or an additional $530 per year for the average home ($234,000) in Worthington. But home prices have fallen significantly in central Ohio for the last two years. The Franklin County Auditor has told us that he will not readjust our property assessments with few exceptions. That means we will be paying higher taxes on property worth less.

What is the bottom line? We hate to sound like a broken record, but we believe that the planned three year "spending and taxing" cycle is unsustainable. We urge the residents of Worthington to spend time asking their neighbors, their friends, their school board, and teachers and district staff; "Is a $530 tax increase every three years really the only solution there is, and if so...why?"

We think the Worthington community deserves, and may require, something a little more creative than that, to achieve a truly sustainable long-term financial plan.

John Herrington, EducateWorthington

Letter: In tough times, schools need reductions, not levy money

Published: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:07 AM EST Text Size To the Editor:

I hope I misread the story (Worthington News, Jan. 28) about the public levy forum held on Jan. 22. It appeared to state that the Worthington residents who attended were not allowed to speak.

Rather, questions were written on cards with President Bressman, Superintendent Conrath and Treasurer McCuen providing the answers. Moderator Greeson is quoted as saying: "I can see a few written comments on these cards, but I think I'll just read the questions right now." Were comments -- written or oral -- ever allowed? I hope so, for to restrict the dialogue to written questions and oral replies would have been dismissive and disrespectful to the citizens who attended.

Whatever the case, I am choosing this forum to express my views. I am one (senior) citizen opposed to the levy, for two primary reasons. One, we are in the midst of economically disastrous times. Families, businesses, charities and most other organizations are being forced to live within frozen or reduced budgets. I believe that Worthington schools need to do the same.

A reduction in program quantity does not necessitate a reduction in program quality. Desires do not equate needs. The schools should provide our children with the core essentials of an education and do so with excellence. This may call for a reduction in electives and peripheries. It also may mean pay-to-play. Before screaming too loudly over these suggestions, listen carefully to the cries of the families in your community experiencing genuine financial hardship.

The second reason I am opposed to the levy is a personal one: I can't afford it. As a retiree, I have come to understand the term fixed income. It's a rather frightening concept as I watch costs increase all around me while my home and retirement investments decrease.

In an ideal world I would support without hesitation your desires for Worthington schools. I am certain those desires are worthy and justifiable. Yes, our kids deserve the best. But, also yes, during tough times we have to know when to say no.

Jack Fennema

District won't change unless it knows it must

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Based on the school board's recent comments and actions, it appears that Worthington residents will soon be asked whether a $500 annual increase in their taxes every three years is a sustainable course.

Yes, residents may say this is sustainable, or they may not, but in either case it does beg the question: "To pay for what...exactly?"

Educate Worthington (educateworthington.org) encourages residents to look for the answer to this simple question, to listen to both sides of the story, and then to make your thoughts known by casting a ballot in May.

Now, for those who haven't kept up with the actions of the school district all year long, we'd like to help bring you up to speed.

Last summer, the district negotiated a new three-year union contract for our 750 respected and valued teachers. To the district's credit, it is a slightly more frugal contract than the last one, though our pay scale remains considerably more generous than the Olentangy district, for example.

Despite the slight improvements in the contract, the fact remains that for the next three years, our contract provides teacher raises of 2.85% to 7.85% per year, with the schedule averaging over 5%.

Again, it is important to acknowledge that this is better than the 3.25% to 8.75% raises for 2005-2007, but consider this: the Worthington school district predicts salary and benefit costs rising from $97-million to $117-million just four years from now, with slightly fewer teachers teaching slightly fewer students.

Also, remember that salary and benefits account for over 87% of the entire district budget. Therefore, if we don't significantly slow the spending in the union contracts, we can't significantly slow the spending in the school district.

The pro-levy advocates, including district staff, will likely remind us that the vote in May is "for the children," while the skeptics might argue differently. However, unless you know you can afford an additional $500 tax increase every three years, you may want to get educated now and prepare to make your voices heard this May.

Unions across the city, the state and the nation are facing the difficult choices that some of their own short-sighted actions have brought. Maybe we can afford "business as usual" here in Worthington, but maybe we cannot. However, our district leaders cannot, and will not, change the course unless "we the people" make it clear that they must.

John Herrington, EducateWorthington

 

"School quality shouldn't rest on 'maybe' money"

Three school district-related items in your edition of Feb. 5 caught my attention. 

I had to smile (well, perhaps more than a smile) when I read the letter from Dorothy Foley, who felt that the non-appointment of board member Marc Schare to be president of the board was unfair, because by seniority he should have been appointed.

Many years ago (31 to be precise), it was my "turn" (by seniority) to be appointed president. This appointment was even more important to me, since it would have allowed me to sign the diploma of our son, who was graduating that year. However, the board decided to appoint Mrs. Foley's husband, Mark.

The story ended well for me because Mark was generous and kind enough to resign in time for me to be appointed and sign the diploma.

Some years later, another board member was also passed over. It is understandable that a board would wish to have as spokesperson an individual who it judges to be best suited for the needs of the moment.

The second item was the letter from Phil Alspach regarding the proposed levy. Mr. Alspach lamented the proposal to put a levy on the ballot by writing: "Here we go again."

It must have escaped Mr. Alspach that, under the current method of funding public education, it is inevitable that districts need to go to the ballot every three or so years just to stay even. The fact must be faced that for some people, no time nor any amount will ever be appropriate.

Which brings me to the third item: the sub-headline read: "District could get $5-million from state and federal governments." Anyone who has followed the travails that the "stimulus" package has suffered in Washington (where, at this writing, education has been cut back) as well as the reliance of Gov. Strickland on the inclusion of education in the federal stimulus to balance his Ohio budget and fund schools, should consider that responsible local school boards and administrations should not hang the stability and quality of their districts on "maybe" money.

Our calendar makes it imperative that the levy be placed in May. How the board and administration will handle the possibility of additional funds being received should be a part of the discussion.

Abramo Ottolenghi, Worthington

Levy Request is outrageous

Wednesday, February 4

Here we go again. The Worthington Board of Education wants more money. Apparently the board never heard of living within your budget, as we individuals have to do. In these days of declining enrollment and financial recession, this forthcoming levy request is outrageous. The school board's lack of responsibility is shown by the 12-page glossy color "advertisement" recently mailed, when plain old black-and-white on cheap paper would have sufficed. Please consider the fact that we are in a recession; I call on all taxpayers to stand up and give a message to the board by defeating the upcoming levy.

Phil Alspach, Columbus

Injustice on the board; new ideas are needed

Wednesday, February 4

I appreciated your article on Jan. 15 about a recent injustice occurring on our Worthington school board. Usually the position of president and vice president rotates through the board by seniority. I'm familiar with the process as my husband served on this board from 1975 to 1983. Since all board members elected by the people represent the views of a large number of voters, the board should not have the right to bypass a member because that person is not always in agreement with the other members. It is healthy to have someone on the board who thinks as an individual, and asks questions, or brings up new ideas. The people voted for Marc Schare because he does this. I am very disappointed in Jennifer Best's response saying that they are looking for "consensus builders," not people who initiate new ideas. I hope you will discuss this situation further in another article. Is this kind of attitude what the voters in Worthington want? When a board member is elected, I think the voters expect the board to be fair when appointing positions of prestige.

Dorothy Foley, Worthington

 

Ohio flunking test on schools' costs

By The Dayton Daily News Sunday, September 10, 2006

J. Kenneth Blackwell and Ted Strickland can't duck forever Ohioans' frustrations with the cost of supporting their schools.

One man will be elected governor and, when the honeymoon is over, he'll have to answer to taxpayers buffeted by school levies. For now, though, neither is offering serious or specific proposals. Extras Latest headlines

Why? Because everything about finding a sensible way to fund schools is hard.

Cash-strapped state coffers already are being tapped for $8 billion a year for K-12 education (not counting funds for new schools and renovations). That total represents just under 40 percent of the budget, and is the state's single-largest expense.

One major problem with Ohio's funding system is its heavy reliance on the local property tax, which still divides districts between have's and have-not's. Some school advocates and incensed property owners would, if they could, shift all funding for schools to Columbus. But that's a practical — and political — impossibility. Replacing all the money raised by property taxes would require doubling Ohio's personal income tax rates or raising the state sales tax to an astounding 12 percent (from 5.5).

Blackwell goes for show, Strickland's details are few

No wonder Mr. Strickland responds to questions about school funding with grave expressions and talk of blue ribbon commissions, bipartisan cooperation, and someday putting a reform package to a statewide vote.

Mr. Blackwell, meanwhile, has advanced some policy proposals, but none adds up to a credible plan.

He, for instance, hopes to force major cuts in Medicaid spending, and then put that savings into public schools. Strapped taxpayers shouldn't expect to see that happen anytime soon. Promising to cut Medicaid is easy; actually doing it is not.

Mr. Blackwell also is campaigning on the "65 percent solution," which would require districts to devote 65 percent of funding on "classroom instruction." A few states are experimenting with this mandate, but the idea is more slogan than strategy. Even empirical studies have shown that similar programs don't necessarily improve student achievement or administrative efficiency.

But this idea and every other school funding reform that's been floated so far ignores a big question that Ohio voters should be asking both candidates: More school funding — to pay for what, exactly?

School costs receive little attention in funding debate

For all the "reports cards" and online databases devised to measure and display student achievement, and for all the hand-wringing about the best and fairest ways to increase money for schools, little attention is paid to the other side of the Ohio school funding coin — cost.

Salaries and benefits are the biggest and fastest growing expense. Look, for example, at what's happened in Ohio's six largest school districts, comparing the 2000-01 school year to 2004-05.

Student enrollment is down, and so is the number of teachers — in every district, often significantly.

Dayton's public schools, for example, had 19 percent fewer students, and lost 22 percent of their teachers. Cleveland's enrollment was lower by 13.9 percent, and the teachers in the district dropped 26.9 percent. Columbus lost 6.5 percent of its student body, and a whopping 28.5 percent of the teacher population.

These districts, though, weren't less expensive to operate once they had fewer students and teachers. Total expenditures in Cleveland were essentially level (down just 1.8 percent), while Dayton's rose 7.9 percent, and Columbus' were up 14.9 percent.

Where did the money go? "Instructional" expenditures were up significantly on a per-student basis: Columbus' rising by 16.6 percent, Dayton's by 30.4 percent and Cleveland's by 22.3 percent.

But look what happens when instructional spending is divided not by student, but by teacher.

(The state defines these expenses as the funds a district spends on teachers and teacher aides, as well as books, computers and other classroom materials. The largest share, though, by far is for teacher salaries and, significantly, benefits.)

On a per-teacher basis, instructional spending was up 35.4 percent in Dayton, 44.1 percent in Cleveland, and 52.6 percent in Columbus from just five years before.

What does this suggest? That rising compensation costs are hidden by attrition. School districts are using personnel cuts to fund "instructional" budgets, applying the savings to pay higher salaries and more expensive benefits to fewer teachers and other employees.

Staff cuts help finance fast rise in salaries and benefits

The rise in per-student classroom spending, in other words, doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in class size. Indeed, even with significant declines in student enrollment, the major urban districts had significantly more students per teacher in 2004-05 than in 2000-01 — except for Dayton and Cincinnati, where the ratio changed very little.

The benefits side also spelled trouble, with Ohio school districts increasingly looking like automakers. General Motors lamented last year about how $1,500 of the cost of each automobile goes to pay health insurance — "more per car on health care than on steel," complained former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca.

In education, the trend is the same. On average, $1,690 of the cost of educating an Ohio public school student went for employee benefits in 2003, according to a report by Standard & Poors — representing 19.75 percent of all public school spending, and a 42.38 percent increase over benefits in 1999.

Cutting staff has been the only way to swing healthy salary increases, year after year, while also paying 14 percent into the pension system, and absorbing double-digit increases in health insurance costs.

State officials and local school districts don't make it easy to find the particulars of cost increases, so some numbers aren't precise. But what's clear is that the growth in spending can't be sustained under any funding scheme.

If Messrs. Blackwell and Strickland are committed to equitable, adequate, and predictable school funding, they must master the details and explain to voters what they would do to keep high quality public schools affordable.

Letter: Seniors who benefited from schools should support them

Published: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:47 PM EDT To the Editor:

There are three reasons to vote against the school levy that will be on the ballot later this spring. Being a senior living on a fixed income isn't one of them.

Respect for seniors isn't the issue; responsibility is. Those who choose to live in Worthington have also chosen to accept the responsibility of maintaining its quality of life instead of just reaping the benefits. Most Worthington seniors have likely lived here long enough to have benefited from sending their children to Worthington schools. That those children graduated long ago does not mean that one gets to stop paying the bills.

It's also worth pondering that, as conservative author P. J. O'Rourke has written, today's seniors are better off than most people -- especially true in Worthington -- because their children are grown, their houses are paid off, they are largely debt-free and they get a lot more from Social Security and Medicare than they paid into them. More pointedly, the money paid into Social Security and Medicare by current beneficiaries was spent long ago, and they are now living and will continue to live off other people's money paid into each program. The better educated the paying people are, the more money they'll put into those programs, so it is in seniors' self interest to vote for the levy.

Those who write to complain that Worthington teachers are overpaid would have a point worth considering if they would also include the police, firefighters and every other government employees' union in the criticism.

Those who think that I lack compassion for the elderly living on fixed incomes deliberately misunderstand the point of my previous letter (Worthington News, March 4) in which I wrote that the senior citizen who wrote that everyone should cut back (Worthington News, Feb. 18) should be willing to back his argument up by accepting a one-year cut in his Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as his property tax reductions for being a senior citizen. Anyone who talks the talk should be willing to walk the walk, and that includes people on fixed incomes.

I have done so by proposing that my union agree to a pay freeze for 2009 and to pay more toward our health care and retirement benefits. We will get through this economy, but we are all going to have to do our part. No exceptions.

Dick Graham

Letter: Tough times do not reduce need to support students Published: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:47 PM EDT To the Editor:

On Tuesday, May 5, we will be supporting Issue 17, the Worthington City Schools levy, and we are respectfully asking voters to do the same.

In tough economic times, it is essential that we have responsible fiscal management of our schools. After five years with no new levy money, $11.4 million in permanent cuts and 38 positions eliminated, Issue 17 is needed to keep our schools strong and to protect our property values.

In addition to the cuts, the district created the Treasurer's Advisory Committee, a group of community residents with fiscal expertise that monitors, reviews and provides oversight into school spending and long-term financial planning. This gives us confidence that the district welcomes input from the community about its finances and the impact school spending has on our community.

We are proud of the excellent teachers and support staff who help shape our kids every day -- in the classroom, on the bus, in the cafeteria and on the playground. In particular, our district is known for the experience and dedication shown by our teachers, who have helped our schools consistently rank among the highest in the state. Their compensation has been criticized by some, but our teacher salaries on average rank eighth out of the 16 school districts in Franklin County. Their current contract calls for a significant contribution to their health care costs, including deductibles of up to $3,000.

We acknowledge that there is no "good" time to ask voters for money. But a struggling economy does not eliminate our responsibility to provide our children for the best education we can. This levy will be used for operations only -- for things like classroom instruction, bus drivers, textbooks and student services. It includes no "frills" and is absolutely needed to keep our schools strong.

A vote for the levy is a vote for quality education. It is also a vote for strong property values. Studies show that communities with better schools are rewarded with higher housing prices. In Worthington, our schools are excellent, and our home values reflect that, as does the quality of life in our community.

Thank you for your past support of Worthington Schools. We hope you will join us in supporting Issue 17.

Corin Cunningham, Kathy Malone,

Rick Matsa and Rebecca Princehorn

levy co-chairs

Letter: Anti-levy postcard had some noticeable errors
Published: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:47 PM EDT
To the Editor:

I was going to stay out of the discussion of the upcoming levy, and some probably wish I would still do so, but when a friend showed me a postcard opposing the upcoming school levy -- since, for many years, I have questioned wrong or misleading information about the school district -- I felt the need to point out a few things.

The card, while not giving any indication of who is responsible -- maybe that is why it is yellow -- gives numbers for teachers' average salaries and benefits as well as a average tax increase. Many will be unable to verify those numbers since, either purposefully or through negligence, the e-mail address of the district's treasurer is wrong.

Knowing my way around, I was able to find that the number given on the card for the teachers' salaries is not correct. The actual average salary is $66,769, not the $70,230 specified on the card. There is no easy way to find out where the sender of the card got the other numbers.

In addition, the address given for the verification of individual tax increases is that of Franklin County and not that of the county auditor, where the information is available. Finding it requires a familiarity that many do not have. Thus, the two erroneous bits of electronic information would make it difficult for many to easily ascertain the truth and thus make it more probable that the numbers and ideas contained in the card be accepted.

Abramo Ottolenghi