Sandusky Schools asks for input

Rebuilding or renovating school facilities can be a divisive discussion among educators.
Alissa Widman Neese
Jul 17, 2013
Before Sandusky Schools officials make any decisions on the matter for their district, they’re asking community members to provide input at a series of upcoming public discussions.
At their meeting Monday, school board members released a statement regarding the plan, called “Summer Conversation on the Future of our Schools.” The dates and times for preliminary discussions will be listed soon on the district’s website. Anyone can attend.  
“We’re seeking input and feedback from all segments of the community,” board president Faith Denslow said. Superintendent Eugene Sanders stressed Sandusky Schools has not yet made any decisions, but it’s important to start talking informally about the possibilities.   
The district could seek assistance from the Ohio School Facilities Commission, a state organization that provides partial funding for construction or renovation projects it oversees, Sanders said. It could also assess community input and decide it’s not necessary to update its facilities at this time. No matter what the outcome, academic plans will determine facility needs, he said.   
“We don’t want to build facilities and then build our academic plan around those,” Sanders said. “We want a strong, dynamic, viable education plan to determine what facilites we need to match that plan. That will lead the conversation moving forward.”   
The district will first meet with a select group of community leaders Wednesday morning, he said.   
In other business, board members officially accepted assistant superintendent Dennis Muratori’s resignation Monday and hired David Danhoff as his replacement. 
Also at the meeting, state Rep. Randy Gardner, R-Bowling Green, gave a brief presentation to board members regarding the state budget’s impact on public schools. Gardner praised Sandusky Schools officials for their desire to find innovative ways to educate children, including the district’s new gifted school slated to open in August. More than 100 fourthgraders through sixthgraders have already enrolled, Sanders said. 
“Public education has more competition than it did 20 or 30 years ago and if you sit back and don’t engage, you’re bound to lose students,” Gardner said. “I give you credit for already thinking in that way. I know the governor wants to see districts like you pushing the envelope and finding new ways to educate kids.”   
The new state budget offers districts a share of a $300 million pool of “innovation funds” in one-time grants for projects to modernize schools and improve achievement, he said. Sanders and board members expressed interest Monday in pursuing the funds.



I didn't live in Perkins when all that went down. Thanks for playing, though!


I was stating that I commend you for saying that you will attend all of Sandusky meetings in reference to their plan!


Many accuse the supporters of giving out false information while the facts are what is important.
The new building levy failed ONCE- in November of 2010. It was a 4.98mil Levy for 10 years with FREE Obama money for a $100M campus that lost 58% against to 42% for. The board surveyed all registered voters after the failure. Of the over 1400 responses, 60% said they would support the remodel or rebuilding of a new high school.
The only levy since 2010 was the failed operating levy in May of 2013.
As you can see, there has been only ONE building levy, not many as people on this blog are stating. Please be factual when posting. SR just provides us the forum; they do not police the facts.

In addition, the strategic planning process was started under Sheri Buccerri. The public was invited to attend open meetings bi-monthly for 18 months. Denny Rectenwald followed the plan to fruition including the public meeting where it was shared. Denny Rectenwald invited the Ohio School Facility Commision in for recommendations. Dr. Gunner picked up the ball with numerous public meetings seeking info on what the community wanted from facilities- new or remodel. Those meetings led to the 2010 levy. After that failed, the survey that I mentioned above took place. In addition, there were three well attended public meetings about stadium needs; four poorly attended meetings about inside millage (two more than required by law); which leads to the recent meetings regarding this levy which seem to have people engaged as they are well attended. Not to mention the monthly BOE meetings that no one goes to.

Sorry people. Complaining that the BOE has not asked for help is inaccurate. I am sure that the comments that follow will be that ‘we told them but they didn’t listen’. Let’s see what happens next.

The community of Perkins likes to arm chair quarterback, not get involved. As someone who has been engaged every step of the way, I applaud the BOE for their efforts.


Love the phrase "Free Obama money". That one never gets old. Yes, that's all I got out of your "post". By the way, where's our paid communications director? Why does Gunner have you disciples posting here instead of someone that's paid to?


Keep it real… you would complain about that too


So those against the levy are complainers? You disciples are doing a whole lot for your cause! Keep up the name calling. It makes you look real intelligent and is really persuading the no voters!


I said complaining- you twisted (as you sometimes do) my gerund into a name. I did no name calling. Just addressing the comments that people say the Perkins Board should have done what SCS is doing. You seem uncomfortable?!


Well said Samantha! Thank you for supporting with specifics. This process has been ongoing for years. The BOE has asked repeatedly for input throughout the process.

More often than not in today's world, decisions are made without public input. I also applaud Perkins for making it a community cause.




OFF TOPIC: Some people have what is called ADHD and they can't seem to focus on what's being discussed.


The schools can have all the conversations they want but the bottom line is the taxpayer is tapped out. For once, the schools need to concentrate on getting these kids educated instead always asking for more money.


Not in Perkins! We have an endless flow of taxpayer money for gunner and his disciples to blow on whatever they want! Just ask the parents who can't afford the pay to play fees that are on the levy committee!

Strong Schools ...

The state has cut over 2 million dollars from our school district. Chances are they will cut more in the future. We need to pass this levy in order to keep educating our students.


The state cuts TWO million dollars, so we go and take out a THREE million dollar loan to plan for a school we can't afford, and the residents voted down.! Then threaten to layoff 18 teachers and charge students $730 to play a sport. Intelligence in action!


The loan is currently being paid out of the permanent improvement fund which is a separate pool of funds generated by the p.i. levy. P.I. funds can't be used for operations. The state cuts are coming out of the operational funds of the district. Several actions over the past few years have been taken to cut costs and increase revenue (open enrollment, for example) to avoid having to ask for more or higher levy amounts. Those options are close to being played out. One 2.9 mill levy for additional funds in 18 years is a good track record for fiscal responsibility. The state sees us as a property rich district and will not be increasing funding to us in any meaningful way. Aren't many options with the pay to participate fees-either charge to self-fund or don't have them (that would be too bad for the hundreds of students who participate). This levy in August is for ten years (not permanent like those in the past). Putting this off will only result in higher levy amounts within the next few months and into the future.

Strong Schools ...

I am sorry if that is how it was handled. That is not how the levy supporters were asked to approach the levy.


Kudos to Sandusky for asking their residents input, and may the gifted program be a great success!!!! Any parent who does not check into this program will be losing out on a great opportunity for their child!!!


Also, this post is about the Sandusky Schools so why are all these Perkins people posting on here??!! I still say we should have one school system in Sandusky, not two. There is no Perkins, Ohio!!


Nor is there Margaretta, Ohio, Edison, Ohio or hundreds of other school districts that formed for a variety of reasons. The point for Perkins Township residents is that the school system IS the central focal point of identity and pride, and hopefully will be supported.



Common Sense

Some time ago, the city of Sandusky wanted nothing to do with the school to the south as they were considered "stupid farmers". We have the lower millage rate of the two school districts and have been able to attract a large number of transfer students through open enrollment. The Sandusky City Schools did not see that type of an influx when they opened their schools for enrollment. It may have to do with the environment.