Springboro school levy defeated a fifth time

Nov 3, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Middletown Journal

For the fifth consecutive time, voters in the Springboro school district defeated a levy for new operating money, according to final, unofficial results Tuesday.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of30
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Oracle

Dayton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 3, 2010
 

Judged:

7

2

1

Observation: The people of Springboro have shown themselves, through 5 straight levy defeats, to be smart enough to understand the education racquet being perpetrated by local school leaders and unions.

Prediction: While some will rant that the sky is falling, I predict a moderately rough road ahead as district leaders and unions start to cave in to commonsense reforms forced upon them by the residents. Once that rough period is over, Springboro will emerge stronger, more effective than ever, and serve as an example to other districts throughout Ohio on how to take back control and provide a great education at a reasonable cost to taxpayers while being sustainable for the long haul.
Feste Ainoriba

Tipp City, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 3, 2010
 

Judged:

6

4

2

From the Dayton Daily:“We’re developing a bit of a reputation as a community that turns down levies again and again,” Sarah Hall, chairwoman of Neighbors for Springboro Schools, said in the days leading to the levy."

No Sarah, the school district and board and your group are getting a reputation that you refuse to take "no" for an answer.

I find it blatantly unjust and wrong that if a levy passes, voters are stuck with a multi-year increase in their property tax; but when we vote down a levy, that vote has no multi-year effect: the greedy, self-righteous do-gooders just wait a few months and then try to pick our pockets again in hopes that next time, we'll be asleep at the switch.

We need to establish by law, a 3-year moratorium on resubmitting levies or bonds once they've been rejected by the voters. We also need a law that proposals for bonds or levies can only be considered during a November general election, not submitted for a special election in hopes of a small turnout.

I'm frankly sick at the manifest arrogance of the community school administration, board members, and unions who refuse to accept the answer they've been given, now 5 consecutive times by the community: "MAKE DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT!" The rest of us are struggling to make do with what we've got.

Ohio Schools are among the worst 10% in the nation in regard to their administrative costs per student. Springboro likes to compare itself to surrounding schools that are fatter, and then wants us to believe that they look really skinny. WRONG. When you look at the national level, Ohio schools are among some of the fattest schools in the country. Ohio's administrative costs (non-classroom) per pupil are 43% higher than the national average.

Take a close look at the bar graph that they submit to the voters to show their per pupil funding in contrast to other local schools: http://www.springboro.org/files/district/news... Now, note that they have deceptively started the graph at $7000 per student (instead of $0). This shows only the tops of the bars: thus exaggerating the percent difference. While the data in the chart is accurate, the presentation is manipulated in Machiavellian maliciousness in order to give voters a perception that the differences are worse than they are (always keeping in mind that Ohio schools are 43% more admin-heavy than the national average).

Instead of being responsible stewards of tax dollars and cutting their admin costs to national averages, they cut those things that have the most pronounced negative impact on voters: busing and support for extracurricular activities.

Blackmailing the voters with "give me more money, or we'll cut you where it hurts you the most" is NOT a winning strategy...at least not as long as the voters have an ounce of self-respect and any love for their liberty.
ClueLess

Germantown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 3, 2010
 

Judged:

6

5

3

We need to vote Kelly Kohls and the likes of her out of office. Of course we cannot pass a levy b/c we are too busy paying for her $800,000 debt by her filing Chapter 7 in April!
Maybe we could have a fundraiser to get her out of debt!
Our children deserve more and better than Kelly Kohls!
Nice distortion

Springboro, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 5, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Your statements about Ohio's admin costs are blatantly false. The truth is there are no national standards for reporting school spending; thus, state to state comparisons are not valid. The typical person does not know that these so called adminsitrative costs for Ohio school districts include much more than salaries of superintendents, principals, etc. It also includes their secretaries and other support personnel, their copy machines, community mailings, and simply most costs that are not attributable to classrooms. It's completely fair to discuss all of these costs in their totality, but at least be certain that citizens understand how Ohio reports "administrative costs" and be certain they know this is much more than the salary and benefits of administrators. I would certainly be happy to know what you feel is extravagant in administrative costs in Springboro as compared to other similar districts.
Feste Ainoriba wrote:
From the Dayton Daily:“We’re developing a bit of a reputation as a community that turns down levies again and again,” Sarah Hall, chairwoman of Neighbors for Springboro Schools, said in the days leading to the levy."
No Sarah, the school district and board and your group are getting a reputation that you refuse to take "no" for an answer.
I find it blatantly unjust and wrong that if a levy passes, voters are stuck with a multi-year increase in their property tax; but when we vote down a levy, that vote has no multi-year effect: the greedy, self-righteous do-gooders just wait a few months and then try to pick our pockets again in hopes that next time, we'll be asleep at the switch.
We need to establish by law, a 3-year moratorium on resubmitting levies or bonds once they've been rejected by the voters. We also need a law that proposals for bonds or levies can only be considered during a November general election, not submitted for a special election in hopes of a small turnout.
I'm frankly sick at the manifest arrogance of the community school administration, board members, and unions who refuse to accept the answer they've been given, now 5 consecutive times by the community: "MAKE DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT!" The rest of us are struggling to make do with what we've got.
Ohio Schools are among the worst 10% in the nation in regard to their administrative costs per student. Springboro likes to compare itself to surrounding schools that are fatter, and then wants us to believe that they look really skinny. WRONG. When you look at the national level, Ohio schools are among some of the fattest schools in the country. Ohio's administrative costs (non-classroom) per pupil are 43% higher than the national average.
Take a close look at the bar graph that they submit to the voters to show their per pupil funding in contrast to other local schools: http://www.springboro.org/files/district/news... Now, note that they have deceptively started the graph at $7000 per student (instead of $0). This shows only the tops of the bars: thus exaggerating the percent difference. While the data in the chart is accurate, the presentation is manipulated in Machiavellian maliciousness in order to give voters a perception that the differences are worse than they are (always keeping in mind that Ohio schools are 43% more admin-heavy than the national average).
Instead of being responsible stewards of tax dollars and cutting their admin costs to national averages, they cut those things that have the most pronounced negative impact on voters: busing and support for extracurricular activities.
Blackmailing the voters with "give me more money, or we'll cut you where it hurts you the most" is NOT a winning strategy...at least not as long as the voters have an ounce of self-respect and any love for their liberty.
swee pea

Piqua, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 6, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

The Oracle wrote:
Prediction: While some will rant that the sky is falling, I predict a moderately rough road ahead as district leaders and unions start to cave in to commonsense reforms forced upon them by the residents. Once that rough period is over, Springboro will emerge stronger, more effective than ever, and serve as an example to other districts throughout Ohio on how to take back control and provide a great education at a reasonable cost to taxpayers while being sustainable for the long haul.
Agreed.
And I predict a new kind of selfless volunteerism slowly emerging & taking hold; a new volunteerism that isn't so pocked from end to end with pretentiousness that's so common now.
Feste Ainoriba

Tipp City, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 6, 2010
 

Judged:

2

Nice distortion wrote:
Your statements about Ohio's admin costs are blatantly false. The truth is there are no national standards for reporting school spending; thus, state to state comparisons are not valid. The typical person does not know that these so called adminsitrative costs for Ohio school districts include much more than salaries of superintendents, principals, etc. It also includes their secretaries and other support personnel, their copy machines, community mailings, and simply most costs that are not attributable to classrooms. It's completely fair to discuss all of these costs in their totality, but at least be certain that citizens understand how Ohio reports "administrative costs" and be certain they know this is much more than the salary and benefits of administrators. I would certainly be happy to know what you feel is extravagant in administrative costs in Springboro as compared to other similar districts.
<quoted text>
I put together my statistics a couple of years ago using a National Center for Education Statistics Report for the school year 2005-6. I have the report in my possession and just went back and verified the calculation that I cited, but am not sure where to find it online. Have at it if you want to look for it yourself.

Note, I did not include pupil support or staff support when I cited Ohio's outrageously top-heavy administration cost. The 43% higher than national average calculation only includes the number of administration employees per student.

I might also add that there are states with higher average scores on the ACT that had much lower per pupil funding and larger class sizes than OH.

The first thing we need to do is stop the district from paying the employee's cost sharing portion of their benefits for administrative employees. Last year's audit by the State Board of Education identified this among over $6million/year in recommended budget cuts.

The data also shows that Utah spends only $5437/year/pupil compared to Ohio's $9598/year/pupil. Yet Utah's public school graduates score higher on the ACT than Ohio students. Utah not only has high school busing, many districts have a second wave of high school buses, called "activities" buses that take kids home from after-school extracurricular activities.

You want to know the BIG difference driving the cost of education in Utah (and other more efficient districts) vs Ohio? Utah has a single school district per county - i.e., Utah has a single superintendent's and supporting district staff/facilities per county rather than the proliferation of high wage district administrations that we have in OH on a community basis. Proof that a superintendent can effectively lead a county level district is found in Utah's higher average ACT test scores.

We simply have too many administrators per student, and need to move to county-level districts to get these costs under control. In the meantime, the district should immediately implement last year’s state board of education audit recommendations and save over $6M/year in unnecessary costs. It is unconscionable that some district employees are having their employee benefit cost-sharing paid by the taxpayers instead of the employee. This is non-standard practice in both OH and in virtually any other domain. Time to trim the fat!
for sale by owner

Amelia, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 6, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Traditional 4 bedroom two story family home in Springboro.$400k. If you want low taxes and failing schools this is the home for you!
want good schools

Miamisburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 6, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

for sale by owner wrote:
Traditional 4 bedroom two story family home in Springboro.$400k. If you want low taxes and failing schools this is the home for you!
You might have got $400K if we could pass a levy around here. Better drop that price drastically with the way the schools are looking.
High Tax rates

Amelia, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 6, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

2

High tax rates do not improve property values: they depress them.
realtor

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 7, 2010
 
for sale by owner wrote:
Traditional 4 bedroom two story family home in Springboro.$400k. If you want low taxes and failing schools this is the home for you!
Overpriced to start with, regardless of schools.
swee pea

Piqua, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 7, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

want good schools wrote:
<quoted text>
You might have got $400K if we could pass a levy around here. Better drop that price drastically with the way the schools are looking.
I'm certain the NFSS & Educate Springboro will come together after much needed cuts are made to pass a somewhat smaller levy early next year.

FIY: property values have MUCH stronger ties to the general state of the local, state & federal economy than other factor.
Nice distortion

Springboro, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 7, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

I am not doubting the source of your information, but rather the validity. There are NO NATIONAL STANDARDS for reporting admin costs or any other school spending costs. These statistics are tabulated at the state level and they absolutely cannot be compared from state to state. Even in Ohio there is great debate about what gets reported in the EMIS system.....believe me I know, I do data entry for a school district! YES, admin costs as reprted in Ohio contain support personnel and lost of costs besides salary and benefits. This is being worked on currently as new EMIS codes are being piloted in Ohio to try to give better data.
Feste Ainoriba wrote:
<quoted text>
I put together my statistics a couple of years ago using a National Center for Education Statistics Report for the school year 2005-6. I have the report in my possession and just went back and verified the calculation that I cited, but am not sure where to find it online. Have at it if you want to look for it yourself.
Note, I did not include pupil support or staff support when I cited Ohio's outrageously top-heavy administration cost. The 43% higher than national average calculation only includes the number of administration employees per student.
I might also add that there are states with higher average scores on the ACT that had much lower per pupil funding and larger class sizes than OH.
The first thing we need to do is stop the district from paying the employee's cost sharing portion of their benefits for administrative employees. Last year's audit by the State Board of Education identified this among over $6million/year in recommended budget cuts.
The data also shows that Utah spends only $5437/year/pupil compared to Ohio's $9598/year/pupil. Yet Utah's public school graduates score higher on the ACT than Ohio students. Utah not only has high school busing, many districts have a second wave of high school buses, called "activities" buses that take kids home from after-school extracurricular activities.
You want to know the BIG difference driving the cost of education in Utah (and other more efficient districts) vs Ohio? Utah has a single school district per county - i.e., Utah has a single superintendent's and supporting district staff/facilities per county rather than the proliferation of high wage district administrations that we have in OH on a community basis. Proof that a superintendent can effectively lead a county level district is found in Utah's higher average ACT test scores.
We simply have too many administrators per student, and need to move to county-level districts to get these costs under control. In the meantime, the district should immediately implement last year’s state board of education audit recommendations and save over $6M/year in unnecessary costs. It is unconscionable that some district employees are having their employee benefit cost-sharing paid by the taxpayers instead of the employee. This is non-standard practice in both OH and in virtually any other domain. Time to trim the fat!
Feste Ainoriba

Montgomery, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 8, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nice distortion wrote:
I am not doubting the source of your information, but rather the validity. There are NO NATIONAL STANDARDS for reporting admin costs or any other school spending costs. These statistics are tabulated at the state level and they absolutely cannot be compared from state to state. Even in Ohio there is great debate about what gets reported in the EMIS system.....believe me I know, I do data entry for a school district! YES, admin costs as reprted in Ohio contain support personnel and lost of costs besides salary and benefits. This is being worked on currently as new EMIS codes are being piloted in Ohio to try to give better data.
<quoted text>
I apologize. By using the term "administrative cost" I sent you down the wrong logic trail. The 43% higher stat that I cited was strictly for "numbers" of personnel in administrative positions - not the "cost" of administering the school. The table clearly show "support personnel" and "teaching staff" in separate columns. These "support personnel" are not part of the 143% calculation. The table I referred to doesn't contain dollars, only numbers of employees broken out by different categories.

You should not be surprised that OH schools have significantly more administration employees than states who only have a single district in each county. In fact, I would think this conclusion would be intuitively obvious to anybody who is willing to see it.
If, e.g, we took the 8 current school districts in Warren county and integrated them into a "Warren County School District", we could totally eliminate 7 sets of superintendant staffs AND their facilities: saving several tens (if not well over a hundred) of millions of dollars (even if you allowed the warren county district staff to be a tad larger).
Other states have single districts for each county...why can't OH function more efficiently?

Like I said, OH is in the top ten list of states that have the highest numbers of purely administrative employees on a per student basis. Quibble all you want around the margins, we need to do as other states have already done, and consolidate school districts at the County-level.
Not true

Springboro, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 9, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You may eliminate 7 superintendents; you would not eliminate 7 admin positions because the work would still have to be completed. With the exception of high spending in Kings and Mason, a look at WC districts will show LOW spending compared to other places in Ohio. The data clearly proves that larger districts COST MORE and are inefficient! Ohio's problems are exaggerated by high spending in large districts, and the answer shoiuld be to make them smaller! Regardless of your opinion of Springboro leadership, you must admit their total spending is incredibly SMALL compared to other districts in Ohio. The ONLY way to reduce spending in Ohio is to break the power of the teachers unions, which Voinovich and Taft refused to do, and now we will see what this group of R's is made of!
Feste Ainoriba wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologize. By using the term "administrative cost" I sent you down the wrong logic trail. The 43% higher stat that I cited was strictly for "numbers" of personnel in administrative positions - not the "cost" of administering the school. The table clearly show "support personnel" and "teaching staff" in separate columns. These "support personnel" are not part of the 143% calculation. The table I referred to doesn't contain dollars, only numbers of employees broken out by different categories.
You should not be surprised that OH schools have significantly more administration employees than states who only have a single district in each county. In fact, I would think this conclusion would be intuitively obvious to anybody who is willing to see it.
If, e.g, we took the 8 current school districts in Warren county and integrated them into a "Warren County School District", we could totally eliminate 7 sets of superintendant staffs AND their facilities: saving several tens (if not well over a hundred) of millions of dollars (even if you allowed the warren county district staff to be a tad larger).
Other states have single districts for each county...why can't OH function more efficiently?
Like I said, OH is in the top ten list of states that have the highest numbers of purely administrative employees on a per student basis. Quibble all you want around the margins, we need to do as other states have already done, and consolidate school districts at the County-level.
Gerald

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 9, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Feste Ainoriba is right that we have far too many administrators in all of the districts. Ohio has 614 school districts. One in Cincinnati has only 600 plus students. That is ridiculous. Of course their levy failed, but the superintendent is determined to go at it again. Why? To keep her cushy job and salary. That district should be integrated into another district. Lincoln Heights was integrated into Princeton some time ago. Princeton is the district that Baker spent some time before he descended on Springboro.

We could also save plenty if the teachers paid a larger share of their benefits. I would suggest at least 50% and the coverage should be much less. I am told that there are teachers getting artificial insemination, with long maternity leaves after the baby is born. I know this has happened, for a fact, and the teacher was not married. Also there are teachers getting plastic surgery and breast augmentation on our dime. They also get unlimited coverage for braces and other dental work. Eye glasses are bought at will. This type of coverage makes the premiums much higher than for a normal person. If the public had a clue what was going on there would be more outrage than there already is with the taxpayers.
Boro parent

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 18, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The number one cost reduction that must be implemented is ELIMINATION OF THE STEP RAISES! They are what is breaking the budget.

The number two cost reduction that must be implemented is REDUCTION OF ALL TEACHER SALARIES AT LEAST 20% ACROSS THE BOARD.

Our teachers are overpaid now and they still want more! Slash back teacher salaries like the rest of the country's income.
yes voter

Piqua, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 18, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Feste Ainoriba wrote:
<quoted text>
I put together my statistics a couple of years ago using a National Center for Education Statistics Report for the school year 2005-6. I have the report in my possession and just went back and verified the calculation that I cited, but am not sure where to find it online. Have at it if you want to look for it yourself.
Note, I did not include pupil support or staff support when I cited Ohio's outrageously top-heavy administration cost. The 43% higher than national average calculation only includes the number of administration employees per student.
I might also add that there are states with higher average scores on the ACT that had much lower per pupil funding and larger class sizes than OH.

The first thing we need to do is stop the district from paying the employee's cost sharing portion of their benefits for administrative employees. Last year's audit by the State Board of Education identified this among over $6million/year in recommended budget cuts.
The data also shows that Utah spends only $5437/year/pupil compared to Ohio's $9598/year/pupil. Yet Utah's public school graduates score higher on the ACT than Ohio students. Utah not only has high school busing, many districts have a second wave of high school buses, called "activities" buses that take kids home from after-school extracurricular activities.
You want to know the BIG difference driving the cost of education in Utah (and other more efficient districts) vs Ohio? Utah has a single school district per county - i.e., Utah has a single superintendent's and supporting district staff/facilities per county rather than the proliferation of high wage district administrations that we have in OH on a community basis. Proof that a superintendent can effectively lead a county level district is found in Utah's higher average ACT test scores.
We simply have too many administrators per student, and need to move to county-level districts to get these costs under control. In the meantime, the district should immediately implement last year’s state board of education audit recommendations and save over $6M/year in unnecessary costs. It is unconscionable that some district employees are having their employee benefit cost-sharing paid by the taxpayers instead of the employee. This is non-standard practice in both OH and in virtually any other domain. Time to trim the fat!
Okay, I've lived in Utah and I can tell you they do NOT have Ohio's population! Oh my goodness! Think think! Ohio is one of the most populated states in the country. I'll agree with you some of our smaller rural districts could share super, CFO, and other admin resources and be more efficient....Springboro is a very large district! Utah also does NOT have the diversity that Ohio has. I'm not trying to slam any race or ethnicity but with diversity comes more need services. Ohio has rural district that struggle with poverty and rural issues like Utah, but we also have a huge amount of inner cities such as Toledo, Dayton, Cincy, Cleveland, Columbus, to contend with...Utah has Salt Lake--and that is about as lily white leave it to Beaver as you are going to get.
yes voter

Piqua, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 18, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Boro parent wrote:
The number one cost reduction that must be implemented is ELIMINATION OF THE STEP RAISES! They are what is breaking the budget.
The number two cost reduction that must be implemented is REDUCTION OF ALL TEACHER SALARIES AT LEAST 20% ACROSS THE BOARD.
Our teachers are overpaid now and they still want more! Slash back teacher salaries like the rest of the country's income.
Our teachers are lower paid than the entire state average of teachers. These are not facts! Step raises are something all districts struggle with and those could likely be going away, but our teacher basic salaries are not out of line at all. What you are looking for is a school district strike. I can only fathom how upset and outraged all the parents of this district would be if school closed down for a couple of months. Let them strike and maybe the likes of those who think like you do will get a clue.
Had enough already

Dayton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 19, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

yes voter wrote:
<quoted text>
Our teachers are lower paid than the entire state average of teachers. These are not facts! Step raises are something all districts struggle with and those could likely be going away, but our teacher basic salaries are not out of line at all. What you are looking for is a school district strike. I can only fathom how upset and outraged all the parents of this district would be if school closed down for a couple of months. Let them strike and maybe the likes of those who think like you do will get a clue.
If a strike is what is required to rein in the SEA and stop the out of control spending, then so be it.
Feste Ainoriba

Springboro, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 12, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fascinating developments lately, don't all you "yes" voters think?
After a careful audit, appointment of a new superintendent, and replacing some board members, we "discover" that our doomsday deficit wasn't real after all. The district is actually running a healthy surplus.

Turn the lights on, and a funny thing happens, the big bad deficit boogeyman you all saw hiding in our closet turns out to be imaginative.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of30
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Montgomery County Discussions

Search the Montgomery County Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Teen found guilty in bus stop shooting Jul 2 Net Nut 2
New program aims to get kids reading over summer Jun 20 The Duke Of Hazard 2
Dayton man charged with physical and sexual ass... Apr '14 The Hack Checker 1
Few dogs labled as dangerous despite new law Mar '14 Gun Nut 1
Trotwood apartments to get $4 million in upgrades Jan '14 Just Me 2
Harem niteclub fight and beating (Dec '11) Nov '13 Mark-Dayton 2
Monday's Most Wanted for Sept. 30, 2013 (Oct '13) Oct '13 The New Cool Warrior 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••