E-mail 
E-mail Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2011 > May > 04 > Entry
All area schools seeking new funds lose at polls
Voters on Tuesday rejected requests for more money by eight area school districts — including Beavercreek, Fairborn, Huber Heights and Trotwood-Madison — despite many school officials saying the funds were needed to stave off further cuts.
Voters were kinder to the five school districts that had renewal issues on the ballot. All of those passed, including in Xenia , where voters renewed a 1.3-mill levy and a 0.5 percent income tax. “I think people are voting with their wallets and voting with their home situations and you can’t blame ’em right now,” Fairborn City Schools Superintendent Dave Scarberry said after his district’s additional 7.9-mill levy was defeated 3,194 votes to 1,766.
“I heard wonderful, positive things and people supporting (us), but when gas is $4.19 a gallon, food costs are going sky-high … they’ve got to end it someplace,” he said. “This is something they can control and do something about.”
For Trotwood-Madison, it was the fifth straight levy defeat.
The 7.5-mill operating levy — rejected 1,246 votes to 1,095 — would have raised $1.7 million annually and eased the funding crunch to the district that hasn’t had new operating dollars in 15 years. The district has cut 123 positions since 2002 and will close two of its five schools this fall.
Superintendent Rexann Wagner called it premature to say where more budget cuts could be made.
“We’ll have to come back and figure out, where do we go next?” she said.
In Warren County, Tuesday was the eighth consecutive time voters in the Little Miami Schools rejected its ballot request. Unless it passes a levy by year’s end, the state could take the drastic and historic action of dissolving the district because of financial hardship.
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment |
Tweet
Comments
By Maxwell Powers
May 8, 2011 10:00 PM | Link to this
Ohio prof has it right concerning revenue. Let me lay out the case concerning costs: many of the costs are MANDATED by either the state or the federal governments. The local district has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in whether or not to offer things like special education, transportation or food. This is just the tip of a very large iceberg made up of unfunded mandates. It’s understandable that voters would turn down a levy request in a down economy. People are upset over rising costs and dropping incomes. You don’t get much of a say about the price of bread or gas, but you CAN vote on taxes. I read this as more of a commentary on the state of the economy than on people’s enmity toward educating children.
By Listen up!
May 5, 2011 3:50 AM | Link to this
The people have spoken!
By Stand firm.
May 5, 2011 12:33 AM | Link to this
In the last year, I lost my job, got a new job with a salary less than my past one. I took steps to cut out many extras to save about $1200.00/yr. It’s called cutting back. The Beavercreek schools have the gall to put a levy on the ballot which would effectively take more than half what I was saving. They want $16million more per year to survive. I’m sorry, live within your means. The broken record that there are 1200 more students is getting old. It was used when they rammed the bond issue down our throats and beat us into oblivion by repeatedly putting it on the ballot until they won by mere votes. Which most likely they will do again with this one. There should be a law that once voted down they can’t come back for 12 months. Beavercreek voters need to wake up and say enough. This is the tip of the iceberg. If this were to pass, the board will come back in a year for more operating money for the new schools. Verging and Arnold etall need to listen to the voters.
By Difficult choices
May 4, 2011 11:13 PM | Link to this
School systems facing shrinking state funding and voters unwillingness to pass property tax levies must understand they are living in a new reality. Austerity is not going away. School boards must increase the number of students in each classroom. Significant reductions in class size over the last 40 years has not produced corresponding increases in student performance. Students in other countries that score higher than U.S. students, Korea for example, have significantly larger class size than United States public schools. The local funding model was dependent upon rising property values that enabled school districts to piggyback levy increases on voters rising net worth. A deflationary real estate market has ended this practice. Larger class sizes will enable districts to reduce personnel costs that represent almost 80% of the districts operating costs.
By LucyLouise
May 4, 2011 4:09 PM | Link to this
Sick of the rhetoric of “for the children,” funding models, unconstitutional,etc. The fact is that the schools are paying the staff too much, the benefits are too exortitant, the supplemental contracts are out of sight, the buildings cost too much and waste is rampant. No matter how much money we would give to the schools, it would never be enough! I say enough already!
By Navin Johnson
May 4, 2011 3:53 PM | Link to this
Another brilliant observation by Karon. Put down the bong. If you were carrying on a face to face conversation with Karon, it would’ve went something like this….”Wow, man like ya know, man, it like dis, ya know bein’ educated is better than ya know, like bein’ being uneducated, ya know wha I’m sayin’ man.”
By mojo
May 4, 2011 12:31 PM | Link to this
Closing schools, laying off teachers, cutting sports, music, arts programs…I don’t understand what this is accomplishing in terms of a brighter future for our children, our state, our nation. What is the ultimate goal here?
By Now do you believe me
May 4, 2011 12:14 PM | Link to this
I told you Tecumseh Local Schools was going down.
By No More from Me
May 4, 2011 12:14 PM | Link to this
School districts have repeatedly cried “woe-are-we” while they build new buildings, eagerly sign ever-richer comp & benefits agreements, overstaff, and have huge fleets of buses that run under half-full on duplicate routes. Generally, they do a mediocre job of educating for jobs that aren’t here anymore, yet we are suppose to pay gold-plated amounts for them to eventually relocate where jobs are. Hopefully voters will continue to stand their ground against this stuff and make their homes affordable to either keep or sell in an abysmal housing market. If money was the problem for scholls, we solved it several billions of dollars ago.
By karon
May 4, 2011 12:13 PM | Link to this
Strong schools make a strong neighborhoods. It is great to have educated people living next door compared to having, them not educated!
By Ohio prof
May 4, 2011 11:30 AM | Link to this
Sadly, most voters do not understand the funding model in Ohio. Most voters think that the budget costs to the school districts are similar to a household budget so, therefore, school officials should manage their budgets like a homeowner would: cut back on vacations, home repairs and dinners away from home. Homeowners have the possiblitily of increasing their income by getting second jobs or working overtime. How does a school district “earn” money? … by collecting taxes on lower valued properties, receiving reduced state funding, and soliciting inconsequential fees. Next year will be worse for all districts. This is the tip of the iceberg. The lack of leadership on education funding in Columbus is appalling.