Articles of Interest-2006 Archive

Voters can learn about bond issue at two October forums

Thursday, October 12, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS  ThisWeek Staff Writer

How can the district raise $37.5-million without increasing my taxes?

What is the catch?

Those are the kinds of questions school leaders will be ready to answer at two community forums to discuss the upcoming Worthington schools bond issue, Issue 14.

The first will be today (Oct. 12) at the Worthington Christian Church, 8145 N. High St.

The second will be Monday, October 23 at the Northwest Library, 2280 Hard Road. Both will start at 7 p.m.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath is expected to open both meetings with some comments and explanations about how the bond issue would work and how the money raised would be spent.

If the crowd is large, it will be broken down into smaller groups, each led by a school board member or administrator.

This format worked well at previous community forums, Conrath said. It allows everyone, not just one or two people, to ask questions and express opinions.

So far, the superintendent has heard little opposition to or questions about the upcoming "no new millage" bond issue.

"It's more positive than the last time, that's for sure," Conrath said.

She referred to the 6.25-mill combination operating levy (5 mills) and permanent improvements levy (1.25 mills) which was defeated by voters by a 60-40 margin last May.

Since then, the district trimmed approximately $3-million from the annual budget. That, along with an unexpected increase in interest earnings, will allow the board to wait until next year to return to voters for an operating levy.

The November issue will raise $37.5-million over five years to pay for new buses, technology, furniture and building repairs.

Conrath said she has not heard anyone questioning the legitimacy of the capital needs.

"Every time there is a permanent improvements or bond issue, people see something tangible that comes from their yes votes," she said.

People are less likely to understand how the district will structure the bond sales so that the money can be raised without increasing taxes.

Currently, residents pay 3.6 mills for capital improvements. That amounts to approximately $116 a year for the owner of a $100,000 house, Conrath said.

Without passage of the November bond issue, that amount would decrease until 2014, when the bond debt would be paid off.

If the bond issue is approved, taxes will decrease more slowly, and the owner of that $100,000 house will still be paying 2 mills, or approximately $70 a year, in 2014.

The debt would continue to decrease slowly until it is paid off in 2026.

"The tax rate will never go above what you are paying now," she said. "It will cost you, it just won't be adding to your current tax bill."

The bonds will not all be issued at once, but will be staggered so that the projects, improvements and items they pay for will not be obsolete before they are paid off.

The average life of assets to be purchased will be 15.4 years. This way, the people who pay for them will be more likely to be those who benefit from them, she explained.

Evening Street's history of success earns Blue Ribbon By PAMELA WILLIS

Evening Street Elementary School is the district's newest Blue Ribbon school.

Staff members attended a reception Monday evening at the Worthington Education Center, and the Worthington school board commended several teachers, Principal Chris Collaros and former Principal Ann Heffernan during the board meeting that night.

Collaros and third-grade teacher Patty Eakins will attend a ceremony Nov. 9 and 10 in Washington, D.C., to accept the 2006 No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School award for Evening Street.

"There is a long history of high achievement scores at Evening Street -- the result of a parent community who brings their children to school ready to learn and to support our learning efforts consistently at home," Collaros said. "Our staff is tireless in their pursuit to meet the needs of all children and continue to learn themselves about better and more-effective instructional practices and leadership, which was demonstrated by Dr. Heffernan, who kept best-learning practices and the best needs of children at the forefront."

Heffernan was principal at Evening Street for 14 years before she retired last year.

Collaros said students at Evening Street rise above learning expectations.

"Our students continue to rise to the occasion, meeting and surpassing the very high expectations we place upon them at Evening Street," Collaros said.

Collaros said State Superintendent of Public Education Susan Zelman invited the school to apply for a Blue Ribbon award because students scored in the top 10 percent of schools on the state assessments.

Evening Street was one of 14 school buildings around the state that were named No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools on Sept. 22.

Collaros said the Blue Ribbon application asked for information on instructional strategies, supplemental materials and innovative programs at Evening Street.

"'We all work from the same curriculum, but we try to emphasize not only the Ohio academic content standards in all of our disciplines, but to incorporate additional Council of Teacher of Mathematics standards, as well as the standards for history, geography and science, as well as the fine arts," Collaros said.

Teachers also emphasize a "balanced literacy approach," Collaros said.

"Our literature is based on a skills-based approach to language arts, and we have an excellent reading recovery program that is research-based and designed for struggling first-graders," Collaros said. "We also have outstanding and ongoing professional development efforts, where we are constantly studying the best methods out there and getting together to reflect on those and make changes in our instruction."

Other Blue Ribbon schools within the district are Worthington Hills, Bluffsview and Slate Hill elementary schools, Worthingway and Perry middle schools and Worthington Kilbourne High School.

District gets the word out

Information sessions, campaign planned to promote bond issue By PAMELA WILLIS

The Worthington City School District is giving voters two chances to learn everything they need to know about November's 1.91-mill bond-issue request.

Two public information sessions will be held on the bond issue: at 7 p.m. Thursday at Worthington Christian Church, 8145 N. High St., and at 7 p.m. Oct. 23 at the Northwest Library, 2280 Hard Road.

If approved, the replacement bond issue, which will appear as Issue 14 on the ballot, will refinance and extend the district's current bond debt by 15 years and generate $37.5 million for permanent improvements.

Homeowners are paying about $116 per year for every $100,000 in home value under the old bonds, approved for $55 million in 1988 and $14.9 million in 1997. Those bonds have a taxation rate of 3.8 mills.

Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said board members have committed to issuing the replacement bond in increments to keep the taxation rate at 3.8 mills, so the average taxpayer will not see an increase in taxes.

Boyd compared the replacement bond issue to a "cash-out" refinance on a house loan, where the loan is restructured so that payments are paid for a longer period of time than the original loan.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said she and Boyd will attend both information sessions. Some school board members will be present at Thursday's session -- Jennifer Best and Marc Schare have confirmed they will attend -- and all board members are expected at the Oct. 23 session, as it takes the place of a regular board meeting.

"We will present information on the bond issue and information on what we will do with the bond funds," Conrath said. "It will also be an opportunity for residents to ask any questions they may have about the issue."

Parent Don Overmyer is organizing volunteers to campaign for the replacement bond issue.

"It is a parent-led campaign, as parents from each school building talk to our neighbors and the other parents, asking them to get out and vote on Nov. 7 and giving them information on the repairs and replacements needed at each of the buildings," Overmyer said.

Overmyer said voters should understand the school board has "taken a close look" at the needs of each building.

"We have a list of tangible items that are the district's capital needs and they are broken down per school, so that it is not an abstract notion," Overmyer said. "Some of the district's buses are not safe to drive over 35 miles per hour, and many need to be replaced. Many of the building's computers are also outdated and obsolete, and there is a long list of specific needs such as repairs to leaking roofs and boiler replacements."

If the bond issue passes, 40 buses will be replaced over the next five years; a computer replacement plan will ensure new educational software will work on classroom computers; and long-deferred repairs and renovations are planned in each building, Overmyer said.

A list of anticipated repairs can be found at the district's Web site, www.worthington.k12.oh.us/pdf/Fin_Services/facility_studyprojects.pdf.

Overmyer said he volunteered to help organize a campaign for the next school issue after the failure of the 6.25-mill combined operating levy and permanent-improvement request in May.

"I couldn't abide by the fact that our community appeared to not value education," Overmyer said. "I thought it was shameful, and frankly, was afraid of the threat it presents to our children, in not sustaining our excellent school system."

Overmyer called himself the "liaison" for all the other building volunteers working within the Worthington Community for Schools, which is the umbrella organization for the campaign.

"There are a lot of people in this community, whether they have kids in the schools or not, who realize a good school system is an important thing to sustain," Overmyer said. "We have fact sheets prepared for the information meetings, and will be doing a literature drop on Saturday, Oct. 23, and also some door-to-door and telephone communication with voters."

Overmyer said he was impressed with the fact the school board and Conrath came up with a "creative solution" to address the district's capital needs without raising taxes.

"Refinancing the bond issues are like refinancing a house, so that the school board does not have to raise taxes but can fix the things that need to be fixed," Overmyer said. "There will still be challenges facing the schools, because the reality is that everything costs more every year, and education is one of those things. But education is the one thing you have to sustain over everything."

Gehring: 'Deferred maintenance' hurts facilities

Thursday, October 5, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

This is the third in a series looking at the Worthington schools' bond issue, which will be on the Nov. 7 ballot. The funds generated from the bonds will be used to replace school buses, purchase computer equipment and repair school buildings.

Glance around the commons area at Worthington Kilbourne High School, and you will see the signs of wear and tear.

The carpet is worn and frayed, a window molding is disintegrating, ceilings are discolored in places.

But it is in those areas where the public rarely visits -- the boiler rooms, furnace rooms, and roofs -- where the greatest need for repairs and replacements lurk, said Worthington facilities director Tim Gehring.

He hopes voters will approve the $37.5-million, no-new-taxes bond issue in November so that those repairs -- many of which are long overdue -- can be made in the district's 19 school buildings.

About half of the money raised -- $18-million -- will allow the district to catch up with much deferred maintenance, then perhaps move on to develop a proactive plan -- one that might allow the district to not get behind again.

Over the past few years, when cuts were made in the district budget, money for maintenance became scarce. Given a choice between hiring a teacher or paving a parking lot, the school board tended to choose the former.

Gehring's annual budget, which comes from the general fund, is $775,000 for buildings, $250,000 for grounds.

As a result, the "to do" list in the district has grown.

A firm hired to look at that list and attach costs came up with approximately $22-million. That list has since been trimmed to $18-million. Anything not seen as an "immediate need" was crossed off, Gehring said.

The list is not static. As needs arise, changes will be made, he said.

If the bond issue passes, a consultant will be hired to group some of the projects together for bidding purposes.

Also, a committee, which will include community members, will oversee spending. Gehring looks forward to receiving input from professionals in the community, especially those who can offer tips on some of the bigger projects.

Board members share ideas to combat falling numbers

But officials expect further student losses during the course of the year. By GARTH BISHOP

As they face declining student numbers in the Columbus school district, Columbus Board of Education members are looking for ways to stabilize falling enrollment.

Board member Andrew Ginther has suggested focusing not on bringing back the students who have left the district, but on retaining the students still attending.

"The real focus is going to be doing a better job of serving ... the needs of the people in the district now," he said.

"Our first focus needs to be on better serving families we've got now, so they stay with us."

Ginther said he has seen no nationwide evidence of schools luring back students who have left for private or charter schools.

"Everybody has told us (they want) the same things: safety, security, climate and families feeling connected to their students' success," said Ginther.

Gifted-and-talented programs, diversity teams, school resource officers, high school advancement programs and the efforts of the district's Innovative Schools Task Force are all factors that can serve to keep current students comfortable, Ginther said. Expanding the district's alternative-school offerings -- many of which, such as Columbus Alternative High School and Arts Impact Middle School, are extremely popular -- would also help, he added.

Board member W. Carlton Weddington emphasized the importance of individual attention for students and comprehensive planning for the district.

A Houston school district has staff members walk through neighborhoods and seek out students who have dropped out of school or have not yet shown up after the school year begins, Weddington said, and such a program might work in Columbus as well.

"We are currently doing some of those same types of things here," he said.

"I just think it needs to be coordinated at the district level, instead of leaving it up to each building administrator and his or her staff."

Promoting the merits of individual schools is also an approach that could keep students satisfied, Weddington said.

"I think that just as we spend dollars to promote levy and bond campaigns, we should do the same in promoting the good works of our district and attempting to keep our kids in school, as well as attracting them and bringing them back to the district," he said.

While schools such as CAHS and Fort Hayes High School are popular, the district also could emphasize the positives of schools that are currently not as popular, such as South and East high schools.

"All of our schools have some aspect that has drawn students and families to (them)," Weddington said.

"We need to do that in a comprehensive, districtwide effort."

Board member Jeff Cabot also offered an approach to promoting the district's schools: focusing on the merits of the district's new buildings.

Just as many students whose home schools were closed might have left the district for private or charter schools in search of something new, so could the district entice students with new buildings, such as the already-opened Fairmoor and Parsons elementary schools, or some of the other buildings the district will open this school year, Cabot said.

"We may need to have a focused effort on those schools," he said.

Schools get A in academics, C+ in finance

Thursday, September 28, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

The Worthington Schools get an "A" for academics, a "B" for communications, and a "C+" for financial management.

Those grades were assigned by approximately 400 community members surveyed by a firm hired by the district to gauge perceptions of the schools and of a proposal to earn money through an advertising program.

The idea of selling advertising or sponsorship for school facilities or events earned a cautious thumbs up from those who replied to the telephone survey done earlier this year by Communica Inc.

Bill Grindle, a Worthington resident and school volunteer who works for the Toledo-based marketing, advertising and public relations firm, reported the results of the survey to the school board on Monday night.

The firm was paid $13,000 by the district.

Besides the 417 residents, who were about evenly divided between residents with and without children enrolled in the district, Grindle interviewed 69 school staff; 23 business and community leaders; and four media representatives.

Overall, respondents said the district is outstanding, with lots of opportunities for kids, he said. Fifty-six percent said Worthington is either better or much better than other suburban school districts.

Asked to give letter grades, residents gave an "A" to the district in overall academic quality, breadth of extracurricular programs, and breadth of academic programs.

Weaknesses are communication and financial management, the only areas to receive grades of "C" from any of the responding groups.

"Communication with the community" received a "B" from the community and media representatives, a "C+" from community leaders, and a "C" from business leaders.

"Financial management" received a "C+" from the community as well as from community leaders and media representatives, and a "B-" from business leaders.

Thirty-six percent said they agreed or strongly agreed that the district uses its money wisely; 40 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Fifty-three percent agreed that they trust administrators; 26 percent disagreed.

Forty-seven percent agreed that the district is well managed; 31 percent disagreed.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath outlined a plan for addressing the concerns reflected in the survey. To increase pride in the district's stewardship will take raising sufficient revenues while making strategic reductions in spending, including creating a fair compensation system, she said.

She would like to see the survey repeated in 18 months.

She said she supports the study's recommendation to develop an advertising and sponsorship program, as long as it is done responsibly.

According to the survey, 67.6 percent of respondents support developing such a program.

They drew a line at what the district should sell, though.

For example, 91.5 percent would support selling sign space at athletic events, which the district already does.

But only 33 percent said they supported "limited advertising in the entry ways of school buildings and facilities."

Board president Gary Tyack and member David Bressman expressed their differences on the advertising question.

Tyack said that the naming rights for Ohio State University College of Law and many of its programs and meeting rooms had been sold. Most were named for "older white men,"he said.

"At some point, ethics have to be more important," Tyack said.

Bressman pointed out that minority students were among those who benefited from the money donated by the older white men.

Selling advertising, or naming rights, does not preclude honoring people for their service, he said.

Schlarb: Bond funds would replace obsolete technology in schools

Thursday, September 28, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS

This is the second in a series looking at the Worthington schools' bond issue, which will be on the Nov. 7 ballot. The funds generated from the bonds will be used to replace school buses, purchase computer equipment and repair school buildings.

A decade ago, the brand new Apple computers in Worthington classrooms were able to transport students to an exciting new place called "cyberspace."

But technology has changed over the past ten years, and those computers have not. No longer exciting, many of Worthington's aging computers are considered obsolete, or vintage.

That means the software that should accompany textbooks or provide extra help to students often will not work.

It means that students who do projects at home sometimes cannot display their work at school.

And too often it means Worthington students are not being properly prepared to take their places in a global economy, said Worthington schools technology director Keith Schlarb.

He hopes voters in November approve the bond issue, which will provide $3-million to update district technology.

That will be enough to replace most of the district's 3,400 computers over the next five years, and purchase some of the software that teachers, administrators, and students continually request.

It will also allow the district to create a single PC platform, instead of using both PCs and Apple computers.

Currently, of the 1,584 computers at Worthington's 11 elementary schools, 527 are eight to ten years old; 1,037 are five to seven years old; and 20 are five years old.

Each elementary school has a computer lab; some have small labs in their libraries; and most classrooms have two to five computers.

Most middle schools have two labs and a few computers in classrooms.

At the high schools, there are five or six labs each and usually one in each classroom for use by teachers or for demonstrations.

Of 1,513 secondary computers, 464 are six to eight years old; 629 are three to five years old; and 420 are one to two years old.

The newest ones recently replaced those that were eight years old or older.

They are "thin clients," which are simply old-fashioned display devices connected to a central server. They are capable of simple uses, such as searching the Internet and word processing, but aren't appropriate in all school settings, Schlarb said.

Because "thin clients" cost about half as much as PCs, Schlarb was able to replace all of the oldest hardware with money set aside over several years.

His annual budget for maintaining the aging computer system is between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. The $3-million from the bond issue would not replace the need for those funds, he said.

The district also has 306 computers used by staff. Thirty of those are six to ten years old; 270 are four to five years old; and six are one year old.

Some of the older computers are not capable of sending e-mail to outside of the building. The problem cannot be fixed with current equipment.

"On a weekly or monthly basis, we run into something that slows us down," Schlarb said. "Our hardware is a problem."

If the bond issue is approved, committees will be appointed to grapple with options such as which hardware will be replaced, which software purchased.

One committee will consist of district personnel. They will pass on their recommendations to a committee that includes community members.

"One person or small group coming up with that kind of decision is not the right thing to do," Schlarb said.

District: We heard voters loud, clear

Officials say bond issue is response to May's levy loss By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington City School District Superintendent Melissa Conrath said she wants to blast the "business-as-usual" criticisms of the district and stay "upfront" with taxpayers about the $37.5 million replacement bond issue on the Nov. 7 ballot.

"We hope residents will see we are being responsive to what we heard loud and clear when the May levy failed -- that we have to conduct business differently," Conrath said. "We want to be totally upfront. The money to finance the bond is coming from the taxpayers, but the bond issue is a way to address our capital needs without asking for additional millage."

The replacement bond issue, if approved by voters, will refinance and extend the district's current bond debt: issues approved for $55 million in 1988 and $14.9 million in 1997 for construction and building repairs. That bond debt is scheduled to be paid off in 2014, but if the bond issue passes, the debt will be extended for 12 more years, said Treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

Boyd said homeowners currently pay around $116 per year for every $100,000 in home value under the old bonds, which have a taxation rate of 3.8 mills. If the replacement bond issue passes, it should not cost taxpayers more than that amount because school board members are committed to issuing the bond in increments to keep the same taxation rate, Boyd said.

Board member Marc Schare said voters should understand that the bond issue includes $10 million to address capital-improvement needs that were previously budgeted from the district's general operating funds.

"By cost-shifting that $10 million from the general fund, we will be able to reduce the amount of the 2007 operating levy request," Schare said. "It will bring more certainty to the budget, because we can separate capital-improvement needs from operating costs."

Schare said some costs can't be foreseen.

"With any bond issue, the costs are unpredictable. The true cost will be based on the interest rate at the time the bonds are sold, and no one knows what the interest rate will be long term," Schare said. "What we can do is manipulate the timing of the issuing of the bonds to keep them at the 3.8-mills mark."

Schare said the average taxpayer should not see an increase until about 2012 or 2013, when they could see an increase of about 2 mills "over and above what they would have paid if the issue failed."

Conrath said voters sent the district a clear message that they would not accept a two-year cycle of operating levy requests by turning thumbs down to the 6.25-mill combined operating levy and permanent-improvement request in May.

In early August, Conrath unveiled a "reduce, rethink and recalculate" plan and asked board members to delay getting back on the ballot with an operating levy request until sometime in 2007. She worked with administrators to find $1.1 million in immediate budget reductions and planned an additional $1.8 million in budget reductions for next year.

Boyd said the district also received some unexpected revenue, including about $800,000 in tangible tax dollars after the collection of delinquent taxes. The additional revenue, along with the budget reduction savings, meant the district would have a balance of about $2.86 million in June 2008 instead of the predicted deficit of $6 million.

The combined operating and permanent-improvement levy request that failed would have generated about $11.4 million for priority replacement and repairs, such as roof and boiler replacements, Conrath said. But that amount would not have addressed the $22 million needed to replace old and unsafe buses, "vintage" computers and a long list of repairs and replacements to buildings, she said.

Conrath said technology and facilities committees, which would include members of the community, would help determine how the bond money would be spent.

"If voters approve the replacement bond issue, it would be similar to a cash-out refinance on a house," Conrath said. "You restructure the amount you borrowed on the house, and pay payments for a longer period of time."

Some students, teachers feel classes are getting crowed

by Albert Shin, Wolves' Den Reporter

Although the freshmen at Kilbourne may have noticed, most of the upperclassmen have seen some big changes at school, especially the number of students in each class.

Some students have started to complain that the cuts are affecting class size.  Director of Communications Vicki Gnezda disagrees.

"Although there was a financial reduction in the district, it didn't impact this school year's class sizes," she said.

Nevertheless, some staff and students of Kilbourne think differently.

"This is the most students I have had in the history of my career," said teacher Roland Lane.  "This isn't good for me because I have a lot more homework and tests to grade."

"Having bigger classes hinders the teachers and students from interacting with each other and learning," said Susan Kucharek.

Many students also miss small class sizes.

"I like smaller classes because there's more student-teacher interaction," said senior Sam Winstel.  "It makes learning easier."

Some students, however, don't mind the larger classes.

"With more people, you can challenge more people and feel good about yourself," said senior Patrick Brown.

Regardless of the real or perceived effects of budget cuts, Gnezda is optimistic.

"Worthington students can expect a continued commitment to an excellent educational experience.  We have a high-quality staff whose No. 1 priority is helping all students achieve," she said.

Education Myths

By Jay Greene

Myths aren't lies. They are beliefs that people adopt because they have an air of plausibility. But myths aren't true, and they often get in the way during serious problem-solving. This essay identifies seven common myths that dominate established views of education these days. Dispelling these misconceptions could open the door to long-awaited improvement in our nation's schools.

The money myth

If people know anything about public schools today, it's that they are strapped for cash. Bestselling books, popular movies, and countless lobbying groups portray urban schools as desperately underfunded, and editors of the New York Times write without fear of contradiction that "providing quality education for all America's children will take...a great deal of money." Bumper stickers declare, "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." No matter what aspect of education is being debated, activists generally find the solution in more school spending.

This is the most widely held myth about education in America--and the one most directly at odds with the available evidence. Few people are aware that our education spending per pupil has been growing steadily for 50 years. At the end of World War II, public schools in the United States spent a total of $1,214 per student in inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars. By the middle of the 1950s that figure had roughly doubled to $2,345. By 1972 it had almost doubled again, reaching $4,479. And since then, it has doubled a third time, climbing to $8,745 in 2002.

Since the early 1970s, when the federal government launched a standardized exam called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), it has been possible to measure student outcomes in a reliable, objective way. Over that period, inflation-adjusted spending per pupil doubled. So if more money produces better results in schools, we would expect to see significant improvements in test scores during this period. That didn't happen. For twelfth-grade students, who represent the end product of the education system, NAEP scores in math, science, and reading have all remained flat over the past 30 years. And the high school graduation rate hasn't budged. Increased spending did not yield more learning.

This big-picture evidence is strongly confirmed by academic research. Though you'd never know it from the tenor of most education debates, the vast majority of studies have found no sustained positive relationship between spending and classroom results. Economist Eric Hanushek of Stanford University examined every solid study on spending and outcomes--a total of 163 research papers--and concluded that extra resources are more likely to be squandered than to have a productive effect.

Still, countless people assume that our schools are underfunded. One explanation is that people don't want to believe that large amounts of public money have been used without producing significant results. There's plenty of room for debate on how best to reform our school system, but the sooner Americans realize that lack of resources is not the real problem in our schools the sooner we can have a meaningful debate on how to make education more productive.

The teacher pay myth

The common assertion that teachers are severely underpaid when compared to workers in similar professions is so omnipresent that many Americans simply accept it as gospel. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has declared that teachers ought to be excused from paying any income taxes. Teachers unions are not shy about claiming, like one spokesman for the National Education Association, that "it's easier to earn more money with less stress in other fields." Even First Lady Laura Bush, herself a former public school teacher, has said that for teachers, "salaries are too low. We all know that. We need to figure out a way to pay teachers more."

But the facts tell a different story. The average teacher's salary does seem modest at first glance: about $44,600 in 2002 for all teachers. But when we take an accurate account of what teachers are paid for their labor and compare it to what workers of similar skill levels in similar professions are paid, we find that teachers are not shortchanged at all.

One reason for the prominence of the underpaid-teacher belief is that people often fail to account for the relatively low number of hours that teachers work. It seems obvious, but it is easily forgotten: teachers work only about nine months per year. During the summer they can either work at other jobs or use the time off however else they wish. Either way, it's as much a form of compensation as a paycheck--as anyone who has ever had to count vacation days knows. If a teacher makes $45,000 for nine months of work while a nurse makes $45,000 for 12 months of work, clearly the teacher is much better paid. Nurses would certainly consider it to be a generous raise if they were offered three months' vacation each year at the same annual salary.

The most recent data available indicate that teachers average 7.3 working hours per day, and that they work 180 days per year, adding up to 1,314 hours per year. Americans in normal 9-to-5 professions who take two weeks of vacation and another ten paid holidays per year put in 1,928 working hours. Doing the math, this means the average teacher gets paid a base salary equivalent to a fulltime salary of $65,440. That's the national average for all teachers--more experienced instructors, and those working in better-paying school districts, make tens of thousands of dollars more, sometimes approaching the equivalent of six-figure salaries.

Data from the U.S. Department of Labor show that in 2002, elementary school teachers averaged $30.75 per hour and high school teachers made $31.01. That is about the same as other professionals like architects, economists, biologists, civil engineers, chemists, physicists and astronomers, and computer systems analysts and scientists. Even demanding, education-intensive professions like electrical and electronic engineering, dentistry, and nuclear engineering didn't make much more than teachers per hour worked. And the earnings of teachers are much higher than those of registered nurses, police officers, editors and reporters, firefighters, and social workers.

Some argue that it's unfair to calculate teacher pay on an hourly basis because teachers perform a large amount of work at home--grading papers on the weekend, for instance. But people in other professions also do offsite work. The only important question is whether teachers do significantly more offsite work than others.

Many assume that teachers spend almost all of the school day teaching. But in reality, the average teacher in a departmentalized school (where students have different instructors for different subjects) taught fewer than 3.9 hours per day in 2000. This leaves plenty of time for grading and planning lessons during regular school hours.

What's more, unlike most other professionals, public school teachers cannot easily be fired. Teachers have unparalleled job security because of the strong tenure protections they (but almost no other profession) enjoy. They face essentially none of the performance tests, work quotas, or pressures to produce that people in most other professions requiring a college degree do. Further, unlike other professionals, teachers are not rewarded for exemplary performance with pay raises because their salaries are entirely driven by their years of experience and the number of academic credentials they have earned. This leaves them with little incentive to do great amounts of weekend or overtime work.

It has been well documented that the people drawn into teaching these days tend to be those who have performed least well in college. If teachers are paid about as well as employees in many other good professions, why aren't more high performers taking it up? One suspects that high-performing graduates tend to stay away from teaching because the field's rigid seniority-based structure doesn't allow them to rise faster and earn more money through better performance or by voluntarily putting in longer hours. In any case, it's clear that the primary obstacle to attracting better teachers isn't simply raising pay.

The myth of insurmountable problems

Schools frequently cite social problems like poverty, broken homes, and bad parenting as excuses for their own poor performance. They claim the existence of these challenges means education is doomed to fail. Some seem to think that the very idea of a "failing school" is misleading--that it is really society that has failed, not educators. "It's just plain folly to demand that a school, where a kid spends part of the day, be held accountable for what happens the rest of the day," argues Richard Cohen. Student failure is inherent in poverty itself, he says.

No one would deny that because of factors beyond a school's control, learning is more difficult for some students. If the advocates of this argument were merely cautioning us to be mindful of difficulties like poverty and broken homes, or exhorting us to try to alleviate social problems, no one could disagree with them. But instead, they use these problems as an excuse to oppose school reforms. If low-income minority students perform poorly, they argue, it's because of poverty. No school reform can ever make a difference. Kids who start out lagging must always lag. Social problems are forever more powerful than anything a school may do.

This argument that schools are helpless in the face of social problems is not supported by hard evidence. It is a myth. The truth is that certain schools do a strikingly better job than others at overcoming challenges in the culture.

To test the evidence on this question, I developed a systematic method for measuring levels of advantage and disadvantage in student populations across states. I combined measurements of 16 social factors that researchers agree affect student outcomes, such as poverty, family structure, and health. I named this measurement the Teachability Index, and tested its relationship with actual student outcomes. I found it to be a reliable predictor.

Armed with this tool, I calculated the level of achievement that each state's students should be expected to reach. Then I compared that to actual achievement in every state. I found a large degree of variation.

In Texas, for example, schools perform much better than their student demographics would predict: whereas its raw test scores place it 32nd among the states, Texas ranks fourth after its academic outcomes are adjusted for the Teachability Index. In Louisiana, on the other hand, schools performed less well than student backgrounds would predict.

Inherent in the claim that schools are helpless to educate disadvantaged students is the idea that any attempt to improve educational outcomes through reforms to the system would prove futile. However, the evidence suggests that reforms that focus on the incentives of public schools lead to educational gains.

One reform that has been shown to work is measuring each school's performance through standardized testing, and then providing rewards or sanctions based on a school's performance. This gives a school a direct incentive to educate its students well. States with this sort of accountability testing make statistically significant improvements, researchers have demonstrated. Stanford investigators have found that stronger accountability systems particularly help black and Hispanic students.

Another reform that can help overcome the educational challenges caused by social problems is school choice. Few question that vouchers help the students who use them to leave failing public schools for a private school. This positive impact for voucher participants has been found in five "random assignment" studies. Less understood, however, is the positive effect that school choice has on students who remain in the public schools as well. When school choice programs, such as vouchers and charter schools, are adopted, urban public schools that once had a captive clientele must improve the education they provide or else students, and the funding they represent, will go elsewhere.

In a study I performed of a voucher program in Florida, I found that when chronically failing public schools faced competition from vouchers, they made very impressive gains compared to the performance of all other schools. Similarly low-performing schools whose students were not eligible for the vouchers did not make similar gains. Many other researchers have found that school choice programs increase the performance of public schools. In fact, despite the frequent claims of teachers unions, I am not aware of a single study that has found that a school choice program harmed the academic performance of a public school system.

Both of these strategies--accountability and choice--have been shown to improve student performance, even in places where lots of kids come to school with lots of problems. Other strategies that focus on the incentives of public schools have also been demonstrated to have positive effects. So schools are hardly helpless in the face of social challenges--we only need to adopt the proper reforms.

The class size myth

Just about everybody agrees that smaller classes produce better results. This view was captured crisply in a Chicago Tribune feature story on schools: "The advantages of small classes seem intuitive; who wouldn't want children to learn in a small class? Parents crave them, teachers love them, and policymakers push for them."

As popular discontent with the state of education has grown, class sizes have emerged as a key political issue for both parties. The National Education Association has been particularly aggressive, supporting "a class size of fifteen students in regular programs and even smaller in programs for students with exceptional needs." Given that shrinking class sizes means hiring more teachers, and thus putting more money into the pockets of teachers unions, it is hardly surprising that unions are the loudest supporters.

Unlike other myths, this one isn't totally baseless. Research suggests there may be some advantages to smaller classes--though if so, the benefits are modest and come at a very high price tag. And whether this research is actually correct is a matter of debate. So the strong claims for class size reduction made by political activists are not at all justified.

The centerpiece of class-size research was the STAR project, a 1980s experiment conducted by the state of Tennessee. Students were randomly assigned to one of three types of classes as they progressed from kindergarten through third grade. The first type was a regular-sized class of around 24 students with one teacher. The second option was a regular-sized class with a teacher plus a teacher's aide. The third alternative was a small class of around 15 students with one teacher.

The study found that students in the small classes showed a one-time benefit in test scores as compared to students in regular-sized classes (the teacher's aide resulted in no significant difference). The increase, however, was not large--the equivalent of an eight-percentile-point improvement in performance for a student starting in the middle of the pack. But follow-up research found that 44 percent of students in STAR's small classes took college entrance exams, compared to 40 percent among regular-class students--not so trivial a difference. If we could be reasonably sure that this increase resulted from smaller classes, and could be replicated on a large scale without sacrificing other educational priorities, then class-size reduction would be solidly supported. Unfortunately, the evidence does not allow us to reach those conclusions.

There were a number of shortcomings in the STAR program's implementation that raise doubts about the accuracy of its findings. Most significantly, students weren't tested when they entered the program--so we can't confirm that the three groups started out at the same level as the experiment began. There is no way to know if the project's random assignment method was accurate, and thus no way to be certain that differences observed among the groups weren't there from the beginning.

There is reason to be suspicious because of an anomaly in the research findings: If smaller classes really do improve student performance, we would generally expect to see these benefits accrue over time. But instead, the improvement in STAR test scores was a one-time event. This is unusual and unexpected. Considering that the project's supposed benefits were moderate to begin with, this raises serious doubts about whether the STAR results should lead to policy prescriptions--particularly since evidence on large-scale class size reduction is much less encouraging.

In California, the state appropriated $1 billion in 1996 to reduce elementary school class sizes. When California's test scores rose, advocates of smaller classes held up their program as a model. The reality, however, wasn't so clear. A RAND Corporation study concluded that California students who attended larger elementary school classes improved at about the same rate as students in smaller classes. Though California's overall educational performance went up, it did not seem to be due to smaller classes. (The state had also undertaken a number of other major education reforms at the same time it was reducing class sizes.)

Even if class size reduction does improve performance under optimal conditions in a small, controlled experiment like the STAR project, labor pool problems may prevent this from being reproduced on a large scale. Replicating the benchmarks of the STAR project would entail hiring almost 40 percent more teachers nationwide. Digging that deeply into the teacher labor pool would require accepting a lower quality of hire, likely bringing disappointing results.

And the financial costs of reducing class sizes on that scale would be exceptionally high--$2,306 per pupil according to calculations by Caroline Hoxby of Harvard University. There is only a finite amount of money available, so every dollar spent on class size reduction is a dollar that will not be available for salary increases, books, equipment, or the implementation of other reform policies. This will be true no matter how much money a school system has. Given that other reform strategies are more promising and less costly, the modest benefits of class size reduction simply can't justify the very large sacrifices that would have to be made.

The certification myth

Receiving professional certification is generally regarded as a reliable sign of expertise, because in most occupations, credentials are given to those who have proven their worth. Few people would see a doctor who wasn't licensed, or a lawyer who hadn't passed the bar. Teacher quality is certainly a crucial factor in students' academic achievement, but having an extra education degree is not linked to success.

Many researchers, politicians, and most Americans assume that more credentialing means better teachers, but the evidence suggests that it doesn't. One of the strongest and most consistent findings in the entire body of research on teacher quality is that teaching certificates and master's degrees in education are irrelevant to classroom performance. Yet most school systems reward certification and experience, instead of rewarding more reliable direct indicators of good teaching.

In a review conducted for the Abell Foundation, researchers found that teachers holding a master's in education did not produce higher student performance, and among new teachers, traditional certification made no difference in student performance. After examining every available study on the impact of teaching credentials on job performance--171 in total--Eric Hanushek found that only nine uncovered any significant positive relationship between credentials and student performance, five found a significant negative relationship between the two, and 157 showed no connection. Looking at Teach For America--a program that lets recent college graduates become teachers without obtaining traditional education credentials--three scholars at Mathematica Policy Research found that students taught by these non-credentialed instructors made significant gains in math in one year, and kept pace in reading. Current policy--which generally centers on teachers having education certificates--therefore appears to be seriously misguided.

The current teacher pay system, which connects compensation to education degrees, also harms teacher quality by artificially redirecting time and money toward earning those pieces of paper instead of advanced knowledge in specific subject areas. One NAEP study pointedly concluded that education master's degrees have "little effect on improving teachers' abilities," and therefore the enormous amount of money spent pursuing these degrees "is arguably one of the least efficient expenditures in education."

Researchers have also investigated the relationship between years of teaching experience and students' academic achievement. Here, the story is inconclusive. If anything, the evidence indicates that teachers grow a little more effective during their first few years as they get up to speed in the classroom, but that after this initial period, their effectiveness plateaus. This evidence raises doubts about the practice of giving relatively small raises in a teacher's second and third years, while giving teachers in their 20th and 30th years large annual raises.

Members of the education establishment fiercely resist giving up the old linkage of pay to paper accomplishments. When Michigan adopted new standards emphasizing a teacher's proven academic ability (as measured in skills tests) rather than their credentials or years of experience, the Detroit News profiled angry teachers. "It's a slap in my face that I have to go back and take a test," said one teacher with a master's degree and 30 years of experience.

Until we stop hiring and financially rewarding teachers according to qualifications that are irrelevant to their performance, we can never expect improved quality in classroom instruction.

The rich-school myth

A popular myth says that private schools do better than public schools only because they have more money, recruit high-performing students, and expel low-performing students. The conventional wisdom is captured in one Michigan newspaper's warning that "a voucher system would force penniless public schools to shut down while channeling more and more money into wealthy private schools."

There is no question that, on average, students in private schools demonstrate significantly greater achievement. For example, on the eighth-grade reading portion of the NAEP test, 53 percent of private school students perform at or above the level defined as "proficient," compared to only 30 percent of public school students. In eighth-grade math, only 27 percent of public-school students perform at the "proficient" level, compared to 43 percent of private-school students. Interestingly, twice as many private-school eighth graders go on to earn a bachelor's degree as their public-school counterparts, in percentage terms.

However: it simply isn't true that public schools are penniless while private schools are wealthy. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the average private school charged $4,689 per student in tuition for the 1999Ð2000 school year. That same year, the average public school spent $8,032 per pupil. Among Catholic schools (which educate 49 percent of all private-school students), the average tuition was only $3,236. The vast majority of private-school students actually have less than half as much funding behind them as public-school students.

Some point out that private schools don't always provide all the services that public schools do: transportation, special ed classes, lunch, counseling. But in an analysis comparing public-school and Catholic-school costs in New York, D.C., Dayton, and San Antonio, researchers found that excluding all of these services plus administration costs from the public-school ledger still left public schools with significantly more resources than Catholic schools. Besides, if public schools provide additional services, then those services should contribute to their students' educational outcomes. All spending is ultimately relevant to the question of a school's cost-effectiveness.

Just as lack of money cannot be blamed for poor outcomes in public schools, neither can differences in selectivity be held responsible. Surprising as it may be, most private schools are not very selective. A study of the nation's Catholic schools concluded that the typical institution accepted 88 percent of the students who applied. Other research in D.C., Dayton, and New York private schools found that only 1 percent of parents reported their children were denied admission because of a failed admissions test. Moreover, the academic and demographic backgrounds of students who use vouchers to attend private school across the country are very similar to those who don't.

Private schools don't significantly alter their student populations by expelling low-achieving or troublesome students, either. One study found that "Catholic high schools dismiss fewer than two students per year" on average. While it is true that every student is officially entitled to a publicly funded education, students in public schools are regularly expelled. According to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly 1 percent of all public school students are expelled in a year, and an additional 0.6 percent are segregated into specialized academies. That's more than in Catholic and other private schools. Moreover, public schools actually contract out 1.3 percent of their disabled students to private schools.

In any case, numerous studies have compared what happens when students with identical backgrounds attend private versus public schools. And consistently, in study after study, the matched peers who remain in public schools do less well than children who shift to private schools. Higher student achievement is clearly attributable to some difference in the way private schools instruct--and not to more money, or simple exclusion of difficult students.

The myth of ineffective school vouchers

When reporting on school vouchers--programs that give parents money they can use to send their children to private schools--the media almost always describe research on vouchers' effects as inconclusive. The New York Times, for instance, responded to a Supreme Court decision approving vouchers by declaring: "All this is happening without a clear answer to the fundamental question of whether school choice has improved American education. The debate...remains heated, defined more by conflicting studies than by real conclusions."

In reality, though, the research on vouchers isn't mixed or inconclusive at all. High quality research shows consistently that vouchers have positive effects for students who receive them. The only place where results are mixed is in regard to the magnitude of vouchers' benefits.

There have been eight random-assignment studies of school voucher programs, and in seven of them, the benefits for voucher recipients were statistically significant. In Milwaukee, for example, a study I conducted with two researchers from Harvard found that students awarded vouchers to attend private schools outperformed a matched control group of students in Milwaukee public schools. After four years, the voucher students had reading scores six percentile points above the control group, and standardized math results 11 percentile points higher. All of the students in this study (which is mirrored by other research) were low-income and Hispanic or African American.

In a study of a different program based in Charlotte, North Carolina, I found that recipients of privately funded vouchers outperformed peers who did not receive a voucher by six percentile points after one year. All of the students studied were from low-income households. In New York City, a privately funded school choice program has been the subject of many careful studies. One found that African-American voucher recipients outperformed the control group by 9 percentile points after three years in the program. Another analysis found a difference of 5 percentile points in math. A similar program in Washington, D.C. resulted in African-American students outperforming peers without vouchers by 9 percentile points after two years.

Every one of the voucher programs studied resulted in enthusiastic support from parents as well. And all this was achieved in private schools that expend a mere fraction of the amount spent per student in public schools. The most generously funded of the five voucher programs studied, the Milwaukee program, provides students with only 60 percent of the $10,112 spent per pupil in that city's public schools. The privately funded voucher programs spend less than half what public schools spend per pupil. Better performances, happier parents, for about half the cost: if similar results were produced for a method of fighting cancer, academics and reporters would be elated.

Spread the truth

Over the past 30 years, many of our education policies have been based on beliefs that clear-eyed research has recently shown to be false. Virtually every area of school functioning has been distorted by entrenched myths. Disentangling popular misconceptions from our education system--and establishing fresh policies based on facts that are supported by hard evidence--will be the work of at least a generation.

That work will be especially difficult because powerful interest groups with reasons to protect and extend the prevailing mythology will oppose any rethinking. But with time, and diligent effort by truth-tellers, reality and reason have triumphed over mythology in many other fields. There is no reason they can't prevail in schoolhouses as well.

Jay Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Education Myths, from which this essay is adapted.

Our View: Ohio flunking test on schools' costs

By The Dayton Daily News Sunday, September 10, 2006

J. Kenneth Blackwell and Ted Strickland can't duck forever Ohioans' frustrations with the cost of supporting their schools.

One man will be elected governor and, when the honeymoon is over, he'll have to answer to taxpayers buffeted by school levies. For now, though, neither is offering serious or specific proposals. Extras Latest headlines

Why? Because everything about finding a sensible way to fund schools is hard.

Cash-strapped state coffers already are being tapped for $8 billion a year for K-12 education (not counting funds for new schools and renovations). That total represents just under 40 percent of the budget, and is the state's single-largest expense.

One major problem with Ohio's funding system is its heavy reliance on the local property tax, which still divides districts between have's and have-not's. Some school advocates and incensed property owners would, if they could, shift all funding for schools to Columbus. But that's a practical — and political — impossibility. Replacing all the money raised by property taxes would require doubling Ohio's personal income tax rates or raising the state sales tax to an astounding 12 percent (from 5.5).

Blackwell goes for show, Strickland's details are few

No wonder Mr. Strickland responds to questions about school funding with grave expressions and talk of blue ribbon commissions, bipartisan cooperation, and someday putting a reform package to a statewide vote.

Mr. Blackwell, meanwhile, has advanced some policy proposals, but none adds up to a credible plan.

He, for instance, hopes to force major cuts in Medicaid spending, and then put that savings into public schools. Strapped taxpayers shouldn't expect to see that happen anytime soon. Promising to cut Medicaid is easy; actually doing it is not.

Mr. Blackwell also is campaigning on the "65 percent solution," which would require districts to devote 65 percent of funding on "classroom instruction." A few states are experimenting with this mandate, but the idea is more slogan than strategy. Even empirical studies have shown that similar programs don't necessarily improve student achievement or administrative efficiency.

But this idea and every other school funding reform that's been floated so far ignores a big question that Ohio voters should be asking both candidates: More school funding — to pay for what, exactly?

School costs receive little attention in funding debate

For all the "reports cards" and online databases devised to measure and display student achievement, and for all the hand-wringing about the best and fairest ways to increase money for schools, little attention is paid to the other side of the Ohio school funding coin — cost.

Salaries and benefits are the biggest and fastest growing expense. Look, for example, at what's happened in Ohio's six largest school districts, comparing the 2000-01 school year to 2004-05.

Student enrollment is down, and so is the number of teachers — in every district, often significantly.

Dayton's public schools, for example, had 19 percent fewer students, and lost 22 percent of their teachers. Cleveland's enrollment was lower by 13.9 percent, and the teachers in the district dropped 26.9 percent. Columbus lost 6.5 percent of its student body, and a whopping 28.5 percent of the teacher population.

These districts, though, weren't less expensive to operate once they had fewer students and teachers. Total expenditures in Cleveland were essentially level (down just 1.8 percent), while Dayton's rose 7.9 percent, and Columbus' were up 14.9 percent.

Where did the money go? "Instructional" expenditures were up significantly on a per-student basis: Columbus' rising by 16.6 percent, Dayton's by 30.4 percent and Cleveland's by 22.3 percent.

But look what happens when instructional spending is divided not by student, but by teacher.

(The state defines these expenses as the funds a district spends on teachers and teacher aides, as well as books, computers and other classroom materials. The largest share, though, by far is for teacher salaries and, significantly, benefits.)

On a per-teacher basis, instructional spending was up 35.4 percent in Dayton, 44.1 percent in Cleveland, and 52.6 percent in Columbus from just five years before.

What does this suggest? That rising compensation costs are hidden by attrition. School districts are using personnel cuts to fund "instructional" budgets, applying the savings to pay higher salaries and more expensive benefits to fewer teachers and other employees.

Staff cuts help finance fast rise in salaries and benefits

The rise in per-student classroom spending, in other words, doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in class size. Indeed, even with significant declines in student enrollment, the major urban districts had significantly more students per teacher in 2004-05 than in 2000-01 — except for Dayton and Cincinnati, where the ratio changed very little.

The benefits side also spelled trouble, with Ohio school districts increasingly looking like automakers. General Motors lamented last year about how $1,500 of the cost of each automobile goes to pay health insurance — "more per car on health care than on steel," complained former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca.

In education, the trend is the same. On average, $1,690 of the cost of educating an Ohio public school student went for employee benefits in 2003, according to a report by Standard & Poors — representing 19.75 percent of all public school spending, and a 42.38 percent increase over benefits in 1999.

Cutting staff has been the only way to swing healthy salary increases, year after year, while also paying 14 percent into the pension system, and absorbing double-digit increases in health insurance costs.

State officials and local school districts don't make it easy to find the particulars of cost increases, so some numbers aren't precise. But what's clear is that the growth in spending can't be sustained under any funding scheme.

If Messrs. Blackwell and Strickland are committed to equitable, adequate, and predictable school funding, they must master the details and explain to voters what they would do to keep high quality public schools affordable.

Sontag: old school buses are unsafe, cost more to run

Thursday, September 21, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer By Jeff Mills/ThisWeek

Worthington City School District's fleet of buses at the bus depot.

This is the first in a series looking at the Worthington schools' bond issue, which will be on the Nov. 7 ballot. The funds generated from the bonds will be used to replace school buses, purchase computer equipment and repair school buildings.

------

What is long and yellow and has cracks in the floor, steps too steep for little legs and gets 5.5 miles per gallon of gasoline?

The oldest Worthington school buses, according to district transportation director George Sontag.

Sontag is counting on Worthington voters to approve the "no new taxes" bond issue in November so that the aging fleet of 81 buses can slowly be replaced.

Of the $37.5-million that would be raised, $3-million would be used to purchase 40 buses over the next five years.

Currently, money for buses comes from the general fund -- the same money that pays salaries and buys books.

No new buses have been purchased in the past three years, and 20 buses are more than 15 years old -- the suggested life cycle for a school bus, Sontag said.

The old ones not only cost more to run -- a new bus gets 10.5 miles to the gallon -- but have safety features that had not been invented 15 or 20 years ago.

Seats in the old buses are harder and lower than those in the new buses -- which could cause injuries if passengers are thrown forward.

Also, the steps are very steep in the old buses; floor cracks can be so big that children have been known to get caught in them; and safety features like anti-lock brakes and mirror systems for improved visibility are not in the older buses.

Also, new buses are sound retardant, not sounding like "hollow tubes" like school buses once did, and doors are air-operated, so that kids' arms no longer get caught.

"When you start looking at the details, the differences are huge," Sontag said.

Then there is the issue of the Carpenter buses. Twenty still go out on Worthington roads.

Four years ago, a student was killed in another state when a Carpenter bus rolled over. It was found the buses' roofs collapsed because they were not built strongly enough.

After the publicity, the company went out of business, leaving school districts to deal with the problem.

In Worthington, the school board agreed to purchase 20 buses to replace some of the Carpenters in 2003. The 20 remaining ones have had their roofs reinforced, and cannot be driven over 50 miles-per-hour or on roads with soft shoulders.

"We have to be careful what routes we put them on," Sontag said.

Until the emergency purchase in 2003, the district was replacing two to four buses a year.

With money from the bond issue, eight a year would be replaced for the next five years.

Ohio on right side

Need for students to pass high-school graduation test raises diplomas’ value

Monday, September 18, 2006

Ohio and the 21 other states that demand students pass specific exams to receive high-school diplomas took a stand against social promotion. Three other states are poised to join in this campaign, which aims to ensure that high-school diplomas reflect a minimum level of academic achievement.

But the rest of the states aren’t on board. And Utah backed away from its program in January, reluctant to deny cap-and-gown ceremonies to nearly 16 percent of senior class members. Students instead received diplomas labeled as to whether the graduation test was passed.

Even with half the states deciding not to adopt exit exams, however, the states that do so contain a large majority of America’s students. About two-thirds of this nation’s 15 million students in public high schools face such requirements, according to the Washington-based Center on Education Policy, which has been tracking and reporting on these tests annually for five years. Its most recent report came out last month.

Rather than complaining about so-called high-stakes tests, as some educators and parents are prone to do, Ohioans should be happy to be with the haves on the exit-exam rosters.

Some recent high-school grads from states without such tests probably wouldn’t be able to read the instructions, let alone answer the questions correctly. And you can bet that a number of these young people would be stumped by a standardized math test.

Ohio students, beginning with the Class of 1994 in public schools and the Class of 1999 in nonpublic schools, have had to pass an exam that demonstrates some proficiency with material taught through eighth grade. This school year’s senior class is the first to have to pass the Ohio Graduation Test, which includes material from 10 th-grade courses.

The new test is Ohio’s attempt to raise the standards to ensure high school grads have some grasp of high school-level lessons. Minnesota, Texas and New York are among other states that have increased the difficulty of such exams.

The tests help keep the pressure on schools to prepare students for the challenge of competing for jobs in an increasingly high-tech workplace.

Schools brought the tests, which evaluate not only students’ skills and learning but also the quality of their education, upon themselves. As growing numbers of students left high school unprepared for employment or college, the grave disservice of social promotion to America’s children became apparent.

Those states without uniform standards of education for high-school grads are putting their students at a disadvantage in the global economy.

And so far, no one has come up with a better or more impartial means to evaluate skills and knowledge than a test. In the job market, as well as the halls of education, passing a test can be the difference between success and failure.

Ohio insists that a high-school diploma from a school in any of its 88 counties reflects that its holder has some level of competence: the ability to pass a test.

This is not too much to ask.

Next governor must gain citizens’ clout to boost higher education

Sunday, September 17, 2006 JOE HALLETT

The next governor will need to take a road trip.

Whether the winner is Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell or Democrat Ted Strickland, he should appoint a cabinet, fill out his administration, deliver his first State of the State address and then hit the highway — or two years, if necessary — for an intensive conversation with Ohioans.

The state is in crisis. More than 200,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost; Wal-Mart is now Ohio’s largest private employer. Young citizens ages 25-39 have been fleeing Ohio faster than from all but one other state. Medicaid, food stamps and prisons are gobbling tax dollars. High school grads are being priced out of college.

The next governor won’t make a lick of progress without the people behind him, especially if Ohio continues to be held back by a General Assembly with too many ideologues interested more in legislating morality than economic solutions.

A Gov. Strickland or a Gov. Blackwell should go to every Rotary club, chamber of commerce, senior center and quilting bee that will give him a soap box to explain the real problems of Ohio.

Citizens must be made to understand the tensions in government, that there is a price to pay for educating children, helping the poor, incarcerating criminals and providing a college education. When funding priorities tilt in favor of one public service, as they have for elementary and secondary education, Medicaid and prisons, then another will suffer, as has higher education. And, with tax cuts come cuts in services.

Then the governor, freed from the demagoguery of the campaign, must explain explicitly how he plans to get Ohio back on track, how he will make Ohio attractive for the jobs of the future, and what changes in the tax code and elsewhere will be necessary to accomplish the task.

Only after citizens understand Ohio’s problems and sign on to the governor’s plan to solve them will he have leverage to persuade the legislature, even if it is dominated by the opposite party, to enact the solutions.

The governor must make the case for higher education by leading citizens to the realization that the new economy is being driven by knowledge and innovation that demand a well educated work force. But as that demand increases, the opportunity for a college education in Ohio is slipping away for families who cannot afford the skyrocketing price.

Relating the importance of higher education to jobs will be more difficult for the governor in a state where the mindset of generations was to find jobs for their children in the auto plants or steel mills. Moreover, unless they have children in college or plan to send them, Ohioans do not feel the same financial pressure that comes from paying increasing property taxes to fund primary and secondary schools.

As a result, more public pressure is on lawmakers to fund those schools than to fund colleges and universities. That explains, in part, why state aid to public schools increased 40 percent from 1996-2005, while per-student college aid declined by 14 percent, according to the Ohio Board of Regents.

Among the 50 states, Ohio is 45 th lowest in public support for higher education. An additional 330,000 Ohio residents with bachelor’s degrees would be needed to have a population with education levels comparable to the national average.

But before the next governor can advocate more support for higher education, he must hold accountable those who run the system. The Board of Regents is a paper tiger with a $5.7 million annual operating budget. The governor should either empower it with real authority over universities or disband it.

He also should not reward cronies or campaign supporters with coveted university board appointments. Boards need members with the knowledge and gumption to ask tough questions when a president wants money for another new building or expensive research project. Universities should compete for state funding, cutting unnecessary or redundant graduate programs. Does Ohio really need six medical schools and nine law schools?

Entrenched interests in Columbus tend to impede change. The next governor must get Ohioans behind him to do what’s necessary to revive the economy. He’ll need to take a road trip.

Legislature’s feeble support for colleges hurts the state

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Every Ohioan should be worried about what’s happening with the cost of college in the state. Many families who aren’t rich and yet get little financial aid are shelling out the equivalent of what it costs to buy a good used car every year their child attends a four-year college. And that’s not counting room and board, which average almost $7,000.

Students who are paying their own way are coming out of school with debt in five figures. Even people who haven’t paid attention to college costs need to know that future workers and taxpayers are being priced out of getting a degree. That affects their employers and new businesses’ interest to invest here. College costs are not just an Ohio problem. The Education Trust, a respected research organization, says that, as a country, we have less social mobility than we did 20 years ago, and even less than most other developed countries. The ability to move up economically is, for most people, tied to how much education they have. But the cost of college nationally has been relentlessly outpacing inflation and growth in family incomes. The implications of this fact for Ohio, which has the sixth-most expensive tuition rates in the country, could hardly be more ominous. If Ohio were doing better than other states on important measures — say, growth, personal income and new jobs — maybe we could worry about the problem tomorrow. But if any place should be petrified that hard work and a strong back are not going to compensate for the lack of a degree, it’s Ohio.

Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell and Democrat Ted Strickland, the major party candidates for governor, aren’t really saying how they’d shore-up colleges, though they sometimes talk a good game. Both oppose the pitifully deceptive Learn and Earn proposed constitutional amendment that would allow casinos and would earmark a pittance of gambling proceeds for scholarships. Blackwell also wants to encourage competition and efficiency by giving more state money directly to students, rather than to public universities. Strickland favors "tuition guarantees" so that students can know when they start college what they’ll have to spend. And under his "Knowledge Banks," the state would kick in small change to personal savings accounts that parents could create to save for college.

These ideas aren’t big enough. Many families can’t possibly save enough. The next governor has to find a way to lower tuition. To do that, he also has a sales job on his hands. Some legislators have been passive about supporting colleges, but others are unapologetically hostile. They are short-sighted in the extreme, believing that higher education is a private benefit, not a public good that can lift families and the state as a whole. These attitudes are the only way to explain the declining support for colleges, which has nose-dived since 2000 and was falling or flat through the 1990s.

The politicians can’t harangue colleges for raising tuition, while at the same time cutting in real dollars the state’s share of support. When the state fails to provide money for colleges, tuition is going to go up. It’s true that lawmakers have been forced to spend more on Medicaid and K-12 school funding, with spending on colleges being one of the few areas where they have discretion. But other states have not chosen to let their tuition go up so much. Ohio ranks 40 th for the amount it spends per student.

Over the years, higher-education officials have irritated legislators on issues ranging from university presidents’ salaries to light teaching loads for professors, and some of their criticisms are fair. But the complaints aren’t an excuse to tear down a system that the state needs to attract employers and to keep young people here.

Last year, Penn State University planned a conference on the link between universities and economic development. Fifty people were expected to attend, but 500 came. The point: Some leaders understand that, in the knowledge economy, businesses trade on the synergy created by being near cutting edge research institutions, and they are drawn toward places where workers have college degrees.

Meanwhile, universities increasingly are becoming major employers. Ohio State is Franklin County’s second-largest employer, behind state government. In an age of corporate consolidations, mergers and shutdowns, it’s worth remembering that universities are one of the few businesses that don’t move away. Of course, colleges aren’t above scrutiny, and they’re not doing everything right. Recently, a federal commission made waves by calling for more transparency in colleges’ finances and for better accounting of the return on investment they deliver to students.

To that end, some people want a No Child Left Behind law for colleges that would test students on how much they’ve learned. As important as these demands for accountability are, Ohio also desperately needs exceptional colleges that can compete nationally and globally.

Ohio’s next governor, more than any one person, has to understand that’s his job.

This Dayton Daily News editorial appeared in today’s editions of the newspaper.

Statistics show how badly the state lags

Sunday, September 17, 2006 BRENT LARKIN

If you care about Ohio and if you accept the fact that higher education has never been more important to a state’s economic well-being, then please take this little test. Be forewarned: The answers might make you sick to your stomach.

Q. Among the 50 states, where does Ohio rank in per-capita state support for higher education?

A. Ohio ranks 40 th behind states including Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. And it’s way behind rust-belt counterparts such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois.

Q. Because Ohio ranks below the national average (35 th) in per-capita income — and has since Jimmy Carter was president — affordability of higher education takes on added importance. Where does Ohio stand on that one?

A. It’s way behind other rust-belt states and ranks lower than every state south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Q. A lot of Ohio’s so-called leaders finally seem to have figured out the importance of investing in research as a way to remain competitive in the 21 st-century economy. Surely, Ohio must be doing well in that category. Right?

A. Wrong. We’re 35 th. Again, we’re behind every state in the rust belt, as well as Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Q. Let’s take a look at educational attainment. We have this huge network of community colleges that train students for 21 st-century jobs and retrain workers who have lost manufacturing jobs. Because Ohio’s economy is in transition, doesn’t it stand to reason that our community colleges are leaders in this area?

A. Sorry, we’re not doing well there, either. We’re 39 th in the percentage of residents with an associate degree. But at least we edge out Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana on that one.

Q. Given that bad news, would it be right to assume that things aren’t much better in terms of the percentage of Ohioans with a bachelor’s degree or higher?

A. Yes, it would. We’re 38 th, at 23.3 percent (some sources put it even lower). Of all the big cities in Ohio, Cleveland is by far the worst. Only 11 percent of its residents have four-year degrees. In Columbus and Cincinnati, that percentage is nearly three times higher.

Q. There are lots more numbers — almost all of them bad. But let’s end with perhaps the most important question. What is the percentage of family income needed to pay for a child at a four-year, public university in Ohio?

A. In this absolutely crucial area, Ohio ranks second-last in the nation at 35.6 percent (some sources put it last). In only one state, Vermont, do families have to shell out more to send a child to college.

If elected governor, neither Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell nor Democrat Ted Strickland could be expected to fix this mess overnight. After all, arriving at the bottom in all these important categories took the better part of two governors and two decades. George V. Voinovich never seemed to appreciate or understand the vital role higher education plays in a state’s economy. Gov. Bob Taft does, but utterly lacks the leadership skills to do anything about it.

And merely increasing funding for higher education won’t fix the problem. In addition to making college more affordable, we desperately need a governor willing to think big on higher education, not someone willing merely to tinker on the margins of change.

If Ohio has to wait another four — or eight — years for a governor truly committed to higher education, it will probably be too late.

Brent Larkin is director of the editorial pages of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland.

Regional system would cut duplicated efforts and save money

Sunday, September 17, 2006 THOMAS SUDDES

Subject to St. Peter’s final call, anything good I might accomplish is due to family, church — and Ohio State and Ohio universities. And my hometown benefits enormously from Youngstown State Univeresity.

But sentiment can’t mask what Allen O. Myers, a Statehouse populist of Ohio’s Gilded Age, called "plain truths for honest people."

As universities are first to remind everyone, Ohio, as a state, underfinances public higher education. Whether that’s anything new is an open question.

But whether it’s worrying, isn’t. So, instead of more woe-is-us drool, here are some darts that may hit the board — or the hammocks — of gubernatorial nominees U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, and Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican:

• Ohio must stop what a wit has called peanut-butter investment: spreading state money around so everybody gets something, but nobody gets enough.

Ohio has two public research universities — Ohio State University and the University of Cincinnati — and one private research university, Case Western Reserve. Those three campuses are where the big bucks should go.

• Ohio should federate the other state universities and colleges into four systems, led in the northwest by the University of Toledo or Bowling State Green University; in the northeast by Cleveland State University or Kent State University; in the southeast by Ohio University; and by Miami University in the southwest. OSU and Cincinnati would stand alone.

If J.Crew U (what some Ohio U. undergrads call sports rival Miami) wants to keep a preppy cachet, it should be a premium, undergrad-only school — a public Oberlin College. In that case, Cincinnati, remaining a research school, would be the hub of the southwest system. The aim is to cut administrative flab. Ohio has already has done a magnificent job of sharing library books and top-shelf databases (the peerless Ohio-LINK).

With regional systems, there would still be, to use northeast Ohio as an example, an identifiable and athletically separate Akron, Cleveland State, Kent State and Youngstown State. But there wouldn’t be four dead weight, nonteaching bureaucracies.

• Forbid any state school to create nonteaching jobs, unless researchfunded, and stop filling vacancies until each campus’s total declines 15 percent.

• Ohio has six public medical schools, and the General Assembly gives some state aid to Case’s school. No state, except maybe Texas, appears to have more public medical schools than Ohio. And training doctors is hugely expensive. Ohio should have three public medical schools: Ohio State and Cincinnati, as research schools, and, because the Toledo Blade’s shrieks might be more than legislators could bear, position Toledo’s medical school to train primary-care doctors only.

• Require one statewide health-care plan for all employees of state universities and community and technical colleges, and one statewide plan for all students not covered by parents’ plans. Campus-by-campus plans benefit only insurers, who own enough of Ohio.

• Combine Wilberforce University, which is private, and Central State University, and give the result enough public money to become the nation’s No. 1 traditionally black college, or at least a rival to Howard or the Atlanta University Center. Central and Wilberforce could be administratively yoked, as Rio Grande Community College is with the private University of Rio Grande.

• Stop insulating administrators and faculties from the real world of tuition costs. It is easy to raise tuition when you don’t have to pay it. No more free tuition for university employees or their families, except to keep key faculty members from leaving.

In his 1947 best-seller, Inside U.S.A., John Gunther, that era’s famed reporter, passed through Columbus. "Tuition at Ohio State, as in most state universities in the nation," he wrote, "is of course (nominal charges excepted) absolutely free to residents of the state. Americans take this for granted, but it is another point of unceasing wonder to almost all Europeans."

That, today, would also be a marvel to Ohio students and parents. But while there’s no re-creating the past, there should be no forgetting its ideals: For each Ohioan, schooling according to ability — not according to means.

Thomas Suddes, a former legislative reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, writes from Ohio University.

Task for new governor Candidates have duty to show how they would improve education in Ohio

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The challenges facing Ohio’s schools are as tough as they come. That probably is why Ohioans don’t hear the major-party candidates for governor, Ted Strickland and J. Kenneth Blackwell, talking about substantive and detailed solutions.

But whoever wins at least will have the help of some proven programs on which to rely: the system of testing and data reporting that for the past six years has held Ohio schools accountable, generated improvement and created a wealth of data with which to plan for a better future.

Gov. Bob Taft’s low popularity notwithstanding, he has left his successor with a solid idea in the Ohio Core, a rigorous core curriculum that would prepare Ohio students who complete it to succeed in college, at work and as citizens.

As proposed by Taft, the Ohio Core includes four years of math, including Algebra II; three years of science, including biology, chemistry and physics; and two years of a foreign language.

Despite the research showing that students who take similarly challenging courses score higher on the ACT college-entrance exam and eventually do better in college, fewer students nationwide who took the 2006 ACT had taken such courses, compared with last year.

Ohio could lead the nation by making the Ohio Core standard for all college-bound students.

Doing so, of course, would require money — for better-trained teachers, updated equipment and the like — and so will many needed reforms.

That means the next governor will be expected to find ways to direct more money toward education. Doing that is going to require Ohioans to face some unhappy facts.

People want excellent schools, but they want lower property taxes. As figures in the Dayton Daily News editorial published today on the adjacent Forum page show, replacing the school funding that comes from property taxes could mean doubling the personal income tax or raising the state sales tax to 12 percent.

Greater statewide school funding also would tend to reduce the local control that Ohioans exercise by voting for or against tax levies to benefit schools. How many Ohioans want to relinquish such control?

The next governor will have to take this mush of contradictory impulses and build a consensus on a solution. That will mean alienating some people. That will mean refusing to accept the status quo and demanding change. It will mean leading.

So far, Republican Secretary of State Blackwell’s primary answer to improving school funding is the so-called 65-percent solution, a mandate that school districts spend 65 cents of every dollar on "in-classroom" expenses, however that might be defined. Critics, including President Bush’s former Education Secretary Rod Paige, have called the idea simplistic.

U.S. Rep. Strickland, D-Lisbon, acknowledges a "crisis" in school funding but promises nothing more concrete than to find a solution by bringing all parties to the table.

Both candidates suggest that they could find money for education by cutting Medicaid, an idea that seems unlikely, given the voracious demands of that ever-growing entitlement program.

What Blackwell and Strickland have offered so far does not rise to the level of seriousness the issue requires. Leading on education means confronting Ohioans with their own contradictory demands. It means calling on them to bite the bullet and choose which comes first: great schools or low taxes.

It means giving them concrete plans about actual revenues to be derived from specific taxes to fuel actual spending based on specific priorities. It means laying out exactly how inequities between poor and affluent districts should be smoothed out.

So far, neither candidate has come close to this kind of detail and specificity. Neither wants to, because whatever plan is put forth will offend one constituency or another and cost some votes. But how can any candidate too timid to take this chance credibly claim to be a suitable leader for Ohio?

School-funding dance avoids the T word

Sunday, September 10, 2006 JOE HALLETT

The truth about fixing school funding in Ohio is that we can’t handle the truth.

It involves tax increases, and any politician who even hints at that prospect seals his or her fate as a former politician.

The late Anthony J. Celebrezze Jr. learned that lesson in 1990 when, as the Democratic nominee for governor, he mentioned during a debate that to help ailing schools, the legislature ought to "revisit" House Bill 920, a 1976 law that prohibited inflationary increases in real-estate taxes.

Before Celebrezze could blink, his Republican opponent, George V. Voinovich, was on statewide television with a 30-second ad warning Ohioans that Celebrezze "publicly admitted he wants to raise property taxes without your vote."

Race over. Say hello to Gov. Voinovich.

Until we stop rewarding politicians who demagogue on taxes, we can never have a rational debate about how much is needed to properly educate our children.

The hard reality is that complying with the Ohio Supreme Court’s mandate — hollow as it is — to shift schoolfunding from a heavy reliance on local property taxes will require the governor and legislature to enact hefty increases in the state income and/or sales taxes.

Neither of the candidates for governor, Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell or Democrat Ted Strickland, was suicidal enough to acknowledge that in their first debate Tuesday in Youngstown.

Can you blame them?

Until we can handle the truth, what we will get from the candidates on school-funding is what we got in the debate: nothing plausible.

With Blackwell incessantly pegging Strickland as a gubernatorial tax-raiserin-waiting, Strickland was not about to fall into a trap by uttering a word of substance. Instead, he continued to address the school-funding mess with shameless imprecision, essentially saying: Education is my No. 1 priority and, by golly, I’m going to do something about it.

Blackwell, to his credit and his bane, was more precise. Find his education plan under cockamamie in the dictionary. His one-size-fits-all-schools proposal to require that 65 cents of every dollar in education funding be spent directly in classrooms has been panned by anyone with knowledge about operating schools, including conservative Rod Paige, former education secretary in the Bush administration.

And Blackwell’s plan to magically find $2.1 billion more for schools in the state general fund without raising taxes amounts to nothing more than robbing Medicaid money for the health and welfare of poor children to pay for the education of schoolchildren, many of whom also happen to be poor.

Because neither candidate can dare utter the T word, unless it is in the context of cutting, neither can engage in a substantive debate about funding education.

Nobody understands that better than Republican Andy Douglas, a wily politician and former Ohio Supreme Court justice. He led the court four times between 1997 and 2003 to declare Ohio’s property-tax-based system of funding schools unconstitutional because of its inherent inequity.

"In the political atmosphere today, the practical problem is that nobody can talk about properly funding government and then expect to get elected," said Douglas, now executive director of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association.

Despite expressing disappointment that state lawmakers have failed to enact a more equitable tax system for funding schools, Douglas said there is hope that the next governor will do the right thing.

"It is significant that Blackwell and Strickland both have said we have to somehow not rely on local property taxes. That’s a major step. At some point, they’re going to have to figure out how to do that."

Don’t expect any answers before the Nov. 7 election. Meanwhile, the current governor, Republican Bob Taft, doesn’t get enough credit for attempting to define and fund the state constitution’s requirement for a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools.

Under Taft since 1999, state aid to public schools has increased by $2.2 billion, or 56 percent, with the lion’s share going to poor districts, conversely putting an extra burden on property owners in better-off districts.

With tobacco lawsuit settlement funds, Taft has funneled $4.2 billion — $2 million a day — into the construction or renovation of school buildings, about 420 so far.

Left undone by Taft is a sweeping overhaul of Ohio’s school-funding system. That job will be the next governor’s, and one that is accomplishable only if he moves beyond our fear of the truth.

Clearly, the school-funding system must change

Sunday, September 10, 2006 THOMAS SUDDES

The Ohio Constitution requires the General Assembly to provide a system of public schools that, everywhere in the state, is "thorough and efficient." But ever since those words were written in 1851, politicians have parsed them.

This gubernatorial year, however, Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell and Democrat Ted Strickland, with the help of an Ohio Supreme Court edict, have passed the school-funding vocabulary test.

Strickland and Blackwell agree with the court’s majority that Ohio’s school system isn’t thorough or efficient. But the remedies the candidates propose are vague at best.

Strickland, of Appalachia, aims to "find a proper balance between state and local responsibility . . . and modify the property tax to make it a fairer and more reliable source" of school funding. (In Ohio, fair generally means, "I pay less; you pay more.")

Cincinnati’s Blackwell says Ohio must "stop depending on skyrocketing property taxes to fund schools and rely more on the general-revenue fund," composed mainly of state income and sales taxes.

Blackwell claims he can find extra school money by squeezing the costs of Medicaid, the federal-state health-care plan for the poor. If anyone could wring that much from Medicaid, she or he would have become a Statehouse star long ago. That said, conservative Republicans in the General Assembly pioneered school choice and school accountability in Ohio.

In rulings from 1997 through 2001, a divided state Supreme Court ruled that Ohio’s state-local blend of school funding — state tax money from Columbus, plus money raised locally, through voter-approved property taxes — relied too much on the property tax.

A 1-mill tax on a $75,000 house produces less for schools than a 1-mill tax on a $250,000 house. Yet there are a lot more $250,000 houses (and office parks and malls) in suburban Ohio than in Appalachia or in the state’s aging cities. The court decided that means schooling isn’t uniformly "thorough and efficient" in Ohio, but didn’t prescribe a specific cure or set any deadline for the General Assembly to act.

As the Supreme Court itself has acknowledged, state legislators have improved Ohio’s school-funding setup and given many districts new school buildings. But outside of revolution — or, Democratic Justice Alice Robie Resnick has suggested, a voter-initiated constitutional amendment — there’s just so much that politics, the art of the possible, can accomplish.

Suburban Ohio is where more and more voters live (and not all of them are Republicans). Suburban homeowners already pay the freight for schools. This example is not apples to apples, but a kind of schematic:

According to state data for 2005, the Huntington Local Schools, near Chillicothe, ranked last among Ohio’s 600-plus districts in average total taxable property value per pupil. That’s one reason the state’s checkbook last year covered 84 percent of Huntington’s "base cost" per pupil.

Then consider the booming Olentangy Local School District, which includes the Polaris megadevelopment. In 2005, the Olentangy schools ranked 21 st in Ohio in average total taxable property per pupil. So the state treasury paid only about 5 percent of Olentangy’s "base cost" per pupil last year .

But for 2004, the latest data available, residents of the Olentangy district paid the state about $120 million in income taxes; for that same year, residents of the Huntington district paid about $2.1 million.

So Ohio’s suburban residents pay not only to operate their own schools but often help to operate other people’s schools. Sure, that’s how broad-based taxation works — supplying Peter’s needs with Paul’s money. But whoever becomes governor, he’ll have to reposition the chutes and ladders that fund education before suburban voters figure out where today’s lead.

Thomas Suddes, a former legislative reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, writes from Ohio University.

District takes aim at state's 'moving target'

By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington City Schools have a lot to celebrate since earning an "excellent" on the state report card six years in a row.

But not meeting the state's Adequate Yearly Progress requirement could cause a drop in that rating.

Assessment Coordinator Jennifer Wene reported on the state rankings and the impact of Adequate Yearly Progress at Monday's school board meeting, held at the Worthington Education Center.

"The good news is the fact we met 25 of 25 state indicators, and we are still the largest district to meet all the standards for six years in a row," Wene said.

Wene said performance levels also went up, and all the school buildings were rated either excellent or "effective" on the state report card.

The state requires a graduation rate of 90 percent to meet its standards. Worthington's graduation rate was 97.9 percent last school year, and the student attendance rate was 95.7 percent, Wene said. The state requires a 93 percent attendance rate.

But the AYP goals can be elusive, Wene said.

"The goal of AYP under the No Child Left Behind act is that all subgroups progress to 100 percent student success by 2013," Wene said. "This year, we did not meet AYP in three areas: in IEP (students with disabilities on Individual Education Plans) reading and math, and LEP (Limited English Proficient) reading."

Wene said the Hilliard City School District would have rated excellent this year because it met all the state indicators -- but it did not meet AYP for the third year, so the district was given a "continuous improvement" rating.

"Yes, our state rating could be impacted if we don't meet AYP for three years in a row in more than one subgroup," Wene said. "If we do not meet that requirement next year, we could be in danger of that, but I predict our AYP levels will rise."

Wene said AYP is "a moving target," because the achievement goals are raised each year.

"We have added achievement in some groups and dropped in other groups each year, because different grade levels and different groups of students are taking the tests," Wene said. "Beginning this year, though, we will test AYP in all grade levels, which will make it easier to track our progress."

The AYP subgroups are African-American, American Indian/native Alaskan, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, multiracial, white, economically disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient and Students with Disabilities (IEP).

Wene said some schools meet AYP standards because they don't have enough students in each subgroup.

"All our elementary buildings passed AYP because they don't have large-enough subgroups to measure," Wene said. "Kilbourne Middle School and Worthingway Middle School did not meet AYP because they are feeder schools into Thomas Worthington, which did not meet AYP this year in IEP reading."

Wene said it was Worthington Kilbourne High School that did not meet AYP last year.

"There are strategies buildings can use to try to raise AYP," Wene said. "It's not about working harder, but working smarter. Vicky Hartley at Worthington Kilbourne worked with teachers to build more inclusive classrooms and they all did an outstanding job bringing up proficiency in all their subgroups."

Wene said the district will work to increase achievement "one learner at a time.

"We've met with each principal to go over their continuous-improvement plans and we are looking closely at best practices," Wene said. "We will work closely with buildings on their school portfolios and on professional development in Understanding by Design and leadership training.

"In Worthington, we really believe that even one child falling behind is not acceptable," Wene said.

Wene said the SOAR program, provided by a partnership with Battelle and many area districts, will help supply "value-added" data.

"Value-added data is exciting because you can see that a student is growing academically, even if they are not achieving yet to proficient standards," Wene said. "Our subgroups that are not achieving are so small that it will be an investigative process between principals, teachers, parents and students to find out how much better we can teach each student to improve their achievement."

Schools again get perfect grade from state

Thursday, September 14, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

For the sixth consecutive year, Worthington City Schools has received a perfect state report card.

The district met all 25 standards set by the state. It is the largest district in the state to attain that distinction.

"There's an awful lot of good news," Jennifer Wene, director of teaching and learning, told the Worthington Board of Education on Monday.

Besides meeting all standards on tests given to third- through tenth-graders, and those for attendance and graduation rates, this year's performance index also increased to 104.

That means that Worthington students are not only passing the state tests, but are passing at increasingly high levels.

Only 10 percent of students passed at basic or below basic levels. The rest were proficient, accelerated or advanced.

All Worthington elementary schools were rated effective or excellent.

Colonial Hills Elementary, which struggled with test scores for years, and in 2003 met state standards on only two of ten tests, was rated excellent for the first time this year.

That news was received with applause by board and audience members on Monday.

"That was not easy coming and they should be very proud," Wene said.

The only bad news was that the district did not meet a federal requirement that measures achievement -- and expects continued improvement in -- subgroups of students.

Worthington met the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standard for reading in 8 of 10 subgroups and in mathematics in 9 of 10.

Students with disabilities did not meet goals in either, and limited English proficient students did not meet the goal in math.

In Franklin County, Grandview Heights was the only district that met its AYP goals this year.

In other matters, the board agreed to spend $47,500 in stipends for high school department chairpersons.

Board members questioned the expense, since some staff members reportedly told them that they are "not doing anything," said board member David Bressman.

"We should make sure these are not ceremonial positions," he said.

Until this year, department heads had a choice of a stipend or an extra period off from teaching duties. That option was removed, which saved the district from employing nearly three teachers, said Superintendent Melissa Conrath.

"I thank you for doing that," said board member Jennifer Best.

Department chairs are paid $2,500 a year. Duties include assisting in curriculum development and budgeting, mentoring new staff members and working on issues with principals and parents.

The board also voted 3-2 to not reimburse Swiminc $13,154 -- half of the cost of installing an ultra-violet light water purification system to mitigate excess chlorine at the natatorium.

The system was installed nearly a year ago after swimmers complained of eye irritation.

Swiminc and the schools traditionally share the cost of the natatorium, located on the grounds of Thomas Worthington High School.

Board member Marc Schare pointed out that there are other emergency facility needs in the district that are not funded. Such repairs could be funded if the bond issue on the November ballot is approved, he said.

"I'm a little concerned with them coming in after the fact," Best added. "How did this jump up to the front of the list?"

Schare, Best, and Bressman voted no, with board members Gary Tyack and Robert Horton voting yes.

The board also voted to not renew its membership in the National School Boards Association, which charges annual membership dues of $4,400. Only Bressman, who said he values some of the informative articles he receives via e-mail, voted to continue the membership.

No longer the new superintendent, Conrath outlines agenda for schools

Thursday, August 31, 2006

By KEVIN PARKS

Worthington City Schools superintendent Melissa Conrath spoke during the convocation held Aug. 23 at Thomas Worthington High School.

In her remarks at last week's Convocation ceremony officially kicking off the 2006-2007 academic year, Worthington City Schools Superintendent Melissa Conrath paraphrased 17th century English leader Oliver Cromwell:

"Those who stop getting better, stop being good soon."

Conrath chose that quote to help explain the decision more than a year ago to leave what she admitted was a pretty comfortable post with Big Walnut Schools to accept the challenges facing the district she now heads.

"I'm not your new superintendent anymore (but) your experienced and ready superintendent," Conrath told the filled auditorium at Thomas Worthington High School.

The Aug. 23 ceremony, held just prior to the official start of classes, included honoring accomplished past alumni, recognizing outstanding teachers and looking to what the future might bring. Conrath said she hoped this blend of past, present and future would "inspire you to embrace the challenges of the future with the tenacity and passion of the past."

The world is a rapidly changing place, the superintendent pointed out. An increasingly global economy is forcing changes on schools as the teachers and administrators and others look for ways to prepare young people for the 21st century, to enable them to compete for jobs not just with others in the United States but other young people from many parts of the globe.

Communities are demanding that their school officials do more with less, Conrath said.

The taxpayers are requiring greater responsibility than ever before and are threatening to withhold their financial support until it is demonstrated to them that all that can be done with existing resources is being done.

Superintendent Conrath pointed out that the Chinese symbol the stands for "crisis" is made up of two other symbols, one representing "danger" and the other "opportunity." In order to find opportunity where obstacles appear to exist, and get better as a school district, will require a vision for the future, Conrath said.

She outlined hers for those assembled last week:

# Celebrate and maintain the success the district has experienced, but adjust and refine academic programs to find the best systems and models for using technology and better meet the needs of students. This includes adapting to the changing landscape of the community as Worthington's attendance area grows increasingly diverse.

# Improve the relationship between the district and the community it serves, increasing the trust and confidence of not only parents of students but taxpayers in general so that all will be proud of the school system. Conrath joked that it is her dream to one day open a local newspaper and see only words of praise in the letters to the editor.

# Be financially responsible, while at the same time fairly compensating employees. Residents feel the tax pinch to fund schools, Conrath admitted, and she hears complaints that some people are being forced to give up their homes. It is incumbent upon district administrators to seek efficiencies in all aspects of the operation.

# Gain community support for the $37.4-million bond issue that will on November's ballot. It is the responsibility of the district's current leaders, Conrath said, to protect the investments of the past by making certain existing infrastructure does not fall into disrepair. She indicated that "open and honest dialogue will be necessary" to convince the voters of this.

Conrath concluded by saying she feels the personnel the district currently has are capable of meeting these goals.

"I have an inherent trust in the quality of the staff here," she said. "It has exceeded the high expectations I had before I came here."

 Worthington School district ends 11-year decline in enrollment

Thursday, August 31, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

It looks like the downward spiral of school district enrollment numbers has come to an end.

The Worthington schools has lost approximately 10 percent of its students since enrollment peaked at 10,818 in 1995.

But on Monday, for the first time in 11 years, it appeared that district enrollment had actually increased -- albeit by one student -- over the enrollment from the past school year.

On Tuesday, 15 more students were removed from the books when it became clear they did not intend to attend school in the district. Still, even if a few more students do not show up by the official enrollment count day in October, it appears that enrollment decline has bottomed out.

That is good news for parents who feared that continued declining enrollment might force the closing of an elementary school, but may be too little to allow all four middle schools to continuing operating in their present form.

Monday's unofficial enrollment was 9,563 -- up one from the official enrollment in October 2005.

Those numbers are up by 88 in the elementary schools, and down 89 in middle schools. High school enrollment was down four.

Assistant superintendent of schools Paul Cynkar said there is no simple explanation as to why elementary enrollment has increased.

It does not appear that the new housing developments on Hard Road have made a big difference. In fact, enrollment is down at Bluffsview Elementary and Perry Middle School, where many of the new students are assigned.

One explanation could be changing housing patterns, with more turnover of starter houses, he said.

The district's popular full-day kindergarten program may have also drawn families to the district, he said.

This year's kindergarten class of 677 is the largest since 1998.

With the smallest class in the district this year's fourth grade, it appears the middle school enrollment will continue to decrease, bottoming out at a projected 1,300.

A committee that studied enrollment decline called for the closing of a middle school when enrollment hit 1,400. This year's enrollment is 1,433.

What will actually be needed is three and one-half middle schools, said Cynkar.

He said several options are being considered, including assigning all middle school students to three middle schools; using vacant space at the high schools; and offering an alternative program in one-half of one of the middle schools.

Cynkar pointed out that while enrollment is no longer declining at a rapid rate, that does not mean that the district will ever return to mid-1990s numbers.

That is apparent when comparing the the size of this year's senior class -- 830 -- with the kindergarten class --677.

"It's never going to make up for the 200 kids we're graduating out and not replacing," he said.

District personnel reminded of lasting impact they will have on students

Thursday, August 31, 2006

By KEVIN PARKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Worthington Board of Education president Gary Tyack graduated from high school more than 40 years ago, so he frankly admitted to having no memory of a single test he took.

But he does have vivid and fond recollections of lots of teachers, administrators, guidance counselors and others who helped educate him as he was growing up.

"I confess that I could not remember the name of a single board of education member," Tyack said to laughter at last week's Convocation ceremony to officially mark the start of the Worthington Schools' 2006-2007 academic year.

Tyack made his remarks to remind district personnel assembled in the auditorium of Thomas Worthington High School of the impact they will have on students long after the last test is taken, the final bus ride is over, when meals served in the cafeteria are but a dim memory.

The theme for the Aug. 23 Convocation was "The Lessons of the Past Inspire Our Vision for the Future," and it was an appropriate one, the board president said.

"The true lessons of the past, present and future are here in this room," Tyack told the instructors and other district employees.

"Thanks for all you do for the students," he added.

The generally upbeat event, designed to rev up staff spirits for the year ahead, got off to a sad note as Superintendent Melissa Conrath referred to a tragic event that occurred late the night before. Some TWHS students were out riding around, she said, when one of them was shot. The young woman, a cheerleader, was in critical condition at the time of the Convocation. Conrath said her family had asked school staff members to keep the wounded student in their prayers.

Much of the morning ceremony was taken up with the launching of a new tradition, the inaugural presentation of Distinguished Alumni Awards to eight past graduates, but time was also set aside for remarks from Superintendent Conrath, Worthington Education Association president Scott DiMauro and Pam Sturiano, president of the Worthington Classified Association.

In addition, the longest-serving teacher was recognized, the Gary Smith Compassionate Teacher Award was presented and a video primarily produced by TWHS 2006 graduates John Gibson and Ryan White was screened.

Worthington Schools have a "long and proud tradition of excellence," WEA president DiMauro said. He pointed to the district having achieved an unprecedented six straight years of meeting every state standard. Test scores are up, DiMauro said, and more families are moving to the community because they want their children to be in the district's schools.

He pointed to the largest incoming kindergarten class in the past decade as proof of this.

"We are by no means free from challenges," DiMauro cautioned.

Too many students still start school unprepared for the experience, he said, the student population is increasingly diverse and more children have special educational needs.

Unfunded state and federal mandates along with what DiMauro referred to as the failure of legislators to "thoroughly and efficiently" fund public education are also challenges that continue for schools.

"We're all in this enterprise together," DiMauro concluded. "Great public schools are a basic right for every child.

"In today's changing world, the worst thing we can do is stop and rest on our laurels."

Worthington Classified Association president Sturiano reminded the audience of some of the turnover the district has experienced over the summer, some from employees moving on and some from personnel cuts.

"We need to take care of each other during this change," Sturiano urged.

The district may not have the resources or the staff or the money as was the case in years past, the WCA official said, but the mission of providing students with a good education remains the same.

WEF awards more grants for teachers

The Worthington Educational Foundation recently awarded grants to the following teachers and staff members for projects designed to enrich learning experiences for the students of Worthington Schools.

In this round of regular grants, $7,526 was awarded.

Debbie Daup, Paula McPheron, and Barb Minor at Granby Elementary School were awarded $500 to purchase classroom collections of Accelerated Reader books and quizzes for instruction and at-home reading.

Thomas L. Beck at Colonial Hills Elementary School received $198 to purchase an initial set of 10 NLVM CD-ROMs that will be reviewed by EPP math teachers to determine the instructional effectiveness and appropriateness for EPP math students. An initial set of materials will be piloted at one building.

Sandrine White at Thomas Worthington High School and Worthington Kilbourne High School was awarded $429 to purchase an iPod and voice recorder attachment that will be used to record songs in French and create CDs for student practice. Also, student French conversations will be recorded for self and teacher evaluation.

Beth McHugh, Ashley Hard, Kathy Schmidt, Leslie Miller, and Brenda Balla at Worthington Park Elementary School were awarded $899 to purchase big books and six packs of little books for reading instruction in the kindergarten and first grade classrooms.

Kathy Davenporte, Susan Flory, and Megan Connell at Worthington Estates Elementary School were awarded $500 to purchase materials to create stages and also purchase materials for making puppets that will be used in a puppet show which will be the culminating project for a folklore unit.

Erin Bradshaw at Worthington Hills Elementary School received $500 to purchase leveled reading books that can be used for independent reading in the classroom and sent home for home reading.

Rebecca Krieg and Leslie Main at Slate Hill Elementary School were awarded $750 to purchase leveled books aligned to the science and social studies graded courses of study that will be used for independent student selection.

Brenda Bell at Worthington Park Elementary School was awarded $250 to purchase materials to create a garden club for at-risk students that will create a sensory garden that will be used by the school for science curriculum activities.

Valerie Haslett, Erik Burgeson, and Barbara Armitage at Kilbourne Middle School were awarded $250 to purchase board games and interactive games to teach, reinforce and challenge students to learn vocabulary.

Chris Hasebrook at Linworth Alternative Program was awarded $850 to purchase a laptop computer for Linworth Speech curriculum, Summer School Speech curriculum, and Linworth community events that will enable students to make presentations in a more diverse way, including PowerPoint.

Michele Spradlin and Pam Reik at Bluffsview Elementary School were awarded $500 to purchase reading books that will provide special education, at-risk, and ESL students additional reading materials at their appropriate levels.

Susan Flory, Kathy Davenporte, and Megan Connell at Worthington Estates Elementary School were awarded $500 to purchase small tape recorders and cassette tapes for students that will enable teachers to provide individualized feedback to students during the writing process and allow students to record their oral presentations.

Leslie Ritter at Granby Elementary School was awarded $400 from the Nichols/Hopper Fund to purchase an Apple iPod Hi-Fi Compact Sound System that will be used in conjunction with a teacher-owned iPod to accompany music department student performances.

Laura Detweiler at Sutter Park Preschool was awarded $500 from the Nichols/Hopper Fund to purchase a variety of materials and equipment to improve gross motor programming for 190 typical and special needs preschool students.

Gale Wolsfeld and Patricia Braasch at Sutter Park Preschool were awarded $500 from the Nichols/Hopper Fund to purchase adaptive equipment to facilitate disabled students' participation in a group activity.

In a round of special project grants, $26,762 was awarded.

Mark Glasbrenner at the Worthington Education Center was awarded $5,000 to provide scholarship funding for disadvantaged children to attend camp.

Cathy Hart, Susie Lowmiller, Lee Ann Parsons, Lori Poleway, and Linda Smith at the Worthington Middle Schools were awarded $2,500 to partially fund a four-day author visit by Sharon Draper to the Worthington Middle Schools and to purchase sets of her books for school use.

Amanda Forgrave at Slate Hill Elementary School was awarded $2,400 to purchase software programs for math fact fluency and solving math word problems.

Cynthia Westover-Lalli and Mary Ann Dunn at the Worthington Education Center were awarded $2,154 to purchase Spanish bilingual dictionaries/translators for student, teacher, and parent use in all schools at all grade levels.

Dan Girard and Kathy Moore at Slate Hill Elementary School were awarded $1,000 to purchase data collecting equipment to make data-driven decisions about at-risk students.

Mary Ann Mowery at Slate Hill Elementary School was awarded $1,670 to purchase materials and books that would enrich and expand science work stations in the kindergarten classroom to more fully meet the State Science Standards and the Worthington Science curriculum objectives.

Bronwynn Hopton, Juli Rowsey, and David Hopton at Thomas Worthington High School were awarded $2,500 to fund a workshop that will provide TWHS students with the real-life experience of being playwrights. This grant was funded by monies donated by the Thomas Worthington High School Class of 2003.

Laura Detweiler at Sutter Park Preschool was awarded $2,000 to establish a parent resource library with materials that support and empower families to be effective intervention agents and teachers of their own children.

Greg Witt, Donna Gehring, and Marcia Buban, Henry Hale, Sharon Sciulli and Cindy Fox at Bluffsview Elementary School were awarded $2,500 to construct an outdoor stage that will be part of an amphitheater and outdoor classroom.

Carol Stamm and Kristy Smith at Worthington Kilbourne High School were awarded $2,058 to purchase a laptop computer for use by the Counseling Department as a flexible work station and for group presentations and demonstrations.

Julianna Rowsey at Thomas Worthington High School was awarded $1,525 to purchase an LCD projector that will be used by students to present authentic multi-media presentations that will be created by each student enrolled in the various Family and Consumer Sciences classes at TWHS.

Vickey Stewart, Barbara Zook and Debby Fuller at Evening Street Elementary School were awarded $1,455 to purchase staff development materials and student literature needed to implement a research-based classroom interview approach encouraging respect for all community members while teaching beginning research strategies.

Resolution shows how funds to be spent Board votes to place $37.5-million, no-new-millage issue on November ballot

Thursday, August 24, 2006 By JEFF DONAHUE ThisWeek Contributor

Members of the Worthington City School District Board of Education voted unanimously during a special meeting Monday night to place a $37.5-million, no-new-millage bond issue on the November ballot.

They also approved a second resolution detailing how those funds would be spent if the issue is approved by voters.

That resolution, authored by board member Marc Schare, publicly identifies how funds would be used and creates two committees that would have oversight responsibilities over facilities and technology expenditures.

"The resolution seeks to do two things," Schare said. "First it seeks to specify, with some degree of approximate certainty, key on the word approximate, where we intend on spending the amount of money. I think the taxpayers have a legitimate concern that we spend the money where we told people we were going to spend the money, so that's the first thing the resolution does.

"The second thing the resolution seems to do is create advisory committees to get public input, also input from various staff members and the administration, as to priorities where the money should be spent."

According to the resolution, funds would be appropriated over a five-year period as follows:

# Facilities, $18.75-million

# Furniture, $1.48-million

# Buses, $1.77-million ($1.23-million will also be shifted from the general fund for a total of $3-million)

# Computers and technology, $3-million

# Cost shifting from the general fund for items such as textbooks, maintenance, equipment and others as permitted by the Ohio Revised Code, $10-million

# Contingency fund, $2.5-million

# Total, $37.5-million

The resolution also notes that the millage required to pay the principal and interest on the debt will not exceed 3.8 mills per year for the life of the bonds and that the "average taxpayer" would not experience a tax increase as a result of the bond issue.

"The average taxpayer will not experience a tax increase," Schare said. "It doesn't say that no taxpayer will experience a tax increase. That being said, it would take a highly unusual set of circumstances for any taxpayer in the district to see an increase over and above what they are paying now."

The two advisory committees that will be formed, one for technology and one for facilities, will be made up of parents, teachers, community members, including subject matter experts, and members of the school district administration. Those committees will meet as necessary and report their recommendations to the superintendent and board members.

The school district Web site will contain information on the status of projects and all expenditures over $25,000 will require board approval. That approval will be granted only after a public comment period at regular board meetings and information about projects requiring board approval will be posted on the district Web site at least seven days in advance.

The $2.5-million contingency fund is intended to address unanticipated or urgent needs. The use of those funds will require board approval and expenditures will be documented on the district Web site.

Board member David Bressman said he originally had some misgivings when he saw the resolution but Schare addressed all concerns he had.

"The reason I'm going to be voting for this is it is being proposed by the Marc of 2006 as opposed to the Marc of 2001," Bressman said. "The Marc of 2001 I would not have trusted if this resolution had been proposed. When Marc told me about this, I agreed in principle. When I saw the resolution, I had some misgivings about it and Marc has addressed those."

Bressman stressed that Schare has earned his trust.

"Over the years I have talked with Marc several times, and I have come to trust that he has the best interests of the kids at heart," Bressman said. "If this is going to convince some people that this board is going to do what it says, I believe overall the intent is good and I'm going to go along with it and give it a chance to succeed.'

Bond issue will help maintain assets

Thursday, August 24, 2006, Melissa Conrath

Melissa Conrath is the superintendent of the Worthington City School District. She can be reached at (614) 883-3000 or by e-mail at mconrath@worthington.k12.oh.us.

You may not want to be reminded that school starts this week. I may be unique, in that as much as I enjoy the freedom of summer I look forward to the tradition of fall. That tradition for me has always been going back to school.

I hope that you have been able to enjoy some time with family and friends over the last several weeks. We have been working diligently to create budget reductions and look for new and better ways to deliver an excellent educational product for our students.

As you know, we continue to evaluate long-term funding solutions for this public school district. Though we are not alone, we are Worthington's public school district and with that comes an added degree of credibility, responsibility and pride for all of us. After all, even before I began working with this school community, I was well aware of the expectation for educational excellence and the savvy of the community members.

I am pleased to share with you that the board of education, in response to community feedback, has directed us to rework and re-evaluate forecasts and spending. In doing so, we have made reductions for the upcoming school year in the amount of $1.1-million and for the 2007-08 school year close to $2-million.

As a result of the planned reductions and unanticipated revenue, we will not be requesting operating funds in 2006. Our need to maintain our assets is another story, however.

The board of education will likely place a bond issue on the November ballot. This bond issue will replace existing bonds as they expire. The funds generated from these bonds will be used to replace school buses, purchase computer equipment and repair school buildings.

So, what that means to us as taxpayers is that we will continue paying the same rate at which we currently pay. It is a "no new millage" bond issue. We are pleased with this option and hope that you agree it is a taxpayer-friendly option.

We are also committed to pursuing community feedback on a number of issues the entire school community is facing. Below are just a few that we are planning to coordinate:

# Defining quality for Worthington schools.

# Middle school enrollment and options for students.

# Financial health of the district.

As we get started with another school year, please remember that I welcome contact from the community. Feel free to call me or send me an e-mail. We also welcome you to come and visit our schools.

As a community, your children are doing amazing work everyday. Come see for yourself.

Bond issue officially on ballot

Committees of parents, residents to prioritize needs for $37.5 million

By PAMELA WILLIS

Months of discussion and number-crunching have wrapped up, and the decision has been made: Worthington City School District residents will see a $37.5 million replacement bond issue on the Nov. 7 ballot.

School board members met Monday evening and unanimously approved the final resolution to place the bond issue on the ballot.

A second resolution also was approved to specify the terms of the bond issue and to establish the intention to create two advisory committees to help school officials decide how and when the bond funds will be spent.

The first resolution states the $37.5 million bond "shall bear interest at the estimated rate of 4.5 percent per annum, and shall be paid over a number of years not to exceed 15."

The bond issue can be called a "no new millage" bond and will be issued in stages to control the rate of millage, said district Treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

"If the bond issue passes, it is the intent of the board to issue the debt in stages, which will be a controlling factor to stay within the 3.8-mill rate taxpayers are currently paying for formerly approved bonds," Boyd said. "But the total amount of $37.5 million would have to be issued within a maximum of five years."

Worthington voters approved $55 million in bond funds in 1988 and a $14.9 million bond issue in 1997.

Boyd said the rate of millage drops as bond issues are paid off, so residents who were paying 5.8 mills two years ago on the old bond issues now are paying 3.8 mills.

The replacement bond issue on the Nov. 7 ballot would restructure the old bonds and extend the debt, but the current rate of taxation would stay at 3.8 mills as long as the bond was issued in increments to control that rate, Boyd said.

The second resolution originally was drafted by board member Marc Schare, with the final version containing small changes made by other board members.

"The second resolution seeks to specify with some degree of approximate certainty where we intend to spend the bond money," Schare said. "It also states we intend to create advisory committees to get public input and staff input as to how the money should be spent."

The second resolution states, "The Worthington Board of Education will ask taxpayers for $37.5 million for capital improvements, buses, technology and other purposes."

It also says the board intends the money to be appropriated over a five-year period, with $18.75 million going to facilities; $1.48 million to furniture; $1.77 million to buses; $3 million for computers and technology; $10 million for "cost-shifting from the general fund for items such as textbooks, maintenance, equipment and others as permitted by the Ohio Revised Code; and $2.5 million as a contingency fund.

At the July 24 board meeting, Assistant Superintendent Paul Cynkar, along with George Sontag, Keith Schlarb and Tim Gehring, directors of transportation, technology and facilities, respectively, presented a list of "long-overdue" capital-improvement needs that included replacing more than 40 buses, "vintage" computers and building repairs that totaled more than $30 million.

Cynkar said the 6.25-mill combined operating and permanent-improvement levy that failed in May would have provided $11.4 million for the most immediate building repairs and replacements.

The two advisory committees, one for facilities and one for technology projects, will "consist of parents, teachers, community members (including subject matter experts) and administration," and will be formed "to assist with the prioritization and implementation of the (facilities or technology ) projects," according to the second resolution.

Board member David Bressman said he "felt insulted" by the second resolution when he first saw it.

"It spelled out what we were supposed to do, as though we weren't to be trusted to do what we were supposed to do. I have built a career in doing what I say I'm going to do," Bressman said. "But I believe overall the intention is good and perhaps we should spell out what we're going to do."

Board will act to put bond on fall ballot

No-additional-mills proposal would raise $37.5-million for capital improvements

Thursday, August 17, 2006 By JEFF DONAHUE ThisWeek Contributor

Members of the Worthington City Schools Board of Education are one step away from placing a $37.5-million no-additional-millage bond issue on the November ballot to fund a wide-ranging package of capital improvements, including transportation, facilities and technology upgrades throughout the district.

Board members approved a resolution declaring the necessity of a bond issue and to submit the issue to the electors during their Aug. 14 regular meeting.

According to that resolution, issuing and selling $37.5-million worth of bonds will fund "renovating, repairing, improving, furnishing, equipping and constructing additions to existing school facilities, buildings and infrastructure; replacing existing equipment and constructing various permanent improvements; purchasing school buses and related transportation equipment; and curriculum implementation districtwide, including related textbooks and technology."

A special meeting has been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Monday at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road, to approve final legislation to place the bond issue on the Nov. 7 ballot.

'No additional millage'

District treasurer and chief financial officer Jonathan Boyd explained the no-additional-millage concept during the board's Aug. 14 meeting.

"As debt is paid off the millage begins to drop," Boyd said. "For example, when I arrived at the school district in 2002, residents were paying 5.8 mills. Today they are paying 3.8.

"Over time, as property values go up and debt is paid off, that millage continues to decline," he said. "What we are talking about then is basically a stairstep process where the millage would then drop as those bonds are paid off. What we are talking about now is issuing additional debt that basically, if the board agrees to the theory of no additional millage, then the millage rate would not rise above what the current rate is and it would basically expand the length of the debt."

Boyd said not all of the $37.5-million would be issued at once. Should economic conditions change, he said, the board would still have the option of issuing less than the total amount if necessary.

Schare backs bond issue

Board member Marc Schare announced during the Aug. 14 session that he would support the bond issue, calling it the "first step in solving three problems that have plagued the district for years: the lack of funds for essential repairs to facilities and buses, the lack of funds for the purchase and implementation of new technology and the co-mingling, or some would say the contamination, of capital needs funds into the operating budget general fund."

While Schare said the board was taking the first step, he added, "The ultimate decision will reside, as always, with the taxpayers of the Worthington school district."

Schare said the biggest news out of the Aug. 14 meeting was the fact that the board had decided not to seek an operating levy in November.

"Sometimes the biggest story is not what we do but what we don't," he said. "The lack of an operating levy in 2006 is the biggest financial story of the evening. Who would have guessed back in May, when 7,000 people voted against the levy that we would not, as a routine matter, put the question back before the voters in November?

"To be sure, the delay of the operating levy is equal parts luck and intent but its significance goes far beyond the $8-million shift over two years that enabled us to avoid the ballot in 2006."

Schare credited the administration for its willingness "to search for efficiencies and new ways of doing things, as well as a recognition that business as usual was detrimental to the long term interests of the district.

"More than anything else," he said, "this should tell the community that this board, Superintendent (Melissa) Conrath and treasurer Boyd are serious about addressing the concerns that led to the levy defeat in May."

Schare noted that while he usually isn't the easiest board member to convince when it comes to levies, he does believe in the bond issue.

"The district has issues that need to be addressed and the bond issue is the most taxpayer-friendly way to address them," he said. "This issue is a fiscally conservative, taxpayer-friendly package that addresses needs that have to be addressed sooner or later and does so in a way that defers new taxes for seven years and even then keeps the millage relatively small."

Bressman unconvinced but supportive

"I'm not 100 percent convinced that the bond is the best way to go," board member David Bressman said. "I think that in the past, we have gotten into a bond cycle where we pass a bond, we do a whole bunch of repairs that need to be done and get put off and then we don't have a PI (permanent improvement) levy. So we come back to the general fund, we dig into the general fund and then we come back for another bond."

Bressman said he would support the bond issue but he still thinks a permanent improvement levy will have to be placed on the ballot eventually.

"I do think a PI levy, at some point, has to go on so that we can plan accordingly and not have massive amounts of repairs and things build up and then come to the public," he said. "But I'm going to support the bond because the need is there."

Conrath talks about changes in new school year

Thursday, August 17, 2006 By CANDACE PRESTON-COY ThisWeek Staff Writer

Worthington City Schools Superintendent Melissa Conrath spent her first few months on the job "getting a sense for the district."

Now, as she prepares for the opening of school on Aug. 24 -- and her first full year on the job -- she is looking forward to the new school year and the challenges it brings to a district with high educational expectations and limited financial resources.

Summer vacation for teachers and students gives those on a year- round contract a chance "to regroup and grow professionally," she said. "But, toward the middle of August, we're ready for the kids to come back and get started in another year."

One of the "more important goals this year is to create a stable financial future for the district .. We have to have that because we don't want finances to get in the way of providing quality experiences for our students," she said.

Budget reductions will allow the district to operate through the 2007/08 school year without seeking more funds from taxpayers. But, she said, that issue must be addressed in the next year to make sure programs critical to education are not jeopardized.

The district will be on the ballot in November with a $37.5-million bond issue to pay for transportation needs, technology upgrades and facility maintenance, she said. Property owners currently pay 3.8 mills a year for previous bond issues. The school board said the new debt, if approved by voters, would be structured so that millage would not increase beyond that level, Conrath said.

Conrath credits her staff with identifying the $3-million in budget cuts that will keep the district off the ballot for operating funds for at least another year without affecting programs for students.

"We're working very hard to make sure that the reductions have minimal impact on students," she said.

"We probably heard back from 50 to 60 staff members on ideas in areas where they felt we could make some reductions, reorganize, shift how we do things, maybe use technology in some areas where we've used human resources to accomplish that ... so that we could make some adjustments and continue to offer programs that we have for students and of the quality that we have."

"All of them, certainly, will have an impact on how we do business here in the district," she continued.

For example, they decided not to fill a vacancy when the director of secondary education left to take a position with another district. While that person didn't have daily contact with students, he provided leadership to the high school and middle school buildings.

While there won't be any new programs this school year for students, the district plans to expand its K+, all-day kindergarten program, and continue its involvement with the Battelle For Kids program, Conrath said.

This will also be the first year that district food services operate under the new federally-mandated wellness policies, she said.

Worthington got a jump start on that requirement last year, said district spokesperson Victoria Gnezda, and menus already reflect more healthy options, such as whole wheat pizza.

Students at the two high schools will also find fountain drinks moved out of the cafeteria, replaced by water and Gatorade, and Icee machines, whose products are 100 percent fruit juice, she said.

School district honored for safety efforts

Thursday, August 17, 2006 By KEVIN PARKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

The Worthington City School District was among the six winners of this year's Governor's Excellence in Workers' Compensation Awards, it was announced last week.

"We were quite surprised when we were nominated," admitted director of financial operations Tracy DeMatteo.

The honor, according to an announcement from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, is given to employers focusing efforts on reducing workplace accidents and actively supporting injured workers through a return-to-work program.

This is the 11th year the awards have been given.

The other winners this year, according to BWC spokeswoman Nancy Smeltzer, are the City of Marysville, Interstate Cold Storage with offices in Columbus and Napoleon, Messer Construction of Cincinnati, the Cleveland Plumbing Supply Co. of Chagrin Falls and Mack Iron Works of Sandusky.

"The Governor's Excellence Award winners are selected for their unique commitment to workplace safety," bureau administrator and chief executive officer Bill Mabe said in a statement. "Each organization honored this year has dedicated time and energy to implementing proper safety strategies and as a result of their hard work, their safety records are exemplary.

"I commend them for their dedication to what is truly important, the safety of Ohio's workers."

Mabe himself, on behalf of Gov. Bob Taft, presented the award to Worthington City School District officials on Friday afternoon.

District administrators have "been working diligently the past two years," DeMatteo said, to find different ways to help employees who do get injured on the job while at the same time reducing workers' compensation costs. This is the second year of a program that provides a transition for injured workers from recovering to returning to their job or some job they are still able to do, the director of financial operations added.

In part this involved helping workers manage the paperwork involved with their claims.

"We needed to find a way to get people back to work," DeMatteo said.

For example, a custodian who suffered a back injury might no longer be able to do any heavy lifting, but would be capable of coming back to the district in some other capacity. This showed the employees, according to DeMatteo, that district officials valued them and were concerned about their well-being, instead of resenting them for getting hurt and costing the school system.

"They actually appreciated that," DeMatteo said.

In addition, she credited a software program, which will be going into its third year, that helps with a multitude of things, but most importantly with safety training and compliance with safety regulations. From those who do physical labor to teachers, bus drivers, food-service employees and even office workers, the software package offers online training courses to create greater awareness of safety.

"The Bureau of Workers' Compensation has really recognized that we're making the effort, that we don't just pay our bill and move on," DeMatteo said.

Board settles on bond issue

'Taxpayer-friendly,' 'no new millage' issue bound for November ballot

By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington City School District voters likely will see a $37.5 million replacement bond issue on the November ballot.

School board members met Monday evening at the Worthington Education Center and unanimously passed a "resolution of necessity" for the bond issue.

Board members will meet again at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the education center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road, for a special meeting to vote on a resolution to proceed with the bond issue.

The issue was described as a "no new millage" bond issue by Treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

"The bond would be approved for $37,500,000 at an estimated 4.5 percent interest per year," Boyd said. "Most bonds are issued all at once, but this bond could be sold in increments so that the millage rate would not rise above what people are currently paying on the old bond issue -- about 3.8 mills."

Boyd said residents were paying 5.8 mills two years ago on bond issues that were approved in past years.

Worthington voters approved $55 million in bond funds in 1988 and a $14.9 million bond issue in 1997.

"As bonds are paid off, the millage drops," Boyd said. "The new bond issue would restructure the old bond issue and extend the debt, but allow the board to keep the millage at the current rate."

Boyd said the board could control the millage rate by not issuing the whole amount of the bond all at once.

The resolution states the bond issue is "necessary for the purpose of renovating, repairing, improving, furnishing, equipping and constructing additions to existing school facilities, buildings and infrastructure," and goes on to mention "purchasing school buses, related textbooks and technology."

At an Aug. 7 meeting, board members discussed a list of the district's capital needs that totaled $30 million. It included the replacement of more than 40 buses that had more than 150,000 miles or could soon become unsafe for other reasons, "vintage" computers that would not run current software, and a long list of needed roof and boiler replacements for some of the buildings.

Board member Marc Schare praised Superintendent Melissa Conrath for finding ways to cut expenses, which helped delay the need for another operating levy request, after voters shot down a 6.25-mill request in May.

Conrath cut $1.1 million from the school budget this year and planned $1.8 million in additional cuts for next school year -- cuts that won't be restored, so the savings will accumulate, she said.

Boyd said the district also recently received an increase in revenue from the collection of delinquent tangible taxes of more than $800,000, along with other savings, such as a smaller increase in insurance premiums than expected.

"The extra revenue and the reductions meant we could balance the budget in 2008, instead of experiencing a deficit of nearly $6 million," Boyd said.

Before the May levy request, Boyd was expecting a $6 million deficit in 2008 and a nearly $23 million deficit by June 2009.

"The lack of an operating levy in 2006 is the biggest financial story of the evening," Schare said. "Who would have guessed back in May, when 7,000 people voted against the levy, that we would not put the question back before the voters in November?"

Schare said the delay of the levy "signals a willingness on the part of the administration to search for inefficiencies and new ways of doing things."

Schare called the bond issue a "fiscally conservative, taxpayer-friendly package that addresses the district's needs ... in a way that defers new taxes for seven years."

Even though the vote was unanimous to approve the resolution, David Bressman said he wasn't convinced a bond issue was the best way to go.

"I think a permanent-improvement levy would be the best way to generate funds for our capital needs, so that repairs don't build up, but I know the need for the bond is right now, so I'll support the bond issue," Bressman said.

Tyack said the fact voters said no to the May levy request has "been positive, in retrospect.

"It led to the extra efforts on the part of the superintendent, the treasurer and board members to find ways to cut expenses," Tyack said. "I'm in favor of passing phase one of this bond and addressing how the bond will be issued in our second resolution."

Schools 'excellent' for sixth straight year

By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington City School District has met all Ohio standards for the sixth year in a row, receiving an "excellent" rating once again on the state report card.

The Ohio Department of Education released official results Tuesday, but the district recently received preliminary scores that indicated "excellent" results, including growth in the performance index, which gives extra points for students who score in the accelerated or advanced categories of the achievement tests.

"Worthington met all of the indicators -- 25 out of 25 -- and will be rated as 'excellent,' " said Jennifer Wene, director of assessment and teaching and learning. "The performance index score shows that for the third year in a row we have shown significant growth. This year, the performance index increased from 102.7 to 104.0."

Individual schools also did well, Wene said.

"This year we have 14 of 17 schools rated as 'excellent' and three schools rated as 'effective,' " Wene said. "Even more exciting is the increase in the performance index that occurred in 13 of our schools. Those who did not increase stayed basically at the same level as last year. This shows that overall our students are learning at higher levels than before."

Bluffsview, Colonial Hills, Evening Street, Granby, Liberty, Wilson Hill, Worthington Estates and Worthington Hills elementary schools were rated "excellent," along with Kilbourne, McCord, Perry and Worthingway middle schools and both high schools, Thomas Worthington and Worthington Kilbourne.

The schools rated "effective" are Brookside, Slate Hill and Worthington Park elementary schools.

Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, continues "to be a goal we are chasing for yet another year," Wene said.

"Although we performed at a higher or the same level with the majority of subgroups, we scored at basically the same level as we did in the area of students with disabilities and limited English proficient as we did last year," Wene said.

Wene said it is "inappropriate" to compare the performance of the subgroups this year with last year's, because it is a different group of students, and only four of the nine tests used to measure AYP this year are the same as last year.

"Sixteen of 17 schools passed AYP," Wene said. "Thomas Worthington did not meet AYP as it missed the target of 71.8 percent by 3 percent for the subgroup of (Individual Education Plan, or special education students). Thomas Worthington is still rated as an 'excellent' school on the report card, but will put in place additional strategies to support these students in increasing their reading achievement."

Wene said the district maintains an "excellent" rating by "providing a rigorous and relevant curriculum in which the state standards are embedded.

"Teachers frequently assess the students and ensure they are learning at an appropriately challenged level," Wene said. "Additionally, our staff has been passionate about providing intervention through extended day and individual attention to students who are not meeting the benchmarks. Our staff also works hard to build relationships to provide a caring, supportive environment for each student."

The district has escalated intervention efforts in the past years through structured intervention programs, Wene said.

"Additionally, we have been focusing on our professional development to increase teacher effectiveness with instructional planning, use of assessment to guide instruction and strengthening the culture and climate of each building," Wene said.

The district still has work to do, Wene said.

"We will strive to look deeply at the data to pinpoint specific skill areas which we need to improve, particularly for our students with disabilities and for whom English is a second language," Wene said.

Wene said the state report card gives the district "much to celebrate."

"We saw evidence of continuous improvement at all grade levels, in all content areas and at every school," Wene said. "We met or surpassed the federal target goals of achievement with 89 percent of our students."

Wene said the district will work with parents and the community to find ways to increase the success of the 11 percent of students who came close but "missed the bull's-eye for this year."

2 more districts will go to voters

By Bill Bush and Kevin Kidder The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:25 AM

Two more central Ohio school districts decided last night to seek November bond issues.

Worthington schools began the process of putting a $37.5 million bond issue on the ballot that, if passed, would pay for building repairs and buy computers and buses. Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the district still would need to ask voters for more operating money next year.

The Pickerington board chose the larger of two bond options: a $59.9 million issue that would pay for two new elementary schools and a middle school. The other alternative, which would have cost $38.3 million, would have paid for only the two elementary schools.

Worthington and Pickerington join a growing number of local school districts seeking November tax issues. In Franklin County, Canal Winchester, Groveport Madison, Reynoldsburg and South-Western schools are placing requests on the ballot.

Worthington

The Worthington Board of Education voted 5-0 to ask Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa's office to estimate the millage required to repay $37.5 million in bonds, which Boyd said could be issued in phases over a number of years. Each bond issued would have a life of no longer than 15 years, officials said.

The district would refinance current district bonds set to expire by the end of 2013, lowering the millage required to make debt payments, board member Marc Schare said. It would then issue new bonds, but in increments that would keep the total millage below 3.8 mills, he said.

"If (interest rates) for whatever reason suddenly go sky high, if we can't keep our promise, we won't issue the debt," Boyd said.

It's not yet clear how much the bond issue would cost residents.

The board will meet Monday to finalize putting the levy on the November ballot, board President Gary Tyack said. The board will discuss a resolution, drafted by Schare, that will set target goals on how much of the bond money is spent on each of the district's problems to be addressed, including additions and renovations to schools, purchasing new school buses and buying textbooks.

"It will also deal with the oversight," Tyack said. "It will try to set up a method for spending such funds as we decide to borrow."

State report cards list higher ratings for 14 districts

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 Charlie Roduta THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

They’ve beefed up reading and math courses, found mentors to help struggling students and strengthened teacher-training programs.

Whatever local school districts have been doing, it seems to be working.

Nearly a third of central Ohio school districts improved their ratings on the state report cards released by the Ohio Department of Education yesterday.

Of the 49 districts in the region:

• Fourteen made gains, including seven that jumped to "excellent," the equivalent of an A on the state rating scale: Big Walnut, Gahanna-Jefferson, Jonathan Alder, Northridge, Pickerington, Reynoldsburg and Westerville.

• Thirty-four remained at the same rating, including four districts that continued to meet all state standards: Dublin, Granville, Olentangy and Worthington.

Conrath: Delay levy, go for bond issue

Thursday, August 10, 2006 By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Instead of an operating levy, voters of the Worthington school district can expect to face a no-new-taxes bond issue in November.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath announced at Monday's school board meeting that by combining about $3-million in spending cuts with unanticipated revenues, the district can avoid the $6-million deficit that had been projected for the end of the 2007-08 school year.

That will allow the district to stay afloat for an additional year before more operating funds are needed.

"Our budget will be extremely tight," she said. "It will be absolutely critical an issue be passed no later than 2007."

Voters rejected by a 60- to 40-percent margin a 6.25-mill levy in May. Five mills would have been targeted for operating expenses, 1.25 mills for capital improvements.

Conrath recommended that the board place on the November ballot a bond issue to raise approximately $38-million over the next five years.

If approved, taxes would not increase, but the scheduled decline of taxes as old bond millage expires would not occur.

Currently, residents pay 3.8 mills toward capital improvements. That is scheduled to expire in 2015.

If the issue is approved, the millage would expire in 2026.

The rate would never exceed 3.8 mills, and state law puts a five-year limit on the amount of time the district could issue new bonds.

The money would be used to pay for new buses, computers, facility repairs and equipment and furniture.

The board is expected to vote on the proposal at its meeting next Monday. A public forum to collect input from the public is set for this Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the Worthington Education Center.

Conrath, board members and the treasurer's advisory committee decided to take a new look at spending, budgets and levies after the May levy failed.

Conrath said residents repeatedly told her they want the district to get off the two-year levy cycle and that expenses need to be decreased.

Last month, Conrath announced $1.1-million in cuts that go into effect immediately.

On Monday, she is expected to unveil an additional $1.8-million in reductions to go into effect in the following year.

Twelve certified and 13 classified positions are expected to be eliminated, most due to declining enrollment.

"Some (of the cuts) have minimal impact, some have more impact that we like," Conrath said.

Beside the reductions, which will total $4-million by the end of 2008, administrators were able to balance the 2008 budget with about $480,000 a year in savings in health care; an additional $2.3-million over three years in unexpected tangible taxes; and an additional $1.3-million over three years of unexpected interest, according to treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

From a $5.96-million deficit at the end of 2008, the bottom line has been changed to a nearly $2.86-million surplus, he said.

Resident Abramo Ottolenghi told the board he hopes the budget reductions will not affect the quality of the schools.

"I'm concerned we will end up no longer being what we used to be," he said.

Conrath said the reductions should not result in changes in class sizes or loss of opportunities for students.

New buses, computers, repairs to cost up to $40M

Thursday, August 10, 2006 By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

If voters approve a bond issue to fund capital improvements, the money will be spent on new buses, computers, furniture and building repairs.

Though the amount that may be requested of voters next November has not been decided, estimates range from $30- to $40-million that is needed to bring the district's property up to an acceptable standard.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath decided to encourage the school board to delay placing an operating levy on the ballot this fall in favor of a no-new-taxes bond issue.

Part of her reasoning included the dire needs of district facilities.

"We have capital assets and I feel it is critical we take care of those," she said.

In terms of cost, the biggest need is for improvements to the district's buildings. A facilities study based on a review of capital-improvement work orders estimated the need at $22.6-million.

"Just because something breaks doesn't mean we are going to fix it," facilities director Tim Gehring said at a recent board meeting.

He has a list of about 600 such things that need to be fixed.

Some of the repairs waiting for funding are small. Replacing tiles in staff restrooms at Perry Middle School would cost $2,400. Water-cooler replacements at Liberty Elementary School would be $3,600.

Others are more costly. Replacing lockers at Worthington Kilbourne would cost $785,400. Replacing carpet at that school would be $520,000.

Each school in the district has several jobs listed on the "to do" list.

Replacing computers in all of the schools and buildings would cost approximately $3.7-million, according to technology director Keith Schlarb.

Ninety percent of the district's computers were purchased before 2000, and the majority are not capable of running new educational software, he said.

Much of the equipment also is considered "vintage," meaning replacement parts are no longer available.

The district's bus fleet also is in bad shape, according to transportation director George Sontag.

Twenty-eight buses are 15 years old or older, and many have safety issues.

"Once again, we're patching them together and keeping them alive, but it's not going to last forever," he said.

For $3-million, the district could purchase 40 new buses over five years.

Until 2003, the budget included $500,000 a year for replacing furniture and equipment. Now there is a need for $1.5-million over five years to catch up with the need, said Assistant Superintendent Paul Cynkar.

Additionally, a bond issue should include about $3-million for emergencies and unanticipated needs, plus funds for inflationary costs, said treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

The board likely will take a closer look at capital needs next Monday when discussing the possibility of placing a bond issue on the ballot.

cbrooks@thisweeknews.com

Bond issue may cover upgrades

Replacement bond could be used for improvements; levy may wait till 2007

By PAMELA WILLIS

The Worthington City School District levy request expected on the November ballot could be delayed until sometime next year -- but residents may see a "no new millage" replacement bond issue for capital improvement needs before the end of 2006.

The Worthington school board met Monday evening at the Worthington Education Center.

The only item on the night's agenda was a financial update and levy option discussion, but news of a balanced budget instead of a budget deficit for next year gave board members some breathing room.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath made a recommendation to the board and gave a presentation she called "Rethink, Reduce and Recalculate."

"I recommend we delay getting back on the ballot with an operating levy request until sometime in 2007, but put a 'no new millage' replacement bond issue on the November ballot to address our capital improvement needs," Conrath said.

Residents can share their opinions and recommendations at a public forum at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road.

Conrath said voters sent the district a clear message about a two-year cycle of levy requests when they failed to approve the 6.25-mill combined operating levy and permanent-improvement request in May.

"Our response to the failure of the levy request was to realize we needed to rethink, reduce and recalculate our financial needs," Conrath said. "After making $1.1 million in immediate reductions and planning $1.8 million in additional reductions for next year, and recalculating our financial forecast after additional revenue was received, we expect to have a balance of $2.86 million instead of a deficit of almost $6 million by June of 2008."

Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the change in revenue included additional tangible tax dollars through the collection of delinquent taxes.

"The problem with tangible taxes are the value fluctuates so significantly from year to year, unlike real-estate taxes," Boyd said. "We have had as much as a million-dollar decrease in tangibles in one year. But this year we received more than $800,000 in delinquent-tax collection. That amount and the reductions, which will result in savings each year, meant we could balance the budget in 2008, instead of experiencing a deficit."

Boyd said the "no new millage" replacement bond could generate nearly $40 million for the district's capital improvement needs without exceeding the amount voters are paying on the current bond issue, which was used to build Worthington Kilbourne High School and Bluffsview Elementary School, along with other capital needs when it was first issued in 1997.

"When I came to the district in 2002, residents were paying 5.8 mills for the old bonds, but today they pay 3.8 mills for the bonds," Boyd said. "We can generate nearly $40 million for our needs, but stay within 3.8 mills over a period of 10 to 12 years."

Boyd said even though voters would have to approve a total amount for the bond issue, the district could annually calculate how much is needed, so the total amount might not be drawn.

"Most bonds are sold immediately to generate enough money to build buildings, and if we sold the total amount of bonds immediately, we would exceed the 3.8 mills," Boyd said. "But we can control the millage rate by annually recalculating our priorities, and if the board agrees, we would make a commitment not to go over that millage rate."

Boyd said residents need to realize that the budget "barely balanced" for 2008, so additional revenue through an operating levy request still is urgently needed through the approval of a request sometime in 2007.

Conrath said the capital needs of the district include transportation, technology, equipment and facilities needs totaling $30 million. Many of the district's computers were described as "vintage," and more than 40 buses needed to be replaced, she said.

Other needs on the permanent-improvement list include roof and floor replacements at many of the buildings.

The immediate budget cuts in place for this year include the reduction of one administrator; three certified staff reductions; six classified staff reductions, including three secretaries and three special education assistants; a 15 percent reduction in building budgets; and a 10 percent reduction in department budgets.

Conrath said the additional $1.8 million in reductions for next year will include some personnel, but mainly will be achieved through attrition, because of expected retirements.

"I do not expect those reductions to result in any increases in class sizes or a significant reduction of opportunities for students," Conrath said.

If board members want to approve a bond replacement issue for the November ballot, they must pass two resolutions to proceed -- the first by Monday, and the second before Aug. 24, Boyd said.

Board members will meet for another regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the Worthington Education Center.

Worthington school district considers funding options

Monday, August 07, 2006 Mary C . Bridgman THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The Worthington school board might delay an incomeor property-tax request until next year and instead ask residents in November to approve a no-new-taxes bond issue.

The treasurer’s advisory committee is expected to tell the school board tonight that the district’s best option is to seek a bond issue for about $38.5 million to purchase computers and buses and make building repairs, board Vice President Bob Horton said.

"I think it’s good news for Worthington," he said.

Voters rejected a 6.25-mill property tax in May that would have generated $9.5 million a year for operating expenses and $2.3 million annually for five years for building repairs, buses and computers.

Money the district has been setting aside for the purchases and repairs would revert to the general fund. Those dollars, in addition to $3 million in cuts over the next two years, would give the district the money needed to delay its next levy until 2007, Horton said.

Last week the school board asked the Franklin County auditor’s office to certify options for an income tax in November. A 0.5 percent option would generate $7.3 million a year and a 0.75 percent one would raise $10.4 million annually.

The district is cutting costs in part because of declining enrollment, particularly in the three middle schools, Horton said.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath cut $1.1 million from the district’s $105 million budget for the upcoming school year, including 10 positions. A larger hit will come in 2007-08, when the district plans to eliminate 15 to 20 positions to save up to $2 million.

"We hope this doesn’t take away from the quality of services we offer students," Conrath said. "We have shifted job responsibilities. Many of the duties are going to other individuals."

However, teachers likely will have larger classes, and highschool students fewer choices, Conrath said.

The cuts for the coming school year include an administrator, a middle-school teacher, a teacher at the United Methodist Children’s Home, a part-time high-school teacher, three secretaries, two specialeducation assistants and an instruction assistant.

Four other middle-school teachers already were cut. The middle-school cuts will mean one fewer teacher in each fourperson teaching team.

Conrath also told building principals to cut their budgets 15 percent and administrative departments to cut theirs 10 percent.

Most positions are being eliminated through attrition.

Earlier this year, the district offered a $40,000 buyout over three years to teachers with at least 10 years experience who were paid at least $59,286. Forty-one took it, saving the district an estimated $1.1 million annually, Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said.

Thirty-seven of the positions will be filled with lower-salaried teachers, he said.

The district plans to save an additional $344,00 outside the general fund by eliminating six full-time special-education assistants and a weight-room technician in the high school, as well as a part-time bilingual assistant, a transition coach and a parent mentor. The special-education positions were eliminated after money to pay their salaries was diverted to pay for new mandates governing special education, Conrath said.

The district will monitor the situation this year and fill the positions in 2007-08 if necessary.

The Worthington school board will meet at 7:30 tonight in the Worthington Education Center , 200 E . Wilson - Bridge Road .

mbridgman@dispatch.com

Board, public to address fall levy options

Thursday, August 3, 2006 By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer Levy meetings

As a Worthington school district taxpayer, would you rather see your income taxes or your property taxes increased?

Or neither?

Will the approximately $3-million in school spending reductions expected to be announced on Monday be enough, or should the Worthington Board of Education sharpen its pencils and cut more expenses before returning to the ballot?

The school board will grapple with those and other questions concerning a possible November levy when it meets on Monday, and again when it opens the floor to the public next Thursday.

Both meetings are set for 7:30 p.m. at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road.

On Wednesday, the public is invited to discuss the issues during a non-board sponsored forum at the Griswold Center, 777 High St., beginning at 7 p.m.

At a special 7:30 a.m. meeting this past Monday, the board set the stage for a possible income tax levy by asking the state to confirm the size of four potential income tax levies.

One is expected to be 0.5 percent, and would raise approximately $7.3-million a year, enough to make the district's books balance for three years. At the end of the three years, the income tax increase would continue, but the district would probably need to return to the voters for more money.

A second would increase income taxes by 0.75 percent to raise approximately $10.4-million, or enough to keep the district afloat for four years.

The resolutions approved Monday would certify the size needed if all income were taxed, or if only earned income were taxed, excluding pensions and interest on stocks, bonds and savings.

The district is returning to the ballot after voters rejected a 6.25-mill combination operating/permanent improvements levy in May.

The 1.25-mill portion would have covered capital needs totaling $11.4-million.

At a recent board meeting, administrators presented a comprehensive capital needs list and came up with a figure of approximately $30-million. They indicated that they expected the board to pare down the list.

How those needs for new buses, computers and building repairs will be presented to voters is another question to be tackled by the school board by its Aug. 14 meeting.

The operating needs, according to a Jan. 25 five-year financial forecast, is for enough additional money to offset a $6-million deficit projected for the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath has so far made $1.1-million in budget reductions to go into effect this coming school year. On Monday, she is expected to announce approximately $2-million of additional cuts for the following year.

According to treasurer Jonathan Boyd's "what if" calculations, a permanent levy to keep the district afloat for three years would need to be 4.81 mills; for four years, 6.34 mills.

The immediate cuts include approximately 14 full-time-equivalent positions. Conrath said the "body count" would be nine, all of them covered by attrition.

Reductions include 10 percent departmental reductions ($258,000); 15 percent building reductions ($175,579); reconfiguration of duties for secondary education director ($141,148); elimination of three high school secretaries ($156,886); middle school reductions ($72,000); reduction of physical education teacher at the United Methodist Children's Home (UMCH) campus ($66,000); elimination of 1.5 special education assistant positions ($54,050); high school reductions ($36,000); extended day reductions ($33,423); summer school becomes self-supporting ($33,200); elimination of one building instructional assistant ($27,116); reduction of special education assistant at UMCH campus ($25,940); band and orchestra ($23,000); food at staff development meetings ($5,000); superintendent's raffle at annual convocation ($4,000).

Compromise: one technician for two school weight rooms

Thursday, August 3, 2006 By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

High school athletes will not have to pay to pump iron this year, but the hours their school weight rooms will be open could be curtailed.

One weight room technician will oversee the exercise facilities at both Thomas Worthington and Worthington Kilbourne high schools.

Since they opened, each weight room has had a full-time technician.

Dan Stephens, who formerly was the technician at only Kilbourne, will divide his time between the two schools. The contract of the Thomas Worthington technician will not be renewed.

The principals, athletic directors, and Stephens will meet soon to come up with a schedule, said district spokesperson Vicki Gnezda.

Students will be able to use the weight rooms at either high school, she said.

At a July 24 school board meeting, parents, students, and booster organization members turned out to ask that the positions of the weight room technicians not be discontinued, and was planned.

Athletic department heads had decided the department could no longer afford to pay the salaries from the department's $400,000 budget.

Those who spoke to the board, and board members, seemed to agree that charging students a fee to use the weight room would be a good compromise, allowing both positions to be funded.

During meetings over the past week, it was decided the athletic department could afford to pay one weight room technician for one year. Stephen's salary last year was $43,700.

It was made clear, though, that this is not a long-term solution. The school board requested that all parties involved come up with a way to keep the weight rooms open in the coming years.

The athletic department's budget covers all expenses required to be paid by the district, such as for officials and supplies. It covers middle as well as high school athletics.

Salaries and transportation costs are generally covered by the district budget.

Booster organizations provide extras such as awards and meals.

Booster groups built both modern weight rooms with money donated by the community. The Kilbourne facility opened in 1997, the Thomas one five years later.

Two new income tax options for schools

By PAMELA WILLIS

The Worthington school board threw out one income tax resolution and approved two more Monday, despite the objections and negative votes of two board members.

The resolutions are the first step in a process to put a possible income tax on the November ballot.

The board met at 7:30 a.m. Monday morning in a special meeting at the Worthington Education Center.

David Bressman and Bob Horton voted against the resolutions, while Gary Tyack, Jennifer Best and Marc Schare voted to approve the resolutions.

Failure of a 6.25-mill combined operating and permanent-improvement levy request May 2 means the district could face a budget deficit of more than $23 million by the end of fiscal year 2009, said Treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

Boyd said the first set of resolutions was for an income tax that would generate $7.25 million, designed to last three years. One version was for a regular income tax on individuals and estates, and the second version was for an earned income tax, which would exempt seniors on fixed incomes.

The second resolution would generate $10.4 million, which would be enough to last four years. It also had two versions, for a regular income tax and an earned income tax.

"Income taxes are permanent taxes once they are passed, but the amounts we needed to certify would generate enough for district operations for three years or four years," Boyd said. "But the resolutions were created for certification by the Department of Taxation only. A decision has not been made to place an income tax on an upcoming ballot."

To officially place an income tax on the November ballot, board members would have to approve a resolution to proceed by Aug. 24.

Board members will meet at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road, to consider property tax and income tax options.

Residents can attend two public forums to give their opinions on the levy options: one at 7 p.m. next Wednesday at the Griswold Center, sponsored by the Council for Public Deliberation; and one at 7:30 p.m. Aug. 10 at the Worthington Education Center, sponsored by the school district.

Board members are invited to the first forum, but cannot participate in a discussion because of the state's open-meetings laws, said Schare.

The resolution that was thrown out Monday was approved by the board July 24, which stated it "would raise annually the additional sum of $18,780,000."

"In the last resolution, the one the board nullified, I had put in what was reasonably expected to be collected instead of what our needs were," Boyd said. "Income taxes are done in one-fourth percent increments, so when you certify the need, the tax department will let you know if is a one-half or three-fourths percent tax, and this is rounded up, not down. So I wanted to state exactly what our need would be in these new resolutions."

Bressman said passing the resolutions "was a pretty big move away from the typical school levy."

"Southwestern schools had a community group spend five months studying income tax issues, and Bexley spent at least a year," Bressman said. "There has been no discussion of any substance about an income tax between our board members or with the community and I think it is a disservice to put these resolutions in front of the public without the board members hearing extensively from the treasurer, superintendent and members of the community."

Horton also voted against the income tax resolutions.

"An income tax is not the best thing for our district right now," Horton said. "It puts an undue burden on the wage-earners and excuses the businesses from paying for the schools. The burden of taxation gets shifted on the wage-earners, who could be paying more per year than with a property tax.

"As we eventually phase out personal property taxes, the district will have to look at ways to keep the schools afloat, but right now, this isn't the way to go. We are not done with our discussions about what will go on an upcoming ballot."

Study disputes traditional keys to success in school

Schare: Use money to benefit kids, not coaches

Thursday, July 27, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Worthington coaches will get raises this year, but don't look for baseball or softball teams to be formed at the district's four middle schools.

While the Worthington Board of Education could choose to fund the much-requested baseball/softball program at any time, it is not likely to approve any new expenditures at a time when budget reductions are being made.

And the approximately $100,000 extra the board pledged to spend on athletic coaches and activities advisers this year will not be diverted to either baseball/softball, or any other new offering for students, board members decided Monday night.

That disappoints board member Marc Schare, who urged the board to spend part of the money it promised to coaches and advisers on additional programs for students.

Adding middle school baseball and softball would provide opportunities for more than 100 students, and, since the board already agreed to spend the money, it would be virtually free for the first two years, he said.

"I am merely seeking to reallocate these funds in a way that provides real, tangible improvement in the experience of the kids that we serve," Schare said.

As part of last year's contract negotiations with teachers, the board pledged to increase funding for sports and co-curricular programs by 150 units. A unit costs the taxpayer between $476 and $839, bringing the total cost to between $71,400 and $125,850.

On top of that, according to Schare, the average supplemental contract recipient will receive between 6.5 percent and 7.5 percent for their service this year, and another 6.7 percent to 8.2 percent in August 2007.

Schare was elected to the board last November, and thus did not participate in negotiations that resulted in the raises.

He said he agreed that some coaches, particularly in the middle schools, are underpaid.

The other four board members voted against Schare's recommendation to review the recommendation of the committee set up to allocate the additional funds after consulting with stakeholders.

Jennifer Best said there was nothing she would like more than to see baseball and softball added to the middle schools.

The intent of approving the additional units was to increase the pay of coaches and advisers, and she could not renege on that promise, she said.

"That was the intent of all parties during negotiations," agreed board member David Bressman.

Schare made clear that adding baseball was not his priority, noting that the district had already allocated the money to sports and activities.

"I would very much prefer to see additions to the academic program, such as the reintroduction of foreign languages in the elementary schools," he said.

District seeks 1 percent tax on pay only

South-Western move would protect funds of the elderly

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 Charlie Roduta THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

South-Western school board members plan to ask voters to approve a 1 percent income tax that supporters say will protect senior citizens’ pocketbooks.

The board took the first steps yesterday to place a wage-only income tax on the November ballot. Board members will formally vote on the item at Monday’s meeting.

The income tax, which would be collected only on earned income from district residents and would exclude Social Security and pension dollars, would generate $19.8 million annually.

Treasurer Catherine Bulgrin said that if the tax is approved by voters, it would maintain the district’s level of funding but would not restore any of the $15.8 million that was cut this year, resulting in the loss of more than 100 teachers and 150 other employees.

Without the money, the board would face a $6 million deficit in 2008, school officials said.

"We have no choice if we’re going to provide a good education to our community," said board Vice President Gary Leasure.

South-Western’s budget for the upcoming school year is $185 million.

After two failed levy attempts, the district passed a 9.7-mill operating levy in May.

School officials had told residents that money from that would carry the district until 2008, but dwindling state dollars, soaring gas prices and students leaving for charter schools have taken a toll on the district’s finances, they said.

If voters reject the income tax in November, Bulgrin said the board can try again in spring. But it would be better to pass it in the fall, she said, because it will take 18 months for the district to get the full $19.8 million.

"People may see this as an instant cash flow to the district, but it takes a long time to collect," Bulgrin said.

"If it fails in November and we would have to go back in May, the income tax will be higher to make up for lost time," she said.

The proposal for an income tax came after a community forum studied the district’s finances for the past five months.

Among those who presented the income-tax proposal at yesterday’s meeting were residents who tried to repeal the 9.7-mill levy win in May, but failed.

Kathy Larzelere said the attempt to repeal the levy was in protest of the district saying a levy was the only solution to its financial doldrums, because district officials did not look at other options.

But with the forum gatherings, she said the district is now listening to what the community has to say.

"Now that we’ve got their attention, here’s one of the other choices," she said. "This is what we’ve wanted you to look at."

The wage-only income tax, approved by the legislature in last year’s budget bill, has become an option for several central Ohio school districts.

Lancaster schools will be placing a similar income tax before voters in November and Worthington schools will talk about doing the same in upcoming community meetings. Voters in North Fork schools in Licking County rejected a 1 percent wage-only income tax in May.

The wage-only tax would not affect interest dividends on stocks and bonds, capital gains, rental-property profits or lottery winnings, which are taxed under a traditional school income tax.

croduta@dispatch.com

Board takes step toward income tax levy

Thursday, July 27, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

The idea of paying for schools with an income tax levy is again being considered by the Worthington Board of Education.

On Monday, the board approved by 3-2 votes two resolutions requesting certification of income tax rates with the Ohio Department of Taxation.

The move does not commit the board to seeking an income tax levy in November, but is the first step that must be taken for that to happen.

The state will be asked to tell the district the size of income tax that would be needed to raise approximately $18.8-million annually.

The board will consider two types of income tax.

One would tax all income of individuals and estates.

A second would be levied on earned income only, with income from pensions, interest earnings and other similar incomes exempt.

The second form is designed to benefit senior citizens.

At public forums held prior to the defeat of the 6.25-mill combination operating/permanent improvements levy in May, many older residents stepped forward to request the board consider an income tax levy.

The idea is opposed by others, though, in part because it taxes individuals more heavily than businesses.

Some older residents also believe it is not fair to exclude them from sharing the burden of supporting schools.

Board member David Bressman, who joined Robert Horton in voting against the resolutions, said he is not ready to turn to income taxes.

"In a year or two it might make sense. Right now it is not fair," he said following Monday's meeting.

Gary Tyack, Marc Schare, and Jennifer Best voted for the resolutions, though Schare and Best questioned the amount that board treasurer Jonathan Boyd said was needed.

Boyd said he used the $18.8-million figure because it was the amount that would be needed to balance the books following the 18 months the district would be forced to wait to collect the taxes following approval of voters.

Best said she had been under the impression that an income tax would have to generate approximately $8- or $9-million a year.

"This number is obviously way high," Schare said.

Since the board is not forced to place an income tax on the ballot each time it asks for state certification, they suggested the board approve several resolutions.

Resolutions to raise $9-million, $12-million, or $15-million could be passed, then the board could decide which one would be best for the district, they said.

Schare said the topic would be discussed in the treasurer's advisory board meeting set for Tuesday night, then brought back at a later board meeting.

The board has until mid-August to request certification for an income tax levy.

Several meetings have been set up for the board and the community to discuss levy options and possible budget reductions prior to placing any kind of levy on the November ballot.

On Aug. 9, between 7 and 9 p.m., the public is invited to a forum sponsored by the Council for Public Deliberation at the Griswold Center. Topic will be "Who Should Pay for Worthington Schools -- Income Tax vs. Property Tax vs. No Tax."

The event is not an official board meeting, but board members are invited to come and listen.

A special board meeting to discuss an operating levy is set for Aug. 7. Boyd will present new financial forecast and levy scenarios, including an income tax.

A public forum sponsored by the board is being planned for Thursday, Aug. 10.

A regular meeting, at which a levy vote may be held, is scheduled for Aug. 14.

cbrooks@thisweeknews.com

District takes next step in pursuit of a tax issue

By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington voters may face an income tax instead of a property tax on the November ballot.

Worthington City Schools Board of Education members paved the way for a possible income tax in November by approving certification resolutions for two types of taxes at their Monday meeting.

Two board members, David Bressman and Bob Horton, cast "no" votes on both resolutions, but Jennifer Best, Gary Tyack and Marc Schare voted to approve the resolutions.

Failure of a 6.25-mill levy combined operating and permanent improvement request May 2 means the district could face a budget deficit of more than $23 million by the end of fiscal year 2009, according to district Treasurer Jonathan Boyd's latest five-year financial forecast.

In light of that, the board is considering its options.

The first resolution board members approved was a regular income tax, on individuals and estates. It would "raise annually the additional sum of $18,780,000..." the resolution stated.

The second resolution was for an earned income tax, which would exempt most senior citizens on fixed incomes.

Abramo Ottolenghi, a former board member and resident, said an earned income tax was not fair.

"It would be good for me, because I wouldn't pay a thing," Ottolenghi said.

"But it would not be fair, because some of the people taxed could be making less than my fixed income and still be taxed."

Boyd said passage of the resolutions does not mean the board will approve an income tax for the November ballot.

"The resolutions are designed to get the necessary certification from the Department of Taxation in compliance with the legal date requirements," Boyd said.

Boyd said a resolution to proceed would have to be filed before the Aug. 14 deadline if board members definitely agree on an income tax instead of a property tax request.

The Department of Taxation will send the district tax rates for each income tax resolution about a week after receiving the approved resolutions, Boyd said.

Boyd said he came up with the amount of $18.7 million, which may be a bit more than is needed, to cover the 18-month delay that districts experience in implementing and collecting an income tax.

Best wanted the community to know that passing the resolutions "does not lock us into a income tax."

Board members will meet again at 7:30 p.m. Aug. 7 at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road, to discuss possible levy request and amounts.

Residents are invited to give their opinions on those levy amounts and a possible income tax at the public forum to be held three days later, at 7:30 p.m. Aug. 10 at the same location.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath is expected to come up with a budget reduction list by the Aug. 7 board meeting that will identify up to $2 million in possible budget cuts to keep the new levy request as low as possible.

Conrath already secured $1.1 million in budget cuts recently by not replacing several retiring positions and asking for an across-the-board 15 percent reduction of departmental and building budgets.

Conrath cautioned last week that it won't be a detailed list, but rather a list of areas that could be cut.

"We're hoping to address many of these reductions through attrition over the next several years," she said.

Fees to use weight rooms at high schools may save positions

Thursday, July 27, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Athletes at both Worthington high schools can expect to pay to use the schools' weight rooms this year.

Though no final decision has been made, parents, booster club officials, and Superintendent Melissa Conrath planned to meet this week to find a way to pay the attendants who run the weight rooms at Worthington Kilbourne and Thomas Worthington high schools.

A popular solution among residents who spoke at Monday's meeting of the Worthington Board of Education was to charge an annual fee -- $50 was suggested -- to students who use the facilities.

Parents, coaches, booster groups members, and student athletes turned out in force at the meeting after learning that the board planned to not fund the weight room technician positions this year.

Since 2003-04, the athletic departments have paid the salaries from their budgets. But that budget "has been on a collision course for the last several years" and a decision was made to not fund the positions this year.

Conrath said she felt the general fund could not pick up the positions, and recommended that the jobs be eliminated.

Including salary and benefits, the cost of one position is $46,036, the other is $34,545.

Booster groups built both modern weight rooms with money donated by the community. The Kilbourne facility opened in 1997, the Thomas one five years later.

"We as a community got together and built something for our children," said Andy Tilton, a parent of two Thomas graduates and himself a Worthington alumni.

He said the onus was on the board to fund the technician positions because of promises made during the ribbon cutting in August 2002.

At that time, a district spokesman told ThisWeek that the issue of the salary of weight room technicians "would be constantly re-evaluated."

Thomas Worthington parent Mike Barren said that he learned of the weight room closing last Thursday, when his son was asked to leave.

"I can't help but feel backed into a corner," he said.

Safety is a major concern in a weight room without a trained technician, he said, and the facilities will not be used to their potential.

"We will lose our competitive edge," he said. "Our sports programs will suffer."

Former Kilbourne football coach Jeff Gafford suggested the $50 user fee.

"As a parent, I would be happy to pay a fee to keep the weight room open," said board member Jennifer Best, whose son is an athlete at Kilbourne.

The board owes it to the community that built the weight rooms to find a way to keep them staffed, she said.

Because the technicians' contracts expire July 31, the board must take some action by then. A tentative special board meeting has been set for that date.

Conrath, staff continue work to prune district's budget

By PAMELA WILLIS

What to cut and what to keep is being decided by Superintendent Melissa Conrath and her cabinet as they work to reduce the Worthington City School District's operating budget.

School board members will use Conrath's list of reductions to determine what levy amount, if any, to place before voters on the November ballot.

Failure of the 6.25-mill combined operating and permanent-improvement levy request May 2 means the district could face a budget deficit of more than $23 million by the end of fiscal year 2009, said Treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

"It probably won't be a detailed list, but it will be a list of areas where we could cut," Conrath said. "We're hoping to address many of these reductions through attrition over the next several years, without cutting positions. We know areas where we can reduce, but will not commit to a certain number of personnel positions."

Conrath's list may identify up to $2 million in cuts and is expected to be available to board members by early August.

Board members will mull over possible levy amounts and options at a board meeting set for 7:30 p.m. Aug. 7 at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road.

Residents can give their opinions on those levy amounts and options at a public forum set for 7:30 p.m. Aug. 10 at the same location.

Conrath already has secured $1.1 million in budget cuts by not replacing several retiring positions, including a vacant administrative position, and asking for an across-the-board 15 percent reduction of departmental and building budgets.

If another levy request fails, cuts will have to be deeper, and Conrath's list will be long.

"If a levy request is put on the ballot in November and is not successful, we will have to look at major reductions that we would not have to be put in place until the following school year, but we would have to come up with a plan for continued reductions," Conrath said. "One thing I heard from community members after the 6.25-mill levy failed is that they did not know the consequences they would face if the levy request failed.

"No one wants to conduct a negative campaign, and we always want to look at things positively, but if the board decides on a November levy request and that request fails, we would have lost the opportunity to collect the revenue for this tax year, and it would mean some major reductions," Conrath said.

Conrath's cabinet consists of the assistant superintendent and the directors of human resources, elementary education, secondary education, communication, staff development and special education, along with the treasurer.

"We are trying to look at different scenarios so that the levy request could be in a similar range of amount as the May request, but instead of lasting for only two years, could last for three, possibly four years," Conrath said. "We are looking at reductions that will be ongoing, so that we can save those funds each year."

Conrath said she initiated the process of the reductions internally by asking departmental staff who have a good understanding of the operations of the school district.

"We also worked with a filter, giving us guidelines that included looking at the needs of students, and looking at other schools with similar demographics and similar results on the state report card," Conrath said. "We compared our staffing levels and our programs, and examined the resources these schools use to achieve comparable results."

Staff reductions in the middle schools already are planned, because middle school enrollment is projected to drop to 1,337 students by 2008. Enrollment was 1,530 last school year.

Assistant Superintendent Paul Cynkar said "strategically reducing team sizes based on enrollment numbers" meant 5.2 certified staff members could be reduced this year and five more in 2007, which would lead to additional reductions in classified and cocurricular staff.

"We are looking at positions, finding ways to realign responsibilities, or shift responsibilities and looking at ways to reduce program budgets," Conrath said. "We know the interaction of student and teacher in the classroom is what our business is about, and will consider that some expenses occur outside the classroom, but that doesn't mean it does not contribute to the classroom."

Conrath said the reduction process will be ongoing.

"I'm a fairly frugal person, and I think we should be constantly looking at ways we can reduce expenditures," she said.

SPAC: Pay coaches more, don't add teams

Thursday, July 6, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

The additional money to be spent on athletics next year should go toward increasing the pay of coaches, not toward adding teams.

That is one of the primary recommendations of a committee that recently completed a study of the athletic and other co-curricular programs in the Worthington Schools.

The report of the Supplemental Program Advisory Committee (SPAC) was presented to the Worthington Board of Education at a special retreat in June.

The board is scheduled to vote on the recommendations regarding pay for fall coaches on July 24, then spend more time reviewing the recommendations.

The board overturned one of the recommendations before the ink dried on the report. After parents and students complained about the recommended elimination of the middle school gymnastics program at a June 12 meeting, the board instructed SPAC to reinstate the program in its recommendations.

The report also does not recommend the addition of middle school baseball and softball.

Parents have been asking the board for those programs for many years, but SPAC co-chair James McElligott said the committee decided to not recommend they be started in the schools because community groups provide baseball opportunities for middle school aged students.

Board members said they continue to receive requests for middle school baseball, and indicated it would be discussed at a future board meeting.

Beginning in the fall, the district will have 150 additional compensation units to allocate among activities and athletics in the district.

The cost of those units is between $100,000 and $150,000, according to administrators' estimates at the June retreat.

The additional funding of coaches was part of the bargaining agreement between the school board and Worthington Education Association last fall.

SPAC was made up of five members of the administration and five of the teachers' union.

Its duties were to review allocation of compensation units, maintaining the current ratio of athletic to non-athletic units; review removal or addition of programs; evaluate program merit; review measures to increase economy and efficiency of programs; and review measures to increase program revenues.

One of the charges of the WEA was that the committee specifically target increasing compensation for assistant and middle school coaches as a way to attract and maintain more staff members as coaches.

Of the head coaching positions at the high school level, only 27, or 46.5 percent, are teaching in the respective building.

Of the assistant level coaches at the high schools, only 17 percent of the positions are filled by teachers in the buildings.

At the middle school level, "less than a handful" of coaches teach in the schools, according to the report.

Overall, the additional 150 units of pay that will be added this year will not be enough to make Worthington competitive with surrounding districts, but it is an improvement, according to the report.

It would take 360 units to bring supplemental positions to the average pay in the Ohio Capital Conference, according to the SPAC report.

Other conclusions and recommendations of the report:

# Booster organizations interested in supplementing program staff should be allowed the opportunity to make a donation to the district, earmarked for funding a coaching or advising position.

# Funding for weight-training technicians at the weight rooms at both high schools should be funded from the general fund, not taken from the athletic fund.

# Because of finances, competition from other districts, and declining enrollment, Worthington can no longer exist under the assumption of 1988 -- "if students want it...we will provide it."

# With declining enrollment at the middle school, some programs will be reduced and/or combined, depending upon number of students participating and whether the sport is offered by private vendors.

# To increase revenues, the district should consider using more advertising on stadiums and scoreboards; establishing an alumni association; eliminating the ban on gambling, so that activities such as bingo and casino nights can be held; hiring a development director to develop financial resources.

"The committee believes we must take bold steps to ensure the success of the co-curricular program," the report concludes.

Firm researches public opinion for schools

Thursday, June 29, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Information gathered through a telephone survey of Worthington school district residents will be used in district marketing and advertising efforts.

Approximately 420 randomly selected residents have answered questions over the past few months in telephone interviews being conducted by Bill Grindle of Communica, Inc..

Grindle is a Worthington resident and school volunteer who works for the Toledo-based marketing, advertising, and public relations firm.

The firm is being paid $13,000 by the schools to assess community perceptions of the performance of the Worthington schools and residents' tolerance for advertising in the schools.

Public opinion about the schools has not been measured for about 10 years, said district spokesperson Vicki Gnezda.

"We felt it was time to get a baseline for what the community values," she said.

Besides the telephone interviews, Grindle interviewed business leaders, city officials, media and other focus groups.

Results of the survey and interviews will be presented at a Worthington Board of Education meeting later this summer, Gnezda said.

Information will also be used to formulate a marketing plan for the district, she said, noting that more districts are being more aggressive about promoting themselves to the public.

"There is value in strengthening your image," she said.

A second purpose of the survey is to gauge public opinion about advertising in the schools.

About two years ago, the school board approved a policy allowing more advertising in the schools. Since then, new advertising signs have been erected at the high school football stadiums, and a school calendar has been produced by advertisers.

Also, through a deal arranged by Grindle, a local drug store sponsored last year's staff directory.

The survey will help the district's advertising committee decide what other types of revenue-generating school advertising would be accepted by the public, said assistant superintendent of schools Paul Cynkar.

Grindle approached the district with a proposal for the survey, Gnezda said. Two other firms were contacted and made proposals. Communica's was the lowest bid, she said.

Board leans to fall ballot, $3-million in budget cuts

Thursday, June 22, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Supt. Melissa Conrath will identify $3-million in budget reductions and report back to the school board in late July, in time to place an operating levy on the November ballot.

Those were the directions of the Worthington Board of Education at a retreat to discuss budgets, levies and other issues held last Friday evening and Saturday morning at the Worthington Education Center.

No decisions were made, but during informal discussions board members seemed to favor placing a levy on the fall ballot.

In May, voters turned down a 6.25-mill combination operating/permanent improvements levy by a 60-40 margin.

That levy would have kept the district afloat for two years and provided money for building repairs and other capital items.

At the end those two years, another levy of up to 10-mills would have been on the ballot.

Administrators and board members seemed to agree that voters will not accept such a scenario, and pledged not only to cut spending, but to design the next levy so that it would cover three or four years.

"Part of why we went down in glorious flames was we were talking about coming back in two years with twice the amount," said board president Gary Tyack.

Some board members suggested that a more long-term approach be taken to reducing spending, or what board member Marc Schare called "controlled downsizing."

He suggested that administrators look at reductions without an end number in mind. The district has an opportunity to get out of what he called "perpetual campaign mode."

"We can turn this into a real opportunity of getting people excited about a new way of doing things," Schare said.

Conrath acknowledged that making some reductions "cause discomfort."

"I would like to identify efficiencies and ways of doing business that don't take away from the quality of education," she said. "If the levy fails, we are looking at a different list."

Board members briefly discussed some of the budget cuts that might not be popular, such as closing schools; reconfiguring elementary schools; and eliminating positions, such as librarians, counselors and nurses.

For now, the board wants administrators to cut $3-million "of obvious things," Schare said.

Conrath and a team of 10 staff meet each week to consider reductions, and so far had identified $1.1-million in reductions that can be made beginning next school year, with the remainder of the $3-million of yet-to-be-determined cuts to go into effect the following year.

The immediate cuts include approximately 14 full-time-equivalent positions. Conrath said the "body count" would be nine, all of them covered by attrition.

Reductions include 10 percent departmental reductions ($258,000); 15 percent building reductions ($175,579); reconfiguration of duties for secondary education director ($141,148); elimination of three high school secretaries ($156,886); middle school reductions ($72,000); reduction of physical education teacher at the United Methodist Children's Home (UMCH) campus ($66,000); elimination of 1.5 special education assistant positions ($54,050); high school reductions ($36,000); extended day reductions ($33,423); summer school becomes self-supporting ($33,200); elimination of one building instructional assistant ($27,116); reduction of special education assistant at UMCH campus ($25,940); band and orchestra ($23,000); food at staff development meetings ($5,000); superintendent's raffle at annual convocation ($4,000).

Tyack rejected treasurer Jonathan Boyd's recommendation that permanent improvement funds be generated with a two-year bond levy, followed by an permanent improvements levy.

"We don't want to come back in two years," Tyack said.

Board works to bring down costs, mulls Nov. 7 ballot

By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington school board members met for a retreat last week to discuss the timing of another operating levy request, which voters could see on the ballot in November.

The board met Friday and Saturday for their annual board retreat, held this year on the third floor of the Worthington Education Center.

Board President Gary Tyack said discussion on the first day covered ways to respond to the May ballot failure of the district's 6.25-mill combined operating and permanent-improvement request.

"We were trying to discuss what we needed to do between now and August to make an intelligent decision on when to go back to voters with a new levy request," Tyack said.

Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the district will face a budget deficit of nearly $23 million by the end of fiscal year 2009, unless more revenue is generated.

"I think I made it clear, and the other board members agreed, that we don't want to consider any options that would require us to go back to voters every two years," Tyack said.

Board members would have to decide on a levy request amount before Aug. 24 if they want to place a request on the November ballot, Tyack said.

Budget reductions

Superintendent Melissa Conrath presented board members with ways to reduce district staff expenditures by $1.1 million in the coming school year, by not replacing several retiring positions and proposing an across-the-board reduction of departmental budgets of 10 percent.

The reconfiguration of the director of secondary education position, vacated by Scot Prebles, is part of the $1.1 million in savings, since that position was added to the duties of Director of Student Services Jim McElligott.

"Melissa is preparing another list of possible cuts, and we asked her to put together a list of what might have to be cut if the next levy request fails," Tyack said. "Some people may see this list as a threat, but we need to know what we will face if we don't pass a levy in the foreseeable future."

Board member Jennifer Best said members discussed placing another 6.25-mill operating levy request on the November ballot, but also making enough cuts so that funds generated by the request would last at least three years and maybe longer.

"Melissa will come back to us in mid-July with a list of possible cuts, and we're beginning to discuss long-term planning on how we can keep our expenses down," Best said. "We are trying to look at cuts that do not directly affect students."

'A better slope'

Board member Marc Schare said he was pleased with the direction of the discussions.

"We had a really free-flowing discussion of financial issues and spent some time talking about the mechanics of the next levy request," Schare said. "We know the notion of double-digit property-tax requests every other year forever will not fly with the community.

"There was a general recognition among board members to do something to move the expense line to a better slope," Schare said.

Schare said Conrath told board members she is meeting with administrators and discussing ways to restructure how the district offers its services, which could result not only in savings in expenditures, but could maintain and increase the quality of the education provided to students.

Reconfiguration?

Reconfiguration of the elementary grades, into K-3 and 4-6 buildings, is one of the changes being discussed among administrators to increase efficiency and decrease costs, Schare said.

"Principals have long favored reconfiguration as a way to provide a quality elementary education and in implementing best practices, but parents hated the idea when the declining enrollment committee suggested it," Schare said. "But that could be because it was presented as a way to save money, not as a way to give an even better education to our elementary students."

Schare said board members agreed that community engagement is needed to determine what residents value about the school district and where they want to be in five or 10 years.

On the second day of the retreat, board members reviewed portions of the Superintendent's Task Force report, which was prepared at the request of former Superintendent Rick Fenton.

They also heard a report by McElligott on the Supplemental Program Advisory Committee's recommendations for allocation of 150 extra units of extracurricular compensation.

Quality defined

The first recommendation of the task force was to define a quality education, Best said.

"Melissa wants to put together a committee to work with the community and figure out what residents want to see in a high-quality school district," Best said. "The allocation of the extra units of extracurricular compensation was already agreed on in the negotiated contract last year."

Best said the added compensation units would bring district coaches' salaries closer to the salaries of coaches at other OCC schools.

"The additional cost to the district would be about $100,000, which was already written into the five-year forecast," Best said. "We saved so much on health insurance in the last negotiated contract that we were able to give an adequate percentage raise to teachers and able to add these supplemental units. Compared to most other OCC schools, our coaches are very much underpaid."

Sports safe for now

Best said the advisory committee did not make any further recommendations to reduce or eliminate any sports for the next school year.

"The recommendation presented at the last board meeting, to eliminate middle school gymnastics and freshman golf due to high cost and low enrollment, was not repeated by the committee and there will be no changes in cocurricular program this next school year."

Schare said he would like to see the district maximize its participation rate in extracurricular activities.

"The more kids you have doing extracurricular activities, the higher quality of education you have," Schare said.

Council votes 5-2 to increase taxes

Thursday, June 22, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Worthington City Council raised taxes on Monday night, and not one resident complained.

Council voted 5-2 to increase municipal property taxes from 3 mills to 5 mills.

The increase will appear on December's property tax bills. The owner of a $100,000 house, who currently pays $92 to the city, will pay an additional $62 annually.

Council is permitted to levy up to 8 mills of property tax without a vote of residents, according to a provision of the city charter.

It announced in early May that it was considering the increase, and invited residents to share their opinions.

At a public forum two weeks ago, four residents spoke in favor of the increase, and none against.

Before the vote on Monday, council again asked for public input. Only James May spoke.

"I feel strongly such a small increase is well warranted," he said, noting that only 5 cents of each property tax dollar paid by a Worthington resident goes to the city.

He thanked the city for managing finances openly and frugally.

Council member Lou Briggs said she knew of only two letters received on the subject. One writer questioned how hard the city had tried to trim spending, another suggested that more money be set aside for economic development.

Even with the show of support for raising taxes, council members Doug Holmes and Michael Duffey voted "no" on Monday.

Holmes said the city should sell the 10 acres on Godown Road it owns, make more cuts, then re-evaluate the need for a tax increase in a year.

Duffey said council should have made more budget reductions before increasing taxes.

"I don't believe we have looked diligently or aggressively enough at making cuts," he said.

Council member Bob Chosy disagreed.

"Staff has cut repeatedly," he said. "We're at the point where we would either cut personnel or cut services. This is a relatively small tax."

Duffey said the majority of positive public testimony came from members of groups that receive public funding.

"We haven't heard from a broad majority of the community," he said.

Holmes said that many people who oppose the tax hike will not come to meetings, but look to council to do the right thing.

Council member Bonnie Michael said the local newspapers did a good job letting residents know about the possible tax increase.

"Worthington is a very intelligent community. When they want to tell us something, they tell us," said council president Lou Goorey.

Council member John Butterfield voted for the increase, but only after receiving from other council members a commitment to use funds to expand the city's economic development efforts.

Unless the city is more successful in retaining and attracting jobs, the tax increase will only be a Band-Aid solution, Butterfield said.

"It will get us through for a short period of time, then what?" he asked.

Goorey, Briggs, and Michael said they agreed that more should be spent on economic development, but none pledged to support Butterfield's long-standing recommendation to hire a full-time economic development director.

Currently, economic development is handled by assistant city manager Paul Feldman, who has other job duties.

"We have a wonderful economic development department," Goorey said.

BOARD DOESN'T WANT TO CUT ANY FALL SPORTS

By EVAN BROOKS ThisWeek Contributor Illustration: Photo

The middle school gymnastics flap lasted about as long as a back flip.

Dozens of teenage gymnasts and their parents showed up at the Worthington Education Center prior to Monday night's Worthington school board meeting.

"Save middle school gymnastics," they chanted. "Save middle school gymnastics."

The meeting started, and several speakers spoke passionately in behalf of the gymnastics program.

To the apparent relief of the crowd, board president Gary Tyack said a committee report had just barely made it, officially, to the desks of board members. The board has a retreat scheduled June 16 and 17 to discuss budget issues and possible cuts.

"It is very clear that a majority of the board is not in favor of eliminating any sports for this fall," Tyack said.

The uproar began when nearly two weeks ago, one Worthington parent, Connie Knickerbocker, said she learned that the school district's Supplemental Program Advisory Committee (SPAC) had placed the Worthington middle school gymnastics program "under scrutiny."

According to a recent report from the committee, the middle school gymnastics program is expendable for three reasons:

* The number of participating students in the two middle school gymnastics teams is low.

* Practice equipment and transportation costs are high for road events.

* Students still have the option of joining a private gymnastics club.

Knickerbocker and other parents and gymnasts said this is an incorrect analysis. One by one, they stood up during the meeting to give testimony of their love for gymnastics and rebut the reasons laid out by SPAC.

Knickerbocker was the first to speak. She said she understood budget cuts were necessary, but she didn't agree with what she called the arbitrary cutting of just one sport. She proposed the board form a committee to properly analyze all sports and make the proper cuts.

"Let's make a decision using correct information," she said.

Next, another parent, Patty Benninger, said the committee's suggestion of low participation was wrong. Last year, the Worthington Kilbourne Middle School team had 19 girls, and the McCord-Perry team had 15. Some girls who tried out for the team had to be turned away, she said. Benninger also said that the availability of private gymnastics clubs isn't as convenient as SPAC members might think. Private clubs are far more expensive than the $120 pay-to-play fee at Worthington schools, she said.

Cindy Fushimi, high school gymnastics coach, questioned the validity of cutting one female sport. Title IX mandates if one female sport is cut, one male sport must be cut, she said.

Board examines health insurance pool

Thursday, May 25, 2006

By MICHAEL J. MAURER Record Staff Writer

A state board charged with establishing a single health insurance pool for all Ohio school district employees turned its attention May 17 to a number of existing consortia that provide such health insurance.

Sandra Caldwell, administrative director of the Butler County Health Plan, one of the four largest consortia in Ohio, covering 7,000 employees, said each consortia has developed in its own way.

"When you've seen one, you've seen one," Caldwell said.

In general, she said, consortia are voluntary cooperatives under which school districts have banded together to purchase insurance. Some consortia involve sharing insurance risks, where populations of school districts are combined for purposes of calculating prices and actuarial expectations of expenses for illness, while others are simply administrative agencies that share some costs but maintain independent insurance pools.

In addition to the Butler County plan, the state's four largest include consortia based in Allen and Stark counties and the Southwestern Ohio Educational Purchasing Council.

Board chair Stephen Loebs, a retired professor of health management at The Ohio State University, said a close examination of the existing plans would be essential to the board's mandate under H.B. 66, the state's two-year operating budget bill.

"Consortia are central to discussions we will have later on this year," Loebs said. "We have no idea how successful the consortia are in what they're trying to do and we need to get that information."

In related business during its May 17 meeting, the board discussed a request for proposals under which a consultant will be hired to perform a statewide survey of existing health care options for public school district employees.

Caldwell said there is no centralized information available about existing consortia, but she estimated there are 30 to 35 in operation in Ohio, covering more than 70,000 employees and more than half of Ohio's school districts. The number of covered employees in the plans ranges from as few as 120 to as many as 120,000, she said.

About half of the total number were formed in the 1980s, with the remainder coming later. Several times, Caldwell said, local governments such as townships, have approached the consortia seeking to join them, but in general, such efforts have been rebuffed.

"(Townships and local governments) have come to us and said, 'Can you help us?' But historically, we have felt we were not a homogeneous group with them," she said.

David Manning, an independent consultant whose clients include the Ohio Mid-Eastern Regional Education Service Agency, a purchasing cooperative for 51 school districts, said that while consortia are subject to state audit, there are few requirements for such groups to maintain actuarial cash reserves against expected expenses, as insurance companies are required to do.

"Some of these consortia have very little in the way of reserves," Manning said, noting that the board could not simply compare consortia prices to decide if they are performing satisfactorily.

"Their rates may be low because they have not built reserves, or their rates may also be high because they are trying to catch up," Manning said.

Caldwell said it was also her experience that, although state law requires the consortia to prepare actuarial reports describing their rates, reserves and expected obligations, those reports simply are not used by anyone.

"I used to send it to my treasurers (of the member school districts), but they didn't want it," she said. "In 15 years, in my experience, an auditor has asked to see it once."

As they have in several past meetings since the board was organized earlier this year, board members continued to challenge a basic assumption of the board's creation, namely, that it makes sense to establish a mandatory, single health insurance pool for all school district employees in Ohio.

Board vice-chair Chris Mohr, financial officer for Dublin City Schools, said if the principle of mandatory pooling makes sense for one class of government employee, it makes sense for all.

"Why were we an obvious target?" Mohr said. "If this is a good idea, this is a good idea for everybody."

Conrath, board grapple with plans for levy

Thursday, May 25, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Superintendent of Schools Melissa Conrath sees the challenge created by the failure of 6.25-mill levy earlier this month as an opportunity to take a hard look at where the district is, and where it is headed.

Voters told her they do not want to continue to be faced with levies every two years, and she believes school officials need to respond by looking at every possible cost reduction, then returning to the voters with a plan.

"We need a plan to communicate to the community that tells them where we will be for the next four or five years," she told the Worthington Board of Education at its work session Monday night.

Board members listened to her explain how she intends to weigh and rate possible expense reductions, then shared of their own impressions after hearing some hard numbers presented by board treasurer Jonathan Boyd.

He presented 34 possible levy scenarios, ranging from returning to voters with a two-year levy in November of this year, to a four-year levy in May 2007.

The board could request a levy that would cover two, three or four years.

The levy could reflect no cuts in the budget, or cuts ranging up to $35.7-million.

His future levy option scenarios came with no recommendations, but he did caution the board that postponing the levy until 2007 would likely place the district in what the state refers to as "fiscal caution," and if that levy would fail, the district would go into "fiscal emergency."

Under "fiscal caution," the state requires the district to file a detailed plan that includes what will happen if the levy fails.

"Fiscal emergency" means the state appoints a oversight board to take control of district spending.

Board members did not comment on the possible size and timing of the next levy. Both David Bressman and Robert Horton said they would like to hear more from the community before making those decisions.

Bressman pointed out that it was not just the people who vote against every levy who opposed the latest one. The levy was defeated in precincts that generally support school issues.

"I believe in the democratic process," he said. "People don't want the status quo."

The board must listen to the people, ask for input on cost-saving measures from staff and make some hard decisions, he said.

The board needs to reconsider options such as closing a school, reconfiguration and redistricting, he said.

Programs should not be cut until other options are explored, he said.

"I'm not too much concerned about buildings," he said.

Board president Gary Tyack interrupted Bressman, saying board members should not express opinions in public and be locked into those opinions before Conrath has time to complete her plan.

Horton said he would like to return to public forums to show the community the difference between minimum state standards and what is offered in Worthington.

"I don't think anyone would like to see what a district at state minimums would look like," he said.

In many cases, the district has few options for cutting costs, he said.

Conrath said she plans to include interviews with community members in developing a cost reduction plan.

School board contemplates plan for cuts, ballot issues

By PAMELA WILLIS

Sharp budget cuts are looming in the Worthington City School District's future as school board members begin to discuss what to ax and what to keep.

The board met Monday evening at the Worthington Education Center to respond to the failure of the 6.25-mill combined levy request May 2.

The levy would have cost homeowners an additional $191 annually per $100,000 in property valuation, generating about $12 million per year for the district, but would fund school operating costs for only two years, district officials have said.

Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the district is facing a projected budget deficit of $23 million by the end of fiscal year 2009.

Monday's work session included possible levy request scenarios and a discussion on where to begin budget cuts.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said the failure of the levy means the district has to come up with a plan for a stable financial future.

"I feel strongly we need to put together a plan for the next four or five years, look at expenses and plan for the revenues we will need," Conrath said. "As I spent the last four months talking to several groups of people, I think most people believe we do an exceptional job of educating students and want that to continue."

Conrath said the Chinese word for crisis includes symbols meaning danger, but also opportunity.

"We need to look at a reduction in our expenses and slow the growth curve of increased expenditures, whether they are staffing reductions or looking at long-term initiatives and changes to improve inefficiencies," Conrath said.

Conrath asked Boyd to calculate future levy-request options. Boyd's possible levy scenarios included a November 2006 levy request of 8.13 mills with no cuts; a 5-mill levy with cuts totaling more than $26 million over five years; a 6.94-mill request with $2 million in initial budget cuts and $10 million in cuts over the next five years; and a 6.34-mill request with $3 million cut initially and $15 million cut over the next five years. The requests would be designed to last four years, Boyd said.

Boyd's calculations for three-year levy requests in November included a 6.65-mill request with no cuts; a 5-mill request with $10 million in cuts over the next four years; a 6.03-mill request with $1 million cut initially, then $4 million cut over the next four years; and a 5.42-mill request with $2 million cut initially and $8 million cut over the next four years.

If the district waits until May 2007 to put a levy request on the ballot, 10.51 mills would be needed for a three-year levy request with no cuts; 5 mills with nearly $36 million in cuts over the next five years; 9.74 mills with $1 million in initial cuts and $5 million over the next five years; 8.97 mills with $2 million in initial cuts and $10 million over the next five years; or 8.19 mills with $3 million in initial cuts and $15 million in cuts over the next five years.

"If we delay a levy request until May '07, the district could be placed in the category of fiscal caution and have to file a plan on how we plan to cover our budget deficit," Boyd said.

He said the category of fiscal caution can impact a district's ability to obtain loans. In a state of fiscal emergency, the state will take over the district's financial decisions.

Board member David Bressman said he strongly believes in the democratic process. He said the district should be back on the ballot in November.

"Voters don't want the status quo," Bressman said. "It is the people who usually vote for our levy requests who decided not to. We need to make some tough decisions and implement them, not present them as threats. We may need to look at building mergers and closures and possibly grade reconfiguration and changes in class sizes."

Bressman said he is "very much opposed" to cutting programs.

"I'm not too much concerned with buildings -- they are just brick and mortar," Bressman said. "We may need to look again at consolidating programs, but also take a fresh look at outsourcing and even partnering with other districts to share efficiencies."

Board member Bob Horton said he wanted to discuss quality with the community.

"We need to find out how much we are spending for a quality program and determine what the community is willing to pay for," Horton said. "I don't think our community wants to see a district at the state minimum requirement level."

Conrath said she wants to come up with a list of possible reductions: what might have to be cut right away, what could return if a levy request passes, or what cuts might not return.

"We need to work with a district leadership team to look at areas where we can make reductions, plus talk to staff and the community to get their feedback," Conrath said. "By the end of July, I'd like to present a list of things we can do right away and a financial plan for the future.

"We all know what a quality education is, but we need to determine what components have to stay to keep us a quality district," Conrath said.

Sold! City owns annex and 752 building

Thursday, May 18, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

It's official. The city now owns the Packard annex building at Thomas Worthington High School and the old school administration building at 752 High St.

On Monday night, with school and Worthington Arts Council leaders in the audience, Worthington City Council approved the subdivision plats and purchase agreements that transfer ownership from the Worthington City Schools to the city of Worthington.

The city will pay $500,001 dollars for the package deal -- $1 for the annex, $500,000 for the administration building, which is now referred to as the 752 building.

The 90-year-old annex building -- the original high school built on the West Granville Road site -- will be transformed into the McConnell Arts Center, if the Worthington Arts Council raises enough money. If that does not happen within five years, ownership reverts to the schools.

The city has no plans for the 752 building, which has been vacant since school administrators moved to 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road about five years ago.

"The community told us they wanted us to use this as a public building," council member Lou Briggs said in explaining the reason for the purchase.

The city has been talking about and negotiating the purchase of the two buildings for several years.

"I'm delighted we can work together and see these plans come to fruition," Worthington school board vice president Bob Horton said on Monday.

The Arts Council has raised about $3-million of the approximate $3.8-million needed to transform the annex into the Peggy R. McConnell Arts Center of Worthington, which will be used by the schools, the Worthington Arts Council, and local arts groups for performances, classes, and meeting space.

The center will be open to all residents of the Worthington school district.

City manager Dave Elder said on Monday that $300,000 a year has been set aside for operating the center, beginning mid-year in 2008.

Building committee chair Michael Ball told council that plans for the renovation and addition are being reworked by architects from Design Group, since the original plans already approved by the city and used for fund-raising "are likely to run over budget."

The new plan will either include a 1,000 square foot addition or demolition of part of the old building and some new construction.

The sale agreement includes enough land for 67 parking spaces around the building plus the use of 33 school parking spaces when school is not in session.

Providing for parking was a sticking point in negotiations. The schools reportedly only allowed for the parking with the agreement by the city that it would purchase the 752 building.

That did not go as smoothly on Monday as the purchase of the annex building.

Some council members are concerned that the city is purchasing a building for which it has no use.

Council member John Butterfield said he was also concerned about costs. Elder estimated it would cost $200,000 to $300,000 to bring the 752 building up to code, though earlier estimates placed that figure at more than $1-million.

"Where do we get the funds to renovate the building?" Butterfield asked.

The city plans to hold a public forum to hear opinions about how the building should be used, but Butterfield, Michael Duffey and Briggs voted against the purchase.

"I would have liked a date set (for the forum) before the purchase," Briggs said.

Also on Monday, council tabled the proposed rezoning that would allow a Walgreens to be constructed in the front parking lot of the Radisson Hotel, 7007 N. High St. The council hearing will be June 12.

City's purchase of buildings: 'A historic moment'

City will pay schools $500,001 for pair of Downtown buildings; needed repairs may be costly

By BRITTINY DUNLAP

An issue Worthington City Council has been discussing for years reached a historic point Monday with the city's acquisition of two parcels of land from the Worthington City School District.

City Council decided Monday to purchase the 752 building at the corner of High Street and Dublin-Granville Road and the Packard Annex at the corner of Dublin-Granville Road and Evening Street.

The exchange will cost $500,001 and be paid to the school district over the next six years, according to contracts. The money will be paid into the district's permanent-improvement fund.

The decision to move forward with the purchase did not come easily. Council debated for more than an hour before voting unanimously for the final plats for the two properties and the acquisition of the annex. But a 5-2 vote, with council members Lou Briggs and John Butterfield dissenting, almost halted the deal.

Both Briggs and Butterfield said they had hoped to have public forums discussing the use of the building before continuing with the purchase of the property.

Councilman Mike Duffey said he would be opposed to acquiring the 752 building if the city closed the door on possibilities of using the space for private companies.

"But I do agree that it is important to acquire property when it is available," he said. "Despite prior reservations, I'm OK with it."

Before the building can be used, a number of repairs are necessary, including bringing the building into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cost to bring the building to code fluctuate and are contingent upon the use of the building, said City Manager Dave Elder. The city can expect to spend $200,000 at a minimum and possibly more than $1 million, he said.

While councilman Doug Holmes voted in favor of the purchase, he was the driving force behind demanding a public forum to discuss the future uses of the building. City Council will host a public forum to discuss possible uses at 7:30 p.m. June 26 at the site, 752 N. High St.

The Packard Annex, which is slated to be developed into the Peggy R. McConnell Arts Center of Worthington, was unanimously approved without hesitation by City Council.

"While I know the budget money is tight right now, I support council moving forward with the arts center because it will be a wonderful addition to the community," said councilwoman Bonnie Michael.

The project construction manager, architect and city engineer took a tour of the building last week to assess the condition of the property.

"It's been unoccupied and is subject to minor repair problems such as roof leaks," said Nick Ball, a representative of the arts council. "The building is very structurally sound."

Referencing a planning document dated 1952, school board Vice President Bob Horton said the arts center "is one more jewel in that beautiful crown that was started so long ago.

"This is a historic moment and a gigantic leap of faith by the city of Worthington," he said.

A contingency in the contract will give the arts council five years to raise the money and begin construction on the arts center, which is estimated to cost $3.8 million with additional money needed for furnishings and operating costs. If, at that time, the arts center is not a possibility, the building can be turned back over to the school district.

The arts council plans to form a consortium of representatives from the city, school district and arts council to deal with the construction of the building. Representatives currently are working to get the consortium tax-exempt status, said Larry France, with the arts council.

"I'm delighted I've been a part of a council that's been able to control these buildings," said councilman Bob Chosy. He called this moment one of the highlights of his time on council.

The annex, which was built in 1915, was the first Worthington High School built on the land that Worthington's founders designated for schools in 1803.

The original building was designed by Frank Packard, who designed more than 100 business, residential, public and institutional buildings in Columbus, including the Ohio Theatre and Memorial Hall, the former home of COSI.

Both the Packard Annex and the 752 building were designated by Worthington's founders to be publicly used and have been for as long as history shows.

The 752 building, built in 1927 with funds donated by the granddaughter of Worthington founder James Kilbourne, was the James Kilbourne Memorial Library until 1979, when library officials gave it to the school district in exchange for the land where the Old Worthington Library now stands.

The district used the building for its administrative offices until summer 2000, when the district offices were consolidated into the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road. The building has stood vacant since.

Tyack: Schools haven't made levy decision
Conrath has treasurer, administrators investigating potential budget cuts

Thursday, May 11, 2006 By JEFF DONAHUE  ThisWeek Contributor

Gary Tyack, president of the Worthington school board, said Monday night that despite reports the school district likely will return to the ballot as soon as August, following the May 2 levy defeat, no such decision has been made.

District voters rejected a 6.25-mill operating levy by a 58- to 42-percent margin. Five mills of that levy would have enabled the district to continue to offer current programming. The other 1.25 mills would have raised $11.4-million over five years for capital improvement projects.

Had the levy been approved it would have cost the owner of a $100,000 home an additional $191.41 in annual property taxes on top of the $1,276.75 that property owner already pays to the school district.

Tyack said a return to the ballot this year is not a certainty.

"I was a little concerned in reading some of the initial news reports that it seemed like a foregone conclusion that we would be back to the voters either in August or November," Tyack said. "Needless to say, administration sources or individual employees or individual board members do not make that decision. For a levy to go on the ballot we need an 80 percent agreement of the members of the board and we have not even begun the process of discussing where we go from here."

During Monday night's school board meeting at Worthington Park Elementary School, Tyack asked Superintendent Melissa Conrath if the district could go another year without passing a levy and if the answer is no, what the district's options were.

She said the options, whether the district goes back on the ballot this year or not, include budget reductions.

"Obviously, I've given a lot of thought to the results of the election on Tuesday night as well and as we look forward to that I think we have both immediate and long term efforts that we need to engage in," Conrath said. "To address the question of when, if, how much, in terms of returning to the ballot, we need to put a plan in place to make sure that we have a balanced budget and part of that is looking at some reductions that we can put in place. We started some of those discussions with cabinet. Central-office administrators will begin putting a plan in place to identify reductions that we would make if we were not likely to return, as well as a list of reductions if we are not able to secure additional revenue at some point in time in the future that we would need to implement."

Conrath said reaching a decision on how she would advise the board to proceed following the levy defeat would require input from district administrators, staff and community members.

Conrath said in order to avoid returning to the ballot this year, cuts would have to be made and that Treasurer Jonathan Boyd and central office administrators are in the process of researching exactly how deep those cuts would have to be.

Conrath said that while that research is an immediate need, the current situation also provides the district with an opportunity to look at long range planning.

"We need to focus on identifying efficiencies, looking at our resources and how we allocate those resources for various programs and in order to do that, we need additional information," she said. "We're beginning to collect some benchmark information, benchmarking other districts with similar demographics, similar performance results, doing some comparisons and seeing how we compare with respect to that in terms of many different aspects of resource allocation. We need to consider looking at efficiencies, different ways of doing business in the district that won't take away from the quality of teaching and learning that occur here."

The board agreed with a suggestion by Conrath that additional work session meetings be scheduled in between the regularly scheduled meetings for the purpose of dealing with the district's financing issues. The first of those work sessions will take place at 7:30 p.m., Monday, May 22 at the Worthington Education Center. The next regular board meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Monday, June 12 at the Worthington Education Center.

In other action Monday night, the board unanimously approved a resolution for participation in the Metro High School program with the stipulation that it involve no transportation or per-pupil costs for the district. That issue had previously been tabled by the board because of concerns over potential costs to the district.

Board nixes August ballot, sharpens ax

Worthington school officials will begin to gather public input on cuts; one board member wants to stay off the ballot until next year.

By PAMELA WILLIS

Voters will not see a levy request from Worthington City Schools on a special August ballot.

If school board President Gary Tyack gets his way, voters may not see a request on the November ballot either.

The district's 6.25-mill combined operating and permanent-improvement levy request failed last week, with 7,342 votes opposed to the issue and 5,363 in favor, according to final, unofficial results from the Franklin County Board of Elections.

During Monday's meeting at Worthington Park Elementary School, school board members agreed not to consider putting the 6.25-mill levy request or any other levy request on the ballot in August.

"I was concerned that reports after the levy failed made it seem like a forgone conclusion we would be back on the ballot in August or November," Tyack said. "But individual board members don't make that decision.

"In the final vote, 58 percent of voters were opposed to the levy issue, with 42 percent in favor," Tyack said. "We need to know why people voted against the levy and why they voted for the levy."

David Bressman said he wanted it clear among board members that "we absolutely will not be on the ballot in August."

Tyack said he was not blaming any single source for the response of the voters.

"But the board was never asked to come up with millage for another levy request in 2008," Tyack said. "The person who came up with the 10-mill number did so in good faith, but that person doesn't vote to put the issue on the ballot."

It was district Treasurer Jonathan Boyd who publicly mentioned the 10-mill figure, answering a community member's question at a public forum held earlier in the year on how much the district would need in 2008.

Tyack said the 10-mill figure "seemed to be accepted as gospel."

"That number was never approved by the board and I don't believe any members of the board thought about going to the public and asking for a double-digit levy request," Tyack said.

Tyack said he had asked former Superintendent Rick Fenton to look into the possibility of making cuts and adjustments to the district budget two years ago, so the levy request that passed in 2004 could last three years instead of two.

"Mr. Fenton seemed to have no interest in doing that, which was part of my underlying frustration when he announced his retirement," Tyack said. "I asked Dr. Conrath to take a hard look at our budget and see if there is any way we could make it to three years this time, and not ask voters for funds again until next year."

Conrath said she gave a lot of thought to the election results.

"We need to put a plan in place to have a balanced budget and we need to identify reductions we can make now and reductions we may have to make if we cannot guarantee new revenue soon," Conrath said. "We would also like community and staff input on those reductions."

Conrath said she asked Boyd to identify how much money they would need to pull out of the budget to wait another year for a levy request.

"We need to work with the community to find out qualities about our education they hold in high value that distinguish the Worthington district," Conrath said. "I would also like to learn benchmarks from other districts with similar profiles and how we compare.

"We need to consider looking at different ways of doing business, with sole purpose of establishing fiscal security and responsibility," Conrath said. "Jonathan is looking at different scenarios to identify the dollar amounts we would need so that we can determine when to come back to voters."

Conrath asked board members to make every other board meeting a work session to discuss cuts and levy options.

Jennifer Best said she wants to hear more public opinion.

"We need to know if people want us to go back on the ballot in November with no cuts, or make reductions before we go back on the ballot," Best said.

"The community is hoping we will sit down and talk about what's next," Bob Horton said.

Marc Schare said he hoped whatever cuts were determined would affect the fewest students.

"We had a levy failure, but we were an excellent school district before the vote and we are now," Schare said. "We have a sustainability problem. We need to react to the vote, but not overreact. We can't ignore our permanent-improvement needs."

City looks to buy historic buildings from school district

'752 building' would cost city $500,000; money would be used for permanent improvements at schools

By BRITTINY DUNLAP

Two vacant buildings currently owned by the Worthington City School District may have a new owner next week: the city of Worthington.

City Council will discuss Monday the purchase of the 752 building at the corner of High Street and Dublin-Granville Road and the Packard Annex at the corner of Dublin-Granville Road and Evening Street.

If purchased, the exchange will cost $500,001 and be paid to the school district over the next six years, said Paul Feldman, assistant city manager and economic development director.

The money will be put toward the school district's permanent-improvement fund, said district Treasurer Jonathan Boyd, but he did not mention any specific projects it would be used for.

"It allows the buildings to be maintained and used for the public," Boyd said. "I'm sure the city will find a great use for it, and we will be receiving revenue for an asset we currently have no need for."

The Packard Annex is slated to be developed into the Peggy R. McConnell Arts Center of Worthington, but no plans have been announced for the 752 building.

"There are a number of ideas that have been kicked around, but nothing council has settled on," Feldman said. "The No. 1 thing is to keep that building as public use, and council got that message from the residents."

The 752 building is planned to be purchased for $500,000.

"A part of that consideration was the school district had the building appraised and this price is somewhat in line with that," Feldman said. "They will get an economic benefit from this exchange."

In contrast, the Packard Annex is being sold for $1.

A number of years ago, the school district filed an application to have the Packard Annex demolished.

"It was becoming a liability for the schools," Feldman said. "The theater department was using it for storage; the floor was heaved because freezing pipes exploded. They thought the space could be better used as parking."

The community was not entirely pleased with that decision.

"A lot of people who still live here went to school there," Feldman said.

The annex, which was built in 1915, was the first Worthington High School built on the land that Worthington's founders designated for schools in 1803.

The original building was designed by Frank Packard, who designed more than 100 business, residential, public and institutional buildings in Columbus, including the Ohio Theatre and Memorial Hall, the former home of COSI.

Both the Packard Annex and the 752 building were designated by Worthington's founders to be publicly used, Feldman said, and have been for as long as history shows.

The 752 building, built in 1927 with funds donated by the granddaughter of Worthington founder James Kilbourne, was the James Kilbourne Memorial Library until 1979, when library officials gave it to the school district in exchange for the land where the Old Worthington Library now stands.

The district used the building for its administrative offices until the summer of 2000, when the district offices were consolidated into the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road.

Library officials who attended a public forum outlined a plan to use the building for their administrative offices, but could not come up with the funds to purchase the building, or the nearly $1 million estimated to bring it up to federal American with Disabilities Act standards.

The school district held a public auction in January 2003, but the building failed to receive any bids. The city of Worthington expressed interest in the building, but no firm offers were made.

In January 2004, the building almost became a commercial lending bank when the firm of Johrendt, Cook and Eberhart offered $575,000, the appraised value of the building. But the deal fell through, and the building stayed empty, according to Paul Cynkar, assistant superintendent.

Several years ago, DesignGroup Inc. looked at the building to see what it would take to get the building in use. Including the addition of an elevator, it would have cost $880,000, Feldman said.

Ultimately, funding will decide the fate of the 752 building.

"It's something council will discuss in the near future," Feldman said.

The purchase of the property will be discussed at City Council's next meeting at 7:30 p.m. Monday at City Hall, 6550 N. High St.

School levy soundly defeated

5.25-mill levy goes down by 58-42 margin

Thursday, May 4, 2006  By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

As school board member Bob Horton gazed at the precinct-by-precinct voting results on the screen in front of him Tuesday night, he could read the message on the wall.

It was "no," plain and simple.

With 53 of 56 Worthington school district precincts reported in on Tuesday night, the 6.25-mill Worthington levy was being defeated by a margin of 58 to 42. The unofficial breakdown was 4,944 votes for the levy, 6,833 votes against.

"Those are strong numbers," Horton said. "I call that a mandate. People don't want to pay more taxes and they are taking it out on the Worthington schools."

Horton said the board will definitely return a levy to the voters before the end of the year. The only question is timing -- the August ballot, or the November ballot.

The size of the levy cannot be the same, though.

"There is no way we can go back to the voters with that same amount," he said. "We're going to have to make some serious adjustments."

Meanwhile, the district must be ready to make budget reductions if voters do not approve a levy in 2006, said Superintendent Melissa Conrath.

"We can't go into the next school year without a plan in place to make ends meet," she said.

Though she has only been in the district for four months, the message she heard as she met with voters was that they were weary of frequent levy requests.

The district has placed three levies on the ballot in the past five years.

Horton said he was surprised that the outcome of the vote was not closer.

"What's interesting is there really wasn't any opposition," he said. "The numbers are like in the past when we've had organized opposition."

Though they steadfastly declined to call themselves levy opponents, John Herrington and Mike Alfred formed in March an organization called Educate Worthington.

On its Web site and in a public forum, Educate Worthington provided information about school spending that was not available from the district or levy supporters.

The Web site received 1,300 hits in two months.

"I've been optimistic that people are ready for a change," Herrington said Tuesday night.

Like Horton, Alfred was surprised by the lopsided results.

"There is no glee in this, but the reality is they can't continue to ask for money every two years," he said.

Levy campaign co-chair Saul Seigel said he hopes residents of all districts will join together to force state lawmakers to find a better way to fund schools in Ohio.

In the short run, the school board must make some tough choices, he said.

"It is incumbent upon the board of education to do things that won't be pleasant," Seigel said.

The issue was a combination operating/permanent improvements levy.

Five mills would have allowed the district to continue offering current programs. Without it, the district will face a $6-million deficit at the end of the 2007-08 school year.

The permanent improvements part of the levy would have raised $11.4-million over five years, or approximately $2.3-million a year, to pay for capital projects like computers, buses, and building repairs.

The levy would have cost the owner of a $100,000 home an additional $191.41 annually in property taxes.

That property owner already pays $1,276.75 to the schools each year.

Combined school levy goes down hard

Conrath: Board now must consider cuts

By BRITTINY DUNLAP

No one was digging into the celebratory cake at the Worthington Education Center last night.

As the returns trickled in for the Worthington City School District's levy, campaign supporters grew less and less optimistic. District officials conceded defeat before 10 p.m.

With 32 of 56 precincts reporting last night, 60 percent of voters had cast their votes against the levy, with 40 percent voting for the levy, according to unofficial results from the Franklin County Board of Elections.

"I didn't lose anything, but the children, they are the ones that lost," said Saul Seigel, levy campaign co-chairman.

Issue 5 was a 6.25-mill combined levy request, with 5 mills as a continuing operating levy request and 1.25 mills as a five-year, permanent-improvement levy request.

If approved, the levy would have cost homeowners an additional $191 annually per $100,000 in property value and would have generated $12.1 million per year for the school district, with $2.3 million per year of those funds dedicated to permanent improvement.

"The board now has the opportunity to be back on the ballot in August or November," said Superintendent Melissa Conrath. "In addition, we need to begin looking at making reductions as we enter the 2006-2007 school year."

Conrath said the school board has not yet discussed cuts or logistics of another levy.

"If you look at the amount of reduction needed to balance the budget without additional revenue, we wouldn't be able to reduce the budget without cutting personnel," she said.

District Treasurer Jonathan Boyd has said that without funds from the levy request, the district could face a budget deficit of close to $23 million by June 2009.

"I want to see how the other districts are doing," Seigel said. "If they're all winning and we're losing, we obviously have a problem. But if all these issues fail, it sends a signal to the state legislature that property taxes won't cover it anymore."

Seigel led the past two levy campaigns, both successful. Voters last approved a levy request in May 2004 for 6.85 mills.

"We've lost these before and in a district like this, there is a voting block that needs to be convinced," board member Bob Horton said.

Horton said the district needs to switch the focus to maintaining quality while minimizing costs.

"This isn't an indictment that the community isn't dedicated to education," said Greg Gerard, a Worthington resident and parent. "The people value the schools. I think there are larger issues afoot.

"I think people are crying out for someone to be more creative while still meeting the needs of the child and the changing needs of the community."

Despite some organized opposition, Horton said, there isn't one person to blame for the levy failure.

"People on a fixed income, which we have a lot of in this district, want tax relief and the only escape is to the vote down a school levy," Horton said. "That's the No. 1 issue we'll have to address thoroughly in the future."

Representatives of Educate Worthington, a community faction that questioned if the district could sustain a biennial pattern of levy requests, were surprised at the levy outcome.

"I am surprised to say the least," said Mike Alfred, Educate Worthington co-chairman. "I really didn't expect it not to go through because levies usually succeed here without close margins."

When asked about future involvement in levy campaigns, Alfred said he hopes to continue working with the district.

"This will hopefully not be the end of the dialogue with the district," Alfred said. "I hope this is the beginning. The district, leadership and staff need to work and find a meaningful way to change this. I just hope the leadership takes this seriously."

Voters in Worthington alone in rejecting levy

District officials pledged to return to the ballot in August or November after 60 percent of voters turned down the third levy request in five years.

More cuts are coming, Superintendent Melissa Conrath said. She already had asked staff members to look at ways to cut spending 15 percent next school year.

The 6.25-mill property tax would have generated $9.5 million a year for operating expenses and $2.3 million annually for five years to repair buildings and buy buses and computers.

Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said he was shocked by the loss. The board and the administration have worked diligently to cut costs, he said. "This was an upbeat campaign. The next one will be telling people what we will cut."

A democratic notion

Educate Worthington, a Web site founded by residents John Herrington and Mike Alfred, held a recent forum at the Old Worthington Library which quickly turned into an old-fashioned discourse about the future of the Worthington City Schools.

Weighty issues came up, from teacher salaries, their salary structure and how the district can avoid levies on a two-year cycle in perpetuity.

The dozen community members who attended didn't point fingers so much as talk solutions. The district's upcoming levy did not figure heavily in the debate.

This conversation could just as easily have taken place over coffee or martinis. That it took place at a forum initiated by residents and not government officials is a testament to those residents.

Stamping anyone who questions a governmental entity as a critic is simple. Sitting down with them and looking for difficult answers to future problems is hard, and at least Worthington took that step.

Angry seniors

They might not march in the streets, but they vote early and often, and in my lifetime, I have never seen so many senior citizens simmering with anger, much of it focused at their cities and school districts.

Whether the state legislature's failure to update the Homestead exemption, weighing the next round of school taxes hitting fixed-income homeowners or the impact of Whitehall's new garbage fee, local senior citizens are flashing a, "We're not gonna take it anymore" attitude in an unprecedented way.

If you sit in a public office and on the wrong side of their debate, watch out at election time.

'News' urges voters to pass

Worthington school district residents will decide the fate of a 6.25-mill combined funding issue on May 2 -- a 5-mill operating levy for day-to-day expenses and a 1.25-mill, five-year permanent-improvement levy to be earmarked for building repairs and replacement of such things as boilers, computers and buses.

The request will appear as Issue 5 on the ballot.

The Worthington News urges residents to vote "yes," focusing not so much on the district's finances as on its unequaled record of success in educating our children. The students deserve our support.

If approved, the 5-mill portion of the levy would cost homeowners an additional $191.41 annually per $100,000 in property valuation and would generate about $12.1 million per year for the schools. The permanent-improvement request would yield $2.3 million annually.

The district's most recent five-year forecast predicts an operating budget deficit of about $23 million by June 2009, so the additional revenue definitely is needed.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said the board purposely asked for a lower millage after holding public meetings and hearing the concerns of seniors and other residents. Treasurer Jonathan Boyd already has admitted that even with passage of this issue, the district will need to be back on the ballot again in 2008.

The Worthington district is a position where in spite of experiencing a declining enrollment over a number of years -- now pretty much stabilized -- expenses have continued to rise.

Two budget items that have contributed to the increases are rising health-care costs for employees and the relatively high cost of a teaching staff that has great experience but also is in the upper ranges of pay.

To its credit, the board has addressed these issues, having teachers and staff pay a higher deductible for health benefits and instituting an early buyout program for more senior teachers.

Both actions were discussed in a Superintendent's Task Force study that was delivered to the board in October.

The independent task force, made up of a diverse group of community members, concluded that "the financial management of the district is sound" and that it has "achieved an enviable level of quality."

On that point there can be little argument. The Worthington schools continue to be among the highest-rated in the state, achieving an "Excellent" rating for five years in a row.

No other big school district can make that claim.

Over the past five years, the board has made $22 million in cuts. Little help can be expected from the state.

House Bill 66 will reduce district revenues by 18 percent from what is being collected today as business tangible personal property tax. This tax is being eliminated over 10 years.

The state's replacement for revenue from the tangible property tax is the new Commercial Activity Tax and the verdict remains out on whether Worthington schools will break even in that proposition.

Even staunch supporters of the Worthington district, such as the Worthington News, wonder whether the board can continue coming back to the community for more in the face of a no-growth or slow-growth enrollment.

As one individual noted, "sustainability" is an issue that keeps cropping up in the community.

So it is up to residents to determine whether maintaining a top-notch school system is in the best interests of them and their children.

We don't believe residents can afford not to vote in favor of excellence in 2006.

The News urges the board to look hard at some of the task force's suggestions that might help to reduce spending while not harming the overall quality of education.

Vote for Issue 5 on May 2.

EducateWorthington would like to note: Worthington News gave their "endorsement" in favor of the Worthington School Levy  (and then endorsed every levy within Franklin County and beyond).

Third request in five years meets questions

Sunday, April 23, 2006 Mary Bridgman THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Worthington school-district voters have increased their taxes twice in the past five years to provide more operating money.

This time, the district is seeking 5 more mills for operating expenses and 1.25 mills to repair buildings and buy buses and computers.

The biennial cycle likely will continue, Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said. A levy that would have kept up with expenses for three years would have required 9 mills, he said, increasing the chances it would fail, because of the higher amount.

But three levies in five years might be too much for the community, said Mike Alfred, who, along with John Herrington, recently launched Educate Worthington (www.educateworthington.org) to make the district’s financial information more public.

During the past five years, teachers received annual pay raises that averaged 5.3 percent, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average worker nationwide received a 2.9 percent annual increase, Alfred said.

During the past decade, the district lost 11 percent of its enrollment, now at 10,818, and increased spending nearly 57 percent, to $105 million, Alfred added. "We have to change courses."

District spokeswoman Victoria Gnezda said it’s not reasonable to expect expenses to decrease at the same rate as enrollment.

For example, if enrollment in a building of 400 students drops by seven children, they probably won’t all be in the same grade, she said, which could make it possible to cut a teacher.

And "that’s not enough to decrease food service, custodial staff, busing."

The district lost a chance to save money last year, Alfred said, when it changed healthcare plans. Instead of banking the savings, it paid for teachers’ raises.

"We believe our teachers are fairly compensated," Gnezda said. "We also recognize that we have a seasoned teaching staff."

Last school year, Worthington teachers ranked seventh in starting pay and fourth in 30 th-year pay among the 16 districts based in Franklin County; Worthington was sixth in per-pupil spending, according to a Dispatch analysis at the time.

The district will lose 18 percent of its income — more than any other district in Franklin County — with the phaseout of the tangible personalproperty tax. Its allotment will be cut from $18 million to $4.3 million. The state has said it will reimburse districts until 2018 but has not said how.

"Something has to change, but saying ‘no’ to a May levy won’t do it," Gnezda said. The district needs the tax money to maintain programs and people, she said.

If a tax increase doesn’t pass this year, the district will need to cut its budget and probably seek a higher millage in 2007, Boyd said.

Property-tax revenue generally remains steady as schooldistrict expenses rise. School districts have a surplus in the early years of a tax increase that they carry over to cover expenses in succeeding years. Worthington will have used up its current surplus by 2008.

The school board has already made the easy cuts, Boyd said, trimming $4.8 million in 2001 and $5.9 million in 2003.

Dispatch reporter Charlie Roduta contributed to this story.

mbridgman@dispatch.com

Teacher raises vary widely with steps

Some could get up to 11.9%; administrators point to offset in health savings

Thursday, April 20, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS  ThisWeek Staff Writer

Although the average salary increase for Worthington teachers this year is 5.65 percent, some are eligible for raises of nearly 12 percent.

According to the Educate Worthington Web site, the salary of a teacher with a master's degree and five years' experience in 2000 will increase 72 percent by 2007.

While these figures may seem high, their validity is not being challenged by Worthington school district administrators.

But those district leaders ask that voters put the numbers into perspective when considering the 6.25-mill operating/permanent improvements levy on the May 2 ballot.

First, the salary increases for this year and the coming two years covered in the most recent teachers' contract are being offset by savings in the health care program, which beginning this year requires teachers to pay more out-of-pocket for health insurance.

And Worthington teachers' salaries are not out of line with those in other central Ohio districts, said Superintendent Melissa Conrath.

"When we look at the market from which we draw our teachers, it's what the market is supporting and we need to be competitive in that market," she said.

Comparisons of teachers salaries among Franklin County's sixteen school districts show Worthington teachers ranking between third and twelfth, varying with seniority and the level of education teachers have completed.

This year, Worthington teacher salaries range from $34,511 for a first-year teacher with a bachelor's degree and no experience to $81,552 for a teacher with a master's degree, 45 hours of additional education, and 28 years experience.

An average Worthington teacher has 15 years experience and earns $65,407.

Under terms of a three-year contract ratified last January, the base teacher salary increased 3.75 this year and will be followed by 3.25 percent next year, and 3.5 percent in 2007.

With the average step increase now at 1.9 percent, the average teacher's salary increased 5.65 percent this year.

A closer look at the salary schedule shows a wide variation in actual raises. In general, teachers with less experience get higher raises than those near the top of the salary schedule.

For example, a teacher in his or her first year in 2004, received a 8.1 percent raise in 2005, and will receive an 8.4 percent raise in 2006, and an 8.7 percent raise in 2007.

If that teacher attains 15 credit hours of graduate work between his or her first and second year of teaching, the raises will be 11.3 percent, 8.1 percent, and 8.7 percent.

A teacher with five years experience and a master's degree in 2004 received a salary of $42,700. This year, he or she will receive $46,162 -- a 8.1 percent raise. The raise next year will be 8.3 percent, followed by 8.6 percent in 2007.

If that teacher completes an extra 15 credit hours of college work between years five and six, the raise will be 11.9 percent this year, followed by 7.9 percent and 7.8 percent.

A teacher with a master's degree and 10 years of experience can expect annual raises of just under an average of 8 percent per year for the next three years. This year's raise will be 8.8 percent, next year's 7.2 percent, and the following year, 7.3 percent.

If that teacher attains an extra 15 hours of college credit between 2004 and 2005, the raises will be considerably higher. This year's increase will be 11.7 percent, followed by 8.3 percent, and 8.5 percent.

At approximately 15 years experience, a teacher's salary increase seems to level off, with raises nearing the actual increase in the salary schedule.

The raises of a teacher with a master's degree and 15 years experience will be closer to the increase in the base salary. In 2004, that teacher's salary was $65,356. This year, it is $67,807 -- a 3.75 percent increase. Next year it will be $70,712, a 4.3 percent raise. In 2007, it will be $73,187 -- a 3.5 percent raise.

At the very top of the salary schedule, a teacher with 20 years experience and a master's degree plus 45 hours, in 2004 made $77,055. This year, that salary is $80,741 -- a 4.8 percent raise. In 2006, the salary will be $83,365 -- or 3.25 percent. The following year, the salary will be $87,150 -- a 4.5 percent raise.

According to figures supplied by Educate Worthington, an organization encouraging residents to take a closer look at district spending, a teacher with a master's degree and five years experience earned $39,162 in 2000, and will earn $67,386 in 2007 -- a 72 percent increase.

Because the practice of granting annual step increases is rarely explained, many people do not understand how teachers' salaries increase at the rate they do.

"When they do understand, it is eye-opening because teaching is generally understood to be an underpaid profession," said Mike Alfred of Educate Worthington.

Conrath said that a committee will study the pay schedule over the next three years, and some changes may be made in the next teachers' contract.

She also pointed out that it is common for public employees to receive step increases.

It may be that teachers at the beginning of their careers earn less than in other professions, and the step increases are used to make them more equitable.

It is her goal to keep salaries "competitive, but not too high."

District spokesperson Vicki Gnezda said it is not a coincidence that Worthington teachers are paid well and students achieve as well as they do.

"We take pride in hiring the best, and we think that shows," she said.

Schools' finances interest readers

* Akron School District: By the numbers * Got more questions?

The most frequently asked question about Akron's operating levy is: Why can't the district use the income tax money?

‘‘We have to use that for what it's earmarked for,’’ said the Rev. Curtis Walker, president of the Akron school board.

Akron voters approved an income tax hike in May 2003 to help fund the district's construction project. This money can be used only for the project ` not for expenses such as teachers' salaries, heating bills and textbooks.

The district is asking voters to approve a 7.9-mill continuing, additional levy May 2 to help pay these costs. The district's last increase in operating funds was in November 2001.

The Beacon Journal recently called on readers to submit their questions about the levy. Here are answers the district provided:

Q: With enrollment dropping, why does the district need more money?

A: Akron Public Schools' current enrollment is 27,595, about 2,500 students lower than in 2001. This loss is about the same as reducing each classroom by two students. If, for example, a classroom is reduced from 25 to 23 students, the district must still provide a teacher, turn on the lights and heat the building. These operating costs continue to rise, but the district's revenue has not increased for five years.

Q: Akron's academic performance improved during the past four years while budget cuts were being made. Why does the district think more money is now needed to maintain or improve academic performance?

A: Since 2001, the board made $30 million in budget cuts, and with every cut, the goal was to keep cuts away from the classroom. The next cuts will come from academic and extra programs that are over and above the state's basic requirements.

Q: Why is the district planning to cut programs like Firestone High's visual and performing arts program and Advanced Placement courses that attract students to the Akron Public Schools?

A: The district cannot continue to keep cuts away from the classroom. Without an increase in revenue, the district will have to make future cuts in areas that are over and above the state-required basics.

Q: If the levy fails, would booster clubs be able to keep athletics in the district going?

A: Sports and extracurricular activities cost about $2.7 million annually. If the levy fails, the board could decide to eliminate or reduce sports and other programs across the district. Not all schools have booster clubs, and it is unknown if these clubs could sustain this level of fundraising.

Q: Why would the proposed cuts be negative?

A: Voters must decide. Should Akron's students learn only basic subjects required by Ohio? Or, should Akron's children be educated in manageable-sized classrooms with more individual attention, up-to-date textbooks and technology, and opportunities to learn through sports, arts and accelerated academic programs?

Q: Specifically, how would the new operation money be used?

A: Teachers, textbooks, technology updates and maintaining as many of the current program offerings as fiscally possible.

Q: Why doesn't the district close more schools to cut costs?

A: The district is evaluating the acceleration of closing the schools identified in the construction plan. These decisions will be carefully implemented based on space in receiving schools, transportation and student achievement issues. Without new revenue, however, the district will be forced to close even more schools.

Q: Why can't lottery money be used to solve Akron's funding problem?

A: Opponents complain that instead of adding to the education budget, lottery profits are used to supplement the state's budget ` for every dollar the lottery puts in, the state takes a dollar back from its education budget and spends it elsewhere. Meanwhile, the lottery's contribution is declining because, as education costs have risen, the lottery's sales have remained relatively stagnant ... The lottery funds that Akron Public Schools receive are only enough to operate the district for about 10 days.

Q: Why can't the district cut administrators and benefits?

A: There has been a 24 percent reduction in central office administrative jobs since 2001. Among Ohio urban schools, APS has one of the lowest percentages of administrative costs. Last fall, an increase in the employee share for health benefits was implemented for administrators and most union groups.

Q: What has the school board administration done to pressure state government to change the way schools are funded?

A: Akron Public Schools was part of the DeRolph lawsuits against the state that found the state's funding unconstitutional four times. Board members, the superintendent and the staff continually meet with legislators, provide testimonials at state and federal hearings, attend rallies and encourage citizens to choose elected officials wisely.

Q: What are the salaries of the school board members? What was the highest amount paid to any board member last year?

A: Board members earn $125 per meeting. The highest amount earned last year by a board member was $4,000.

Q: When was the last pay increase for district employees and how much was it? If Issue 1 passes, is there an agreement to give personnel a raise?

A: One-year contracts were negotiated in the spring of 2005, which provided a 2 percent increase. There are no salary increases in the current five-year budget ... Any additional raises would have to be negotiated with the union groups.

Q: Why did the district give pay raises to administrators when the district's in financial trouble?

A: By board approval, step increases are given to eligible employees and to employee groups as part of their contracts. These increases are about 1 percent or less and are approved when the board agrees on the five-year budget.

Q: What are the salaries of a beginning, a 15-year and a 30-year teacher?

A: Beginning: $32,404; 15-year: $57,757; and 30-year: $60,406.

Q: How much do Akron teachers pay for their health care benefits?

A: Teachers have a $100 (individual), $200 (family) deductible. Co-pays include office visits, $10; emergency room, $50; brand name/ generic drugs $10/$5. Administrators' costs are higher based on salary.

Q: Why not ask all employees to start contributing more to health care? Is not spreading these costs far better than laying off staff, cutting services and having to ask taxpayers to continually pay more through property taxes?

A: An increase implemented last fall in the employee share for health benefits for administrators and most union groups is projected to save $1.4 million in the first 10 months (from the time this was implemented).

Q: How much does the district put into a teacher's pension fund each year? What is the retirement amount after 30 years?

A: Fourteen percent of total annual salary. After 30 years, a teacher receives 66 percent of the average of his or her three highest annual salaries. (Or less depending on the plan the teacher selects.)

Q: Why doesn't the district cut expenses by reducing busing or charging pay-to-play fees, as many suburban districts have?

A: State law requires districts to bus students who live more than two miles from school. Akron has always bused at this minimum requirement. APS has a much higher percentage of students ` 66 percent ` living in poverty than most suburban schools, which would limit those who could afford fees to play sports.

Q: Why isn't the Stewart Elementary School Afrocentric program being cut?

A: Any school or program that does not attract enough students to be fiscally efficient will be considered for future cuts.

Q: What is the effect of the accounting change for payroll in millions of dollars? Why is this being done?

A: This accounting change increases the number of salary payments made next year to 24, instead of 19. Instead of making all salary payments in fiscal year '07, the district will pay 83 percent of the cost and defer the balance to fiscal year '08. Although this accounting change keeps the budget balanced next school year, it is the reason that the deficit grows to $40 million in fiscal year '08.

Q: Why hasn't Akron done a retirement incentive/buyout for teachers as many other districts have? Is this step being considered?

A: The district offered a teacher buyout in 2004; however, not enough teachers took advantage of the offer. The district continues to look for ways to cut costs.

Q: Instead of spending money on a levy campaign, why didn't the district instead put these funds into addressing the problem of students leaving the Akron schools to go to charter schools?

A: Money for levy campaigns is raised from private donations and can be used only to inform voters about the district's financial need. There are ongoing efforts to address students leaving the district.

Q: Why should Akron voters support the levy when more jobs aren't going to city residents in the district's construction project?

A: The district and city established a Workforce Partnership that set employment goals for contractors, and they are monitored. One of the goals is 50 percent of workers on a project should be Akron residents, which is being met.

Q: Why does the school board always look to homeowners for taxes? Why not tax fast food? Wouldn't it be better to raise the money that way?

A: State law allows districts to raise money in only three ways: property tax, school income tax and bond issues, which cannot be used for operating costs.

Q: Should taxpayers give up on getting help from the legislature on the school funding issue?

A: No, taxpayers should carefully elect state officials who care about children and are willing to provide adequate funding for education in Ohio.

Q: Why hasn't the district lived up to its promise in the Contract with the Community to provide up-to-date textbooks for all students?

A: The district fulfilled every aspect of the Contract with the Community. Over the past three years, the district phased in purchases for new language arts textbooks for grades kindergarten through grade 12. Every year, the district buys new replacement textbooks for all subjects in each grade level. When the district can afford it, a social studies textbook adoption is needed. These textbooks were last updated in the mid-1990s.

Q: If approved, the levy will increase property taxes $242 a year per $100,000 of assessed value. What percentage of a tax increase is this?

A: Because many property owners are eligible for exemptions and reductions, it is important to contact the county auditor for accurate information about your taxes.

Q: Why does the district allow a student to enter a special program offered at only one high school, and remain at the high school even after the student has dropped out of the program? Why doesn't this student have to return to his or her home school?

A: Without more information about the student and program, we cannot answer this question. Ge B

Stephanie Warsmith can be reached at 330-996-3705 or swarsmith@thebeaconjournal.com.

Endorsement: Tighten belt, but maintain educational quality

Milford school district is giving voters a choice. Increase property taxes by $240 a year for every $100,000 in home value to maintain the excellent state ranking, or make serious cutbacks, potentially jeopardizing excellence.

This is not an easy decision. The debate has literally divided this community and brought it into the broader debate over state-wide school funding.

This 7.9-mill levy will raise an additional $7.55 million a year. More will be needed in another three years. And if the district is to get a third of the construction and renovation costs back from the state, the second bond issue must be passed.

A vote "no" means cutbacks will exceed $4 million and include the elimination of 11 teachers, 67 aides, all K-6 guidance counselors, two psychologists, an assistant principal, as well as other positions. Some sports programs will be cut and fees to participate in sports will increase. Student athletes who can least afford, and who often have the most to gain, may no longer be able to participate.

The cutbacks mean teachers and administrators will no doubt be working harder and longer without the help of aides and without extra resources.

A vote "yes" means homeowners will pay more; in a district that already spends more than $9,100 per pupil. And residents pay more than other excellent districts.

According to Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes, Milford is ninth out of 23 districts in the amount of money paid per every $100,000 of property value. Milford residents pay $1042.76, more than Sycamore and Forest Hills. Loveland is second, but if this levy is passed, Milford will be above Loveland, just behind Finneytown. Milford would remain in first place in Clermont County. Today, West Clermont residents pay $926.41 a year, according to numbers provided by Clermont County Auditor Linda Fraley.

Those who oppose the increase -- and there are many who do -- are confident Milford teachers and administrators can make this work without jeopardizing their hard-earned state rating and we agree, but, they can't do it alone.

Parent or senior volunteers will need to roll up their sleeves and fill the aide positions that will be eliminated. Sports boosters could help fund participation fees for students most in need.And, administrators and teachers will need to continue to look at every expenditure to evaluate if it's really necessary -- not unlike decisions made by businesses in the private sector every day.  Other school districts do it. Milford can, too.

And yes, salaries and benefits for school employees may not increase as much as they feel they deserve.But then again, Milford's pay increased an average of seven percent per year for the last three years -- more than the citizens who are being asked to pay more.

Milford has said they want teachers salaries to be in the top five of other excellent school districts in the area. That means the district has achieved or is close to that goal according to information provided by the Ohio Department of Education. Milford's average is $49,000, Sycamore's is $66,000, Kings is $54,000, Forest Hills is $55,000 and Loveland's is $53,000. And you compare that to the median income in those same districts and Milford is at the bottom at $38,000; Sycamore, $44,000; Kings, $41,000; Forest Hills, $44,000; and Loveland, $46,000.

Let's not forget a "yes" vote would appear to indicate it's OK to spend even more on salaries. As such, it is for this reason and many more that the Milford-Miami Advertiser recommends a "no" vote on the May 2 levy, Issue 1.

This isn't a vote against Milford schools. It's a vote against the levy.

It's a vote to get the most value for what Milford residents can afford to pay today and tomorrow.

Voters must sort through the numbers

By PAMELA WILLIS

Worthington City School District residents face an avalanche of numbers as district leaders and a community group use statistics to prove points on both sides of Issue 5.

The issue is a 6.25-mill combined levy request for Worthington City Schools, with 5 mills as a continuing operating levy request and 1.25 mills as a five-year permanent-improvement levy request. The issue will appear on the May 2 ballot.

If approved by voters, the levy would cost homeowners an additional $191.41 annually per $100,000 in property valuation and would generate $12.1 million per year for the school district, according to the Franklin County Auditor's office.

Without revenue from the levy request, Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said, the district could face a budget deficit of close to $23 million by June 2009.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said the school board asked for the lowest levy amount needed to provide operating costs for two years.

The community faction that is Educate Worthington doesn't believe the district can sustain a pattern of biennial levies, and its members are worried about another number: 10 mills, which Boyd said could be needed in 2008.

Educate Worthington consists of residents Mike Alfred and John Herrington, who held a public informational meeting April 11.

"Sustainability is the issue," Alfred said. "Can we keep voting for a levy every two years, when it could be 10 mills in 2008?"

Conrath said she wants voters to remember treasurers need to come up with the "worst-case scenario."

"Two years ago, when voters approved the 6.85-mill levy request, I saw in printed material that the board expected to be back in two years for an 8-mill levy request," Conrath said. "That didn't happen -- our levy request is 5 mills, with 1.25 mills as a permanent-improvement request to maintain building repairs. Treasurers are always conservative and must overestimate expenses and underestimate revenue so districts don't run out of money.

"It is my understanding that Jonathan is looking at 10 mills as the worst-case scenario and it is not our expectation that we will be back on the ballot with that millage," Conrath said.

Boyd said he includes assumptions in his financial forecasts.

"Included in the assumptions are a number of cost-savings items and revenue assumptions," Boyd said. "The revenues are conservative by nature, but we recently received revenue that came in higher than anticipated and savings on expenditures were also higher. Both combined to allow us to have a lower millage for this levy.

"It would be my hope and expectation that there will be additional savings, which right now I am not able to identify, with the possibility of additional revenues, which would result in lower millage than 10 mills needed in 2008," Boyd said.

Educate Worthington has cited teacher salaries, saying the district was on a salary schedule that would raise teacher salaries by 72 percent in seven years. The numbers were taken from union contracts dating back to 2000, Herrington said.

In 2000, a teacher with a master's degree was paid $39,162, but because of scheduled raises, that number will jump to $67,386 in 2007, Alfred said.

The district has salary numbers, too: a comparison with 15 other districts in Franklin County, prepared in January by the Franklin County Educational Service Council. According to those statistics, Worthington doesn't rank that close to the top.

On the council's chart, a teacher with a master's degree and no experience would make $37,617 in Worthington, which puts the district ninth on the list. Upper Arlington is first, paying $40,772; then New Albany-Plain Local, Gahanna-Jefferson, Grandview Heights, Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Dublin and Hilliard.

A teacher with a master's degree plus 45 semester hours and 10 years' experience would be paid $62,578 in Worthington, according to the council's figures. That is lower than Upper Arlington, at $67,829, as well as Bexley, Grandview Heights, Dublin and Gahanna.

Conrath said she wants to put together a citizens advisory committee to "look at and advocate for changes in school funding on the state level.

"The committee would learn about options for funding that are available, but also serve in an advisory capacity to look at district expenditures and revenues and give us their feedback," Conrath said.

Levy illustrates property tax reliance unchanged

By BILL McNUTT

I hope we are not embarking on what could be an every other year school levy campaign, as envisioned by our district treasurer.

I believe him when he says the May 2 request is scaled as low as possible, and also that we will need another in 2 years. This is all too realistic -- if the current system of reliance on ever increasing property taxes is not soon replaced.

For the first time in my near 60 years of voting for school levies, I am concerned about whether I can afford to vote for this one. I'm even more concerned, even indignant, about the fact that no groundswell has developed in recent years , in this and other affluent suburban communities, to change the outdated over reliance on property taxes.

One idea, expressed in a recent letter to the editor, was for a surcharge on the state income tax, used only for education. The state library fund won similar access a few legislative sessions back and has since had it steadily chipped away by legislative action, but it is still an excellent proposal.

Ownership of property is not a sure fire indicator of wealth, possession of money usually is. The most recent statistics on the subject show the poorest 20 percent of households in this country experienced an income increase of slightly over 6 percent from 1979-2000, the top 20 percent moved up 70 percent (and the top 1 percent got a whopping 184 percent increase ) in the same period. Unfortunately very few of senior age living in this community were among the recipients of the last two segments

Local letter columns have been full of valid answers to those who have decried staff salaries, lack of communication ,too many administrators ,and all the many dissents that are heard when any increase in funding is needed, or to put it more crassly,when taxpayer are asked to put up more money

But there are some valid changes that should be endorsed not only by the general public, but by teacher unions and school administrators. Any legislative overhaul is going to and should affect every pupil in the state. I would submit there needs to be minimum per pupil state support and that the final per pupil total of state and local combined funding not be too far below that for the so called affluent districts.

What this means is that local levies may be curtailed, even that we go to a countywide system over the entire state-with teachers and staff as well paid ( and well qualified) in Columbus and Hamilton Local e.g., as in Worthington and Bexley.

Requiring levy permission is necessary for Michigan, where school tax overhaul took someplace some years ago --and under a quite conservative Republican governor, believe it or not -- which of course does not mean everybody is happy with their solution. If it costs more to get experienced (which I hope means better) teachers into these low income districts, it will be money well spent. I would not go so far as to assign them there, but salary-wise, there should be little or no difference; even higher compensation would be justified

It is interesting to note that of the two Democratic party candidates for 21st district representative, Ms. Ackerman expresses outright opposition to charter schools, Mr. Hernandez manages to dance around the school question by calling for a fair and equitable funding plan, though he was not asked what he would do to enforce the Supreme Court decision that already calls for just that.

I have always maintained that if the money spent on charters were used to implement some of the proposals such as those just made, there would be no need for charter schools. They have very little supervision and less accountability than the already existing public system, which can do everything attempted by charter schools, if needed and necessary changes are permitted and then made. A couple of suggestions for these: more team teaching, strict segregation of discipline cases under good teachers, plus a bit more authority to deal with troublesome parents.

Don't be surprised if this levy goes under, not because its not needed, but because of the economic affect on property owners.

I suspect my vote will be favorable, but really more important than the levy will be voting for state candidates listed on the ballot, who will listen to those who do want just what has been called for: a fair and equitable solution to school funding problems, based on a taxing system that truly reflects the ability to pay.

Bill McNutt is a Worthington area resident and a longtime contributor to the Worthington News.

Group takes 'looking-forward' tack to school funding

Educate Worthington says the school district can't sustain a pattern of biennial levies.

By PAMELA WILLIS

You can't join Educate Worthington and it doesn't want your money.

It's a new residents' group that isn't really a group -- it's an educational effort by two residents who hope voters will make "informed decisions" about Issue 5 on the May 2 ballot.

Issue 5 is the 6.25-mill combined levy request by the Worthington City School District, with 5 mills as a continuing operating levy request and 1.25 mills as a five-year permanent-improvement levy request.

If approved by voters, the levy would cost homeowners an additional $191.41 annually per $100,000 in property valuation and would generate about $12.1 million per year for the school district, according to the Franklin County Auditor's office.

Educate Worthington planned to hold a town-hall meeting Tuesday night at the Old Worthington Library, but also posted several pages of "information residents should know" on its Web site at educateworthington.org.

Mike Alfred and John Herrington--the two men who comprise Educate Worthington -- say they are "not organized against the levy."

"Sustainability is the issue that keeps coming up," Alfred said. "Can we keep voting for a levy every two years, when it could be 10 mills in 2008?"

The district's latest five-year financial forecast predicts a budget deficit of close to $23 million by June 2009 without the revenue from the levy request.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said last week that school board members purposely asked for a low operating levy request to ask the least amount from taxpayers, after listening to the concerns of senior citizens and other residents.

Treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the revenue from the 6.25-mill levy will sustain operations in the district for two years. When asked how much millage would be needed in 2008, Boyd answered, "10 mills."

"But do I think our levy request will be 10 mills in 2008?" Boyd said last week. "No, I don't. Because we will continue to be conservative and will ask for the least amount we need."

"There is no question that 2008 will happen and this is an unsustainable trajectory for any district, no less one that is slowly shrinking in enrollment," Alfred said. "As we teach a few less kids every year, you have to look at costs and ask how the community can support these costs."

On their Web site, the men state the district will have raised teacher salaries by 72 percent in seven years.

They said their numbers are from the union contracts from 2000-07, for a teacher with a master's degree, starting with five years of experience. In 2000, that salary was $39,162, and will jump to $67,386 in 2007, according to the Web site.

Herrington and Alfred also state "from 1995 to 2005, inflation has risen 28.2 percent. Actual spending for the Worthington school district has increased 55.4 percent ... student enrollment has declined by 12 percent."

Alfred works in finance, helping people to obtain loans, he said. Herrington is an engineer.

Alfred said home values may be going up in Worthington, but as taxes rise, taxpayers do not always come out on top.

"Home value doesn't impact cash flow," Alfred said. "New millage and increases in taxes impact your bottom line, and people are left with a fairly small disposable-income window."

Both men said the last teacher's contract was billed as "win-win" because millions of dollars in health-care costs were "saved" through a high-deductible health plan.

"The district translated those savings into teacher salaries," Herrington said. "Maybe some of those dollars could have been used for new student programs or to minimize the next levy request."

"We can't recover the spending in that contract now, so the district is left with cuts that could impact students," Alfred said. "That's why this is a looking-forward topic instead of what can be done now."

Both men said the school district has come to expect a certain level of spending that is just too difficult to sustain.

Viewpoint: How Well Does Ohio Pay its Teachers?

By: Matthew Carr, policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions and editor of the Buckeye Institute Weekly Digest.

March 7, 2006

When it comes to education policy in Ohio, there are few areas of widespread agreement. One idea with near universal acceptance is that public school teachers should be paid adequately. But the agreement ends there, as citizens divide over whether this has actually been achieved. A new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) suggests that Ohio is accomplishing this goal.

As anyone who has ever traveled to another country or state knows, the cost of living in a particular area has a significant impact on how much your dollar will reach. In order to compare the purchasing power of teacher salaries, NCPA reviewed the average pay of teachers in fifty major cities across the United States, making adjustments for the cost of living in each city.

Once teacher salaries area adjusted for local costs of living, three Ohio cities rank in the top ten for teacher pay. Cleveland ranks fourth, paying elementary teachers an average adjusted salary of $51,265. Columbus ranks seventh, paying $50,291, while Cincinnati ranks ninth at $48,856. Ohio’s big three offered a better compensation package than the high-cost cities of New York City ($42,662), San Francisco ($32,663), and Philadelphia ($46,192).

(use the link above to read the entire article)

Schools could see new type of levy Proposed law would let funds keep pace with property values

Thursday, March 30, 2006 Bill Bush 

Ohio school districts could finally see their dream come true — a local property-tax levy that can grow with inflation, possibly relieving them of frequent, expensive levy campaigns.

A budget-corrections bill containing such a measure cleared the legislature yesterday, and Gov. Bob Taft supports it, spokesman Mark Rickel said.

But some county auditors, including Joe Testa in Franklin County, are calling the change a step backward for Ohio taxpayers, who might unwittingly vote away their right to periodically check their school district’s spending and efficiency.

20% Yes

80% No

 

Thursday, March 23, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

A smaller number of students has not resulted in reduced spending in the Worthington schools.

In fact, district expenditures have increased 54 percent over the past 10 years, while enrollment decreased by 1,256 students, according to information provided by the state and the school district.

During the 1995-96 school year, the district spent $67.9-million on 10,818 students.

This year, expenses are expected to be $105.5-million for 9,562 students.

While expenses must be related to salary increases, because 85 percent of district spending is personnel-related, a closer look also shows that the number of teachers has not been cut to keep pace with enrollment decline.

Between 1995 and 2005, there was a net loss of approximately nine teachers -- meaning one teaching position was eliminated each time the district lost 140 students.

District officials point out that it is not that simple. While more than nine teaching positions may have been cut because of declining enrollment, other positions have been added to meet mandates, especially in the area of special education.

In 2004 and 2005 alone, 10.5 special education positions were added, which explains why teacher numbers dropped only three in 2005, despite the loss of 7.8 positions due to the merger of Sutter Park and Liberty elementary schools.

Still, state figures show that Worthington class sizes continue to be smaller than both the state average and the average for schools in a comparison group made up of districts with similar demographics.

According to a report by the Ohio Department of Education, Worthington has a regular classroom teacher for every 14.11 students. The state average is 16.47; the comparison group average is 16.8.

Class sizes in Worthington are smaller now than in past years, according to state records.

In 1996, the average class size was 18.

At elementary schools, the smallest classes this year are at Brookside, where the average third-grade class has 16.7 students, and in Liberty's second grade, where the average class size is 17.

The largest class sizes are in Granby's fourth grade, where the average is 27.5, and Evening Street's sixth grade, where the average is 26.5.

The overall average is smaller because it includes middle and high school class sizes.

While the advantages of small classrooms are touted by educators and valued by parents, the small teacher-pupil ratio drives up the cost of education and taxes.

Worthington spends an average of $10,163 on each pupil, compared to the state average of $9,018 and the comparison group average of $9,145.

The cost per pupil in Worthington is sixth among the 16 school districts in Franklin County.

At the top of the pupil expenditure chart is Bexley, which spends $11,538, followed by Grandview Heights, $11,472; Upper Arlington, $11,359; Columbus, $11,145; and Dublin, $10,548.

Spending less than Worthington are Plain Local (New Albany), $9,868; Groveport Madison, $9,590; Whitehall, $9,575; Hilliard, $9,831; Gahanna-Jefferson, $9,311; South-Western, $9,140; Westerville, $8,356; Canal Wincester, $8,316; Reynoldsburg, $8,222; and Hamilton Local, $7,433.

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

The city of Worthington is about to enter into its first tax abatement agreement, allowing the owners of a proposed office condominium complex to forgo 75 percent of its property taxes for ten years.

Worthington City Council introduced the community reinvestment area (CRA) agreement with the owners of Worthington Station at its Monday meeting.

Worthington Station is a $13-million, 12-building complex now under construction at 900 Proprietors Road, the former Worthington Foods site.

Developers are Craig Schneider and Ron Huff and their company, 900 Proprietors LLC.

The city used the tax abatement to attract the development, but it is the Worthington school district that stands to lose more, since its primary source of income is property taxes.

To bridge the difference with the schools, the city will share equally the 2-percent income tax collections generated after the development reaches a $1-million payroll threshold.

Over 10 years, $878,982 of the school district's portion of the potential property taxes will be abated, according to city finance director Steve Gandee, who stressed that all figures are estimates that are subject to change.

In exchange, the district is guaranteed $585,988, which includes the 25 percent of property tax not abated, plus its share of the income tax.

That figure could be much higher, said assistant city manager Paul Feldman.

The city stands to lose $46,463 in abated property taxes, but gain approximately $600,000 in income taxes over the ten years.

All of the figures assume a full build-out of the site.

Plans call for nine one-story buildings and two two-story buildings, which will be sold as condominiums to small to medium-sized businesses.

To meets the owners' obligations spelled out in the CRA agreement, the development will, within 36 months after commencement of construction, generate 180 full-time, permanent jobs; 30 full-time, temporary jobs; 10 part-time permanent jobs; and 30 part-time temporary jobs.

Total payroll is expected to be $14.7-million.

If the owners do not meet any of their obligations, the city may modify the agreement.

School district treasurer Jonathan Boyd said that while the district will carry most of the tax abatement, he understands why the city offered the deal for the development of land that may have otherwise remained vacant.

The city involved him in discussions, but the terms of the agreement are spelled out in state law, he said.

The school board has been informed of the agreement, but its approval is not required.

City council is expected to vote on the agreement next month.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

By CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Strong schools may equal a strong community, but that is not the whole story.

Worthington school district residents can expect to hear more about why the district needs the upcoming 6.5-mill levy, along with more critical information about district spending, during the next five weeks.

On May 2, residents will be asked to vote on the levy, which is a combined 5-mill continuing operating levy and 1.65-mill, five-year permanent improvements levy.

If approved, it will cost the owners of a $100,000 house an additional $191 annually. That property owner already pays $1,277 a year to the schools.

Or, as critics are now pointing out, the levy will cost the owner of a $233,400 house (the average house value in Worthington) $447 on top of $3,100.

The pro-levy campaign is up and running, being led by Liberty Elementary parents Jon and Aurora Bloom and retired resident Saul Seigel.

Their pitch will be "strong schools equal a strong community."

"We are trying to stress the benefit to schools and to kids and how supporting the levy strengthens the community and makes it a place where people want to live, and it helps everyone's property values," said Jon Bloom.

On the other side of the issue are plenty of residents, as evidenced by the turnout of vocal opponents at forums held last month, and a new organization called Educate Worthington.

The purpose of the group is not to oppose the levy, but to provide the community information regarding district spending that may not be shared by the levy supporters, said Educate Worthington co-founder Mike Alfred.

"It's about educating people enough to see there might be more than one side to the story," he said.

While the pro-levy committee is preparing to try to reach the community with literature drops, yard signs, advertising and presentations to community groups, Educate Worthington is a low-cost organization that depends primarily on its Web site (www.educateworthington.org) to spread its information.

Bloom said he was aware that the levy request has its critics.

"There is a lot of misinformation out there and misunderstanding of why levies are needed as often as they are," Bloom said.

Part of his group's challenge is to help voters understand that the system faced by all school districts in Ohio requires that levy requests must be frequent.

When a levy is approved, he explained, it provides the district with a set amount of dollars. That amount does not increase at the rate of inflation.

This will be the third levy Worthington voters will face in five years. The 5-mill operating levy is needed simply to maintain the status quo, he said.

The system needs to be changed or better understood, Bloom said.

"It creates a public perception of mismanagement and waste when that is not really the case," he said.

The Educate Worthington Web site does not mention mismanagement or waste, but does question the district's spending priorities.

"Children and the community come in last as we decide how to spend our dollars," Alfred said.

Eighty-five percent of the district's budget is "spent very generously" on staff, he said.

He wondered if the school board was thinking of children and the community when it approved the latest teachers' contract, which granted an average raise of 5.65 percent to teachers this year.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports the average wage increase for American workers was 2.6 percent in 2005.

It is the generous raises that explain how a district with declining enrollment has a budget that continues to grow.

Between 1995 and 2005, district enrollment went from 10,818 to 9,562 -- a loss of 1,256 students. At the same time, spending increased from $67.9-million to $105.5-million.

Projections show that trend continuing and, with the coming loss of state funds due to the elimination of the tangible taxes paid by businesses, a need for even more property taxes in the near future.

Worthington Treasurer Jonathan Boyd has said that, even if the 5.25-mill levy is approved this year, the district will ask voters to approve a 10-mill levy in two years.

"Regardless of what happens on May 2, we still need to see if we are on a maintainable path," Alfred said.

Be Afraid, be very afraid...

Pupils take pride in promoting levy

'Got Pride?' Struthers Middle School pupils say they do.

By WILLIAM K. ALCORN , VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER

STRUTHERS — A group of Struthers Middle School pupils are playing a major role in the campaign to pass a five-year, 6.9-mill school levy at the May 2 primary election.

The day after the levy was defeated at the November 2005 election, pupils in the school's advanced English language arts program came to school saddened and discouraged, many in tears, said Jennifer Colosimo, teacher of the eighth-grade gifted and talented class.

They were worried about what would happen to their school, the special classes, extracurricular activities and their education, she said.

But they quickly turned their hurt and disappointment into determination to work to pass the levy this spring, Colosimo said.

That same day, the class chose the campaign logo, "Got Pride?," suggested by and designed on the computer by Nick Ragan, Kory George and Nate Obenauf.

They also designed a billboard that says "Got Pride? We Do!," that will be put up along Youngstown-Poland Road as part of the levy campaign.

Selling T-shirts

The "Got Pride?" logo appears on the front of levy T-shirts the class is selling to raise money for the campaign. "Vote Yes! Struthers City Schools" is on the back of the shirts.

With the help of Ink'n Thread Works, 19 Lowellville Road, levy T-shirts were created and are being sold for $7.50 to $9.50 each. The $2.50 profit on each shirt goes toward promoting the levy, said Shannon Tirone, co-chairman of the Struthers Levy Committee, along with Paul Garchar.

The 6.9-mill, five-year levy would generate $1,060,419 a year, beginning in 2007.

The T-shirts come in small, medium, large and extra large for $7.50. Sizes double-X are $8.50, and triple-X are $9.50. The shirts can be ordered by mailing or bringing a check or money order, made payable to Struthers Middle School, 800 Fifth St. Exact cash is also acceptable. Colosimo said 275 T-shirts have already been sold.

"I was taken aback by their emotion and awareness," Colosimo said of her pupils after the November election.

"It was overwhelming to me," she said, tears welling up in her eyes.

"As teachers, it makes us fight harder because you see that the kids care so much," Colosimo said.

Getting organized

The pupils organized themselves into committees — public relations, activities, technology, marketing and outside-school events — and went to work.

Colosimo requires that her English language arts pupils participate in a community service project each year.

"I want to make sure they understand the real world and have a commitment to their community," she said.

She said working on the levy campaign is this year's service project, and that it adheres to the Ohio Department of Education's content standards and course of study requirements.

Colosimo said the school's staff is helping with the project, including Janet George, eighth-grade math teacher, who is helping Colosimo chaperone out-of-school events; and the secretarial staff, Judy Wilson and Sue Rhoads.

Speaking out

Several of the teens, all members of the "Got Pride?" public relations committee, talked about the 2005 levy defeat, how much their school means to them, and why they think the levy should be passed at the May election.

"A lot of us were crying and sad. We felt defeated" after the levy failed, Emily Kremin said. "I didn't want to lose Mrs. C. [Colosimo]," she said.

"We were bummed out, but right away we started thinking about what we could do to help pass the next levy," said Dana Mathews, who plays three sports and is in advanced classes.

"We need the advanced classes," said Miranda Tusinac, who was afraid the classes would be cut because the levy failed.

"I just hope people get out and vote for the levy," said James Hupp, who is considering studying pre-law. "If the levies continue to fail, the classes I need would disappear," he said.

"We want people to put personalities aside and understand it is about education and kids and keeping standards high," Dana said.

"We don't mind if people vote no ... as long as they are voting on facts, not personalities," Miranda said.

"This campaign will help get the facts out," Nick said.

"Working on the levy campaign is a good way for kids to get involved in the community, and it might help voters realize that if the levy fails, it would hurt us the most," Kory said.

"If we work together and get the community involved, we can make a difference," Emily said.

Setting the Record Straight on Ohio’s Charter Schools

By Matthew Carr,  June 7, 2007

During the current debate over the future of Ohio’s fledging charter schools, opponents often rely on myths and distortions to tar a promising educational initiative. It’s time to set the record straight.

Charter school opponents typically forward a misleading three-point criticism. They say the schools fail to advance academic achievement. Charters “drain” or “siphon” scarce resources from traditional public schools. And the schools supposedly lack accountability. All three claims are false.

The first misconception is perhaps the most pervasive in the charter school debate. Charter opponents have repeatedly argued that charter schools are failing academically because their test scores and school ratings are lower than state averages for the traditional public schools. What is not mentioned is that charter schools, by law, can only be opened in failing school districts.

Comparing charter schools to the school districts in which they are allowed to open, one finds that they are in fact doing as well as, and in many cases better than, their peers. In the only rigorous value-added study of charter school proficiency rates in Ohio, charters were found to be making significantly larger gains than the large urban districts. A forthcoming analysis using updated proficiency rates finds that this trend is continuing.

The second criticism leveled at charter schools is that they adversely affect district finances. Specifically, opponents have stated that charter schools are depriving school systems of their local property tax revenues. This is false – charter schools have absolutely no access to locally raised funds. It may be the case that the loss of students to charter schools means the district has to stretch local dollars further, but claims that such funds are leaving the district simply are not true.

This argument also raises an interesting contradiction. Opponents have stated that the loss of funds to charter schools reduces the ability of school districts to provide a quality education. But it is difficult to reconcile such claims whenever advances in student achievement occur in the large urban districts where charters operate.

Xenia City Schools Superintendent Jeff Lewis recently told his local newspaper that the Dayton schools “realized $42 million in reductions for charters.” However, in August Dayton school officials held a press conference to celebrate their “Continuous Improvement” rating, up from “Academic Emergency” just a year earlier. This indicates that, if anything, charters are driving the Dayton district to improve. So the question is – harm for whom? Clearly not students.

The third criticism of the charter program is that such schools are not accountable. Lewis argues that charter schools “do not have to convince any local group of their need.” It would seem that there is at least one local group whose support they need – those parents who choose to send their children to the school.

Moreover, charter schools face the same academic accountability requirements as the traditional public schools. Their students take the same state exams and the results and subsequent ratings are reported in the same manner. Unlike the traditional public schools however, if a charter school receives the lowest rating for three consecutive years it will be closed. Also, unlike traditional public schools, charters that cannot attract enough students are forced to close.

Throughout their existence, charter schools in Ohio have faced a constant uphill battle. The statements of opponents have proven to be, once more, focused on protecting the status quo and closing down competitors rather than an honest attempt to improve what has shown to be a generally effective and efficient reform.