Observing a school district struggle to maintain stability with fewer staff members is subtly unsettling. That’s exactly what Jefferson Township Local Schools, a tiny district in Montgomery County, Ohio, with only 242 students, is doing, and the stress is evident even from the outside. The district had to lay off seven employees, including both of its principals, after voters rejected a school levy for the third time in about a year. That’s not a small change to the budget. It’s a structural disintegration.
Superintendent Ronda Welch is referring to it as a “restructure,” which is a cautious term for something more akin to emergency triage. The plan, which still requires board approval at the June 29 meeting, distributes the duties of eliminated positions among current employees. That might work. It’s also possible that it silently wears out those who are asked to take on additional responsibilities without receiving compensation or seeing an end in sight.
Welch tried to explain what would happen next during a Wednesday afternoon meeting with teachers and staff. Additionally, she is getting ready to communicate with parents. “Jefferson is available. She stated, “We are functioning,” which is the kind of thing that shouldn’t have to be said, but here we are. The district seems to be in reassurance mode, attempting to maintain stability in the face of unstable circumstances.
It is important to comprehend the history of levies. Proposals were rejected by voters in May and November of last year, and last month they rejected one more. The most recent request was for a three-year earned income tax of 1%, which was expected to bring in slightly less than $1 million a year. Prior to that, it was 1.5%. Superintendent Rusty Clifford, whose name appears in the larger context of this levy cycle, has been remarkably composed each time. “Sun comes up, kids show up,” he remarked following yet another setback. It’s difficult to determine whether that optimism is genuinely grounded or subtly desperate.
However, Clifford’s analysis does point to a nearly structural reason why these levies continue to fail. There are two precincts that vote strongly in favor and two that vote strongly against, but the “no” precincts have almost twice as many voters. It’s not that everyone in the community is split equally and acting improperly. Simply put, those who are against the levy are more inclined to attend. That is both a funding issue and a political organizing issue.
Clifford’s district is reportedly in danger of being taken over by the state, which would likely result in a loss of local authority, outside administrators, and a drastically different educational environment than what these communities are accustomed to. It is genuinely unclear if another attempt at a levy in May would result in any changes. Clifford is placing a wager. “A whole lot can happen,” he stated.
The burden that 242 children bear in a district that has been rejected by its own community three times in a row is difficult to ignore. They abstained from voting. Tax policy is not set by them. They simply appear.
