Tiger Nation --
Questions inevitably surface when a school levy is on the ballot. I’d like to take this opportunity to provide some clarification on those concerns I hear most often.
The 5.9 mill operating levy we are asking for on May 5th would be used for the general operations of the District, paying for things such as teachers, principals, classroom aides, transportation, learning materials, food service, and all of the other costs associated with supporting student success. This differs from the bond issue passed in 2013, which may only be used for the building project.
The levy ballot language is legally required to be written a specific way, which can cause confusion for voters. To calculate the cost of a levy, a $100,000 home is assessed property taxes on 35% of its value, or $35,000. Multiply that by 5.9 mills (1 mill is $1 per $1,000) and the cost is approximately $206 per year, or $17 per month.
The new ODE report card shows the percentage of dollars for last school year as lower for instruction and higher for non-instruction than many other districts. The primary reason is that during that year our teachers negotiated to spread their annual salary over 12 months instead of the traditional 10 months. This moved two months’ pay for instruction out of that report card year, thereby making the instructional percentage lower. It’s one of the reasons we were able to delay the current levy to a fourth year instead of the projected three years, but it also makes our District look low compared to other districts in terms of spending on instruction. Fortunately, this is a one-time issue.
Within those non-instructional costs on the report card, assumptions are often made that the category of “Administrative Costs” only includes salaries and support for administrators. In truth, ODE classifies and reports administrative costs as any cost that does not directly deal with the education of students, such as planning, research, information services, staff services (HR), data processing (IT), fiscal services (payroll), communications, legal fees, auditor fees, fees paid to the County for collection of property taxes, etc.
Comparisons are often drawn to state averages. As you might expect, an inner-ring district with 68% of students living in poverty such as ours has different, and higher, costs than those of a district in rural southern Ohio – particularly in terms of student supports offered. One also needs to consider in these comparisons the myriad opportunities that are provided our students, in terms of course offerings and the arts for example, that other districts operating at state minimum requirements may not have.
The sad truth is school funding in our state continues to over-rely on property taxes, even though this system has been ruled unconstitutional many times. In our communities, we do not have a large commercial or industrial tax base as others do. It makes our area attractive to residents, but also puts the burden of funding public education on homeowners. With House Bill 920 freezing the amount of money districts receive from property taxes, periodic levies are necessary to address rising costs until the legislature changes the system and provides other revenue that rises with inflation to allow us to achieve our goal of success for every child.
Sincerely,
Scott Gainer