Stop Plymouth-Canton Community Schools from Wasting Money

Vote NO

on the Bond Issue!

Tuesday - May 7 - 2013

Did you know that the Plymouth Canton Schools are projecting a significant enrollment decline over the next 5 years? Population decline and charter schools already in the works are projected to reduce student population by at least 2,000 students over the next 3-4 years. That is enough to close 2-3 of our average schools.


This Bond Proposal lacks details.

We, the taxpayer, deserve to know how our money is being spent!

This Bond is being rushed through just so the Board can make the argument that your taxes will not go up.


Question: How does a School District raise $114,400,000.00 without a tax increase?

Answer: It can't...so why is the Board trying to promote this Bond through 'millage jargon' deception?


Please read this PCCS Bond Proposal FAQ

PCCS has poor history of Handling Assets

Children as young as 4 are becoming so addicted to smartphones and iPads that they require psychological treatment.

Why not wait to make sure the District has all of the facts straight? They can offer a bond again once it makes sense.

Plymouth Township Board Challenges Bond Proposal April 9, 2013

Call it what it is...a tax increase!

Major Questions Regarding the PCCS Bond Issue
I thought that enrollment in PC Schools was declining. Why build new schools when we just closed a school last year?

A significant number of studies have been conducted over the past 24 months, both by Plante Moran (a respected private company) and two state-approved, student population forecasting groups. ALL of those studies predict more declining enrollment for our middle school population over the next 5 to 7 years.

The most likely scenario suggests an 800 middle school student drop by the 2017 school year. Since Central MS houses approximately 800 students today, it will likely be closed in 2017 anyway.

If a new school is built, Central would close in June of 2015, and the new school would replace it in September 2015. Under this scenario, in addition to the closing of Central, we would need to close another middle school (presumably East) by 2017, making the new school essentially redundant.

I’ve heard that charter schools are also causing our enrollment to drop. Did these independent student population studies consider the impact of new charter schools opening in our district?

NO. At this time, at least two more K-8 charters and a charter high school are planned to open in the next 24 months, which will put further downward pressure on enrollment. The bottom line is that the proposed new middle school will likely be open for one to two years, before we close another middle school to ‘right size’ our capacity.

The Board has just selected a new Superintendent? Shouldn’t we wait until he arrives to put this plan in place?

This seemed like a good idea to some board members, but the board majority decided to press on prior to new superintendent arrival. It is possible that the next leader of our district (who is planned to start in mid-summer) would prefer a different strategy. This significantly narrows our alternatives before the new superintendent even has a chance to provide an opinion.

Did the Board vote unanimously to move forward with this bond proposal?

NO. Three Trustees voted against moving forward with this Bond Proposal. The other trustees want to rush this bond through before the millage rate on the current bond decreases to 3.85 mills in July of 2013. This is how they can say our millage rate will not go up if the bond is passed in May and try to sell this proposal as not being a tax increase.
The new school is budgeted to be built for $35 million dollars. Is that what a typical school costs to build?

NO. Charter Schools of equivalent size typically cost $8 - $10 million dollars.

The District wants to spend $15 million dollars on iPads for every student stating technology is the best way for kids to learn. Did the District ever do a study on cyber classrooms?

NO. With 18,000 students in the District, you would think that the Board would inquire to see if any parents would be interested in having their kids learn from home. This would not only alleviate class sizes, but it could very well eliminate the need for a $35 million dollar school and such a large bus fleet.

If the cost to start up cyber classrooms is $2 million, isn't it worth investigating as opposed to building a $35 million school in a district where enrollment is declining!

Cyber classes could also open the door to generating income for the District by educating kids outside of the borders of our school district. A new school for 800 students can't compare to the outreach that cyber technology gives the district.

Cyber technology is expanding across the nation and is the way of the future.

A new brick and mortar school is old school thinking.

Colleges and universities are going to online classes, including Ivy League Schools. If we are supposed to be preparing our kids for college, shouldn't cyber classrooms at least be investigated?


Superintendent Jeremy Hughes addresses the Plymouth Township Board regarding the Bond Proposal on May 7, 2013. In this video you see President John Barrett and Trustee Sheila Paton as candidates state that they would not raise taxes through a school bond.

Dr. Hughes states that the Board has promised not to raise the millage past 4.1 mills. Hughes assures us that the Board has given their word on the public record not to raise this millage. This video demonstrates that Trustees John Barrett and Sheila Paton have a proven track record of making false promises to the public.



When they were candidates, John Barrett and Sheila Paton said they would not raise taxes as Trustees.

Why did they go back on their word to the community? Ask them yourself.



Trustee Adrienne Davis addresses the Plymouth Township Board on April 9, 2013 regarding the Bond Proposal she supported. Ms. Davis expresses the many benefits of this proposal in this five minute video.

The Plymouth Canton Community School Board Can Lead Better Than This!