Erie County schools disappointed by Kasich plan

Only one of Erie County's seven school districts will see increased state funding in the next two years, according to Gov. John Kasich's state budget proposal.
Alissa Widman Neese
Feb 18, 2013


The six snubbed schools — all but Sandusky — join more than 60 percent of Ohio districts getting no additional aid under Kasich's plan.

Most local superintendents aren't thrilled by its preliminary numbers, but they're also not surprised. The data was unveiled last week and could change slightly before it's official June 30.

"We kind of anticipated it," Margaretta Schools superintendent Ed Kurt said. "Traditionally a lot more has been put into urban districts and that continues with this proposal. We're just glad we're not getting cut further."

Check out the PDF of the below for preliminary numbers on how school districts will fare.

For more on the plan, how it will work, and local reactions, pick up a copy of Monday's Register.



My local liberal friends who say there is no redistribution of wealth from President Obama are up in arms that their local schools will receive less state tax money from Gov. Kasich.

Can we all say redistribution without representation. Kinda of reminds me of the Perkins school building program without public vote.

By the way, who is going to pay for the proposed federal mandated preschool for all 4 year olds? Are we going to redistributing wealth in another form?


Who's going to pay for preschool? If you have a job, YOU are! And what makes the mandate that much more disgusting is the fact that repeated studies have shown preschool to be worthless. Taxpayer funded daycare is what it REALLY amounts to.


BTW, speakin' of "jobs":

"...12.3 million today officially fully unemployed compared with 12.8 million in 1933 at the depth of the Depression."

"So, together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger."

- Pres. BHO, SOTU, Feb. 12, 2013


There at least as many people who have fallen off the unemployed statistics. Know of three in my family dropped off the list from September to November.


U.S. population numbers at the depth of the depression and in 2013:

July 1, 1933 125,578,763

Janurary 1, 2013 315,091,138


Donut: what studies are you talking about? I've read just the exact opposite for years. But actually, no one needs to cite a study to prove you are wrong. Common sense and even casual observation make it clear that getting children academically involved at an early age helps the child. Kids who are "ahead" at age 4-5 tend to stay "ahead" for the remainder of their lives.


You know, I was in the kitchen using a meat cleaver when I read your post. I almost chopped off two of my fingers, I was lauging so hard. As one of this blogs most liberal posters, you have often advocated proof (by studies or citations) to back ones assertions. Now in typical liberal, hypocritic form you know assert that "common sense and even casual observation make it clear." LMAO! So when a study performed by the Dept of Health and Human Services doesn't support the voices in your liberal mind, then it is now OK to just go with "common sense and casual observation?" Whose common sense and casual observation? Yours? In this case it has failed you.

Here is a synopsis of the the HHS study from an article in Time magazine, although the complete report can be found by a simple google search. To read more you can also click the link. I doubt you will read it though, because nothing infuriates a liberal more than seeing proof that their FEELINGS are misguided. The reality is that it is about parental involvement.

"According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution, who said, "I guess they were trying to rerun the data to see if they could come up with anything positive. They couldn't."


Donut, you seemed stuck on his 'public vote' tirade. Perkins did it by the book and you just don't like it. I applaud the district for attacking a complex problem, buildings AND operating needs, with a great solution.

Let's review:
They put a new campus plan to a vote. It lost 56/44 (not 70/30 like bloggers claim).

They surveyed people afterwards who said focus on a just a new high school.

They looked at remodeling- the price tag? $37M (don't quote me on that, it's been a while)

They said wow that's a big number, how are we going to fund it? They held public hearings and said if we move the inside millage we can solve our building needs for years to come- the same exact thing that 200 school districts state wide have done.

They looked at the $37M price tag and said hmmmm, maybe we should look at building new. That is where a new building was born with the $50M price tag. And, by the way, it 's not just 9-12, it 's grades 7-12.

They are being frugal and responsible stewards of our tax dollars and yet you continue to pick at them. Vote no for the operating levy- that is your right, but at least recognize that they are doing the job that we elected then to do.

Why spend $37M to put lipstick on a pig for four grade levels when you can spend $50M for new for six grade levels?



You forgot to mention the outside millage that was moved must be replaced. It must continually be replaced forever and the inside millage can never be voted on again. How did you forget these two little items? Lets paint the picture with all the paints not just the bureaucratic lipstick.

So lets be truthful. The taxpaying public is paying for the new building through increased operating funds.


First, it was the inside millage which was moved. All districts in Ohio are guaranteed an inside millage amount by law. It is also the only millage amount that adjusts with inflation. The inside millage that was moved can be voted on again; it can be moved by a vote of the school board (the money that accumulated in the permanent improvement fund up to the point of the new vote would stay in the permanent improvement fund). The ten year emergency operating levy is being offered a year earlier than if the inside millage hadn't been moved. Ten years is not "forever". The ten year emergency levy is to get the district to the point in time when Kalahari and Lake Crest Tiffs expire and the district starts picking up the tax money that was diverted from the school district to pay for infrastructure upgrades and installation for these developments.

The other option is to pass a traditional bond levy which may give the district less flexibility with funding facilities and cost more in the long term. In any case, the school buildings are owned by the public, and it is the public responsibility to pay for their upkeep and replacement when needed. Of course, we could turn over the education of our kids to a private for-profit entity and then absolve ourselves of any responsibility. The record of charter schools has been pretty abysmal, but who cares as long as our tax dollars aren't being used.


No argument from me, just a clarification. The board said when they moved the millage they would need operating funds sooner. Here we are. Given the voting history in perkins no way they could pass a traditional bond AND operating money. They are positioning themselves for future stability. I applaud their plan. House Bill 920 completely burdens schools and rips communities apart. They are addressing that, while Columbus is ignoring it.

Again, you can still vote no. It is your right. That I recognize and support. I also support good fiscal decisions. They have thought this through and are on the right path. A tough one but right.



"Giving the voting history in Perkins no way they could pass a traditional bond and operating money."

So based on that assumption the school board took the responsibility from the voting public and decided on their own ?

From the Ohio School Board Association, "A school board sets educational goals and establishes policy for the school system based on state laws and community values."

Guess the school board didn't think the community values were important.


You should be very thankful for House Bill 920. Without it your current real estate taxes would be more than triple what they are. Try $8,000 per year for a small home in Fairview Lanes. That is $667 per month or $22 per day. Do you really want to eliminate HB 920? It should drop home values by 70% in a year, if repealled.


HB 920 went too far. Most districts in Ohio would not have to ask for levies on average every 3 years if the taxes collected would have increased by 2-3% along with inflation. My guess is that over the past 40 years the business you worked for experienced inflationary costs and those costs were not absorbed by the business; they were passed along. Your wages probably are higher after 40 years of employment also. Home values increased with inflation (recent manufactured housing bubble debacle aside) so naturally taxes should have gone with those increased values, but did not. School district levies today collect money below the rate at which taxpayers voted on when they passed. For example, a levy which generated $1,000,000 when it was passed years ago is still collecting that same amount even though that same amount is worth less due to inflation causing costs to have gone up. No inflation, there would be no problem for most districts.


@ 9299:

Reads like you're arguing for a sizable increase in the amount of property taxes.

Why wait for a change in legislation; why not send your local SD a check for the estimated increased sum?

BTW: Inflation is a monetary problem; talk to the Federal Reserve.


Not exactly a reasoned response. By your logic, we shouldn't ever support any increased levy for taxes. I would have a lot more pocket change if I hadn't supported seniors, parks, health dept. fire dept., police dept., EHOVE and so forth over the years. My guess is you must have supported some of those because they have passed-some more than once which increased your property taxes. During the same time period of the last 13 years, the school district has not seen additional funds voted So, why is it that the school district is the target for so much negativity when it comes to taxes? And I really don't accept the "trust" issue. All actions by the district are discussed at open meetings (poorly attended open meetings, by the way). And there have been different superintendents and school board members. Enlighten me please!


I agree. Vote NO on ALL levies!


The previous generation paid for YOUR public education. Your thoughts?


9299 writes:

"I would have a lot more pocket change if I hadn't supported seniors, parks, health dept. fire dept., police dept., EHOVE and so forth over the years."

How can you have it both ways?

You complain that RE taxes schools haven't kept up with the rate of inflation and then you complain that taxes for other govt. entities take too much of your take-home pay.

Send 'em a check if it bothers you.


You missed my point; sarcasm doesn't come across real well on a blog-next time I'll put a note in parentheses. Oh, I do tend to vote for levies for public services-even the ones I don't use personally. And no, I really don't believe my locally elected officials are out to cheat me out of tax dollars. Are there some bad elected officials-yep-most are not, however, and are interested in helping the community. My guess is that those who post the most on these articles will never run for office to make a real difference.


@ 9299:

You had a "point?"

The best and brightest tend NOT to run for office while in turn providing capital, jobs and opportunity.

Reality, not empty political promises.

The Big Dog's back

The rich school districts get richer under kassick's plan. Thanks again john.


Correct. Orange HS in Pepper Pike, likely the most affluent district in the state, will receive increased funding. Meanwhile, my wife's school district in Seneca County, in which 60% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch, received no increase in funding. A somewhat good idea, for which I do give Kasich credit, but implemented very poorly.


Just throw the most money at the districts that accomplish the least. How about some accountability.


The teachers union doesn't want accountability.


Wrong. The teachers and teacher's unions just want parents to get involved with their kids' education, and for the kids to give a hoot. Teachers cn't do it by themselves.


Wrong. The teachers union do not want merit based pay. Blame blame blame. Typical liberal.