Miami RedHawks football
Time to go back to school
Extreme Makeover: Home edition
Ballot issue would overhaul formulas
A proposed amendment would reduce reliance on local property taxes, but at what cost?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
HUBER HEIGHTS — Victor Oakes doesn't know how he would vote if a proposal to overhaul school funding makes it on the November ballot, but the Huber Heights father of two school-age children strongly endorses one of the constitutional amendment's main goals:
Reducing reliance on local property taxes and the frequent elections required to raise those taxes.
Extras
Photos
"You feel like you're being nickled and dimed," said Oakes, 59.
You can't blame Oakes. Since 1997, the year the Ohio Supreme Court first ruled the state's school funding system unconstitutional, Huber Heights voters have been asked to vote on 18 school levies. They approved 10 and rejected eight.
They'll be asked again in May when a 1.5 mill replacement levy is on the ballot, the third levy request in three years.
Supporters of the proposed state constitutional amendment say they want to put an end to what has become an annual rite of spring, summer, fall and winter in some districts: putting school levies on the ballot.
Huber Heights Superintendent William Kirby said he doesn't think the frequent ballot issues led to the teachers' five-day strike last year, but added:
"Certainly there is always the challenge of having to go back to the voters time and time again."
The proposed amendment would limit each district's contribution to the basic cost of a student's education to 20 mills — the rate now is 23 mills — and permit revenue from the 20 mills to grow as the value of a district's property grows. That's a big change, because now property tax rates are reduced as property value increases, but the amount that goes to schools is capped.
However, just what these changes would cost is not known, even to those backing the amendment. Although the state's share is expected to increase, the amendment doesn't include a projected cost or identify a funding source — omissions that have drawn sharp criticism and cost the support of big city mayors like Dayton's Rhine McLin.
Instead, the amendment would take authority for determining the cost of school funding away from the legislature and governor and transfer it to the state board of education and a new 18-member advisory commission appointed by the board.
Under the proposal, the commission and the board would determine a price tag for the components of a high quality education. The legislature would then be required to deposit the needed tax dollars into a School Trust Fund to pay the state's share. By a three-fifths majority vote — 60 of 99 votes in the Ohio House and 20 of 33 votes in the state Senate — the legislature could override the funding plan and create its own, subject to approval of the Ohio Supreme Court.
In addition to the provisions on school funding, the amendment would require annual increases in state support for local governments and colleges and universities and provide a property tax reduction for senior citizens and the permanently disabled.
Republican legislative leaders and Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland oppose the amendment.
Critics argue that it is self-serving and, because it lacks a funding source, irresponsible. Also, the amendment would put other services that the state supports — health care, aid to senior citizens, the mentally retarded and disabled and hunger relief – at a disadvantage, critics have charged.
Supporters include the Coalition for Equity & Adequacy in School Funding, the coalition of school districts that successfully sued the state over school funding, and 11 other education, parent and union groups. To get the amendment on the ballot, supporters must turn in petitions signed by 402,275 registered voters to Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner by Aug. 8.
State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Butler Twp., a prime author of the current school funding system, said he long has believed that what the coalition wants is an "IV hooked up to the taxpayers' wallet."
"It's exactly what this is. It's the first time they've been this blatant and I feel vindicated," he said.
Jim Betts, spokesman for amendment backers, said there was disagreement about whether to put a funding source in the amendment, a provision that McLin and other mayors supported.
Opponents won, he said.
"Any proposal to put a revenue source in the initiative could only be based on what expenses we knew would occur," Betts said. "The determination of the state board (and advisory commission) is something that nobody can control at this point. The known expenses are spaced over a period of time in such a way that putting a funding source in the Constitution doesn't make sense."
An analysis prepared for House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, by the Legislative Service Commission projected that the cost to the state could be more than $1.8 billion because of property tax reductions to local school districts, property tax relief for seniors and the disabled, required higher spending for higher education and local governments and higher per-pupil spending.
However, Betts said that the biggest part of the projected price tag — property tax reductions — wouldn't start until 2012 and would be phased in over six years.
Back in Huber Heights, Victor Oakes said it might be worth paying higher state income or sales taxes if it meant getting local property tax relief.
"I think it would be more easy to understand," he said, "even if it (the sales tax) was a penny more."
Comments
By Lesley
March 28, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
Hey i think this crap is whack… i go to a poor school and i have to sit on the floor. its good for leg muscles.
By Putz
March 20, 2007 7:37 PM | Link to this
Haven’t heard or read anything lately about the upcoming levy. So here is some data for your education.
In the State Audit published for year ending 6-30-1995 Northmont posted $27,484,230.00 dollars in Revenue. (local taxes 14.1 million, State money 12.9 million and fed .4 million).
In the State Audit published for year ending 6-30-2005 Northmont posted $50,790,012 dollars in Revenue. (local taxes 22.2 million, State money 26.2 million and fed 2.5 million).
This represents an increase of $23,305,782.00 million in revenue in ten years. This is a 84.8% increase in revenue.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $27,484,230.00 in 1995 would cost $34,867,312.78 in 2005.
By Rosalie
March 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
This article failed to look at why Russia’s costs are so much lower. Their costs are so much lower because they have 0% of their students in poverty and only 7.18% of their students have disabilities. The state averages are 5.49% and 13.15% respectively in FY06. When you have students that are disadvantaged you receive large dollars to assist those students. Special education students cost large dollars, sometimes more than $40,000 per student, per year.
By Sue
March 19, 2007 9:37 PM | Link to this
DocHoliday also stated: …”They cut Bus Service, sports, very much like denying the City of Dayton an increase and seeing Firefighters and Police cut. Blackmail, pure and simple.”… To place firefighters and Police in the same category as school levies is untrue. They have to have their own levies, also due to the lack of STATE funding, but they have nothing to do with school levies. Most people will vote for Senior services, MRDD services, police,and firefighters, but not public schools!
By Sue
March 19, 2007 7:42 PM | Link to this
In response to DocHoliday -
You need to research how Ohio funds it schools. The state pays only 41% of the state’s base cost (the state’s base cost is $5,403 but the state’s average cost is $9,000 per student) So if the state only pays 41% of $5,403 per student, that leaves a lot of money schools have to come up with. The STATE leaves it up to local tax payers to pay in property taxes. Schools are not “blackmailing” anyone. Districts HAVE to cut MILLIONS $ when a levy is not passed!!
By DocHoliday
March 19, 2007 4:27 AM | Link to this
Until we get an itemized list of how the money the schools already have is spent, until we get funding off the backs of homeowners alone, and until we turn out a better product, I WILL NOT FOR ANOTHER LEVY. Let the state take it over. I don’t think they could do a worse job. Notice how the schools respond to Levy’s being voted down? They cut Bus Service, sports, very much like denying the City of Dayton an increase and seeing Firefighters and Police cut. Blackmail, pure and simple.
By Anne
March 18, 2007 11:56 PM | Link to this
Throw out property taxes, and have a state tax for anything anyone buys, and that would include those that depend on state assitance.
By Anne
March 18, 2007 11:50 PM | Link to this
Compare cost per student of Dayton schools and surrounding communities, Dayton is higher. Dayton schools have commercials reminding parent to send their kids to school, during audit times so they don’t lose state money. That’s our taxes people. The difference in Dayton schools and so called richer schools, is the parent make sure the kids go everyday, and not just when audits are done. More money will not help. It starts at home.
By Fred
March 18, 2007 11:02 PM | Link to this
Everyone keeps taking about how to “fund” education. I’ll bet 99% of those reading these articles don’t have a clue as to how every penny is spent at your local school. Lets start with teachers and administrators salaries. Then add their benefits which add anywhere from 30-40% MORE ! I laugh at the first comment by a teacher to suggest raising taxes to pay for schools, expecially when they enjoy benefit packages that us taxpayers will never see.
By lynda
March 18, 2007 8:40 PM | Link to this
As a teacher for the past 18 years in both a poor district and an upper class district,I have seen the unfairness of the property owners being responsible for the funding of schools. The only fair way is to get the funding from increased sales taxes and state income taxes. Also, the increased number of school buildings needed,due to more housing,should be funded completely by a surcharge on each new house.
By Siquomb
March 18, 2007 8:08 PM | Link to this
I wonder about the financial comparisons in this article, such as comparing Preble County districts to Kettering. How carefully were these number compared, was it an apples-to-apples comparison? Did they separate out capital expenses? In other words, only routine operating expenses should be compared, not expenses for building new schools, facilities, etc.
By wrightflyer
March 18, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this
Then the middle districts will (pardon the clichè) find themselves up a creek without a paddle. Then it wouldn’t surprise me if all of the money for the OSFC disappeared and those at the bottom of the list with growing pains will be cheated out completly.
By wrightflyer
March 18, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this
I find the list for the OSFC to be a joke. It leaves fast growing districts in a bind as they can’t expand their facilities without going to the property owners every five years! It’s just as Minster said with the middle-class districts. What scares me about this amendment is the faact that the supporters refuse to name a fund source. Wouldn’t surprise me that if it passed and they found no funding, the politicians will turn to the wealthy and middle-class districts for their tax dollars.
By robbie
March 18, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this
What is really sad is that there have only been 8 comments posted on the is very important article. How many posted comments on the article about Colleen Sullivan and Princess Di’s brother? Wake up Ohioans!! The comment made earlier by Mister was right on the mark. The middle class is suffering the most and thank God we have good, professional teachers to help our students out. Furthermore, the personal tangible tax is being phases out which will hurt these middle class districts further.
By Mister
March 18, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
The real group hurt by our school funding system is the middle class. Poor districts get all the handouts, and the very richest districts can pay for whatever they want. The only reason many middle-class districts perform well is that highly qualified teachers want to live and work in those communities, so they will teach even if it means teaching in obsolete buildings with overcrowded classrooms and zero resources. Most middle-class districts can barely keep their heads above water.
By matt
March 18, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Strickland ran for Governor for 2 years before he was elected. I was extremely disappointed to see him not unveil any fundamental changes at this point and I have to conclude that Democrats enjoy playing political games with school funding and aren’t serious about fixes. At least the GOP pumped more money into the system, raised taxes for it, and fixed one of the largest problems: the crumbling facilities.
By Rick
March 18, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
The proposed amendment would be disaster, the fox guarding the hen house. It is the dream of the teacher unions, school boards, and educrats.
By Buford
March 18, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Those who could, or should, have changed the school funding system have chosen not to do so over the past ten years - since the first Ohio Supreme Court decision on property taxes as a primary means of school funding. The result is the various school boards continue to go back to the voters and ask for more money. In Dayton, property owners are at significant disadvantage in such a system - since so many voters are renters and on various forms of public assistance.
By Mick
March 18, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
The current method of funding schools may not be ideal, but the proposed constitutional amendment is not the way to “fix” school funding. I have spent a lot of time analyzing the proposed amendment - certainly much more time than many who have jumped on the amendment bandwagon. The language of this amendment will present a lot of problems that its supporters wil not want to talk about. Their campaign is called “Getting It Right”, but they got it way wrong.
By Lindsey
March 18, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this
repulicans are worried about mexicans taking over well maybe they will be smarter than our own kids. we are in this together. it seems as thought republicans always think of themselves only. the kids are the countrys future. the reason people dont care is because the lawmakers dont care. no one cares.
By Walt
March 18, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this
School funding issues in Ohio have not been resolved because of the Repbulican dominated legislature operating with no checks~n~balances. The Republicans have been hell-bent on dismantling public education in Ohio for years. November saw the change of executive leadership in state elected offices, we now need to finish the job on the legislative side.
By Michael
March 18, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this
No matter how many times lawmakers say they’ve pumped this money or that money into the system, they still have failed to comply with the court’s order to change the over-reliance on property taxes. That is what makes the system unfair. Going to countywide school districts or some similar system of sharing the wealth in a general geographic area seems more equitable.