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
Government paychecks a great place for cutbacks
Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Like all "cafeteria conservatives," Dennis
Benson (Worthington News, Aug. 13) occasionally comes up with a good idea,
but lacks the courage to take it far enough to make it meaningful.
Benson wants the teachers' union to forgo
annual pay raises negotiated under multi-year contracts and to then
negotiate directly with the citizens every year by documenting teachers'
performances to justify any increases in salary and benefits, after which
the citizens of the Worthington City School District will vote on any such
increase. Benson's proposal should be tried not just with the teachers'
unions, but every other group of unionized government employees, including
the Worthington police and the Worthington firefighters.
Benson is correct that people on the
government payroll should not be rewarded just because they lasted another
year on the job. That is especially true because, as Benson pointed out, in
the current economy, accountability and realism are called for.
* According to the figures I obtained from
the city of Worthington and the Worthington school system, the average
salary for a unionized Worthington police officer is $70,000, union teachers
in Worthington average $69,000 annually and our unionized firefighters come
in at $57,000 a year. The police figure does not include overtime and
special duty pay, both of which are required by the police union contract
and neither of which teachers receive. Overtime and special duty are
notorious moneymakers, so it's safe to add a hefty chunk to the $70,000
police salary.
Government employees are hardcore liberals
who always have their hands out for more of our money, so it's time to
prefer taxpayers instead of the tax users and apply Benson's idea across the
board.
Better yet, the same principle should be
applied to the cost-of-living adjustments and other increases in all
government entitlement programs, starting with Social Security, Medicare,
veterans' pensions and veterans' benefits. The taxpayers shouldn't have to
fork over more money just because of people who live another year or long
enough to become more frail or ill. Times are tough and belts need to be
tightened.
All government salaries and retirement
benefits should be cut and the savings used to pay off the national debt or,
in the case of military personnel, to repay the $1 trillion in cash and
equipment the military has lost, as documented by a 2003 Government
Accounting Office audit. We should also repeal the recently enacted new G.I.
Bill, a massive liberal social program that is unaffordable for a nation
already $9 trillion in debt.
For once, let's try true conservatism. As
Rush Limbaugh says, "The best thing we can do for people is reduce their
reliance on government." Government employees and beneficiaries are the
logical starting place.
Dick Graham
Annual pay increases are bad economic strategy right now
Published: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
To the Editor:
I find I must agree with John Herrington
(Worthington News, July 23) regarding salaries and benefits costs to the
Worthington City School District and taxpayers.
Never ask economists what is going on with
the economy. Ask your out-of-work neighbor. Ask the county auditor who
doesn't want to do the scheduled reassessment now because market values have
dropped and that will cost the public sector money, including Worthington
Schools. Gas up your car, if you dare. Buy fresh milk and bread. If you are
over or under on your car lease, don't even look at your mortgage.
Raises given to people because they lasted
another year do not fit this economy (not that they should fit in any
economy) and won't for a while -- probably a number of years. I approve of
barrier-adjusted performance raises and merit increases (demonstrated
increase in value to the district and the classroom), but even as much as
these may be warranted, I'm not sure this economy can support those at this
time.
I hold administrative salaries to the same
standard. I think that it is time that the teachers' union negotiates
directly with the citizens it serves, documents its performance
accountability and shows how any increase in our costs will be accompanied
by an equal or greater increase in the quality of education offered to our
children. Then let the people vote on the contract prior to and separate
from any vote for an increased tax assessment. The times require
accountability and realism.
Dennis Benson
Teacher salaries keep going up while the rest of us suffer
Published: Wednesday, August 6, 2008
To the Editor:
Median personal income has decreased in 43
of Central Ohio's 49 school districts over the last five years. Median
income in Whitehall is down 21 percent; in Groveport, 19 percent; in Dublin,
17 percent; in Worthington, 15 percent; in Gahanna and Westerville, 13
percent; and in Hilliard, 11 percent.
What about school salaries? Well, they've
been bounding along with 3 percent annual increases for teachers,
administrators and everybody else who works there. Three percent per year
for five years is a five-year increase of 15.927 percent.
Let's see if I've got this straight:
School employees' incomes are up 16 percent, while the people who pay their
salaries are down an average of 10-12 percent.
And many of the school districts have
promised yet another request for more this fall. They always say it's for
the kids, but it never really is.
Interestingly, only two of those 49 school
districts had a median personal income that was higher than the average
teacher salary across Central Ohio ($60,000). Never mind that, by law,
teachers only have to work 180 days a year (less sick days, personal days,
etc.), while the average taxpayer works 239. Never mind that teachers have a
benefits package that makes the private sector look like slave owners. Never
mind that most teachers retire well before their 60th birthday, and are paid
more than three times what taxpayers will get from Social Security if they
work until they're 66, 68 or 70, depending upon their birth date.
The schools, once the home of dedicated
professionals, are now a closed union shop. Isn't it time we taxpayers
stopped dancing to the union bosses' tune?
Robert McKnight
Teacher quality must be a
focus during negotiations
Published: Wednesday, August 6, 2008
To the Editor:
Infamous Educate Worthington is again
misleading rather than educating. Now it's John Herrington choosing to
"connect the dots" (Worthington News, July 23), but only those dots
convenient to his biases. And his "dots" ignore "dots" such as overall
school quality, sustaining a high-quality and stable teaching staff,
maintaining home values, expanding opportunities for students and more.
I agree with one of Herrington's points:
Taxpayers need to be part of the picture. In fact, they are the bottom line
when levies are submitted. A primary duty of the board and central
administration is to determine what the majority of citizen-voters want of
their schools and how progress will be judged. Then they must establish what
it will cost, including staffing, to produce the desired outcomes.
Correctly, Herrington says that more than
80 percent of public school budgets represent employee costs. What else
would they represent in a heavily personnel dependent endeavor? Teacher
quality is the No. 1 determinant of student learning. It's certainly not
where corners should be cut unless that's really not a "dot" you care about.
No bargained contract, despite its
attractiveness to the employees, protects those employees from community
unwillingness to pay for it. Look at school layoffs across the state, all
with union contracts. Cleveland recently laid off more teachers than
Worthington employs.
Herrington's letter, connecting only his
favorite dots, does anything but "educate Worthington." Current union
negotiations do mean a lot. They may well determine programs to be offered,
appropriately staffed and well run, and also your home value as markets
tumble.
Finally, we'll get what we pay for, no
matter what the contract says. And to educate Herrington, it's a "labor
management" contract. It's an agreement between two parties, of which the
union is only one. It sets the provisions upon which one side provides
services in order to address the other side's service needs and
expectations. Good contracts address legitimate issues of both parties. And
taxpayers (those who vote) are always part of any agreement because they'll
either sustain it or not.
It'd be nice if we could vote directly on
some other "dots" like credit rates, oil prices and speculation,
nation-building occupations, government eavesdropping, hiring mercenaries to
do our warring, bailing out failing private ventures with millionaire
executives, and on and on. But we're left to vote directly on public
education support, and it does amazingly well, given that predictably
unsettling factor. Then again, maybe the private sector and more of our
government's functions would do better if we got to vote regularly and
directly on whether to sustain them or not.
Bob Barkley
Town halls are an effective
way of informing the public
Published: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 To
the Editor:
In response to Mr. Ottolenghi's letter
(Worthington News, July 23), I would like to point out a few things.
First of all, he defines affordability as
the relationship between availability of funds and existing priorities. I
beg to differ. Affordability is the ability to afford something. We may have
"existing priorities" that are not sustainable and therefore must be
adjusted. For example, right now, many people have had to adjust their
priorities in order to afford gasoline.
The problem is, in our school district,
once the union salaries are decided, history has shown that they are not
able to be readjusted. For this reason, we must be pretty certain we can
afford the union contract before it is approved. If that means we need to
write only yearly contracts, so be it. In our family, we certainly cannot
choose to purchase something in hopes of being able to afford it in the
future. We need to know we can afford it, regardless of our existing
priorities, because, as gasoline prices have shown us, those priorities may
change.
The town hall events that Mr. Ottolenghi
disparages are a positive and necessary step in discussing district finances
with the residents who pay the bills. These meetings will help district
leadership determine what is acceptable and affordable for the community as
a whole before a levy is on the ballot. Anything less is foolish, because it
is the people of the community who will be asked to approve the new levies
to pay for rapidly rising district expenses.
If the leadership writes a long-term and
unaffordable union contract, the community will be required to pay for it.
And if that means programs and services for students must be cut, then that
is exactly what will happen. The union contract will determine how much
money is spent, with little regard for the students and the community.
Publicize the town hall events and listen
to what the community has to say. You cannot force people to get involved,
but you must offer the opportunity. After all it is our money!
Jill Alfred
District must keep residents
in mind during contract talks
Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2008
To the Editor:
In reading recent articles in the
Worthington News, residents would have seen the following seemingly
unrelated subjects: union contracts, operating levies and school cuts.
With union contract negotiations
beginning, a 2009 operating levy being discussed and the last operating levy
having been turned down by voters, Educate Worthington thought it would be
useful to "connect the dots" between these three important topics.
To begin with, the union contracts drive
the salary and benefit costs that consume 87 percent of all district
spending. These contracts are typically 1-3 years long, and the longer they
are, the more financial certainty for union members, but the less financial
certainty for residents and the less educational certainty for students. For
example, residents were required to pay nearly all of this year's $2.5
million increase in staff health insurance costs. Why? Because the union
contracts negotiated three years ago by our previous district leadership
said we would.
As for salaries, the current three-year
contract provided 3.5 percent base raises, which certainly doesn't sound
unaffordable or unsustainable. However, when you add the average automatic
step increase of 1.9 percent, Worthington residents provided 5.4 percent
average annual raises. It was 5.9 percent in the previous three-year
contract.
The union contract drives the vast
majority of district costs and these rising costs drive the need for more
levies. The frequency and size of the required levies is directly related to
the salaries and benefits that district leadership agrees to in the
contract.
The school cuts are the reductions in
classes, programs and student services that can have a negative impact on
our students, their parents and our school district.
In some districts (not ours, thankfully),
the threat of programs, athletics and busing being cut, is often used to
pass a levy.
More importantly, cuts are often actually
required as the only alternative available when the levies to support the
rising salary and benefit costs do not pass.
But what about reducing the rising salary
and benefit costs instead of cutting services to students? Sorry, too late.
Contract cuts are almost never an option, as we are typically in the middle
of a multi-year agreement. Therefore, cuts to the expensive salary and
benefit costs that are causing the problem cannot even be considered. Need
proof? The school board asked for renegotiation of the last three-year
contract in 2003, and the union predictably answered "No."
The current union negotiations matter a
lot. The residents and students of Worthington deserve to be at least as
well represented as our 750 teachers.
Thus, district leadership must provide
that representation to deliver a contract that does not protect the union
members better than it protects our residents and our students -- one that
is affordable for now and sustainable for the future, and one that the
community will be able to support next May.
John Herrington
Educate Worthington
Town halls won't hurt, but
may not be representative
Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2008
To the Editor:
I am sure that Worthington Board of
Education member Mark Schare does not equate the want of such a
luxury/status symbol as a Lexus with the want of an excellent school system
in a community. Yet, from the story you published recently (Worthington
News, July 9), one might gain that impression.
Schare used the word affordability to
indicate what would be the acceptable level of any tax increase. However,
affordability is a relationship between availability of funds and existing
priorities, and thus differs for each of the district's constituencies.
Purchasing a luxury/status symbol car is a
discretionary purchase with little consequence except for the individual,
while the quality of the educational endeavor affects an entire community in
many ways. Mr. Schare wants to have the community determine what is an
acceptable and affordable tax increase. The community already does this at
election time.
Although there is nothing wrong with
having community input by using town hall events, the outcome usually
reflects who attends the meetings, and unless a broad segment of the
community is represented, the outcome will not be representative. The
perspective of parents with children in school or of those who have moved to
the community with certain expectations for their pre-school children will
be different from that of individuals without children in school. Even among
this latter group, there will be a division between those who see little
value in an excellent school district and those of us who value such a
district as a community asset.
Past episodes indicate that much of the
controversy about the tax level will center around teacher compensation. Are
teachers compensated too much, too little or just right? It is important
that any discussion be based on how to achieve the desired level of quality
(program diversity/staff quality) and not on anti-teacher/union positions as
have been expressed in the past by a few very vocal members of the
community.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Writer Cherry-Picks Data to Make a Point
We can all agree that contract negotiations by
past, present, and future board members impact district expenses and levy needs
for many generations. But, as a past Worthington school board member, Abramo
Ottolenghi brings his old habits to the discussion of district expenses and
union contracts.
Abramo clearly takes issue with Educate
Worthington's assertion that Olentangy teacher contracts offer significantly
lower salaries, on average, than Worthington's. He attempts to dismiss this
easily provable fact by cherry-picking data in citing that Olentangy pays 3.5%
(or $2,966) more for a 25-year teacher with a master's degree and 45 credits.
(By the way, Worthington has only 12 out of 767 teachers in this particular
position.)
Adopting Professor Ottolenghi's own tactic, we
will instead cite that Worthington pays 17.4% (or $10,760) more for a teacher
with a master's degree and 14 years of experience and that we pay more for every
experience level for those teachers (all 178 of them). In fact, out of 210
possible salary levels, we pay more than Olentangy on over 75% of them.
So, is Abramo's assessment of Olentangy a fair
one, or is it more like propaganda? Will he use this same approach to "educate"
those on the Treasurer's Advisory Committee that he has recently been appointed
to? We hope not.
Abramo raises two other points that require
clarification. First, he mentions the reduction in health-care costs during the
current contract. True, but unfortunately, the temporary "savings" in
health-care costs were immediately spent on larger salary increases and on
taxpayer funding of 70-percent of the employee deductible. Given this, we simply
ask: "How much taxpayer money was actually saved?"
Secondly, he mentions the passage of the
recent bond levy, apparently suggesting this is evidence that Worthington will
surely pass the next operating levy. The bond levy passed because it made sense;
it was for truly necessary expenditures and it did not raise annual tax bills.
Will the district be able to say the same of
the upcoming levy(s), which will be needed to pay the increased salary and
benefit costs (now at 87% of the budget and rising) that will be negotiated in
the new union contract? (This question should be considered carefully by both
the district and the unions.)
To his credit, Dr. Ottolenghi correctly
acknowledges that our district (and many others) made a "policy decision" many
years ago, to "rapidly advance the salaries of younger teachers" for the first
half of their careers. This is the same policy that raises teacher pay so
rapidly and so high that we are now spending $1.6-million in retirement
incentives to beg our experienced teachers (some with as little as 20 years) to
leave because we can no longer afford the salaries that were approved.
Is it unreasonable, then, to reconsider the
large and growing financial impact of that policy decision, and ask the
question: "Are we raising salaries so rapidly and so high, that our community
can no longer afford them?"
John Herrington, EducateWorthington
Remember negotiations when district asks for levy
The Worthington City School District is
preparing to start negotiating a new contract with the teachers' union, as the
current agreement will expire in a few months. To my knowledge, there has been
little or no communication with area taxpayers of the pending negotiations or
how the school board intends to handle demands from the union representatives.
I believe we all know that the teachers union
fights to get every possible benefit for the teachers, whether it's salary,
benefits or other concessions from the district's schools. Let us not be
mistaken, a pay increase or more benefits will provide a better education for
our children. But if the teachers or their union claim the education they
provide will diminish without a raise, then we have employed the wrong teachers
in the Worthington school district.
I personally have many concerns with the
upcoming negotiations, the first being that I don't believe the district
currently has the money to offer increases in salary or benefits. In a recent
meeting, school board members projected a financial deficit in the near future
and the need for an additional levy. Another concern is I have heard that
instead of members of the board of education negotiating with the teachers
union, they plan to hire an outside group to negotiate with the teachers union.
If we actually face upcoming financial concerns, why would we spend additional
money to hire an outside group to negotiate a new contract?
Per Jeff McCuen, district treasurer, the
average teacher's salary in the Worthington school district is already $66,000
and the family health benefits currently cost taxpayers $1,132 per month with
the teachers only paying $75 for their coverage. During the last levy request,
the board president advised us that salaries made up 85 percent of the district
expenses, and now Mr. McCuen has stated that salaries have taken another 2
percent of the district's money. If teachers are provided an additional
increase, plus the step increases already in place, will salary and benefits be
90 percent of the district's total budget in 2009?
In the 20-plus years I have lived in the
Worthington school district, I believe there was only one time that the teachers
and district employees did not get a salary increase. With our slow economy,
many fear a national recession, and while our state and local governments are
struggling with their finances, it's time for the teachers union to accept the
fact they already have an excellent salary and benefit package. There is really
is no need to request or negotiate for more than what is currently provided.
Finally, I and several other local residents have expressed concerns that if the
board of education asks the public for an additional levy after providing
additional salary and or benefits to teachers and other district employees, it
should expect that request to fail.
Ed Parsons
Herrington doesn't tell full story on teacher pay
Thursday, April 24, 2008
To educate is to bring to the fore all the
different components that affect a given situation, while to propagandize is
to highlight only those items that serve to advance a given position. And
so, it is as propaganda that one should view the recent letter by John
Herrington of Educate Worthington.
Mr. Herrington correctly acknowledges that
competitive compensation makes sense in attracting and retaining teachers,
and goes on to point out that the Olentangy school district is an excellent
school district, doing so with lower pay and benefits. Unfortunately, Mr.
Herrington does not tell the full story.
In Worthington a policy decision was made
many years ago, for competitive reasons, to rapidly advance the salary of
younger teachers with a virtual flattening at 14 years of service. Olentangy
younger teachers have lower salaries but catch up and surpass Worthington
teachers after about 20 years. Under the Olentangy salary schedule, a
teacher with a BA+45 credits and 25 years of service (the top of their
schedule) has a salary 3.5% greater than a similarly situated Worthington
teacher. Thus, the relative impact of the salary schedules is dependent on
staff demographics. Differences are not static and will fluctuate depending
on staff longevity.
Equally dependent on the age of the staff
is the cost of health care benefits. The younger the staff, the lower the
cost of health care. In this case, the tradeoff is the greater incidence of
illness in an older staff vs. the maternity expenses of a younger pool. The
ideal (least expensive) pool would be a staff young enough to not be prone
to serious health problems and old enough to be beyond child-bearing age.
Worthington has one of the oldest staffs in the state.
Staff longevity and health care are also
factors in the willingness of staff to retire. After the 2000-2002 financial
downturn, STRS greatly reduced the non-statutory health care benefits for
retirees. Thus, it became attractive for staff to continue teaching until
reaching Medicare eligibility for both member and dependent spouse.
Finally, Mr. Herrington mentions the
failure of the 2006 levy but does not mention the successful passage of the
2007 bond issue, which essentially shifted many costs (approximately
$11-million) from the "pay as you go" general fund to the "credit card" bond
fund. Nor does Mr. Herrington mention that with the WEA's cooperation,
changes were made in health care provisions, changes that resulted in
decreasing health care costs.
In these economic conditions, negotiations
are difficult for all and with the 800-pound health care gorilla in the room
they will be even more so. It is important that residents become fully aware
of the circumstances and forces impacting the process.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
Union Contracts Drive Costs
It comes as no surprise that Worthington
residents will be asked to support a school levy within the next year. With
this in mind, Educate Worthington (educateworthington.org) would like to
share a few thoughts at the outset.
To start with, we accept that district
costs will increase over time, and that there will be future levy needs.
Given this reality, the only remaining question is “How large and how
often?”
In answering this question, it is vitally
important to recognize two simple facts. First, the frequency and size of
all future levies will be determined primarily by the rate of increase in
district spending. Second, salaries and benefits account for 87% of all
district costs, and these costs are driven by the union contracts that the
board will soon negotiate. The key point here, yet one you will never hear
in a levy campaign, is that the union contract drives spending, and
therefore, the union contract drives our levy needs.
For a perspective on spending; from 1995
to 2005 district costs increased by an average of 4.35% per year. During
this same time student enrollment steadily declined and real earnings of
Worthington residents fell (according to the Center for Community
Solutions). The 4.35% rise in spending significantly outpaced
inflation...not due to increases in the number of students, buildings, or
teachers, but primarily due to increases in salary and benefit costs.
With that said, Worthington residents
should not be concerned with past spending, but with future spending.
Unfortunately, based on district projections we should all be very concerned
with future spending. Why?
Because despite successful district
efforts to control other expenses, our rapidly rising salary and benefit
costs have the budget growing much faster than in the past...nearly 6% per
year, or 33% over the next five years!
We cannot predict how many new levies it
will take to support an additional $33 million in annual spending by 2012,
but the district leadership can, and should, project this for the community.
More importantly, district leadership
should recognize that the upcoming contract negotiations are their ONLY real
opportunity to restrain the projected 6% yearly growth in spending. And that
the resulting contract will provide the answer to the perpetual levy
question, "How large and how often?"
The union contracts of the past brought us
to a level of spending and tax increases that the community was unable to
support in 2006, and that was predictable. If the union contracts of the
future do not significantly change this spending course, the outcome of
future levy requests may be predictable as well.
Finally, we have been told that no
district can attract and retain teachers without competitive compensation,
and that makes sense. Olentangy School District’s lower pay and benefits,
however, provide evidence that you don’t have to pay as much as we do to
attract and retain great teachers, and to rate as an “excellent” district.
John Herrington, EducateWorthington
Education should nurture enthusiasm for learning
To the Editor:
I write in response to Dennis Laycock's Feb. 13 column in the Worthington
News.
One of the things that stands in the way of education becoming what it must
is the absence of an overarching and widely accepted aim, and we tend to do what
we measure. Unfortunately, we measure what is easiest to measure, hence the
current wrong-headed emphasis on test scores which has precipitated little but
"teach to the test" practice and limited curriculum in our schools -- along with
a whole bunch of bored and uninspired students.
* Almost all schools in some way have a goal of creating life-long learners.
It sounds good, but there are virtually no efforts to measure whether schools
are successful in meeting this worthy goal. There are many measurable attributes
of life-long learners; few if any are actually measured purposefully and
longitudinally.
Another important goal is to preserve and nurture a love of learning in
students. We can also measure student enthusiasm for learning. Nevertheless, for
the most part we do it only casually and instinctively rather than precisely and
carefully. One school district that did measure student enthusiasm found that it
declined about 8 to 10 percent each year starting from kindergarten. As a
result, of course, by the end of high school we have only a very small
percentage of students who really enjoy the learning process and will continue
to pursue it absent some sort of extrinsic need or drive. This is archaic
industrial thinking applied in trump. And we wonder why the dropout rate is so
high.
On this matter of a greed aim -- showing my bias right up front -- much of
the business community gives educators the impression that the schools should be
primarily a pipeline for generating skilled workers who are otherwise (as to
politics, intellectual curiosity, etc.) rather docile. I have worked with
several business leaders who have gotten past that but, unfortunately, all too
few.
I believe the purpose of education is to preserve and nurture an abiding
enthusiasm for learning and an unending curiosity, and to first and foremost
guide students to make sense out of their current reality. How well we do that
will increase our chances of meeting a whole host of important but limited goals
such as developing skilled workers.
Students of all backgrounds, but particularly those most usually found in
inner cities or poor rural areas, have an abiding need to have education be
immediately relevant for their short term survival needs. This cannot be
overlooked or given short shift. Only when students appreciate the relevance of
their learning opportunities, and have their basic survival needs satisfied, can
the other legitimate purposes of education be addressed seriously.
Thanks for bringing up the topic, Mr. Laycock; it's an important one.
Bob Barkley
Taxpayers need to keep an eye on their schools' purse strings
Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:38 AM
As a local employee-benefit broker who for the
past 18 years has watched how school systems in Ohio negotiate for employee
benefits, I feel compelled to begin a public debate in response to the Nov. 8
Dispatch article, "Levies getting hard to pass."
It has been my experience that when school
systems fail to pass tax levies, the debate usually centers on certain expenses
to be cut. These tend to hurt the students, such as reducing faculty, charging
for or taking away certain sport activities or taking away extracurricular
activities such as field trips or the arts. There tends not to be a public
discussion regarding what could be a gold mine of opportunity to correct an
expense item that is out of line and inefficient.
Most school systems are influenced by the
collective-bargaining power that teacher unions use to keep their
health-insurance benefits rich. Not many school-system superintendents or school
boards have the power to counteract collective bargaining in this area. Rarely
has this item been a source of public debate.
If the taxpayers only knew how rich and how
expensive the health-insurance coverage is for schoolteachers, there would be a
public backlash against the teachers union.
It used to be that certain populations in the
work force were grossly underpaid and that rich benefits were used to attract
talent. Back in the 1970s, the cost of health insurance was not as much of a
factor. Over the past 10 years, the cost of health-insurance coverage has
tripled. Today, it might cost more than $10,000 per year per teacher, on
average, for health-insurance coverage.
Unlike most of the working class,
schoolteachers, on average, might pay for only 5 percent to 10 percent of the
cost of health coverage through payroll deductions. The rest of us pay, on
average, 30 percent of the cost of health coverage, and our benefits are less
rich. Teachers' co-pays for office visits and drugs are lower, deductibles are
lower or even nonexistent, their co-insurance is richer and their out-of-pocket
maximum exposure is lower than the rest of us.
As most of us pay more for less
health-insurance coverage every year, teachers have been insulated from that
experience, resulting in a huge disparity. Further, teachers have resisted some
of the basic cost-maintenance strategies such as health-and-wellness programs
and health-consumerism education.
Some help might be on the way, as over the
past several years there have been studies and recommendations on this issue
provided by collaborative efforts between representatives of Ohio schools
systems and Ohio government. However, outcomes of that effort have not yielded
mandates to cut health benefits. They have recommended optional best practices
to control the rising cost of health coverage, with no teeth if recommendations
are not met.
Not until the taxpayers in each school
district demand town-hall meetings where full disclosure of plan designs and
transparency on the cost of health insurance for teachers is revealed will there
be any movement on this issue. If corrective measures occur in this area for any
given school district, there could be a gold mine of resources that become
available to help students and to help avoid future tax levies.
At the end of the day, I believe the taxpayers
of each district are the boss, and they, in effect, sign the paychecks for
teachers who serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers.
Wake up, taxpayers. You have been signing a
blank check for too long as it pertains to schoolteacher health-insurance
benefits. It might be time to exert your power as the boss.
DANIEL S. ROBINS
Standardized tests never tell the whole story
To the Editor:
In response to Ms. Steffanie Haueisen Oct. 24
letter, I agree when she says all districts were given the same tests and that
the standards were equally applied. However, as a result, the Worthington, Upper
Arlington, Dublin, Olentangy and New Albany school districts all failed to meet
AYP due to their scores on the 5th and 8th grade social studies exams. If none
of these excellent school districts can meet AYP, then the standards that are
being applied are inappropriate and there is a fundamental problem with our
education accountability system.
Unless changes are made in the test or
standards, more than 20 other Central Ohio school districts will likely be
relegated to "continuous improvement" next year when state report cards are
issued. I cannot believe this means that the educational needs of substantially
all children in Central Ohio are not being met. We need an accountability system
that allows us to compare our students to those of other school districts. If
our children, when compared to children in other districts, score in the top 20
percent, I think our teachers are doing a pretty good job. The artificial
designations of "excellent," "effective" or otherwise are unhelpful in
describing the quality of education in any district.
I also agree with her that most districts
share the qualities of children who love their teachers and their school, which
is also to say that I believe most children in Central Ohio receive a high
quality education. Where you find children that don't love their teachers or
school, you will also find poor performance.
Standardized tests provide valuable
information, but don't necessarily demonstrate that our schools are preparing
happy, healthy children who are excited about leaning for the rest of their
lives.
Geoffrey P. Scott
----
Educate Worthington wonders, “Does it really
matter who is elected to the school board this year?”….especially for the 62% of
Worthington residents who do NOT have children in our schools? Maybe not, but
let’s take a closer look.
The Worthington Schools is the second largest
employer in the district, and plans to spend $107 million of your tax dollars
this year, on the extremely worthy cause of educating this community’s children,
America’s next generation.
Fair enough, and we hope the school board
members use our money wisely, to provide the greatest possible opportunity for
our children, as advocating for the students and the residents should be their
primary mission.
The difficulty comes when we realize that $93
million of this year’s budget has already been spent. It was earmarked for staff
salaries and benefits two years ago, when the board negotiated the last 3-year
union contracts, which drive 87% of our annual budget.
For an example of how this last contract
didn’t work out quite as planned, consider health insurance. In a nutshell, the
district offered much larger raises (which are permanent) in exchange for much
lower health insurance costs (which are proving to be temporary).
This year’s health insurance costs rose by
28%, an increase of $2.5 million dollars. (This was $500,000 higher than the
lowest comparable bid, but it was the bid recommended by a committee of school
district staff, and approved by the board.)
This $2.5 million dollars is money not
available for student programs or services, but officially committed to our
valued district staff two years ago, when we negotiated the last 3-year union
contract.
And by the way, the district now predicts
salary and benefit costs rising from $93 million this year, to $117 million for
2011, up by $24 million in just four years. (You don’t even want to know how
much new levy millage would be required to support that.)
For this, and other important reasons, Educate
Worthington (educateworthington.org) respectfully submits the following
suggestions for next year’s school board, whoever they may be:
As you will be solely responsible for
negotiating a new union contract this year, we suggest that a 3-year contract
may simply be too long. Things change. Stuff happens. No one can predict the
future, and it is unwise to make commitments today, that will limit your ability
to make the best decisions for students and taxpayers in the future.
In addition, we ask that you seriously
consider whether the community will accept the $24 million per year increase in
salary and benefit costs projected for 2011, which will add no new teachers and
no new programs for our students. (The contracts we negotiate now will determine
whether this large increase becomes a reality or not.)
In closing, it may not matter a great deal who
is on the school board next year, but what really does matter is who they best
represent once they are there.
If the board members aggressively represent
the students, who deserve the greatest possible educational opportunities, and
the residents, who deserve the most cost-effective education, maybe the district
will re-gain the “trust” of community members who may feel they are not well
represented today.
Educate Worthington would like to see that
happen. In fact, consider Worthington’s future if we became known as the
community with the best and most cost-effective public education in central
Ohio. Would that be beneficial to the long-term health of the Worthington
community? Would that increase the demand for people wanting to call Worthington
“home”? We think that it would. And we would like to see that happen, too.
Mike Alfred, Educate Worthington
-----
Best school board candidates don't receive union support
Two points regarding the Worthington school
board race:
1.) Many of us sincerely hope that no
candidate will accept endorsement, PAC contributions or paid advertisements
from either employee unions. With teacher contract negotiations coming up in
January, this community needs a school board which will actually negotiate in
the process, representing the community, not just rubber stamp the union
demands, which has been the norm in the past. The recent health-care plan
recommendation is typical of unsustainable union demands. Our community
deserves a negotiated contract representative of our actual ability to support
it.
2) In a September letter to the editor,
school board candidate Geoffrey P. Scott decried the "continuous improvement"
grade the Worthington Schools recently received from the State Department of
Education. He seems to believe that this rating was only due to the style of
state testing and system of labeling. This is a very sad comment.
All school districts in the state were
equally tested. The fact that Worthington fell short of equally applied
standards, whether you agree with them or not, should be addressed, not
repudiated. School districts today have hugely diverse learning-style and
multilingual pupil populations; a challenging situation to say the least. But,
Worthington Schools, as do other districts, have to figured out how to serve
these pupils. Mr. Scott's standards of school excellence, "my son is excited
to go to school ... loves his teachers ..." are not those which are tested
and, frankly, are qualities most schools also have. What we need from a school
board member is someone who is not satisfied with "status quo" as is Mr.
Scott, but rather someone who will see to it that our schools can, and must,
do better for all our students.
Steffanie Haueisen
Board
Approval of 'Cadillac' health care plan a mistake
I am writing in response to the article
"Health plan fires up board member;' from the Sept. 26 edition of the
Worthington News. I think school board member Marc Schare is exactly with his
statements in this article. It is unbelievable to me that the school board can
approve a near 30 percent increase in the cost of health insurance for the
employees of the district while the cost paid by the employees themselves is
such a tiny amount. It seems to me that there are two starting points to reduce
the cost for the district. First, have the employees pay a larger percentage of
the premium cost especially the family premium.
Second, switch to the another health insurance
company that can provide similar coverage at a lower premium cost. My family is
fortunate enough to have wonderful health insurance benefits through an
employer. We pay more than $300 per month for these benefits; that is the
employee share of the cost. Why on earth should the Worthington taxpayers
subsidize, at such a high rate, the cost of health insurance for the employees
of the district? The employees of the district deserve to have high quality
health insurance available for their purchase. However, it is unrealistic and
insulting to taxpayers to ask us to absorb the rising cost of the health
insurance while the employees pay so little. There is no way that this taxpayer
would ever vote for a future levy that is meant to continue to fund the rising
cost of health insurance so that the employees can continue to pay such a small
amount. The employees need to pay their fair share.
In the last few weeks Attorney General Marc
Dann has made two opinions that have impacted the bottom line for the district.
The school district is no longer permitted to collect tuition money for the
students attending the Metro High School or for the children attending all day
kindergarten. The loss of the kindergarten tuition money could cost the district
over $500,000. It seems to me that the school board members made a poor choice
in approving the contract renewal with UnitedHealthcare when at the same time
they knew of the tuition collection change.
Laura Peveler
Health
Plan Approval Showed Disregard for Taxpayers
Do you ever shop around for insurance for
your home or car just to be sure you are getting the best rate? After doing
so, do you typically decide to go with the highest bidder? I doubt it, but
that is just what the Worthington School District decided to do at last
Monday's school board meeting.
It's not that they didn't take the time to
get comparable quotes for the employee health insurance plan. In fact, they
have an insurance committee of district employees who worked for months to
gather the information, before advising the board to approve the highest
bidder for health insurance.
Who in the world picks the highest bid out
there for similar coverage? Only someone who is not spending his own money.
Such is the case here, where neither the insurance committee, nor the school
board, are spending their own money.
Surprisingly, it appears that only one board
member, Marc Schare, even raised any questions about the committee's unusual
advice to spend an extra $450,000.00 this year by selecting the highest
bidder. And while he suggested further study by the board, he had to accept
that the timing of the committee's recommendation allowed no opportunity to
delay the vote.
Thus, the board has granted the request of
the district employees-who fill every seat on the insurance committee-while
ignoring the interests of the students and taxpayers, who have NO seats on the
insurance committee.
And while this questionable decision is now
history, keep this example in mind as you vote on two new school board members
in November. Watch and listen closely to what they say and do.
Will Worthington elect board members who
will aggressively represent the interests of our students and residents, or
candidates who will favor individuals who are already very well represented by
their unions?
It does matter, because the best interests
of the students and the residents of Worthington deserve to be represented,
don't they?
Jill Alfred
Micromanaging is a problem
Even excellent school districts like
Worthington can improve, and if there is one thing I would like to change is the
board's habit of micromanaging the administrative team. I attended the Sept. 10
board meeting, and even though it was a light agenda and there were no comments
from the public, the meeting lasted nearly 3 hours and went well past 10 p.m.
The meeting was dominated by board members questioning administrators about the
decisions made in the course and scope of their regularly assigned duties.
Board meetings of this nature and that last
late into the night are not welcoming to the public and are a powerful deterrent
to public participation. Although long meetings are sometimes necessary, I
believe a board member must be respectful of the public's limited time. The
district is stronger when the public attends board meetings because they are
more engaged and knowledgeable of the issues. The public will attend if the
Board focuses on the "big picture" policy issues and not on administrative
minutia. Certainly, administrative matters must be addressed, but the board
meeting is not a forum where board members should compete over who has the best
grasp over daily administrative details.
We have a talented and experienced team of
professional administrators who are ably supervised by our superintendent. If a
board member believes an administrator could have made a better decision, he
should not circumvent the chain of command by cross-examining the administrator
at a public meeting, but instead discuss his concerns with their supervisor, the
superintendent. The unending series of questions for administrators undercuts
the superintendent's authority and makes for long, unproductive meetings. Most
importantly, it distracts the Board from fulfilling its proper function; that of
setting high-level, educational policy for the school district.
The board appeared to acknowledge its tendency
to micromanage at the Sept. 24 meeting, which resulted in a more productive
meeting.
Geoffrey P. Scott
Worthington school board candidate
Dann chastised for doing his job
I have been reading with much interest, and, I
must confess, some level of amusement, the reporting of the circumstances
surrounding the K+ and Metro school affairs. It seems strange that Worthington
school board members Schare and David Bressman saw fit to chastise Attorney
General Marc Dann for doing his job. Having arrived at a finding, what was Dann
supposed to do? Sit on the opinions until the end of the year? To clear the
question of timing it might be useful to determine when the request for the
opinions was made.
The issue of whether districts could charge
parents for consumable materials came up in the late '80s-early '90s, when the
practice started. Likewise the legality of "pay to play" emerged when districts
found it necessary to do so. In both cases it was deemed that charging is
permissible and does not violate the concept of a "free public education." It
was deemed that co-curricular activities are not a component of "basic
education," per se.
Unless things have changed since the '80s, it
has been a well-established principle in case law that boards of education can
only do that which is expressly authorized by the General Assembly. It would
thus seem that it was the General Assembly, which should have been aware of the
precedent, that was remiss by not giving authorization for the charges when it
enacted the K+ program as an option for districts.
Under those circumstances, perhaps what is the
strangest pronouncement came from state Sen. Steve Stivers, who in referring to
the "specific authorization" requirement, has been quoted (Gongwer News Service,
Volume No. 76, Report No. 190, Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007) as saying: "That's a
very Communist view of the world -- unless the government will let you do
something, you can't do it." Perhaps, according to Sen. Stivers, following the
law should be seen as "subversive." Maybe that explains why the legislature has
been ignoring the deRolph decision regarding over-reliance on property taxes to
fund education in Ohio.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
Worthington schools can be proud of two leaders
Thursday, September 27, 2007
In the past I've been quick to be critical of
the board and superintendent when they've chosen to spend poorly and not make
good decisions with taxpayer money (the Liberty/Sutter delayed merger is but one
example).
I would like to commend the leadership of
Melissa Conrath as she's proven to be more than capable in leading this district
and maintaining our high standards. She is an outside-the-box-thinker who is not
afraid to make the right decision for both the kids and long-term health of our
school district.
In addition, Marc Schare has been a tremendous
asset to the board. He has brought an unmatched fiscal oversight and the ability
to hold accountable those who would choose to spend our tax dollars frivolously.
Marc is indeed one member of this board we should all desire to keep in place in
order to maintain the oversight needed for proper fiscal accountability.
Together, these two are helping lead the way
toward building community trust, as they partner with us to educate our children
to the highest standards.
Jose Cannon
Westerville
System
used to rate district's progress can be deceiving
Thursday, September 6, 2007
I don't presume to speak for the Worthington
City Schools, but here's my take on what to learn from the recent alleged
decline in the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) rating of the district.
First, it's largely a sham and extremely
misleading. The scores for our district are almost all better than ever - and in
all categories.
Second, the scores are improving despite our
community make-up changing significantly. Consequently, a one-size-fits-all
approach to structure, curriculum, and instruction will no longer be sufficient.
Our district leadership appears to know that or the scores wouldn't be
improving. District leaders will likely continue to take steps to address our
changing demographics. But along with changes in approaches to teaching and
learning, it will take additional resources to do this well.
Third, before becoming alarmed at the
announced decline, people must become informed about the system being applied to
determine all this. ... While on one hand this system raises awareness of a
legitimate issue of the varying needs of a diverse population, on the other hand
it ignores so basic a factor as whether we are measuring the right things and in
the right way. ...
Educators are and should be accountable for
identifying, understanding deeply, and applying those practices that produce the
highest level of student achievement for the most students. The leaders of the
system are accountable for creating an environment that enables the
identification, sharing, understanding and application of those practices. ...
Worthington is a good school district. But the
one result of this little wake-up call may be the fact that being good is often
the biggest barrier to becoming great. To become great, indeed even to stay
good, this community will have to come together and recognize that its public
school system is its most important investment.
Bob Barkley
Worthington
Pulled Statewide
Education Proposal Undemocratic
To the Editor:
Mr. Bob Barkely in his letter ("Proposed
amendment is better than what exists," July 4, Worthington News) encourages the
public to read the proposed school funding amendment to determine its merits.
One section of the amendment provides, "the
General Assembly shall deposit...sufficient funds...to ensure a High Quality
Public Education...as determined by the State Board of Education."
This language delegates the spending of
billions of dollars from our elected representatives to the 19-member State
Board of Education. However, the real decision-making won't be made by the
State Board of Education . Instead it will make funding decisions based
upon the recommendations of a newly created, unelected, nine-member "Education
Accountability Commission," and will make policy decisions based upon the
recommendations of a newly created, unelected, 18-member "Education Advisory
Commission."
This is bureaucratic morass that insulates
elected officials from accountability and eliminates meaningful public input to
the process. It is not a democratic solution to our school funding
problems. Furthermore, if the General Assembly won't comply with the state
school board's determination, the amendment creates an expedited appeal process
to put the question right back in front of the Ohio Supreme Court.
The General Assembly has blithely ignored the
Court thus far. Why should we believe that it will change in the future?
These decisions should be made by our elected representatives, whether they be
at the state or local level.
If we don't like their decisions, we elect new
representatives. If the General Assembly can't solve the problem, we pull
this decision down to local, elected school boards. We should not put the
power to decide these questions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
Although the backers have pulled the amendment
from the 2007 ballot due to a lack of support, they promise to push for the 2008
ballot. Read the amendment and decide whether it reflects our democratic
values and really is better than what we currently have.
Geoffrey P. Scott
Amendment
not fair to high income communities
Amendment
is an improvement
Geoffrey Scott (in a letter published in
another newspaper) states that the proposed constitutional amendment designed to
address Ohio's unconstitutional, inequitable and conceptually flawed school
funding system is bad for Worthington. In a sense he may even be correct in the
short run -- but only if you believe Worthington is now an island.
As many recognize, this proposed amendment is
not perfect, just vastly better than what exists now.
The proposed amendment was borne out of the
long-standing frustration of the entire public education community. That
included both professionals who work in the system and the citizens who support
the fundamental concept of universal public education. And universal public
education means caring about and supporting more than Worthington students,
although Scott apparently doesn't accept that notion.
Because so many were involved in crafting the
proposed amendment, it came out looking a bit like the old adage of a camel
being a horse put together by a committee. But there are advantages to having a
camel if you have no horse. So rather than stay on foot when a ride is what's
needed, many of us signed on to push the amendment to the ballot.
I hope this amendment won't be necessary if
our new governor is successful in stimulating responsible action from our
long-time stubborn and incompetent legislature. It has held Ohio's students
hostage for many years now. And this is the same legislature in which Scott
claims we should have more confidence. Apparently he believes in miracles.
He also suggests that the amendment would
delegate decisions to professionals (rather than to amateurs, I gather) and to
political appointees "unencumbered by the interests and input of the
public." Read the amendment for yourselves. He has seriously exaggerated
what it says.
He at least suggests an alternative,
impractical as it is. He wants to make public education strictly a local matter
where each community is on its own. That, of course, would violate the state
constitution....
Bob Barkley
Worthington
A
'blank check' depends on how you look at it
I respond to Abramo Ottolenghi's letter to the
editor dated May 3. In his letter, Dr. Ottolenghi opines that the proposed
school funding constitutional amendment does not require an open ended
commitment on the part of the Ohio Taxpayer to finance whatever strikes the
fancy of the State Board of Education, otherwise known as the educational blank
check, and he cites 4 reasons for this belief.
First, he discusses the new Education
Accountability Commission. Unfortunately, this body is responsible only for
producing reports and analysis to help the State Board of Education determine
the size of the blank check.
Second, he discusses the Education Advisory
Commission. The role of this body is to help the State Board of Education
determine the components of the high quality education promised by the amendment
and as such, also serves in an advisory capacity to help the State Board of
Education determine the size of the blank check.
Third, he cites the State Board itself, the
people who would be responsible for determining the dollar amount written on the
blank check. Unlike the general assembly, this body will not be weighing
competing budgetary priorities such as Medicaid, Health and Human Services, the
Environment and Public Safety, just to name a few. The State Board will be
concerned with education and only with education. If they determine that
70-percent of Ohio's budget should be for K-12 education, constitutionally, the
legislature will have no choice but to fund everything else out of the remaining
30-percent. If that requires sharp cuts in other services, that would be a
problem for the general assembly.
Fourth, Dr. Ottolenghi points to the
legislative override provision, however, the legislature cannot override the
educational components as determined by the State Board of Education, it can
merely debate the cost of those components and it requires a supermajority to
even do that. For example, if the State Board of Education determines that a
trip to Russia is a component of a high quality education, the legislative
override provision allows a debate over whether the trip should cost $3000 or
$5000, but not whether the trip is required.
In his letter, Dr. Ottolenghi does not and
cannot cite one provision in the amendment that shows that by implementing this
proposal, Ohio taxpayers are not making an open ended commitment, devoid of the
normal checks and balances, to fund K-12 education and are assuming the
responsibility to pay whatever income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes are
required to make good on the open ended commitment.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what I say about
the amendment or what proponents such as Dr. Ottolenghi say about the amendment.
The only thing that matters is what is written in the amendment itself.
Interested Worthington residents should take a few minutes to read the actual
proposal. It's only 5 pages long but the consequences of voter apathy on such
destructive legislation will be severe and long lasting. Residents can read the
amendment on my web site at www.mschare.com.
The Worthington Board of Education will be
providing an opportunity for community engagement on this topic. We will be
hosting Mr. Jim Betts, a strong advocate of the constitutional amendment, on May
21 at a special time of 6 p.m. and we have set aside time specifically for him
to take questions from the community. All residents are invited and encouraged
to come to this informative event.
Marc Schare, Dublin
Voters can decide if it's a 'blank check'
Educate Worthington's primary mission is to
inform citizens with accurate information about aspects of public education
that they may not understand, or where they may have heard only one side of
the story. This way, residents can weigh all of the evidence and make fully
informed decisions about the education priorities they are asked to support
with their hard earned dollars.
Recently we offered our concerns regarding
the proposed amendment to "fix" Ohio's school funding. We appear to have
raised the ire of local "education advocates" who support the amendment while
also admitting that it is "not perfect".
In our analysis, we pointed out that the
cost of public education would likely increase. We also noted that Ohio's
unionized teachers were the amendment's largest group of supporters and that
they would likely receive most of the additional money (since union negotiated
compensation drives the vast majority of public education spending).
Our critics did not contest these
assertions, but they strongly denied our characterization of the amendment as
a "blank check" from Ohio residents. On this point, Ohioans should be the
judge: What do you call it when you sign a check with the amount left blank,
and anyone other than you fills in the amount you are responsible to pay? This
is what the amendment requires: we approve the amendment and then someone else
eventually tells us exactly who has to pay, and how much.
While these previous points are significant,
perhaps our most important argument was that this union supported "solution"
focuses primarily on revenue, with no consideration for controlling expenses.
Is this how responsible people and
businesses solve a financial crisis - by ignoring the possibility that rising
expenses may have helped to cause the crisis? And by ignoring the certainty
that reducing expenses would help to solve it?
We think these are questions worth asking,
while the unions and "education advocates" supporting this amendment do not.
In fact, some state quite clearly that cost is "not relevant" to the
discussion of Ohio's school funding issue.
We couldn't disagree more.
Our critics claim we have offered no
"responsible alternative," but consider this local example:
One year ago, Worthington's "education
advocates" predicted "irreparable harm" if Worthington's May 2006 levy did not
pass. At the same time, they seemed unconcerned with the district's prediction
that an additional and larger levy would be needed in 2008 in order to sustain
rapidly rising labor costs, while providing no new programs, and while
teaching fewer students with fewer staff.
Apparently, a large majority of Worthington
voters could not support this spending plan, despite our community's well
known support of our students and our schools.
Since then, the leadership in Worthington
has done an admirable job of "rethinking" business as usual and due to a
number of favorable factors it has suggested that we may not need an operating
levy until 2009. And all while avoiding the usual painful "cuts" that hurt
students and scare voters. In fact, the new middle school option, the Phoenix
School, is evidence of just the opposite; that of new opportunities for
students, without new costs.
Perhaps the same scrutiny can be applied to
the hundreds of school districts across the state.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
"Insanity" is clearly too strong a term, but Ohio, its leaders and its
residents, have accepted the "more money will solve it" and the "cost is not
relevant" perspectives of the unions and the "education advocates" many times
in the past.
Considering that this has brought a dramatic
increase in the cost of public education for Ohio residents, with no similar
increase in achievement for Ohio students, maybe this is why even Gov. Ted
Strickland is unwilling to openly support the proposed "solution."
In fact, maybe taking the advice of the
unions and "education advocates" isn't always in the best interests of the
students and residents of Ohio after all.
John Herrington
Educate Worthington
Getting issue on ballot has been goal all
along
Last week I was thrilled when I read that Mr. John Herrington of "Educate
Worthington" believes that the voters should decide on the proposed
constitutional amendment designed to reform how public education is funded in
Ohio.
Voters will not have such an opportunity unless the issue is placed on the
ballot. Placing the issue on the November ballot is what I and others have been
pushing for.
Thus, I hope that Mr. Herrington and others who believe in giving citizens
the opportunity to decide this important issue with their vote will sign a
petition and join those of us who are collecting the signatures necessary for
the issue to be voted on in November.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
'Blank
check' argument just doesn't hold up
One of the most trusted techniques used to
have an untenable argument accepted is to repeat it over and over again. So
it is with the "blank check to the State Board of Education"
refrain heard from Marc Schare and other opponents of the education funding
amendment presently circulating for signatures. This argument ignores the
actual provisions of the amendment.
Currently the General Assembly legislates
desired outcomes and the State Board of Education directs how they are to be
achieved. Then, the school districts are left to do the best they can to
implement the mandates. A recent example of such a practice is the
"Ohio Core" curriculum. There are no funds attached to the
laboratory- based science portion mandate. At best there is only a tenuous
connection between the funds allocated by the General Assembly and its
mandates. The amendment will make the General Assembly responsible for
funding its mandates.
The amendment contemplates four levels of
input and control in the determination of the components needed for the
education of a student and of their costs:
a) a nine-member Education Accountability
Commission appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the
President of the Senate;
b) an eighteen-member Education Advisory
Commission appointed by the State Board of Education;
c) next, the State Board of Education, in
conjunction with the two above- mentioned commissions, would determine the
components of the mandated educational program and certify to the General
Assembly the projected costs for its funding;
d) finally, a "legislative
override" provision, which states that by a three-fifths vote the
Legislature can determine alternate costs of "...essentially the same
components, programs and services as determined by the State Board of
Education..."
A fifth element, although not appearing in
the amendment, is presently available: the governor's line-item veto. Thus
there are controls in expenditures and,. Therefore, no "blank
check."
I never said, as Mr. Share continues to
hold, that costs do not matter: they simply are not a part of the amendment
itself. Costs projections will reflect the legislative mandates and the
deliberations of the three bodies mentioned above.
Mr. Schare's concern about the worth of
the property tax discount offered to senior citizens is overstated. Not to
worry. Some erosion might occur but not as much as Mr. Schare would have one
believe. The amendment contemplates an annual adjustment of the discount
which would probably mitigate most of the upward movement due to the
triennial reappraisal. Short-lived for any one individual? Of course. The
mortality tables and obituary pages tell us so. Any impact of rising income
and/or sale taxes will depend on individual wealth and income circumstances.
Finally, Mr. Schare takes exception to my
saying that he opposes the current teacher retirement system by saying that
he only questioned its existence. Raising the question in the context of
this discussion is tantamount to "offering" a cost-cutting option
that, if opportune, should be resolved in statute (where the provisions are
now) and is thus irrelevant to a constitutional change.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
Don't
give a blank check to state board
I respond to Abramo Ottolenghi's
letter to the editor about the need to reform Ohio's school funding and his
belief that the proposed constitutional amendment is the way to accomplish this.
Dr. Ottolenghi reveals the sharp
ideological differences between my position and his with his characterization of
the costs associated with K-12 education in Ohio as "not relevant"
when discussing the constitutional amendment. It seems clear that proponents of
the amendment agree with Dr. Ottolenghi that costs are irrelevant, as this
belief is imbedded in their proposal that literally hands a blank check, signed
by the Ohio taxpayer, over to the State Board of Education.
While the amendment language is
complex and very nuanced, the concept is simple. The state board will determine
how much a high-quality education costs and the general assembly will be
constitutionally obligated to provide the funds, regardless of the impact on
taxpayers, the state economy, other state services or anything else. If you
believe that it is a good idea to give a blank check to the state board of
education, fully understanding that your income taxes, sales taxes and local
property taxes will all increase by whatever amount that body determines it
needs to raise, than you should sign the petition and vote for the amendment.
If you believe that costs do matter,
that excessive taxation is harmful to the state economy and that simply throwing
additional billions of dollars at Ohio's K-12 education bureaucracy with no
other changes is not the best approach to solving Ohio's K-12 education
problems, vote no. It really is that simple.
Two other aspects of Dr. Ottolenghi's
letter are noteworthy. First, Dr. Ottolenghi falsely accuses me of linking the
amendment to teacher compensation and "attacking teacher retirement and
health care benefits." I attacked nothing; I merely asked the rhetorical
question of why school employees are exempt from Social Security and have a far
better retirement and benefits plan than the people who pay for those plans. I
didn't propose eliminating them, I merely questioned why they existed, but in
Dr. Ottolenghi's world where costs are irrelevant, perhaps simple questioning of
the rationale behind two of the major cost drivers in K-12 education constitutes
an attack.
It is ironic that Dr. Ottolenghi
discloses that he would be able to take advantage of the new property tax
exemption for senior citizens. His joy will be short-lived because the amendment
also replaces property tax increases that you vote on with property tax
increases that are automatic, so every three years, as your house value
increases, so will your school taxes -- automatically.
I would urge Abramo to put his
exemption savings in the bank because with the automatic property tax increases,
the local levy requirements to fund Worthington schools through 2015 and the
sharp, immediate increases in the state income tax and the state sales tax that
will be needed to pay for the amendment, he's going to need it.
Marc Schare
Dublin
School-funding opponents offer no responsible alternative
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Ohio's constitution says that Ohio is to implement "a
thorough and efficient system of common schools." At least one Worthington
board member apparently interprets "thorough" to end at the borders of the
Worthington City School District....Yes, our board's first responsibility is
to our own district. But it has a larger responsibility as well. And that
larger responsibility is to uphold the state's constitution. This requires
that it also understand and consider conditions in Meigs County and Perry
County and Cleveland and Dayton, etc.
The other side of that responsibility requires taking the
word "efficient" at face value too. Waste at any level or in any aspect of
the system is unacceptable. But the constitution doesn't call for a "an
occasionally good and relatively cheap system of mediocre schools."
We are in the throws of many years of this state's
declining economy due in large measure to regressive views on education.
There is little that would boost our state's economy more than a world-class
education system that this amendment might just help us attain.
I spent my entire career involved in public education. My
biases are there for all to see. However, along with those biases comes a
wide and varied knowledge base about what is happening - and not happening -
in schools across this state and this nation. The inequities and
inadequacies that abound are embarrassing. I also know up front the many
problems that exist. They originate in every corner of the system. But no
greater source of these problems exists than those fostered by policy makers
and amateurish elected officials who do not accept the fundamental
legitimacy of a system of public schools - one that serves well all our
nation's young people.
Jonathon Boyd, our district's treasurer, thankfully
countered this board member's short-sighted perspective. Boyd clearly
articulated a more reasoned and responsible perspective. Hopefully the rest
of our board will display this broader and more wholesome vision. Ohio will
not be successful either educationally or economically by maintaining the
wide disparities that now exist outside the relatively privileged
Worthingtons of the world. That means we in Worthington will pay out more
than we get directly in return. Those who disagree need to be refreshed
about the roots of the American commitment to public education and what all
that means.
I suspect the next shot will be across the bow of teacher
unions. That is often the route of those holding a regressive ideological
bent. Currently these critics either don't know, or can't accept, that the
amendment against which they harangue is the child primarily of our state's
associations of school boards and school management professionals.
Many who oppose this proposed amendment offer no
responsible progressive alternative. Hopefully Worthington's voters will
become better informed and more visionary than are those currently opposing
this amendment.
Bob Barkley
Worthington
Ottolenghi disagrees with Schare's position
It is unfortunate that Worthington school board member
Marc Schare chose to base his opposition to the proposed state school
funding amendment on an issue that was neither contemplated by the deRolph
decision, which found the present funding system unconstitutional, nor is it
addressed in the amendment itself. In the statement published on his
personal Web site at http://www.mschare. com/speeches/s040907.htm , Schare
states: "First, there is no discussion or mention of costs". Not relevant.
The Supreme Court left the issue of costs to the General Assembly. It
declared the system of funding unconstitutional on the basis of inequality
and over-reliance on property taxes. It is to his credit that Schare
acknowledges that "...some of this presentation is opinion and some is
ideology."
In the recently released report by Achieve Inc., under the
sponsorship of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and entitled "Creating
a World-Class Educational system in Ohio," one can read: (Pg 53) "...but it
is well established that Ohio's school funding system is broken." and
"...Ohio should also simplify and redesign its funding formula to account
for the true costs of efficiently educating each student to the level of the
new standards. Ohio should then reform its tax system to deliver the funding
for the redesigned formula to each school on a predictable and stable basis.
The two most important things this tax reform must accomplish are: 1) to
increase stability by reducing the number of local levies that districts
must ask for each year and 2) to reduce inequalities in district revenue.
This will inevitably involve a stronger role for the state. Finally, Ohio
should establish a process to periodically update and revise its formula."
This is precisely what the amendment is designed to do.
Also irrelevant to the amendment is Schare's linking it to
teacher compensation. Teacher compensation certainly influences how much is
spent but not how it is raised. Schare attacks teacher retirement and health
care benefits. In this he echoes the position of "Educate Worthington,"
which also objects to teacher salaries and raises. These are issues that are
best addressed at board and legislative elections or in another amendment.
They are not present in the amendment in question.
It is important to note that according to Schare's
statement, levies will be needed in the Worthington school district in both
2008 and 2011, whether the amendment passes or not. Certainly those levies
can be structured not as continuing, but rather as temporary, so as to
maintain the district's quality during the six years the phase-in time
contemplated in the amendment.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must add that
because of our senior citizen status, Joan and I would benefit immediately
from the property tax cut embedded in the amendment.
Signing the petition to put the amendment on the 2007
ballot will insure that there will be the vigorous discussion necessary for
such an important and, in my opinion, long overdue proposal. There will be
short-term winners and losers, as there always are in these situations. I
intend to circulate the petition.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
Ohio’s school districts need to standardize fiscal data
Saturday, March 17, 2007
"The sky is falling," so sayeth the
coalition of Ohio school districts continuing to chant the mantra some 15
years after the DeRolph lawsuit first appeared. In what has seemingly become
an annual rite, proponents now clamor for a constitutional amendment.
Educators would do well to put their fiscal house in order first.
Education is in many respects akin to a
publicly owned corporation. Taxes and levies essentially constitute the stock
Ohioans purchase each year in the "company," the product being, hopefully,
young adults capable of succeeding economically and who advance society.
Publicly owned companies, however, must
abide by accounting and reporting standards. This data and reporting
uniformity enable investors to make valid comparisons between companies,
markets and products and, by extension, evaluate leadership. A company’s stock
and, therefore, its valuation fluctuate, determined by performance in the
marketplace and the returns generated, good or bad. Our public education
system lacks this fundamental decision-making and corrective mechanism. By
necessity, we must rely upon figures generated from beyond our education
system for guidance, direction and insight.
The global consulting firm McKinsey & Co.,
in its new study "Creating a World Class Education System in Ohio," put the
case bluntly: "Almost no usable fiscal data exist on Ohio’s schools because
there is very little statewide standardization of school level fiscal data
entry. Districts are free to set their own accounting standards when they
enter data on school expenditures. For these reasons, the numbers used to
represent the ‘true, underlying cost’ of educating each student in Ohio’s
current funding formula are flawed."
In four appearances before the Ohio Supreme
Court, educators proved unable to establish the actual cost of an education,
miscalculations being the sole reason DeRolph III was overturned. Absent
accurate, comparable data from district to district and statewide, it is
impossible to ascertain the true cost of a high-quality education and,
thereby, plan for and allocate the necessary funds with which to provide one.
In the fiscal year 2003-04, Ohio’s
per-capita expenditures ranked 16 th nationally at $8,963 (8.1 percent above
the U.S. average), including funds — more than $6 billion and counting
—dedicated to school construction and renovation, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s "Public Education Finances 2004". Likewise, the state now contributes
the majority of school funding (43.9 percent) vs. that generated via
property-tax assessments (40.3 percent). It shows too, unfortunately, that
expenditures for administrative salaries, wages and benefits, as well as
teachers benefits and support services, not only exceeded U.S. norms but,
disturbingly, also outpaced student support outlays.
Academically, McKinsey reported that Ohio
recently ranked 10 th among U.S. states on Education Week’s comprehensive
achievement index. Moreover, the Education Trust Inc. report "Achievement Gap
Summary Tables" indicates Ohio’s overall fourth-grade reading and math
proficiencies ranked 12 th and sixth nationally (1992-2003), respectively, and
eighth-grade math proficiency ranked fifth (1990-2003).
In DeRolph III (2001), Justices Andrew
Douglas and Paul E. Pfeifer glowingly suggested Ohio amend its constitution,
mimic Michigan’s "heroic" efforts and, like it, do away with property taxes.
Standard & Poor’s "School Matters" indicated some six years later, however,
that while Michigan outspends Ohio, we consistently outperform it in all but
one area of fourth and eighth- grade proficiencies, have a far lower
pupil-to-teacher ratio (15.6 to 17.4), and have an identical graduation rate
(78 percent). And we are being told yet more money and a constitutional
amendment are needed?
While the coalition has proved adept at
working in concert to obtain evermore money from 1991 onward, this same
community has not sought with equal vigor to standardize reporting and
accounting. Thus, those most in need of accurate and reliable information
through which to make sound, informed decisions — taxpayers, legislators and
educators alike — remain without and have done so since 1804.
Ohioans must be availed of the true cost of
a high-quality education, how it is to be achieved and the manner in which
money is to be allocated, and our legislature should take steps to compel its
production and dissemination. Only then will it be possible to efficiently,
consistently and successfully run our $8.1 billion company. Amending our
constitution does nothing whatsoever to address, let alone assure, such comes
to pass.
JACK LUNDBERG
Worthington
Amendment is worth serious consideration
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The proposed constitutional amendment to
improve Ohio's antiquated and unconstitutional taxing system is worthy of
serious consideration.
Our Ohio Constitution already provides
that we will provide a "thorough and efficient system of common schools." We
don't. It certainly isn't thorough - for any number of reasons that have
much to do with ideological and amateurish meddling in curriculum and
professional practice, along with a significant disregard for equity of
access for students of hugely disparate backgrounds.
And the system is seriously inefficient
from any number of angles, including how we staff, administer, manage,
govern, determine curriculum, determine accountability, provide and maintain
facilities, transport students and engage in such flawed political meddling
as represented by albatrosses such as No Child Left Behind. Despite its
generally well-intentioned aims, NCLB is a good example of how ostensibly
well-meaning amateurs can royally mess up things.
The proposed constitutional amendment is
aimed at changing and modernizing the context in which local schools are
severely hamstrung - both financially and policywise. The facts regarding
that context were clearly, and unanimously, noted in the 2004-05 Worthington
schools' Task Force Report on which I served.
I have read and re-read the proposed
amendment. It is not perfect, but it will surely be subjected to public
debate and scrutiny before we all get the opportunity to vote on it. The
fact that this proposal is even on the table has to do with a wholly
irresponsible Ohio legislature that neglected its clear responsibility to
deal with this matter.
There are provisions in this law for
protecting elderly property owners, for over-seeing system accountability,
for dealing with the currently inequitable school funding, and first and
foremost for creating a system to determine exactly what "thorough and
efficient" really means and would cost. Our esteemed policy makers -
educational amateurs at best - have consistently ignored responsibly
addressing these factors.
Although not perfect, this proposal vastly
improves on the current neglected and antiquated system. It deserves full
debate and disclosure and a vote of the public. This is what democracy is
all about, although the current national political climate certainly seems
to refute that impression. And even if the proposal is defeated, we should
have a wiser citizenry who I believe will eventually make the right
improvements and refinements. I have little confidence that the policy
makers will do so.
But then we could always go the Educate
Worthington route and let everyone fend for him or herself, and naively
disarm our public schools of appropriate resources needed to carry out the
Thomas Jefferson dream of a truly "public" system of effective common
schools. We could then do things on the cheap, follow the private sector
road to outrageous public bilking in the name of profit, allow for
shamefully over-paid executives, and the whole nine yards represented by the
privatization crowd.
In his wonderful monograph, "Good To Great
And the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking Is not the Answer," highly
acclaimed business author Jim Collins states: "We must reject the idea --
well-intentioned, but dead wrong -- that the primary path to greatness in
the social sectors is to become more like business. Most businesses are
somewhere between mediocre and good. Few are great. When you compare great
companies with good ones, many widely practiced business norms turn out to
correlate more with mediocrity, not greatness. So then, why would we want to
import the practices of mediocrity into the social sectors?"
So before everyone gets all excited about
business lingo thrown at us by the anti-public schools privatization folks,
such as Educate Worthington reveals itself to be, please take a closer look
at this constitutional amendment before rejecting it because of one group's
obviously biased analysis.
Establishing a "thorough and efficient
system of common schools" is a foundation -- arguably even the foundation --
of our nation. The Ohio legislature has repeatedly chosen to disregard this
principle. It is time for the people to inject their override and fix a
broken system and do so both fairly and responsibly.
Bob Barkley, Worthington
To the Editor:
In defense of Mike Alfred’s
letter regarding the proposed constitutional amendment to fix school funding,
Alfred’s letter does not suffer from irrelevance, misinterpretation or
incompleteness. If anything it is right on the mark.
From the time the courts
determined Ohio’s current school funding mechanism to be unconstitutional, most
of the discussion and proposed ‘fixes’ have focused on how to increase spending
for schools. There is very little discussion about whether the money we
currently spend is effective. Nor is there any discussion about reallocating
spending from a rich district to a poor district --- that would be political
suicide. The presumption is that the state must simply spend more taxpayer money
because that will solve the problem.
Alfred proposes that any
effort to fix school funding should look at both sides of the issue. A real fix
will not only provide adequate resources and a fair allocation of those
resources to all children, but will be fair to the taxpayers. It must,
therefore, also examine how those resources can be used most effectively.
My criticism of Alfred’s
letter is that it is much too kind to the existing education establishment and
their aggressive pursuit of self-interests at the expense of students and
taxpayers. We have a case of “the fox guarding the hen house.” Of course the
cabal of teachers’ unions, professional educators and school administrators
support more spending on schools. It enriches them personally, avoids difficult
decisions regarding the proper allocation of limited taxpayer dollars, and
covers-up past failures to improve student learning despite increased spending.
Why would anyone be surprised to find that teachers support higher spending for
schools when 80% of all school spending is for teachers’ salaries and benefits?
D’uh.
I hope the proposed
amendment never makes it to the ballot. It appears to be just another attempt
to fleece the taxpayers without improving student outcomes.
Robert Setzer
Proposed Funding Fix Focuses
Solely On Revenues
First, Educate Worthington (educateworthington.org)
would like to congratulate Charlie Wilson on his selection as our newest school
board member, and to wish him well in the important task of representing our
students and our residents.
We are encouraged by his enthusiasm for the
task, his stated commitment to making decisions based on data and facts, and his
willingness to reconsider his position if it runs contrary to the facts. This
will be invaluable as he helps the district face the realities of rapidly rising
costs in this excellent, but slowly shrinking, school district.
Since Educate Worthington is also driven by
facts, we want to share some observations regarding the recently proposed
constitutional amendment to “fix” Ohio’s school funding.
Bill Melville’s Suburban News editorial of
January 24 did a good job of citing notable concerns with it, as have the
majority of editorial boards from major newspapers throughout Ohio.
However, on the same page of the SNP as
Melville’s column, Strohmeyer’s single-panel cartoon depicts the plan’s primary
flaw even more simply, showing John Q. Taxpayer being asked to sign a giant
blank check(?)
Surprisingly, this appears to be exactly what
this amendment is asking, as it provides few details on how much it will cost to
“fix” Ohio’s school funding, only that it will be “more”.
Without pointing fingers, it is important to
acknowledge that the largest groups of “education advocates” supporting this
measure are the educator’s unions. In fact, their plan to gather the required
400,000 signatures is to be carried out primarily by over 100,000 Ohio teachers,
who will be petitioning their community members for signatures, and eventually
votes, for this amendment.
Yes, teachers are absolutely allowed to
advocate for more money for public education. At the same time, we should at
least recognize that the vast majority (over 80%) of school funding pays for
compensation of district staff. Thus, it is no surprise that the unions are
supporting a solution that focuses entirely on “more funding”.
Educate Worthington is not optimistic about
any school funding solution that focuses only on increasing revenues, with no
analysis or consideration for controlling expenditures.
The Dayton Daily News editorial board analyzed
the topic of Ohio’s school funding, AND school spending, in a Sept 10th column
(available on the front page of our website). They ultimately concluded “But
what’s clear is that the growth in spending can’t be sustained under any funding
scheme.”
Based on facts and data that Educate
Worthington has reviewed over the past year, we are inclined to agree that
without any change in how Ohio spends tens of billions per year for public
education, no revenue based “fix” will be a lasting solution.
Michael Alfred
Educate Worthington
Educate Worthington: board appointment is critical
Educate Worthington (educateworthington.org)
believes the school board's appointment of a new board member to be critically
important in continuing the district's early progress toward addressing our
current financial challenges.
With regard to a school board member's role in
this, it is very important to consider exactly who they are elected (or
appointed) to represent. Obviously, given that they are elected by voters, they
represent the interests of the residents of the district. Nearly as obvious is
that the voters elect them to represent the interests of our 9,600 students, who
deserve the greatest possible opportunity from the education dollars that the
community provides.
Additionally, note that the Ohio School Board
Association (OSBA) Web site points out that school board members should avoid
"succumbing to the influence of individuals or special interest group." It would
seem to suggest that a school board member should not be an advocate for anyone
beyond the residents and students.
While it may seem trivial or obvious, this
question of who a board member actually represents, and who they do not
represent, could not be more important. For example, as to finances, school
board members must decide who receives top priority as they approve the spending
of every district dollar. This requires a balance between the priorities of the
students who receive the services, the resident taxpayers who pay for the
services, and the school employees who provide the services.
In the contract negotiations which drive the
vast majority of the district budget, unions are present to aggressively
advocate for district employees. Students and residents, however, are not
present to advocate for their own interests. Thus, the school board must be
there to represent the students and residents.
With that said, the importance of the coming
appointment of a new school board member is clear.
While financial issues are the current
challenge, there will be many other significant issues before the district in
coming months and years. Educate Worthington is confident, however, that the
current board recognizes its primary responsibility as an advocate for the
students and residents of Worthington. And if it appoints a new member with this
in mind, the Worthington community will benefit from their leadership.
John Herrington
Columbus
Bacon believes schools need predictable funding
Thursday, October 5, 2006
On Nov. 7, voters in the 21st House District have
the opportunity to elect a candidate who values education and is committed to
improving our economy -- Kevin Bacon.
As a member of the Worthington Board of Education,
I support him because I strongly believe that he understands that our schools
need predictable funding from the state. He is committed to ensuring that our
kids have the resources they need to succeed in school and to compete in
tomorrow's economy. Most importantly, he will work with our local education
community to ensure that our needs are heard in the Statehouse.
He is the proud father of three daughters and his
family has experienced the value of a supportive school system. As a parent of a
child with special needs, he values early intervention for children when
services are needed and he recognizes the commitment of hard-working school
professionals who deliver important services.
David A. Bressman
member, Worthington Board of Education
Education expenditure findings surprising
The calls to “fix” Ohio’s school funding system continue in this and
other publications and dominate much of the debate on who will be Ohio’s
next governor. What is striking is that nearly every word on the subject
of “school funding” focuses on the need for more money (or a shortage of
revenue) while virtually ignoring the other half of the budget
equation…spending.
Educate Worthington would like to call attention to a very different
perspective in an editorial from the Dayton Daily News entitled, “Ohio
flunking test on schools' costs” on 9-10-06 (the full article is posted
on educateworthington.org).
In that piece, the editors examined education expenditures for Ohio
and its six largest school districts. Their findings were surprising:
•Ohio spends “$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.”
•“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).”
Some may choose to challenge the accuracy of these figures, but the
true essence of the article is when the editors ask, “More school
funding to pay for what, exactly?”
In searching for answers to this question, the editors appropriately
recognize that “Salaries and benefits are the biggest and fastest
growing expense.” They go on to note that in the last five years student
enrollment has decreased (along with the total number of teachers) while
expenses have increased dramatically.
The letters and commentary suggesting that the state legislature
“fix” school funding with more money certainly are in the majority. They
may not be aware, however, of the cumulative effect of just how
successful the unions have been in negotiating contracts for their
members over the last two decades.
If the majority of a district’s budget is for educator salaries, and
the average salary increase is 5%-6% per year, how long can a community
afford to pay these increases if their own wage increases average
approximately half of that amount?
Obviously, the answer to this cannot be determined with any finite
measure, and it would be different from district to district. It is safe
to say, however, that mathematically, this cannot go on forever.
Maybe this is what the editors meant in concluding; “what’s clear is
that the growth in spending can’t be sustained under any funding
scheme.”
John Herrington
EducateWorthington.org
Latest financial "crisis" apparently was a 'ghost'
Thursday, September 28, 2006
What happened to the fiscal crisis we were
told earlier this year faced the Worthington school district? Maybe it was
because only a "ghost crisis" existed -- not a real operating "financial
crisis."
District Treasurer Boyd led the charge and
board members supported a 5-mill tax levy increase for operations. An additional
1.25 mills was added for capital improvement projects. That 6.25-mill tax
increase was soundly rejected by a 58-42 percent margin by voters. The public
deserves an answer from those school officials who announced the deficit, an
elected board of education which supported it, editors who endorsed in
newspapers and chambers of commerce who pronounced support.
That so-called crisis was the basis given by
those supporters for the "need" for more tax revenue. This "financial crisis"
seems to have disappeared.
Funds that would have been normally used for
those capital improvements in recent years were apparently diverted by the
former Superintendent Fenton and supported by three current board members
(Horton, Bressman, Best) in negotiations that obligated unsustainable future
expenditures. Those funds were consumed by the 6-9% annual pay raises granted
through the last three-year employee contract, while most Americans earned only
2.8%.
Selling bonds is not a new concept used by
government to raise revenue for capital improvements. It seems to be a novel
approach in Worthington accompanied by the emerging mantra of "no new millage."
This approach will enable those who use the
items to step up to the plate by direct investment. It might also be conceived
to delay a possible embarrassing defeat of another tax levy when consumers are
already shocked by declining disposable income as a result of property
reassessments, increased gasoline prices, flat real estate market and other
economic factors. Unfortunately, selling bonds also means that the district is
obligating spending funds that will need to be repaid in the future from
increased tax revenue.
Yes, what happened to the operational
"financial crisis?" Its disappearance casts doubt on whether it ever really
existed. After the tax levy defeat, I was asked what millage amount I thought
would pass. My answer was "none," and I explained my reasoning.
The 5-6 treasurers of the district over the
last few years and the past boards have overestimated need in various budget
line items; not refinanced debt when interest rates were lowest; paid
disproportionate amount of employee insurance premiums; retained unneeded real
estate; purchased unneeded administration property; over-built facilities;
increased staff while enrollment has declined since 1995; and generally not well
managed the fiscal side of the district. The Worthington parent (single parent,
young parent, past parent now on fixed-income) and small business owner still
desire quality public education, but at a reasonably affordable cost.
New Superintendent Conrath is commended for
her reduction of $3-million in operating expenses, her scrutiny of capital
replacements and her other leadership actions to improve fiscal management; she
seems to be starting with an openness and sensitivity to both the educational
and community situations.
While a $3-million cost-savings is certainly
is a great start, it would not have satisfied the treasurer's projected
gloom-and-doom deficit in a budget of $105-million. Many residents continued to
be awestruck by the nature of items that were available for reductions.
Many ask themselves, "Why did the district
have those positions funded anyway?" Other residents are still amazed that the
some school board members have not shown creative thinking in funding instead of
"doing business the way we've always done it," or blaming someone else (state,
federal, economy) who did not obligate the district to the long-term
unsustainability issue the district faces.
This seems like the buck-passing homework
excuse: "Teacher, the dog ate my homework."
Dr. Cal Taylor
Worthington
Schare explains why he backs bond issue
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Six months ago, I wrote in these pages why I voted against placing the
6.25-mill school levy on the May ballot. Today, I am writing in support of the
Worthington school district's bond levy and to answer what I think are the three
key questions surrounding the issue.
First, taxpayers want to know what happened since May; second, taxpayers want
to know how much this is going to cost them; third, taxpayers want to know what
they get for the money. Before getting to the questions, readers should
understand that I write only for myself and any opinions may or may not reflect
the thinking of my fellow board members, administration and staff of the school
district.
It is certainly a fair question as to why an operating levy that was required
in May is no longer required. Many have concluded that we must not have needed
those operating dollars in the first place.
Here is what happened. Back in February when the board made the decision to
put an operating levy on the ballot, our five-year forecast showed a deficit of
around $6-million by the end of the 2007-08 school year.
After the levy failure, we looked at ways of closing the gap in hopes of
avoiding an operating levy in 2006, and our success was equal parts luck and
intent. First, thanks to rising interest rates, we will collect a total of an
additional $1.5-million in investment income, and thanks in part to Franklin
County Treasurer Richard Cordray's efforts to collect from delinquent taxpayers,
we received another $600,000.
We got lucky in that a decline in natural gas prices after Hurricane Katrina
and similar declines in electricity costs accounted for $2-million in savings,
and finally, Superintendent Melissa Conrath was able to identify efficiencies
that, when phased in over two years, will save more than $3-million. We also
identified other savings along the way; in total, we saw a shift of more than
$7.4-million over the previous year and the next two years with no significant
impact to the academic or co-curricular program. To be sure, this is a very high
level overview of a very complicated process, but taxpayers should understand
the significant shifts that led to the decision to delay the operating levy.
You probably want to know how much this levy is going to cost you. The truth
is, we don't know. With your vote, you are authorizing us to go into the bond
market and sell municipal bonds over the next five years; the millage required
to pay principal and interest on the bonds will depend on interest rates and
real estate valuations at the time.
While we cannot deal in certainties, we can deal in probabilities and
commitments. This year, you paid around 3.8 mills in property tax on the
existing debt of the school district, and the board passed a resolution
indicating that you will never pay more than the 3.8 mills in any year covered
by this bond issue to pay this new debt, hence the "no additional millage"
guarantee. We can guarantee this because, at the time of issuance, if we know
that the millage would exceed 3.8 mills, we simply will not issue the bonds.
The current models show that if we proceed with a cautious plan, you will pay
around 3.5 mills (less than you are paying now) through 2013 and then around 2
mills thereafter. The real cost of this bond levy, therefore, is going to be
approximately 2 mills more than you would pay without the bond levy, starting in
the year 2012. Since the students at the time will be taking advantage of the
repaired and upgraded facilities and new buses, I think it is fair that future
taxpayers should have to bear part of the cost.
You probably want to know what you get for the money. A bond levy is totally
different from an operating levy. Most of the money from an operating levy goes
to pay salaries and benefits and short-term costs like electricity and gas. A
bond levy goes for long-term items like roofs, school buses, textbooks and
computers. By law, this money cannot be used to pay for operating expenses.
It is likely we will be having discussions of an operating levy next year,
but questions surrounding salaries and benefits are not relevant for this levy
request. It is fair that taxpayers want specifics as to how the money will be
spent. There is not enough room in these pages to outline the plan; however, the
Web site mentioned below provides the detail that most taxpayers are looking
for.
The bond levy represents the first step in a financial restructure of the
school district. We are separating long-term capital improvement costs from
operating expenses and you can expect to see a significant adjustment to the
district's five-year forecast as a result. We are adding contingency dollars for
things like emergency repairs while guaranteeing that if we don't need the money
in a given category, we won't shift it somewhere else; we just won't collect it
from you in the first place and we are appropriately taxing future taxpayers for
future needs rather than front-loading the entire bill on today's taxpayers.
Make no mistake, these are complicated matters. To assist taxpayers in
understanding the bond levy in as much detail as desired, I've set up a Web site
at
www.mschare.com. The site goes into much greater detail in answering these
three questions, and many others, including specifics as to what the district
plans to do with the bond money -- and why. In conclusion, I think that this new
levy request is a reasonable response to the levy failure. In my opinion, it
deserves your consideration.
Marc Schare, Worthington
Board of Education member
Dublin
District officials' action wins praise
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Educate Worthington (educateworthington.org) would like to acknowledge the
time and effort the school board, the superintendent and numerous district
employees have invested in beginning to address the immediate and long-term
financial challenges Worthington now faces.
Consider the significance of the recent pronouncement by Superintendent
Conrath, indicating that an operating levy is no longer necessary this year.
This is truly an encouraging sign, with the district's 2008 projections having
gone from a $6-million deficit to a $2.9-million surplus since the May levy
vote.
With this first step, the board and superintendent have shown an honest
commitment to streamlining expenses for residents, while appropriately filtering
their decisions based on what will have the least possible negative impact on
our students.
It is difficult to understate the importance of this first step, as it may be
a genuine sign of a fundamental change in the perspective of our district
leadership.
This "change" is simply a return to recognizing that the primary role of our
leaders is to represent our students and our community members, while
effectively AND efficiently managing the operations of Worthington's second
largest employer, its school system.
Given that Worthington is a maturing community, with slowly declining
enrollment and limited land for new growth, further "right-sizing" the district
and its budget will be necessary. Not easy, but necessary.
However, if our leaders demonstrate that they will be truly effective
advocates for our students and our residents, the decisions that follow will
begin to forge permanent solutions to our long-term financial challenges, while
also maintaining excellence and creating new opportunities for our students.
Time will tell, but we hope these are, in fact, the district's highest
priorities.
Michael Alfred, Worthington
Board can't abdicate to 'oversight'
groups
The school board meeting last Monday night was "dÈjý vu all over again."
Having lived through the controversy years ago over the stands for the stadium
at TWHS, I became concerned when mention was made of a resolution to be
discussed at next Monday's board meeting creating "community oversight
committees." These would oversee the use of the funds obtained from the sale of
the bonds.
I believe that community committees should be considered as "advisory," but
not responsible for "oversight." Community committees are not accountable to
anyone. The word "oversight" should not be in any resolution, for its presence
would imply abdication by the board of its responsibilities.
In the district, there are many experts in their particular fields and it
would be silly not to seek their input. Yet, in the end, it is the
administration and the board who are accountable to the entire community and not
to an appointed group of individuals.
The ultimate responsibility for the use of funds rests with the
superintendent, the treasurer and the board. Committee members should be
prepared to have their recommendations considered but not necessarily acted
upon.
In adopting a policy statement creating these advisory committees, the board
must make it perfectly clear that it retains the ultimate responsibility. The
board will have to live with the second-guessers. They are always around....
Abramo Ottolenghi, Worthington
Taxes will be the topic in
townhall discussion
The Council for Public Deliberation is sponsoring a timely community townhall
discussion with the topic: Who should pay for Worthington schools: Property
Taxes vs. Income Taxes vs. No Taxes.
The town hall meeting will be at the Griswold Center on Wednesday, Aug. 9 at
7 p.m.
The question is not an easy one. It gets to the very heart of our community,
our society and of public education.
Who should pay to educate our children? Is it fair to make business pay even
though, by definition, it does not directly use the product. Is it fair to
continue to burden senior citizens who no longer have children in the schools,
but did benefit from the district at one time? Is it fair that people who rent
houses or apartments should not directly pay for schools, even though they might
have children currently enrolled in the district? Is it fair that dual-income
earners pay more?
The introduction of an earned income tax would partially shift the tax burden
from businesses and seniors to renters and high-income earners. What are the
ramifications for our community and our schools?
The discussion will be in three parts. The first part will explore continued
use of real estate taxes and whether Worthington should continue to use the
traditional property tax levy to fund its programs. The second part will explore
the pros and cons of using the income tax to partially fund Worthington schools.
The third part will explore the pros and cons of Worthington delaying its next
levy request, and what the ramifications of that might be.
The Council for Public Deliberation has sponsored the "By the People" forums
at the Worthington Library for years. The town hall meetings always allow for a
full and fair exploration of the topic. If you are interested in how schools
should be funded in the state of Ohio and in our community, this should be an
interesting discussion.
Marc Schare, Dublin
Shouldn't We Cut Expenses
Before Talking of Tax Hikes?
Once again, the administration of the Worthington City School district is
trying to run a race with the cart before the horse.
According to recent news articles in this and other papers, the board and
administration are feverishly working up their sales pitch for their next in a
series of attempted tax increases.
Why is so much attention once again being focused on more taxes instead of
the necessary attention being focused on cutting expenses first? After
proper attention has been given to significantly cutting expenses and the
results have been demonstrated to the community, then come to the taxpayers with
a reasonable proposal and they might just vote yes.
Anything less is not likely to fly with the majority of voters affected by
these ever increasing taxes.
Kevin T. Ingledue, Columbus
BALANCE IS NEEDED IN STATE GOVERNMENT
I have been following with great interest the discussion between Rich Petrick
and Marc Schare regarding whether or not Ohioans are being overtaxed. Their
discussion well illustrates that for policy-making purposes, it is important to
look and analyze information from all possible points of view. Using the data
supplied by Petrick and Schare and adding some of my own, I will suggest that
Ohio's predicament is not the result of high taxes as Schare suggests, but
rather of bad policies on the part of the one-party, gerrymandered and
"pay-to-play" state government that has been in power for 16 years.
Petrick makes the point that Ohio's per-capita taxation (state and local)
relative to other states has not changed over the years. On the other hand,
Schare said that according to the Tax Foundation, Ohio's is now third in the
nation among the states in taxes as a percentage of personal income
If we accept that both values are valid (within the limitation of the
methodology used), then we must look for a plausible explanation that will
reconcile the two views.
In 1996, Ohio was 20th among the states in per-capita personal income while
in 2005 it has dropped to 26th. Simple arithmetic will show that this one factor
should be enough to bring about the Tax Foundation results that Schare presents.
What follows is that it is not the tax level that gives rise to what the Tax
Foundation reports and Schare highlights but rather the relative loss of income.
Since the tax rank has not changed, it probably is not the tax level that is
responsible for the loss of income. It is, as we all know, the loss of
well-paying jobs.
Many factors bring about the loss of jobs. Although taxes have been mentioned
as a factor in job retention and creation, the availability of a well educated
work force is a major factor and in some reports even more important than taxes.
Education is where Ohio's state government has failed. School districts are
continuously having to cut back or putting levies on the ballot, public
university tuitions are among the highest in the nation, the percentage of
Ohioans with Bachelor's degrees is 25th in the nation and, very importantly, the
legislature has failed to obey the orders of the Ohio Supreme Court.
It is really up to the voters. In November, we will have the opportunity to
re-establish balance in Ohio's government. Unless this happens, Ohio's slide
will continue. The current majority will have no incentive to do the heavy
lifting that is required to bring Ohio back.
Abramo Ottolenghi, Worthington
The combination of state, local
taxes hurt economy
Thursday, July 6, 2006
I respond to Dick Graham's letter of June 29. In his letter, Mr. Graham
opines that Ohio's state spending (excluding local spending) is reasonable, that
the state government is not responsible for local spending, that if Ohio's
spending is not reasonable, it is the fault of the Republicans and finally, Mr.
Graham issues a challenge to identify some state budget cuts.
An honest comparison of government taxing and spending must include local
government; therefore, merely ranking the states and excluding local governments
is interesting, but not useful.
For example, in 1994, the state of Michigan implemented a sales tax to pay
for education, increasing the state's responsibility for education funding from
32% in 1994 to 80% in 2001. Unlike Michigan, in Ohio (and especially in
Worthington), education is primarily a local expense. A direct comparison of
Michigan state spending and Ohio state spending would not be an accurate measure
of total tax burden unless local spending were included, and it is the
combination of state and local taxes that are hampering Ohio's economy.
Mr. Graham's argument that the state government does not influence local
government spending ignores the ever-increasing impact of unfunded mandates.
Hardly a month goes by that the Worthington school district does not receive
unwelcome news of yet another state law which is going to take funds from our
district or require us to spend money in ways that are less than optimal.
The superintendent's task force final report contains a list of around two
dozen unfunded or underfunded mandates from the state and federal governments,
and any education administrator will tell you that the list grows each year.
Ideally, if the state tells you that you have to do something, it should give
you the money to do it, but all too often, it is the Worthington taxpayer who
picks up the tab for state education directives.
At the county level, the impact of unfunded mandates was cited by
Commissioner Kilroy when she decided, along with fellow Democrat Paula Brooks,
to increase the county (local) sales tax by 50 basis points last year. The cycle
of the state issuing unfunded mandates and having counties and school districts
increasing taxes to comply with the mandates continues to play out across Ohio.
Mr. Graham's challenge to define some state budget cuts was not much of a
challenge. The Buckeye Institute, in conjunction with Citizens Against
Government Waste, has identified more than $3.4-billion of possible savings in
its latest report. Interested residents can view the report at http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Ohio_Piglet_pdf.pdf?docID=1181
I understand that every dollar of state spending has a constituency; however,
it is difficult to accept the premise that every dollar is necessary. Often, it
is a choice between a need and a want. For example, did Ohio really need to
spend $21-million on taxpayer-funded art. Between 1996 and 2005, Ohio's spending
has increased by 68% and state income and sales taxes have increased 61% to pay
for it all.
The two things that would justify this kind of increase in spending are
inflation and population growth. Inflation in that period was 23.8%, while
population growth was around 2.5%.
In closing, Mr. Graham made the point that if state spending in Ohio is
excessive, it is the fault of the Republican party. On this, he will get no
argument from me. The choice faced by all Ohioans in November is first, whether
we want fiscal discipline and second, which candidates and which party provides
our best chance at achieving that goal.
Marc Schare, Dublin
Liberty is accustomed to large-sized
classes
In response to the letter written by Lora Ackerman in the June 29 edition, I
agree that 27 children are too many for a class, but we at Liberty Elementary
have gone the entire 2005-06 school as such.
No matter what school a child attends whether it be Liberty, Evening Street ,
Worthington Hills or which ever, each child needs to have the same teaching and
challenges, with no discrimination!
Our area of Worthington, that which the children attend Sutter Park and now
Liberty, has taken a lot of the heat from the school district. We supposedly
were the lowest enrolled school and our enrollment was in such decline that
matters had to be taken. When Sutter Park was closed in 2005, an official of the
Worthington school board made the statement,"Don't worry. The school will reopen
probably in five years or so." We take much offense to this because this is poor
planning on the shcool board's behalf if the school will indeed open again.
Mr. Mark Bradshaw taught my son Drew for the 2005-06 year with 28 students.
Yes -- it was tough. But the school year was completed and I do not see anyone
suffering from it. Physical space was a huge issue and at times my son
complained he felt as if he was sitting on top of his friend because the desks
were so close. But once again, the year was completed and my son still learned
everything he needed and beyond in fifth grade.
If we are going to adjust and reduce classes, we need to look at all the
schools, not just certain ones.
Corry Rausch, Liberty parent
Gifted/AP Program helps students
succeed
I am very proud to be the parent of one of the 10 students in the entire
undergraduate graduating class of more than 6,000 students who were acknowledged
for their 4.0 at The Ohio State University's spring commencement recently. But
what was even more significant was that three of those 10 students were
"products" of the Worthington Schools: Tyler Seiple (my son) and Allen Farel
from WKHS and Ariel Cohen from TWHS.
I commend the Worthington schools and the Gifted (EPP)/Advanced Placement
Programs for helping my son achieve this honor as well as the two degrees he
received -- a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in History and a Bachelor of Arts
with Distinction in Theatre (approximately 349 hrs in four years, which includes
credit for AP courses taken at WKHS). I also know that Allen Farel participated
in gifted classes and AP courses throughout his 12 years in Worthington schools.
But this commendation comes with some personal views. The path and
achievement for gifted students in Worthington schools is mainly due to the
perseverance of the parents and students. There was no assistance or guidance
offered by the guidance departments at either the middle or high school levels.
If I had not been told and did not pursue issues such as BESS and English 1, my
son would not have been able to take all the classes he wanted and needed for
college.
My son and about 11 others in his freshman class (including Allen) skipped
BESS entirely, going directly to Enriched Chemistry ,at which he and the others
excelled (not to mention the many times he challenged the teacher many times
when he disagreed with her). Getting permission was not easy and many hurdles
were placed in our way.
Without the encouragement from Rhoda Gelles, then director of EPP, we may
have given up. But we persevered and succeeded and as such so did my son and
those other students who followed the same path. Many of those students went on
to become National Merit finalists. Many of those students pursued
science-related fields in college and probably have benefited from the
additional classes they were able to take. More importantly, those have done
extremely well without the two-year series of BESS.
This was the same situation with English 1. My son skipped English 1.
Instead, he took other English courses that challenged and interested him. By
eliminating classes that are not as challenging for the student, they are then
allowed to take other classes that interest them as well as classes that satisfy
their other interests. My son took four years each of theatre and instrumental
music.... He has taken 21-28 credit hrs/quarter at OSU, further validating how
gifted students can exceed the norm.
So in closing, I extend my appreciation and congratulations to the
Worthington schools and the Gifted/AP Programs on a job well done. Please
consider how you apply mandatory/confining standards to your brightest students.
Mrs. Ury (an elementary math EPP teacher who is no longer with us) used to tell
her students not to be afraid to take chances and take on challenges. She did so
with passion and conviction. My son fondly remembers her encouragement to this
day and strives to attain that goal she set before him. Please allow your gifted
students to "take chances and take on challenges" and some day they'll make you
proud.
Lyn Seiple
Worthington
27 children too many in a classroom
Thursday, June 29, 2006
I am writing to share my concerns about the strong possibility of Evening
Street School combining three third-grade classes into two fourth-grade classes.
As a formerWorthington elementary teacher I know the high expectations that
are placed on classroom teachers by the administration, parents, students and
the teachers themselves. It is well known the diverse abilities that come
through the classroom door each year, yet teachers are expected to meet the
individualized needs of each student in that classroom. This is a huge task to
undertake when working with 20 individuals. It is utterly impossible when
working with 27.
The education that my daughter has received during her Evening Street
experience has been outstanding thus far. Bailey is a lover of learning and has
enjoyed gaining much new knowledge over the past three years. She is especially
fond of reading and writing, consistently working above grade level
expectations. To date, Bailey has been challenged in these areas because her
teachers have been able to spend time with her and let her go above and beyond
what is "required" for the grade level. Her teachers have been able to meet
Bailey's needs in large part because of the lower number of children in her
class. I am truly concerned that her abilities will not continue to be
challenged when she is in a class with 26 other students.
Twenty-seven fourth-graders in one room create problems before the first
lesson is begun. Physical space in the classroom is a concern. The increased
amount of time that will be spent on classroom management is a concern. The
extra amount of time needed to transition twenty-seven students from one
activity to the next is a concern. Each of these concerns will take valuable
teaching time away from the students. Studies clearly confirm that reduced class
sizes (below 20) strengthen the educational process. Simply stated, 27
fourth-graders in one classroom are unacceptable.
Lora Ackerman, Worthington
Schare is challenged to offer
spending cuts
Marc Schare's latest letter shows that conservative economic theories are
like New Year's Eve in Times Square: amusing and completely overrated. (I speak
from experience with both.) Schare argued that Ohio has the third highest tax
burden in the country, that the state's economic problems result from its high
tax rates and that government spends too much at all the state and local levels.
An accurate study proves that Ohio's taxes are actually very close to the
national average but Schare chooses to believe another study that he admits
measures local as well as state tax levels. It is intellectually dishonest to
compare state apples to local oranges because the state legislature has no
control over the tax rates set by local officials. That's the same as blaming
Schare as a Worthington school board member for the Worthington city tax
increase voted by city council.
The poor state of Ohio's economy has little, if anything, to do with tax
rates because our taxes are at the national average. The problem is simple. Ten
years ago, Ohio's largest employer was General Motors. Today it's Wal-Mart.
That's not a criticism of Wal-Mart; it's an acknowledgment that a state that has
Wal-Mart as its largest employer is not going to have a good economy. If Schare
still wants to claim that Ohio's tax policies of the last 10 years have created
that problem, then the blame must be placed on the last two governors, both of
whom were Republican, and the last five legislatures, all of which were
overwhelmingly Republican. If Schare then wants to argue that those Republicans
weren't conservative enough, that raises a point that needs to be brought out.
Republicans are conservatives in name only and have no fiscal discipline.
For the last 25 years, conservatives have railed against big government while
outspending liberals at every turn. Conservative pundit George F. Will
calculated that 93% of the deficits incurred during Ronald Reagan's presidency
were in the budgets Reagan sent to congress. Since 1995, Republicans have
controlled both chambers of congress, and federal spending has exploded. Under
George W. Bush and the Republican congress, domestic spending for has increased
far more than it did under Bill Clinton. There is no reason to think that
Republicans will ever control their spending. Saying that "truly conservative"
Republicans will do so is refuted by Reagan's eight-year spending spree.
Ohio Republicans have the same problem. To prove the point, I'll pose a
challenge for Schare. What state spending would he cut?
Dick Graham, Worthington
High taxes are a root cause
of Ohio's economic malaise
Thursday, June 22, 2006
I respond to Rich Petrick's letter to the editor. In his letter, Mr. Petrick
opines that Ohio's rank as the third highest tax state results from a flawed
study by the Tax Foundation and that such flaws are motivated by an anti-tax
ideology. As proof, Mr. Petrick cites data from the Educational Tax Policy
Institute and references other studies, including official data from the US
Census Bureau.
The truth is that both studies are accurate, but they measure different
things. The Tax Foundation measures state and local taxes as a function of per
capita income and ranks states based on the percentage of income you pay to
state and local government. The census study measures state and local taxes on a
purely per-capita basis and ranks the states by the raw amount of taxes paid.
I believe the Tax Foundation study is more relevant because "burden" must
always be measured against ability to pay.
Mr. Petrick cites other differences in methodology between the studies as
well. Interested residents can check out the details at the following Web site:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1656.html
Two more points need to be mentioned. First, there is nothing inherently
anti-tax in the Tax Foundation report. It merely ranks the 50 states using an
objective set of criteria. Some states fair better using the Tax Foundation
approach, while others do better using the census figures.
Indeed, the Tax Foundation report first appeared on CNN's Web site and CNN is
not known for its anti-tax leanings. The Educational Tax Policy Institute, on
the other hand, as a child of a public school district consortium, has a clear
bias in favor of maximizing tax dollars for K-12 education in the state of Ohio.
Ohio cities, counties and school districts, as well as the state, are
addicted to spending. Just in the last week, the auditor of the city of Columbus
is talking about hiking the city income tax, the city council in Worthington
discussed a tax hike and the Worthington school district discussed another
funding request.
While Mr. Petrick is one of Worthington's deep thinkers and whenever he takes
the time to write, his words are always worthy of consideration, in this case I
respectfully disagree with his conclusion. I believe we have a spending problem
in Ohio and as a result, we have a high tax burden. I also believe the high tax
burden is one of the root causes of Ohio's economic malaise.
Any 12-stepper will tell you that the first step to overcoming a problem is
to be able to admit that you have the problem. Clearly, we have a long way to
go.
Marc Schare, Dublin (Schare is a member of the Worthington school
board.)
Sending AP seniors to college would
hike costs
A recent letter suggested that the Worthington school district should send AP
[advanced placement] seniors to college with the result that there "would be a
reduction of several teaching positions in the high schools." This is an idea
that, facially, appears to have merit but, if implemented, would cost more and
reduce the quality and reputation of the district.
The implementation of such a suggestion would result in a cost to the
district of over $260,000. The district can provide a better service at a lower
cost and better meet student needs.
I asked the administration about this suggestion and garnered the following
facts. In 2005-06, the district had 43 students enrolled in 187 post-secondary
option classes [PSO]. The rounded average would be 4.35 classes per student. In
2005-06, there were 589 students enrolled in AP classes. There were 988 total
seats occupied in AP classes. The rounded average would be 1.68 AP classes per
student (988/589 = 1.68). The district utilized approximately 10.2 FTE
[teachers] for AP classes @ $60,000 estimated $612,000.00.
One PSO class equates to 1/6 of a student day. The state reimbursement
formula is $5,310.90 for a full-time student; thus, 1/6 of $5,310.90 is $885.15.
This amount is deducted for each PSO class. If all AP students took PSO, 988
seats times $886.92 equals $874,528.20. Thus, the savings suggested in the
recent letter to the editor, would, in actuality, result in a $262,528.20 cost
increase to the school district.
While these are estimates, it looks like the PSO suggestion would cost
significantly more than AP. AP classes provide a much better opportunity for
students in their home school and do not disrupt their high school schedules.
Reimbursement for transportation costs may be requested by students if the
district provides transportation to resident school students in grades 9-12
which would result in an added cost. As always, we welcome input from the
community with helpful suggestions.
David A. Bressman
Powell
Tax Foundation study is fundamentally
flawed
Last week my good friend Abramo Ottolenghi cited as fact the claim that
Ohio's state and local taxes are third highest in the nation.
To be fair to Dr. Ottolenghi, many other Ohioans have been misled into
believing that our state and local taxes are astronomically high. That now
notorious high-tax "ranking" is taken from a report issued by an agenda-driven
organization called the Tax Foundation, which is motivated by an anti-tax
ideology.
The truth is this: Ohio's combined state and local taxes are modest, barely
at the national average. The most recent report of state tax burdens, a June 1,
2006 report by the Public Policy Institute of New York State, uses U.S. Census
Bureau to report the following FY 2004 state and local taxes per capita for Ohio
and the nation:
Ohio Taxes U.S. Average
Difference
$3,419
$3,447
-$28
Other major objective sources of data, such as the Congressional Quarterly,
the Federation of State Tax Administrators and the Ohio Public Expenditure
Council, also report Ohio's state and local taxes per capita as being about at
the national average.
The Tax Foundation's misleading ranking, as reported by the Education Tax
Policy Institute, is due primarily to the fact that the Tax Foundation tries to
estimate something called "tax incidence" - the sum of state and local taxes
levied by all states and localities paid by the residents of a state regardless
of the state source of the tax burden. So, for example, the Tax Foundation
rankings ostensibly include estimates of:
* the bed taxes Ohioans pay when we visit Florida or California on vacation;
* the mineral extraction taxes Ohioans pay when we buy gasoline from oil
pumped in Texas or Wyoming.
According to the Tax Foundation's undocumented data, these additional
non-Ohio state and local taxes allegedly add about $700-million to our "tax
burden" - even though the taxes are:
* not levied by Ohio government officials,
* not found in Ohio statutes or laws, often
* not paid in Ohio, and - if the data are true -
* paid by citizens who freely choose to do so by their consumer choices.
Furthermore, the Tax Foundation does not appear to include the tax burden
that Ohio exports to non-Ohioans, such as the estimated $250-million per year in
user fees charged by the Ohio Turnpike Commission.
Ohioans deserve to know the truth - that their state and local officials have
not burdened them with taxes grossly above the national average. It is
misleading and potentially disastrous to good public policy for citizens,
candidates or officeholders to think otherwise.
It is especially reassuring to know that some majority party legislators are
trying to get the truth out. For example, Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati)
informed the Ohio House of Representatives on May 23 that the Tax Foundation
study was "widely discredited" and "completely bogus" in a well-reasoned speech
on the House floor.
Richard L. Petrick, Worthington
Cuts Should Be Spread
My name is Pam Bluem. My daughter, Amy Bluem, has been part of the
Perry-McCord gymnastics team for two years.
I am a teacher in a GED program within a correctional facility south of
Worthington. Ours is a six-month, community-based correctional facility that
works with offenders ages 18 and up.
I have Worthington school district dropouts in my classes, and I have
personally heard the stories associated with the reasons why they decided to
leave school before completion of their high school diplomas, and why they made
the poor choices they did to become incarcerated. I hope to impress upon you
what I think you already know: the correlation between school activities,
student involvement and dropout rates from our school system.
Positive school activities that promote leadership, physical fitness, school
involvement, camaraderie among participants, and community pride are win/win
solutions for stopping potential gang involvement as well as important weapons
in the prevention of substance abuse. Many of my students in the correctional
setting have major problems in each of these areas that are drug addition and
gang participation.
It is imperative that we, as parents, educators, board members, generally, as
stewards of the future generation, offer many programs within our schools that
positively develop our kids.... If we are to expect our students to develop into
responsible citizens, making the socially, morally and legally correct decisions
for productive lives, then we need to keep programs within our school systems
that give them every chance to succeed.
Our school district is not exempt from the pressing issues of drug abuse and
gang influence. Involvement in school sponsored sports programs addresses these
two issues. It would be simplistic to say they are the solution; however it is
accurate to state that they are part of the solution. They do give positive
choices for our students that could mean the difference between staying in
school and dropping out, between keeping busy in positive activities, and having
time for negative influences to take hold.
To limit opportunity during the very vulnerable years our children are
growing up, is doing a disservice to them and could have expensive consequences.
I think it's safe to say that program cuts need to happen somewhere within
our school system, but let us spread the cuts within all the programs so we are
not limiting opportunity. How are we to calculate which cut could potentially be
the saving grace for any one of our students?
Let's continue our motto, "Worthington Schools, where excellence is a
tradition," by offering the opportunity to become excellent in many areas,
through many programs.
Let's continue our tradition of excellence, and not cut our potential for
excellence by cutting opportunity.
Pam Bluem, Powell
Honest and Open
As the community waits for the School District to evaluate the budget and
propose spending cuts, it is important to understand what can be done. The
district is limited to three, and only three, real alternatives: first, they can
reduce staff; second, they can reduce salaries and/or benefits for existing
staff; and finally, they can reduce more senior staff and replace them with
younger less experienced staff. The second and third alternatives would require
the district and unions to open their contracts and renegotiate. That is not
likely to happen. Therefore, the only real short-term option for the district is
to reduce staff. There may be some minor reductions is supplies, maintenance,
etc., but with 85% of spending for salaries and benefits any significant
spending cuts will be through staff reductions.
According to the Treasurer's reports, the average full-time employee of the
school district earned $56,595 in 2004-2005 and received $20,073 in fringe
benefits for a total compensation package of $76,668. This is based on 1,146
full time-equivalent-employees and reported Salaries and Fringe benefits in the
General Fund for combined Certified and Classified staff.
The 2005-2006 Budget projects increased general fund spending of $4,542,689
more than last year. If the District wants to hold expenditures constant, they
must reduce employment by approximately 60 people. That is 60 out of 1146, or
5.2%. With 18 school buildings, that is a little more than 3 people per
building. Some say it can't be done, but it doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Ten years ago the district employed 1156 people when enrollment was 10,801. Last
year enrollment was only 9,619 but employment was still 1146. There was 10 fewer
employees for 1,182 fewer students. Go figure.
Let's hope the District is honest with the voters and openly discusses this
issue. The only way to assure continued high performance and high quality is to
act prudently not precipitously. There is more to spending reductions than
cutting sports, music and art; it is reallocating available recourses to the
most important programs, and that requires candid discussion with the community.
Robert Setzer
Ottolenghi finds flaws in three
other letters
One of the most difficult things that public institutions have to contend
with are the incomplete, out of context, unverifiable or just plain wrong facts
that are used to prove a (usually negative) point. In each of three letters last
week, there is an example of such occurrences.
It is unfortunate that in a letter with many good points, Jim Calvert makes
the statement that in 1965 the Worthington school district boundaries were the
same as those of the city Of Worthington and that the district was enlarged in
1968. Not so. At one time, the Worthington school district extended to what is
now Graceland and to Godown Road. In 1968, the district was made smaller with
definite boundaries so that planning might be possible. The brewery was kept in
the Worthington district to help pay for the students projected to come
following the development of the vacant (cornfields) land still in the district.
The numbers given in Robert Stetzer's letter are those found in the State
Department of Education data for the 2004-05 school year but are not
reconcilable with the actual data for that school year given by the school
district in its October 2005 five-year projection. Confusing, yes, but welcome
to the world of school finance in Ohio.
Finally, Marc Schare cites the correct fact that Ohio's combined local and
state tax bite is the third highest in the nation. What he does not disclose is
that in 2004, while Ohio ranked 12th in the nation in per-capita local tax
burden, it ranked 27th in state tax collection (visit http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf2004/stlocaltaxes.htm).
This illustrates what we already know but bears repeating. The one-party,
gerrymandered legislature has been content with passing the taxing buck to the
local jurisdictions, and the "revised" TEL statutes insure that this will remain
so. But that is another story.
Abramo Ottolenghi, Worthington
An explanation of teachers'
salaries
During the recent unsuccessful school levy campaign, opponents of the levy
provided several pieces of information - usually either out of context or with
no context whatsoever - about the salaries of Worthington teachers.
This letter is an attempt to provide some of that needed context and to
provide an easy and valid way to assess the Worthington teacher salary scale.
First, Worthington currently has the highest overall teaching experience
level, along with a very high training level, of all comparable school
districts. This phenomenon helps explain why the district excels by many
standards. Also, because every teacher salary scale rewards a teacher's loyalty
and training, this results in the total Worthington teacher salary investment
being fairly high. This is not because our teachers are paid too highly by
comparison to others, but because we have a higher percentage of them who have
earned higher compensation.
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) provides a district comparison group.
They do so by identifying the 20 Ohio districts that are most similar in terms
of the occupations of residents, levels of poverty amongst students, education
level of citizens, population density, taxable income per student, etc. For
comparison I selected the districts from that group of 20 that have been rated
as Excellent by the DOE, plus any Franklin County districts also rated
Excellent. This provides both a demographic and geographic comparison group of
16 other districts that are getting similar outcomes.
The average Worthington teacher has 16 years of experience and possesses 15
hours academic credit beyond a Master's degree. In 2005-06, a Worthington
teacher at that position earned $71,841. The highest paying district in the
comparison group would pay that teacher $78,938 - 4 of the 16 districts would
pay that teacher a higher amount than Worthington.
Not all districts organize their pay scales exactly the same. However, all
districts do have what is the usual comparison point - the 11th year with a
Master's degree. In Worthington a teacher at that position would earn $60, 808.
The highest amount paid by the comparison group is $67,273 - 6 of the 16 would
pay above Worthington at that level.
Another point of comparison is the maximum amount any teacher can earn. In
Worthington in 2004-05 that amount was $78,605. The highest maximum in the group
was $84,358 - 5 of the 16 districts would pay above Worthington at the maximum.
The point is that Worthington, with the most experienced staff of any of the
comparison group, and with an enviable district-wide performance record, is
paying its teachers about where they should and certainly is not out of line.
I have used the most up-to-date figures available in this comparison, but
these numbers ebb and flow throughout any year. One can draw whatever other
conclusions they wish, but I conclude that Worthington is appropriately
competitive with the districts with which it should be.
Bob Barkley, Worthington
Why not send AP seniors to college?
As the Worthington school board seeks to make budget cuts, I would like to
offer a suggestion. Why not send your AP (Advanced Placement) seniors to college
(OSU, Otterbein, Capital)? Several other school districts already do this. These
classes enable AP students to earn college credit, help them know what college
classes are like, improve their resume appeal and saves their parents money to
earn these credits while in high school.
If college classes were offered to the AP seniors, it would free up their
highly qualified teachers to move one level down and prepare even more students
than in the small senior AP classes. The overall result would be a reduction of
several teaching positions in the high schools.
Steffanie Haueisen, Worthington
District doesn't suffer from
too little revenue
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Some members of our community argue that the failure of the recent school
levy is proof that the school funding mechanisms in Ohio are broken. Their
argument seems to be that frequent property tax levys unfairly burden the
schools and that voters are not capable of making an informed decision about how
much to spend on education. For this group, the issue is too little revenue, not
excessive spending. Many also trust the state legislature to fix the problem by
raising state taxes and eliminating local control over school funding. Of course
this is all for the children.
According to the Ohio Department of Education, Worthington Schools spent
$10,163.41 per pupil in 2005. Revenue per pupil was $12,153.88. How much more
can they need? Our district does not suffer from too little revenue, nor is it
impoverished and unable to provide an adequate education based on property
taxes. Our district suffers from excessive spending and an expectation that the
voters will approve whatever the schools claim they need. In my opinion spending
is out-of-control and fundamental changes are required to restore
reasonableness. Fortunately, we still get to vote on the issue.
Unfortunately, my wife and I suffer from a similar problem. We are also
revenue-impaired. Just look at our spending budget for the next three years and
you can see that there is not enough revenue to do everything we want to do.
Consequently, we allocate our revenue to the things we value most and defer the
others. It is time for the schools to do the same.
Robert Setzer
Columbus
Seniors can't afford additional
taxes
In response to Mr. Bob Barkley's letter in the May 25 edition of ThisWeek, it
should be pointed out that there is more to the failure of this levy than he may
realize.
I have lived in Worthington since 1965. At that time, the Worthington school
zone had the same boundaries as the city of Worthington. Then in 1968, several
steps were made to extend the school boundaries well beyond the city boundaries.
To compensate for the additional costs of a much larger school system, including
more buses, additional buildings, larger staff, etc., several agreements were
made with local businesses, such as the then new Anhaser Brewery on East
Dublin-Granville Road, for special tax support. In my opinion that tax support
never came close to paying for the influx of students living outside the
boundaries of the city of Worthington. As a result, the Worthington Board of
Education has been playing a losing game of "catch up" from that time forward.
Nevertheless, my wife and I had voted for every school levy since 1965. We
are now retired senior citizens who have been living on fixed incomes since
1991. This latest levy threatened to detrimentally affect our tight budget, so
we (and many other seniors) voted it down.
I certainly agree with Mr. Barkley that educating our children is an
investment for the future. That is why we have cheerfully paid our share over a
lifetime in support of our school system, but we cannot afford to pay an
additional $400 or $500 every other year or so. Such increases are just not
sustainable for retirees.
So I suggest that the board, Superintendent Conrath and we citizens of
Worthington increase our dialogue in our endeavor to find solvable solutions for
this problem.
Several things come to mind immediately:
# Eliminate "double dipping" for jobs than can be performed just as well by
younger qualified people (on lower salaries) who are not yet retired. Why pay a
person twice? The school budget just cannot afford it.
# Reduce the hiring of expensive "consultants." Our teachers and
administrators are well educated and should be up to the task in most
situations.
# Create a real estate tax break for senior citizens that recognizes the 40
plus years of our financial support of the Worthington Schools. That is, set it
up so that senior citizens still pay real estate taxes, but the portion set
aside for the Worthington Schools would remain fixed at year 2006 levels. In
accomplishing this, I think the first thing to do would be to find out how many
senior citizens live in Worthington. Then compute the resulting reduction in the
real estate taxes allocated to the Worthington school district if senior
citizens no longer were obligated to pay additional taxes coming out of a new
levy. Perhaps an estimate has already been done. If so, would the senior citizen
tax break cause a significant drop in tax funds for our schools?
# Eliminate business trips when the purpose of the travel can be accomplished
in other ways, such as by teleconferencing.
# Consolidate school bus travel. Many times I have seen our largest school
buses leave a school at the end of a day with only five or six children on
board. Also, eliminate school bus transportation for children living less than a
mile from their school (when it is possible for them to safely walk home). Not
only would that save on fuel and bus maintenance costs, it would be a way to
help reduce obesity.
Jim Calvert
Worthington
State, local taxes have a choke hold on
Ohio
For many years, fiscal conservatives, myself included, have argued that
Ohio's state and local tax bite, the third highest in the country, is
suffocating Ohio's economy, and that since taxes follow spending, the logical
course of action would be to enact a cap on spending as a way to hold down or
reduce the tax burden on Ohio residents. Last week, the legislature enacted such
a cap, but before fiscal conservatives break out the champagne, a closer look at
what was done, the ramifications of what was done and the reasons it was done
might be enough to dull the celebration.
Some might argue that the motivation for passing legislation doesn't matter
as long as you agree with the legislation. I disagree. It is no secret that
Republicans perceived great political damage from Ken Blackwell's TEL amendment
and there is no doubt that the constitutional amendment was deeply flawed. It
contained vague language where the most important thing in any constitutional
amendment is clarity, so it deserved to be shot. With an eye towards the 2006
elections, a deal was struck that essentially replaced the constitutional
amendment with a legislative spending cap. In my opinion, to enact any law based
solely on political motives is bad public policy. Recently, Republicans enacted
two laws based solely on politics, the cap and the ability to have
constitutional amendments that have already qualified for the ballot withdrawn
if a majority of the sponsoring committee wants to do so. Both laws were rushed
through with little debate and almost no discussion of the potential short-term
and long-term ramifications of the legislation. In my opinion, if a spending cap
had been enacted out of a true realization that excessive state and local taxes
are ruinous to economic recovery, the resulting law, after a rigorous public
discussion, might have been different.
Republicans will tell you that the legislative cap accomplishes the same
thing as the constitutional amendment. I disagree. The legislative cap
authorizes spending to increase at 3.5% (or inflation + population growth) each
year for three years. If spending increases at 2% one year, it can increase at
5% the next year. Every fourth year, the cap is reset based on what was actually
appropriated, so this provides the legislature with a built-in incentive to
spend money every fourth year because the amount that is appropriated will form
the basis for the cap for the following three years. The last thing we needed
was for the Ohio Legislature to have an excuse to spend money! In practice,
state spending is more likely to be limited by revenue, not by the cap, however,
in the unlikely event that the state does receive unexpected tax revenue, there
is no mechanism under the cap to return that money to the taxpayers whereas
under the TEL, the refunding of excess tax dollars would have been automatic.
Excluding the flaws in the language of the constitutional amendment, there
are two other main differences between the TEL and the legislative cap. Let's
look at each in turn:
The TEL not only affected state government but local governments as well. The
reason that any spending cap must include local government is that without such
a clause, it is easy for the state to simply push spending down to counties,
townships, cities and school districts. If the state were, for example, to stay
under the cap by cutting aid to local school districts or cities, those school
districts and cities would be forced to raise those dollars locally. Most
Ohioans probably don't care which government has a hand in their pocket, it is
the combination of state and local taxes that is causing the problem. In
addition, the TEL contained a prohibition against unfunded mandates. With the
TEL, the state could not tell a local school district that it had to implement a
program regardless of cost without also committing to pay for the program. With
the cap that was enacted, the state can simply tell a county or a township that
it must provide some service but the state does not have to pay for the service,
thus forcing the county or township to raise taxes.
One can argue that the inevitable result over time with a state-only cap on
spending will be an increased reliance on local taxes for services previously
provided by the state. Ironically, for school districts, the last thing we
needed in Ohio was increased reliance on local taxes, but this is the
predictable result of a state-only cap.
The second major difference between the constitutional TEL and the
legislative cap is the ease of modification. It seems pretty obvious that what
the legislature provided in two days with little debate, the legislature can
take away in two days with little debate, so it is fair to speculate that if and
when the cap becomes inconvenient, it will be removed. The federal government
has had debt limit caps for years and every year, special legislation is passed
to raise the debt limit to account for increased spending. There is no reason to
believe the same will not happen with spending caps in Ohio, and it takes a
simple majority of the Ohio legislature to change the law.
There are those that would argue that for fiscal conservatives, the cap is
better than nothing. I disagree. There is no greater advocate for fiscal
restraint at the state and local levels than I am, but Ohio needs to have a full
and fair discussion of taxes, spending, unfunded mandates, legislative
priorities and more. To pass these laws for purely political purposes without
such a discussion does a disservice to the entire state and I'm hoping that next
year, regardless of the election outcome, we can revisit the legislative cap
and, after discussion and debate, pass new legislation that will implement
tangible, workable limits on state and local spending that will reduce the total
tax burden on Ohio residents and start to remove the choke hold that state and
local taxes have on Ohio's economy.
Marc Schare
Dublin
Spending side needs
close examination
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Following the recent levy
vote, Abramo Ottolenghi correctly suggests that we should heed the words of
board member Marc Schare, who says the board should "react, but don't
overreact."
Educate Worthington (educateworthington.org) completely agrees that to
"overreact" would be a mistake, and completely unnecessary, especially given
that we do not project a deficit this year...or next.
Therefore, the district's immediate goal should be a serious and meaningful
analysis of the revenues and expenses that drive our current levy needs, and we
hope it does exactly that.
Some individuals in this community, including Mr. Ottolenghi and Mr. Meeks,
would prefer to focus our analysis on "revenues" alone, indicating that it is
state funding reductions and other revenue losses that are solely responsible
for our current situation.
However, before we accept "this is not an expenditures issue," as Mr. Meeks
claims, please carefully consider the following information from the district's
current five-year forecast.
Our total revenues rise from $100-million to $102-million by 2010. Not much
of an increase, but not a "reduction," either.
Of greater interest, our total expenses rise from $105-million to
$123-million by 2010, as we teach fewer students with fewer staff. (Note: At
this rate of growth, consider what our expense budget might look like beyond
2010, and how many levies it would take to support that?)
In addition, the state created "hold harmless" provisions in the last state
budget, which will protect Worthington from significant losses of state funding
through 2010.
Finally, the forecast states that Worthington received "$3.3-million in
additional (state) revenues each year for the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years."
In light of these points, Educate Worthington is not convinced that our
current financial challenge is primarily a result of revenue issues, or "state
funding cuts."
And even if we are completely wrong in this assertion, no serious analysis of
district levy needs could be considered complete if the "expense" side of the
equation is given any less than a thorough examination.
Regardless, we will be watching closely, to see what district leadership
heard from the community on May 2, and to see how it reacts. We are optimistic
that under the new and capable district leadership, the often used method of
re-packaging the same basic levy and trying it again with different campaign
tactics will not be the only option on the table.
Mike Alfred, Worthington
Education should be seen as an
investment
On May 2, Worthington residents took a test. They decided between education
being a cost to contain or an investment in the development of our community and
its young people.
The proper answer to the test is that education is an investment - not a
cost, as insisted by some anti-levy folks and a majority of those who bothered
to vote. With the myriad changes in our world today, there couldn't possibly be
a better investment or a more crucial one.
Today, we still teach French and Spanish in our schools - largely out of
habit and tradition. It is not that teaching such languages is a bad investment;
it just isn't our best one. If we were investing to prepare our children for the
future, we would be offering Mandarin Chinese, in addition.
On that note, China is currently investing to make its universities the
world's best within the decade. Cost is not an issue with China. The Chinese
will leave us in their dust unless we awaken. Thus, we need an even greater
investment rather than lamenting over current costs. Also, in their current
educational enlightenment, the Chinese are fighting to recover from the damage
done by their outmoded emphasis on testing, standardization, and centralized
curriculum, just as our nation is alarmingly being led in that wrong-headed
direction.
Another example of needed investment is that we should not only be providing
our students with state-of-the-art technology, we should be teaching them to
build and program these computers. Instead, some suggest that we save our
schools money (costs) by getting outdated computers from local businesses rather
than investing in buying our schools the most advanced ones we can find. Our
community decided that our kids can and should survive with outdated technology.
Nevertheless, despite all the technology talk, the bottom-line in education
is the personal relationship established between teacher and student. The
prospect for that relationship reaching its potential is considerably increased
the lower the number of students with which each teacher must work.
We had an opportunity here in Worthington to invest in improving that
teacher-student ratio in ways that could have markedly enhanced those critical
relationships. That would only be a cost rather than an investment if our
teachers did not take advantage of the improved ratio by adopting more
individualized teaching strategies. I have every confidence that our teachers
would have continued and expanded the use of this advantage to invest in
students. We apparently have decided we prefer an assembly-line education rather
than an individualized one.
The Worthington schools are excellent but only by largely outdated measures.
This phenomenon is not unique to Worthington. The failure to invest in
modernizing the education system is a nationwide problem. But just as here in
Worthington, too many people across this nation still think of education as a
cost versus an investment. We are about the only developed country to think in
such backward ways.
I shudder to think what will happen now that the current "maintenance only"
levy has failed. Think how much it will cost, and how much we will be forced to
invest, in order to recover and how much our students will now suffer since
we've chosen to go backwards just when there is a clarion call to go forward.
What a shame.
Bob Barkley
Worthington
So how would you balance the budget?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
I have some questions for recent contributors to ThisWeek as well as anyone
else who happens to share their slant on the levy failure: How would you propose
the district balance its budget? If you don't want cuts made to co-curricular
activities and other programs then where? If you want to maintain transportation
for students who could easily walk to school then what do you cut? Yes, the
answer is clear. No new money means cuts must be made so what do the voters want
to cut?
Let me guess, your first suggestion will be administrators. Have you ever
shadowed any school administrator for a day?A week? I would suggest you do so
before you decide to cut them out of the picture. And if you do cut
administrators who will pick up their work load? Will you pay that person more
since you just doubled his or her work load?
Your next suggestion will be to cut teachers' salaries. When you sit down to
figure out how much an average teacher makes and divide that by the number of
hours required to do the job, both during the school day and during the many
hours after school and on weekends spent preparing lessons and grading papers, I
guarantee you will find that every teacher in America is undervalued and
underpaid. And do not even start with the "you get summer s off" thing. For many
teachers that is two to three months forced unemployment, during which time many
teachers have second jobs or a business they work to make ends meet. Many
teachers, myself included, teach summer school, coach sports or work preparing
for the next school year as well as having a second job.
We could look at closing some buildings. Which ones do you close? Do you
suppose that is going to be easy given that families living around every
building are very attached to their school and its teachers? How do you make
something like that fair and equitable to all concerned?
Mr. Boyd was not trying to make a threat when he said we would need to start
looking at cuts; he was stating a fact. With no new funds coming in, the loss of
monies due to the repeal of the inventory tax, unfunded mandates from both the
state and federal departments of education, the normal increase in the costs of
goods and services, and many other factors out of the district's control, cuts
will be required to meet the budget. Would the voters like to know what will be
cut if we do not pass another levy or would they rather just wait and be
surprised? And even if massive cuts are made we will still have to come back to
the voters eventually.
No educator or administrator I know in any district likes the way schools are
funded in Ohio It is, however, the system with which the schools have been
saddled. The funding model forces schools to go back to the voters every two or
so years to get new money. The model puts unfair pressure on those on fixed
incomes while our city and state leaders continue to allow businesses to come
into Ohio communities without paying their fair share of school funding. This
seems very wrong to me since those businesses are the direct recipient of what
schools produce, a well educated work force. Our citizens on fixed incomes
should be the ones receiving the tax abatements. If it takes a tax abatement to
get a company to come to a community, at least make them responsible for the
taxes they would have paid to the schools. Don't shift that burden to the
citizens of the community. That is really not too much to ask.
Like it or not, given our current situation, cuts will need to be made. They
are not a threat, they are what is required of the district by law and a fact.
Nobody likes cuts. They impact the lives of students and the lives of the staff
members who have dedicated themselves to serving those students. It is time for
the citizens of Worthington, in chorus with all Ohioans, to say to our state
legislators that it is time to fix this problem once and for all. It is time for
our leaders to hear this message: Fix Ohio's unconstitutional school-funding
system. Until this is done, this problem is not going to go away.
Gavin Meeks,
Teacher,
Worthington Kilbourne High
Opposition was just more
sophisticated
Now what? The Worthington City School District levy failed. It is not the
first time, and so the words of school board member Marc Schare should be
heeded: "react but don't overreact".
Board member Robert Horton is mistaken when he says that there was no
organized opposition. The opposition was much more sophisticated than in the
past. Instead of the...easy-to-counter statements that invited disbelief, it
limited itself to the presentation of out-of-context numbers in what was a
frontal attack on teachers' salaries.
Out-of-context because the Educate Worthington folks presented only that
segment of the teachers' salary schedule that includes the rapid increases that
keep those salaries competitive with those of other Franklin County suburban
districts. What was not presented were those 15 years when the step increases
were limited to 1% every three years.
The issue of unsustainability of the current system for funding public
education through an overreliance on property taxes seems to have just dawned on
the Educate Worthington folks. For years, I have been mentioning the problem and
for years voters have been voting in a legislature that simply ignored the
problem or made it worse....
Small and mostly cosmetic cuts will be relatively easy, but larger cuts will
seriously impair the school district's competitive position in the marketplace
of suburban districts. So, what now? The important thing is for the board to
heed Schare's words: "react but don't overreact."
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
A response to Abramo
Ottolenghi
Ottolenghi says that Educate Worthington "attacks" teachers by
presenting numbers "out of context" and by pointing out that teachers
(after 15 years) get only 1% raises every three years. Unfortunately, he gets his facts wrong. Those teachers get step
raises every other year, not every three. And he
surprisingly omits the fact that those same teachers still get the
3-4% union-negotiated base raises that all teachers get (which is still far above
the national average).
"Sophisticated" is his word for Educate Worthington's "attack" on
teachers. Educate Worthington spent $40 and a couple of nights a week
typing out text for a web site. This is compared to the Vote Yes campaign that raised over $10,000 and
spent over $12,000. Vote Yes still has over $10,000 in
preparation for the next round. (Download their latest campaign
finance report HERE.)
Clear message was sent: 'no' actually
means 'no'
Thursday, May 11, 2006
On May 2, Worthington voters sent a clear message to those who run the
schools, and by a significant margin: No. We can now only hope that those in
charge realize that no means no.
Certainly, no doesn't mean "waste precious dollars on an August special
election re-run." Neither does no mean "cart the same dog and pony show back out
in November and expect any different results."
This taxpaying parent has a few other items to add to the list: No also means
don't come back and threaten the football program, the baseball, basketball or
softball programs, the music programs or similar high participation and/or
revenue generating activities that contribute to a well-rounded educational
experience. No also means don't come back and tell me if I don't say yes the
next time that you will make my children walk to school instead of riding the
bus. Intimidation tactics will do nothing to change the results.
To me, no means enough of the unaffordable and/or impractical union contracts
that seem to uncontrollably hamstring the district in these situations over the
years. No also means I don't accept the excuse that "it's all the state's
fault." While some things could be better, pointing blame instead of taking
action is not what is expected of leaders. No also means the district should
look at reconfiguring several buildings to come up with a more efficient plan to
use our resources, while not burdening just one group as happened with Sutter
Park.
Finally, to this voting taxpayer, no does not mean I will never say yes
again.
Saying no was very difficult. This is the first time I ever said no to any
school levy in my voting life. I said no because I know that you can do better,
and I expect that as our elected leadership, you will do better the next time.
Kevin T. Ingledue
Columbus
In Worthington schools, it's
business as usual
Upon the defeat of the school levy, I hoped that the school district
administration would join the community in trying to live within our income, and
in demanding that the legislature come up with a more equitable - a fairer -
method of school funding.
Alas, the day after the election, school district treasurer Jonathan Boyd was
quoted in The Columbus Dispatch that soon he will begin reciting his usual list
of cuts to student activities.
Threatening parents with cuts, instead of working with the community and the
legislature, is the administration's same old business as usual.
John Haueisen
Worthington
Boyd comment indicates he's part
of the problem
The Worthington school board has received a 60% disapproval rating from the
voters. When asked for comment, Mr. Boyd, the treasurer, could have said, "We
will work with our constituency to resolve our differences." Instead, according
to The Columbus Dispatch, he said, "The next one (campaign) will be telling
people what we will cut".
Is there a not-so-veiled threat in this comment? Is the intent possibly to
intimidate by cutting meat while keeping the fat? We must remain alert to these
tactics.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Boyd, as a rehired retiree, is himself
part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Abe Maxwell
Worthington
Educate Worthington thinks levy
rejection would force leaders to change spending
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Mike Alfred is co-chair of the group called Educate Worthington. John
Herrington is the other co-chair. They can be contacted at
educateworthington.org
On May 2, the residents of the Worthington school district will be asked to
approve the third school levy in five years, while accepting the likelihood of
an estimated 10-mill levy in 2008 -- all as our student and staff populations
slowly decline.
The excellence of our school district, and the efforts of our talented staff
are appreciated and do not go unnoticed. However, even if we would like to
continue with the business-as-usual spending of the past, at some point this may
no longer be possible.
From the public forums and the letters and articles in the local papers, it
is clear that something has changed from 2004, when the last levy passed without
much discussion. This year, there appears to be genuine and broad concern about
whether a levy every other year is a sustainable course for the residents and
businesses of Worthington.
While this change in public sentiment is significant, of far greater
importance is whether our district leadership and our school system as a whole
have a true concern for the levy course they have helped to chart, and whether
they intend to turn this concern into action.
We hope that, despite the outcome of the levy vote, the district accepts the
legitimacy of the immediate and long-term concerns of many in this community,
and begins the difficult work that change requires.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to see why our leadership would retain any
sense of urgency for change once the levy revenue required to continue spending
as usual is made available. We wish this were not so, but this is simply human
nature.
In the end, if you feel the money requested for this levy is truly for the
children, despite that the $12-million in additional yearly revenue does not
promise new or expanded opportunities for our students, you might likely vote
yes.
If you feel the district already has enough money to provide the excellent
education that Worthington has always been known for, you might likely vote no.
Finally, if you feel our district leadership and staff need to seriously
consider whether a levy every other year is good for the long-term health of the
residents and businesses in this community, you might want to consider a vote of
no -- not yet.
This vote recognizes that we do have financial needs that will require some
amount of additional funding in the near future. More importantly, however, this
vote recognizes that allowing our expenses to grow at a rate that now requires a
levy every two years, as we teach fewer students with fewer staff, is simply not
sustainable.
Additionally, it acknowledges the reality that our district leadership may
need for the community to formally request the necessary changes to our spending
plan, through the voice of its voters.
May 2 is your opportunity to make your request.
Worthington Community for Schools
thinks kids would suffer if the levy doesn't pass
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Saul Seigel is the chairman of the group called Worthington Community for
Schools.
As I approach the end of my eighth decade of life, the realization of how
important a good education is to each generation has become ingrained into my
very being.
As a resident of the Worthington community, it is evident that the children
in the Worthington school system are now receiving such an education.
As someone who has volunteered in the Worthington schools, I have a lot of
confidence in the teachers and administration who are employed by the legally
elected school board, which I also believe in.
I have met the members of the school board and they are all residents of the
school district who also are affected by the tax levies. They work long hours
for very little pay. They do it because they care for the community.
Over the years, I have heard many excuses to not vote for a school levy. The
reasons sound all the same no matter what school district you visit. Some blame
the teachers and administration, others blame the school board, and still others
say if they vote no, they will send a message to the legislature.
Recently, many have even complained about how the teachers pay schedule is
set up. This type of pay schedule is used by virtually every school system in
the state because it meets the state law requirement that teachers' pay
recognizes experience and education.
The reality is that a lot of people seek only to rationalize doing something
that will only hurt the kids. To vote no will hurt no one but the kids. Programs
and opportunities will be cut to balance the budget.
It seems that in this race, rhetoric has replaced trying to look at the
accurate facts of the situation. The facts can easily be found in the campaign
literature that most Worthington residents have received in the mail.
Over recent years, the administration has already made cuts totaling
$22-million in an attempt to continue to provide a good education and still
answer the critics who complain about spending money to educate the community's
children.
I am the father of three children and the grandfather of six. Someone paid to
educate my children and I have no problem paying taxes to educate the children
of this community.
I live in this community because of the excellent quality of life, a quality
of life enhanced by the excellent school system.
As a senior citizen living in this excellent community, I realize that it
costs money to continue to have an excellent school system. The people who
complain the loudest seem to have forgotten the reason they moved into
Worthington in the first place, the excellent schools. Our school system here in
Worthington is truly a gem and all people have to do to appreciate that fact is
to read the paper and see the turmoil many other school districts are
experiencing even right here in the county.
If the opponents of the levy would spend as much time writing to their
legislators and demanding changes to how schools are funded as they did trying
to avoid paying more taxes, we might really see changes take place.
I and those working on the levy would welcome these people to help us
persuade the legislature to make changes that will help senior citizens living
on tight budgets, without hurting the kids.
The reality is that any meaningful changes in school funding, and in effect
taxation, will have to come from our state legislature. It cannot come from the
school board because they are bound by state law.
It is time for the rhetoric to end and for the residents of the district to
take a positive stand for the children of our community. Please vote yes on
Issue 5 to maintain the excellent programs now in place in our schools.
It is far better to spend a hundred dollars on education, than spend one
dollar to take care of those who have a poor education through entitlements.
Many kids leave this school system and go on to become doctors, attorneys,
accountants, architects, businessmen and women, and leaders. This is only
possible because of our community's tradition of supporting education. This has
to continue.
New Ideas Needed
to Cut Spending, Increase Quality
As a former member of Superintendent Fenton's task force on
"Creating and Maintaining High-Quality, Cost-Effective Schools," I firmly oppose
the current 6.25-mill levy proposal on the May 2 ballot.
The Task Force reached six conclusions that formed the
basis is its Recommendations. In addition, we identified several critical
issues for the district and offered specific recommendations to address those
issues. We also concluded that: "It must be recognized that the current
level of expenditures and the current level of program offerings cannot be
maintained at the current level of revenue. Long-term answers lie in
addressing all three areas in concert."
For me, this last statement is a call to action.
There is a compelling need for new and creative ideas that simultaneously
improve the quality of education and reduce or contain the costs of providing
that education. The school district cannot continue to operate the next 10
years as it has in the last 10 years.
Historically, the school district increases spending every
year, even when faced with declining enrollment. Consequently, spending
per student increases at a faster rate. In 1994, General Fund Spending per
student was $6,313. In 2004, it was $10,061, an increase of 65 percent.
During the same period inflation was only 19 percent as measured by the GDP
deflator. If annual spending per student increased at the inflation rate,
the district would have saved $117,440,000 over the ten year period. That
is a lot of taxpayer dollars.
Some argue that inflation is not an appropriate measure
because school spending is mostly salaries and benefits. However,
according to the Employment Cost Index for all civilian employees, salaries and
benefits only increased 40 percent between 1994 and 2004. The
district would have saved $55,840,000 during the period if annual spending per
student had increased at the same rate.
Unfortunately, this increased spending did not appear to
improve the quality of education during the period. Test scores are
essentially unchanged, but quality is extremely difficult to measure without
better metrics.
The voters should defeat any levy request until the board
organizes a serious community effort to prepare and present a long-term plan for
the district that adequately addresses the critical issues identified by the
Task Force.
All constituents of the Worthington School District deserve
as much. We should not expect the state or federal governments to resolve
these issues. Their priorities are not the same as those of our children.
Robert Setzer
Excessive spending is the real
issue
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Worthington students are not receiving the quality of education for which
residents are paying. The output of "real educational quality" should be
measured against the input of taxes from parents and residents in the community.
As a parent, I was appalled to recently see the data that the Worthington
school district has severely failed that test. The SAT reasoning test measures
the culmination of knowledge and skills developed by students from their
educational experience. Whether we agree or not, one important universal test
used to evaluate entrance into colleges is the SAT results. Data from the
College Board and the Ohio Department of Education reveal that Worthington SAT
scores are 10-20 points lower than in Upper Arlington or Bexley. The Worthington
district has lower SAT verbal scores than 70% and math scores lower than 25% of
Ohio's similar districts. SAT scores are 50% below the minimum entry scores for
the nation's 40 top colleges. The district has SAT test scores lower than
comparable districts, yet spends more per student. Students, parents and
residents expect better quality education, not hollow touting and rhetoric in
advertisements and presentations with misleading comparisons.
The Worthington school district will receive $18.5-million more than it shows
on its budget. The district has not told residents the truth about the amount of
revenue that will be received from a 2006 6.25-mill tax increase. The district
must use the estimated revenue certified by the Franklin County Auditor's
office. The auditor certified that more than $81.3-million would be generated
but the latest board-approved district budget forecast shows only $62.8-million.
Will this "buried" money be spent for more salary and benefits?
Excessive spending from 1995 to 2005 is the "real" issue, not revenue
shortfalls. While enrollment has declined by 12%, the number of teachers has
increased by 28%, and the rates of spending averaging 6.4% per year have
exceeded the average 2.8% inflation rate. The district spends $2,494 more per
student than 95% of similar Ohio districts. Yet, after the 2001 and 2004 tax
increases, the kids got nothing.
Threats of cuts and unrestored cuts that affect children's education
occurred. No educational enhancements occurred despite your support with more
taxes. Instead, the board adopted teacher salary and benefit increases presented
by the unions. The myth of underpay disappeared when teacher pay increases
averaged 5.65% annually -- twice the rate of inflation -- and more than American
workers received. A district teacher average salary is more than $65,000 plus
33% benefits (medical, retirement...) for 185 days work contract ($466/day).
The district increased salaries to keep teachers and then paid some of the
same teachers a $40,000 incentive to retire early. That makes no sense. The
union collects about $700 annually from each teacher member and has free offices
in the administration building. The teachers' union refused to help the
community by taking less of an increase.
The community will experience a 73% increase in school taxes on an average
house valued at $233,400 if the 2006 and 2008 increases pass. In 2006 alone,
this equates to a $191 increase for every $100,000 value of home. Worthington
median income at $42,000 is down $2,200 from 2001.
The board increased salaries to unjustifiable levels, purchased a palatial
administration building during a late-night session , "studied" issues like
declining enrollment and quality education but took no positive actions, refused
to sell unneeded real estate.... Board members accepted contributions and
endorsements from employee unions to get elected, then adopted huge salary
increases for those same employees. The district now falsely blames the state
for its own local tax-and-spend behavior over the years.
Placing all this in a comparative context may help. Worthington and Olentangy
school districts are similar in enrollment, achievement test scores, top state
rating of 23, but the cost per student in the Worthington school district is
$3,000 more ($11,209) than in Olentangy. The district spends $2,494 more per
student than 95% of Ohio's similar districts.
Excellence in education does not correlate with more spending and higher
taxes. Send a clear message that the community deserves and expects better
education and accountability.
Dr. Cal Taylor
Worthington
Cynkar's figures don't support his
statement
In the March 30 edition of ThisWeek Worthington, Paul Cynkar stated that
"Worthington schools cut 52 teaching positions" but these figures do not match
what Mr. Cynkar provided me just a few weeks ago. I asked Mr. Cynkar for a
comparison between 1992 and today in enrollment, staffing and revenue and the
following was his reply after considerable research:
Where are those 52 teaching positions that were cut since 2000? Cynkar's
research reflects an increase in every staffing area despite the fact that
enrollment declined. In addition, revenue for the district as provided to me by
Jonathan Boyd for 1992 was $122,598,253.04 and in 2005 it has jumped to
$152,137,849.91 an increase of nearly $30-million a year and the district is
again asking for additional tax dollars.
Paul Cynkar also stated in response to addressing staffing while enrollment
declined, the district was "slow to the trigger" as "between 1995 and 2000
enrollment declined by 495. At the same time, staffing increased by 43." Not
only was the board slow to trigger with staff reduction he failed to remind you
they were quick on the draw when it came to asking for additional tax increases
during that same time period.
Board members were actively involved in a meeting a few weeks ago to organize
support for the levy. The 20 some people who attended were all asked to start
writing letters to the community papers in support of the levy. I believe that
is why we are seeing numerous support letters for the pending levy issue. In
addition, they were asked to seek at least ten friends, neighbors or anyone they
could convince to vote for Issue 5. It is also true that some of those who
attended the meeting were teachers or employees of the Worthington schools who
are likely to personally benefit if the levy passes.
Do not be mistaken the main purpose for the lax levy is to pay salaries for
district employees. The board members have told us again and again that 85
percent of the budget goes to pay salaries the board continues to increase.
Please keep in mind when you vote that it is the board of education that has
been responsible for the problems it claims to have today. The taxpayers did not
claim to need all the schools we now have; they did not purchase oversized board
of education building we could not afford nor did they not fail to see the
decline in enrollment. The taxpayers were not involved in over staffing nor did
they negotiate salaries. What the taxpayers are guilty of is approving levies to
allow business as usual within the school district. Let us not make the same
mistake again.
Ed Parsons
Worthington
Schare responds to 3 Ottolenghi
letters
I respond to Abramo Ottolenghi's last three letters to the editor.
On Feb. 2, Dr. Ottolenghi opined that Gov. Taft's proposals to increase math
and science requirements across the state were, while important, a vague and
unfunded mandate and that we should elect Democrats.
On March 15, Dr. Ottolenghi opined that Republicans in the legislature won't
solve any problems unless they are bribed with campaign contributions, and he
then goes on to state that the Republican nominee in the 21st assembly district,
Kevin Bacon, is nothing more than an insider who will toe the party line on all
issues and so we should elect Democrats.
Finally, on April 13, Dr. Ottolenghi opined that Republicans are
"psychologically incapable" of fixing school funding, citing the passage of the
"Growing Property Tax Levy" as evidence. As always, Ottolenghi concludes that we
should elect Democrats, despite the fact the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for
the same bill.
While Ottolenghi should be commended for his consistency, it may be time to
cool the rhetoric and look at the facts.
With regard to school funding at the state level and depending on which
report you look at, spending on K-12 education has increased from approximately
$4-billion in 1992 to approximately $8.2-billion in 2005. On a percentage basis,
K-12 funding has gone from 34 percent of the state budget to 39 percent of the
state budget. The problem is that K-12 expenses are rising at a much larger pace
than can be comfortably accommodated by a tax structure that would allow Ohio to
remain competitive with neighboring states, and any proposal that does not focus
on both revenues and expenditures will be sure to miss the mark.
With regard to state funding specifically in the Worthington school district,
the last Ohio budget blessed us with more than $6-million dollars that we had
not been counting on. This money came to us not by accident, but primarily
through the effective advocacy of the Republicans that represent us in the
general assembly, especially Rep. Jim Hughes of the 22nd assembly district.
Whatever your position on the Worthington schools levy next month, remember that
the levy amount would have been much higher were it not for the leaders that
Ottolenghi takes every opportunity to criticize.
That said, we have to do more at the state level. One issue which I would
like our legislature and our legislative candidates to focus on is
predictability. In the Worthington school district, we have not been hurt by
changes to state funding in education, at least not yet. The problem is that our
district has absolutely no idea what is going to happen in the next budget, or
the one after that. The general assembly is free to rewrite the rules every two
years. No business can sustain itself if it has no idea what its revenue model
is going to look like in the next year, two years or five years, but with the
constant tinkering of the school-funding formula, most school districts in the
state are in exactly that position. The legislature should either overhaul K-12
education funding or leave it alone. School districts need to be able to plan
more than two years out.
Finally, I agree with Dr. Ottolenghi that the state of Ohio must do more,
much more, to reduce school district dependence on local property taxes, but it
must do so in a way that allows our state to have a tax structure that is
competitive with other states and it must do so in a way that does not cripple
high performing school districts such as Worthington. I know that Rep. Hughes
and Kevin Bacon understand this. Time will tell if the same can be said about
their Democratic opposition.
Marc Schare
Dublin
Schools need repair, maintenance
funds
For many of us, our homes represent our most significant asset. Without
maintenance and repair, the value of our homes decreases.
The Worthington school district over the years has maintained and repaired
school facilities largely from the proceeds of voted bond issues, the most
cost-effective form of financing. Now that the district is no longer in a growth
mode, the time has come for monies dedicated to maintaining the community's
investment in school facilities.
The permanent improvement portion of the levy does just that.
It's time for Worthington to join the 7 of 16 school districts in Franklin
County having voted permanent improvement millage.
Rebecca C. Princehorn
Worthington
Democratic candidate calls letter
misleading
I was disturbed to read Dr. Ottolenghi's misleading letter in the April 13
edition of ThisWeek. He states that my primary opponent for the 21st Ohio House
district offers a real choice for the voters, but he fails to inform his readers
of some very important facts.
Dr. Ottolenghi speaks about the Supreme Court's decision concerning
"over-reliance on property taxes" and he says the following about my primary
opponent: "He has demonstrated an understanding of the plight facing senior
citizens under this property tax-heavy form of school funding."
Surprising words when you know that my primary opponent came out on March 15
in favor of raising the property taxes of these same senior citizens by 15
percent with the promise of more to come in two years.
At the same public meeting, I spoke forcefully against this most recent
property tax increase. One of these senior citizens is my 69-year-old mother,
who lives near me. It currently takes two of her Social Security checks to pay
her property taxes on her very modest home. Dr. Ottolenghi and my primary
opponent are more than happy to raise our property taxes again this year and
again in two years. I am not.
Unlike my primary opponent, I own a home in the school district and I have a
child in the Worthington schools. I have a stake in this issue. To him, it is an
intellectual exercise.
This Democrat does not reflexively raise your taxes. I ask for your support
on May 2 in the 21st district Democratic primary.
Jean Herendeen Ackerman
Democratic candidate, 21st State House District
Powell
School board isn't doing what it
was elected to do
The Worthington school board has been less than forthright with our community
both in words and in deed:
# Negotiated union raises twice the rate of inflation, keeping us in a 2-year
double digit cycle of levy requests.
# Increased the number of classroom teachers by 28 percent since 1995 (2.8
percent) while enrollment declined by 14 percent during the same period.
# Promoted excessive spending of 6.4 percent per year average since 1995.
# Decided the 1.25-mill part of this levy request for permanent capital
improvement was what the community would tolerate in a tax request and then
after that figure was reached, generated their "wish list" of replacement and
repair.
# Misled us into believing that the district was losing its intangible tax
revenues (taxes on business inventories) when in fact it knew that "the state
adopted a law to reimburse 100 percent of the lost revenue through 2010."
(William W. Wilkins, Ohio tax commissioner, The Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 18,
2006)
# Never acknowledged that if this levy is successful it will actually be
increasing their budget by 20 percent from our residential taxes because of the
recent property re-evaluation from the auditor. Beware the real costs involved
by only referring to the millage request in this levy based on a $100,000 house.
The levy would actually generate an additional $7,065,016.54 to the schools. The
Worthington median income is $42,000; $2,200 less than in 2001 and declining.
(County Auditor statistics)
# Presented only "projected savings" at the public forums but could not cite
any real savings. All fiction, no fact.
# Accepted campaign contributions, endorsements and newspaper ads from
employee unions and officials. Not illegal, but ethical? (Board of Elections,
campaign finance reports, public records).
# Maintain that this level of revenue is needed to keep our schools
"excellent" when in fact six other "similar" (Ohio Department of Education
definition) school districts, which according to the "State Report Card" rating
have the same 23 rating as Worthington does and the same or higher test scores
yet spend from $7,246 to $8,968 per pupil compared to Worthington's $11,209.
(Ohio Department of Education Web site)
The Worthington school board is not doing the job it was elected to do. It
does not consider our community concerns, incomes (whether fixed or not),
requests for fiscal responsibility or the facts. It should be obvious whose
concerns the board does consider.
Please vote no May 2. You should not and cannot believe any levy
justification that comes from such a biased source. Just say no to more of the
board's community-destructive "business-as-usual" attitude.
Steffanie Haueisen
Worthington
District has shown fiscal
responsibility
It is understandable in the consideration of any tax increase that emotion
plays a part in deciding how one will vote. I would ask that as voters consider
Issue 5 that they be open to facts as well.
It is a fact that the district has continually demonstrated significant
fiscal responsibility. The district has made more than $22-million dollars in
reductions over the past five years. It has done so without affecting the
academic program, evidenced by the fact that the Ohio Department of Education
has rated the Worthington schools as "excellent" for five consecutive years.
This documented record of excellence is unprecedented and is unmatched by any
other large district in the state. The passing of this levy will simply maintain
the academic program at the level it has been cut to over the past five years.
It is a fact that this district is managed in an effective and cost-effective
manner. Don't believe that? Then read the report of an independent task force
that reported as such after 18 months of examining the district's finances and
operations. Further independent and objective analysis validates the facts that
the district is near the middle for number of administrators per student, number
of students per classroom teacher and in the middle percentile of teacher
salaries.
It is a fact that the educational-funding model in Ohio is broken and
ineffective. That is fixed by electing legislators and governors committed to
education, not by defeating reasonable levy requests and punishing children by
eliminating programs.
It is a fact that the children of this community are our single greatest
resource and the only legacy that we will leave. They deserve every reasonable
opportunity that we as a community can provide. This levy is a reasonable
request and we simply cannot reduce the academic program of this district beyond
the $22-million worth that we already have.
I would ask the voters consider the facts, the real facts stated above when
considering Issue 5. I trust that when doing so voters will come to the same
conclusion as I, that while voting to raise taxes is not a desired choice, it is
the only choice we have at this time.
Jeffrey W. Cowgill
Worthington
Comparison shows why seniors can't
back tax
I have not read any objection to John Herrington's recent analysis of a
sample Worthington educator's salary increase for the 10-year period through
2007 totaling 113 percent.
By comparison, a sample senior citizen with a significant dependence on
Social Security payments for the 10-year period through 2006 received a total
increase of 25 percent.
While this comparison does not provide a complete picture without additional
analysis and comments, it should at least partially answer why many seniors
cannot support tax increases to provide continued substantial salary increases
to Worthington educators, no matter how enlightened may be the explanation.
John Corbett
Worthington
'No' votes should force district to
change ways
I have just reviewed this Web site online: http://www.educateworthington.org.
Every property and business owner should seriously look into historical and
current wastefulness of the Worthington school district. In a couple of weeks,
the district is asking all of us once again for more...more...more.
We have been residents and business owners in the city of Worthington since
1989.
Our no votes should force this school district to become fiscally responsible
and operate as if it were a corporation instead of a government entity, where
there is no limit to what it can spend.
Linda Harrison King
Worthington
Bottom Line:
Less Students Equal Fewer Resources
This is in response to April 5 Worthington News article
quoting Melissa Conrath. "We understand the seniors' concerns and are just
as frustrated as they are with the state school-funding formula," Conrath said.
"The formula simply doesn't work. We need to do a better job of
educating the community in how schools are funded.
My reaction to her concern about educating the community is
"and whose problem might that be if you are going to ask for my tax dollar?"
Lest we forget, our schools only exist to educated our
students. Therefore, unless we consider the school system and end in
itself, fewer students mean fewer resources. After all is said, it really
is that simple. The bottom line is the only reality in private business
and it should be that simple in the public's business. The only remaining
question is: Is it that our school board and administrators can't do the math,
or is it that they won't?
And no, I'm not running for anything but the voting booth.
Dennis Sayers
School Tax Burden
Drives Businesses to Leave City
My wife and I, along with our six children, have lived in
the city of Worthington since April 1969. We moved from Pittsford, NY, a
small city much like Worthington in population and services offered. In
the past 37 years, we have witnessed improvements in the quality of life for the
community with minor increases in our tax burden (excluding school and library
taxes, of course).
What concerns us now, is the movement of businesses out of
the city. The Worthington Chamber of Commerce said 90 percent of the
city's revenue comes from businesses located within the city's jurisdiction.
It is our belief the movement away from Worthington is prompted by the ever
increasing tax burden (particularly the school and library taxes) over the past
eight years.
We would dare to say about 70 percent of the residents in
Worthington share our belief that the reputation of a city and it's quality of
life (safety and services) has as much impact, as the schools do, on the
residential property values in a community.
It is these people who share our beliefs and concerns about
city of Worthington in the future we urge to go out to the polls May 2 and vote
"no" on the Worthington School Levy.
James Robison
School district has earned levy
support
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Everyone has reasons as to why or why they will not vote for the levy. Please
keep in mind that this levy is to maintain what we currently have. Some answers
to the most common and redundant complaints:
1. Levy money and athletics: With regards to the levy money going to
athletics. Worthington has always had "pay to play." When my son played football
at WKHS, I paid $120 for him to play football each year. To help fund the
athletics department, we have quite a few fund-raisers throughout the year
(Pancake Day, patron drive to name just two). Since we've always had pay to
play, that is why our fee is not outrageous as some other districts
(Westerville), which had to implement this on the whim. Levy money does not help
fund our athletics program.
2. Enrollment: Our enrollment is slightly down, not drastically as some like
to indicate, but if anyone has driven on Hard Road lately you will understand
that will change. Hundreds of homes are being built, which means families and
children. I would estimate that the majority of the kids who will live in these
areas will go to Worthington schools and some will go to private schools.
3. Ineffective spending by the district: The district is run in a "highly
effective and cost-effective" manner. That's the finding of an independent
fiscal task force that spent nearly 18 months examining the district and its
operations. Would a district which was not spending in a responsible manner
subject itself to a fiscal task force and scrutiny of its budget if it did not
feel confident? As the report shows, the district is spending our money in a
responsible manner. For those who refuse to believe this, a full report from the
task force can be found at the district's Web site: www.worthington.k12.oh.us
4. The district has not shown fiscal responsibility: Over the past five
years, the district has made over $22-million in reductions, and it has done it
without affecting the district's academic program. The other half-truth out
there is that the district is top-heavy in administrators or wages/benefits for
school personnel. It's not. Any objective analysis puts the district near the
middle for both number of administrators per student and per classroom teacher
and near the middle of the range of salaries.
Bottom line, until our legislature fixes the broken school-funding system, we
have to take care of our own. Our "own" is our school district, our children,
our future. The Worthington school district, for five consecutive years, has
been rated excellent. We are the only district to achieve this goal and as a
community we have every right to be proud of this fact.
I've had one son graduate from WKHS and my other son is a freshman at WKHS. I
see every day the great things that are happening in the schools We have a great
school district with outstanding teachers. I'm not willing to let this go, I'll
tighten my belt further and vote yes in May.
Rita Welsh
Powell
Our district is really good at
passing levies
From the letters, articles and likely endorsements in support of
Worthington's third levy in five years, it appears that many feel that all
levies are the same, regardless of their size or frequency.
Looking ahead to the promised 2008 levy of 10 mills, and the certainty of the
levies that will need to follow-up to sustain spending that the district
predicts will rise from $105-million to $123-million by 2009, there appears to
be no rate of increase that should be a cause for concern. With that said, there
are a number of other aspects of a pro-levy campaign, aside from unwavering
support, which is also the same from year to year. Below are a few of them:
First, the levy is for the children (even if the levy adds no new buildings,
no new programs, and now new staff for the children, as in the current case).
The reality is that the majority of proceeds from any levy are for the
compensation of district staff, and there is nothing new, unique or wrong about
that. As the union president said, they deserve a "fair contract." However, to
focus the discussion on the children, when the proceeds are mostly funding union
contracts providing raises of 3.25% to 8.65% for each of the next three years,
might be a little unfair. Effective, but unfair.
Second, the union and its membership will be very involved in supporting the
levy (as they do benefit from the outcome, and there is nothing inherently wrong
with that). Successful levy campaigns include volunteers and financial backing,
and with more than 1,000 district staff, a union that cites levy advocacy as a
primary goal, and numerous other support groups to draw on, the pro-levy side
will always be larger, more organized and better funded than anyone else. They
do this for a living -- literally.
Third, we will be reminded that the district received an "excellent" rating
again, and that we have many great programs and outstanding student achievements
to be proud of. All true, and we should be proud, but mostly of our excellent
students and caring parents.
Fourth, in mid-April, our community will be covered with pro-levy yard signs.
Signs will be placed in the yards of hundreds of teachers that live in the
district, their families and friends, levy supporters, etc. It will look like an
explosion of support, all at once. These yard signs, bought and paid for by many
who will personally benefit from the levy, are designed to convince you that you
are the only one in the entire school district that is questioning district
finances.
This year, let's try something different. Consider any yard that does not
have a sign as someone who is seriously questioning the sustainability of the
district's spending and the "every-other-year" levy course that this spending
has come to require. You may not be as alone as you think. We do have an
excellent school district, there is no doubt. There is no one who wants to
change that.
However, despite how much we might like to compensate our excellent staff,
how much can the residents and businesses afford to pay? Can the community
sustain 5.65% average raises and the compounding of these raises, indefinitely?
We may argue about whether or not Worthington City Schools is a good steward of
taxpayer dollars, but one thing we can all agree on is that our district is
really, really good at passing levies.
John Haueisen
Worthington
A 'no' vote on levy will help
seniors
It's school tax levy time in Worthington again. This year things are very
different. Jim Timko is no longer here to hold the school district accountable
for its budget and financial projections.
I relied on our former school board member for his sharp pencil and keen
ability to determine what the district is really saying when it tells us that we
must vote for this levy so that the children won't be forced to have an inferior
education i.e. a less expensive one. Jim would always fill us in on the rest of
the story... the budget items left out, items deliberately not included and
items that will probably be put in after the levy passes.
In past levy campaigns, I carefully listened to administration rhetoric, Abe
Ottolenghi's warnings about plummeting property values and Jim's rest of the
story before I decided whether or not to vote for a levy. This year I won't have
Jim's input, so I'll have to go with what I know.
I know that despite the fact that this levy has been coming for the last two
years, our treasurer couldn't have an income-tax option on the table in enough
time to make the money flow when it was needed.
I know that property values in Worthington have increased approximately 30%
this year. The average house in Worthington is now valued at more than $240,000.
This levy will be on this new valuation.
I know that despite the fact that many of Worthington's older residents
approached their school board about how increased taxes would directly affect
them on their fixed incomes, the school board went ahead with the treasurer's
plan after barely tinkering with the amount. It seems as though they were in a
hurry to get it on the May ballot. Probably because they know that the levy will
pass then despite the concerns of Worthington seniors.
Most of the folks who have children in the Worthington schools do not live in
Worthington. Most of the senior citizens on fixed incomes do live in Worthington
and they are consistently outnumbered at tax-levy time.
That's why I have decided to vote yes for that generation of residents who
are responsible for Worthington's reputation and allure...our senior citizens.
That means I will vote no the May tax levy.
This school district must stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is another
levy on the horizon in two years, then another two years after that. It will go
on unless we force the legislature to develop a new funding system that is more
equitable than our current property-tax system.
In the meantime, I believe that we need to hold the school district to a
strict budget and discourage it from spending money that it doesn't have. We
need to force it to be more creative and resourceful with taxpayer dollars. We
must insist that it consider the needs of our oldest taxpayers....
Pat Baumgardner
Worthington
Educate Worthington responds to
critics
Thursday, April 6, 2006
In the interest of accuracy, Educate Worthington would like to address just a
few of the comments that were offered.
First, Rick Savors is concerned that stating the average annual raise this
year as 5.65% is somewhat "misleading." The district has accepted this number,
as it is simply the 3.75% base teacher raise, plus the 1.9% average step
increase, as provided by the treasurer. (For perspective, consider that the
Department of Labor reports the average American worker's pay increased just
2.6% last year, and has averaged 2.9% since 2000.)
Savors and others also assert that these salary increases were paid for by
"savings" in healthcare premiums, which is not incorrect.
However, we question whose premium dollars were actually "saved." Isn't it
the taxpayers' money that pays the healthcare premiums, premiums that were
reduced by millions per year, effective Jan. 1?
Therefore, especially given the increasing financial challenge the district
community faces, shouldn't "the community" have received at least some of the
immediate savings of millions of dollars per year in premiums?
As we all agree, that did not happen. Educate Worthington will address this
important topic, in detail, on our Web site (educateworthington.org) in coming
days.
We would also like to direct Mr. Savors, and others, to our Web site for some
basic analysis of the effect of "compounding" on the district's budget....
If the district could have limited its spending by just 1.5% starting in
1995, our annual budget would be $14-million less than it is today. This is not
an accusation, and cannot be changed, but we can learn from our past.
Looking to the future, if we could reduce our current 3.85% rate of spending
increase to 2% per year, for example, the savings would amount to $127-million
over 10 years.
At 3.85% increases, our $105.5- million annual budget will grow to $154 million
in 10 years. However, at 2.0% increases, our budget will grow to
$128-million....
Ms. Sato is concerned that we might have misstated the seven-year increase
for a teacher as being more than 70%. We wish we could say that we made a
mistake, but the number is accurate.
Looking at the salary schedule, we offer the following example: An educator
with a Master's degree and five years' experience in 2000 had a salary of
$39,162. In 2001, that educator received an automatic step increase of 4.9% and
a base increase of 4% for a total salary of $42,726. From 2002 to 2007, that
educator received similar base and step increases each year, and in 2007 the
educator's salary will be $67,386.
Going from $39,162 to $67,386 is a total increase of 72% over seven years,
and this increase is typical of nearly every educator who had less than eight
years experience in 2000.
For a slightly longer-range perspective, our sample educator's 10-year
increase from 1997 to 2007 would be 113%.
Ms. Sato correctly mentions the benefit of having experienced teachers, which
has the effect of driving up the average teacher salary. We are all for
experienced teachers, but then why is the district spending $1.64-million to
incent those very teachers to retire early? Is it because we agreed to increase
their pay so rapidly and so high (refer to the above example) that we can no
longer afford them?
We would also like to say, very clearly, that this is not personal, this is
about numbers. It is no reflection on the excellent staff that Worthington
schools employs to teach our children. It is about the business of running the
second largest employer in Worthington. This is about asking tough questions
concerning the sustainability of the "business as usual" spending path that now
demands a sizeable levy every other year, to teach fewer students, with fewer
teachers.
We understand the union president, Mr. DiMauro's, position. It is his job to
aggressively negotiate for the compensation of union members. However, we are
concerned that the needs of the students and the taxpayers be as aggressively
represented as the needs of the union. This, also, will be addressed on our Web
site in coming days.
We also have a question concerning the success of Worthington schools. The
union leader suggests "It is the teachers of this district who are most directly
responsible for the success of our schools."
Good teachers are clearly important, and we respect and admire their
contributions. However, we feel it is our hard-working students who are "most
directly responsible" for "excellence." Not to be overlooked, involved parents
are another key factor in student success. (Without engaged students and/or
parents, how likely is it that any teacher can produce successful outcomes?)
We truly admire and respect our teachers and district staff. We hope the
teachers and staff can accept our comments as sincere, despite the union
leader's apparent interest in characterizing those who would question the levy
as "at best misguided and at worst mean-spirited and dishonest."
We would prefer to focus on the facts and ideas. If we make a mistake, we
will acknowledge it and correct it.
A final observation is that among last week's letters supporting the levy,
most writers acknowledge at least some doubt as to the sustainability of the
"every other year" levy path that we are now on. They seem to indicate that
there is some problem that will need to be addressed. If they are not going to
address it now, they certainly will have to in 2008, when the projected levy
will be an estimated 10 mills. And who knows what it will be in 2010 and in
2012.
We are hosting a question and answer session on this topic at the Old
Worthington Library. Details can be found at EducateWorthington.org. We invite
everyone, especially those on the pro-levy side, to attend and share their
perspective.
We look forward to an open and worthwhile dialogue on the future of our
schools and our community.
John Herrington, Educate Worthington
Smaller class, school size
benefits students
It does not necessarily follow that declining enrollment in Worthington
schools should translate into a declining number of teachers and other
employees. That would only be true if at peak enrollment there were ideal class
sizes, schools sizes, and program offerings.
The research on this matter is overwhelmingly one-sided. Smaller class sizes
and smaller school sizes benefit students immensely.
It is largely beside the point whether the Worthington schools have reduced
the number of teachers as the total student population has declined. Thinking
one leads directly to the other is naÔve, to say the least. Taken together,
maintaining neighborhood schools, making sure not to exceed the current and
quite reasonable district class-size standards, offering a wide range of courses
and meeting state and federal imposed mandates obviously will not allow students
to be divided up into nice neat little standard-size classes.
Consequently, currently there is a whole range of class sizes across the
district. Some are close to what research suggests, some are smaller and some
are larger. This is what reasonable people should expect and support.
A negative vote on the levy will be a clear step backwards for the district.
Those who say otherwise simply do not have their facts in order or don't know a
lot about teaching and learning. Approval of this levy will allow the district
to maintain an enviable record of excellence and to begin to make the necessary
changes to meet even higher 21st-century standards.
Bob Barkley
Worthington
Can you put a price on value of
schools?
A cynic, said Oscar Wilde, is someone who knows the price of everything and
the value of nothing. By that measure, I fear that the conversation now
occurring about the school levy has tilted too much toward the cynic's view. To
try to right the balance, I would like to share a few observations about value -
specifically the great value that the Worthington schools provide, and why a yes
vote on Issue 5 is such a great investment for this community.
The Linworth Alternative Program, with its wonderfully dedicated teachers,
uniquely independent students and close community, helps our sons and daughters
become critical thinkers and sophisticated learners, and develop into mature and
responsible young adults. At a time when too many students drop out of school,
and too many high school seniors waste their final year, Director Wayne Harvey
and his colleagues at Linworth provide students with a "Walkabout" experience
that keeps students engaged, turns the world into a classroom, and transforms
12th graders into reflective young adults.
The Thomas Worthington Theatre is an extraordinary cultural institution.
Director Bronwynn Hopton is an artist, magician, teacher, mentor and advocate
for what has to be one of the finest high school theater programs in the state
if not the country. The seats are filled for each performance of the dozen or so
plays and musicals that she and her students put on each year, and the audience
spans all ages, from young children to grandparents. At a time when the fine
arts and humanities, the heart of a culture, are threatened by cheap popular
entertainment and high-tech distractions, the Thomas theatre program
consistently provides high-touch, high-quality drama, tragedy and comedy to the
entire community at bargain prices.
The district's sports program provides young athletes with the widest range
of opportunities to participate, improve, compete, and excel. Through sports our
children not only learn conditioning and athletic skills, they also learn the
merits of discipline, the need for cooperation, the payoff of persistence, and
the value of solid communication. At a time when diabetes and obesity have
become national health plagues, the district's superb sports offerings provide
our children with a powerful dose of prevention and protection.
And finally, we benefit from the dedicated teachers at every level, but
especially those who help students advance at their own pace, keep them
challenged and interested in learning, and give them a leg up on life or college
when they graduate. I think especially of Mr. Mark Ellwood, who helps high
school students master European history and politics, and Mrs. Pam Reeb, who
makes Latin come alive, even at 7:45 in the morning. At a time when academic
standards are sagging, and cookie-cutter state tests threaten to replace
learning with disconnected factoids, we are fortunate to have dedicated teachers
who adhere to - and impart - the highest standards of teaching and learning.
These and other Worthington educational experiences have tremendous value.
They transform children into well-educated, well-rounded citizens who not only
make few demands on society but more importantly pay the investment back many,
many times over in terms of contributions to the arts, sciences, community
service, civic engagement, and business leadership.
Strong programs and teachers build strong schools. Strong schools build
strong communities. A yes vote of Issue 5 will help sustain this tradition for
current and future generations.
Richard L. Petrick
Worthington
Look at larger picture and
support the levy
Thursday, March 30, 2006
I am a parent, resident, and taxpayer in the Worthington school district, and
one who is, quite unabashedly, a supporter of the school district levy on the
May ballot.
I had the opportunity to serve on the Worthington City Schools task force
that examined the district and its fiscal practices. We spent a considerable
amount of time looking at how the district spends its funds and how it could
improve its practices. There are two points that must be emphasized. This
independent task force found that: 1) "The financial management of the District
is sound, without any discernible inefficiency in control or utilization of
funds," and 2) "The District lacks local control over many critical items that
determine expenditures and revenues."
The district has already shown significant fiscal responsibility. Over the
past five years, the district has made over $22-million in reductions: and
they've done it without affecting the district's academic program.
There's a lot of numbers that are being batted around - and to try to discuss
all of them would simply confuse more than clarify. But let's talk about a
couple of issues regarding the district's finances.
First, yes, in the budget for the Worthington City Schools labor costs make
up 85% of the total expenditures. That's not a negative or a positive -- it's
simply an indication that education is a labor-intensive enterprise. It's also
the standard statewide for school districts. The level of that percentage is and
should be a non-issue except that seriously reducing the budget cannot help but
impact the attracting of employees and their retention and overall quality.
Tied to this is the commonly offered half-truth that the district is
top-heavy in administrators or wages/benefits for school personnel. It's not.
Any objective analysis puts the district near the middle for both numbers of
administrators per student and per classroom teacher and near the middle of the
range of salaries.
Worthington has one of most experienced and highly trained faculties in the
entire state. Do you think there's any relationship between that and the fact
that Worthington is the largest and one of very few districts in all of Ohio to
get an "excellent" rating from the State Department of Education? And that
they've done it for five years running? I do.
Nothing accounts for student success like teacher quality. Research is
indisputable on that count. Many schools have trouble attracting good teachers,
but Worthington so far does not. There is a convenient figure floating around
that indicates there's been a 5.65% raise to teachers. That is a considerably
misleading statement. Due to the way state law and the current contract work,
over half of the district's teachers get, on average, no more than a 1%
every-other-year step increase above whatever the base salary is raised. Second,
the most recent salary adjustments were entirely made up for by concessions in
health care coverage.
Certainly, not all the issues can be addressed in one letter. The bottom
line: Can you, as a citizen, find some reason not to vote for the levy?
Certainly. If you look hard enough. you can find an excuse to vote against
anything. Is the Worthington school district perfect? No. But, and, this is the
critical question, does it provide what it says it will in an efficient and
effective manner? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Consistently.
Worthington cannot afford to dissolve into the divisiveness that's affected
other areas in Franklin County. Our schools are the centerpiece of our
community. I urge you to look at the larger picture and vote yes on the
Worthington City School District levy.
Rick Savors
Worthington
'If they say we need levy, I believe
them'
In response to articles by Candy Brooks, letters to the editor by Dan
Meyersburg and Steffanie Haueisen (March 23 issue) and assertions on the Educate
Worthington Web site, the following points need to be made.
First of all, statements asserting that the school district spends beyond
available funds and commits to teacher salaries it does not have revenue for are
libel, as such actions are illegal and the district has done no such thing.
Secondly, to assert that district leaders and teachers put no priority on
what is beneficial to children is insulting, untrue and ludicrous. The whole
business of schools is to benefit children. The WEA Web site clearly states that
"its constitutional purpose is to promote the educational objectives of the
Worthington school system." The school district web site clearly articulates its
goals:
# To increase student achievement.
# To increase effectiveness of the organization.
The March 23 article noted that school district spending over the last 11
years had increased 54% while student enrollment decreased by 1,256 students.
Inflation alone (average 2.8% annually over the same time period, per Bureau of
Labor Statistics) accounts for 30.8%. Other factors, which the district has made
known, published, discussed and held numerous public forums on: less state aid
(in 1999-2000, the state portion of district revenue was 24%; in fiscal 2004, it
was 21.9%), increased state and federal mandates, decreased revenue from
business and utility taxes due to reductions made by the state legislature, a
17.1% increase in energy prices in 2005 alone and a 4.3% increase in medical
costs in 2005.
In fiscal 2004, the proportion of district revenue from local sources was
75.5% vs. 74.4% in 1999-2000.
Most ridiculous of all are the assertions that we are neglecting the needs of
children because 85% of the district budget goes to salaries and benefits and if
it didn't we could somehow have more and better programs for students. The truth
is 85% of all school budgets (public, private, charter) goes to salaries and
benefits because teaching is a service and services are provided by people and
we buy the time, education and expertise of those people for the benefit of our
children. Programs are people.
The teacher salary schedule for this and the next three years is not hidden;
it is on the WEA web site. Nobody is getting a 70% increase over seven years.
The annual increase is 3.62%, just ahead of last year's inflation rate of 3.4%.
Teachers are getting .22% for each additional year of experience, not generous,
not "opulent," but commensurate with the level of education, expertise and
expectations of the job.
One thing to note is that the Educate Worthington Web site criticizes the
retirement incentives for teachers, while previously the criticism that we
should use less expensive, less experienced teachers was made.
One reason the average teacher salary in Worthington is higher than similar
districts is that, according to the fiscal 2004 district profile (ODE web site),
78.8% of our teachers had 10-plus years of experience vs. 58.9% for similar
districts and 59.06% statewide. While criticizing the higher average teacher
salary and the retirement incentives, Educate Worthington asks: "Is it good for
students if we encourage the most experienced teachers to leave and be replaced
by less experienced teachers?" I happen to agree that the latter is a good
question worthy of our consideration, but you cannot have it both ways.
According to Worthington's 2004-05 state report card 68.7% of our teachers
have Master's degrees. I happen to know that a significant number have PhDs. The
ODE district profile for 1999-2000 shows that 56.4% of our expenditures were for
instruction. In the fiscal year 2004 report that rose to 58.8%, because public
forum feedback was that the community priority was direct instruction of
students. That looks to me like a school district whose highest priority is what
is beneficial to students-providing experienced, highly qualified teachers,
small class size and focusing on classroom instruction, all repeatedly proven
methods of boosting student achievement.
Ms. Haueisen asserted in her letter that the district has not communicated or
prioritized needs with regard to the Permanent Improvements levy (a limited
five-year levy for permanent improvements.) Yet I found a very clear, concise
and highly prioritized report on how the permanent improvements levy funds would
be used and why they were needed. Go to www.worthington.k12.oh.us, bottom left
click "Financial Information Including Levy Information," bottom left again
click "Update on permanent improvement levy needs plan and priorities."
I don't disagree that teacher salaries in Worthington are good, that the
increasing property tax burden on home owners is bad or that we cannot continue
on the current path without doing harm to both the school system and home
owners. I simply don't think constantly accusing district leaders and teachers
of wasteful spending and bad faith is the way to resolve those issues.
While I am not as involved in the school system as I once was and therefore
don't have all the current statistics and facts at my fingertips as I once did,
I know our school board members and many of our teachers and their leaders. I
know they are doing the best they can for our children, that they take their
responsibilities very seriously and the concerns of the community very
seriously. I know that our board members are not rubber stamps for the
administration because I helped elect some of them for the very reason that I
did not want rubber stamps. If they say we need a levy, I believe them.
While I believe that the public school system in general puts the real needs
of students last after a whole bunch of political considerations, I believe that
this school district, by and large, still does try to put students and their
needs first. While I wince, as I near the time of living on a fixed income, at
the coming increases in property taxes, I also want this generation of children
to have the education and opportunities that my children had, which have served
them very well as they went on in life. Therefore, I will vote for the school
levy, while watching closely how we go forward and judging each subsequent levy
request on its merits and all the surrounding circumstances. I hope others will
do the same.
Cathleen M. Sato
Powell
Reject levy and challenge
unsustainable spending
Let me begin by saying the teachers in this district, in collaboration with
involved parents, have done a tremendous job educating and preparing our
children. However it is time for voters to take a stand. While we all would
agree that our teachers deserve to earn a good living, our district leadership
has failed the voters repeatedly.
The union, empowered by the board, has allowed salaries, benefit and teacher
numbers to grow at unsustainable rates while student enrollment has plummeted.
The schools' annual budget has continually increased at over twice the rate of
inflation with a budget of $67.9-million during the 1995-96 school year (10,818
students) to $105.5-million in 06-07 (9,562 students). Meanwhile, the district
has had a net loss of only nine teachers during this same period. Keep in mind
that 85 percent of district spending is personnel-related.
The teachers' union negotiated average salary increases of 5.3% from 2001 to
2005 while the average American worker received increases of only 2.9%. These
more-than-generous increases, and the benefit package that accompanies them,
will grow the district budget from $105-million this year to an estimated
$123-million in 2009. This occurs as we continue to teach fewer and fewer
students.
Pay increases approved in the union contracts each year are the main driver
of increases in district costs. We will face a substantial levy every two years
unless we begin to address salary and benefits, along with student-teacher ratio
numbers. District leadership and Worthington school tax payers need to seriously
question the sustainability of this current budget model.
The board is counting on the Worthington community to be good citizens and
follow their lead by once more rubber-stamping this levy with a yes vote.
However, hold on tight because if we approve this levy as is, the next levy
request of at least 10 mills will be coming our way in 2008 in order to sustain
spending that has already been planned.
With over 85% of all district spending going toward salaries and benefits,
the board and the entire community must address the rate of growth of this
spending.
It appears clear that the district would prefer to continue with spending as
usual, and to solve this problem with continual increasing levies -- the path of
least resistance. It seems that confronting the union leadership on the
unsustainable rate of growth in salary and benefit costs is the path of most
resistance.
In May, I would ask the community of Worthington to vote no on this levy.
Let's force the board to reconsider how it will spend our money and come back to
the voters in the fall with an improved plan which seriously addresses the
unsustainable growth in the rate of spending.
Jose Cannon
Westerville
School funding is problem;
don't blame the teachers
Voting to increase property taxes, no matter the amount, is never easy. So it
should come as no surprise that the so-called "Educate Worthington" faction is
using our association as a scapegoat for their dissatisfaction for the school
district's need for a levy. The blaming of teachers for the current
school-funding dilemma, as evidenced in several March 23 letters, is at best
misguided and at worst mean-spirited and dishonest.
The Worthington Education Association is no more and no less than an
organization of members who have chosen the education of children as their
life's work. There is no union separate or apart from each of the teachers who
have formed it. It is the teachers of this district who are most directly
responsible for the success of our schools. Our members invest their time,
talent and expertise to ensure that every Worthington child receives a high
quality education.
Political action is certainly a goal of the association because we know that
public education is an inherently political enterprise. We know we have to
advocate in the legislature and in our local community for the resources
necessary to serve the needs of our students.
That is not all we do as an association, however. One of our other
organizational objectives involves reaching out to the community. Accordingly,
we have been actively engaged in community-service projects such as the Reach
Out and Read Book Drive, which recently produced 3,600 books for needy children;
an ongoing Bloodmobile partnership with the Red Cross; a long-standing
scholarship program for deserving high school graduates; and ongoing
communications with parents on such issues as early literacy and summer
learning. We know that the success of our children depends on all members of the
community working together. We also know that our schools do not exist in
isolation from the community at-large.
We are working as well to improve professional development opportunities in
the district because we know that increasing student achievement depends on
providing quality training for staff. We have negotiated a highly successful
mentoring program as a way of supporting our new teachers. Additionally, we are
continuing discussions with the Board and administration on ways of improving
evaluation and peer support programs for all of our members. When we have the
necessary tools for growth, our students reap the rewards.
Of course, it is no secret that some of our work is centered around
bargaining a fair contract with the board of education. Besides salaries and
benefits, our contract addresses a wide variety of working conditions related to
quality of facilities, class size, service of students with special needs, and a
host of other issues. The working conditions we bargain for our members are the
learning conditions we advocate for our students. All bargaining takes place in
that context.
If we were motivated by greed, as has been insinuated by recent
letter-writers, our members would certainly have chosen a different profession.
Research shows that over the past decade, teacher salaries have fallen further
behind those of other occupations with similar education and skill requirements.
My fellow teachers give up countless hours of time in evenings, on weekends, and
over the summer not because of our compensation, but because we care deeply
about kids.
In our new contract, we have also agreed to significant changes in
health-care benefits because we understand the financial pressures facing the
district. By going to a high-deductible health plan, Worthington teachers
demonstrated a commitment to working collaboratively with the board of education
to improve the long-term budget outlook for the district.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled four times that the state's system of
funding schools is unconstitutional because of an over-reliance on local
property taxes. We hope that our fellow citizens will join with us to advocate
for a solution to this problem that serves the needs of everyone, including
those with and without children in our schools. In the meantime, don't make
teachers the scapegoat for an inadequate and unfair state system of school
funding.
Scott DiMauro President, Worthington Education Association
Perhaps it's time to end one-party
legislative rule
In Worthington, it is levy time; thus it is "numbers" time.
Without context, numbers do not give a true picture of reality. The 6.25-mill
levy on the May ballot is necessary for the stability of the district. To think
otherwise is to not consider important the competitive environment in which the
district finds itself.
The district is in competition with surrounding districts for both quality
staff and quality programs. Real estate values very much depend on its
competitive position. Residents can "opt out" of the competition by voting down
the levy, but a price will eventually be paid.
For years, it has been written that the current method of funding schools,
principally with property taxes, was/is unsustainable. For years it has been
written that fixed income senior citizens were/are at great risk. For years, the
voters have returned to power a one-party, gerrymandered legislature that has
done little to solve the problem, all the while defying a Supreme Court
decision. Maybe the solution is to change the one-party makeup of the
legislature. November will offer that opportunity.
A set of correct numbers appearing in a story by Candy Brooks in the March 23
edition requires examination for context. Correctly stated was that
Worthington's class sizes are smaller and per-pupil expenditures greater than
those in a group of similar districts; however, the factors and methods used by
the state to develop the similar districts' groupings make it so that they are
unsuitable for financial comparisons. ODE states, "On the other hand,
expenditure patterns (expenditures per pupil, salary information, etc.) tend to
reflect regional conditions. Thus, if you are interested in comparing financial
data, selecting districts that geographically surround your district would be
more advisable." See http://webapp2.ode.state.oh.us/similar_districts/
Thus, the last section of Brooks' story, in which Worthington is shown to be
6th of 16 Franklin County districts in per-pupil expenditure, is a more
appropriate context, although for completeness one should probably include the
Olentangy Local School District as a competitor. Context and completeness do
matter.
Also in Brooks' story, a number ($10,163) appears as the per-pupil spending
for 2005, while Steffanie Haueisen mentions in her letter that the district is
now spending $ 11,209 per pupil. Both numbers are correct. The context is
missing. Brooks' number is actual 2004-05 expenditure data while Haueisen's is
"projected" 2005-06 data, however given as definitive. Projections are often on
the high side. According to one 2002 projection, the 2005-06 budget was to be
$112M rather than the $105M projected currently.
Numbers without adequate context are supplied by Mike Alfred and John
Herrington (co-chairs of Educate Worthington) and by Powell resident Dan
Meyersburg. They speak of the large raises that staff received in the recent
contract but neglect to tell that the raise was accompanied by a significant
change in the health-care package, resulting in savings for the district. Why
not give the full story?
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
Students’ parents must shoulder
cost, work (Friday, March 24, 2006 -Dispatch)
We respond to the March 12 Dispatch article, "Lancaster sweating higher
sports fees." The article left us wondering why the reporter did not ask the
parents interviewed why they expect taxpayers in their community to pay for
their children’s extracurricular activities when they are not willing to pay for
them.
The parents seemed agitated about the high cost of playing sports. Perhaps
they do not realize that the compensation paid to the coaches, as well as bus
drivers and other support personnel, are set by a collective-bargaining process?
If parents want union members for coaches and chauffeur service to games,
certainly they should not expect the taxpayers to underwrite the related
expenses. May we suggest parents volunteer as coaches and form carpools?
Why do these parents expect seniors, those living on fixed incomes, couples
without children, singles, home-schoolers and parents who send their children to
private and parochial schools to pay for their children’s sports programs? Isn’t
expecting everyone to pay for their children’s education enough?
DAN and DONNA HOGAN Worthington
Union contracts aren't
realistic
This letter is not intended to detract from our teachers, and their right to
earn a fair wage, but it is to point out an unpleasant reality.
The fact is, Worthington has roughly 750 unionized teachers at an average pay
of nearly $64,000, making Worthington's average salary among the highest in the
state.
This, however, is not the problem. The problem is our leadership has not
noticed, or has not accepted, the significant changes within this school
district.
At the school board meeting where the board approved the request for the
third levy in five years, an interesting comment was made. A board member
acknowledged that the district had not really adjusted its spending from the
growth period of the 1990s, when the district received $6-million a year in
revenues as a result of growth.
The unpleasant truth is that while the growth and its "extra" revenue are no
longer a reality, the union contracts that drive the majority of our spending
show little or no evidence of the financial challenges that Worthington
residents and businesses face. However, as long as residents will accept a new
levy every two years, the union and its membership will be the only ones
protected from the strain of this financial reality.
As evidence of this, the 2005-06 Worthington contracts granted the union the
third highest base increase in Franklin County. This provided raises between
3.75% and 8.65%, with an average of 5.65% for every educator. Note: For
comparison, the Department of Labor reports that in 2005, the average American's
wages rose less than half of that amount -- just 2.6%.
Businesses and those without children in Worthington have continued to
support the schools, and the only thing that has been asked of the school board
is to be good stewards of our tax dollars. The unfortunate reality, as evident
in the current union contract, is that this has not been happening.
The bottom line is that by continuing to ignore the financial challenge that
we face, our leadership is actually making the problem worse, not better. And
unfortunately, saying "no" to the levy may be the only way to make the
leadership address the union with the unpleasant reality that our spending
habits must change.
Dan Meyersburg, Powell
$11,209 per pupil should be enough
The Worthington school district's May levy is all about paying for previously
negotiated union contracts. More "business as usual" -- negotiating contracts
not based on funds available.
A typical median-range house price in Worthington is $243,100. The May levy,
if passed, will cost that homeowner $450 more. Homeowners already are paying
$3,100 to the schools now. Then, the board admits in 2008 it will ask us to pay
an additional 10 mills and in 2010, another 10 mills. Figure out your May levy
increase, then double it, double it again and decide if can you afford that
amount over the next five years to fund such a bottomless pit. Stats are on the
Auditor's Web site.
I urge you and as many of your friends as you can get involved to vote no in
May for the following reasons:
1) There will be absolutely no harm to the schools since next year is already
set. There have been no identified cuts to be made, no intention to reduce
excessive staffing and no prioritized specific needs or bids regarding the
Permanent Improvement part of the levy. They have done absolutely nothing to
save our money and don't intend to.
2) The board was in a rush the make the May Primary because voter turnout
tends to be very light. It passed its last levy in a May Primary by around 400
votes. A light turnout helps the local "yes employee" advantage.
3) If it passes in May, the board will have absolutely no incentive to reduce
costs or change from business as usual.
4) The board recently sold off some property for a good chunk of change and
also received well over $200,000 back from the Franklin County Auditor. This
could certainly be well used for some of the computer needs the board said
prompted the Permanent Improvement request.
Everyone wants an "excellent" school system and Worthington delivers a good
one for a whopping $11,209 per child (2005 WSD stats) -- an increase of
9.1-percent per year over the last 10 years. Shouldn't an excellent education
include proper budgeting and the realization that costs shouldn't exceed income?
Our board and treasurer have made no hard choices, no sacrifices to the
budget and continue to operate as if our community owes them this opulent
lifestyle. The $11,209 per pupil we are already paying should certainly be
enough to maintain an excellent school system.
Steffanie Haueisen, Worthington
'Educate Worthington' aims to
inform voters
Thursday, March 23, 2006
To the editor,
In a letter in ThisWeek, Bob Barkley suggests that this levy is essentially
the same as every past levy in Worthington, with the same supporters, the same
non-supporters and the same arguments for and against it. In some ways he is
correct, but in others ways he has missed the mark.
Yes, the main supporters will be the same, beginning with the educators'
union, which cites as its second organizational goal: "To increase the level of
political activity of members, particularly in school board elections, the levy
campaign..."
This is not a criticism of the union or its membership; it is merely an
observation of something that most people probably don't realize.
The union's position, as stated, helps to clearly identify the parties that
truly have the most to gain, in dollars, from passage of any operating levy. As
a result, they are the group who will be the largest, the most organized, and
the most vocal in asking for your support of "the children,"even though the
Worthington Education Association Web site never mentions the children or their
education as one of its "goals."
As to the "non-supporters" of this levy request, the list appears to have
grown from 2004, when there was almost no one openly questioning the levy. From
those who spoke out at the recent public forums, this list includes many
seniors, a number of retired teachers, many young parents with children in the
district and a handful of business people.
In addition, there were many who simply wanted to know how, with less
students and teachers in the district, we could possibly be in need of a third
levy in just five years.
Some were also surprised to hear the district acknowledge that to continue
spending as planned, which includes this year's 5.65% average teacher raise,
Worthington residents would be seeing a fourth levy, of at least 10 mills, in
2008. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Labor reports the average wage
increase for American workers in 2005 was just 2.6%, or less than half of what
the union negotiated for its 750 members.
Yes, technically, this levy is like every other levy. It will be primarily
supported by the union(s), and they will regularly remind us that it is "for the
children." The union will never see this any other way, but maybe, someday,
their members will.
Worthington, it seems, is at a crossroads. Residents can accept the usual
arguments for the levy, and accept that in 2008 they will hear the same
arguments again, and that there will be no need for significant change in how
our district leadership spends the increasing amounts of money that Worthington
residents and businesses provide.
The other option is to become more informed as to how the district actually
spends this year's $105-million budget, a budget that the district projects will
grow to $123-million by 2009, as we teach fewer and fewer students, with smaller
staff.
To that end, Educate Worthington is a small but growing group of interested
citizens who hope to make a difference, by helping to educate our community
members, district leadership, community leaders, even the union and its
membership.
Educate Worthington is currently creating a Web site --
EducateWorthington.org or e-mail at info@EducateWorthington.org -- to do just
that. On a budget of $40, it will not have many bells and whistles, but it will
present relevant information. More importantly, it will enable you to contact
us, to contact the district, to contact local media and to get slightly (or
significantly) involved, if you are so inclined.
We do not seek to simply oppose levies, but we do encourage everyone to
recognize the long-term importance of making informed decisions about the future
of our schools, and our children and our community. It has been too long since
we prioritized district spending based on what is most beneficial to the
children and their education. It is time that we start to do that again.
Mike Alfred and John Herrington, co-chairs, Educate Worthington
We are at 'critical juncture' on schools
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Ah yes, it's deja vu all over again as Yogi Berra taught us all. We have yet
another school tax issue to consider, the same supporters and the same naysayers
and essentially the same arguments.
So where does that leave us? I believe we are at a critical juncture here in
Worthington. We have a district with an enviable record but one that now needs
to advance much further both to maintain that record and to achieve the quality
we have traditionally sought in our schools. Last year efforts were made to
address these necessary changes. Special programs were held to review the
district's secondary education approaches. Also, the superintendent put together
a task force to look at both quality and efficiency.
And essentially we have a unanimous board of Education in support of the
issue with every indication that they all think the levy could and should be
even larger.
That superintendent's task force made up of citizens like you and me (This
"me" actually served on it.) reported unequivocally, "The task force was
constantly reminded that the district lacks control over many items that affect
expenditures and revenues at the local level because of state and federal law.
Uncontrollable expenditures include such things as government wage and benefit
mandates, curriculum requirements, and transportation. Revenues are greatly
influenced by state law and changes in the state law that make long-range
planning difficult. As a result, the district must pass operating levies to
maintain the status quo and meet new regulatory requirements. The public's
general perception that the district has control over all programs and costs is
not the reality. This illusion of local control is often a significant problem
for the District in garnering community understanding and support."
Further, the task force said, "The task force believes that the district
exhibits sound financial management. However, the task force will make specific
recommendations for board consideration." After extensive study, the task force
concluded, while noting correctly that it did not technically conduct an audit,
and including in its membership several with strong finance backgrounds, that
there is no reason to doubt the district's financial management or expenditures.
There were several task force recommendations - many with cost-saving
implications and others that had to do with quality and would likely increase
costs. There has already been movement in the direction of those cost-saving
recommendations. Others will take time to implement, and some will be on-going
as they should be.
For those who wish a more informed view, the task force report can be
accessed in its entirety at: http://www.worthington. k12.oh.us/pdf/presentations/tffinalreport.pdf
Largely because of the business tax reductions now enacted, Worthington will
be hit financially as hard as any district in Ohio. The future of our tax base
is uncertain and so is the state policy that affects it. We need to think ahead,
but plan for today. The local district has no control over that - none. We all
have to understand that. We have benefited here for years because of the
business corridor in our taxing district. Now we will have to pay, rightly or
wrongly, for the breaks those businesses lobbied for and recently won. We can't
and shouldn't hold the schools responsible for that - hold your legislature
responsible if anyone.
And all of this could change either for the better or the worse in the
immediate years ahead. There's no sense guessing about all that. We have an
immediate need, now, and the leadership of our district is united on that. There
is no reason to doubt them as the task force quickly learned.
Waiting longer to address current needs or reducing the levy amount would be
utterly irresponsible to our community's students and very unwise for our
community's growth and vitality.
So a levy is before us yet once again. As I hear the arguments pro and con I
am struck by the fascinating concept introduced to me many years ago about the
"unacceptability of unpleasant truth." It certainly applies to this situation
today. We are all finding it troubling to have to accept truth that makes us
uncomfortable. Some can't accept the cost of maintaining good schools. Some
can't accept the reality that our tax system may be unfair to retirees,
families, and/or businesses, but it is our system nonetheless - the best system
a democratic process based upon consensus can seem to come up with right now.
Some can't accept that while we love our little community and its charm, it's
getting harder to absorb the inherent costs of living here. Some moved here for
the educational opportunities their kids would quite likely receive and are
seeing those opportunities slowly eroded and somewhat unsupported by those
without kids in school.
There's enough for each of us to deny about the truth. But in the end, the
deciding thing for this soon to be septuagenarian grandparent (whose grandkids
live about 400 miles away and don't attend our schools) is the legacy we will
give the school children of Worthington. Creating and sustaining high quality
schools is the appropriate goal, and to me those schools are worth anything I
can do to maintain and improve them. I will sacrifice for that. I hope the
majority of my neighbors will also.
Bob Barkley
Worthington
Voters will have chance to rebalance legislature
Leaving aside for the moment the merit of raising Ohio's minimum wage to the
Federal level, it should be apparent that the current gerrymandered Legislature
will do nothing unless it is paid for (through campaign contributions) or
through perceived threats to its hegemony. It should be forgiven if it occurs to
folks that, although billed by legislators as "the right thing to do," their
raising the minimum wage for the first time in nine years is seen as an effort
to thwart an initiative petition now making its way to the November ballot.
By threatening the majority status of the controlling party, the unresolved
issue of funding education might be brought to a resolution. Decreased reliance
on property taxes and local wealth, as recommended by Ohio's Supreme Court's
deRolph decision, might result from such a threat.
A registered lobbyist has been selected by the Republican organization to run
for the seat (21st Ohio House District) to be vacated by Rep. Linda Reidelbach.
It is a fair assumption that a registered lobbyist picked by the organization
and with ties to the current majority, will, if elected, toe a party line that
so far has resulted in propelling Ohio into a downward spiral.
On the Democratic side, teacher Jean Herendeen Ackerman and investment
director Dean Hernandez are vying in the May primary to be chosen by the people
to be the candidate in the November election.
In November 2006, voters of the 21st Ohio House District -- encompassing most
of the Worthington school district, Northland and a bit of the Dublin and
Westerville school districts -- will have an opportunity to help rebalance the
Legislature by electing to that 21st District seat someone not connected with
the current legislative majority and, by doing so, giving urgency to the
Legislature to do something substantial about school funding.
Abramo Ottolenghi
Worthington
'BUSINESS AS USUAL' IS JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE
Having attended many of the school board's recent public
meetings, and as a former teacher, I would grade the Worthington School Board
with an A for their attention to school employees' interests, and with a D- for
their attention to the community's interests.
Despite continued declining enrollment - fewer students
each year - operating expenses continue to soar, and the school board continues
to ignore the two-thirds of residents who do not have children in Worthington
schools. This is an insult to the community. That the school board members had
already made up their minds, and were just going through the "public meetings"
as a formality, was evidenced by the fact that the deadline for putting an
income tax on the ballot had expired, while they still listed income tax as an
option at their public meetings.
The board justifies each new levy with the mantra that
"it will keep property values high." Yet the board refuses to look at the other
impacts. The rising property taxes are pressuring, if not forcing, businesses
and residents on fixed incomes to leave Worthington to look for more affordable
locations.
With the exodus of the energetic, involved and vital
senior citizens, we are losing good people who for decades have helped build the
school system. Many of them have donated hundreds and thousands of hours of
volunteer community service. Many of these people, whom I deeply admire and
respect, are former teachers.
At the other extreme, the rising property values, with
their accompanying higher taxes, are turning away young families with children -
families we should be attracting, but who cannot afford to buy homes in
Worthington. So, with only the exception of Mr. Schare, the school board has
driven away the very residents we need -- the young and the old.
The board projects a need for a 25 mil increase over the
next five years. This could cause a rush to sell, which would cause property
values to plummet. We need to vote no in May to send the school board a message
that "business as usual" is not acceptable. The board needs to make a legitimate
effort to investigate and utilize other means of funding the schools; other
means such as an income tax. Oh yes, the board will say, "We need the property
tax so that businesses will pay their fair share." Surprise! Businesses either
raise their prices to pay for the tax increases, or they leave Worthington for
more tax-favorable locations. In its zeal to continue "business as usual," the
school board is, in the bigger picture, doing a disservice to the community of
Worthington.
John Haueisen, Worthington
Local income tax isn't a timely idea for schools
The question of a local income tax rather than a
property tax for the funding of schools arises often. Residents raise the
question, but most have not attended meetings where an explanation was given of
why it is not considered a timely idea for the Worthington City School District.
At the school-district level, the property tax has a
much broader base than the income tax and thus a lower individual burden. The
real estate tax is paid by homeowners, by commercial properties and also in the
form of the personal property tax paid by business on equipment and inventory.
On the other hand, the income tax would be paid only by residents, and while it
would help many -- fixed- and low-income families -- it would be a greater
burden for the majority.
There are some who would argue that businesses do not
pay taxes, that they pass them on to their customers. This is probably true, but
what businesses pay is money that does not come from residents unless they buy
the products or services. Therefore, the tax base is even broader, and
consequently the burden lower for a given individual. Likewise, renters pay real
estate taxes through their rent.
Because the Worthington school district receives around
30-percent of its income from taxes collected from businesses, the shift to the
residents would be significant. As the personal property tax is phased out, the
possibility of an income tax becomes more realistic, and it may well be a
solution for the future.
For many years, I have advocated that a state income tax
surcharge for education be implemented as a way to reduce reliance on property
taxes as mandated by the Supreme Court. However, that would require that the
present one-party, safe-seat, gerrymandered Ohio Legislature be the one to risk
the wrath of the voters, rather than letting the local school boards and
administrations be the ones always under the gun.
Abramo Ottolenghi, Worthington
School board needs more emphasis on cutting costs
This is in response to the letter from Mark Schare,
school board member:
I appreciated his concern for our ability to sustain
funding, but am not understanding why Worthington Schools are hoping to avoid
cuts in personnel, if, as you say, personnel account for 85-percent of the
budget, and we are stuck with "contractual obligations."
Were these obligations assumed despite knowledge on the
part of school district administrators that future funding would shortly be such
a property owner's nightmare? I assume the school board understood the
ramifications of decisions at Broad and High long before the rest of us did.
The Dispatch is full of details of school districts in
Franklin County cutting hundreds of jobs, yet Mr. Schare suggests we should be
funding new foreign-language programs in the elementary schools.
I point that out because while other school districts
are realistically looking at cutting programs and personnel, reducing busing and
shortening the school day, to be in line with limited monies, apparently our
school board is thinking as if it is "business as usual."
To maintain the best semblance of what we already have
should be the board's goal, and if that requires enlarging class sizes, without
eliminating subject matter, that seems to me to be a starting point.
Also, I would like to understand more about the
administration building on Wilson Bridge Road, a purchase Mr. Tyack was quick to
distance himself from at the first meeting. I gather it would lose money to sell
it now, but how much would we lose? Is it fully leased? If we are using any of
it, why are we, when we have empty space elsewhere?
I also would like to see more details about our historic
building at state Route 161 and High Street. There has to be a use for it, and
the school board did use it before it was deemed too small. We cannot afford to
have it empty. Tell us more about the options for that building.
I attended both evening meetings, and am also annoyed
that the deadline for an income tax was known by school board members to be
prior to the last two meetings. So while people were politely heard, obviously
the levy decision was made before and in spite of feedback from those who pay
the bills.
I do thank Mr. Schare for wanting a two-year levy for
permanent improvements, as quite a wish list was presented, without
prioritizing, and it may be we would not choose to address all of it. For
example, needs for a new roof, as discussed, would seem urgent, while replacing
a phone system with $900,000 worth of new equipment might not be.
In conclusion, there needs to be more emphasis on
cutting costs, and less fantasizing that we will vote yes on this levy, and yes
two years from now on a levy twice this size, which Mr. Boyd, the school
district treasurer, is preparing us for.
There also needs to be political action taken by voters
to address the funding problem, and I might suggest we need direction about how
to do that, so we can come together about a subject on which we would all agree
-- the need to reduce the burden on homeowners for school funding. I look
forward to some suggestions on this, before primary elections. This should be
"the hot topic" for voters.
Nancy Mily, Worthington
BOARD MEMBER EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
Worthington residents attending the Feb. 13 school board
meeting witnessed a full and fair discussion of our levy options for 2006. The
board ultimately decided on a 5-mill operating levy and a 1.25-mill permanent
improvement levy that would last for five years. I voted no to the package and
want to explain my vote.
Operating funds are used primarily for salaries,
benefits and other day-to-day expenses. Salaries and benefits account for around
85-percent of the operating budget. Since the district has contractual
obligations, both with our teachers and our other workers, that extend through
2008, the only way to save significant funds on the operating side was to cut
staff.
While it is likely that there is fat in the budget,
there would be not be enough fat, or enough time, to make a significant dent in
a $23-million projected deficit; therefore, the 5-mill operating levy was
appropriate in my view. However, I did openly question the sustainability of
what we are doing, given the district's projection of an additional 10-mill
property tax requirement in 2008 with exploding deficits after that. I believe
the district must address the long-term funding issue and I believe the way to
do that is through community engagement.
My problem was on the permanent improvement side. A week
ago, I was provided with a list of capital improvements and purchases the
district wanted to make, including buses, new computers and facilities repairs.
All in all, there was around $15-million of proposed expenditures in the list,
with another $19-million of expenditures that were identified, but not itemized.
Unlike the operating budget, a budget that has been
questioned and scrutinized for almost five months, the permanent improvement
plan, presented in draft form and with scant details, did not go through a
community engagement process or review and there was no time to do so. Despite
this, I knew that there were some critical permanent improvement needs in the
district, so I proposed a two-year permanent improvement budget that would have
addressed the critical needs while giving us two years to rightsize and
prioritize the list.
Elective office is all about making choices.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that the district's permanent improvement
needs could have been met for 0.75 mills instead of 1.25 mills. If so, we could
have opted to tax a little more on the operating side and a little less on the
permanent improvement side. This, in turn, could have funded an elementary
school foreign language program or restored some of the cuts made in recent
years while still allowing us to meet the infrastructure needs of the district.
Since I disagreed with the duration and amount of the
permanent improvement levy for the above reasons, and since I was unable to
separate the two components into separate issues, I had no choice but to vote no
to the package.
In closing, I want to make two final points. The first
is that the Worthington school district needs to pass an operating levy of
approximately 5 mills sometime in 2006 to maintain a relatively stable district
until June 2009. Furthermore, we need to work both internally and with the state
to find long-term solutions to our perpetual funding crisis and a forecasted
budget that currently requires additional property tax or income tax increases,
approximately every two years, forever.
The second point is to make a commitment to the voters
of the district that if you choose to pass this levy in May, I will work with my
fellow board members and the district administration to guarantee that the
dollars are well spent, and if you choose to vote no, I will advocate for a
community engagement process that will allow us to come up with a package that
you can accept.
Marc Schare, Member, Worthington Board of Education
Income tax alternative needs to be explored
Three meetings were called by the school board to allow
taxpayers in Worthington to discuss options for financing the schools. One of
the options was an income tax alternative to the property tax. At this
invitation, there were lots of attendees, especially gray hairs on fixed income
and those with no children in school, who applauded this option. But alas, the
meetings had been scheduled so that no matter what was discussed, it was too
late to place the income tax option on the ballot.
Many attendees were terribly disturbed at the financial
impact of a 5.25-mill property tax levy. After listening to their pleas, the
school board with great empathy decided on 6.25 mills. This is only a $200+
increase for a $100,000 property. Sounds pretty reasonable but with the soaring
property values in Worthington, one is hard pressed to find a property less than
$200,000 or $250,000. This does not mean that all these residents are wealthy,
but that property values have inflated that far beyond their purchase price.
I suspect that there are a great number of Worthington
residents who could not afford their property if they had to buy now. So we are
not talking $200, but $400 to $500 or more in additional taxes. It is also
interesting that according to Feb. 9 edition of ThisWeek, the owner of a
fictional $100,000 property is already paying $1,277 in school taxes. Multiply
that by 2 or 2 1/2 or more, reflecting real property values, and it is
staggering how large this tax burden already is.
And speaking of staggering, as reported in that same
edition, the chairman was asked, "Where are we going?" The response was 2008, 10
or 11 mills. Surely he jests, but I was not there and there is no report of an
enigmatic smile, so perhaps we should take him seriously.
A levy in 2004, another in 2006 and another in 2008 --
each larger than the last. Where will it end? Are we not, after all, a
land-locked community with a declining school enrollment? Is there perhaps some
room for belt-tightening by the board?
The board, on Feb. 13, did, amidst continuing pleas for
alternatives, even by one of the board members, ram through a vote to place a
6.25-mill property tax levy on the May ballot. Why is the board afraid to
discuss the income tax alternative. Why did it schedule the public discussion so
that no matter what was proposed, it would be too late to place this alternative
on the May ballot.
Why was the board so afraid that it refused to delay a
decision for one balloting period so that the electorate could be fully
informed. I suggest that a no vote might allow for an opportunity to discover
why.
I care greatly for quality education in Worthington,
but I also care for those whose quality of life is progressively degraded by
excessive property taxes. I urge you to vote against this levy to allow for an
opportunity to investigate the income tax alternative so as to make our tax
burden a lttle more equitable.
Abe Maxwell, Worthington
LARGE UNION CONTRACTS DRIVE SCHOOL SPENDING
Recently, the Worthington school board, the new
superintendent and the treasurer began a critically important dialogue with this
community, regarding the district's need for its third operating levy in the
last five years.
Given the resident comments, and the district's
acknowledgement that a fourth levy will be needed in 2008, our leadership should
seriously consider the immediate and long-term impacts of the
"business-as-usual" spending plan that we continue to pursue.
To understand what drives our levy needs, it is
important to realize that more than 85% of all spending is determined by the
union contracts of our school staff. Teachers deserve fair compensation, and the
appreciation and respect of the community. Yet, while there may have been a time
when the rapidly growing Worthington City School District, could afford to pay
whatever the unions requested, that time has clearly passed.
Unfortunately, we are currently in the first year of new
three-year contracts, which were negotiated and approved by the past board and
now retired superintendent. This means that more than 85% of our budget cannot
be "trimmed" for the next two years, as a result of the decision to negotiate
three-year contracts instead of one-year or two-year contracts. Again, that may
prove a very unfortunate decision.
And the importance of these union contracts cannot be
overstated when you realize that this year, more than $90-million of our
$105-million budget will be spent on these contracts. Next year, it will be
$93-million. The next year, it will be $98-million. All while our student
enrollment, and number of school staff continue to decline.
Could these contract costs have been less? Yes. Millions
less? Yes. How? By having the school board, and the administration more
effectively represent the taxpayer when negotiating with the union. Yes, it is
that simple.
Want proof? We negotiated increases for teachers that
will average 5.4% per year for each of the next three years. For many, the
annual raises will be as high as 8.65%. In addition, the taxpayer continues to
pay nearly all of the cost of rising healthcare for school staff. Does this
sound like the kind of spending that we can afford to continue with
indefinitely?
The current union contract did not "cause" the levy
situation on its own, it just continued it. Simply stated, various past union
contracts, just like this one, are the reason we now have a $105-million budget,
instead of one that could have been much less.
As residents of Worthington, your interest needs to be
shown, and your voice needs to be heard, or the "business-as-usual" spending
path that we are on could begin to have very serious consequences for our
residents, our businesses and our entire community.
John Herrington, Worthington
