Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
American Idol 2012 finale
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > July > 28 > Entry
What if there was a “Dayton Promise?”
Back in November, I wrote about the Kalamazoo Promise, a program funded by an anonymous donor in Kalamazoo, Mich., through which every student who completes all his or her schooling and graduates from that city’s public school system is guaranteed free tuition at any Michigan public university or college.
Last night, I went to a meeting of an anti-sprawl group that raised the idea of a similar Dayton Promise here as a way to bolster home values in the city and slow outward growth.
Before I go any further I want to clear up some confusion. The headline suggests this is a Dayton schools proposal. It is nothing of the sort. As the story states, this was one of three ideas suggested for discussion by a group called Grassroots Dayton. So nobody actually proposed anything at all. As For Dayton schools, the district sent a representative to the meeting in response to an invitation by Grassroots Dayton who merely spoke about the district’s issues. The headline was off base.
But back to the idea of a “Dayton Promise:”
Could it work here in Dayton? I don’t see why not.
Our fair city certainly has enough financial might to fund it. We’ve got Boonshofts, Schusters, Mathiles and other individuals who are philanthropic, well-heeled and interested in the well-being of the city and its youth. Plus there are foundations, like the Kettering Foundation.
What are the advantages? Bob Steinbach from the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission said he has spoken to the Kalamazoo area Realtor’s group and it reports improved home values and inquiries from every state about moving there.
At the meeting, the anti-sprawl folks talked about the disadvantages of the way the Miami Valley is growing away from the core city. Population is mostly steady but construction continues to push further outward. This spreads out the taxpayers over a wider area. Less density means fewer taxpayers in each school district, which raises each taxpayer’s burden.
There were three ideas proposed at the meeting for combating this problem suggested by Grassroots Dayton. The others were allowing more district-to-district student transfers and creating one large consolidated school district for the entire Miami Valley.
Those two things, frankly, are very unlikely to happen. The districts that need fewer students, like Beavercreek and Springboro, would probably draw more students under the transfer plan, while the districts with capacity, like Dayton and Fairborn, would likely lose more kids. Besides, most school districts right now won’t play the transfer game and have policies against accepting them.
Consolidation of school districts also is wildly unpopular, as voters prefer greater local control, not less.
But the “promise” idea could work. The question is whether the benefit is worth the cost and if significant donors would be willing to step up to the plate and lead such an effort.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Colleges and Universities, Dayton Public Schools, School Construction
Comments
By Bryan
July 28, 2006 3:13 PM | Link to this
Once the DPS emerges from academic emergency, a “Dayton Promise” kind of program might be feasible. Regionalization of public schools, while very unlikely to happen on a comprehensive basis, is certainly implementable on a limited basis. The benefits would be far-reaching, affecting the region on many levels. I agree that we might start regionalization with something like area-wide 911 service and revenue sharing before trying to merge school districts.By Dani Herman
July 28, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Um, I am not sure who these people are who want to regionalize schools, but I suspect it is a group with a core interest of building up the “center” city. We moved out of the city and into Beavercreek for the schools. They are wonderful!!! If someone thinks we should “share” with Dayton I can tell you I sure wouldn’t vote for it! We moved because our neighborhood was filling up with drug people, the police weren’t doing anything about it, our kids couldn’t play outside, the schools were awful, and the charters popping up everywhere to profit from our kids weren’t doing any better. Regionalize schools? No thanks. Maybe regionalizing police and fire would start good service happening. I am ready to support Beavercreek Schools by voting yes to build what we need here and I don’t want to share. Dayton got the lions share of the school funding money, make your schools as attractive as ours and ask again later.