Taylor Mirfendereski from Channel 9 in Cincinnati did a nice article about the upcoming Lakota Levy of 2013 as the new campaign launched. She interviewed members of both sides of the tax increase argument which is highlighted below. Lakota’s new campaign this time is the marketing slogan “We are Lakota” and the angle they are playing is obvious, the inclusion of “community” spirit to encourage voters to feel they are part of the team by voting for the levy. Again the common mistake the pro levy crowd makes is they only react to the causes of tax increases. They never ask why conditions are the way they are, they simply respond with a desire to raise taxes. One of the carrots Lakota has dangled out in front of parents is the promise of more busing to earn votes back from people like the women mention below.
Kim Reber is a mother of three daughters and is a levy supporter. Reber lives within two miles of the school district and has to transport her children to school each day.
She said the success of the levy is critical for convenience reasons and for the success of her children’s education.
“A lot of things that kids need to develop and to grow are being taken away gradually and kind of falling apart. Lakota is known for being excellent and without funding, they cannot maintain that excellence,” Reber said.
She said the stakes are so high for her family, she’s even considered moving if the levy doesn’t pass.
“When I came here, I came here because of the schools. I’m not seeing that the schools can maintain their excellence given the lack of support from the residents,” said Reber.
Some residents say they will never support a Lakota school tax hike because they don’t think enough money is going directly to the students.
Graeme George, an 80-year-old Liberty Township resident, is a staunch opponent of school tax levies.
“We can’t influence the cost and benefits and make improvements because the unions are too much in control. We can’t work with the teachers and the school board and the public because the unions come in,” he said.
George is a member of the anti-levy group, No Lakota, which says it has plans to actively campaign for the levy’s failure once more.
Bob Hutsenpillar, a Lakota district resident and No Lakota member, said he will also vote against the levy because of “wasteful spending” towards teacher salaries.
“What they are asking for to give to students is a very small percentage of the levy,” Hutsenpillar said.
But Willms said taxpayer contributions to teaching salaries are essential for the successful operation of any school.
“We have 900-plus teachers. You have to understand what schools do. They have teachers who teach kids. It’s a service industry, so of course a bulk of your budget would have to go towards your employee,” she said.
The actual article from Taylor Mirfendereski can be seen at the link below complete with pictures:
http://www.wcpo.com/news/education/lakota-school-district-pushes-for-levy-after-three-time-failure
People like Kim Reber moved to a nice community like Lakota for the schools, but that is not all the community has to offer. Reber doesn’t ask the question “why are the teachers making over $60K per year, she simply wants a free education for her children and assumes that the cost of her home was all the payment she had to contribute to the task. Parents like her assume that “WE” means everyone, that I, Graeme George, Bob Hutsenpillar and other NO voters are responsible for raising Kim’s children. This is the same mindset of Hillary Clinton’s ridiculous notion of “it takes a village” mentality. No, it doesn’t. It takes a mom and a dad caring for their own family, and not asking a community to cover higher taxes just to throw money at a teacher’s union that is already over paid.
The Lakota Levy is supported by the kind of people who do not want to take responsibility for their own children—but rather want Hillary Clinton’s “We Are Lakota” type of message insinuating that we are all in this together—the raising of children. The presumption that children are the only aspect of a community is dangerous, and will lead to short lived prosperity when those children grow up and move away never to return because taxes prevent them from moving back to Lakota to raise their own families. The levy supporters at Lakota are again short-sighted, selfish, and lack fiscal understanding. They are happy to parade around with signs on a Saturday afternoon pulling on people’s heart strings hoping to win votes by exploiting their own children so to take the responsibility away from their own parenting, instead of asking the hard question of……………why.
The lowest part of the whole ordeal is seeing parents stick their children out in public carrying signs such as can be seen in Mirfendereski’s article. The parents should be ashamed of themselves. I can’t imagine telling a child they are required to stand with a pro tax sign to cover for the lack of effort by the parents who are hoping to save the cost of transporting their children to school, or even the extra cost of private instruction, with a collective tax increase. If parents really want their children to have a good education, why aren’t they willing to pay for it? Why do they expect the other property owners of Lakota to care for their children? We are not Lakota. They are, and they simply want a hand out for something that is their unmanaged problem to cover an effort they are too lazy, or cheap to handle themselves.
Rich Hoffman
Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE. CLICK HERE!
The Overmanwarrior 
so shes going to move if the levy doesnt pass because of convenience? so its works for her if she has to pass endless levies for the rest of her time in lakota? have they made a promise that if it passes this time they will never take busing away again? I never forget KK yelling at the parents “you should have passed the levy”
LikeLike
Kim Reber thinks eighty-year-old Mr. George and the other 67% of people that live in the district who don’t have children in the schools should pay for her “convenience.” Well, Ms. Reber, we think you should pay for your own convenience and for the education of the children that you brought into the world. It is not our duty to provide any education at all for your children. Most of us do believe that children do deserve an education. We do not believe in castles for schools, school employees that make over $100,000.00 and then double dip. We don’t believe in paying for exorbitant and luxurious benefits and the rest of the demands in every union contract that span over 160 pages of demands. If you want little Johnny to play lacrosse, then I suggest you pay for it. If you think your child can only cope with stadiums that cost millions of our dollars – then you pay for them.
Education (the lack thereof) is a big business that doesn’t make money. It spends “other people’s money” and you know what happens when you run out of “other people’s money.” People like the Matia make magnificent salaries just for the purporse of guilting taxpayers into voting to raise their taxes. Are people realy that stupid that they fall for the extortion scheme over and over again? Vote no on all tax levies. They will bleed every cent you have and justify their Mafia tactics by their tried and true slogan “for the children.” It is never for the children. It is always for the union. Union, Union, Union. They even have the Teamsters working with them on the pickett line. See the pictures in the paper.
LikeLike
Another levy carrot that Lakota is offering – > “To help increase student participation in extra-curricular activities, Lakota has proposed an adjusted fee structure, including extra-curricular fee reductions and a family cap. The implementation of the proposal is contingent on the outcome of November’s levy. ” (http://www.lakotaonline.com/news.cfm?story=3483)
Added levy cost/year = $250K = Mantia’s compensation for a year.
LikeLike
This is probably the area where I do have an issue, as it may have to do with me not being some sports all star (or working all through HS), but the necessity to include this as the district’s responsibility has passed. I am not sure why with the prevalence of club sports and booster activities, this doesn’t get more scrutiny. I just think that if you want to play a sport (whether for the district or on your own), you should pay.
LikeLike
As a parent in the district, though my son is only 16 months old, I cannot imagine making him campaign or hold a sign. While I have voted for the past levy attempts, I am really studying the issue and the proposals for additional spending (like I did in the previous attempts). As I have mentioned on some of Rich’s other posts, my degree is in economics and finance so I put great reliance and faith in the free market system. I have also mentioned that my wife is a teacher, though not for Lakota, so I get a chance to see the issues from both sides. From my perspective of working for a private company and my wife’s, whom is very devoted to her profession (which is teaching and not trying to pass levies, contrary to popular belief). As we continue to espouse the marvels of a free market system, that system assumes that all actors are working with perfect information.
Any time politics and emotions are involved, perfect information never seems to be properly disseminated. I still have a problem with saying that some of these salaries are too high. Labor economics tell us that with a higher salary, employers can be more selective in what employees they hire, as there will be a greater demand of those positions (basic supply and demand). With lower salary positions, there will be lesser demand for those positions. Economics also tells us that prices for a good or service are based on a basket of available goods. In this case, it would be individuals with Bachelors and Masters degrees (What other positions would someone with one of those degrees be able to do?). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm), the median salary for individuals with a Bachelor’s degree was $55,432 and an individual with Master’s the median was $67,600. Now, this is not just government positions or private sector or non-profit, but all professions. I would have to say a good number of the teachers in the district most likely have their Master’s degrees, like my wife. Unfortunately, my wife does not make either of these figures, but money was not why she went into this profession, but I digress. Also, I would be interested to see what the median salary for Lakota is. As we all know that just a few people at the top can skew the figures easily, and if/when they retire, the average would come down, but the median would remain steady.
I certainly do not expect anything from anyone, as I have never been that way. Why we are still a few years away, if we would send our son to Lakota or to a Parochial school, I do like the option of being able to choose. We are fortunate enough that we could make that choice, or we would at least sacrifice to make that choice, while many are not. I understand your figure was that 67% of Liberty Twp and West Chester Twp residents do not have children in the district. I can also imagine that a similar percentage of residents (if not higher) also do not draw Social Security or have Medicare. Also, I imagine that many have not used the emergency services that we all benefit from, but we would say this is a better place to live because of those things and we are better people for caring for the elderly/retired. Our country has a complex social structure that has created a symbiotic relationship between generations. As the generations ahead of us begin to retire, they count on younger generations to support them. If my generation (millennials) didn’t seek advanced degrees at a pace higher than the generations ahead of us, then I’m sure the gaps for these social program, like Social Security and Medicare, would be even greater. It’s to the benefit of society to have an educated populate. I think there are many examples around the world of what happens when only those whom can afford it are educated. Drastic class systems are created and people are stratified into their class and cannot move or transition class without some of quantum leap-like event.
At least in the United States, we have the ability to have a basic education that can set us up for skills/vocation training, advanced degrees, etc. We are constantly seeking to form a more perfect Union, and that is done when opportunity is created for those that want to take advantage of it and work for it. Thomas Jefferson said the following to James Madison, “Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-education).”
While I agree that it should be conducted in a prudent and fiscally responsible way. But, as a society, to say that an education is a luxury, is not really a society that I want to be a part of. We ask for more accountability of our teachers, but we don’t more standardized tests or to be involved as parents. We want children to be literate in the 3rd at a 3rd grade level, but we don’t want to pay for reading specialists or summer school. We cannot say one thing and then do another. Either we want these things or we do not. A lot of it is on parents and teachers, but part of it is on the community. How much of it is up to the community? I guess we will find out in November…
And, if society ever did say we don’t want a public education any more; I would say fine and would do whatever it took to make sure my son did receive an education. As, I feel that is the best way to set him up for future success and prosperity, regardless of what he wanted to do. But, I would be afraid to see what would happen to those who didn’t prioritize education, or whom couldn’t afford it.
LikeLike
It’s called choice. Freedom of choice. The state passes a law that all state money will follow the child to the school of the parent’s choice. You want your son to go to St. X then you take your state money and pay it to St. X. If the tuition is more, then you pay the difference. If it is less, then you put the extra into a education savings plan. You are allowed to pay that money toward your son’s college education or for a specialized training institution of learning. Quite simple and used in many areas. You choose the school that you think is the “best” for your child. This plan eliminates the union control over education and the governments control over education. “Common Core” should be the final blow to government schools and the federal control over the government control over our children. Schools are failing all over the nation. Test scores are way down, even though the tests have been downgraded over and over.
.
LikeLike
Yes, this is the definition of choice. But accountability and controls need to be in place, or issues like this occur: http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/two-charter-school-officers-indicted-for-spending-148k-on-trips-other-unapproved-expendatures
This is just one example, but there are positive examples too, like DECA in Dayton. So, it does work both ways.
Common Core was introduced as a cost savings and readiness initiative. With the way it used to work, textbook companies wrote books for the Texas and California standards. So, this left states like Ohio having to buy those books, but still create or buy supplemental materials since the standards did not align to the text. Is our country better or worse for having one currency, or was it better when each state printed their own.
LikeLike
I also do not know if Mr. Hutsenpiller’s company is still involved with the Liberty Way development, but I know the county and township have approved money for this development. So, you are helping to pay for improvements for a development you may never go to. While I think its great to have development in that part of the township, and I think the county are doing what they are supposed to, I think its a bit disingenuous to lobby taxpayers for their help. I can understand too that Mr. Hutsenpiller wants to minimize property taxes for himself and his business partners (I know I would), but doing so at the expense of an uneducated populate would not be in their favor. I think this development is going to be successful, as the people that live here will be able to afford to shop at the merchants located here, because they were educated and have worked very hard for what they have earned. If he works to drive away those whom find this a valuable community, they could have issues down the road keeping tenants due to lack of business.
I guess its all just knowing whom your audience is and folks being able to connect the dots.
LikeLike
The question in my mind is what value a teacher’s union really brings to the district. It imposes a salary structure regardless of an individual’s contributions; time on job and degree doesn’t necessarily equate to an individual’s ability to perform. You could argue just the opposite that younger professionals are better equipped to deliver new technology education, but when there are cut backs, seniority rules. As a professional, I could never understand why a teacher who is a professional would wanted to be limited by union rules. The only thing that I have seen recently with regard to Lakota school board actions is that individuals who should have been immediately removed because of their behavior had to be handled in a drawn-out tempered manner.
LikeLike
(Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.) Bibsy you are right on target. School choice does work where the union isn’t allowed to interfere and where they don’t send the failing students to charter schools that are being run by poor and sometimes unethical leaders. Many of the “charter schools” in Ohio were set up to fail. The union does not want competition. Competition will prove just how terrible government schools are. When Michele Rhee was allowed to use common sense in the Washington D.C. schools, they did begin to improve. The union made sure Michelle Rhee was removed. They hated her because she wouldn’t put up with lazy and bad teachers. NYC has an entire building with teachers that receive full salaries, full benefits and will receive full retirement. This building houses the teachers that have committed serious infractions. (They call it the rubber building because they can’t fire these bad apples.)
The union protects the worst of the worst. Even molestation by a teacher to a student can be forgiven. Lakota knows all about that. Mason moved some high paid administrators out with recommendations. They are now predators in other school systems. Amalott does have a dog in this fight.
LikeLike
I also stated what I thought was a very good example of a charter school, and that I believe in school choice (as it is something I am willing to sacrifice for). I only like commenting and reading Rich, and everyone else’s comments as to gain a perspective where everyone is coming from.
I guess before getting married to a teacher, I didn’t have a perspective, you are right. My perspective is now that I have a wife whom works very hard and cares dearly for her students, that is limited by her students circumstances and circumstances she is in.
She continually does her best to keep up with the flavor of the day in terms of teaching styles, curriculum and regulations. My wife graduated in the top 5% of her high school and Summa Cum Laude from our university, so she could have done anything. So, all I am doing is trying to understand where she is and what she has devoted her profession to, just as she does to mine.
I do like the story that Ms. Rhee had to tell, as thought the progress that they made in DC was tremendous. I heard a story of a principal today that reminded me of Ms. Rhee, that she didn’t worry about standardized test results, etc. She worried about supporting the teachers and knew that the results would come. How revolutionary, right?! Though this has the world I have been in, as I have always been on the same side of my business leaders, and we were always seeking the same goal. So, the creation of artificial adversarial exchanges is something I will never understand.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting situation you have there. I have several members of my family who are teachers, and some who were superintendents of local schools. So I can understand.
Of course they don’t like my position, but it would be wrong to support something just because I know people in that profession when I have an opinion that is otherwise.
LikeLike
Well, it just gives me a unique perspective, and what would be if we weren’t products of our situation. This journey of life can take us down some interesting paths. Like I said, my wife would have been a talented nurse, lawyer, business woman, but this is what she has devoted her professional life to. So, I merely try to understand and support her in her craft (educating) as that is what she focuses on and tries to tune out all the other noise that takes away from the children.
Like I said in one of these responses, there have been situations our family have been placed in because of the current structure, and it is something that is foreign to me. But, time has gone on, and she is still able to do what she loves professionally, so I am thankful for that. But, if she ever decided to switch to a private school, or go back to school and become a nurse or even stay home with our son; I would support her just as emphatically.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree Bibsy… As a family, this is money out of our pocket, and the rules that union had worked for meant my wife, whom was a newer teacher was in danger of being laid off. For the sole reason of her being newer, which is something I do not think I will ever fully comprehend. Being in the corporate world, I have never understood the adversarial relationship with my employer. This isn’t Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle where your life is in danger by being at work. So, this is something my wife and I do not see eye to eye on. I also told her she was a good negotiator, so she would probably be able to negotiate a better salary on her own based on education, feedback and results.
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike