(You can also view an OpEd opposing Issue 109.)
It’s clear from many in our community that they do not plan to vote in favor of Issue 109 – the operating levy on the ballot to fund the Cleveland Heights-University Heights School District operating expenses.
I know that many in our community struggle financially and they consider this levy a burden. But we should all consider this levy as an investment – in our community, our housing values, our neighbors, and the services that we or our neighbors directly receive from the District.
The challenges the District faces are not simple. The state funding formula has placed the burden of operational funding on the residents of the District. The CH-UH community is responsible for generating approximately 70% of the District’s operational revenue to keep the District at its current status quo. This is not uniform across the state and CH-UH residents are unfairly and unequally burdened with this responsibility.
All of us know the importance of a quality public school system for our cities. Our property values and our quality of life depend on a thriving and attractive public school district. Therefore, the failure of the levy and its likely negative effects on the District’s ability to improve its struggling educational system affects us as it does all other residents.
Issue 109 is the smallest levy in more than 30 years. The Cleveland Heights-University Heights School City School District has made $8 million in budget cuts over the past 18 months. They have also reduced spending on operations for each of the past four years.
This levy is necessary to protect our current levels of teachers and programming and to maintain the District’s educational offerings at its current level. Even if we don’t have children in the schools, their performance affects all of us. We want engaged and well-educated neighbors. Strong public schools make for strong communities.
No doubt, the Cleveland Heights-University Heights school district spends a lot of money on its students. Some people point to this as a reason not to support public education. I actually think it’s a fact about which we should all be proud. Some of the recent “facts” levy opponents are highlighting about administrator salaries take the focus away from the fact that we need adequately paid teachers and administrators to obtain the educational outcomes we seek. This levy is about maintaining a minimum level of educational services to these students. We shouldn’t let misinformation take our eyes off the main purpose of this small levy.
In the face of reduced funding from the state, the burden for funding our schools is left to those who pay property taxes. I will vote for Issue 109 so that we can sustain a strong public school system for the good of all that live in the district. And I will do it with pride. As a fellow community member, I ask you to join me in voting for the levy on November 8.
m y mann says
More money is not going to solve the problem.
When there is no family structure in most of these kids homes? Nothing will help
david P. says
My understanding is that the writer of the op-ed promoting the levy works for the district. If so, a disclaimer stating that fact should be posted also.
Open Dialogue says
Lakewood can do more with less. They spend less per student and have a higher overall report card. This is an example where more money does not necessity mean a better education. As I said in a previous comment, let’s see you spend the money that we’ve already given out more effectively and then we’ll consider whether or not to grant you more. So far, the answer is “No.”
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/07/cleveland_heights-university_h_1.html
anonymous says
Every couple of years, we school supporters are forced to publicly defend the very existence of what we know is a sacred and vital public institution. The attacks come from many directions and they rain down on our district leaders, our hard-working teachers, and even our children and their families. The results of this can go one of two ways: they can exhaust and discourage us to the point of giving up. Or they can fire us up and make us rally behind what we know our district is and what we know our district can become.
This levy is a scary one. There is simply no wiggle room left in the budget. None. If Issue 109 fails, come January 1st the Board and administration would have to start cutting $5.8 million worth of staff and programs.
Are there things left to cut? Of course. Every single thing that makes our schools special or attractive or effective. Every thing our district does to serve its wide variety of students, from the refugee who’s learning to read for the first time in a brand new language to the high achiever who’s ready for advanced high school math in 8th grade, from the child who sleeps on their cousin’s couch and comes to school hungry to the one for whom singing on a stage is the driving force in their life.
Millikin says
Sell Millikin already! If they need money so bad, stop spending tax Dollars on Millikin and SELL it. A HUGE example of WASTED TAX dollars.
Also Anonymous says
With all due respect, the issues raised by the op-ed 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 their website) in an extremely poor manner, and failed to address the concerns 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
These pro TAX voters are all in Cleveland Heights! We in University Heights actually pay taxes and are opposed to ANOTHER tax increase! Enough is enough.
Susan Jhirad says
I received a flyer that lays out so clearly the financial predicament our school district has put us into in recent years. In 15 years there have been 7 issues on the ballot to increase funds SOLEY to the schools alone (excluding the 4 increases from CHUH libraries and the city income tax increase).
7 out of 15. Think about it. This means the schools have come to the taxpayer almost every other year.
The district has increased their revenues from property taxes over $40 million annually at the same time our student enrollment has dropped by over 1500 students.
Why is this happening? It is because our spending has gotten out of control. Not only our we currently spending 79% more per pupil than the state average, we are spending 72% more than the average of SIMILAR districts. (The situation will even be worse if we pass this levy coupled with our declining enrollment.) These comparisons and data come directly from the State of Ohio Department of Education.
Please do not believe a heavily funded marketing campaign that is designed to convince you the state data is ‘wrong’.
Do not believe a marketing campaign that says you can have it all for only $16 month per $100K valuation of your home. It is actually $500 a year per $100k of valuation for just this one levy
Do not believe a marketing campaign which asks you to vote before the district renegotiates the expired teachers contract. Pay our teachers well but demand the district look at fairness to the taxpayers; first re-evaluate automatic annual raises as high as 16% and $20 medical insurance premiums as well as costly clauses in the contract not in the best interests of educating our students.
Do not believe a marketing campaign who is not only counting on short sighted vision and fiscal misunderstanding by its voters, but encourages it.
A campaign who knows full well their plan is to come back in short order for necessary improvements to the grade schools; a request for another $100 million. A campaign who sees in the school district’s own forecast a $15 million deficit in 2019 and a $32 million deficit in 2020 yet tells the community the apparent needs for even more funds in just a few years is “fortune telling nonsense”.
Do not believe a marketing campaign which says NO future planning should occur for decreased enrollment because ‘projections can be wrong’ even though the superintendent herself stated the district is projected to lose another 800 students.
In addition the state, the newspaper, investigative news stories and citizens have all identified a multitude of areas with wasteful and inefficient spending that the campaign has never addressed.
Above all please do not feel compelled to vote yes on 109 if there are any doubts in your mind. Once passed there is no turning back. Whereas with a majority NO vote on 109 the levy committee has already said it will be back on the ballot. There will be ample time for all concerns to be addressed. Hopefully in an open and transparent matter. But only if we hold the district accountable now.
Four generations of my family have lived in Cleveland Heights. My husband and I graduated together from CHHS. We love our community and support the entire community, not just our schools. I believe in and support public education. I have campaigned in support of our schools. I have been a volunteer tutor at Boulevard elementary. I hope someday to be able to say five generations of my family have lived in Cleveland Heights. Which is why I urge you to vote against 109 to keep our community viable and attractive to newcomers as well as for ALL of use who live here.
Ohio Department of Education report on CHUH finances
http://odevax.ode.state.oh.us/htbin/F2015-DISTRICT-PROFILE.COM?irn=043794
School district 5 years forecast which shows $15m and $32m deficit beginning in 3 years
http://www.chuh.org/Downloads/October%202016%20Forecast%20and%20Assumptions.pdf
District committee plan to finance the capital improvements in two steps (only one which has been on the ballot so far)
http://www.chuh.org/Downloads/1-LFC-Final-Report-for-BoEJune20131.pdf
Bugle boy says
Why are they going back on the ballot after a levy failure if they are making cuts?
Makes no logical sense