Many district residents were incensed that the only notice of the vote on Jones' extension was a posting on the district Web site on Sept. 14. About 20 residents formed Great Valley Stakeholders, a group organized with the goal of changing the direction of the school board.

Members of the group helped spread the word of a write-in campaign for David Barratt, 45, to unseat the current board president, Susanne Carr (who voted in favor of Jones' extension), who was running for reelection in Region I.

Carr, who was running uncontested with the GOP and Democratic nominations, won the election, but write-ins picked up 39 percent of the vote. She could not be reached for comment for this article.

The district Web site, gvsd.org, and the Stakeholders Web site, greatvalleystakeholders.citymax.com, paint different pictures of the state of the district, and each side has plenty of colorful graphs and pie charts to back up its claims. Bruce Chambers, one of the leaders of Great Valley Stakeholders, and Jones agreed to separate phone interviews last week and gave their opinions, and more, on the issues of contention.

Budget vs. test scores

Using Tredyffrin-Easttown and Radnor School Districts for comparison, Chambers contends that spending per student is too high in Great Valley, and hasn't resulted in a concurrent increase in test scores.

"We're not saying the district is horrible; it's a good district, but when you look at what we're spending per student, we're not getting what other districts are getting," said Chambers, 56, father of two Great Valley High School grads.

Great Valley, with an enrollment of 4,050, will spend about $18,279 per student this school year. Radnor spends about $19,351, and Tredyffrin-Easttown spends around $15,790. Great Valley High School's mean SAT score last year was 1,636; Radnor's was 1,738; and Tredyffrin-Easttown's was 1,724.

These numbers are more current than those used in the state study of school funding released last week, but they do include non-classroom costs such as transportation, capital spending and debt service, which the state study did not factor into its figures.

Jones, talking about equating budget increases with test scores, said: "It's difficult to do that, and I'm not sure it's appropriate. . . . It's apples and oranges. Just because you spend more money doesn't mean kids score higher."

As for why the budget has jumped dramatically in the last few years, Jones cited a number of factors, including decreased state and federal revenues and increased hiring in an effort to lower class size. Also, every building in the district has been built new or renovated in the last 13 years, creating high debt service, Jones said.

The vote on Jones' contract

"I don't know that I've ever seen a school board or a school district publicize a superintendent's renewal anywhere, ever, in my life. Although there is a suggestion that it's appropriate, that's a new concept," Jones said.

"It may have been within the legal boundaries, but it may not have been the right thing to do," board member Ralph Tang said of the decision. "I was in favor of giving more notice."

Nicholas Vastardis said giving more advance notice would have been a good idea. Tang and Vastardis voted against renewing Jones' contract.

"There was so much trash out there being strewn about this district, and I just wanted to see it stopped," said board member Kevin McTear, who voted to extend the contract.

Jones' salary

"I didn't know of her work, so I had no opinion on that," Chambers said of the controversy surrounding the decision to extend Jones' pact. "I was concerned with how much they were paying her."

In the 2006-07 school year, Jones' salary of $198,050 was the second-highest in the county. Her salary for this school year, her 15th as superintendent at Great Valley, is $204,000. In 2008-09, the first year of her extension, Jones will be paid $210,000 - with 3 percent yearly raises - pending board approval.

Since Great Valley is on the lower end of the county in terms of enrollment, Chambers questioned Jones' salary.

"I thought it was excessive," he said. "It showed a lack of fiscal responsibility by the school board, which appeared to be casually agreeing to extend her contract."

Jones said her salary was in line with her experience and expertise.

The school board and Jones

"The concern we have is not focused strictly on Rita Jones," he said. "Our concern is more that the school board is not doing its job, that they're not holding the superintendent accountable, not establishing meaningful goals. That they're essentially allowing the superintendent to run the school board as well as the schools."

"I'm very curious how they came to that conclusion," Jones said. "There are many times when the board says, 'No, we can't support that.' The relationship is absolutely appropriate to what it should be."

"The school board tries really hard to provide oversight. . . . There were occasions where things were voted down," Tang said.

Chambers said Great Valley Stakeholders hoped to work with the board and the district, although he complained that no one from the district had formally contacted the group. Jones welcomes all input but seemed cautious about the members of Great Valley Stakeholders, particularly because of its Web site.

"I'm worried that sometimes the information seems inflammatory," Jones said.

"There's no doubt that there"are issues with taxes - it's true everywhere. And we have to figure out what we can do to balance the needs of the kids and their education with being fiscally responsible," Jones said. "But being fiscally responsible means different things to different people."