Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Teachers in the road

Brian

I appreciate your concern for our school system but you simply do not understand.

First your suggestion that the school system consider a reconfiguration may make sense to the general public but it would inconvenience the teachers and their union.

Second they will then throw at you the fact that the state mandated space requirements PER CHILD but they fail to tell you those requirements only apply to qualifying for the OSFC funding. Do the trailer parks outside our current elementary schools meet any of the space requirements they are now touting?? Has the state stepped in and closed any of our mobile home parks?

I believe there was a proposal last year to add onto Pickerington and Violet Elementary schools. The teachers were pissed about their less than desired raises. So they opposed the idea even though it probably had some merit.

Despite the fact that teachers are one of the best protected professions and one of the best compensated in the state they still feel a need to make even more demands of the taxpayers who in many cases are suffering from the economic down turn and who?’s compensation packages that they work for are inferior to those in the teaching profession.

What gives the teachers so much power is they hold our children hostage as part of their demands for more pay and better bigger facilities?

I believe our problem with the state?’s educational problems also deals with the fact that many in the state?’s different school work their way up to the Ohio Department of Education. One example of that are the space requirements of our schools. Obviously in the 70s our kids only needed around 67 square foot per child. Today they ?“SAY?” the space requirement is 119 square foot per child. The FRC also says it is state mandated. If this is so important then why are they allowing the kids to attend school in trailers? Has our children attending school in trailers that last 30 years had a negative affect on their learning? Haven?’t I seen PERFECT TEST scores come out of our school system?

My point is school academic performance is not based on space requirements.


However what our board is telling us now is that they must inflate our school building size to QUALIFY for state funding.

Understanding the report

Now we read in the paper this morning that the school is having problem looking at the 16 acre site that was donated to the school back a few years ago. The school?’s complaint is that the elevation of the lot is slopping and to get the needed facilities on the property then the school board should consider a two story building. Where were these people on the school board when that lot was donated? Second issue is if the Architect is now recommending a two story building wouldn?’t that cost less?

It seems to me the Pickerington School Board is in disarray. First I appreciate the fact that the Board wants to submit a plan to the OSFC for some near matching state funds. To qualify for the state funding they must show GROWTH.

So the School Board goes out and finds a group of citizens willing to serve on an Advisory Committee to advise the Board and make a recommendation to the board for future building and facilities plans. However what they didn?’t tell the committee members was that they are using the State Funding standards and their ten year MASTER plan to justify a state shared funding of our future schools from OSFC.

Two factors here are very important that everyone should understand:

First the OSFC wants and demands larger facilities than they did back in the 70s. This makes the building sizes much large and they cost more. So could we build one smaller school for less and forgo the state funding and save the tax payers money in the long run?

Even in the FRC report they mention that future funding may not be available, but the very first step in this process if for the PLSD voters is to approve the $37 Million levy and build the two proposed schools. Will PLSD ever get reimbursed by the state even though they built a larger than needed building and to the state OSFC standards?

The second issue is the rate of growth in our schools. I think I read in the last few days that sales of both of the major builders here in central Ohio are down substantially. I believe there are a number of actions currently being undertook by the Pickerington City Council and I believe similar efforts are a occurring in the township and that is to control our rate of growth in the community. I believe I also read in one the local papers that the Township has issued only 35 building permits this year. I believe Pickerington has issued around 120 permits this year. What effect will impact fees and increased designed standards have on the new rates of growth in our schools?

Now if the two elementary schools are built and our schools rate of growth drops below the state mandated growth rate then does the state still provide funding to the two schools we just built (considering if and only if the bond issue passes in November)?

Judging by the fact that two members of the Pickerington City Council have recently posted on this web site appears that there is NO COMMUNICATION between the two. Since the City and the Township will virtually control most of the remaining land to be developed how can the school system ignore the policies being put in place?

Planning for a future

In the current and proposed FRC plan they are calling for a new High School in 9 years. That is totally dependant upon growth. The second issue is that four years ago the Board proposed and the voters approved the $ 77 million project now known as the ?“Taj Mahal?”.

Despite concerted efforts by the school board and their supporters they still have not convinced the voting public that the two High Schools are equal like they promised in 2000. In trying to make up for that over spending they are over compensating in being super frugal thus creating a number of contradictions in their facilities plan and I think the public is seeing right through that path of that logic.


I think the voters want more things adequate rather than equal. Clearly the rehabbing the Tiger stadium is an example. Clearly school mandates to the FRC was to realize that the school wants to provide the facilities for the students extra curricular activities. Yet they have their football stadium at a different location and not without walking on the street can the players get to ?“THEIR?” stadium. After removing the home bleachers and adding more seats, installing new lights, removing and installing a new 7 lane track they say it would have cost so much more to have started with the vacant field behind Central and build the new stadium there.

One other issue with the schools deals with their candor. In all of the documents that I have looked at I have never seen a breakdown of what each school in the district costs in terms of operating expenses. If you want to find out any imparities seeing how much they are spending per students in each school building would be a very good barometer.

I am afraid our schools problem will get worse before they get better.

With a very uncertain future we need more than one plan to cover all of the possible ways this growth rate will affect our schools. Adopting one rigid plan and going forward with no other options will only in end in more disarray

Another Tidbit

In addition to the schools having an achitect on board for schools that have not, and probably not be funded, they have now hired a construction engineer or foreman.

Are the schools this smug or egotistical that they go ahead and hire two idividuals or their firms to represent them in a situation where bond levies are FAILING 2-1????

That is how completely out of touch they are with the voters. That is how completely out of touch they are with reality.

By Another parent