On Sunday, we published our analysis of the two sides’ proposals at the heart of the Reynoldsburg School District’s negotiations.  Today, miraculously, the school district published their own analysis that was just completed by the district’s treasurer.  We have no “skin in the game” so to speak and spent days assembly the data as we felt it was necessary to distribute the information, so we’re glad that the treasurer for the district embroiled in a teacher strike was finally able to be bothered to find time to complete their internal analysis.

Here’s what the district reported on their website:

The Reynoldsburg treasurer’s office has completed a financial analysis of the comprehensive proposal submitted by
the Reynoldsburg Education Association on the eve of the teachers’ strike. The proposal was the first comprehensive
proposal submitted by the union in five months of negotiations.

The union’s proposal for compensation includes increases in annual step raises for teachers and higher cost-of-living
raises. It also includes caps on class sizes and student ratios that would require 16 new positions if the proposal were
implemented today.

Over the three years of the contract, the union’s proposal would cost nearly $3 million more than the board’s
proposal. The board believes the cost of the union’s proposal would jeopardize the district’s financial stability and
require additional local operating dollars soon.

Wow.  That’s quite different than what we came up with.  Of course, with class cap sizes at the core of the negotiations, it would only seem correct that the need to add additional teachers would be an added expense.  But since the superintendent was supposedly going to “discuss” the issue with REA in her version of the contract, we were led to believe that perhaps she would be willing to add more teachers anyway, right?  And in doing so, wouldn’t the cost of their proposal increase proportionally?

At any rate, the Reynoldsburg School Board and Superintendent essentially claim that this added expense of additional teachers would “jeopardize the district’s financial stability” and require additional “local operating dollars” (i.e., school levy) soon.  Sounds bad, doesn’t it?  What can they do?  Where could they find an additional $3,000,000 over the next three years?

How about we look at the state funding?

At the end of last year, in the final statement of funding to the school district, the Ohio Department of Education reported that Reynoldsburg received $24,314,031.43 in net state funding. Here’s a screen capture from the ODE funding website:

ReynFunding2014

This year, ODE’s first September payment amount shows a different amount scheduled for Reynoldsburg for this school year:

ReynFunding2015

 

How about that?  State funding for THIS YEAR ALONE has increased nearly $3,000,000.  What they will be doing with that additional 3 million dollars?  Any suggestions?  Perhaps they could hire some additional classroom teachers to reduce class sizes?  Just throwing out ideas…

And about that $2,014,236.64 the district is scheduled to take in as a result of open enrollment this year…

THESE are the questions that need to be answered.

 

 
  • Stephen Beard

    I’m sure Reynoldsburg had other ideas about how to spend the extra three extra large, especially not on salaries for new teachers. Don’t you know that gum-mint spending is out of control here and those greedy teachers want to kick it up even more out of control? Don’t you know that?

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!