A couple things, and I forgot to mention, is that some of this comes from the federal level as well (remember No Child Left Behind?). I think Strikland did the most damage with his programs, and he did it hoping to get more votes. "Ohio schools are failing! We must do all of these things to make it more rigid! We have no money to do it....so we will charge the schools for it!" 

"Paying people more to get good people isn't always the case. Sometimes ya just don't get what you pay for in a negative context. Sometimes poor performers miraculously work their way to the top with surface fluff rather than actual talent and content and demand high salaries for doing so." 

That was a levy designed to make temporary tax revenue permanent. That levy basically provided funds at the districts current levels back in what, 2009? 

I am not taking sides here. I am going to try and present simple facts about school districts in Ohio, so hear me out and please understand I want to present a whole picture.  Thanks.

Problem One: I think we can all agree that it is unfair for both schools and tax payers the way schools in Ohio get their primary funding (local property taxes). This starts a cycle where schools need to rely on the dollars of those who own property in their region.  Meaning, home owners share the bulk of the responsibility for paying for kids education.  The BIGGEST problem with this method is, the schools do not get an inflation adjustment unless they go to another levy. So, think about this:

School District A passes a levy in 2010 to generate an additional $10 million a year to run schools. It actually costs the district $15 million a year to run, but other monies from the state help make up the difference.  

District A is now told they have more requirements and must pay for testing materials, technology upgrades (some are state-mandated) and hire additional staff to fulfill more roles.  Add inflation to this and it now costs $20 million a year to run the district. Now, in 2014, they have to go back to the voters because they have a $5 million hole to fill that is beyond their control.  

The state refuses to pay for many of the things they force school districts to implement. 

Problem two: Districts are top-heavy.  While I have no problem with someone making six figures, it does seem districts could save money by evaluating the top earners pay scale. In 2013 there were four people making more than six figures, and 18 people making $80-$99k a year. 

I understand that you need to pay out more to get good people, but I do not think that is always what happens. I would be in favor of caps on payout (maybe based on enrollment) to curb this. If you take an average salary of say, $90,000 among the above 22 people, you will see their are almost 2 million (1.98 million) in salaries going out to a smaller group (as of 2013). If you knocked their pay down by even 10%, you would have $198,000, or, enough money to hire 4 teachers at $49,500 / year. Meanwhile, those 22 people are still making more than the average Middletown resident, and even more than the average Ohio resident.  

Problem three: Instead of cutting at the top, the bulk of cuts to save money are at the bottom.  Sure, last time around the administration took the same 1% pay cut as everyone else, but teachers and staff took the brunt of the unemployment.  Ratios in classrooms are maxed out (meaning the number of kids to teachers per grade level is high) which hurts education. Remember those teachers we could have hired had we cut the admin pay 10%?  This could help this problem as well.  

What I saw at MCSD.  I saw many great teachers. But I saw many more getting screwed out of money and positions at every turn.  To save money, health benefits were cut or costs were raised. Pay was cut, and jobs were cut. Things got outsourced to places that couldn't care less (once Sodexo took over the custodial staff, things got pretty bad). 

Many teachers wanted to leave due to not being able to keep up with the costs of living and constantly having to give up more pay to work there. I saw four great teachers go to other districts simply because they knew they would not endure another pay cut the next year. 

Problem four: The board and administration seem like a money pit in themselves. During my time there, I found out many administrators had two computers and an iPad. Why? How connected should one person be? The Board, which we elected, also had brand new laptops, while teachers had 6 year old computers.  

Just my two cents, funding is deeply flawed, the administration is full of people who seem afraid to make an actual change to the way things are. While these problems persist, there will be problems.  Things really do need to change. And part of the change needs to come from Columbus (Ted Strickland really put districts behind the 8 ball), and others need to change at the local level.  

 

Have either of you considered that it is mostly monetary?  Most teachers hired in over the last couple years took a pay cut after their first year, others had pay frozen.  With funding cuts everywhere, some teachers have to risk being unemployed and laid off if things go crazy.  I, like many others, would leave if I could get into a more financially stable district. 

Or at least one that didn't give me a 1-2% pay cut after the first year.