Pyramid Hill lights up
Women of Excellence Awards
16th Annual Music Festival
Ohio school funding
Proposed amendment would shift school funding burden to state
Comment: Is the amendment a good idea?
Related stories: Course reductions | Activity cost breakdown
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
MIDDLETOWN — Two million students, 1,300 tax issues and 8,000 board members have come and gone since the first time Ohio's school funding system was ruled unconstitutional.
But this November, everything could start to change.
Extras
Photos
Middletown school board member Dr. David Kabithe listens during the first forum in Butler County to discuss a proposed amendment that would change school funding. The forum took place Tuesday evening at the Middletown Public Library.
Richard Lewis, executive director of Ohio School Boards Association, speaks to members of Butler County, Tuesday evening at the Middletown Public Library, to discuss a proposed amendment to the constitution that would change school funding.A proposed amendment to overhaul school funding that would shift the burden of public education from local taxpayers to the state does not identify a funding source — but supporters say that could be a hindrance to the amendment's work.
About 35 people gathered Tuesday night at Middletown Public Library to learn more about a proposal to overhaul Ohio's school funding system.
If approved, the amendment would:
• Assure accountability
• Establish the cost of a "high-quality education" for which the state would be responsible for the majority of the funding
• Reduce new local property tax levies
• Cut property taxes for senior and disabled citizens, and
• Secure funding for facilities, local services such as police and fire and higher education, said Richard Lewis, executive director of the Ohio School Board Association, a group supporting the amendment.
One of the most consistent criticisms of the plan is the lack of an identified source of money for the state funding, such as an income tax, sales tax or other option.
Lewis said the source was not identified so that the funding source would not later become unfeasible, rendering the amendment ineffective to the funding problem.
Some parts to the plan to shift the burden away from local property taxpayers are clearly defined. The amendment would begin to be implemented in two to four years and be fully in effect by 2017, said Lewis.
In 2017, property owners would be paying a 20-mill (the current state minimum) property tax on their homes across the state. Twenty mills is equal to about $600 a year on a $100,000 home.
The state would be responsible for the rest of the funding and local voters could vote to increase local property taxes if they so choose, said Lewis.
The amendment also would exempt senior and disabled citizens from property taxes on the first $40,000 of their home value.
The Middletown Branch of the American Association of University Women hosted a forum on a proposed amendment to change the state's school funding system, which has been ruled unconstitutional four times in the last 10 years.
The proposed amendment is currently in the petition stage and could be on the November ballot.
To find a petition to sign, contact a school board member, the district's central offices or the OSBA.
Comments
By SatlitForPc
July 12, 2007 3:47 AM | Link to this
SATELLITE TV for PC ™ 2007 ELITE EDITION. The Elite Edition includes over 3000 STATIONS! Get yours today!
By TC66
June 27, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this
I could agree on a sales tax. That way every body shares the cost. Not just the home owners. Look at some of the surrounding states. Their property tax is next to nothing. But they do have higher sales tax. The average individual homeowner would end up paying less than they currently are.
By William
June 27, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
Clairification: The groups pushing this amendment claim it will “reduce local levies”, meaning fewer levies. The amendment makes no such claim. Any district can keep asking for more money. And as for property taxes, prepare to pay annual taxes based on revised values EACH year. This amendment will eliminate the property tax millage roll back, and you can expect all the rest of us to pay more and more each and every year. Don’t rely on news articles, read the amendment for yourself.
By Rich
June 27, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
The debate over the quality of Dayton schools or any other single district needs to be kept somewhat separate from consideration of this proposed amendment. Granted, most urban districts in Ohio are having great difficulty achieving “success” as defined by NCLB and state achievement tests; on the other hand, most districts across Ohio ARE improving, as determined by those same measuring sticks. The funding system is broken, causing major problems in many districts; change IS needed!
By Rational Thinking
June 27, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
If Arnold Engel wants citizens to be properly informed, then please, let me help. This man spends his free time campaigning against legitimately financing schools, backed by shady big business. Does he care about quality education, appropriate pay for teachers or updated facilities and materials? Maybe, but his biggest concern is saving himself money. No one wants to be forced to pay higher taxes without a vote, but please, do not form your opinion solely from one zealot’s erratic preachings.
By Terry
June 27, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Robert-It would be alot less painful if my taxes went up if I knew that I was getting some value for my dollar.You mentioned in your last line about”funding for a good public education”.That question doesn’t apply to this school district.If the proficiency tests are a barometer by which we evaluate the performance of this school system,then they are failing.Currently,people don’t feel like investing any more money,thereby,condoning poor performance.If we don’tforce the issue, nothing will change
By Rich
June 27, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this
While I’m personally undecided about the amendment, some clarification is needed. First, OF COURSE individual & business Ohio taxpayers will provide funding. No surprise - the state doesn’t print money. Secondly, perhaps the biggest proposed change makes public education a basic constitutional right, moving its funding to the HEAD of the line, before other areas. Up to now, education suffered from “residual funding”, after everything ELSE. Perhaps voters WANT to change priorities in Columbus.
By Robert
June 27, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
I continue to be amazed at the low level of support funding for public schools receives from some Ohioans - like the people who have posted here as concerned about their taxes going up.
But … Ohio taxes for the support of local schools are really quite low compared to states that have superior public education.
How can we expect to maintain a solid democracy if citizens refuse to supply the funding necessary for good public education?
By Chris
June 27, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
When the story says “the State would responsible for the rest of the funding…” they mean you and me, taxpayers. There’s no big “state” pile of money that doesn’t come from taxpayers. This is just a shell game eliminate local approval authority and redistribute money from wealthy districts to poorer ones. Our schools are great because we control them locally with local funding and local school boards. Don’t give that away!!
By Rich
June 27, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
Arnold Engel is misleading about one point made repeatedly in his opposition to the proposed school funding amendment. In his post, he said: “…districts will still be allowed to levy taxes above 20 mills.” This implies if the amendment passes, school boards will have the power to levy taxes on their own, WITHOUT a public vote. Local voters will STILL vote on any new local levies (which WOULD be less frequent), and for school board members — all the same restraints on schools they have now!
By Terry
June 27, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
Based on Mr Engle’s comments above, I’m against this.To have the schools have leverage like that would be a nightmare. CARE and COAST need to get their messages out in all newspapers across Ohio. I’m betting that most people don’t know about this information.The scary part is the comment”If we fix the spending problem in our schools therewill be no funding problems” How do you stop inept, out of control school boards/superintendants from spending all of the taxpayers money and asking for more?
By Joel Brown
June 27, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this
The amendment DOES state that local property taxes will be rolled back to 20 mills: “The maximum required Local Revenue Contribution shall not exceed the proceeds of 20 equivalent mills of taxation.” Districts will not be allowed to levy taxes above 20 mills - VOTERS will. So it is not true that “property owners will lose control.” Voters (you) can decide not to raise taxes above 20 mills if they choose. Read it yourself instead of taking others’ word for it: www.rightforohio.org
By J. Fuller
June 27, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
I am much in favor of a sales tax rather than property taxes. Sales taxes catch the slugs who deal drugs, and “under-the-table” dealers who do not own anything and never pay income taxes. However, any time we send money through Washington or Columbus, we only get back about 25-30 cents on the dollar. The rest supports the tax-guzzling beauracracy.
By Taxman
June 27, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this
I can tell you the funding source, it is going to be you the Citizen.
By Arnold Engel
June 27, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this
THE SCHOOL FUNDING AMENDMENT WILL BYPASS THE TAXPAYERS’ RIGHT TO VOTE ON SCHOOL TAXES. 2-28-07
The Ohio education groups (educrats) are trying to steal the taxpayers’ right to vote on school funding. Our schools across the state are having problems passing levies because groups like CARE and COAST are exposing their excessive and wasteful spending. Passage of this amendment will allow the educrats to completely bypass the taxpayers and our legislators by giving the State Board of Education the duty of calculating the cost of a high quality education, then forcing our legislature and the taxpayers to pay for it. Property owners will lose local control. School districts will thereby be able to continue their excessive and wasteful spending totally unchallenged. If we fix the spending problems in our schools there will be no funding problems and no need for this amendment.
I originally thought the amendment would roll property taxes back to 20 mills. The Director of the OSBA, Rick Lewis, confirmed that this is not true. There appears to be a provision to gradually roll back the millage to 20 mills. However, this is not a requirement and districts will still be allowed to levy taxes above 20 mills.
The amendment also calls for an exemption of the first $40,000 of market value on homes of senior citizens. This clause is an underhanded bait-and-switch tactic. This may initially appeal to seniors. However, the $40,000 exemption will provide little to no relief to our seniors, as our schools are not limited to how much they can levy in the form of new property taxes.
There is absolutely nothing in this amendment to financially benefit the Ohio taxpayer. It will actually cost every taxpayer more. Our taxes will go up. It is nothing but a grab for taxpayer money with no accountability for delivering a better education to our children. It is a proven fact that more money does not equate to a better education for our kids. As I said a long time ago, “The road to a better education for our children is paved with accountability not money.”
Arnold Engel
CARE Founder Member Fairfield Board of Education
By William
June 27, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this
This scheme is a blank check for the teacher unions and everybody else that does business with public schools. This group has lied that this will “reduce local levies”. The amendment wording makes no such claim. And the biggest joke is if the State has to pay more, where do you think the State gets it’s money? Expect your sales tax and other cost to rise.