Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > March > 29 > Entry
Lucas: Gov’s budget good for Dayton
In Wednesday’s paper, Dayton treasurer Stan Lucas discussed his analysis of new Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland’s proposed budget and the potential good new for the district if Strickland can get everything he wants.
Of course, Strickland is all but certain NOT to get everything he wants.
If Strickland’s budget went through as it is, Lucas estimates it would mean more than $9 million in new state aid for Dayton over the next two years. IF his budget were approved AS IS, Lucas said it would be enough new money that Dayton could probably return some of the levy money it is seeking in May toward the end the five-year collection period.
But those are BIG ifs. Budget proposals NEVER are enacted intact. Budget making is, by its nature, a process of compromise. And leaders in the Republican-controlled legislature have been lukewarm on the Governor’s education ideas at best.
The question isn’t IF Strickland can get everything he wants, it’s HOW MUCH can he get from what he has proposed. This is why districts like Dayton, who are on the ballot in May, are in somewhat of a bind. They’d love to reduce the taxes they are seeking but there is just as much possibility today that Strickland could get NONE of his proposals through as there is a chance he could get ALL of them approved.
The final state budget, which likely won’t be approved before the summer, will be somewhere in the middle. How far the dollars lean toward Strickland’s figure is of key importance to Dayton and other schools that stand to benefit.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, School Funding
Comments
By Buford
April 3, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this
“Normal” renters DO end up paying for increased property taxes - through an increase in their rent. However, if you are on various forms of public assistance (Section 8, for example)your rent is determined as a percentage of family income. No increase in family income - no increase in rent, no matter how much the taxes go up. In cases like DMHA and the various complexes it operates - when the property taxes go up and they cannot recoup those costs from the current crop of renters (because most of them are on public assistance of some type), DMHA is left to go somewhere else for the additional tax monies needed to pay Montgomery County.By wellwhynot
April 2, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
Much of any voter’s decision about how to vote for a levy is determined by emotions rather than fact. There have been many times the DDN and others have supported a tax levy based on facts only to have the levy fail. Refusing to vote for a levy that is clearly needed because you fear a lower standard of living or have decided to vote all levies down until funding systems change is an emotional decision. I am trying to figure out the logic in people saying that non-home owners are the ones who pass the levies because they won’t have to pay the increase. I don’t know where some people lived before they owned homes but when I lived in an apartment whenever there was was utility rate increase or tax increase, my rent went up. Everyone pays the increase.By dps teacher
April 1, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
I don’t see anything wrong with teachers encouraging the parents to register to vote. The parents need to do the same as everybody else—look at the facts, weigh their decision, and vote based on what is best for Dayton. I am going to do the same. BTW, as a Dayton teacher and a Dayton resident, I haven’t made up my mind yet how I am going to vote. I do think it is ironic when Dayton teachers who don’t live in Dayton try to say how Dayton residents should vote—easy for them to say!!!By Buford
March 31, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
I can only speak for myself, but shouldn’t the “actual” property owners in Dayton be seeing red and foaming at the mouth at the repetitive trips being made to their collective pocket books? Though a person decides to buy property and live in a specific area - that should not mean their decision means they will be forced to pony up increased taxes through potential voter bloc efforts by persons incurring no vulnerability or additional expenses from their actions. We are already paying too much. No one I know would buy a product unless the price was right. In Dayton, the price is NOT right, and an additional property tax levy exascerbates that condition. Problem is, property owners have to make the State government and the School Boards do what they should have done ten years ago - change the school funding system to get it off the primary backs of property owners. How many more vacant houses does Dayton want? I will vote NO on the proposed levy, as will all my family.By Mary
March 31, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
“wellwhynot”, I think it might be okay for the schools to stir up voter registration as long as they are not telling them in the same breath at the same time how to vote, and offer registration equally to all regardless of opinion. However, we all know the schools expect to get greater support from school parents than the public at large on the levy and are thereby trying to influence the outcome through registration drives. From my view, parents are easily manipulated on an emotional basis to vote for the levies whether they know and question the facts or not. I will also say I strongly resent the fact that school levies are done that way - emotional manipulation rather than eduction on the facts.By wellwhynot
March 30, 2007 10:46 PM | Link to this
Yes, Dayton teachers were given packets which included voter registration information to send home with their students. Fairborn used their auto-dial system to notify parents of spring break and to offer to register them to vote. Dayton teachers were also “urged” to support the levy with their money. I think these issues show how desperate the schools are to pass the levies.By David
March 30, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
Everyone feeds at the trough and especially the charter school, parochial school, private/religious universities, all feel that “extra” money should come to them. In reality we need a transparent formula for funding the public schools, period. We need one that clearly states how the total amount is computed. The gerrymandering of the formulas through the years in Ohio makes the US congress look simple-minded in their ability to send pork their contributor’s way. And Scott gave us some subtle humor: “Dayton could probably return some of the levy money,” said the Dayton treasurer. Notice the “could” in there; not “would.” You’ll see more friends and family employed in the nonteaching jobs if more money comes after the levy passes. They’ll find ways to spend it. The real problem is keeping the charter schools’ lobbiests from getting mo’ money for themselves to perpectuate their special interest.By Buford
March 30, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
It would be nice if the State kicked in some additional funding for the DPS and I hope they do. As for the levy passing or not - well, if I understand correctly that DPS teachers are being asked to get involved in voter registration through sending information home with their students - and encouraging the students’ parents to vote absentee - if that is true there is no telling just how the voting process will devolve.By Oldprof
March 30, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this
Once again, point up the failure of leadership in state and national government. The teacher’s job is to present and assess; the administrator’s job is to maintain and develop; the legislator’s job is to guarantee adequate revenue and to disburse it wisely. Which of these three groups of professionals has been MOST negligent in its duties? The teachers have never asked parents to teach the subject for them; the administrators don’t abdicate their duties by expecting the community to approve each budget line or teacher hire—but at the state house, citizens are constantly asked to legislate tax rates. We need a mandatory OAT test for legislators and governors—with a NVLB (no voter left behind) provision that we get to pick other state’s elected officials if our own flunk (I want Vilsack).By Mary
March 30, 2007 7:47 AM | Link to this
“wellwhynot”, your points, which I do not necessarily disagree with, remind me of sibling rivalry. So maybe everyone should get pretty much get a flat rate and equal access to the education basics, small class sizes, challenging curriculums, no frilly stuff, and a strictly classroom focus. Sounds like an improvement to me. We might actually get some results for all the money spent on education.By wellwhynot
March 29, 2007 8:19 PM | Link to this
As happy as I am to see Dayton getting some money (as I doubt the levy will pass), I am just as concerned that some school districts like Fairborn who desperately need money will be completely left out. Then on the other side, districts like Oakwood, who have no real financial needs will get money too. Something is wrong with this equation.By Mary
March 29, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this
Somehow, I have visions of adults sitting in a sandbox trying to decide how to stack piles of money, and in front of whom to stack them. That is why government budgets and money are so out of hand. Tax and spend. Everybody barks at the feed trough.