Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

In the Southeast messenger yesterday I read that Groveport Madison has approved a building plan of over $125 million dollars. The GENEROUS people of Groveport and Madison Township are going to INVEST in their children?’s future in the view of some.

They will be building a new high school. They will convert the current high school to a 7th and 8th grade school. They will renovate their existing elementary schools and add on to them. They are doing this over a two phase project. They estimate this will take 6 or 7 years to complete. The school district only has 6200 students.

This school district is in closer to Columbus and yet it doesn?’t have the residential growth rate that Pickerington does. Much of this district is located in the City of Columbus or soon will be. I believe their medium income which some place significance on is lower than PLSD. Groveport Madison can plan out 7 years and probably stick to it. PLSD is lucky to know what next year will bring. Here is a great example of what the leaders in this (PLSD) school district are doing wrong. I am not just talking about school leaders. I am talking about the ENTIRE community and our ALL OF OUR ELECTED leaders.

Groveport Madison also has commercial property. They have parts of the Rickenbacker Airport and all of the warehousing. In fact, not too long ago, the residents of Groveport were trying to slow down that growth of the warehousing and asked that they place a MORITORUIM on new commercial development. Those poor people and the problems they face.

The funding will be started by the G-M taxpayers to the amount of $58 million. That commerical property tax would be picking up large amounts of the $58 million. The second phase will come in with the locals paying $16 million. The remaining $51 million will come from the State. They agreed to the Ohio School Facilities Commission Plan.

The first question is why hasn?’t PLSD applied for this funding? Are we not eligibly? Does it require certain MEDIUM INCOME LEVELS? Are the state standards BELOW the local PLSD tax payer?’s standards? The state standards couldn?’t be below the standards of having trailer parks in front and around the sides of our current schools. Has the PLSD ever applied for state consideration? Have we tapped that bank too many times? Have we used up all of our credit with the state? I think there has been some great discussions on this site the last week or so. I think just answering the above questions will give most of us geater understanding of the predicament we are all in.


By Trent White

Bruce Rigelman

The PLSD received state construction assistance for the two new middle schools and also (I believe) for Fairfield Elementary School. My understanding is that, because the PLSD is such a recent recipient of such aid, it won't qualify for more any time soon. However, that does not mean that we should not explore this possibility for our next school.

As for the Groveport Madison Local School District (the ''GMLSD''), I believe that financing new schools to keep up with growth is as much a struggle for them as it is for us, and they also have room for quite a bit more growth.

Their ADM last year, at 6,068, was about 1,500 less than the PLSD's. Their land is slightly larger than ours (42 vs. 37 square miles). Although the GMLSD's property tax base was slightly smaller than the PLSD's, the GMLSD's assessed property valuation per pupil was slightly larger ($95,262 vs. $79,621). The GMLSD's median income, however, was lower ($32,781 vs. $46,683).

The GMLSD's total expenditure per pupil was higher than the PLSD's ($7,614 vs. 6,853), and its student/teacher ratio was lower (18.6/1 vs. 20.1/1). However, its average teacher salary also was lower ($46,727 vs. 47,605).

The GMLSD scored only 15 for 27 on its most recent state report card, compared to the PLSD's 27 for 27. That, however, may only reflect the generally lower socio-economic status of its residents. There is strong evidence that state proficiency test scores are more strongly related to socio-economic status than to anything else, including class size and expenditure per pupil.

Significantly, business property accounted for nearly 44% of the GMLSD's property tax base (compared to 18% for the PLSD). I suspect, for this reason, that a $125 million building program would require less residential bond millage in the GMLSD than in the PLSD, but I have not run the numbers.

The GMLSD had no school district income tax, but had total operating millage last year of 36.53 mills. This is significantly more than the PLSD's 25.99 mills. However, the PLSD's income tax (which nets almost as much revenue as an 11-mill levy) makes up for the difference.

Nonetheless the Ohio Department of Education assigned a higher ''local tax effort index'' to the GMLSD than to the PLSD, which suggests that GMLSD taxpayers, on the whole, carry a slightly higher school tax burden than the PLSD's.

However, I do not know how much bond millage GMLSD taxpayers now pay. I do not know whether they pay more, or less, than the 11 mills of bond millage that PLSD taxpayers now pay on residential real estate.

The Fairfield County Auditor publishes such information for all Fairfield County school districts (and other taxing authorities) in a publication entitled ''Tax FAQS,'' which is conveniently available at the Fairfield County Auditor's web site (www.co.fairfield.oh.us/AUDITOR/index htm). This useful booklet includes bond and operating millage rates (both voted and effective rates), along with detailed property tax base information. So far, however, I have found no comparable souce for Franklin County. Let me know if you find one.

By G-M and PLSD

Is it Hype?

Mr. Rigelman,


There are a couple of points that you should clarify. For a few years now the PLSD has touted the 27 out of 27 scoring. I think they just make the statement then try to infer that PLSD is almost perfect. Similar in my mind to West Virginia be ?“Almost Heaven?”.

I see where G-M was in ?“Academic Watch?” by the state the year before you report and now they have increased their scores to 15 out of 27. Are these 27 grading points all tests? What happens to the High School graduates of both schools if you compared them? Does G-M graduates have problems getting jobs? Are most of the G-M graduates functionally illiterate? Do any of them attend college? What is their rate of college attendance to PLSD. How do both school do on SAT and ACT tests? If PLSD scores so high does this reflect into adulthood? Does the PLSD perform head and shoulders above G-M graduates? I believe you will find that G-M does Just as well maybe better the PLSD graduates. Or maybe this is just mostly hype?

You stated that G-M real estate tax base has 44% in commercial property and PLSD only has 18% of its tax base as commercial. What percentages of these two districts are TIFed? Even though you can say PLSD has 18% most of the most recent commercial property in the city has been TIFed.

So I guess we can say that if the G-M levy proposal gets to the ballot then 56% of the R.E. tax base will be voting to increase taxes on the other 44%.





By Trent White

27/27

I share your skepticism of the PLSD's over-promoted 27/27. You may have missed the irony in my recent references to it. As you suspect, the Ohio school district report card is all proficiency tests and graduation rates.

The PLSD's 27/27 does reflect a laudable commitment to assure that even our weakest students graduate. Our teachers and administrators offer extensive remediation to students who have trouble with the Ohio tests. These people genuinely care about these kids, and I have been much impressed by that.

But I would not take a 27/27 as a sign of excellence, especially since there is good evidence that success on proficiency tests reflects upbringing more than schooling. Only upper middle class school districts get 27/27's. PLSD schools may be no better than GMLSD schools. GMLSD students may simply bring more baggage with them to school.

The PLSD needs to move beyond preoccupation with state report card results. We have much bigger fish to fry. Our goal, as you suggest, should be to make sure that we have prepared our graduates to function effectively in their communities, on their jobs, and in whatever subsequent education they pursue. We need to instill in them a lifelong curiously and love of learning. Judged by that higher standard, I do not know how well we are doing. Passing the Ohio tests, however, certainly is no guarantee of success.

By Bruce Rigelman