Help Replace One of Ohio's Oldest Schools?

They're placing levy campaign signs on public property again. There's even one placed at the J. Ross Hunt Tower (county property). Why is this acceptable? Between that, and the school board's architectural firm supporting the levy campaign, they're stooping pretty low (even by their standards).

I hope the counter campaign places opposing signs right next to them.

We already sat back and watched these fools tear down Roosevelet when a charter school would have likely purchased the building in a second, and run it the right way. It's interesting that private schools and companies have no problem making good use of superiorly constructed old buildings. Let's put a stop to this madness, VOTE NO.

“When we build, let us think that we build forever.” –Ruskin

Thanks for the memories, Ironman

Few would dispute the progress made in Ohio over the past 15 years in building or renovating about 1,000 public school buildings at a cost of about $10 billion.

In the Mahoning Valley alone, a majority of school districts have undergone remarkable transformations in their physical plants. In Youngstown, for example, the state chipped in 80 percent of the nearly $200 million cost to completely renew and reinvent district facilities.

Today, the Ohio School Facilities Commission is more than half-way along its path toward reconstruction or renovation projects in all 612 public school districts serving 1.8 million students. That mission evolved in part from the landmark 1997 Ohio Supreme Court DeRolph ruling that declared Ohio’s system of funding public education unconstitutional because it fell woefully short of affording all Ohio children a thorough and efficient education. As it applies to OSFC, some students were taught in Taj Mahal settings; others learned in squalor.

But 16 years later, shiny new brick-and-mortar physical plants have done little to erase the more internal inequities in funding education or the ongoing financial crises local school districts struggle through largely because of the state’s overworn overreliance on local property taxes.

The OSFC-funded new buildings may give the appearance of wholesale progress but in some respects they’re little more than impressive-looking smokescreens for lingering inequalities in school funding and student performance among urban, suburban and rural school districts.

Disparities remain crystal clear. According to data from the Ohio Department of Education, in 2011, Youngstown City Schools spent an average of $15,408 on each of its 6,057 students compared with the $8,241 spent to educate each of Austintown Local’s 5,149 students.

Disparities in student performance are even more stark. In last year’s state report cards for example, Youngstown schools received a D; Austintown schools received an A+.

SUCCESS IN ITS TARGETED MISSION

Despite the ongoing disparities, the OSFC has succeeded to some extent in leveling the playing field by creating a fresher more appealing learning environment for students, particularly urban students whose schools were among the most decrepid and the first to be modernized.

The gargantuan building program, however, has been no complete panacea toward remedying the precarious state of public education and its funding in the Buckeye State.

And some have raised legitimate concerns about the very visible OSFC program. As The Columbus Dispatch reported in an investigative project earlier this summer, some question the planning prowess of the commission and its staff and contractors. According to The Dispatch, the majority of schools built over the past several years have opened their doors to overcrowded or overcapacity student enrollments, including those in Hubbard and Niles last school year.

In Youngstown, the opposite problem arose. Now, four years after the district completed construction of all its buildings, officials are set to close two new buildings with a combined price tag of $19 million because they have been woefully under capacity.

Some question the priorities of OSFC spending. Could some of the $10 billion spent on new facilities have been better spent on enhanced curricula, updated teacher training or improved educational aids?

Some also question the fairness of OSFC spending. Some districts in which property owners are taxed most heavily find themselves low men on the totem pole of OSFC priorities.

Despite such questioning, the work of OSFC has improved Ohio’s school landscape.

ANOTHER ROCKY YEAR AHEAD

But it has done little to ameliorate Ohio’s longstanding school-funding dilemma. That dilemma is not diminishing.

As we stand on the threshold of the 2013-14 academic year, school districts are again pulling out all the stops. Despite a modest increase to public school funding in the recently adopted 2014-15 state biennium budget, the gains won’t be shared equally among school districts. Some won’t see a dime in new state revenue. And none of the increases will make up for the massive $1.3 billion in hits that education took in the 2012-13 biennium budget.

What’s worse, this year also promises even more hardship to schools as the effects of the federal sequester — aka as irresponsible inaction in the U.S. Congress — will force a loss of about $66 million in federal aid to Ohio public schools, most of it hurting poorer students or those with special needs.

The growth in community schools and voucher programs will also siphon away increasingly more dollars from public school districts.

Collectively, the challenges loom large. And while the state-of-the art buildings may motivate some students to higher performance, in and of themselves they merely crack at the edges of Ohio’s more structural struggle to improve its long-standing dysfunctional system of funding public education.

Excellent article, thank you acclaro! 

Iron Man. You're wrong about Roosevelt. It was offered and would have been practically given away had there been someone interested in purchasing it. There were no offers and no interest for over two years. Should the board have let it sit for another two years and let it turn into an eyesore, or spent a lot of money keeping up a building they had no use for or tear it down? After a lot of effort to sell/give away the building there was no interest and the board chose to tear it down. Not a good outcome but the only feasible option.

processor wrote: Iron Man. You're wrong about Roosevelt. It was offered and would have been practically given away had there been someone interested in purchasing it. There were no offers and no interest for over two years. Should the board have let it sit for another two years and let it turn into an eyesore, or spent a lot of money keeping up a building they had no use for or tear it down? After a lot of effort to sell/give away the building there was no interest and the board chose to tear it down. Not a good outcome but the only feasible option.

The school board never marketed the property, so that's not surprising.

I am rather insulted that the schools want to raise my taxes when they are doing so poorly academically.  Ison, Lolli and the gang need to focus time and MY tax money on educating the students much better than they currently are instead of running a campaign and building new schools.  Why should I give MORE tax money to them when they are doing a poor job of educating our students as it is now?  New buildings with the same teachers and superintendent will mean the same results in new schools while I am paying for both with higher taxes. 

Somewhere, Mrs. Andrew is monitoring this blog. Where do we stand with Dr. Lolli? Where is she on her contract---first year, second year, third year? Does the board realize the negative impact that she is having on the staff (teachers) and the district. Why was she even considered for her position? I have heard that she is/has been very mean-spirited in her dealings with staff. Can she go?   What do I know, I'm just 1 chmoore?

Why does this school district keep hiring Monroe's problem children? Don't they read the news? Are they not informed as to the baggage these two Monroe people bring with them? Did they not see what Lolli and Thorpe did to the Monroe school district? Why even consider them for hire? Aren't they asking for potential problems?

My father's best friend was Deacon Diehl (sorry if I have misspelled his last name), whom was superintendent when Middletown actually commanded some degree of respect both academically and socio-economically. obviously pre 1985 era.

Undoubtedly, there are bad teachers in every district; same with administrators.

It appears Middletown suffers from an administration that hires its admin staff from top school districts, ergo, Monroe, Lebanon, that aren't equipped for the demographic alteration inflicted upon Middletown and the MCSD. If a company is bankrupt, or close to it, a Board would go out and find a turn-around expert. Instead, MCSD, and the city, goes out and finds a Google or IBM equivalent; ergo Lolli, Gilleland, current council members, that are not equipped with the skills, particularly leadership, that are necessary with the conditions in the district similar to an under-performing company.

The state has a curriculum, including Common Core, which Pence in Indiana recently abolished, that doesn't give a teacher much latitude to make changes to an approach to teaching.

Additionally, supers are hired to be rain-makers, just like university Presidents, for fund raising, and below college., to pass levies.

Lolli is a COO, Ison, is a CEO, supposed to be the fluff and buff guy, that gets votes for levies. Instead of replacing aged buildings, perhaps it is time to replace aged school board members, tenured (K McNeil, others), and bring in turn around administrators. Something tells me the super in Indian Hills or Oakwood would struggle in Middletown, other than coming from a stellar district. 

My biggest problem and issue with the BOE is its tethering approach to the city council and city leaders. One doesn't tether with the entity that brought forth demographics that caused the performance problems as friendly chums.

While teachers get the blame, whom rarely double nor triple dip, after years of instruction, the true enemy is the city leaders and council members, whom have stood by and watched a once decent system and city crumble, and all ask.... why?

Its the leadership void.          

Hugh Jape -- Ison's contract does not provide for a bonus if the bond levy (or any other levy) passes.  I negotiated and signed the agreement, so I know.  You have been given wrong information.

processor

Acclaro: just a couple of corrections: Deacon Diehl was never a Superintendent in Middletown Schools (maybe Dean of Boys). Second: replacing the Middle School isn't $95M; it's estimated at $40M (coincidentally, the amount the state owes MCSD); third: "Gee....how does Kenyon, Ohio Wesleyen, Miami, OU, ONU, Wittenburg, and others do it, having students and faculty in aged buildings and maintain exceptional rankings?": completely different funding mechanisms ("apples to oranges"). Those universities might spend $90M on total renovation of a comparable building to MMS, not $40M. Then raise tuition to cover the salaries, etc.     But, what do I know? I'm just 1chmoore.