District presses levy case
Rob TreynorLondon City Schools Treasurer Kristine Blind answers a question Tuesday evening at a special question-and-answer meeting at Choctaw Lake Lodge as Superintendent Steve Allen listens.
Staff Writer
Rev. Gordon Johnson returned to moderate a second question-and-answer session Tuesday evening on the topic of the London’s school levy on the Nov. 8 ballot.
Steve Allen, superintendent of London City Schools, told the 40 in attendance at Choctaw Lake Lodge, “When the economy went south, you took a hit. So did we. The schools are in the same boat as the rest of you.”
Allen explained what the school district has done so far to stay in budget, “I don’t think you’ll find a place anywhere else in Ohio where teachers voluntarily take a 3-percent pay decrease.”
Since the district knew of the shortfall, Allen explained that London has cut: 19 teachers; 17 other staff positions; 25 percent of extracurricular contracts; cut bussing for high school students; and made salary cuts adding up to $1,293,694.
Those cuts allowed the school to get through this school year, but future school years will require either additional revenue or more drastic cuts.
Johnson struggled at times to keep order at the meeting. Questions were required to be written on note cards and read by the moderator. However, many people just shouted out their questions or comments. More than one person attempted to turn the meeting into a discussion on State Issue 2, which, if passed, would allow administrators the opportunity to value performance over seniority.
Allen cautioned, however, that should Issue 2 pass, its effects wouldn’t be felt locally until 2014, when the current contracts are up for renegotiation.
One of the more difficult questions of the evening was, “I’m a senior citizen on a fixed income. With the cost of almost everything rising, how are we supposed to pay for an increase in taxes? What should we do? Move out of our houses?”
Vici Geer, president of London’s Board of Education, replied, “I’m retired on a fixed income, too. I understand what you’re going through. But we have to figure out what our priorities are. What can be more important than providing an education for our kids?”
The most pointed question of the evening was, “Why should I want to pay this tax?”
Kristine Blind, treasurer of London City Schools, answered, “If you want to educate your children, you’d want to pay the tax. We have to balance the budget. If we can’t, the state will come in. And we’ll have to try to pass levy after levy after levy until one of them passes. And each time a levy fails, the government would make more cuts to the schools. Eventually, they may close up the school district all together.”
Board member Marvin Homan, gave a less-grim followup answer, “Roughly 75 percent of the households in our district don’t have kids in school. I would look at it as a homeowner. It’s an investment in your communty and your property. If we can’t pass the levy and the state has to come in, your property value would decrease additionally since we won’t have a good school. People will not move to London or Choctaw if their kids can’t go to school in town. Look at this as an investment into your community and in the value of your house.”
In my opinion, teachers do not make the salary that they are entitled to make….they have the future of our children within their hands…with that said….teachers need to TEACH and teach well. Teachers can do very little if the parents of these children in London does not support them. Twenty years ago we had wonderful teachers and parents who were willing to support them in their endevers to educate our kids. I see none of that now, parents are “up in arms”…..they support no one within the school system….”blame”…”blame” and more “blame”…….I would suggest that you look at yourself……and how you people react to the teachers that are trying to educate, and basically now-a days these kids do not want to be educated….they want to run the show !!! There are exceptions and I understand this. If I were the board and or the teachers, I would have bailed long ago….these people don’t deserve you lovely people of London, Ohio and your “small town flavor of how things should be conducted”. If you don’t like it….run for the board….or better still, if you are educated and qualified…..take the place of the principal..or the super…or anyone else in charge.
What troubles me is that with the constant rise in the amount of dollars that is invested into education, the level of learning attained by students has been flat. That tells me that more money thrown at school districts is not going to improve the level of learning inside the school. I am still amazed that we learned anything in my day under such comparable spartan conditions.
‘And we’ll have to try to pass levy after levy after levy until one of them passes……’
This isnt news…this happens already. lol
“I don’t think you’ll find a place anywhere else in Ohio where teachers voluntarily take a 3-percent pay decrease.”
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard! People all over the country are taking way bigger cuts than 3% to keep their jobs. If the staff at London could find better paying jobs somewhere else they would have taken them already. They took the pay cuts instead of job cuts, not out of the kindness of their hearts or the betterment of the district.
Name another school district in Ohio where this also happened. Go ahead. Name just one. I’m waiting.
Principals to take pay cut; district will recall teachers
Jody Lawrence-Turner The Spokesman-Review
June 16, 2011 – Updated: 5:30 a.m.
Spokane Public Schools principals have agreed to a voluntary 3 percent pay cut, a move that will help the school district offset a $13.1 million budget shortfall.
shadowrider-
I asked about another school district in OHIO, not Spokane, Washington. I’m still waiting.
wait till issue 2 passes. Then we’ll see some things brought in to line.
I can hear the crying already!
3% pay cut? Big deal!
HUNDREDS of taxpayers at Stanley had to take a 20% pay cut this year!!!
The teachers voluntarily reduced their pay by 3%. Stanley employees had no choice – their pay was reduced by their employer. 3% of LCSD’s annual payroll is a VERY big number, so it IS a big deal to the bottom line. And, for those Stanley employees that live in the LCSD, the district received 20% less than it expected to in school district income tax from those employees. But I suppose that’s the school district’s fault, huh?
Nonsense. They turned down a pay RAISE. There is a big difference in not getting a raise vs taking a pay CUT.
3% is insignificant to the employee compared to 20%
Read the artcile David L. They reduced their pay by 3%. And there is no difference to the bottom line of the school district’s finances – 3% less expenses means 3% more to the bottom line, money that can be used towards other expenses. I agree that 3% is insignificant compared to 20%. But, for FY ended June, 2010, the teachers’ salaries were about $14MM – 3% of that is $420,000. The projected budget shortfall for next FY is about $500,000, so the teacher’s voluntarily reduced the deficit by almost one-half by taking the pay cut.