polar_purple
New member
BB - And in the interest of efficiency, perhaps we can debate this on just one board, instead of two, as we are obviously doing....lol.
School Levy- Have Any of the Administration Taken Pay Cuts?
- Thread starter PolarBear
- Start date
FiscalResponsibility
New member
I would vote for the levy as soon as someone shows the taxpayers some accountability for poor decisions that have been made... show us how they plan to do things differently, more responsible with OUR money... something. All we've heard so far is threats... pay to play, no busing, cut programs for the kids. Seems that rather than making hard choices and sacrifices they are trying to scare/punish parents into voting for the levy.
If you reward bad behavior, can you really expect it to change? Having expectations and holding them to those expectations are all we can do.
If your child wrecks your car every time you let them use it... how many times are you going to keep handing over the keys to them?
polar_purple
New member
Things like:
~ lowest per pupil spending among 20 most similar districts in Ohio
~ balanced the cafeteria budget (actually, they are running a small profit now)
~ collaborated w/surrounding districts to offer more programs to kids, but without significant costs of running them ourselves
~ reduced admin positions by 20%
~ reduced teacher positions
~ reduced busing costs (and will do so further by full implementation of cluster stops in January)
~ reduced how much district pays for health care
~ bought out a number of employees, saving JLSD $3 million
~ closed the adult ed department
http://jackson.stark.k12.oh.us/files/filesystem/Fact sheet-one page landscape.pdf
American Dream
New member
Oh boy....
Another brilliant move by the BOE. They would have had a better chance of passing this levy if they came back with the same milage as the last one. It was a rather close vote and I feel you may have had a better chance at convincing enough "no" voters to yes in February based of this last failed levy. Instead they raised it.
As far as the Super goes..... If we hire DiLoreto we are dead in the water.
I will not vote for another school levy until we hire a business man or woman to run our schools as Superintendent. You are delusional if you don't think heading a school district the equivalent to running a business. Yet schools continue to hire former teachers or coaches with education degrees to handle 5 million dollar budgets and manage big staffs.... Does this make sense?
Massillon just hired a superintendent with a Special education degree. What did she learn from education classes that is going to prepare her to run a school district? How did her student teaching prepare her for preparing million dollar budgets?
Gee..... I just don't see why are schools are so messed up.
Another brilliant move by the BOE. They would have had a better chance of passing this levy if they came back with the same milage as the last one. It was a rather close vote and I feel you may have had a better chance at convincing enough "no" voters to yes in February based of this last failed levy. Instead they raised it.
As far as the Super goes..... If we hire DiLoreto we are dead in the water.
I will not vote for another school levy until we hire a business man or woman to run our schools as Superintendent. You are delusional if you don't think heading a school district the equivalent to running a business. Yet schools continue to hire former teachers or coaches with education degrees to handle 5 million dollar budgets and manage big staffs.... Does this make sense?
Massillon just hired a superintendent with a Special education degree. What did she learn from education classes that is going to prepare her to run a school district? How did her student teaching prepare her for preparing million dollar budgets?
Gee..... I just don't see why are schools are so messed up.
FiscalResponsibility
New member
I guess we know who you work for now... lol
but seriously, those cuts are nice, but apparently not enough otherwise they wouldn't need the levy (and now an INCREASE in the levy)
Also, as long as the same administrators are in place and have no intentions of changing the way they spend/budget... why should we keep handing over our hard earned $$$? If we do that then it is OUR FAULT for enabling that behavior.
Just like Obama's campaign... we want "change"
polar_purple
New member
I am a Jackson alumnus and have four kids in the system (technically three, one just graduated) and have lived here since 1971 (exc for two years). I am neither an employee of the JLSD nor a board member - I work in Akron for a private company.
No, they aren't enough cuts, obviously. Coupled w/a decrease in funding from other sources & no add'l money from the electorate, and the district's finances are getting worse and worse and worse. They've already trimmed 20% of the administration (which is what the public asked - to eliminate jobs that might be redundant), and have added a pay to play system, so now they are working on cutting busing. I'm sure there will be further cuts - there will have to be with such a large operating deficit looming. And remember - at the current operating levels, the money to run the JLSD is still needed, but every year the levy fails, the deficit gets larger, because you lose a year worth of funding the JLSD. Thus the reason it is now a larger amount. Basically - if your level of expenses stays reasonably constant, but your revenue source is diminished - your need for funding increases.
Actually, wouldn't that list I gave you be considered changes in the way they spend/budget?
polar_purple
New member
As a note, I am NOT willing to give the JLSD a blank check, either, as a taxpayer (and a fiscal conservative one, at that). However, I do seek what is best for our kids and our community. Hopefully people see that I'm very fair - as a global moderator on this site, I've never deleted/amended a post about the JLSD - good or bad, so that alone shows my impartiality.
That said, if anyone has any ideas for cost-cutting or other suggestions (or anything else Jackson-related that you'd care to discuss), and is not willing/interested to share them publicly on here, feel free to PM me or e-mail me (polar_purple@yahoo.com). As a Jackson 'layperson' that has educated himself as much as possible about the need for this levy in the last year, I'd be glad to help answer anything. If not, I'll forward them to Ken Douglas (BOE president), who I've had regular contact with. He's been very good at answering things, even when those questions weren't very pleasant.
Or see me in person. If you've connected the dots enough, you know who I am.
That said, if anyone has any ideas for cost-cutting or other suggestions (or anything else Jackson-related that you'd care to discuss), and is not willing/interested to share them publicly on here, feel free to PM me or e-mail me (polar_purple@yahoo.com). As a Jackson 'layperson' that has educated himself as much as possible about the need for this levy in the last year, I'd be glad to help answer anything. If not, I'll forward them to Ken Douglas (BOE president), who I've had regular contact with. He's been very good at answering things, even when those questions weren't very pleasant.
Or see me in person. If you've connected the dots enough, you know who I am.
FiscalResponsibility
New member
I'm sure we all agree that the schools need operating money. I believe the message being sent to the administrators is "change the way you have always done business - or get the ---- out"
Voting down the levy is the taxpayers only recourse to hold the admin accountable for their poor spending/mismanagement. If we approve this levy now... tell me what is going to stop the mismanagement?
As far as the list (propaganda) that you posted... no, I wouldn't consider that acceptable. Try reading between the lines of the changes they've made.
They spend less per pupil... sure, but Jackson gets considerably LESS $$$ per pupil from federal money. So, what sacrifice did they really make?
They shed 20% of admin jobs... okay, let's see a breakdown. If you have 50 employees and fire 10 low paid secretaries, how effective is that? looks good on paper though.
They reduced teacher positions... more detail would be nice. Laying off one teacher would allow them to put that bullet point on their list of accomplishments.
Questions that should be asked are... you shed 20%, could you have done more?
Could jobs/duties be combined to free up larger salaries?
In today's economy... more with less is a sad reality. Everyone is forced to make choices, change their spending habits etc. Why should Jackson be any different. So far, I'm not seeing much sacrifice on their part. I am seeing them spending considerable time and money trying to scare voters into passing a levy.
PAY TO PLAY... BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!! NO BUSING.... BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!! funny how these things effect us directly and they chose to make the cuts there first, huh? Why do you think that is? Coincidence? It's voter intimidation. They are saying that you won't vote us money so we are going to punish you.
I say to ---- with that nonsense. If we the voters do not stand our ground and demand change from our administrators then we are just as much to blame for the continued thinking that our tax money is an endless supply and no one will ever be held accountable. NOTHING WILL CHANGE in our township without repercussions for mismanagement of OUR money.
polar_purple
New member
The electorate has consistently asked for things of this BOE/administration and they have been chipping away at the problem. Rremember the first time this was up - they had barely changed a thing prior to throwing it at us - they've made quite a few changes since then.
As far as changing the way you do business, not sure how you are going to do that when you are hamstrung by a state that refuses to fund equitiably and unconstitutionally forces us to put these levies on the ballot, because of the perception that wealthy community = wealthy schools.
But if you have ideas.....by all means, air them out!!! I think we're kind of reaching that 'we're out of creative ways' limit.
Let's say the gov't gives school 1 $10 and school 2 $5 to run the same program. School 1 does the job for $10 and school 2 does the job for $8. If school 2 is Jackson (since we receive around half of some other area schools per kid), that means we have $-3. Thus, I'd say that's a sacrifice.
Very good point!!! I'd be curious to know what jobs those were. It does say 'positions' not 'salaries' - could be a very big difference. I'll be sending an email to Ken about that one.
Ditto the above comment. Another one for Ken.
It doesn't appear so at this point from what I'm being told. Not without putting unnecessary stress on the system (as in things falling through the cracks). But that's what I'm asking from the folks on here, etc - do you know specifically of an area, because if so, apparently the BOE doesn't (which leads me to believe there isn't an area that can be cut w/that stress).
I think the 'scare voters' notion is kind of hogwash. I'd much rather know upfront what is going to be cut if they don't receive add'l funds, rather than hear about it after the election. I don't like being surprised after the fact, do you? Especially if you have kid(s) in the district.
Perhaps to some extent, although what other areas are there that don't affect the kids & parents directly (presuming a reasonable answer about the administration & the fact we're locked into teacher contracts right now)? And remember - they saved the busing cuts until after the fifth levy attempt failed (after 2nd or 3rd attempt w/pay to play & they subsequently reduced that amount).
Do you know of anyone willing to run on a 'no levy' platform? Yourself perhaps? The electorate last year (Nov 2007) had a chance to change the make-up of this BOE, yet returned the incumbent and voted in the most pro-levy person from the rest of the field.
Mackinbiner
Well-known member
Can you explain what you mean by "poor decisions that have been made"? I'm looking for examples with details
If you want to cut things at a school, is there anyway it won't effect the students? I've been thinking, and I can't think of anything.
Mackinbiner
Well-known member
Here is a list of the amount of money local schools spend per pupil on Administrative Expenditures. This information was culled from the Ohio Department of Education web site here. http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/Power_Users.asp
The state average for per pupil Administrative Expenditures is $1,220. I think this speaks volumes especially considering the quality of the education Jackson students receive.
Louisville $771
Plain Local $785
Jackson $861
Tuslaw $879
Perry $899
Alliance $904
Hoover $919
Manchester $972
Lake $994
Canton Local $1,032
Northwest $1,066
Massillon $1,164
Green $1,210
Canton City $1,386
The state average for per pupil Administrative Expenditures is $1,220. I think this speaks volumes especially considering the quality of the education Jackson students receive.
Louisville $771
Plain Local $785
Jackson $861
Tuslaw $879
Perry $899
Alliance $904
Hoover $919
Manchester $972
Lake $994
Canton Local $1,032
Northwest $1,066
Massillon $1,164
Green $1,210
Canton City $1,386
bearbooster
New member
It seems to me to change the busing so the kids have to walk in the snow and cold in the coming months, then to have a levy in February, the super thinks this will get the taxpayers to vote positive. It all comes back to Haschak spending money on the useless things she wanted and now the school is out of money. She played and the taxpayers pay. She figures the taxpayers will bail her out.
Change This
Talley, Douglas, and Winkhart are due up for re-election in 2009. Douglas is the one to vote for and keep. He has been trying hard to change things but he is outvoted. The other two who are up for re-election need to be voted off and new fresh blood voted in.
JMO
Talley, Douglas, and Winkhart are due up for re-election in 2009. Douglas is the one to vote for and keep. He has been trying hard to change things but he is outvoted. The other two who are up for re-election need to be voted off and new fresh blood voted in.
JMO
Last edited:
Those aren't cuts made by the administration. Those are cuts made by the voters.
My post was in response to another post saying we could make cuts that don't affect students. My point was that any cuts made to a school are going to affect its students.
polar_purple
New member
Ken e-mailed these positions:
Continuing w/what Ken e-mailed me:
Hope that helps.
Maybe what Jackson voters need to do is replace the School Board.
They are the elected officials. The superintendent reports to them.
The superintendent recommends a levy, they either approve putting it on the ballot or not.
The superintendent recommends budget cuts, they either approve or reject them.
Get two new board members who think your way and you can control the decision making.
They are the elected officials. The superintendent reports to them.
The superintendent recommends a levy, they either approve putting it on the ballot or not.
The superintendent recommends budget cuts, they either approve or reject them.
Get two new board members who think your way and you can control the decision making.
bearbooster
New member
A Great Idea
Ken Douglas is an honest man trying to change things. But he can't when he is outvoted by other BOE members, especially those that are on the side of the super. The taxpayers can change what is going on by keeping Douglas and voting out the other two who are up for election in 2009.
Ken Douglas is an honest man trying to change things. But he can't when he is outvoted by other BOE members, especially those that are on the side of the super. The taxpayers can change what is going on by keeping Douglas and voting out the other two who are up for election in 2009.
can you give me an example of when Douglas was outvoted on anything? As far as i know there hasnt been any situation where there have been votes of 4-1 or even 3-2. It is also my understanding that if the super and the board members are replaced that there is going to be a sudden surge in yes votes? what sense does that make. I have no opinion one way or the other on the superintendent it just seems like an interesting reason to vote no on the levy. The need is still there regardless of who is on the board or who the superintendent is. Those of you that say that money was wasted on the building of the new school need to know that all of the money that was generated for that levy had to be put into building nothing else. You cant transfer money from a building levy to operational funds.
Darksider_99
New member
Wrong the board IMO answers to her or should I be clear on my opinion. I feel it is her way or NO WAY!! If you go to the meetings you will see what I mean. I understand why people feel they can't talk to her because she will not let you. I always thought it was the other way also but hey it is another way that Ohio is different from other states. By this I mean the BOE has the power and not the Super.
It is just formality.
It is just formality.
Wrong. You need to change the head. And we just had an election for how many seats and the people who you would think would make a change didn't get community support. Goff won and he was strongly supported by who?
polar_purple
New member
Speaking of the Board.....
Board of Education meeting tonight at 6:30pm at Lake Cable. Just an FYI.
Board of Education meeting tonight at 6:30pm at Lake Cable. Just an FYI.
Mackinbiner
Well-known member
I'm planning to be there. Will anyone else?
American Dream
New member
I will be in North Canton house hunting. JUST KIDDING!!! 
I will be in North Canton though on business.
I will be in North Canton though on business.
BGFalcons86
Well-known member
Speaking of North Canton... It does seem like North Canton CSD passes levies without any problems. North Canton and Jackson certainly seem similar in many regards. What accounts for the difference when it comes to support for school tax issues? Just looking for an explanation.
FiscalResponsibility
New member
Board Meeting Tonight
I will have someone there taking notes for me... we need to encourage more people to show up and be vocal (myself included).
I will have someone there taking notes for me... we need to encourage more people to show up and be vocal (myself included).
polar_purple
New member
North Canton has only had five levy attempts in the last twenty years - 1989, 1992, 2001 (2x), and 2006. Only the first one in 2001 didn't pass. On the other hand, Jackson had had fourteen levy attempts in the last twenty years - 1990 (3x), 1991 (3x), 1996, 2001, 2006 (3x), 2007 & 2008. Only four of them passed - the last one in 1991, the ones in 1996 & 2001, and the one in 2006 that was just the renewal. Why does Jackson go to the ballot box so much more? Because North Canton puts up permanent levies, whereas Jackson consistentlyl puts up expiring levies, and thus has to return time and time again for money. Not sure about the levies in 1989 (NC) and 1990/91 (Jackson), but all other North Canton levies were permanent, while all other Jackson levies were expiring ones.
So, North Canton puts up levies less often, because they put up permanent levies. But, they have another reason that they don't go back as often - they don't need the money from the people as badly! Explaining further:
In 2007, North Canton and Jackson had almost identical costs AND revenues per pupil. For Jackson, costs per pupil were $8,281.36 compared to $8,506.66 at North Canton. However, the problematic side was in the revenues. Both had almost identical revenues at $8,284 (Jackson) and $8,250 (NC) per pupil. However, it's WHERE they got that revenue that was the issue.
In NOrth Canton, the government funded $3,835.54 per pupil, but Jackson only got $2,071.57 per pupil. So guess where that $1,763.97 difference must be made up - yep, the electorate. And it shows - in 2007, Jackson had to get $6,213.23 from the residents, while North Canton only had to fetch $4,414.46, or a difference of $1,798.77 per pupil.
2007 Cupp Report
Thus - North Canton has two inherent advantages - (1) they use permanent levies, which gives the citizens less sway if things go ugly (it's harder to repeal a levy than to vote no on a levy, as the former must come from the populace), and (2) they don't need as much money, as they get twice as much from the state.
polar_purple
New member
Looking a little more at the Cupp Report for 2007 (you can pull it from the ODE website):
Total Expense per Pupil
JLSD - $8,281.36
Similar Districts - $9,521.87
Stark County's 17 Districts - Jackson has the 8th lowest.
Administrative Expense per Pupil
JLSD - $889.27
Similar Districts - $1,029.08
Of 17 districts in Stark County, Jackson has the 7th lowest.
Instructional Expense per Pupil
JLSD - $4,591.65
Similar Districts - $5,338.68
Of 17 districts in Stark County, Jackson has the 5th lowest.
State Revenue Per Pupil:
JLSD - $1,792.99
Simliar Districts - $2,563.07
Stark County - Jackson receives less than all other 16 districts. FAR less. Actually, Plain is next with $3,061.80. Canton is the highest at $6,382.49.
Local Revenue Per Pupil
JLSD - $6,213.23
Similar Districts - $6,729.47
Stark County - no one comes close to as much as Jackson in the amount they must get from local property taxes. Next closest is Perry at $4,989.55!
In other words - Jackson has to get 75% of it's revenue from local sources. Compare that to Canton (47.40%), North Canton (53.50%), Plain (51.90%), and Perry (54.00%). The last one there is the next closest to Jackson - that's right, the #2 district requires 21% less funds from the local folks, because they get so much from the state & federal government.
Total Revenue Per Pupil
JLSD - $8,284.80
Simliar District - 9,626.71
In Stark County, Jackson is middle of the road. But that really hurts when 3/4 of that revenue is received by (mostly) property taxes. OWW.
Total Expense per Pupil
JLSD - $8,281.36
Similar Districts - $9,521.87
Stark County's 17 Districts - Jackson has the 8th lowest.
Administrative Expense per Pupil
JLSD - $889.27
Similar Districts - $1,029.08
Of 17 districts in Stark County, Jackson has the 7th lowest.
Instructional Expense per Pupil
JLSD - $4,591.65
Similar Districts - $5,338.68
Of 17 districts in Stark County, Jackson has the 5th lowest.
State Revenue Per Pupil:
JLSD - $1,792.99
Simliar Districts - $2,563.07
Stark County - Jackson receives less than all other 16 districts. FAR less. Actually, Plain is next with $3,061.80. Canton is the highest at $6,382.49.
Local Revenue Per Pupil
JLSD - $6,213.23
Similar Districts - $6,729.47
Stark County - no one comes close to as much as Jackson in the amount they must get from local property taxes. Next closest is Perry at $4,989.55!
In other words - Jackson has to get 75% of it's revenue from local sources. Compare that to Canton (47.40%), North Canton (53.50%), Plain (51.90%), and Perry (54.00%). The last one there is the next closest to Jackson - that's right, the #2 district requires 21% less funds from the local folks, because they get so much from the state & federal government.
Total Revenue Per Pupil
JLSD - $8,284.80
Simliar District - 9,626.71
In Stark County, Jackson is middle of the road. But that really hurts when 3/4 of that revenue is received by (mostly) property taxes. OWW.
BGFalcons86
Well-known member
polar_purple,
Thanks for the thorough explanation!! I'm originally from Louisville, but I've lived in Hilliard CSD for a little over 8 years now (Columbus area since '87). Hilliard is a suburban district that has had to go to the ballot often, due to the enrollment explosion in the last 20 years. We've been on 18 times since 1991, passing 5 operating levies (all permanent, I believe) and 4 bond issues. Nine other requests have been defeated. Our district (like Jackson) is funded more from local sources than government sources, by roughly a 2-to-1 count. Looks like Jackson is funded at an even higher rate, locally. I was just wondering what the funding situation at Jackson was and you've answered it very well!
You have a PM from me.
polar_purple
New member
If you can answer that PM quickly, that would be great. Thanks!!
As far as comparing Hilliard to Jackson, not sure what to make of that. Hilliard is growing MUCH faster than Jackson (from one to three high schools in what, ten years?). As the rates get re-assessed, the amount per household should drop, as it's spread over a much larger and faster growing amount of people. On the other hand, your expenses are rising much faster than ours. While our enrollment & costs are rising, they aren't rising anywhere near the pace of Hilliard's, I'd imagine.
BGFalcons86
Well-known member
polar,
You have a PM from me. The second link will give you the info you're specifically looking for.
You have a PM from me. The second link will give you the info you're specifically looking for.