I know Mr. Bennett is a nice loacl guy. As a taxpayer and former employee of the school system,I want the most talented and experienced team available to lead our schools.

This is a $20,000,000 per year operation. The criteria for its head should not be that he is local and a nice guy. This type of ‘comfortable’ thinking does not treat the taxpayers fairly.

Parker

Olive: actually it’s $24,000,000 but who’s counting…  and voting against the levy will what? send a message?  will your message change anything anywhere? the last vote was a wake up call for everyone, that sent a message.

why not vote for the levy and then get involved in a committee or something? or go to every meeting and pore over all the finances? As a former employee your input would be usefully if you really want to help, not grind your ax.  Thanks for your comment.

I didn’t hear any criticisms of anyone until this levy went on the ballot, your reasoning hurts only the students and the teachers.
I wouldn’t assume anything about the finances, go in and look at the books, you can. And i think your opinion is wrong about other personnel issues too.
But truthfully i didn’t pay much attention to any school board issues.

Your argument is water over da damn dam.

My first major concern is with the quality of leadership we have today. When Dr. Costanza retired, the ABOE president assigned his wife to be the secretary to the superintendent so he could keep an eye on the superintendent. This spying does not foster an open and honest dialog amongst staff when everything they say and do is reported to the ABOE president.

The ABOE fired the treasurer – actually it was a $125,000 buy out. This treasurer had been recognized for excellence by his peers. Yet because he was honest and would not rubber stamp the superintendent and ABOE president’s flights of financial fancy he was removed and replaced with the purchasing manager. One can only assume the line is being toed by the current treasurer.

The ‘search’ for the newest superintendent was fixed from the beginning. The ABOE decided not to use a professional search firm, but to do it themselves. A requirement in the search descriptions was the new superintendent had to start work January 1, 2006 while all school employment contracts run from July 1 through June 31. This eliminated any superintendent that was under contract, leaving the under employed or an individual whose board would gladly release from their contract. Surprisingly, they found few ‘qualified’ applicants and chose Mr. Bennet who had just received his superintendent certificate in May of 2005. At the last minute they decided to allow the new person to start on July 1, 2005 because Mr. Brodsky was going to use sick leave to be paid from July 1 through December 31, 2005 and effectively retire on June 30. This is something the ABOE knew from the start yet chose to not disclose.

The board new they were facing tough financial issues. Yet they chose two inexperienced individuals to run the system. They should have done the job properly and hired the most qualified individuals in the state.

Posting and comments are much quicker if you sign up as a registered user.

So now the city runs a 4.5 million surplus and the schools are hurting.

The business get tax abatement and then leave town when the agreement is about to run out, violating their agreement and the law department doesn’t go after them.

McMaster Carr how much abatement did they get?? Or that new medical company or the Chineese lightbule warehouse?????

Get involved, volunteer, go to school board meetings, run for school board if you think you have the answers, participate on committees, etc, etc, etc….

It’s easy to sit back and criticize but if you aren’t participating in this community then stuff will happen that you think is stupid or you just don’t get. Be part of the action!

And if the snowbirds didn’t vote absentee then that’s irresponsible on their part!

Oh yes and we have two gazebos, most cities only have one.

That said, I’m still voting for it. I just don’t think Aurora has all that much to offer other than the schools. I mean, no direct freeway access, no rec center, a so-so library, not a lot of options for dining…so to me personally, keeping the schools better than average is worth it. I feel that Aurora has a nice “brand” so to speak, but that if you ask someone from out of state, why would they move to Aurora vs. say, Twinsburg? The only answer I can come up with is The Schools.

I would never begrudge anyone who intends to vote no, can’t even disagree w/all their points. (I mean, really, IB? I only had 2 AP classes available to me and I still got in early to Miami U.) But, again, when it comes down to it, for me, I just feel it’s a good investment.

All that does is reduce what we are able to offer to our kids. It really will not produce changes in adults, it just hurts the kids. No adult loses a company car if the levy is voted down, but the students all lose something.

2. Voting down a levy will keep us from “wasting” money on unneccessary frills?

What is a “need” vs. a “want” is always subject to opinion. But these are valuable conversations to be had.

Many would say that IB is a “want”, others would say that offering sports is a “want”. while others could argue that bussing is a “want”. It is all a matter of perspective. But these issues need to be handled by engaging in discussions.

Is IB a waste? Well, the objection from the beginning is that it is a large investment for a small portion of our students. Lots of effort, lots of work, lots of money. But is it worth it? Is it the right thing for our school? Ask 10 people knowledgeable with the program, and you will likely get a list of pros and cons, without 100% agreeement on whether it is right for our school. It is one of those things we’ve managed to be able to offer to produce high student achievement.

3. The real question is do we want to be the 17th highest-achieving school of the 622 in Ohio? So far, we’ve been achieving at a level higher than our spending should dictate. $9100 per student should not by all rights place us in the top 17 Ohio schools. Do we want to stay there? If our community decides “yes”, than “fringe” programs like IB should stay because offering the program is good for our students. Necessary? Not for an average school. But necessary to achieve at these levels? Yes.

4. I am no money expert, but it seems hard to complain about how money is spent when the priority is student achievement, and we have found ways to achieve in the top 3% while spending closer to 50-60% of what ohio schools spend per student. Are we really that upset about not being in the top 2%? Really? That’s like complaining about your kid’s study habits because they study in different ways than you would expect, but yet they get straight A’s.

5. If the community truly decides that Aurora should spend an “average” amount on its students, then it should be willing to accept an “average” school. If the high achievement levels are really not worth the additional taxes necessary to make it continue, then I can accept that. But the impression I get from most here is that they feel it necessary to cut funding and then blame the impending achievement drop on how the money is spent. Makes no sense to me.

6. Do we need upgrades to accomodate the growth in the number of students? To stay at the top, yes. Unless you believe class sizes of 35 are just as quality as class sizes of 25 for your students. Necessary? It depends on the quality of school you want.

At least at the High School, we are clearly out of space, and looking at more incoming than are graduating. But voting the levy down will sure show those administrators.

7. As for extra-curriculars, again it is a matter of opinion. Are sports and band as important as academics? No way. But do we want our to have these options available and have them be quality? You decide, and voice your opinion. That is not just an “only at levy time” issue. If you feel funds are mismanaged because we spend on sports and band, go argue your point at board meetings. Whether we have a levy pass or not, where we appropriate money is always an important issue. If you are satisfied with well below-average sports facilities and extra-curricular programs, speak your mind.

Questioning how public money is spent is always fine. But cutting funding because you disagree with decisions doesn’t fix it. If we were spending $15,000 per student and want to say “enough is enough”, that is one thing. But we are clearly not spending enough on our students to justify the expectations we have for them and our schools.

So here’s the point: More than 70% of Aurora’s funding is local. All Ohio schools rely heavily on local funding, some more, some less. Nearly all the mandates on public schools come from the federal or state level. Federal and state politicians ask for the most and support the least. When it comes to asking who’s wasting money and not using it wisely, you need to look at who is/are the worst offender(s).

There wouldn’t be any vandalism of property, but those voting against the levy wouldn’t be very popular at the block party!

And let’s open the debate about that dimwit George W. Maybe that’s Auroras core problem, too many people here think he’s doing a great job!

As for the discussion:

On the left of the political continuum, Benson will continue to argue for more funding. On the right, or perceived right, Longtime will continue to argue about accountability. Both are far from the debate at hand. Though I must say that I loved reading Benson stretch a debate about Aurora School Funding to a statement about the war… that takes some mental gymnastics.

Nevertheless, the original discussion about the video is valid. Having contacted some school players, they themselves admit that this particular student/parent duo stretched the argument in favor of the schools. I was reassured that leaks in a roof are not purposely going unattended.

On both sides of this issue there are people with good points. Both arguments are equally valid. However, griping about system mismanagement is just as unproductive as demagoguery about how more money is the solution to every problem. I can understand how Longtime would see little point to attending a meeting with public officials who have proven to have inflated egos. However, when it comes down to brass tacks, nobody is anti-children or anti-schools.

There is a substantive argument to be had about the method of funding, the long-term planning and the short-term management. There are also legitimate questions about the spending priorities of the Board. For example, IB. An intelligent debate would undoubtedly force School leaders into the uncomfortable position of defending a disproportionate expenditure of funds on a small minority of students. That explanation too, would involve some mental exercise. However, if the debate breaks down to name-calling and negativity, one can easily be marginalized and Board members can justify not responding to questions, no matter how legitimate.

If you want answers and accountability, it is important to keep the discussion intelligent and diplomatic. If you want more funding, you hardly do yourself or your cause justice by attempting to tie opponents to an unpopular war. Though I am not implying that I did, nearly 2/3 of Aurora supported Bush’s re-election, be mindful of your audience. Everyone should lift the debate. Vote on Election Day and make sure your like-minded neighbors do the same. Let’s have a great turnout and keep it legitimate. If we don’t, in the aftermath, someone will cry foul and we’ll have to debate this issue all over again.

I will not support the levy. I am certainly not a right-winger but I do not wish to be counted among opponents or supporters who sink to name-calling to win a debate.