(You can also view an OpEd supporting Issue 109.)
Why I’m Voting NO on Issue 109
This Tuesday I’m voting NO on Issue 109, the Cleveland Heights University Heights (CHUH) property tax levy, and I want to explain why. The CHUH school district is asking us to approve a property tax increase that will increase taxes on each $100,000 of house value by about $200 a year, and give the school an additional $5.5 million a year on top of the current spending as reported on the Ohio Dept. of Education (DOE) website of about $107 million. Now an additional $200 may not seem like a lot, but voters should be aware that our property taxes are already the 4th highest property taxes by house value (i.e. millage) in the entire state. 4th highest out of 614 school districts in Ohio!
I will make the argument that not only should we not give the school an additional $5.5 million a year, but the school should actually be spending $28 million a year less, and our property taxes should actually be considerably lower than they currently are. Why do I say this? Consider the following:
- The school is overspending by more than $28 million a year. The Ohio DOE website contains a very important report for analyzing school districts. The report can be found at http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/Finance-Related-Data/Education-Fiscal-Data-Project. It is a report that compares each school district in Ohio with the other school districts in the county and with all the school districts in Ohio. The report shows that average spending per pupil in the CHUH school district is $19,671 versus $14,445 for all the school districts in Cuyahoga County. That’s an additional $5,226 for each of the 5,437 children reported in the school district, or 36% more than the county average. If you multiply the overspending by the number of children in the school you come to $28,413,762.
- The school is grossly overstaffed. What is the school spending the extra $28 million on? I think part of the answer can also be found in the Ohio DOE report. The report shows that K-12 Pupil Teacher Ratio (which measures how many students there are in the district for every teacher employed by the district) of 11.6 for our school district and 14.7 for the rest of Cuyahoga county. This shows that the school has 20% more teachers per student than the average school district in Cuyahoga County. The report shows that school has 468 teachers and I believe the overall employment in the school is approximately 1300 people. This would suggest the school has 94 more teachers that it needs, and if we extend this ratio to the overall staffing, 260 overall positions too many.
- The school is overpaying its staff. Another place the school could be overspending is salaries. The DOE Center for School Finance District Profile Report shows that average salary for administrators in CHUH is $105,743 but only $87,634 in Similar School District, or 20.6% more. The report also shows that average teacher salary in the CHUH school district is $73,709 and for Cuyahoga county, $68,848, 7% more.
Overspending of $28 million out of a budget of $107 million suggests the budget is 35% more than it should be, and that property taxes are higher than they should be. In fact the DOE shows that the CHUH average local (as opposed to state and federal) revenue per pupil is $12,578 versus only $5,413 for the statewide average. We are being excessively overtaxed. The CHUH school district needs to stop asking for more money and start fixing their overspending problem. The school is losing about 100 students per year and they do not seem to be reducing the size of the school system to reflect the loss of students. That’s why I’m voting NO on Issue 109.
Diane Hallum
Citizens Leadership PAC
Anonymous says
A small group of school levy opponents are misleading residents with so-called “facts” about our schools that cherry-pick information or intentionally use dated information because the most up-to-date information doesn’t suit their purposes. Don’t be fooled!
Here are just SOME of the tricks that CH-UH levy opponents are playing:
* Levy opponents love to compare graduation rates from a decade ago to today, but they do so in highly misleading ways.
* They don’t explain that the older rate they report is a 5-year graduation rate whereas today’s reported rate is a 4-year rate, and thus is understandably lower.
* They ignore the fact that in 2007 the State made the graduation test significantly harder, which lowered graduation rates across Ohio.
* They ignore that CH-UH’s graduation rate has gone up every year since 2011.
* And they ignore the District’s most recent 4-year graduation rate of 85.7% — compared to a statewide average of 83%.
* Levy opponents cite a misleading cost-per-student figure that includes millions in “expenditures” that the State actually diverts to charter schools and voucher programs. These aren’t expenditures used to educate Heights schools students!
* Levy opponents claim a current cost-per-student figure of $20,000 or more when the Ohio Department of Education reports our cost-per-student amount as $15,023.1
* Levy opponents consistently cite Ohio Department of Education figures – yet the one time the State’s figures don’t serve their argument, they ignore them.
* Levy opponents claim that future costs-per-student will be over $24,000, citing District financial reports, even though that number appears NOWHERE in any District report!
* Levy opponents compare expenditures of today to a decade ago, but ignore that the expenditure figures they cite for now include charter school and voucher “expenditures” as well as various costs incurred as part of the District’s school renovation project.
* Levy opponents complain about two administrator salaries the most:
* The first, Angee Shaker, has not worked for the District for over two years, and her replacement makes tens of thousands less than the salary they complain about.
* The second, Scott Gainer, is an award-winning CFO (Crains’ Cleveland “CFO of the Year” in 2014) whose salary is consistent with longstanding school district CFOs in the state. Would levy opponents prefer that the District hire temporary accounting employees to manage its $100+ million budget? What do levy opponents think CFOs who manage $100+ million budgets make in the free market?
* Levy opponents assign “F” grades to administrators who in fact are not given any grade at all by the State.
* Levy opponents assert that the District should be building schools sized to accommodate the lower enrollment numbers projected for a decade from now – they never explain what we should do with the excess students between now and then.
* They ignore that these projections have been wrong in the past.
* These studies assume that community school enrollment will continue to increase even though the State is finally monitoring and regulating such schools after a period of neglect.
* Levy opponents claim that the District has already planned future operating levy increases and even allege what the millage will be in 2020! This is fortune-telling nonsense.
You cannot and should not trust levy opponents’ “facts.”
Also Anonymous says
With all due respect, the issues raised by the previous commentator ignore the underlying issues for which most of us are opposing the levy. The levy was campaigned for as (see the powerpoint presentation on the website) in an extremely poor manner, and failed to address the concerned of tax paying citizens who pay some of the highest property taxes in the state of Ohio, and are not treated with respect by the school board who serves them. The presentation fails to present a compelling reason, and to the contrary, shows why this levy must be opposed until we see some responsible leadership from the district.
A) Property taxes in CH-UH are among the highest in the state. The compared districts (Shaker Heights, Garfield Heights) aren’t much different, but other districts in the area, such as South Euclid and Beachwood have much lower property taxes. Even the City of Cleveland, with a similarly diverse population has a lower rate
B) The administrative cost per pupil in CH-UH is extremely high. The slides compare to Beachwood, which CH-UH is several times the size, yet the cost savings per pupil is not much lower
C)The blaming of the non-public school population for the district’s financial woes is a reason to vote no on this issue. Competition is what breeds excellence, and school choice is one of the most important civil rights issues of our time. Allowing a child from an under performing district the opportunity to go to a private school where he or she will not be exposed to crime and other issues which can affect learning, and ‘rub shoulders’ with children from a higher economic strata will do wonders for a child’s future success. If a public school district wishes to keep these children, they will be forced to raise their level of education. Additionally, taxpayers who pay into a system should not be forced not to receive any benefits from it (this is another issue which warrants its own op-ed)
D) Property values have fallen drastically as taxes have risen. In the last ten years, I have seen my property taxes rise by 40%, while the property value has fallen about 30%. If the levy were to increase, property values would fall further.
E) Local taxes as a whole have increased dramatically over the last few years, including the bond levy, the City of Cleveland Heights income tax increase, and the increase in water bills
F) If the district was serious that the levy is for the benefit of the children, then we need to see some ‘out of the box’ thinking the way union contacts are negotiated, and the way students are educated. This is not impossible, as the City of Cleveland Public Schools have shown. A renewable levy would have more support, as it would show a sense of accountability to the public
UniversityHeights says
Pro School Levy leaders don’t care about education. They just want to keep the bloated administrative budgets. Gearity School has been FAILING for many years now with no end in sight. It is an embarrassment. It is time for University Heights to get representation on the School Board and cut the “pork”! Actually, it is time for a tax DECREASE!
Anonymity says
As someone who works in the inner city and visits the homes of our poorest citizens, pouring money into the schools does not fix or address the problem of poor outcomes. It only makes us feel better so we can avoid what we need to be addressing.
Anonymous says
what do you mean that Gearity is failing? Both of my kids went to Gearity at various points— I’ve volunteered in the school. It’s an excellent school.
UniversityHeights says
Yes Gearity is a failing school. That is a fact! Why do you think hundreds of families are moving into University Heights (certainly not for low taxes)! Gearity is a failing school and that is why we get school vouchers to go to Fuchs or any other private school we choose.