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 > April > 18 > Entry
Husted: I’ll support Dayton’s levy IF …
Jon Husted and Yvonne Isaacs
After Tuesday’s Dayton school board meeting, I was speaking to school board President Yvonne Isaacs. I wanted to know if she knew why the Dayton City Commission hadn’t yet endorsed the 15.17-mill school levy.
I had a theory. Could it be, perhaps, that the city was withholding its support unless the school district agreed to give up the Patterson Career Center property that the city badly needs to clear the way for an investor’s plan for a “ballpark village” around Fifth Third Field.
Isaacs shook her head.
“No, that hasn’t come up and its not something we would ever entertain anyway,” she said of the idea of a “trade” to earn the city’s endorsement.
On Wednesday night, two interesting things happened. First, the board got the commission’s endorsement. Second, the board got a different “trade” offer, this time from House Speaker Jon Husted.
Husted, a Republican from Kettering, was critical of Dayton schools the last time I asked him about the school levy but said he had no position on it back then in February.
On Wednesday, he was in town at Dayton View Academy for a rally to support charter schools. It was a huge event with more than 600 in attendance, some coming from as far away as Cincinnati and Columbus, protesting Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland’s budget plan, which would place limits on charter schools and dismantle the statewide voucher program.
Afterward, I asked him if he was going to take a position on the levy now. Husted said he thought there was a way he could endorse the levy. But what it would take, he said, is for the district to demonstrate a willingness to work together with school choice folks.
Dayton, he noted, has some empty buildings and will have even more as its construction program continues. It plans to raze nearly all of the old schools. Instead, Husted said, Dayton should sell those empty buildings to charters, some of which are in need of building space.
If the school board committed to doing that, Husted said, he could see himself backing the levy.
Late tonight I reached Yvonne Isaacs after a long evening. She had been to the city commission meeting followed by a talk with a neighborhood group in Dayton View, the same neighborhood where the charter rally was held.
When I told her about Husted’s offer, she reminded me of our conversation from Tuesday. Her position, she said, is the same, whether we are talking about the city commission or the speaker of the house. The board would not work any swaps to earn endorsements.
“I don’t think thats the right thing to do,” she said. “I think the progress that has been made in Dayton Public Schools — greater than and at a faster pace than anyone anticipated — really deserves to stand on its own merits.”
Husted should make his decision based on whether the district had earned his support, not if they were willing to trade to help his charter school agenda, Isaacs said.
What do you think about Husted’s offer and Isaacs response?
Permalink | Comments (38) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By lou
April 25, 2007 8:45 PM | Link to this
Old prof, If things have not changed since I was involved in Springfield’s new school project several years ago, the state did say that if you excepted the state money that the old schools could never be opened back up as a school. I heard that directly from a person from the state in a meeting. Now I am not sure if that also includes opening private or charter schools in the old buildings.By David
April 24, 2007 8:02 AM | Link to this
For chartermom the idea that your kid is doing just fine in charter school may be smoke and mirrors. Is your child’s teacher certified in the area in which he or she is teaching? Or are they someone recruited through the want ads through the summer and early fall. Friends in education tell me that students returning to public schools and many who are transferring to parochial schools are way behind. Your teacher can keep the kid very, very happy in the classroom without having the kid learn anything. I used to get kids in class who didn’t know what they should have learned in upper elementary—and this was a high school. Duhhh.By sharon
April 23, 2007 10:24 PM | Link to this
Chartermom, First, I have to say I don’t think it is appropriate to tell anyone on this type of blog to “hush”. He has as much right to post as anyone else. If you are tired of reading his posts, don’t read them. Second, I’m quite sure you are wrong about your rent going up. I made that claim a while back and was informed by a local landlord that the increases were not routinely passed on to the renter. There were a lot of reasons given but basically that landlords couldn’t pass on the costs because the renters would move out of the area to cheaper or equally expensive places in “better” neighborhoods. So apparently you don’t have to worry about that!By RichE
April 23, 2007 9:29 PM | Link to this
Um, I’m 99.9% sure that Ohio already has a law mandating that public school districts must offer their empty school buildings to charter and other private schools BEFORE doing anything else to sell or tear them down. You could check this out, Scott — assuming I’m correct, Mr. Husted should be completely embarrassed by his ignorance.By Chartermom
April 23, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
I just wanted to tell oldprof to hush. I’m quite tired of reading your comments. As a mother of a charter school student, who is doing very well by the way, DPS can keep their mediocre transportation service. It makes no since that they’re holding on to all this property that they can get rid of to raise additional funds for our childrens educations. I’m all about supporting childrens education but, I’m also a firm believer that a parent should have the right to chose their childs educational path. My parents didn’t have a choice and funds were limited I basically had to leave the city of Dayton to ensure that I had a good chance. The charters give me the option of choosing how I want my child educated, without leaving my hometown. I’m not a homeowner but, this levy still affects me: my rent will raise and the prices of products and services I use on a regular basis will raise too. I agree all the facts should be placed out there gives us a chance to make an informed decision.By Dave
April 23, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this
Rick, most charter schools are “for profit” corporations. Giving them free use of old school buildings is like allowing Wallmart to set up in the local library.By Rick
April 21, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
Sam, Charterschoolhater and others, charter schools are public schools so letting them use old school buildings makes sense. You keep repeating that Husted and those other hated Republicans want to destroy American public education. Nonsense! The Secretary of Education’s report of 1983, “A Nation at Risk” demonstrated that American education was in deep, deep trouble. In other words, American public education had already collapsed. We have seen a turn around as people no longer believe the babble of the blobocracy of education, Colleges of Education, State School Departments, school boards, unions, who kept repeating that everything was ok. I like what the Kids First team has done on the Skchool Board. That does not mean that I will support this very large levy.By Oldprof
April 21, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
It’s interesting: Hater is making wild, unsubstantiated allegations about mismanagement. Ever heard the word “slander”? Meantime, many Charters have been srutinized for failing to keep proper financial records. Bottom line: either Husted thinks DPS nees the levy, or he doesn’t—and if it fails, DPS might have to quit providing transportation for those charters, as it now does. One other thing—I believe there are state laws restricting what a school board may do with unused properties—perhaps someone with expertise could help us understand if just donating buildings to whatever cause is legal?By Charterschoolhater
April 20, 2007 10:48 PM | Link to this
I will be looking forward to opening my newspaper on Sunay morning to read your articles. Thank You. I am not advocating telling lies about the way that DPS wastefully spends the money. Just lay out the facts and let everyone make their own minds up. I think if the true facts about how this board of ed has mismanaged the kitty is allowed to come to light, no resonable person could vote yes. But if after all the true facts come out and someone still wants to votes yes then all the more power to you. That is what a representative form of government is all about. That is what makes America the greatest country in the history of the world. Bring on the facts!!By Mary
April 20, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Scott, I have some of the same concerns raised by “charterschoolhater”, so it is good to hear there might be some informative articles coming up.By Scott Elliott
April 20, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
To charterhater — patience, my friend. I have six stories planned for Sunday as the kick off to three weeks of stories about the levy. There is no point too going to early with levy coverage. People don’t really pay attention until the last three weeks of the campaign.By Sam
April 20, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
I have no problem with the concept of education competition but why do we need private for profit companies being the competitors. Why can’t the competiton be other public schools. If your school is not up to par in state testing you should be allowed to go to any other public school. This will never happen though because people like Husted do not want kids from West Dayton coming to their kids schools. They would rather we send them to someplace else that may or may not be any better than where they left.By Sam
April 20, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
Who cares what Husted endorses! The fact that he doesn’t will make me support the levy. Husted is a typical Republican that wants to destroy public education. Why should an agency be forced to subsidize their competitor. Would you tell Coke that you will re-zone land to build a factory only if they give their old factory to Pepsi? Would you make Walmart give their old building to Target before they can build a new one?By Rich
April 20, 2007 7:03 AM | Link to this
When is somebody going to tell this school board to step down so that hoepfully an adminstration will be installed that will do what is best for education? Perhaps that will happen, soon. And for those who endorse the increase in property taxes to support this miserably failing school system, I’m certain you will also support the additional $300.00 - $400.00 a year property tax increase that the county is going to ask for. Let’s see, for a home valued at $100,000.00, that would be a total of almost $1,000.00 a year in more property taxes. And for those who own a home in Dayton, if your house isn’t valued at $100,000.00, don’t worry, the county is taking care of that as you read this.By freddy
April 20, 2007 6:38 AM | Link to this
Good answer Ms. Issacs! If you make deals with special interests and Hustead, (same thing), DPS will never move forward. The 24hr village is a scam, the old school buildings are unfit, charter schools only hide the problems associated with low income students. Citizens would pay the 16 mils, if honest, thrifty leadership can deliver measured improvement. It�s about people Ms. Isaac, and personally, I am listening to what you have to say.By School Supporter
April 19, 2007 11:56 PM | Link to this
The recent Achieve study recommended improving the accountability of charters in Ohio. If charters met the same criteria for funding as DPS, then DPS should be help out with excess space. However, the state has opted to allow charters to operate with lower standards. Encouraging students to accept substandard education is not within the scope of board member responsibilities. Isaacs was right.By charterschoolhater
April 19, 2007 10:32 PM | Link to this
Scott why are you not serving the communiaty by using the forum for informing the people of Dayton about whether the Levy is truly needed or not. All I keep reading from you is who is and who is not endorsing it. I think an expose of how DPS chooses to spend this money is owed to the taxpayers of our commmunity. As the media person who is in the best position to make that happen I think you owe it to us. And I do not mean a puff piece. In order to make a really good choice of YES OR NO, the community needs the accurate information, and you need to give it to us. Please I am begging you. If you do not, then some people may vote yes when if they knew what you and I know about the way they spend the money they have, then the people may vote NO. It is called fair and accurate reporting. Nothing personal here pal, but we need to know as Joe Friday said it best “Just the Facts” Thank You ScottBy charterschoolhater
April 19, 2007 10:23 PM | Link to this
What an arrogant stance that is being taken by Yvonne Issacs. Just goes to support my assertion even more. That being that Yvonne may be the President but Queen Gail is calling all the shots. Yvonne is not really so arrogant. However, she is just a rubber stamp. W all know the queen attorney Gail is calling all the shots. DPS Boad of Ed wake up and smell the coffee. You need anyone who may even be remotly interested in supporing your sham of an attempt to rup off the tax payers some more. Sell the Patterson Building to help spur downtown development. I am no fan of charter schools, but if you sold some of your excess buuidings, maybe they wouldn’t need to fleece the taxpayers for more money!!By sharon
April 19, 2007 9:56 PM | Link to this
I am appalled that Mr. Husted would use his endorsement of the levy to get what he wants. He should be more honest than that. If he thinks the levy is needed, then I think he has an obligation to endorse it without tying strings to it. I see nothing wrong with DPS leasing or selling the buildings. Only God would know why anyone would want their child going to most of them. That is the reason they are being replaced.By Dave
April 19, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this
Oh, we DO understand the situation of Charter Schools. The problem is that we also realize that Charter Schools are not pushed to give parents choice, they are pushed so Husted and Co. don’t have to do their constitutional duty and FIX PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE.By Belle Haven Alumni
April 19, 2007 8:11 PM | Link to this
The lack of understanding around charter schools and the issues they face is amazing. While charter schools are public, they do not have a separate pool of money for buildings while DPS does. In other words, charter schools have to pay rent out of their operating budget while DPS does not. This small point is critical to why Husted made such an offer - charter schools have real difficulty securing reliable facilities. The fact that DPS embarked on a new building program w/o fundamentally addressing its major issues - as well as its opposition to leasing/selling the old buildings - reflects that it is hopelessly mired in a mindset that does not advance educating children, rather protecting its own mediocre staff. The building program was simply the quickest way to stem the exodus of parents to charter schools - a plan to placate Dayton residents. Charter schools are not uniform in approach or performance; some are very good some are very bad. But the real point, that so many folks either can’t or won’t understand, is that they provide parents w/ choice, an alternative to the consistently poor performance of DPS. And anyone arguing against parents having the ability to send their children where they wish is arguing a fundamentally flawed position. Indeed, if it were not for charter schools, DPS would never have made any attempt to improve. This concept is referred to as “competition”, or “accountability”, or “return on investment”; and the sooner DPS or any other traditional system begins to embrace it, rather than eschew it, the better off our community will be.By Caroline
April 19, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this
I think that is an awful thing for Husted to do. Either he supports more tax dollars to go to the students in Dayton, or he doesn’t. Instead, he is selfishly using this as a way to push his own agenda.By Rob
April 19, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
Husted wants to see the abject failure of public education. He refuses to see the problem and would rather cherry pick the good students to a charter. Damn him, public education is a RIGHT! If Dayton has a problem, FIX IT! BTW, Dayton seems to be doing that exact thing…Good Luck DPS!By Dave
April 19, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
I appreciate a politician wanting what is best for all students, whether they are DPS kids or charter school children. However, I would rather Mr.Husted and other legislators show their care and concern by fixing HOW schools in Ohio are funded. The current way has been ruled unconstitutional and unfair. ALL students will benefit by a system that funds schools fairly.By Scott Elliott
April 19, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
FYI to DNC (something tells me you are not really with the DNC) — Isaacs is school board president. She is not with the teachers’ union.By Mary
April 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
Mark, I do not follow your reasoning and logic. Levies are about fiscal responsibility and management, and so are empty buildings.By tracy
April 19, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
I do not have kids that attend DPS, but I do have nephews and friends that have kids that go there. And after looking at what there kids are getting, and what mine kids are getting, I would not vote for the DPS levy. I just do not see the effort of the schools to educate kids and send them off to the next level/By Bill
April 19, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
Husted’s only interest is that someone is making money on the school system. The people that bought him, Jacobson and those of their ilk can only see the profits, not the benifits to the community’s childernBy David
April 19, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
Not horsetrading with the likes of Husted makes good sense. The only kids that Husted is interested in is benefiting the adults with their religious opinions or conservative right antipublic school opinions. Look at the faith-based group running the money from the Taft statehouse right into their own pockets that recently was exposed in the news. The self-righteousness of the Republicans is only too apparent. Their interest in furthering charter schools for businesses (Edison) to run and make money from is strictly to hurt the public schools’ ability to educate kids for whom they don’t care, the kids who don’t fit their own religious image.By Joe Smith
April 19, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Husted’s idea may not be so bad but I can’t imagine an endorsement based on something given in return…And here’s a question…why would charters want to move into run down buildings that are being vacated. If they were usable the DPS would keep them!By TB
April 19, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
The district is building new schools because the old ones are not up to par for the education of any students. If a charter school doesnt have the money to build a new building, where are they going to get the money for the upkeep and renovation of an old one?By TB
April 19, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
The district is building new schools because the old ones are not up to par for the education of any students. If a charter school doesnt have the money to build a new building, where are they going to get the money for the upkeep and renovation of an old one?By Democratic Natl Convention
April 19, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Of course Isaacs would not give in to this. After all, the teachers union doesn’t give a rats behind about the students. It’s all about what’s in it for the union. Period. No greater threat to our society exists today than the teachers unions. They should be abolished.By Mark
April 19, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
I agree with Jonah. While I see nothing wrong with the DPS leasing or selling buildings to charters, a levy endorsement should not be a part of the deal. Thank you Jon Husted for being so blatantly honest.By Jonah
April 19, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this
I have to admire Isaacs’ sticking to her principle, and her principle of not horse-trading like so many other politicians do is a good one. While Husted’s idea is not a bad one, shame on him for being so obvious in attempting to further his own agenda. Let the levy pass or fail on its own merits, and based on wether people agree or not that the city school board can wisely spend the tax payers’ hard earned money.By Bob
April 19, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this
Husted hit the nail on the head. Are the levy supporters interested only in money or also kids. Refusing children access to abandoned buildings shows their contempt for children who want to learn in a better academic environment. Husted requesting that in return for the money they lighten up on their war on kids is exactly what a “representative” should do.By Karla Hollencamp
April 19, 2007 7:55 AM | Link to this
I agree, using an existing, available building makes more sense than building new ones. This kind of “swap” is good politics…good for the city, good for the environment, good for our school children. Isaacs should not be offended at this approach.By Mary
April 19, 2007 7:11 AM | Link to this
I think Husted has a good idea. How is it in the public interest to let those buildings sit empty? Lease or sell them to charter schools. I think Isaacs and the board would simply be pig-headed to not give on this issue - it would be philosophical pride over public interest.