Comparisons of Ohio school districts are always difficult, due to all the variables involved, all the different data sources used, and all the dates as of which data is gathered. A useful ground rule for such comparisons, however, is that they be based on the school district profiles compiled by the Ohio Department of Education (''ODE''). These profiles summarize 60 useful variables for all but three of Ohio's 600+ school districts, using a consistent terminology and methodology, based on data gathered by the school districts themselves and based, finally, on the same point in time. These profiles also are conveniently available to everyone at the ODE's web site (www.ode.state.oh.us/school_finance/data).
These profiles highlight the strong contrasts between the PLSD and the Beachwood City School District (the ''BCSD'') in Cuyahoga County, to which the PLSD has lately been misleadingly compared. Next to their more enlightened and generous foils from the BCSD, we are told, the PLSD's taxpayers are greedy cheapskates. The ODE statistics, however, tell a different story.
First, the BCSD occupies a total land area of only 6 square miles, compared to the PLSD's 37 square miles. More telling, last year the BCSD had an ''average daily membership'' (the ODE's jargon for total attendance) of just 1,415, compared to the PLSD's 7,571.
Moreover, despite having an ''ADM'' of less than 1/5 the PLSD's, the BCSC had a total property tax base last year that was nearly $70 million larger than the PLSD's. That translates, for the ODE, into an assessed property valuation per pupil of $441,972 for the BCSD, compared to $79,621 for the PLSD.
Indeed, the PLSD's assessed property valuation per pupil is significantly below the state average of almost $108,000, which is why the PLSD receives significant ''parity aid'' from the state. In constrast, the ODE rates the BCSD, in terms of its property tax base, among the richest two or three school districts in the state (although it is true that the PLSD's median income last year was slightly higher than the BCSD's).
Significantly, business property accounted for nearly 60% of the BCSD's property tax base, compared to a mere 18% for the PLSD.
It is true that the BCSD spent far more per pupil last year than the PLSD ($16,449 to $6,853). However, the BCSD required less taxation to do so. Unlike the PLSD, the BCSD had no school district income tax. Furthermore, its effective operating (not bond) millage rate for residential property was only 22.4 mills last year, compared to the PLSD's 25.99 (which is slightly inflated, I believe in both cases, by inclusion of joint vocational school millage).
Thus the ODE actually assigned the PLSD a significantly higher ''local tax effort index'' than the BCSD. To top it off, the BCSD had only a 26 for 27 last year, compared to the PLSD's 27 of 27. You can look it up.
By Bruce Rigelman
These profiles highlight the strong contrasts between the PLSD and the Beachwood City School District (the ''BCSD'') in Cuyahoga County, to which the PLSD has lately been misleadingly compared. Next to their more enlightened and generous foils from the BCSD, we are told, the PLSD's taxpayers are greedy cheapskates. The ODE statistics, however, tell a different story.
First, the BCSD occupies a total land area of only 6 square miles, compared to the PLSD's 37 square miles. More telling, last year the BCSD had an ''average daily membership'' (the ODE's jargon for total attendance) of just 1,415, compared to the PLSD's 7,571.
Moreover, despite having an ''ADM'' of less than 1/5 the PLSD's, the BCSC had a total property tax base last year that was nearly $70 million larger than the PLSD's. That translates, for the ODE, into an assessed property valuation per pupil of $441,972 for the BCSD, compared to $79,621 for the PLSD.
Indeed, the PLSD's assessed property valuation per pupil is significantly below the state average of almost $108,000, which is why the PLSD receives significant ''parity aid'' from the state. In constrast, the ODE rates the BCSD, in terms of its property tax base, among the richest two or three school districts in the state (although it is true that the PLSD's median income last year was slightly higher than the BCSD's).
Significantly, business property accounted for nearly 60% of the BCSD's property tax base, compared to a mere 18% for the PLSD.
It is true that the BCSD spent far more per pupil last year than the PLSD ($16,449 to $6,853). However, the BCSD required less taxation to do so. Unlike the PLSD, the BCSD had no school district income tax. Furthermore, its effective operating (not bond) millage rate for residential property was only 22.4 mills last year, compared to the PLSD's 25.99 (which is slightly inflated, I believe in both cases, by inclusion of joint vocational school millage).
Thus the ODE actually assigned the PLSD a significantly higher ''local tax effort index'' than the BCSD. To top it off, the BCSD had only a 26 for 27 last year, compared to the PLSD's 27 of 27. You can look it up.
By Bruce Rigelman