Afterschool Alliance Survey of Ohio Households Finds Increase in Afterschool Enrollment Since 2004, But Also Vast Unmet Demand for Afterschool Programs
A new survey finds an increase in participation in afterschool programs by Ohio youth over the last five years, along with high satisfaction rates among their parents. The percentage of Ohio children in afterschool programs increased to 12 percent, up from just 7 percent in 2004. But a significant percentage of the state’s children are still unsupervised each afternoon after the school day ends. The data come from the landmark America After 3PM study, conducted for the Afterschool Alliance:
After School Care Arrangements
• 30% (608,657) of Ohio’s K-12 children are responsible for taking care of themselves after school. These children spend an average of 8 hours per week unsupervised after school.
• 12% (233,789) of Ohio’s K-12 children participate in afterschool programs. On average, afterschool participants spend 7 hours per week in afterschool programs. Participation averages 2 days per week.
• 71% of Ohio K-12 children spend some portion of the hours after school in the care of a parent or guardian.
• Other care arrangements include traditional child care centers (8%), sibling care (16%) and non-parental adult care, such as a grandparent or neighbor (32%).
Notes: The maximum amount of time in after school care arrangements is limited to 15 hours per week, which reflects the after school hours of 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. Care arrangements add up to greater than 100% due to multiple regular care arrangements for many children.
Satisfaction with and Support for Afterschool Programs
• 98% of Ohio parents are satisfied with the afterschool program their child attends.
• Ohio parents cited child enjoyment (81%), convenient location (77%) and the variety of activities (71%) as their top three reasons for selecting an afterschool program.
• 86% of adults surveyed in Ohio agree that there should be “some type of organized activity or place for children and teens to go after school every day that provides opportunities to learn” and 81% support public funding for afterschool programs.
Need or Demand for Afterschool
• 30% (534,490) of all Ohio children not in afterschool would be likely to participate if an afterschool program were available in the community, regardless of their current care arrangement.
• Parents of non-participants believe that their children would benefit most from afterschool programs in the following ways: by having fun, staying safe and out of trouble, receiving academic enrichment, taking advantage of opportunities for community service and learning and receiving help with homework.
“Ohio is making some progress, and can be proud of that,” said Afterschool Alliance Executive Director Jodi Grant. “But there’s still a long way to go. The great majority of Ohio parents who want their kids in afterschool programs aren’t able to find them, usually because programs aren’t available, they can’t afford the fees, or transportation issues make it impossible. These are all barriers we can and should overcome. Quality afterschool programs keep kids safe, inspire them to learn, and help working families. Every Ohio family that needs an afterschool program should have access to one.”
“We’re proud of the progress we’ve made in providing afterschool for Ohio’s kids and families,” said Liz Nusken, Director of the Ohio Afterschool Network. “But we’ve clearly got our work cut out for us. Too many children who need afterschool programs don’t have them, and families are carrying a heavier burden as a result. That’s particularly difficult during these hard economic times. For afterschool programs to meet the huge unmet demand from families, they’re going to need more support from all sectors – from the business and philanthropic communities, as well as from the government at all levels.”
In key respects, the Ohio results from the America After 3PM study reflect national findings:
• The number and percentage of children participating in afterschool programs in the nation has increased significantly in the last five years, with 8.4 million children (15 percent) now participating. That compares with 6.5 million children in 2004 (11 percent).
• But the number of children left alone after the school day ends also has risen, to 15.1 million children (26 percent of school-age children) in 2009. That is an increase of 800,000 children since 2004. Thirty percent of middle schoolers (3.7 million kids) are on their own, as are four percent of elementary school children (1.1 million children).
• The parents of 18.5 million children (38 percent) not currently participating in an afterschool program would enroll their children in a program if one were available to them, a significant increase from the 15.3 million (30 percent) seen in 2004.
• The vast majority of parents of children in afterschool programs are satisfied with the programs their children attend, and overall public support for afterschool programs is similarly strong. Nine in 10 parents (89 percent) are satisfied with the afterschool programs their children attend. Eight in 10 parents support public funding for afterschool programs
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ohio Students Exceed National Average
on 2009 Nation’s Report Card
Ohio students continue to outperform the nation as a whole on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Results for both fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics assessments were released today. Ohio’s students have maintained their position overall compared to other states and the national nation’s average for public schools.
All 50 states are required to participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics. NAEP – also known as the Nation’s Report Card – is the only nationally representative measure of student academic progress over time. The 2009 NAEP reading results are expected in spring, 2010.
Mathematics Results
Despite the positive performance of Ohio’s students as they continue to outperform their peers in other states, the 2009 mathematics scores have not changed significantly from the 2007 NAEP administration. Many states, as well as national results, demonstrate a similar scenario. A positive note, however, is that during the last decade, the percentage of Ohio’s students performing above the basic performance level has increased 12 percent and students performing at or above the proficient level have increased 20 percent.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio fourth graders was 244, above the national average of 239. Only four states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 24 states and Washington, D.C. in fourth-grade mathematics.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio eighth graders was 286, above the national average of 282. Nine states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 19 states and Washington, D.C. in eighth grade mathematics.
Achievement Gaps
Achievement gaps continue to remain similar without any significant changes for fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007. This trend mirrors national results where achievement gaps continue to be an area of attention.
Due to Ohio’s small Hispanic population, the difference in Hispanic eighth grade mathematics scores is not statistically significant between 2007 and 2009
Low-income students continue to score lower than those from wealthier families, based on average scores of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches. Achievement gaps between low-income students and students from wealthier families remain constant for Ohio fourth- and eighth-grade in mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007.
Approximately 6,900 Ohio students participated in the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment, including 3,500 in eighth grade mathematics, and 3,400 in fourth grade mathematics.
Background on Assessment Trends, NAEP
NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuous assessment of what students across the country know and are able to do in various subjects. Results are reported in three ways: by scale scores, by selected percentiles and by percentage of students performing at or above basic, proficient and advanced achievement levels.
NAEP is a sample assessment and does not provide results for individual students, schools or districts. Schools are selected through demographic sampling. Students are selected through random sampling. Because no student takes a complete NAEP assessment, individual results are not possible.
NAEP began in 1969 as a national measure of student progress. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, geography, civics, economics and the arts. State assessments began in 1990. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science and writing.
Effective with the 2003 NAEP assessment, the No Child Left Behind Act mandated that all states and districts receiving Title I funding participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics in grades four and eight. In addition, Ohio law requires participation of all selected Ohio schools in any NAEP assessment.
The National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. NAEP policy is established by the National Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives and members of the general public. Congress created the 26-member Governing Board in 1988 to set NAEP policy.
Ohio students continue to outperform the nation as a whole on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Results for both fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics assessments were released today. Ohio’s students have maintained their position overall compared to other states and the national nation’s average for public schools.
All 50 states are required to participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics. NAEP – also known as the Nation’s Report Card – is the only nationally representative measure of student academic progress over time. The 2009 NAEP reading results are expected in spring, 2010.
Mathematics Results
Despite the positive performance of Ohio’s students as they continue to outperform their peers in other states, the 2009 mathematics scores have not changed significantly from the 2007 NAEP administration. Many states, as well as national results, demonstrate a similar scenario. A positive note, however, is that during the last decade, the percentage of Ohio’s students performing above the basic performance level has increased 12 percent and students performing at or above the proficient level have increased 20 percent.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio fourth graders was 244, above the national average of 239. Only four states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 24 states and Washington, D.C. in fourth-grade mathematics.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio eighth graders was 286, above the national average of 282. Nine states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 19 states and Washington, D.C. in eighth grade mathematics.
Achievement Gaps
Achievement gaps continue to remain similar without any significant changes for fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007. This trend mirrors national results where achievement gaps continue to be an area of attention.
Due to Ohio’s small Hispanic population, the difference in Hispanic eighth grade mathematics scores is not statistically significant between 2007 and 2009
Low-income students continue to score lower than those from wealthier families, based on average scores of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches. Achievement gaps between low-income students and students from wealthier families remain constant for Ohio fourth- and eighth-grade in mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007.
Approximately 6,900 Ohio students participated in the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment, including 3,500 in eighth grade mathematics, and 3,400 in fourth grade mathematics.
Background on Assessment Trends, NAEP
NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuous assessment of what students across the country know and are able to do in various subjects. Results are reported in three ways: by scale scores, by selected percentiles and by percentage of students performing at or above basic, proficient and advanced achievement levels.
NAEP is a sample assessment and does not provide results for individual students, schools or districts. Schools are selected through demographic sampling. Students are selected through random sampling. Because no student takes a complete NAEP assessment, individual results are not possible.
NAEP began in 1969 as a national measure of student progress. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, geography, civics, economics and the arts. State assessments began in 1990. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science and writing.
Effective with the 2003 NAEP assessment, the No Child Left Behind Act mandated that all states and districts receiving Title I funding participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics in grades four and eight. In addition, Ohio law requires participation of all selected Ohio schools in any NAEP assessment.
The National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. NAEP policy is established by the National Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives and members of the general public. Congress created the 26-member Governing Board in 1988 to set NAEP policy.
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN OHIO
PERFORM SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THEIR TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PEERS
A new report issued by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.
The analysis looks at student achievement growth on state achievement tests in both reading and math with controls for student demographics and eligibility for program support such as free or reduced-price lunch and special education. The analysis includes the most current student achievement data from 15 states and the District of Columbia and gauges whether students who attend charter schools fare better than if they would have attended a traditional public school.
Ohio
A supplemental report, with an in-depth examination of the results for charter schools in Ohio found that math gains for students attending charter schools were significantly below their traditional public school peers, with no discernable difference in reading performance. Hispanic charter school students performed significantly below their traditional public school counterparts in both reading and math. For students that are low income, charter schools had a larger and more positive effect than for similar students in traditional public schools. The results also suggest that new charter school students have an initial loss of learning in both reading and math compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. In subsequent years, charter school students receive no significant benefit in reading from charter school attendance compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. However, charter school students continue significant losses of learning in math after the first year of attendance.
To download a copy of the full Ohio report.
A new report issued by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.
The analysis looks at student achievement growth on state achievement tests in both reading and math with controls for student demographics and eligibility for program support such as free or reduced-price lunch and special education. The analysis includes the most current student achievement data from 15 states and the District of Columbia and gauges whether students who attend charter schools fare better than if they would have attended a traditional public school.
Ohio
A supplemental report, with an in-depth examination of the results for charter schools in Ohio found that math gains for students attending charter schools were significantly below their traditional public school peers, with no discernable difference in reading performance. Hispanic charter school students performed significantly below their traditional public school counterparts in both reading and math. For students that are low income, charter schools had a larger and more positive effect than for similar students in traditional public schools. The results also suggest that new charter school students have an initial loss of learning in both reading and math compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. In subsequent years, charter school students receive no significant benefit in reading from charter school attendance compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. However, charter school students continue significant losses of learning in math after the first year of attendance.
To download a copy of the full Ohio report.
More Than $1 Billion in Recovery Funds
Now Available for Ohio to Save Teaching Jobs and Drive Education Reform
More than $1 billion is now available for Ohio under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This funding will lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts. Ohio will be eligible to apply for another $590 million this fall. The funding is being made available per Ohio's successful completion of Part 1 of the State Stabilization Application, which was made available on April 1st.
To date, Ohio has received $432 million in education stimulus funds—representing a combination of funding for Title I, IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation Grants and Independent Living Grants. On April 1, Ohio received $186 million in Title I funding and $233 million in IDEA funding. This represents 50 percent of the Title I and IDEA funding Ohio is eligible for in total. On April 1, Ohio also received $11 million in Vocational Rehab funds and $2 million in Independent Living funds.
In order to receive today's funds, Ohio provided assurances that it will collect, publish, analyze and act on basic information regarding the quality of classroom teachers, annual student improvements, college readiness, the effectiveness of state standards and assessments, progress on removing charter caps and interventions in turning around underperforming schools.
Ohio is also required by the Department of Education to report the number of jobs saved through Recovery Act funding, the amount of state and local tax increases averted and how funds are used.
Ohio application for initial funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program
*
More than $1 billion is now available for Ohio under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This funding will lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts. Ohio will be eligible to apply for another $590 million this fall. The funding is being made available per Ohio's successful completion of Part 1 of the State Stabilization Application, which was made available on April 1st.
To date, Ohio has received $432 million in education stimulus funds—representing a combination of funding for Title I, IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation Grants and Independent Living Grants. On April 1, Ohio received $186 million in Title I funding and $233 million in IDEA funding. This represents 50 percent of the Title I and IDEA funding Ohio is eligible for in total. On April 1, Ohio also received $11 million in Vocational Rehab funds and $2 million in Independent Living funds.
In order to receive today's funds, Ohio provided assurances that it will collect, publish, analyze and act on basic information regarding the quality of classroom teachers, annual student improvements, college readiness, the effectiveness of state standards and assessments, progress on removing charter caps and interventions in turning around underperforming schools.
Ohio is also required by the Department of Education to report the number of jobs saved through Recovery Act funding, the amount of state and local tax increases averted and how funds are used.
Ohio application for initial funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program
*
Record number of Ohio students take ACT
Ohio continues to outperform nation
The number of Ohio students taking the ACT college entrance and placement exam increased to a record 88,754, representing 64 percent of Ohio’s 2009 high school graduates. The ACT is composed of tests of academic achievement in English, mathematics, reading and science. Ohio students continue to outperform the national average on the ACT with an average composite score of 21.7 compared to the national average of 21.1. This year’s average composite score was unchanged from 2008. Scores on the English and science portions of the test also were unchanged from last year.
The reading score increased 0.1 points and the mathematics score fell 0.1 points. Ohio continues to rank ninth in the nation of the 27 states where more than 50 percent of the graduating class participates in the ACT. Ohio’s class of 2009 exceeded the national average on all four tests. Ohio students also surpassed the national average for percentage of students defined as “college ready,” according to ACT benchmark scores. In Ohio, 26 percent of graduates taking the test were college ready in all four subject areas, compared to 23 percent nationally.
For Ohio’s black and Hispanic students, overall scores have improved over previous years, though achievement gaps still exist. Hispanic students scored 0.4 points higher this year than in last, posting the biggest gain of any racial group. Indications from ACT do show that, regardless of race, students taking a core curriculum as defined by ACT scored three points higher than students who did not report completing a core curriculum. ACT’s core curriculum consists of four or more years of English classes, three or more years of mathematics, three or more years of social studies and three or more years of natural sciences.
Beginning with students who enter ninth grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2010, the requirements for graduation from Ohio public and chartered nonpublic high schools will include 20 units that are designed to prepare students for college and the workforce. Known as the Ohio Core, students will need to complete four units of English language arts, four units of mathematics, three units of science and three units of social studies, in addition to other requirements.
The percentage of U.S. high school graduates meeting all four of ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks increased slightly in 2009 as the pool of students taking the ACT® continued to expand, according to the not-for-profit ACT’s annual grad class report on college readiness. Nevertheless, the findings suggest continued effort to improve college readiness is needed on the part of states and school districts.
Ohio ACT Report
How Have Ohio Students Done On The SAT?
SAT Results
More than 1.5 million students (1,530,128) in the class of 2009 took the SAT, the most widely used and researched standardized college admission test.
Ohio SAT Report
More than 1.5 million students (1,530,128) in the class of 2009 took the SAT, the most widely used and researched standardized college admission test.
Ohio SAT Report
Has NCLB Achieved Its Goals In Ohio?
Ohio report
Student performance on state reading and math tests has generally risen at three achievement levels, according to a 50-state study by the Center on Education Policy (CEP). The study found more states with gains than declines in the percentages of students reaching or exceeding the basic, proficient, and advanced levels of achievement, and relatively few instances of sizeable declines in the percentage scoring below the basic level.
Student performance on state reading and math tests has generally risen at three achievement levels, according to a 50-state study by the Center on Education Policy (CEP). The study found more states with gains than declines in the percentages of students reaching or exceeding the basic, proficient, and advanced levels of achievement, and relatively few instances of sizeable declines in the percentage scoring below the basic level.
Berea City School District
The district, located in suburban Cuyahoga County southwest of Cleveland, serves the cities of Berea, Middleburg Heights, and Brook Park. The district is mostly residential with a mature, stable tax base as reflected in the district's modest 2.9% average annual growth in assessed value (AV) for real property since 2001. Recent triennial update of AV results for fiscal 2010, which show a marginal 0.5% growth from fiscal 2009, echo this trend.
Unemployment for Brook Park, the largest of the three cities, increased in September 2009 to 8.8% from 6.3% the year prior underscoring the weakened local economy due to the concentration of jobs with Ford, which operates three plants in the district and employs approximately 2,900 employees as of 2007. Although recent investments in a previously idle plant demonstrate the company's commitment to the area, the planned 2010 closure of its casting plant, which employs approximately 800 workers, may further weaken the local economy. However, the city's unemployment still compares favorably to state and national averages which equaled 9.7% and 9.5%, respectively, as of September 2009.
District finances mirror the cyclical nature of most other Ohio school districts, which track with electoral cycles as they await for voters to approve additional operating levies to offset increases in spending. The district benefits from the lack of expiring levies, which have resulted in a decrease in ballot issues and stable property tax revenues. In addition to stable property taxes, which represented roughly two-thirds of general fund revenues in fiscal 2008, the district's conservative management has prudently built up its reserves after its 2006 levy to better maintain financial flexibility through the down cycle. As a result, available reserves, including a reserve for property taxes, increased to $28.3 million or 36% of general fund spending in fiscal 2008 from $2.4 million or 3.5% of spending in fiscal 2006. According to the district's five-year forecast, expenditures are set to outpace revenues in fiscal 2010 resulting in a slight $1.1 million draw on reserves. Fiscal 2010 unreserved cash balances are projected to decrease slightly to $26 million or 31.2% from $26.6 million or 32.5% of spending in fiscal 2009. According to management, draws on reserves will trigger the placement of additional levies on the 2010 ballot pending board approval.
Net direct debt for the district is below average equaling 1% of market value or $835 per capita; however, the district's debt burden is expected to increase as the district plans to issue additional debt to fund consolidation efforts as a result of declining enrollment. Overlapping debt is low, equaling 1.8% of market value or $1,495 per capita.
Unemployment for Brook Park, the largest of the three cities, increased in September 2009 to 8.8% from 6.3% the year prior underscoring the weakened local economy due to the concentration of jobs with Ford, which operates three plants in the district and employs approximately 2,900 employees as of 2007. Although recent investments in a previously idle plant demonstrate the company's commitment to the area, the planned 2010 closure of its casting plant, which employs approximately 800 workers, may further weaken the local economy. However, the city's unemployment still compares favorably to state and national averages which equaled 9.7% and 9.5%, respectively, as of September 2009.
District finances mirror the cyclical nature of most other Ohio school districts, which track with electoral cycles as they await for voters to approve additional operating levies to offset increases in spending. The district benefits from the lack of expiring levies, which have resulted in a decrease in ballot issues and stable property tax revenues. In addition to stable property taxes, which represented roughly two-thirds of general fund revenues in fiscal 2008, the district's conservative management has prudently built up its reserves after its 2006 levy to better maintain financial flexibility through the down cycle. As a result, available reserves, including a reserve for property taxes, increased to $28.3 million or 36% of general fund spending in fiscal 2008 from $2.4 million or 3.5% of spending in fiscal 2006. According to the district's five-year forecast, expenditures are set to outpace revenues in fiscal 2010 resulting in a slight $1.1 million draw on reserves. Fiscal 2010 unreserved cash balances are projected to decrease slightly to $26 million or 31.2% from $26.6 million or 32.5% of spending in fiscal 2009. According to management, draws on reserves will trigger the placement of additional levies on the 2010 ballot pending board approval.
Net direct debt for the district is below average equaling 1% of market value or $835 per capita; however, the district's debt burden is expected to increase as the district plans to issue additional debt to fund consolidation efforts as a result of declining enrollment. Overlapping debt is low, equaling 1.8% of market value or $1,495 per capita.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Parma City School District
Located in Cuyahoga County, the district is comprised mainly of Parma City and includes Parma Heights and Seven Hills. For May 2009, Parma City has experienced 60% increase in unemployment to 10.7% from 6.7% in May 2008. Although the district is exposed to the weakened automotive industry with General Motors (GM) position as its top employer and second largest tax payer, growth in the healthcare and education sectors provides some diversification. Manufacturing as a percent of total nonfarm employment for the region equaled 12.5% while education and health services represented 18% in 2009 compared to 13.9% and 15.6% respectively for 2005. According to city officials, GM is planning to close its Parma powertrain plant by the end of 2010, which would likely affect 50 workers but keep open its stamping plant which employs 1,400 workers.
Due to the reliance on voter support for revenue enhancement, voter support is an important credit consideration for all Ohio school districts. While the district historically has passed new levies on the third or fourth attempt, the wider margin of failure for the May 2009 ballot suggests a possible decline in voter support which may stem from recent corruption charges brought against a former board member and/or overall economic pressures on residents. Stabilization of the district's financial position is largely dependent upon adoption of a tax increase as prudent and dramatic spending cuts to date may not be sustainable over the longer term and revenue will likely continue to face pressure due to declining taxable values.
In fiscal 2008, the district experienced a $6.2 million draw on fund balance, but available reserves were still strong at 13.2% of spending, including the reserve for property taxes, providing some cushion as the district considered budget balancing options. Preliminary results for fiscal 2009 show an additional draw of approximately $4.9 million which reduces available reserves to a much lower 3.6% of spending reflecting the third failure of a new 5.5 continuing levy. Fiscal 2009 results were better than budgeted, however, due to severe spending cuts which continue into fiscal 2010 and include laying off 50 teachers and closing two elementary schools. Absent any revenue enhancements for fiscal 2010, the district is projecting an ending unreserved cash balance of $72,000, or a low 0.06% of spending. While cyclical reserve levels and negative cash fund balances are typical of most Ohio school districts as they seek voter support to pass operating levies, revenue growth assumptions for the forecasted period (through 2013) may not accurately reflect the potential for contraction of property tax revenues between assessment years. Property tax revenues represented 65.3% of general fund operating revenues in fiscal 2008. The district has assumed a 1.5% to 1.75% growth in annual property tax revenues while actual residential AV declined 5.3% in fiscal 2010, the third consecutive year, and given the current state of the housing market, may continue to decline.
The district has three emergency levies which together yield $24.9 million or 17.5% of 2009 tax revenues and plans to seek renewal of these levies upon their respective expiration dates in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Voter support for renewal levies has historically been strong. Approximately 82.5% of general fund revenues are derived from continuing levies which offer a degree of financial stability for the district.
The district's direct debt levels are low equaling, 0.7% of market value or $642 per capita. Overall debt levels are also low equaling 1.7% of market value or $1,443 per capita. The 2002 special obligation TANs are secured by a continuous 2.0 mill permanent improvement (PI) levy, while the 2005 TANs are secured by a separate continuous 1.0 mill PI levy with excess revenues fully funding debt service on the COPs. Annual debt service coverage from the combined 3.0 mill levy for the TANs and the COPs combined is projected at 1.35 times for fiscal 2010.
Due to the reliance on voter support for revenue enhancement, voter support is an important credit consideration for all Ohio school districts. While the district historically has passed new levies on the third or fourth attempt, the wider margin of failure for the May 2009 ballot suggests a possible decline in voter support which may stem from recent corruption charges brought against a former board member and/or overall economic pressures on residents. Stabilization of the district's financial position is largely dependent upon adoption of a tax increase as prudent and dramatic spending cuts to date may not be sustainable over the longer term and revenue will likely continue to face pressure due to declining taxable values.
In fiscal 2008, the district experienced a $6.2 million draw on fund balance, but available reserves were still strong at 13.2% of spending, including the reserve for property taxes, providing some cushion as the district considered budget balancing options. Preliminary results for fiscal 2009 show an additional draw of approximately $4.9 million which reduces available reserves to a much lower 3.6% of spending reflecting the third failure of a new 5.5 continuing levy. Fiscal 2009 results were better than budgeted, however, due to severe spending cuts which continue into fiscal 2010 and include laying off 50 teachers and closing two elementary schools. Absent any revenue enhancements for fiscal 2010, the district is projecting an ending unreserved cash balance of $72,000, or a low 0.06% of spending. While cyclical reserve levels and negative cash fund balances are typical of most Ohio school districts as they seek voter support to pass operating levies, revenue growth assumptions for the forecasted period (through 2013) may not accurately reflect the potential for contraction of property tax revenues between assessment years. Property tax revenues represented 65.3% of general fund operating revenues in fiscal 2008. The district has assumed a 1.5% to 1.75% growth in annual property tax revenues while actual residential AV declined 5.3% in fiscal 2010, the third consecutive year, and given the current state of the housing market, may continue to decline.
The district has three emergency levies which together yield $24.9 million or 17.5% of 2009 tax revenues and plans to seek renewal of these levies upon their respective expiration dates in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Voter support for renewal levies has historically been strong. Approximately 82.5% of general fund revenues are derived from continuing levies which offer a degree of financial stability for the district.
The district's direct debt levels are low equaling, 0.7% of market value or $642 per capita. Overall debt levels are also low equaling 1.7% of market value or $1,443 per capita. The 2002 special obligation TANs are secured by a continuous 2.0 mill permanent improvement (PI) levy, while the 2005 TANs are secured by a separate continuous 1.0 mill PI levy with excess revenues fully funding debt service on the COPs. Annual debt service coverage from the combined 3.0 mill levy for the TANs and the COPs combined is projected at 1.35 times for fiscal 2010.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
