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 > 2008 > March > 21 > Entry
November ballot looks busy for schools
Trotwood’s school board last night announced it would seek a 9.06-mill levy in November. A quick survey shows at least 10 school levies are likely in the four-county area (Montgomery, Greene, Miami and Warren) for the fall. There will probably be more as we get closer to the August filing deadline.
Many of the levies are for school construction. That’s partly because now is the time for districts to grab cash from Ohio’s tobacco settlement, as Chris Magan and I wrote last year.
But for those going for new operating taxes, many of them are making the argument that the moves are at least in part driven by the state’s phase-out of the tangible personal property tax. That’s one of the reasons Trotwood is giving for its anticipated $3.4 million deficit looming for 2009 and Piqua made a similar argument while seeking an income tax that passed on March 6.
The tangible personal property tax is a tax on items like inventory and equipment that big business fought hard to eliminate. House Bill 66 began a five-year phase out in 2006. The state is reimbursing part of the lost revenue, but that reimbursement also will whittle down over time.
Districts, as they work on required five-year projections, are now starting to say the decline in revenue is forcing them to go to voters.
Here is the list, so far, of who is likely to be on the ballot this fall:
Dayton: The district’s 15.17-mill levy failed last May and school officials have said a new levy is likely this fall.
Huber Heights: The district is expected to decide in May if it will seek a bond issue for school construction this fall.
Beavercreek: A $90 million bond issue for renovation and new school construction was defeated March 4 and could return.
Valley View: The district may retry a bond issue for a new K-12 school. The issue was defeated March 4.
Xenia: School officials have announced that in November they will seek a tax levy to fund the district’s $66 million share for a state and locally funded project to build and renovate schools across the district.
Greeneview: The district sought a half-percent income tax to raise $10.5 million over 28 years to pay for the local portion of a $33 million project for a new school, but the issue lost on March 4.
Springboro: A 5.99-mill continuing levy for operating expenses was defeated March 4. The district is considering a range of options, but could go for a levy in November, if it doesn’t call for a special election in August.
Waynesville: The district’s 10-mill, three-year levy renewal failed on March 4. Another try in November is possible.
(Image credit: Santa Barbara Independent)
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: School Funding, Schools and Politics
Comments
By Avoice
March 28, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this
DPS will need to pass its� levy to pay for the new budget director. This $80,000 a year position is needed in addition to all of the other redundant positions at Ludlow I & II. Several more teaching positions will need to be eliminated to pay for this and other necessary administrative positions. Dayton Public Schools Board of Education and the division of miss-information thank you for understanding during this tough time and we know that you will understand if we short-change your children to make us more comfortable at Ludlow. Thank you again for your naivet�.By Oldprof
March 25, 2008 10:59 PM | Link to this
Classic, usually you make some sense even if we disagree, but this time you’ve descended into incomprehension. I might suggest that this ASCII style blog does not permit detailed scholarly analysis with full references, which is what you seem to want, and any attempt to force it to carry such a message is contra-McLuhan. Why don’t you just tell us what YOU think rather than trying to dissertate—this channel won’t carry the MLA in-text citations.By Sarah
March 25, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
What? You say “Let�s look at Sinclair as the ideal model: ONE affordable school district that serves the entire County.” Let’s add up the total cost of educating those students, state funding, local funding, tuition, cost of building and maintaining facilities in this and other counties and let’s look at the per student cost. “Affordable” for some students but not the taxpayers. Nice propaganda statement—Sinclair must have another levy coming up they’re primping us to get ready to vote on.By School Supporter (Classic)
March 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
Oldprof writes, “Is Strickland�s move to consolidate school oversight not looking smarter to you now?” No, not at all. If local boards fail to check administrative proposals (the obvious source of the failed initiatives Oldprof cites) that would be the fault of voters and endorsers (like Mark Owens of the Montgomery County Democrats). Apparently too many board members accept the assertion of Governor Strickland and Chancellor Fingerhut that higher ed—ed schools in particular—are deliver the goods we need to run schools. Finally, Oldprof cites a U Wisconsin professor who Zelman included in her 2004 NCLB cost study. Odden’s contributions to that report are: First: “Experts disagree about the accuracy of the Driscoll and Fleeter cost estimate.” Second: “Experts believe that failure to consider efficiencies in the use of existing funds limits the analysis.” Third: “Individual student intervention is 93% of the total, and is also the most unpredictable cost.” In addition, “Odden, for example, states that, ‘there is not one citation or one reference to codified best practice or to any authority for any of the substantive proposals made in the document.’”By Skeptic
March 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this
The districts are wise to pursue state construction funds with matching levies. Operating levies are another story in a tough economy. Our tiny districts are inherently wasteful. Let’s look at Sinclair as the ideal model: ONE affordable school district that serves the entire County. Until we consolidate K-12 education countywide, things will not get any better. Anyway, Ohio school funding is still unconstitutional, last I heard.By Sarah
March 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
Maybe some of the people voting for the public to subsidize even more the Sinclair discount for students and vote for the Human Services Levy that were both railroaded through will have to stop and think about what they should have voted for. Anyone organizing a recall for those two levies?By charterschoolhater
March 24, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Rick raises a valid point. I have a great many friends who live in East Dayton, they have children who attend private schools. They feel that the public schools in Dayton have failed them. I also have a friend whose son attends Belmont. On a recent visit to Belmont, he thought he was going into a war zone. He told me he did not want his son in that environment. He is going to transfer his child to Carroll HS with voucher. Just one of many people who feel the district is failing their children. Many people feel this way. They do not vote for levy s for schools they do not believe in. But we just keep employing a CEO who continues to fail the people. Good luck on that. I guess the board of ed is satisfied with the status quo. Well there are people in the east end who vote and they are not satisfied with the status quo. Good luck getting them to vote yes on a levy. Problem is many in West Dayton are beginning to feel the same. They vote No as well.By Oldprof
March 24, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Another dagger aimed at local boards: from www.schoolfinanceredesign.org/pub/pdf/wp2_odden.pdf “When school districts receive revenues through a block grant, local education systems often do not use the funds to implement school-based instructional-improvement strategies that work…Instead, they use resources to expand the number of elective classes…(and at a time when student performance in core subjects…is both the highest policy goal and the focus of most state testing). They also hire large numbers of instructional aides, even though the same research that finds class sizes of 15 work in grades K-3 also shows that a large class with an instructional aide does not raise student performance.” Is Strickland’s move to consolidate school oversight not looking smarter to you now?By Buford
March 22, 2008 7:22 PM | Link to this
Oh I don’t doubt that DPS will throw another levy on the ballot this November. May not be for the same millage as last May, but it will most likely be a substantial increase. Problem is, Dayton and Montgomery County continue losing people, unemployment is still up there, and the economy is stagnant. Food stamp usage has about doubled in the last year or so to well over a million people in the State, and supposedly there are another estimated half-million entitled to food stamps but not (yet) in the system. Let’s see, fewer residents, fewer students, more unemployment, less money to go around, local eateries closing right and left, gas at premium prices, energy costs up - not the best of times to ask for a levy in my reckoning.By Rick
March 22, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
How will the Board and levy supporters address those on the East Side who overwhelmingly voted against the levy? Will they honestly address the past failings of the DPS towards white students? Probably not but one can always hope.By Oldprof
March 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Taxpayers: note that whether you pass these levies or not, you’re paying for them out of your pocket. Operating polling places and counting votes costs money, and time and energy spent by schools to promote levies is taken away from promoting learning in the schools. Why don’t Ohioans save their time and money by demanding that legislators do their jobs: setting fair, reliable tax rates and funding education directly?