CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 16
Total: 16

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Next year...according to the dispatch (today).  And next year is just a few days away.

 

http://libpub.dispatch.com/cgi-bin/documen...7054:6:92171:6:

 

Worthington may be interested in this thread.

http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/i...ndpost&p=101740

I had heard this, but thanks for sharing.

IMPORTANT WORTHINGTON FACTS:  

Worthington student enrollment has steadily declined by nearly 1,200 students (12%) from 1995 to today.  This is IMPORTANT, as it means we are NOT adding facilities, or students, and haven't been for ten years.

Prior to 2001, Worthington's most recent operating levy was in 1994 (6.4 mills) and it lasted 7 years before need of another.  

Since then, however, we have passed 6.3 mills in 2001, 6.85 mills in 2004, and in 2006 the only real question is "how many mills", or would we prefer a permanent income tax to continue to fund our slowly shrinking, but excellent district?

Anyone like to enlighten me on why this might be happening?  :huh: (I really would like to know your thoughts.)

In fact, I'll try to come up with some kind of lame prize for the best answer.  ("Re-gifting" is a great way to unload some of the great "stuff" you receive over Christmas!)  

However, I will be the sole judge, and you have to have yourself, or someone impersonating you, attend the January 17th meeting to get the prize!!

"Easy-Peezy Japonezzy".No problemo Fetuccini......the cottage industry aka public education operates under the theory that" more rather than less" and "sooner rather than later"....of course thats about their salaries/bennies/and early retirement which is the name of the game.Why our poor Upper Arlington teachers can barely get by on the average salary of $63K per year....2.5 months off to tour Europe during the summer.....and don't forget the BM'r payment.The public education crowd can get away with this "fleecing" of the tax payers because it about the "CHILLREN".Meanwell back at the ranch little "Buffy" and "Tyler" can't tell you where Budapest is on a map.

Puger Gee

I must say, for the first response to this question, you have set the bar pretty high there, Mr. Calabalini!  

RELATED QUESTION:  I heard somewhere, that unionization of teachers in Ohio was first allowed, or first began, in the early 1980's.  Does anyone know if that is true?

By the way, so far the prize looks like a pair of black silk boxers with gold stars on them!  That certainly ought to encourage some more participation in my quest for the truth!

(Don't worry, I'm still hoping to improve on that prize a bit!  I mean, what if the winner doesn't have a waist size XXXXXXXL??) :blink:  

I think unionization happened much earlier.  Thinking back to my time as a student in the 70's I remember something about a teacher's union (plaques on the walls of school), so I researched and found this piece in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Monday, May 26, 2003
Ohio Moments


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teacher union started with tax, tenure goals


On May 26, 1934, the first Ohio State Federation of Teachers convention was held in Springfield.

The American Federation of Teachers had met there the year before and decided to establish the Ohio group as an experiment.

The Ohio federation focused on establishing a state income tax to fund public education. It also advocated a law that would grant tenure to teachers. Until then, a superintendent could fire a teacher at will. Another goal was to establish a 10-month school year. At the time, the National Manufacturers Association called for reducing the school year and limiting elementary education to six years and secondary education to three.

At the 1934 convention, Irvin Kuenzli, executive secretary of the AFT, was elected president of the Ohio federation. The state group's first executive secretary was Clyde E. Kiker, a teacher in Toledo. The following year, Kiker was fired without a hearing by the Toledo superintendent. The charge was radicalism. The Ohio federation, with help from Toledo's labor movement, succeeded in getting Kiker reinstated in 1936.

The current teacher-tenure law in Ohio conforms to the ideas set forth in the bill drafted for the legislature by Kuenzli and Kiker in 1937.

- Rebecca Goodman

E-mail rgoodman@enquirer.com or call (513) 768-8361.

That's a freebie - you can keep the boxers.  I don't have a boat to sail them with.   :lol:

And it SOUNDS like in the article posted above that this would be a levy to fund operating costs and maintenance of the buildings.  Even though enrollment is declining, you still want to keep the roof from caving on the students who are still in the district.   B)    

Thanks for the insight, PI!

As to the union, maybe it was stating that the legality/latitude of collective bargaining for educators was what changed in the early 1980's.  If I come across the details, I will share them.  

However, if someone else can shed light on this, the boxers are still available!  

[all]

Anyone like to enlighten me on why this might be happening?

Because there isn't one single Worthington Board of Education member who is from Worthington proper. Back in the day it was the financial saviness of those from within the community that kept the board's feet to the fire to keep taxes down. That translated into that if Bill's property taxes looked as though the would get too far out of line he went directly to his neighbor who is on that school board and it became an issue to be solved.

Now that the same board of education's members come from the suburbs (the Columbus win-win club) the salaries of the teachers come first & fore most before the education of the kids. When you have the board of education president that's in bed with the teacher's union of course that knucklehead will do anything they ask of him.

I can bet you dinner that part of the reasoning they are still using is that with the new builds that are popping up in the school district we need to keep our traditionally high education standards for these new prospective students.

What about the previously occupied homes who's accessed value is typically $250,00 that are sitting on the market for 18-24 months before they sell?

Now I'm not saying that all of the board of education members don't care in the long run, there is a well documented history in Worthington of not making the financial best interest of the district a priority.

A prime example is.... the current school district administration building (the million $$$ palace) whose purchase was approved at a midnight meeting.

I would like to know what the new Ms. District Superintendent's long range solution is to the district's financial woes? The school district (Walnut Local Schools) that she came from was literally in the same situation. I already know that this levy was due to pop up long ago (weeping and sobbing) and it couldn't be avoided.

I'll preface my next comment with that to Worthington's credit they have the 2 local rags towing their line literally.

What would the district's taxpayers have to say if the knew what the teachers were really making?

What would the district's taxpayers have to say if the newest teacher's contract was made totally public to the taxpayers? Exposing the financial goodies these teachers receive.

What would happen if this was made available on the internet? Would the taxpayers of the listed school districts then do something about the apparent greed of the teacher's unions and that "the kids" take a back seat to these teacher's financial future?

With the $$$ trouble that social security is in why are these teachers allowed to thumb their noses at everyone else and not contribute to the same fund everyone else is forced to contribute to?

I do realize that we have some members of our townhall are teachers who do their best to make a difference in their affected school districts and I for one thank you. I still believe there would be one hell of a taxpayer uprising if the truth about some of these teacher's contracts was exposed and not kept hid in the school district's offices. Of course as a fellow taxpayer I too would be ashamed to let these contracts have public scrutiny.

One last little factoid (I'm sure Marc Schare can correct me if I'm wrong) that most of the Worthington School District's employees live outside of the district, yet one of the perks the teachers enjoy is that their kids get to attend the school district and I do believe there is no tution charged back to these teachers.

What would the district's taxpayers have to say if the knew what the teachers were really making?

What would the district's taxpayers have to say if the newest teacher's contract was made totally public to the taxpayers? Exposing the financial goodies these teachers receive.

What would happen if this was made available on the internet? Would the taxpayers of the listed school districts then do something about the apparent greed of the teacher's unions and that "the kids" take a back seat to these teacher's financial future?

Tweet:

The Worthington Education Association contract is available here:

http://www.worthingtonea.org/contractetc/contract.htm

This link also has the district salary schedule. The contract contains the provision for open-enrollment for district employees.

Note that for the most part, any contract from any public entity is subject to the Ohio Public Records Act and therefore, can be requested, so if you wanted to see the contracts for other school districts, you merely need to ask..

I'll save Shadow the trouble of posting by pointing out that "greed" is in the eye of the beholder.



 

Marc what percentage of the Worthington Schools employees live within the school district?

I'll save Shadow the trouble of posting by pointing out that "greed" is in the eye of the beholder.

So Marc in the words of a rather famous radio personality "How much is enough"?
Now we all have asked this question haven't we???

If anyone would dare to make it truely public then I'll save Shadow the trouble of posting by pointing out that "greed" is in the eye of the beholder. Once again the local financial picture of your local school district is truely in the hands of your local teacher's union and you might as well get used to it. It doesn't matter whom is elected to your local board of education

That Fettucini is the answer your looking for.




 

Tweet:  as usual you are wrong.  "Now that the same board of education's members come from the suburbs (the Columbus win-win club) "

Worthington was not a participant in the win-win process.  Worthington's arrangement with Columbus came in 1968 when it became evident to the superintendents of Worthington and Columbus that with the rapid expansion of Columbus into unicorporated areas (corn fields mostly) it would be difficult for either district to plan.  Worthington school district used to go as far as Graceland and to the Godown area.  In the fifties the southern part of the district was annexed to Columbus.  The 1968 agreement gave Worthington the brewery area in exchange for some of the western areas.

As the non-Worthington area of the district developed with younger residents (while Worthington proper was becoming older) and became 2/3 of the district it stands to reason that  board members would come from there in greater proportion.

Unless things have changed the districts from which the teacher's pupils come will pay the tuition.  In any case the district gets the state's funds just as the charter schools do.

The Shadow always opposed this practice because it considered it unfair to the local taxpayers.  No tuition is charged to the parents as it is not to any parents who avail themselves of districts with inter-district school choice.

The Shadow knows :ph34r:  

[fully]

Ah there you are Dr. Ottom Marxist, my little furry groundhog friend.

As always thank you for updating us on the progression of Columbus' thieving from the townships only to provide marginal city services and a violence ridden substandard school system in their wake of expanding city boundaries.

If you cannot provide fully adequate city services (police, fire, water, sewer and functionally complete educational services) there should be no way control of that land should have been taken from the townships.

My point is that it doesn't matter whom you elect to your local school board the teacher unions end up with the hog's share of the baron's money. I would like to see the enrollment rates as the unions are kept out of the charter schools were the kids are taught in an enviroment that is void of liberal bias.

I believe it was previously mention that it has been widely reported that black families are fleeing the traditionally urban schools for the charter schools for a far better education.

Perhaps when enrollment drops far enough within the traditional public schools the numbers of liberal teachers' (whos' liberal union political agenda dictates the lesson plan of the day) will be face with either a.) teaching the traditional lesson plan minus the NEA political agenda or b.) not finding any work at all giving the new truely conservative college graduates the chance to return our schools' a  lesson plan that what was once traditionally taught.  

 

Hey Tweet:

"As always thank you for updating us on the progression of Columbus' thieving from the townships only to provide marginal city services and a violence ridden substandard school system in their wake of expanding city boundaries"


 Do you have the slightest idea of what the Win-Win agreement was all about and why it came to be?

The Shadow knows :ph34r:  

For the record, it appears that 1982-3 was about the year that Ohio authorized collective bargaining for all public employees, including teachers.  It really begs for analysis of what public education cost increases were before collective bargaining, versus what they are now, doesn't it?

And did you know that Ohio is one of a very few states that allow teachers to strike, giving teacher's unions the added leverage to demand what they want, while putting their "needs" ahead of the real needs of "the children", by threatening to stop teaching the students. <_<  

CASE IN POINT:  You might recall that this summer, our own Columbus Public Schools were threatened with a strike by the teacher's union.  The union threatened, and required educators to "work to the rule" (don't do ANY "extra" work), until they got a very generous 3 year contract.  (Average increases of 2 to 3 times inflation, and agreement by the district to continue paying for nearly all of health care cost increases that occur in the next 3 years, regardless of how much these costs go up???)

THEN, on the same day the Dispatch reported the new contract, it also reported that the district found a $5 million hole in the budget, which the school board would fill by cutting textbook costs, funds that enable underpriviledged children to go on field trips, and janitorial services, among other things.  On another page of the same paper, there was talk of the sadness surrounding the closing of one of the local schools in the district?

Somebody, please remind me about the union's position on "the children", and how their actions support their stated position?