Perkins schools to cut teachers, staff

The Perkins school board is set to trim at least $12 million from its five-year budget in two rounds of staff cuts and programming reductions.
Alissa Widman Neese
Feb 20, 2013

The first round, unveiled Monday, will be permanent.

The second round can be reversed, but only if voters approve a May emergency operating levy, superintendent Jim Gunner said.

To watch videos from the Monday meeting, click HERE and HERE.

For more on the plans, pick up a copy of Wednesday's Register. See the proposed cuts below.

Perkins Schools positions cut on March 13, regardless of levies in May     
Furry Elementary School: $250,000
•Two teachers
•One of three Little Pirates units
•Paraprofessionals for Little Pirates

Meadowlawn Elementary School: $150,000
•One-and-a-half teachers
•Reduction in office aid hours
Briar Middle School: $600,000
•Eight-and-a-half teachers (one in 2014, one in 2015)

Perkins High School: $550,000 to $600,000
•Five teachers
•One secretary
•Several paraprofessionals
•Possible reductions in business, family consumer science, physical education and health departments
District Office: $1 million
•One communications director in 2015
•One students services software
•One-and-a-half secretaries
•One-half school psychologist
•Busing for junior high and high school students living within a mile of campus in 2015

Other areas for possible cuts if May levies fail (minimum $600,000 in cuts needed for 2013-14 school year)
•All Little Pirates units
•Switch from full-day to half-day kindergarten
•Elementary gifted program
•Elementary and middle school guidance counselors
•Elementary and middle school art, physical education and music teachers
•All middle school foreign language programs, teaming, athletics and extracurriculars
•All high school non-essential staff members, athletics, busing and extracurriculars
•High school athletic director and athletic secretary
•High school French and Mandarin Chinese classes

Want to go?
What: Special Perkins school board meeting to discuss district cuts
When: 7:30 p.m. March 6
Where: Perkins High School, Room 805



Not A thing wrong with having both, Now all you have to do is give us someone we can trust to come up with real numbers what it cost to repair the school compaired to building a new one, and someone we can TRUST to spend our money.


I understand the point you are trying to make. I also sincerely appreciate how you feel about the teacher's role in education.

I feel strongly about student to teacher ratio. There are also many collegues and friends who have proven to be excellent teachers. I would hate to see our system lose some of these bright, young educators. Students relate to them, and I have seen many of them accomplish wonderful things in the classroom. I also recognize that the technology we have integrated into our curriculum has been tremendously beneficial. I have watched student reading levels rise at amazing rates using diagnostic tools. There is no question that class time has been used more efficiently in my room due to the data I am provided from our technology. In regard to the new building, I do not teach at the high school. I have read over much of the same information that you probably have. The district feels that it may be more cost-effective to build new than to repair. I cannot speak on this as much as "teachers" and "laptops," because I don't have personal experience to draw from.

I apologize if it is frustrating to you that I cannot give you a flat out answer concerning what I would choose. I am not trying to be elusive, but it is a no-win situation. Of course, as an educator myself, I value the teacher's role in the classroom. I also support providing our kids with the best possible tools in preparing them for a successful future. I want our students to have access to the best education possible. I can't see the point of taking something away, simply to make a tough decision, when there is an option to succeed on all fronts.

It is also a realistic and viable option. With the passage of this ten-year levy, many things can be saved, and we would still be nearly ten mils under the state average for school funding.

I understand that there are many situations in life when we have to make tough decisons. I also understand that you are looking for a cut-and-dry answer from me, regarding how I value the three options you posed. I'm not answering you in this manner to frustrate you or to give you the run around. I see the passage of the levy as the best possible option when all things are considered. It would tear me up to be the one who would have to make these types of decisions. Considering what we would have to contribute, and where it stands in comparison with the rest of Ohio, the only decision I can make is to vote for the levy.

"Beginning in the School year 2009-2010, Both Perkins Middle School and Perkins High School issued laptops to each and every one of their students allowing for one laptop per student. This environment best prepares our students for learning in the 21st Century. No longer is there unequal access to technology for our students because of socioeconomic status. Each student is issued an Apple Macbook Air at the start of school that they use to complete work and communicate with their teachers and other students."


Those were all paid for by a grant. The district paid nothing for the laptops.


Hey, Is Perkins going to have enough kids for a soccoer team this year. Who cares about football.


Until they can understand what NO means it's still NO from me! Further - No Confidence!



You all must drink the same koolaid. BOE, administration and teachers can't answer my simple questions. Are you teaching our kids to be this undeceive. I have ask Mr. Gasteier similar one answer questions with no reply. He is in charge of communications for the school system and he can't communicate or just won't do to his masters direction.

Do you really wonder why people do't trust the school system? No one can answer a simple question.


I think I have explained the most realistic choice possible. The answer I have given is the only one that I truly have a choice about in the real world. I have my vote. That is my real world decision.

I believe I have made it abundantly clear where I stand on all of this. Since you have still expressed concern over my personal ranking of the three options, I would say teachers, technology, and then the building. I value human beings above the other two "choices." However, with this being said, it is very possible to have all three, and they do not have to be "choices." There is no argument that all of these would be of benefit to kids.

My question to you is why it is so outlandish to have all three when our tax rate would still be beyond reasonable in the scope of the rest of the state? Like I've stated previously, we will still be nearly ten mils under the state average for the next ten years. There hasn't been an increase for thirteen years. On top of that, the funding hasn't even stayed static over those thirteen years. It has dropped and is set to drop even more drastically in the near future. Why limit our resources when the contribution being asked of us is plainly reasonable in comparison to the rest of the state?



Thank you for your reply.

I am a realist. The possibility of having all three is remote. The BOE and superintendent have placed the building against the teachers (operating levy) with their "we are building without your vote" direction. The backlash on this philosophy will be felt in the district for years to come.

You can wish upon a star but I'm making plans to survive with numerous operating levy failures.


Mr. donutshopguy,
I understand through your past posts that you were involved with the stadium construction. If that is true, then please explain why you are now against a levy. Did you vote for the first levy to build a new school? If not, why? I am perplexed. It seems to me that the cost to taxpayers was less when building an entire campus. We blew it.



I was involved with the stadium. I forwarded the thought that it should be built with only private donations. I knew from previous experience that the use of public money in that endeavor would come back to haunt the school administration. The majority felt otherwise and the stadium project was completed with public and private funds.

I am not against operating levies per say. I am against the process taken by BOE and administration of proceeding with the building of an academy without the vote on this project from the citizens of this community. The BOE and administration have taken a calculated risk in moving outside millage to inside millage for the building. This outside millage, that was moved, needs to be replaced. They are replacing that millage with this new operating levy.

Thus, if I support the new operating levy, I am supporting the process of the BOE to remove public vote. I won't do that. I will not give up my rights to bureaucrats on the American ideal of voting and living with the majority on that vote.

The question is, are you willing to give up your right to vote? Are you willing to give bureaucrats control of your life?

I did not vote for the first building levy. The first proposed levy was filled with luxuries not necessary to promote education. For instance, a fountain in the middle of campus. If this present building concept was proposed it might have passed. Again, another miscalculation by the bureaucrats in charge. We did not blow it. The BOE and administration blew it.

They are blowing it by putting the building in front of teachers. They are blowing it by taking away the community's right to vote.

The BOE responsibility is to provide an education based on the core values of the community not the core values of themselves. Why would the BOE circumvent the process of having the community voice their values with a vote on the new school building? Think about it.


You know it just shocks me that all this crazy abuse of power is going on. When a home owner runs into trouble or gets laid off we get no help. We have nobody to bully or go to. But we get new police stations, new stadium and all the things the officials in perkins want. But of course they always over spend like on the police station. That we did not even need of course. Now the tax payers are being bullied into a levy or face losing the things for kids. As one person said just cut more jobs in the principal and higher ups. we are tired of being bullied. It hurts the kids. But nobody cared about the kids when spending the money foolish. I think we should all open enroll our kids to other schools. When perkins has no students the state will wonder why. That will teach the school board something. And if i would ever consider voting for a levy trying to bully me would make me say no way in a second. And i think first step is firing Gunner. Get rid of him and make him homeless and broke. Make it so he will be lucky to work at burger king and then maybe,, just maybe we will consider it.


I supported the levy to build the new school complex and I was happy to do so. However, when it failed and the Perkins School District chose to beg for money from the community for a stadium they completely lost me. If the schools are so unsafe and in need, then why didn't the district beg for money and do fundraisers to build the schools, rather than a new stadium?? A new stadium will not provide my child with an education and it was an extravagant waste of money that could have been used elsewhere. I won't vote in support of a school levy ever again after that display of idiocy. Perkins Schools is in desperate need of an administrative team that makes wise financial decisions. Hopefully it won't be too cold for our kids when they have to sit out in our fancy new football stadium to take classes.


I just wish the BOE & Mr. Gunner would be honest with us for once. I would've voted for the levy if they'd been honest. DBSTR you are right. The money spent on the stadium should've been used towards the new school. Stop saving for a new building, take that money back out & use it towards operating expenses.


I'm personally for more teachers, better services, and for a streamlined educational process that puts kids first. The reality is the board and superintendent are more interested in a brand new facility and appropriating funds than they are on the actual kids.

This debate is filled with low information 'voters' on both sides, and the truth is the board and superintendent are not looking out for the district's best interests, and unfortunately this levy does not have a good chance of passing.

What we need is far more transparency and a valid plan that does not involve a ton of money sunk into new buildings The health department already invalidated the claim that the current ones are unsafe, but it is apparent the district is being very poorly managed and money is not being utilized appropriately.

John Harville

Put the blame where it belongs... on the shoulders of John Kasich wh 'overcame" the defitic by undercutting schools,cities, counties and any other local government you can find... taking ourtaxes and giviing them to his buddies.


YES! THANK YOU. I've been waiting for someone to see the root of the problem.