Northwest Ohio Realignment

Smalls

Well-known member
When you take in open enrollment students you do not receive any local tax dollars (property, sales, etc.) from the districts the students are coming from. You receive the state tax money that follows that given student.

There is an enormous difference between state taxes following a student to a different public school district as compared to a private institution via a voucher.
Thank you for the explanation.

Are you able to provide an example of where the $$$ comes from for an open enrollment student vs a voucher student in actual dollars? I am not sure if I am asking for something that is impossible or not. Not meaning it as a smart as request, really just want to understand.

I personally view all taxes as the same. Don't care it they are fed, state, local. At the end of the day it is money taken out of my paycheck/bank account.
 
Last edited:

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
But it is ok for our local district to sponge off of and harm another district so long as they are public? Are they not taking local taxes dollars out of the community? Are they not taking advantage of the perception that one school district is better than another?

I am not a fan of vouchers and am more so playing devils advocate - but I think the argument against open enrollment should be just as vocal and remain consistent with the argument against vouchers. In my eyes one school system/community should not be able to rob from another....and that is what open enrollment does just as well as vouchers.

At the end of the day locally they both screw TPS.
The problem with this situation is that there are so many things wrong with how Ohio handles its voucher policy that arguments get crossed but make no mistake it is wrong on many levels.

1). I was talking my local property tax. My local property taxes, which are meant to stay in MY community, should not leave my community. Funding schools through property tax is bad enough (and illegal) and now we are doubling down on that bad idea and allowing MY property tax to walk to a private school in another community.

2). If the private schools were to abide by the same testing and bastardized grading system when it came to performance I would have far less heartburn. The FACT is they do not. This is not to say that private schools offer a lessor education but it is to say that if you are going to take one sect of schools and punish them for not living up to whatever standard you create, you should hold the school that benefits from that bastardized system to the same standard or standards.

3). I pointed out, through the info you provided, that CC collects $1,500,000 through public tax dollars. At what point do they become public and have to abide by public standards. For instance, the local public school must take everyone that walks through their door. The private does not. The public must find interpreters and ensure access and abide by Title IX. The public entity has to provide information on everyone, the private does not. Most private schools do not carry the same requirements of teachers either.
 

Smalls

Well-known member
The problem with this situation is that there are so many things wrong with how Ohio handles its voucher policy that arguments get crossed but make no mistake it is wrong on many levels.

1). I was talking my local property tax. My local property taxes, which are meant to stay in MY community, should not leave my community. Funding schools through property tax is bad enough (and illegal) and now we are doubling down on that bad idea and allowing MY property tax to walk to a private school in another community.

2). If the private schools were to abide by the same testing and bastardized grading system when it came to performance I would have far less heartburn. The FACT is they do not. This is not to say that private schools offer a lessor education but it is to say that if you are going to take one sect of schools and punish them for not living up to whatever standard you create, you should hold the school that benefits from that bastardized system to the same standard or standards.

3). I pointed out, through the info you provided, that CC collects $1,500,000 through public tax dollars. At what point do they become public and have to abide by public standards. For instance, the local public school must take everyone that walks through their door. The private does not. The public must find interpreters and ensure access and abide by Title IX. The public entity has to provide information on everyone, the private does not. Most private schools do not carry the same requirements of teachers either.

1. View the very small amount of your individual tax that would leave OCS as paying for the student and not the bricks and mortar - you would pay that portion regardless of where their chair sits. The community still benefits because someone who is a part of the community is benefitting.

2. Fix the testing/grading system - why require others to follow an acknowledged flawed system?

3. Make the voucher worth the full cost of educating the student

You know I couldn't resist.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Nothing starts the public-private %hitstorm quite like mentioning the video boards. Thanks bucc!

Now if any coaches force their kids to eat inappropriate pizza, we'll be zooming to 200 pages.

So... summer worksouts? Any other news?
 

Legacy

Member
Vouchers are a way to circumvent the Constitution. It is indirectly giving tax money to fund private education, a violation of the 1st of First Amendment.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
Thank you for the explanation.

Are you able to provide an example of where the $$$ comes from for an open enrollment student vs a voucher student in actual dollars? I am not sure if I am asking for something that is impossible or not. Not meaning it as a smart as request, really just want to understand.

I personally view all taxes as the same. Don't care it they are fed, state, local. At the end of the day it is money taken out of my paycheck/bank account.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3317.017

The best I think I can do to explain state funding. It's a long read and I don't think it would be of much explanation to quote directly from it. Essentially, the state bases it's "share" of funds to districts based upon a base amount (roughly $6,000) per student that is multiplied by an index that is supposed to account for student population and a given district's ability to raise funds (i.e. property and income taxes) to fund itself. This $6,000 is the value of a high school EdChoice voucher and I'm at least led to believe this $6,000 is what a district receives when they receive an open-enrollment student from another district. This $6,000 is likewise what they lose out on when they lose an open enrollment student to a neighboring district.

As an example, generally speaking, the index is going to give a larger portion of that $6,000 per student base funding to a poorer urban district than to a wealthier suburban district. I can think of one specific example of a district more in my part of the state that I'd describe as being fairly poor by income standards that gets screwed badly by the funding mix because there's abundant farmland in their district, i.e. potential to raise funds via property tax, notwithstanding there's no chance in hell they could actually pass such a property windfall levy.

Like our school funding system that has been ruled unconstitutional, it is my personal belief via the wording regarding educational funding in the state constitution that the EdChoice program violates the Ohio constitution. IMO it is pretty clear that public funds via the state were intended to fund public ("common") schools, not an alternative service that's private.
 

Smalls

Well-known member
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3317.017

The best I think I can do to explain state funding. It's a long read and I don't think it would be of much explanation to quote directly from it. Essentially, the state bases it's "share" of funds to districts based upon a base amount (roughly $6,000) per student that is multiplied by an index that is supposed to account for student population and a given district's ability to raise funds (i.e. property and income taxes) to fund itself. This $6,000 is the value of a high school EdChoice voucher and I'm at least led to believe this $6,000 is what a district receives when they receive an open-enrollment student from another district. This $6,000 is likewise what they lose out on when they lose an open enrollment student to a neighboring district.

As an example, generally speaking, the index is going to give a larger portion of that $6,000 per student base funding to a poorer urban district than to a wealthier suburban district. I can think of one specific example of a district more in my part of the state that I'd describe as being fairly poor by income standards that gets screwed badly by the funding mix because there's abundant farmland in their district, i.e. potential to raise funds via property tax, notwithstanding there's no chance in hell they could actually pass such a property windfall levy.

Like our school funding system that has been ruled unconstitutional, it is my personal belief via the wording regarding educational funding in the state constitution that the EdChoice program violates the Ohio constitution. IMO it is pretty clear that public funds via the state were intended to fund public ("common") schools, not an alternative service that's private.

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I had found that yesterday read a few pages before I gave up wanting a cliff notes version.

My personal thoughts (not devils advocate) on this is that funds raised for a district should stay in that district. If private schools want to cherry pick and provide scholarships for any reason they see fit, than they should be able to do that with private funds that they raise on their own. From a sports standpoint that goes against the OHSAA rules so they would need to form an organization for schools with a similar structure.

Accept public money then you need to deal with the strings that are attached to it.
 

smurfyeah19

Active member
Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I had found that yesterday read a few pages before I gave up wanting a cliff notes version.

My personal thoughts (not devils advocate) on this is that funds raised for a district should stay in that district. If private schools want to cherry pick and provide scholarships for any reason they see fit, than they should be able to do that with private funds that they raise on their own. From a sports standpoint that goes against the OHSAA rules so they would need to form an organization for schools with a similar structure.

Accept public money then you need to deal with the strings that are attached to it.
Eh not a fan of this comment. PARENTS and their families send their kids to private schools to escape the poor environment that some public schools have. For those who don't have the means to move into a place like Perrysburg, their kids should not suffer if their talented and gifted in either academics or extra curriculars. Even looking back at my education growing up in a podunk farm town, the environment was safe but the curriculum and offerings don't come close to what suburban schools had.
 

Smalls

Well-known member
Eh not a fan of this comment. PARENTS and their families send their kids to private schools to escape the poor environment that some public schools have. For those who don't have the means to move into a place like Perrysburg, their kids should not suffer if their talented and gifted in either academics or extra curriculars. Even looking back at my education growing up in a podunk farm town, the environment was safe but the curriculum and offerings don't come close to what suburban schools had.

I work with several engineers, accountants etc. who attended TPS. The teachers, curriculum and facilities did not hold them back.

There is plenty of section 8 housing in the burbs if they choose that route.

I also mention that if private schools want to fund scholarship for any reason (covering gifted and talented or extra curriculars) then they should be able to offer them with no strings attached as long as they fund them themselves. OHSAA would not allow that, but nothing is stopping them from forming a new organization.
 

smurfyeah19

Active member
I work with several engineers, accountants etc. who attended TPS. The teachers, curriculum and facilities did not hold them back.

There is plenty of section 8 housing in the burbs if they choose that route.

I also mention that if private schools want to fund scholarship for any reason (covering gifted and talented or extra curriculars) then they should be able to offer them with no strings attached as long as they fund them themselves. OHSAA would not allow that, but nothing is stopping them from forming a new organization.
Of course people can excel in TPS, but to say it's as good of an environment as a place like St John's or Toledo Christian is insane. Also the OHSAA has nothing to do with this, this a state of Ohio policy
 

Smalls

Well-known member
Of course people can excel in TPS, but to say it's as good of an environment as a place like St John's or Toledo Christian is insane. Also the OHSAA has nothing to do with this, this a state of Ohio policy

If students can and do excel in those schools then why remove the best and brightest from those schools? If they remain in their schools wouldn't it make sense that the curriculum would be expanded and there would be more peer academic competition and collaboration? As well as improved test scores?

If private schools were to fund all of their scholarships internally and be allowed to provide those scholarships for any reason including athletics, then the OHSAA would be very much involved. I didn't spell that out, but that is what I was getting at in the prior post.

My focus would be more on improving the public schools and attempting to find ways to get rid of the high costs and inefficiencies created by too many requirements and government oversight. There does need to be transparency and accountability, but the oversight should not become so time consuming, expensive and burdensome that it takes away from classroom learning. Not a fan of schools being everything for everyone. Their job is to provide an opportunity of an education, but should not be expected to replace mom and dad or be expected to educate those who are a constant disruption and have zero desire to learn. Narrow the scope and get the focus back 100% on educating young people and away from all of the other BS that has entered into the school building.

Study the successful public schools by peer group and demographic and model the rest around them. This will never happen because there are too many special interest groups pushing an agenda instead of focusing on classroom education.

There does need to be some consolidation of the private schools in the Toledo area. The families/students who choose to attend them should be active, supportive and have at least some understanding and belief in the schools charter.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Of course people can excel in TPS, but to say it's as good of an environment as a place like St John's or Toledo Christian is insane.

Beyond scary statement. But typical. I very much doubt you'd get anyone from SJJ to say that on camera and I very much doubt you'd get anyone from TC to say that. To each their own as they say. I'd rather an environment that respected people.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
My focus would be more on improving the public schools and attempting to find ways to get rid of the high costs and inefficiencies created by too many requirements and government oversight. There does need to be transparency and accountability, but the oversight should not become so time consuming, expensive and burdensome that it takes away from classroom learning. Not a fan of schools being everything for everyone. Their job is to provide an opportunity of an education, but should not be expected to replace mom and dad or be expected to educate those who are a constant disruption and have zero desire to learn. Narrow the scope and get the focus back 100% on educating young people and away from all of the other BS that has entered into the school building.

Study the successful public schools by peer group and demographic and model the rest around them. This will never happen because there are too many special interest groups pushing an agenda instead of focusing on classroom education.

You write these things but you do not support them with even casual observation, let alone supportive facts. Facts can be hard to come by but can you be more specific on these observations? What are the causes of the "high costs?" Where are the "inefficencies?" And what "special interest" groups and "agenda" do you think are driving the curriculums, In what ways, specifically do you think the curriculums are different from say, Perrysburg or St Francis or Central Catholic?
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Isn't time for a new organization??? IB has plenty of time on his hands.....
I'd cut vouchers to schools not held to the same standards. I would also ensure vouchers are not used like athletic scholarships. Lets dig into WHO all gets those 231 vouchers at Central? Are they awarded out of a pool randomly or just kids who can jump high and run fast? Once all of those things are cleaned up I'd watch your beloved football team drop to nothing and the school close within a couple years.

If you want to be a private school be a private school. The minute you take taxpayer money and game the system using them as scholarships I take exception.

225 boys 10-12 and 10-15 DI guys on the roster. Wow.
 

Smalls

Well-known member
You write these things but you do not support them with even casual observation, let alone supportive facts. Facts can be hard to come by but can you be more specific on these observations? What are the causes of the "high costs?" Where are the "inefficencies?" And what "special interest" groups and "agenda" do you think are driving the curriculums, In what ways, specifically do you think the curriculums are different from say, Perrysburg or St Francis or Central Catholic?

I work with several engineers, accountants etc. who attended TPS. The teachers, curriculum and facilities did not hold them back.

There is plenty of section 8 housing in the burbs if they choose that route.

I also mention that if private schools want to fund scholarship for any reason (covering gifted and talented or extra curriculars) then they should be able to offer them with no strings attached as long as they fund them themselves. OHSAA would not allow that, but nothing is stopping them from forming a new organization.

The other poster was providing reasons for students to need a means to escape. I disagreed with him.

I meant by my 1st sentence that the teachers, curriculum and facilities are good and allow for motivated students to become whatever they want in the future. I assume you took it as saying they achieved what they did in spite of the school system. Not the intent.

2nd sentence - Absent the desire to stay at their local school and if a voucher was no longer available they still are not "stuck" since there is affordable housing in many if not all of the burbs.

For example; https://affordablehousingonline.com/housing-search/Ohio/Oregon

As far as curriculum I was not arguing that it was insufficient since I have not done a comparison. My assumption is that if demand for additional AP and advanced courses were needed the district would adjust accordingly in an attempt to meet the higher demand. The point I was making is if many of the students who would take those course are leaving via vouchers, then the result is less demand.

For comparison sake my daughter's school offers 20 AP courses and 84+% of the AP tests are passed.

With inefficiencies if I knew specifically what they all were then I would of pointed them out. I said I would attempt to identify and remove them and use a portion of the savings directly in the classroom where the $$$ belongs. Right now the solution for underperforming classrooms seems to be "they are broke so we have to give vouchers".

It is pretty clear to from the stats below that the inefficiencies are not a result of teacher salaries. I would start with the question - What caused the need for a 702% increase in staffing and administration when student populations only increased 96%? My assumption is government requirements, paperwork and oversight. Where is the return? Better prepared students, better test scores etc.?

Stats are from the 1st article I found but supported what I anticipated I would find. I'm sure there are better sources with the same findings - but I could be swayed with a counter argument explaining the massive increase in spending when it doesn't result in increased teacher pay.

Benjamin Scafidi’s seminal report, Back to the Staffing Surge, outlines that the problem with K-12 education funding in America today isn’t the overall amount of dollars going into government schools, but how those dollars are allocated by school districts. Surges in staffing and administrative bloat have become the norm across the country. From 1950 to 2009, student populations increased by 96%, while non-teaching staff increased by a whopping 702%.

More recently, Scafidi observed that between 1992 and 2014, real education spending per pupil increased by 27 percent, whereas real teacher salaries dropped by 2 percent.
 
Last edited:

Rolly67

Active member

NW Ohio All-Star Football Game Set For Friday, June 18​

The Perrysburg Athletic Boosters will once again host the annual Northwest Ohio Regional All-Star Football Game at Perrysburg’s Widdel Field at Steinecker Stadium on Friday, June 18 with a kickoff time of 7:00 p.m. This is the 30th year for the event that features over 100 players from over 40 different area school districts from across northwest Ohio.

Athletes are divided into two teams, the Gold Team and the Black Team. Both teams will be coached by local coaching staffs with the Gold Team being led by Archbold Head Coach David Dominique and the Black Team being led by (former) Toledo St. Francis Head Coach Dan Chipka.

Tickets for the game will be $7 for all spectators with the gates opening at 5:30 p.m. Tickets will be available beginning Monday, June 14 and can be purchased online only at → www.perrysburgschools.net/OnlineTicketPurchase


Always enjoy this game, a lot of hard hitting and good football is usually played at these games!
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
I meant by my 1st sentence that the teachers, curriculum and facilities are good and allow for motivated students to become whatever they want in the future. I assume you took it as saying they achieved what they did in spite of the school system. Not the intent.
Why assume how someone took it as opposed to just asking them?

To answer that question, I made no assumption. I asked for clarification and extension to thought. That alone should have made clear, no assumptions were made.

With inefficiencies if I knew specifically what they all were then I would of pointed them out. I said I would attempt to identify and remove them
you wrote:

Smalls: "My focus would be more on improving the public schools and attempting to find ways to get rid of the high costs and inefficiencies created by too many requirements and government oversight."

That sure reads like you have a specific idea. Or are you just presuming they exist?

Smalls: "What caused the need for a 702% increase in staffing and administration when student populations only increased 96%? My assumption is government requirements, paperwork and oversight. Where is the return? Better prepared students, better test scores etc.?

You're presuming inefficiencies and you're presuming the causes of those presumed inefficiencies even though you don't know the causes of those inefficiencies....

Assumptions and presumptions. Not a good sign. Did I miss where you clarified what "special interest" groups were driving educational "inefficiencies?" Because they may well be those who were interested in getting education to the demographics that did not see equitable education in the 1950s, 60s, ... That is your return.

Any system should of course be subject to review for inefficiencies and there will always be systemic resistence to reducing those. It can be done of course. I've often referred to how Purdue found a way to hold tuition steady for the last 8 years, while growing as an institution in both capital and population. I wouldn't presume a problem. I'd find concrete evidence of it. If there is a problem, I wouldn't suggest trying to fix it based upon causal presumption.

BTW: AP courses? Like IB (Int Bas, not Irish B) they're a purchased product, not a sign of a better education. They're pretty low on most universities' entrance decisions.
 
Last edited:

ToledoGuy

Active member
^^^ As someone who was intimately involved in those decisions at three different institutions over the last decade, east is dead on...the highly selective school didn't care in the slightest how many AP Credits someone had, the moderately selective one didn't care, and the non-selective one was actually disappointed because they knew better than the others that the amount of credits a student takes from AP does typically have an inverse correlation with that student's performed at the University, and less selective institutions have to care far more about retention of students (due to their typically lower overall retention rates and funding models normally being disadvantageous in comparison to the more selective institutions). CCP is different, as those are obviously ollege courses...but having AP credit isn't exactly the indicator of success that many believe it to be.

I always laugh when Sylvania touts their amount of AP testing options...that's just saying your district is rich and has a lot of whiny parents...not that you're a great institution/district.
 

Smalls

Well-known member
^^^ As someone who was intimately involved in those decisions at three different institutions over the last decade, east is dead on...the highly selective school didn't care in the slightest how many AP Credits someone had, the moderately selective one didn't care, and the non-selective one was actually disappointed because they knew better than the others that the amount of credits a student takes from AP does typically have an inverse correlation with that student's performed at the University, and less selective institutions have to care far more about retention of students (due to their typically lower overall retention rates and funding models normally being disadvantageous in comparison to the more selective institutions). CCP is different, as those are obviously ollege courses...but having AP credit isn't exactly the indicator of success that many believe it to be.

I always laugh when Sylvania touts their amount of AP testing options...that's just saying your district is rich and has a lot of whiny parents...not that you're a great institution/district.

I'll have to take your word that those are the feelings of those institutions since that was your observation. Could you let me know which institutions they were?

Obviously taking a course means nothing - it is all about mastering the course work. You would need to provide some support for the comment about an inverse correlation. I find that very hard to believe.


On the other hand, we found that passing the corresponding AP exams is related to college graduation rates. That is, students who demonstrate that they 2 are ready for college and that they can successfully complete an AP course and pass an AP exam in high school are also those who are most likely to graduate from college. In general, school systems that do a better job of preparing students for college and career produce more students who take and pass AP exams and also produce more students who later graduate from college.
 
Last edited:

BirdDog10

Well-known member
Public schools are as good as the communities they are made up of, private schools are as good as the families they are made up of. Any issues with public or private schools are more often than not representative of the issues the community is facing outside of the school building
 

Smalls

Well-known member
Why assume how someone took it as opposed to just asking them?

To answer that question, I made no assumption. I asked for clarification and extension to thought. That alone should have made clear, no assumptions were made.


you wrote:

Smalls: "My focus would be more on improving the public schools and attempting to find ways to get rid of the high costs and inefficiencies created by too many requirements and government oversight."

That sure reads like you have a specific idea. Or are you just presuming they exist?

Smalls: "What caused the need for a 702% increase in staffing and administration when student populations only increased 96%? My assumption is government requirements, paperwork and oversight. Where is the return? Better prepared students, better test scores etc.?

You're presuming inefficiencies and you're presuming the causes of those presumed inefficiencies even though you don't know the causes of those inefficiencies....

Assumptions and presumptions. Not a good sign. Did I miss where you clarified what "special interest" groups were driving educational "inefficiencies?" Because they may well be those who were interested in getting education to the demographics that did not see equitable education in the 1950s, 60s, ... That is your return.

Any system should of course be subject to review for inefficiencies and there will always be systemic resistence to reducing those. It can be done of course. I've often referred to how Purdue found a way to hold tuition steady for the last 8 years, while growing as an institution in both capital and population. I wouldn't presume a problem. I'd find concrete evidence of it. If there is a problem, I wouldn't suggest trying to fix it based upon causal presumption.

BTW: AP courses? Like IB (Int Bas, not Irish B) they're a purchased product, not a sign of a better education. They're pretty low on most universities' entrance decisions.

Why assume? Well you do have a history of assuming you know someone and making false assumptions and accusations. Why would you change now?

I don't have the time to respond to all of this. Maybe another time.

I did find this article from the Brookings Institute informative - covers both k-12 and college cost "bloat".


Some of the findings;

  • College tuition, net of subsidies, is 11.1 times higher in 2015 than in 1980, dramatically higher than the 2.5 increase in overall personal consumption over the period. For private education, from pre-K through secondary, prices are 8.5 times higher now than in 1980. For public schools, the rise is lower—4.7 from 1980 to 2013—but still far above general inflation.
  • For the nation’s 17-year-olds, there have been no gains in literacy since the National Assessment of Educational Progress began in 1971. Performance is somewhat better on math, but there has still been no progress since 1990. The long-term stagnation cannot be attributed to racial or ethnic differences in the U.S. population. Literacy scores for white students peaked in 1975; in math, scores peaked in the early 1990s.
  • The United States ranks dead last among 26 countries tested on math gains, and second to last on literacy gains across these generations. The countries which have made the largest math gains include South Korea, Slovenia, France, Poland, Finland, and the Netherlands.
  • For higher education, a major factor driving up costs has been a growth in the number of highly-paid non-teaching professionals. In 1988, for every 100 full-time equivalent students, there were on average 23 college employees. By 2012, that number had increased to 31 employees, with a shift toward the highest paying non-teaching occupations. Managers and professionals now outnumber faculty, who comprise just a third of the higher education workforce.
  • In primary and secondary public education, where price increases have been less dramatic, there has been a decline in bureaucratic efficiency. The number of students for every district-level administrator fell from 519 in 1980 to 365 in 2012. Principals and assistant principals managed 382 students in 1980 but only 294 in 2012.
  • An even bigger problem perhaps is that teaching itself has become increasingly unattractive. Salaries for teachers start low, relative to the education they require, and never get particularly competitive. School systems also impose frustrating daily constraints upon teachers, often in the form of mandatory administrative exams, required by school districts, states, and federal bureaucracies. This burden, combined with weak pay, has deterred many top students from entering teaching, and driven many others out.

My partial solution greatly reduce the huge amount on non-teaching administration, who have nothing better to do but impose more constraints and mandates on teachers in the classroom in order to justify their daily activities. Constraints and mandates that have done nothing to improve results. Take that savings and put it in the classroom by hiring more teachers (reduced class size) and make all raises merit based.
 
.
Top