The Case for Issue 105 

By Kent Smith –Euclid School Board Member and PhD Candidate in Economic Development at Cleveland State University

The City of Euclid has a unique opportunity to change the way its children are educated, while creating local jobs and strengthening Euclid businesses.  Issue 105 will allow the Euclid City School District to build four new elementary schools at a 41% discount.  This essay will explain five things; 1.  What the cost will be.  2.  The State of Ohio’s offer of 41% Support  3.  The Community Inclusion Plan which will support Euclid businesses and guarantee construction jobs to Euclid residents.   4.  Why it is critical that we pass Issue 105 now.  And 5.  Some of the other details like the timetable of the project.

1. What will the cost be?

It is important to know that this is a BOND levy not an operating levy.  If Issue 105 passes the money raised from this measure can ONLY be used for the construction related expenses of building these four new elementary schools.  What that means is, by law, none of  the Issue 105 revenues will be used for teacher salaries or busses or any other daily operation type of school district expense. 

This is a 3.4 mil bond issue which will cost $7 a month for a Euclid house valued at $100,000.  Issue 105 is a 28-year bond issue – which is the standard length for a school construction project.  However, it is important to know that in 2011 an earlier bond issue valued at 1.8 mils will expire.  So while it is a $7 a month issue – on average – it will be closer to a $4 a month expense over the 28-year life of the Bond issue.  In summary, the first two years Issue 105 will be an increase of $7 a month, but for the 26 years following, it will only feel like $4 a month in new money.

2.  Explain the 41% State of Ohio Support

The State of Ohio used its Tobacco Settlement Lawsuit money to finance its ongoing school facilities construction program.  Quiet simply, it is Euclid’s time to get a share of the State’s school construction dollars.  The State of Ohio has agreed to pay 41% of Euclid School District’s new school construction costs which amounts to $24,735,683 of the $60 million dollar project.   These dollars are set aside and if Euclid residents pass Issue 105 – those earmarked dollars are guaranteed for our Elementary School Construction Project. 

In addition to the State money, the Euclid School Board has received a pledge from the federal government that our elementary building project has qualified for $3.2 million dollars in 0% construction bonds which are a part of the Federal Economic Stimulus package.  Like the State of Ohio’s $24.7 million, Euclid will only receive those dollars if we pass Issue 105.

3.  What about this Community Inclusion Plan which will support Euclid Businesses and guarantee jobs for Euclid Residents?

This might be the most exciting and creative part of Issue 105.  At our September 14, 2009 School Board meeting, the Euclid School Board passed a Community Inclusion Plan related to the elementary school building project.  The Community Inclusion Plan aims to promote business opportunities for local businesses and guarantee construction jobs for Euclid residents if Issue 105 passes.  Specifically, it ensures that local businesses will participate in the building project at a minimum level of 20% for all contracts issued over $100,000.  There are “good faith provisions” in this agreement which will ensure that Euclid businesses do not exceed normal pricing levels for their products and services. 

The Community Inclusion Plan will also guarantee that a minimum of 25% of the construction hours will be worked by Euclid residents.  We can establish this guarantee by signing a Project Labor Agreement with the Cleveland Building Trades Council.  These unions have members who live in Euclid and those Euclid members will get a chance to work on the project that builds four new elementary schools in their home city. 

The purpose of the Community Inclusion Plan is to circulate the money from this project across all sectors of the city from its businesses, to its employees.  The Community Inclusion Plan allows us to give our children four new schools while we build smart, stretch our dollars, support Euclid working families and help sustain Euclid businesses.  This plan can truly help grow Euclid’s economy.

4. Why it is critical that we pass Issue 105 now

Frankly there are two major reasons why it is critical to pass Issue 105 in November 2009.  The first is – the need for new elementary school buildings is pressing and critical.  The second reason is the State and Federal support for this project will simply not be available in the future.  I will discuss these points separately.

First the need.  Simply put – our elementary buildings are in desperate need of replacing.  Roosevelt Elementary School was built in 1919.  It is named after Theodore Roosevelt.  When FDR first took the oath of office, Roosevelt Elementary School had already been open for 14 years.  And most critically, Roosevelt is a wood-frame building.  One well-placed lighting bolt and we have a major problem on our hands.

Upson Elementary School was opened six years after Roosevelt in 1925.  My grandmother taught Kindergarten at Upson back in the 1940’s.  Like Roosevelt, Upson is becoming a financial liability to the district due to its ongoing repair and upkeep costs.  This summer we spent $10,000 to fix drainage problems at Upson.

Also remember all of these schools were constructed during a time when elementary school-aged children went home for lunch.  All of our current elementary school buildings have retro-fitted cafeterias.  These are not rooms which were designed to serve food to hundreds of children. 

One final – yet very important item – before I move to my second point.  These four new buildings will be a more economical use of education dollars than our current seven elementary buildings.  These building will not just be better – they will also be more cost-effective.  We have estimated that the district will save approximately one million dollars a year due to efficiencies of scale created by these new schools. 

The second reason why Now is the right time to pass Issue 105 is the State And Federal support for this building project are simply not going to be available in the future.  There is absolutely no guarantee that the 41% State support – which totals almost $25 million dollars – will be offered to Euclid again.  

Remember this project creates a $60 million dollar value in our community that Euclid will get for $35.5 million.  If we do not pass Issue 105 now, the construction costs will increase, the condition of our building will continue to diminish and the offer State and Federal support will disappear.  Quiet simply, we spend $35 million now – or we spend twice that in a few years.  Time is of the essence and the time to do this is now.

5.  Some of the other details like the timetable of the project

What’s the timetable? – If Issue 105 passes the planning / design of the four new buildings will begin immediately and construction will begin in 2010.  The buildings will be ready for the beginning of the 2011 – 2012 school year.

Which sites were chosen for the new schools? – The four new buildings will be built on the properties that currently are home to Roosevelt, Upson, Thomas Jefferson and Glenbrook Elementary Schools.

Why those four sites? – Those sites are our largest elementary school parcels of land.  This will allow the District to build the new school right next to the existing building.  For example the new Roosevelt will be built behind the existing building.  The new Thomas Jefferson will be built to the North of the current elementary school. 

This is important for a few reasons, one is that we do not want to have to move any of our elementary school students during the construction process.  Also we will not have to acquire any additional land to build the new building.  The State of Ohio will not provide support for the purchase of property to build these buildings.  Therefore it is most efficient to build these buildings on land which is currently owned by the School District.

In Summary

The time is right and the deal can’t be beat.  Issue 105 is good for Euclid, its children, its business and its residents.  If we don’t take advantage of this offer now – it will cost millions more in the future.

I was first elected to the Euclid School Board in 2001.  I have served as the Legislative Liaison for six of those eight years.  In that role I have attempted to monitor education policy at the State and Federal level.  Often times, I have been asked by Ohio Education organizations (such as the Ohio Fair Schools Campaign and the Ohio School Boards Association) to deliver testimony.  During the 2007 State budget deliberations, I testified before the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate.   Copied below are my remarks before the Ohio Senate Finance Committee which I presented on June 6, 2007.  The previous blog posting was my Ohio House testimony. – Kent 8/16/2009

Public Testimony by Kent Smith

Euclid City School Board President

Ohio Senate Finance Committee Hearing – June 6, 2007

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the education portion of HB 119.  I am Kent Smith.  I am in my second term on the Euclid City School Board and I currently serve as that Board’s President.   I am myself a Euclid High School graduate who has gone on to receive two degrees from state supported universities.  I am also a student.  I am in the PhD program at Cleveland State where I am pursing a doctorate in Economic Development.  So some of my general remarks in support of this budget will be coming from an Economic Development perspective.

Overview Comments

The initial budget as introduced by the Governor was a step in the right direction for K-12 education and from that perspective; it should be seen as an investment in Ohio’s economy.  One of the most critical components to economic development is the cost and quality of labor.  Public school funding should be viewed as a research and development investment in Ohio’s future industry.  Every dollar allocated for public education today increases long-term productivity and spurs new innovations. 

Education is a renewable good.  “Ideas” do not wear out or expire.  From that perspective education should be viewed as an economic driver in an economy where process and product innovation hold the key to our future economic viability.   The investment that the state of Ohio makes today will reap benefits in future markets and will lead to a brighter economic outlook for this state.

Again, the proposed budget was positive.  It increased the overall state investment in education so that the burden for funding K-12 education grew from the current state share of 48% to 54% by 2011.  By increasing Poverty Aid and Parity Aid the budget targets more resources to the states more needy children and the districts that serve those children.   The securitization of the tobacco settlement money will allow for a tax cut to seniors and the disabled so that one in four Ohioans will receive some property tax relief.   This budget is positive step forward for Ohio’s present and future.  It increased support for K-12 education while reducing the local weight of that funding.  It increased dollars while providing a tax cut for 1 in 4 Ohioans.

How The Current Budget Effects The Euclid School System

Now let me shift the focus of my remarks from a statewide perspective to the district that I am elected to represent.  Let me provide a little history about that school district that I graduated from – the Euclid City Schools.  In plainest language, I would ask you to consider the long-standing bit of wisdom, “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.”

Accountability Worked in Euclid

Before I begin that brief history lesson, let me start with an acknowledgment of thanks for the system of accountability that has been created by the Ohio General Assembly.  

When the proficiency testing and state report card were first introduced in our school system – my Euclid school system was in academic emergency.  This created great anger in the community where I grew up – a community that had believed that their school system was an asset not a liability.  Instead of instituting major change the district’s school board and superintendent made incidental changes at the fringes and kept telling the community that our schools were “not as bad as we thought they were.”

The subtlety in that spin was the defeatist rhetoric that “these kids can’t learn”.  The demographics of the Euclid School district had changed.  More than 55% of the kids that attend the Euclid Public School are at or below federal poverty guidelines and qualify for free or reduced meals.  1 in 6 of my kids have some sort of Special Education designation. 

But after doing a fairly simple analysis using the test score data and enrollment numbers, I determined that the district was overcrowded K-8 and that we were actually doing fairly well at the high school level.  Our district had seen an increase of over 1,000 students in the 1990’s yet we had not re-opened any buildings that we had shuttered when our enrollment dropped after the baby boom. 

I ran for the Euclid School Board in 2001 believing that if we could reduce overcrowding our student achievement scores would increase.  If elected I vowed to work to restored all-day, every day kindergarten; which was impossible in 2001 due to overcrowding.  The Euclid School system did not have enough classroom space to accommodate the increase in Kindergarten classes.  We needed to reopen buildings – if we did that, I believed, our districts scores would increase.

I was elected in November 2001 and we hired a new superintendent that next year.  Another new Board member was elected in 2003.  Euclid voters – despite our District being in Academic Watch – passed a Permanent Improvement Levy in March 2004, which allowed us to re-opened buildings and reconfigured the district for the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year.   In November of 2005, voters passed a 5.9 mil operating levy so that the district would not have to lay-off teachers and two new Board members were elected.  That levy brought in $5.3 million dollars a year in new revenue.  In August of 2006, our district paid back the support of the residents of my hometown by achieving “Continuous Improvement” status for the first time ever.    

Building by Building Progress in Euclid

In the 2004 / 2005 school year we had 5 of our buildings in Academic Emergency; 2 were in Academic Watch and 3 were in Continuous Improvement.  After the latest test scores came out in the summer of 2006 our district had improved everywhere.  None of our buildings remained in Academic Emergency.  4 were in Academic Watch, 5 were in Continuous Improvement and 1 had reached Effective status (and our high school just missed being designated as Effective).  The Euclid School System had turned the corner.

The Ed Choice Impact in Euclid

The accountability that this body demanded were the seeds of change that led new a new superintendent, a new school board, a reduction in overcrowding and a better education for the children of Euclid, Ohio.  Remember that line I asked you to remember – “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.”  Well in this case, the Euclid Public School System did fix it, but the loss of revenue from charter schools and the Ed Choice program threaten to break it.

Financial Consequences for the Euclid Schools as a Result of Ed Choice & Charter Schools

The Ed Choice voucher program that we were subjected to because of our past proficiency failures now threatens the very academic progress that the new Euclid School leadership team has attained.  

The impact of the expansion of the Ed Choice voucher program and charter schools would remove virtually all new revenue that the district was able to raise from our last school levy which passed in November 2005.    The 5.9 mils levy brought in approximately $5.3 million dollars a year.  (One property mil in Euclid is worth approximately $900,000).     The charter school impact is estimated to be $3.2 million in FY 2007 based upon 463 students.  The expansion of the Ed Choice voucher program will remove 380 students and $1.9 million dollars.  

When the Ed Choice voucher program was first introduced last year, students at two of our buildings were able to qualify for these vouchers.  The Euclid Public School system lost $512,900 this past year as a result of 108 students making use of those vouchers.  This increase is due to the expansion of the voucher program into six of our public schools; an increase of four from the previous year.

The amount of dollars lost from charters schools and Ed Choice equals $5.1 million dollars – virtually eliminating the $5.3 million in new revenue which were raised through the passage of a 5.9 mil levy by Euclid residents in November 2005. 

And yet, in spite of our school district making gains in every building and achieving a status of Continuous Improvement, the criteria of the Ed Choice program was expanded so that now more than half of Euclid City School buildings will lose students due to this change in Ed Choice eligibility. 

The Euclid City School District is being retroactively punished for insufficient academic progress in the past.  Again, this is not “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” – this is “If it has been fixed – don’t break it”.  

Why would you want to punish a district that in spite of a high percentage of student poverty has managed to dramatically improve student performance?  It is not good fiscal policy, it is not good education policy and it is not good economic development policy.

Which Euclid Students Are Using the Ed Choice Voucher? 

The demographics of the Euclid School district are challenging.  More than 55% of the kids that attend the Euclid Public School are at or below federal poverty guidelines and qualify for free or reduced meals.  1 in 6 of my kids have some sort of Special Education designation.   Yet an analysis of the Euclid School students who are accepting the Ed Choice Voucher will lead to my district being poorer, less diverse, more segregated and with a higher percentage of Special-Ed students.

Consider these numbers:

The Euclid City District is currently 21% White.  The children using the Vouchers from our district are 33% White.  The Ed Choice voucher program is reducing the diversity in our district and increasing racial segregation among Euclid’s children.

The socio-economic numbers are also troubling.  The percentage of Euclid school kids that qualify for the free and reduced lunch program is 56%.  The number of Ed Choice Euclid students who qualify for free and reduced lunch is 31%.  To put that another way, over 55% of the Euclid public school students are at or below the federal poverty guidelines.  But 70% of the kids who are leaving the district through the Ed Choice Voucher Program are not from poor families.  Ed Choice makes the Euclid City Schools more segregated and more impoverished. 

Now consider our Special Education student population.  The schools that are being accessed with the Ed Choice Voucher do not offer the breadth of Special Education services that are offered by the Euclid City Schools.  Plus the voucher eligible private schools can select which students they will educate.  This will increase the percentage of special education students in our district.  The result is that my district will be asked to serve a needy student population with fewer resources.

Again, this is a district that has made considerable progress and is in Continuous Improvement for the first time.  This is a district that has turned the corner.  Every building in our district has improved its student achievement.   How can it be good public policy to remove financial resources from an improving district especially in the face of high levels of poverty?

 As I have said before the Euclid City School District is being retroactivity punished for insufficient academic progress in the past.  Why would you want to punish a district that in spite of a high percentage of student poverty has managed to dramatically improve student performance?  Ed Choice, in this case, is not a way out of a failing district.  It is a state mandated millstone which will threaten a fragile yet improving district.  It is not good fiscal policy, it is not good education policy and it is not good economic development policy.

I know that dollars are scarce in this budget.  I know that this body would like to spend its K-12 dollars in the most efficient manner possible so as to create the best opportunity for today’s Ohio students to be turned into tomorrow’s leaders in business innovation.  I believe that public dollars should remain earmarked for public schools – especially when those public schools are improving. 

If you are committed to building the future economy and supporting Ohio’s children, I would ask that you support this education budget and eliminate the Ed Choice voucher program. 

Public Policy Options Regarding Ed Choice

The elimination of the Ed Choice Voucher system is sound education and fiscal policy.  However, I understand that some in the state legislature may be slow to embraces that option so let me make four other suggestions which are good for kids, school districts and taxpayers – all while not eliminating “choice” from the education debate.

1. Do not expand Ed Choice in districts or buildings that are improving.

     2.    Base any possible expansion of the Ed Choice program on current test scores – not the scores from years past.

     3.    The elimination of the Ed Choice option for districts in Continuous Improvement (aside from those students receiving vouchers before the district achieved Continuous Improvement status).

    4.    Replace all dollars lost through the Ed Choice program and charter schools for school districts in Continuous Improvement.  Why punish success?

Adoption of any or all of these four public policy recommendations does not eliminate “choice” for students trapped in a failing school district.  Nor does it retroactively punish improving school districts.  These public policy options would eliminate the possibility that improving districts will be punished for their success.

In Conclusion

 I know that dollars are scarce in this budget.  I know that this body would like to spend its K-12 dollars in the most efficient manner possible so as to create the best opportunity for today’s Ohio students to be turned into tomorrow’s leaders in business innovation.  I believe that public dollars should remain earmarked for public schools – especially when those public schools are improving. 

Please consider the financial impact of the Ed Choice program and Charter Schools on the improving, now-fixed, Euclid Public School district.  For the good of the future workforce that lives within our borders, please do not allow this budget bill to do more damage than good.

 I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify and their time.

I was first elected to the Euclid School Board in 2001.  I have served as the Legislative Liaison for six of those eight years.  In that role I have attempted to monitor education policy at the State and Federal level.  Often times, I have been asked by Ohio Education organizations (such as the Ohio Fair Schools Campaign and the Ohio School Boards Association) to deliver testimony.  During the State budget deliberations, I testified before the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate.   Copied below are my remarks before the Ohio House Finance Committee which I presented on April 17, 2007.  The next blog posting will be my Ohio Senate testimony. – Kent 8/16/2009  

Public Testimony by Kent Smith

Euclid City School Board President

Ohio House Finance Committee Hearing – April 17, 2007

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the education portion of HB 119.  I am Kent Smith.  I am in my second term on the Euclid City School Board and I currently serve as that Board’s President.   I am myself a Euclid High School graduate who has gone on to receive two degrees from state supported universities.  I am also a student.  I am in the PhD program at Cleveland State where I am pursing a doctorate in Economic Development.  So some of my general remarks in support of this budget will be coming from an Economic Development perspective. 

This budget is a step in the right direction for K-12 education and from that perspective; it should be seen as an investment in Ohio’s economy.  One of the most critical components to economic development is the cost and quality of labor.  Public school funding should be viewed as a research and development investment in Ohio’s future industry.  Every dollar allocated for public education today increases long-term productivity and spurs new innovations. 

Education is a renewable good.  “Ideas” do not wear out or expire.  From that perspective education should be viewed as an economic driver in an economy where process and product innovation hold the key to our future economic viability.   The investment that the state of Ohio makes today will reap benefits in future markets and will lead to a brighter economic outlook for this state.

This budget increases the overall state investment in education so that the burden for funding K-12 education increases from the current state share of 48% to 54% by 2011.  By increasing Poverty Aid and Parity Aid this budget targets more resources to the states more needy children and the districts that serve those children.   The securitization of the tobacco settlement money will allow for a tax cut to seniors and the disabled so that one in four Ohioans will receive some property tax relief.   This budget is positive step forward for Ohio’s present and future.  It increase support for K-12 education while reducing the local weight of that funding.  It increases dollars while providing a tax cut for 1 in 4 Ohioans.

Now let me shift the focus of my remarks from a statewide perspective to the district that I am elected to represent.  Let me provide a little history about that school district that I graduated from – the Euclid City Schools.  Before I begin that brief history lesson, let me start with an acknowledgment of thanks for the system of accountability that has been created by the Ohio General Assembly.  

When the proficiency testing and state report card were first introduced in our school system – my Euclid school system was in academic emergency.  This created great anger in the community where I grew up – a community that had believed that their school system was an asset not a liability.  Instead of instituting major change the district’s school board and superintendent made incidental changes at the fringes and kept telling the community that our schools were “not as bad as we thought they were.”

The subtlety in that spin was the defeatist rhetoric that “these kids can’t learn”.  The demographics of the Euclid School district had changed.  More than 55% of the kids that attend the Euclid Public School are at or below federal poverty guidelines and qualify for free or reduced meals.  1 in 6 of my kids have some sort of Special Education designation. 

But after doing a fairly simple analysis using the test score data and enrollment numbers, I determined that the district was overcrowded K-8 and that we were actually doing fairly well at the high school level.  Our district had seen an increase of over 1,000 students in the 1990’s yet we had not re-opened any buildings that we had shuttered when our enrollment dropped after the baby boom. 

I ran for the Euclid School Board in 2001 believing that if we could reduce overcrowding our student achievement scores would increase.  If elected I vowed to work to restored all-day, every day kindergarten; which was impossible in 2001 due to overcrowding.  The Euclid School system did not have enough classroom space to accommodate the increase in Kindergarten classes.  We needed to reopen buildings – if we did that, I believed, our districts scores would increase.

I was elected in November 2001 and we hired a new superintendent that next year.  Another new Board member was elected in 2003.  Euclid voters – despite our District being in Academic Watch – passed a Permanent Improvement Levy in March 2004, which allowed us to re-opened buildings and reconfigured the district for the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year.   In November of 2005, voters passed an operating levy so that the district would not have to lay-off teachers and two new Board members were elected.  In August of 2006, our district paid back the support of the residents of my hometown by achieving “Continuous Improvement” status for the first time ever.

 In the 2004 / 2005 school year we had 5 of our buildings in Academic Emergency; 2 were in Academic Watch and 3 were in Continuous Improvement.  After the latest test scores came out in the summer of 2006 our district had improved everywhere.  None of our buildings remained in Academic Emergency.  4 were in Academic Watch, 5 were in Continuous Improvement and 1 had reached Effective status (and our high school just missed being designated as Effective).  The Euclid School System had turned the corner.

The accountability that this body demanded were the seeds of change that led new a new superintendent, a new school board, a reduction in overcrowding and a better education for the children of Euclid, Ohio.  However, the Ed Choice voucher program that we were subjected to because of our past proficiency failures now threatens the very academic progress that the new Euclid School leadership team has attained.   When the Ed Choice voucher program was first introduced students at two of our buildings were able to qualify for these vouchers.  The Euclid Public School system lost $512,900 this year as a result of 108 students making use of those vouchers. 

And yet, in spite of our school district making gains in every building and achieving a status of Continuous Improvement, the criteria of the Ed Choice program was expanded so that now half of Euclid City School buildings will lose students due to this change in Ed Choice eligibility.  If our projections hold, our district will see a loss a more that one million dollars due to the Ed Choice voucher expansion. 

This is my main point – the Euclid City School District is being retroactively punished for insufficient academic progress in the past.  Why would you want to punish a district that in spite of a high percentage of student poverty has managed to dramatically improve student performance?  It is not good fiscal policy, it is not good education policy and it is not good economic development policy.

I know that dollars are scarce in this budget.  I know that this body would like to spend its K-12 dollars in the most efficient manner possible so as to create the best opportunity for today’s Ohio students to be turned into tomorrow’s leaders in business innovation.  I believe that public dollars should remain earmarked for public schools – especially when those public schools are improving. 

These voucher schools do not serve special education children.  By increasing the amount of vouchers being made available to Euclid Public School children will not magically reduce the special education burden on my district.  It just means that you will expect me to continue to instruct my kids with fewer resources.

If you are committed to building the future economy and supporting Ohio’s children, I would ask that you support this education budget and eliminate the Ed Choice voucher program.

This is my prepared testimony before the Euclid Zoning Commission in 2002 regarding a charter school that wanted to open in Euclid.  I share this now to demonstrate my longstanding opposition to charter schools as designed in Ohio.   Obviously some of the property values have changed since my testimony in 2002 – but the property values chart is included in my remarks.

Thanks – Kent Smith 8/16/ 2009

Prepared Remarks of Kent Smith

Member of Euclid Board of Education

Housing Improvements – Building Standards

and Zoning Committee

September 11, 2002

As an elected member of the Euclid Board of Education, I believe that I have been charged with 2 duties on behalf of this community.  1.  Provide all Euclid children with the best possible education and 2.  Be a respectful steward of Euclid Tax Dollars. 

I stand in opposition to the granting of this use district exception because it is my view, that this project would fail both community objectives, as I understand them.

 Before I begin my remarks let me state that they are going to focus on the macro side of the issue.  What is the highest good for the most number of people.  However, I also believe this proposal is flawed on the micro side of the issue, which is the challenge of adequately housing and educating 40 all day kindergartners at the proposed site.

 On the education side of the issue, both parties will claim that there is research that supports their cause.  Quickly, I would point out that the Brookings Institute, just last week, released a study that examined 376 charter schools in 10 states and found (to quote the CNN article about the study) “students in charter schools are scoring significantly below public school pupils in basic reading and math skills.”

 But let the main thrust of my remarks be focused on the impact of this small charter school on the Euclid tax base.

 Now let me clearly state, that my opposition to this project is grounded in the policies that the state of Ohio has set up surrounding charter schools.  I am not opposed to Constellation Community School, in and of itself.  I am not opposed to increasing the amount of options for educating Euclid’s Children.  I am not opposed to competition. If I was opposed to competition I would be asking that City Council close down all the parochial schools.  What I am opposed to is the state policy that will take tax dollars away from our district that would be used to educate all of our communities children for the benefit of 40 children at this charter school.  If state dollars that would be destined for the Euclid Public Schools were not headed to this charter school, I would be in favor of the project.  In fact, I believe that all five school board members would be in favor of it.  The state policy is bad policy; it has bad ramifications for Euclid School children and the Euclid community.  A point that with the use of this chart (below) I will attempt to illustrate now.

Larger Properties in the Euclid Public Schools District

Tax Year 2001 – Collection Year 2002

Property                                Auditors Fair Market Value

Lincoln Electric                                                             33,241,910

 Indian Hills Senior Apts.                                                23,610,000

 Argo-Tech                                                                    22,082,000

 Watergate Apts.                                                                        20,153,710

 Americana (Harbor Crest)                                             15,044,910

 Reliance Electric                                                           14,392,310

 K-Mart                                                                         13,047,510

 Euclid Square Mall                                                        10,288,000

 Horizon House (Water’s Edge)                                      9,419,910

 Silverpointe Apts.                                                          9,000,000

 Euclid Villa                                                                   8,727,800

 Normandy Apartments                                                  7,463,710

 Hilltop Village                                                               6,822,110

 Euclid Medical Office Building                                       6,739,290

 WilloArms Apts.                                                           6,739,290

 PMX Corp.                                                                   6,235,400

 Gateway Manor                                                                        6,083,510

 BraeView Care & Rehab                                              5,780,200

 GE Lighting Inc.                                                            4,218,400

 Hose Master                                                                 4,000,000

 Rolling Hills Apts.                                                          3,626,310

 Motch Corp.                                                                 2,913,510

 Euclid Meadows                                                            2,802,510

 Our treasurer and legal counsel have calculated that if we lose 40 public school children to this charter school that would equate to losing 20 full day children because we do not currently offer all day kindergarten.  So those 20 children would equal the loss of $105,631 dollars in dollars that could otherwise be used to educate our children.  Keep in mind that if those 40 children count as 40 children and not 20 we are looking at a loss of approximately $211,000.  But the loss of $105,631 in taxes equals the amount of revenue generated from a Euclid property that has a fair market value of 6.5 million dollars.  It would be like that property doesn’t even exist.  Euclid’s largest office building, the Euclid Medical and Office Building that sits between Euclid Avenue and Richmond Road, has a value of 6.7 million.  Losing only 20 kids to a charter school would be like completely losing that property. 

 If the state is going to count these children as forty kids, that would equal the loss of 13 million dollars worth of property or K-Mart.

 Currently the school district loses $173,000 in tax dollars for Euclid children who attend charter schools in other communities.  That equates to a 10.7 million-dollar loss or a property slightly more valuable then the Euclid Square Mall, which by the way is currently delinquent in its property taxes by over $280,000.

 This list of 23 properties is not a healthy list; this is not a growing list.  We have lost the Motch Corporation, we might lose K-Mart.  The more big-ticket properties that we lose the more the smaller property homeowners are forced to pick up the tab.  And we, the school board, have no say or other option. 

 The beauty of our form of government is that we can respectful and passionately debate public policy in front of the public.  The irony of our government is due to the configuration of responsibilities in our government; this issue comes before 585 East 222 instead of 651 East 222.  If it were up to the school board this proposal would have been defeated 4-1.

 We are hamstrung by bad education policy that is being handed down by the state of Ohio.  But this body and this council has the ability to say no to education policy that is bad for Euclid.  And I would encourage it to do so.