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 > 2007 > March > 31 > Entry
Bradford’s bold move: Making it tougher for others?
You don’t often see a school district pull a tax levy off the ballot, but that’s exactly what Bradford’s Board of Education did this week.
Here’s Bradford’s rationale. The district was seeking a 0.75 percent income tax which would have raised its school income tax burden to the highest in the state. The levy, which has already failed twice, was on for May and Bradford could not collect any money even if it passes until January.
Under Gov. Ted Strickland’s proposed budget, low-wealth Bradford would get a 22.5 percent increase in state aid, bringing in even more money than the proposed tax. By coming off the ballot now, the board figured, it can wait to see how the budget turns out. The whole proposed amount could delay a levy entirely for at least a couple years. But even if just some of the new aid materializes, the board could seek a smaller levy in August or November and still collect in January.
As much as this might make sense for Bradford, put yourself in the shoes of other school boards who are on the ballot in May. Doesn’t this put the question in their voters minds — why doesn’t my school district wait?
A couple weeks ago, we wrote about the financial challenges faced even by poor school districts like Bradford, which despite fitting the profile of a district you’d expect to be getting significant state aid is on the ballot in May for a large income tax for the third time.
Then came Gov. Ted Strickland’s budget proposal, which had some oddities to it but meant significant state aid increases for some districts, Bradford and Dayton among them.
In fact, The proposed extra aid is so good for some, that Dayton Treasurer Stan Lucas even floated the idea this week that if a large amount of new state aid did come Dayton’s way, the district could consider not collecting some of the 15 mills in new taxes it has on the ballot in May.
Still, we’re a long way off from knowing what state aid will really look like. Lawmakers will debate into the summer. Strickland, a Democrat, already is at odds with the leadership of the legislature, all Republicans. Negotiations will be tough. Who knows who will get what in the end?
I just wonder if a few headlines about districts holding off to see what happens will be in the back of voters’ minds come May. Will they question nag them — maybe my district should have waited? Maybe it won’t need the money?
Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: School Funding
Comments
By David
April 4, 2007 7:41 PM | Link to this
I have to comment for Mandy that the more kids you have doesn’t mean you pay less for your property taxes due to exemptions. Also if you don’t like paying for education others, who paid for your education? College? Most of the cost of college is paid by taxpayers, not through tuition from the student. And if you don’t like public schools, don’t use anyone who was educated in public schools at public expense. No attorneys who went to public school or public colleges (UD gets tax money too even though it’s a religious school); doctors, ask before you allow them to serve you; car you drive? Don’t want one made by people educated in the public schools. You see actually the public schools in the past years educate people who serve us all today and tomorrow. Many older people want to keep all of their money for themselves even when some of that comes from the public tax donations called social security, e.g. Many older people vote against levies. Many older people justify an excessive cost of living in a large house they once had with a family when they could downsize and then property taxes won’t be a factor. Taxes have always been a sore point. Noone wants to pay them but everyone wants to benefit from them.By Mary
April 3, 2007 5:57 AM | Link to this
In defense of Mandy - not that she asked for any - I can understand at least part of her frustration. I also agree with Karen that the education of others impacts us all. But there comes a point where parents, schools and others have to be held accountable, rather than enabling and supporting irresponsibility. Schools sometimes seem to enable irresponsibility of students and parents. As one of my retired school teaching sisters once pointed out to me in a frustrated moment “we have free breeding in this country”.By Karen
April 2, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Does Mandy realize that her elder care would be dependent on the kids she doesn’t feel she has any responsibility for educating now?By wellwhynot
April 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Mandy, what a pathetic, selfish attitude! Who paid for your education? I can guarantee you that many people who did not have children did! With your attitude about not having responsibility for or caring about other’s children, I hope you are never on the need side of any social services help because some people will have the same attitude about you- that you should have planned better for any unexpected emergencies and/or elder care.By Mary
April 1, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
“old prof”, you need to mention what the student population was 16 years ago compared to now. Wasn’t the student population significantly larger 16 years ago?By Mandy
April 1, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
The way schools go about getting their funding from other than the state is completely flawed. As far as school tax levies go, the more kids you have, the less you pay (i.e. exemptions). I don’t understand that. The other bright idea is for funding to be given through property taxes, then the people who don’t have kids are paying the bill for your kids and I don’t understand that either. In my opinion, you should be directly responsible for the bulk of your children’s education funding. If you can’t throw down $5,000 a year for their schooling, then you have no business having kids in the first place. As far as the kids whose parents don’t care about them, neither do I, they are not my children to worry about. I should not be responsible for providing for them.By Buford
April 1, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
OldProf. Of course I have my own source of income and standard of living in mind when I think about taxes and expenses. My series of postings on school funding matters has been directed mainly toward the primary source of such funding. The State has been told four times such source reliance is unconstitutional over the past ten years. Yet, the politicians and a number of school boards have continued to “milk the cow” - instead of going in a different direction. You have suggested an Earned Income tax dedicated to schools, and that just might be the better idea. But, the current system is NOT right. It unfairly impacts those of us who have dedicated our lives to the American dream, worked hard, lived it, raised families, lived within our means and are now retired to enjoy our senior years.By Oldprof
April 1, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
Tell you what, Buford. If you really think Dayton doesn’t need to adjust revenues after 16 years of zero increase, then you ought to be willing to accept the same for yourself. Go to whatever is the source of your income—your employer, your pension plan, whatever—and demand that your income be rolled back to the dollar amount you received in 1991. Not willing? Then I might conclude that you have the source of your income in your own “gun sights” whenever you think you need to keep up with the cost of living.By Buford
March 31, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
Scott, “Damn the Torpedos! Full Speed Ahead!” I don’t see either the local School Board or DPS backing away from the proposed levy in May. They believe they have a lucrative target i.e. property owners - in their gun sight and feel they can get a good percentage of the parents of current students to vote in favor of that levy. This would be helped considerably by the students bringing home information from DPS (orally or in written form) stating just how necessary the levy is - and enumerating potential cuts in staff and programs if it is NOT approved. The State budget potential for Dayton represents a pie-in-the-sky possibility that would be indeed nice - but in these times of hard choices, unemployment, loss of businesses, and consequential reduced tax resources - not their best bet at the moment.