Lakota Schools to Cut Employees: Declining enrollment means staff must be reduced

I have been laughing for the last couple of weeks intensely after the Cincinnati Enquirer report from my old buddy Michael Clark was caught reading from the public relations memo sent out by Lakota schools instead of doing any hard reporting.  The article was in reference to the declining enrollment at the Lakota school system, which I reported here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom over a year ago, CLICK TO REVIEW.  The Enquirer was a little late to the punch, by only about 14 months.  Basically Lakota has lost 9% of their student enrollment since 2010, which has been due to an aging population and expensive home prices that exclude parents with school aged children from being able to move into the community.  This projection is expected to continue for at least the next 8 years.  Yet Clark and the other government education advocates who gave statements of consensus in the article made the following comment, which was the source of my laughter.

“The trend adds to the nervousness of Southwest Ohio school officials and school parents who await the state budget’s unveiling later this month. Smaller enrollment often means less school funding in Ohio’s biennium budgets. And fewer state dollars mean districts often ask voters to pay higher school taxes.”

You can read the rest of that hilarious article at the following link.

The reason that article is so side-splitting funny is because all the participants from the reporter down to the public relations people proved that they have no idea how to balance a public school budget.  Smaller enrollment does not mean that schools have to go back to the tax payers.  Smaller enrollment means that the school will have to reduce their paid staff in order to meet the new demand by the student population.  Lakota indicated that they were nervous to see what kind of money the “state” would give them, when the issue is irrelevant.  Lakota will need to reduce their work force by at least 9% to account for the declining enrollment, thus saving the money they’d otherwise pay those employees.  Instead they have announced that they plan to go for another levy in November of 2013 to pay for employees they don’t need!  Click here for more detail.

As Lakota continues to decline in enrollment, it may well be possible that Lakota could reduce its staff and administrators by up to 50% by the time 2020 arrives from what it is now.  For the tax payers of the Lakota school district that is wonderful news.  For business owners looking to invest in the community, that is wonderful news as well, as tax increases should not be needed.  It’s also good news for the family of two who have lived in the Lakota district for twenty to thirty years and has been considering selling their home to avoid the property taxes by retiring to Florida.  Now those empty-nesters can remain in their homes as the tax burden at Lakota should not increase.

Yet the administration at Lakota did not see this good news.  Instead they somehow translated that information as meaning they would need a tax increase…………..and that is HILARIOUS!  Do they believe that the same staff level will be maintained when the student population drops down to 11,000 students, or even 10,000?  Are teachers going to be teaching in classrooms of only 5 to 10 kids?  Is that what they think?  Well, apparently………they do.  Such a statement about tax increases when enrollment decreases just goes to prove how terribly out-of-touch those types of government employees are, and what little management actually goes into making business decisions in public schools.

The right thing to do at Lakota would be to have a reduction in force every year that there is student enrollment decreases and make sure that the most highly paid employees are either forced to leave, or reduced in force to dynamically supply the student needs.  But public education is never interested in doing what’s right.  After all, they are “progressive” organizations.  They believe they exist to give away jobs like Santa Clause at Christmas time, and they actually entertain the idea that they might have to raise taxes to keep all their employees on staff.  That is what was suggested in the Enquirer article, which is absolutely preposterous.  Such thinking is the construct of idealism and has no basis in reality.

The decline in enrollment has nothing to do with the three defeated school levies which took place from 2010 to 2012.  It may have in a small way prevented the very rare type of real estate purchaser who would be attracted to the Four Bridges type of housing developments, the affluent latte sippers who buy half million dollar homes then expect the community to give their children a free baby sitting service complete with an education.  But what has been lost in real estate sales from those types has been gained in retained businesses that have not had to flee the community due to high taxes, and proved conducive to affluent home owners who enjoy living in a community where the children do not run the entire town.  Rather the decline in enrollment is part of a natural process, and is the byproduct of a society that does not value the building of families but instead promotes the value of single status lifestyles which last well into young adults thirty something years.  If every home in the Lakota district had a mom and a dad, (which most do) yet only produce 1.7 children per home, then the population not just of Lakota as a district will decline, but the nation as well.

That is why big government loves to build Section 8 homes in communities where such population reductions are occurring.  This is also one of the secret desires for providing amnesty to illegal immigrants.  Poor families tend to have more children because the government pays them to give birth.  Affluent homes tend to have fewer children because those types of people take responsibility for their life and pay for their own kids.  Affluent types won’t put up with associating with the other type who do not share in their values.  Look at the situation that is bringing harm to Tri-County Mall.  CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW.

Because the district of Lakota is considered affluent, and there are barriers to entry, not quite as excessive as there is in Indian Hill, but is moving in that direction, this means that fewer families can qualify to send their kids to the Lakota school system.  Those that can have probably already raised their families and are looking for the kinds of social offerings that come with developments like Carriage Hill Homes, or the upcoming Liberty Center shopping complex.  The face and nature of the community are changing, and that change does not center around the neurosis of a local school system, but on quality, and affluence by people who can see through the tantrums of Lakota schools and the bottomless pit of tax increases they wish to impose hiding their lack of management skills, and gross negligence of proper head-count maintenance.

It was funny while it lasted, not its just sad………………………………..

Rich Hoffman

Justice Comes with the Crack of a Whip’!”