I like what I've heard about Strickland's funding plan:

 

http://www.tedstrickland.com/ask_ted/entry/schoolfunding/

I say go radical.

...

7. Pay kids to succeed. Since a lot of these kids don't care about bettering themselves for the sake being educated, then let's bribe them. You get an A, you get $25. Something like that.

 

8. Privatize schools. We spend a lot of money on kids to go to schools, and it's gotten us nothing. Charter schools do better usually. Therefore, let's refocus our public funds on those kinds of places.

 

I like your idea of paying kids to succeed.  The quality of school districts often seems tied to the poverty found in that district.  So, while this might not be a huge incentive for students in wealthier districts, it would be a huge incentive to get good grades in poorer districts.  And, (forgive me for using a stereotype) this would help eliminate the ridicule some kids receive from bullies for trying to get good grades.

 

I'm not so sure I agree with privatizing schools.  The charter schools here in Youngstown generally perform marginally better (and sometimes worse) than the city schools.  And, considering YCSD is the only public district in the state in academic emergency, that's really saying something.  However, I don't know if Youngstown is an anomaly, or if this happens elsewhere.

Not to be brash, but would someone please tell me the issue with school funding?

I say go radical.

 

2. Legalize all drugs; therefore, some of these daddies will no longer be in prison for dealing and possessing and instead can stay around and actually be parents.

 

I don't think this is particularly related to school reform; this sounds like something you independently support and just want to bring into the school debate to try to dovetail this separate agenda into a more sympathetic cause.  And I say this as someone who supports at least the decriminalization of marijuana (though I still think the harder stuff should be verboten).

 

3. Incorporate broken windows type legislation. Severely punish people for small infractions and they won't get around to doing big ones.

 

I agree with this as well, but again, I don't think it's sufficiently targeted at schools.

 

4. Mandatory high school diplomas. You have to get a diploma or else you get punished in some way. Not sure how, but again, that's another topic.

 

Disagree with this.  I'd rather have a 50% graduation rate in which a diploma actually means something than a 100% graduation rate in which it means you've got a certificate with some ink and fancy seal on it, but nothing more.  Also, not getting a diploma is "punishment" enough for the failure to attain it.

 

5. Teacher re-certification every few years. Teachers no longer get to hide in tenure or seniority. Doctors and lawyers have to get retested or re-licensed every few years. So should teachers. And if they fail (say 2 or three times), then they're OUT!

 

Lawyers have to go through continuing legal education, but we don't have to get "re-certified" or "re-licensed."  Once through the bar exam is quite enough.  And those CLE seminars are as much networking events (often with surprisingly decent food) as actual classes, or we'd be in open revolt.

 

6. Permit expulsions from all school districts. Bad kids should be kicked out if they continue to be bad. Not transferred to other schools. Completely removed.   What we do with them, again, is for another topic.

 

I agree with this, but how does this fit with your "mandatory diplomas" point above?

 

7. Pay kids to succeed. Since a lot of these kids don't care about bettering themselves for the sake being educated, then let's bribe them. You get an A, you get $25. Something like that.

 

I like the thought of this, too.

 

8. Privatize schools. We spend a lot of money on kids to go to schools, and it's gotten us nothing. Charter schools do better usually. Therefore, let's refocus our public funds on those kinds of places.

 

This would be the core of my reform agenda, too.

 

9. Incorporate trade schools and apprenticeships in school. Let them learn a trade and get hands on experience. It seems win win.

 

I agree that this is probably a worthwhile reform, but of course, if you privatize the schools, you don't have the authority to dictate this anymore.  Schools will switch to trade school models, or new schools will open as trade schools rather than traditional college prep schools (or poor imitations thereof) if they sense that students and parents actually want it.  I think that there would be a market for such schools--but if there weren't, that would be OK with me, too.

 

10. Schools should be year round and longer hours. Pay teachers more if you have to and cut those excess administrators if need be. Get these kids out of the streets and into the classroom.

 

I agree that this is vital.  This is the ill-publicized secret of the Asian school systems' real advantage over us.  The average U.S. state requires 180 days per year in school.  South Korea requires 225, Japan 223, and China 221.

 

*~*~*~*

 

I would be comfortable with a completely privatized school system coupled with generous publicly-funded vouchers--vouchers that approach the actual per-pupil cost of education in this state ($9000-$10,000), not the ridiculously low ones offered in the urban test programs.  In addition to opening up the education market to innovation and flexibility, it would get rid of geographic exclusivity and its checkered past.  Students in northwest Columbus could to Dublin, Upper Arlington, Worthington, or Hilliard if they wanted (and those schools had capacity, though of course if demand exceeded supply, it would be a signal to those schools that they could expand).  I think that the natural demands of the market, freed from the straitjacket of state mandates and regulation, would quickly lead to a much more diverse education sector, including substantially greater options for gifted education (which is always one of the first things cut in times when the budget is tight, which was a personal beef of mine in HS) and vocational education.

 

If education is going to be kept under the heavy thumb of government, these are the primary things I'd be pushing for:

 

(1) Longer school days;

(2) Longer school years;

(3) Later school starts (8:30 a.m. and later--it really does make a difference);

(4) Reduced standardized testing; and

(5) Some way to get the advantages I think would be best procured through privatization (more high-end options, more vo/tech options, more geographic mobility) even if it isn't through outright privatization.

Charter schools do not "do better usually."  A friend of mine was involved in an audit of the whole system, and says there's wide variation in their performance.  A large number of them are outright scams.  Unfortunately the private sector does not police itself very well.

 

I don't think the drug reform idea is unrelated to schools at all.  I fully agree that it would help address the broken family problem faced by many inner city students.

First, coming home to a crackhead parent is hardly coming home to a stable, intact family.

 

Second, drugs aren't the primary reason that inner city families get broken up.  It's not like they've got a Cosby Show existence, then the dad gets unlucky lighting up in his home one night and gets dragged off to prison.  Quite often, the father is long gone from the picture (by free choice, not because of being in jail for drug use) well before the child is born.  I really don't see *any* plausible causal connection from legalizing crack and heroin to more stable inner city families.  Is everyone going to sit around the fireplace and have family needle night?

Most aren't in jail for doing it but for selling it.  Take away the illicit market.  This would also do a number on those Mexican gangs.  Most of the social damage caused by drugs results from the black market aspect.  I don't condone crack and heroin, and I don't imagine that anyone lacking education and drive would be a high-functioning addict.  But let's address the addiction problem by itself, on its own terms, after eliminating the black market.  It doesn't help education when the highest paying job these kids ever see is crack dealer.

LOL Gramarye, I had to put that one in the quotes.

7. Pay kids to succeed.  Since a lot of these kids don't care about bettering themselves for the sake being educated, then let's bribe them.  You get an A, you get $25.  Something like that.

 

I like the thought of this, too.

 

 

Time Magazine recently did a cover of this topic.

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589-1,00.html

 

There were some interesting results where paying directly for a grade did not show as much improvement as one would think.  It is a bit of a long article, but well worth the read.

Not to be brash, but would someone please tell me the issue with school funding?

 

Ohio funds schools primarily through local property taxes.  So industrial and affluent areas can more easily fund its schools than more residential or poor or rural areas.

 

Also , Ohio school levies are for a fixed amount, not a fixed rate, and have to be renewed by voters every three years.  Makes it very hard to keep up with cost increases, and voters get tired of being asked for money all the time -- even if they are only being asked to vote for the status quo.

 

I too would like to know how other states fund their schools. 

 

8. Privatize schools.  We spend a lot of money on kids to go to schools, and it's gotten us nothing.  Charter schools do better usually.  Therefore, let's refocus our public funds on those kinds of places.

 

I agree with others arguing for longer school years, or at least spreading the break around.  Such as a fall break weak, two week Christmas break, spring break week, six week summer break.  A longer school day would have to include more supervised free time, particularly for the elementary grades, but it would definitely help with the majority of families now seeming to have two working parents (or only one parent).

 

But I disagree with privatizing schools.  Charter schools often do not perform better than public schools, and yet they can more easily remove any student who isn't cutting it. 

http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/statepressreleases/Ohio.pdf

 

It's OUR money, whether we pay private operators or public workers.  We should reform how public schools operate rather than giving the money to some private company. Private schools have been around for a long time, even before the current chartering system.  We should be looking at what the private schools do that makes them successful, and what are the impediments to doing the same things in the public schools. 

 

I also think that we need to be more pro-active in quickly shutting down or changing what is happening at schools, both public and charter, where students aren't performing.  Of course, monitoring and intervention are expensive too.

 

What do we do with the problem kids?  Boarding school perhaps?  I don't know -- we have an ingrained belief that kids should never be removed from their parents so there would be a lot of resistance. Maybe if the school is kept relatively near the parents.  Some people might not like the stigma of kids sent to a special school either.  Even if it costs $30,000 a year to educate problem kids for twelve years, the cost to society probably would be lower than the costs generated by the uneducated in this country -- more police, courts, jails, welfare rolls, fewer taxes paid, etc.

This was a very long time ago, but I researched this back in high school and found that many states (Pennsylvania in particular) simply make funding more of a state thing, rather than a local thing.  This reduced the need for levies and reduced wealth-based discrepancies among districts, at least in terms of funding.  Obviously other wealth-based discrepancies aren't as easily addressed.

I really don't see much problem with the current system.  My kids are getting an excellent education from Cincinnati Public Schools.  We have dozens of CPS schools to choose from and we have dozens of private schools to chose from too if we had the money and the inclination.

I agree school days need to be longer and there need to be fewer and shorter breaks.  There are an alarming number of latchkey kids because parents cannot afford (or find someone adequate) to fill in that gap of time between end of school day and end of work day.  This is when a lot of kids get in to trouble or are in actual real danger because they are just running around with friends, unsupervised. The reality is now that most households have both parents working, or if there is a single parent home, obviously that parent is working, and the gap just gets wider and wider over the years.  When I was a kid, we didn't get out til 4!  Then by the time I got to high school, it was some time after 3.  Then it backed up to 2 something.  It's ridiculous.

 

I think it would be sad to get rid of summers off completely, as some of the best times kids have is during the summer months, be it at camp, a pool/swim team, or whatever else they are doing. Children are small for such a short time, life is not all about work work work and getting ahead academically.  Scores of American children have done extremely well for themselves academically and in their careers with summers off, I do not see a reason to put the nose to the grindstone and take away what fun times summer holds.

Private schools have been around for a long time, even before the current chartering system. We should be looking at what the private schools do that makes them successful, and what are the impediments to doing the same things in the public schools.

 

I do not understand why people always make this claim.  I see no evidence that private schools perform any better than public schools when you compare apples to apples.  Private schools only accept wealthy students that can pay tuition and then can offer scholarships to the best of the best of what's left.  They don't have to (and rarely do) educate "everyone else".  That is left to the public schools, and the ones full of the "private school rejects" are OF COURSE going to do worse than the wealthy and hand-picked private school students.  A more fair comparison is a wealthy suburban public school (like Shaker Heights or Solon) to a private school, and I think you'd see the public schools performing just as well or even better.

    Not to be brash, but would someone please tell me the issue with school funding?

 

 

Ohio funds schools primarily through local property taxes.  So industrial and affluent areas can more easily fund its schools than more residential or poor or rural areas.

 

Also , Ohio school levies are for a fixed amount, not a fixed rate, and have to be renewed by voters every three years.  Makes it very hard to keep up with cost increases, and voters get tired of being asked for money all the time -- even if they are only being asked to vote for the status quo.

 

I too would like to know how other states fund their schools. 

 

The main reason it is illegal is it puts an unfair burden on the local instead of the state.  The state does this by paying all its bills and with the money left over it divides by the number of students and tells schools this is how much it cost to educate a kid in Ohio.  This of course is illegal. The local levies have to make up the remaining cost.  In Cuyahoga County the average per pupil cost is around $9,500, they state picking up around 20-35% of that.  Now, a districts wealth determines how much actual state funding the schools gets and here is the real shady part.  As the poster stated above, levies are for a fixed dollar amount, not rate.  This means you can never collect more from the tax payers than what they voted on, no matter how many people move in or the property value (H.B. 920).  Now, if a district has property values going up (which most did up until 2 years ago) the state decreased their funding because property values were going up.  This is called phantom revenue.  Because districts cannot collect more when values go up, they were actually loosing money by increasing housing values.  This is why districts are CONSTANTLY going back to voters year after year. 

 

Strickland’s H.B. 1 address a lot of these issues and a ton of other educational issues.  It really was a HUGE win for education in Ohio.  It phases out phantom revenue over the next 5 years.  It also created a schools advisory committee to find out how much it actually cost to educate a student and then have the state pick up at least 65% of the bill. 

 

I agree school days need to be longer and there need to be fewer and shorter breaks. 

 

H.B. 1 also extends the school year by 20 days, though those days will be phased in over a number of years.

 

Other states fund education the same way, just get more money from the state.  Arizona I believe picks up 75% of the bill and local only pays the remaining.  Also, most states the school board votes to increase property taxes, not the voters. 

 

Hope this helps the conversation

Private schools have been around for a long time, even before the current chartering system.  We should be looking at what the private schools do that makes them successful, and what are the impediments to doing the same things in the public schools.

 

Private schools have higher parent involvement and can kick out bad or under performing students. 

Paying for school is ridiculous!  You're in school to learn.  Buckle down and get it done. Period.

^ While I will generally agree with this statement, there is a vast disinterest in learing among some of the worse, and sometimes good, school districts.  So if they don't want to learn for whatever reason, and "paying" them in some fasion does make them "want" to learn, then is it not worth pursuing?  Even with just more academic case studies?

 

We all agree that more eductation results in more oppertunities, so maybe this is just one tool in your toolbelt to get to some of the kids that otherwise you would not be able to teach.

BTW, while we were dirt poor, my Mom finally figured out in HS that if she gave me financial incentives, I would improve my grades.  An A was worth X, a B was worth Y, a C was worth Z and anything else, no money.  It was money well spent, my grades did improve. There was really no other way to motivate me, I couldn't have cared less about school and spent most of high school drunk.

BTW, while we were dirt poor, my Mom finally figured out in HS that if she gave me financial incentives, I would improve my grades.  An A was worth X, a B was worth Y, a C was worth Z and anything else, no money.  It was money well spent, my grades did improve. There was really no other way to motivate me, I couldn't have cared less about school and spent most of high school drunk.

 

I'm going to save that last part.  You know when you start to preach to teenage RNR about his attitude.  LOL

LOL.  I probably will not do that.  While I'm not sure what my Mom could have done to curtail my behavior, she dealt with it the best she could.  Hopefully, by the time little RNR gets to that age, I will have some kind of strategy.

LOL.  I probably will not do that.  While I'm not sure what my Mom could have done to curtail my behavior, she dealt with it the best she could.  Hopefully, by the time little RNR gets to that age, I will have some kind of strategy.

 

Spare the rod, spoil the child!

Spankings didn't help me get in line, doubt that is the best way to accomplish anything.  But back on topic - I do think some kind of financial motivation would be great.  What if you could establish small scholarships for everyone who reaches a certain middle of the road, relatively achieveable GPA?  Like, if you get a 3.0 you automatically get $200.  I guess that would be pretty expensive, you'd have to get some big company to pony up the money for it every year.

One of the statistically (MTS this is directed at you) significant findings from the report was that small payments at a young age, they did $2 for each book read for 2nd graders, had a tremendous impact.  If something like this can be scaled across math, science, etc. then it could have long term effects.  If you start at a young age there is likely a better chance that you will induce someone to enjoy learning.

Maybe I'm old fashioned. 

 

I don't think a child should be paid.

 

If a parent/parents decide to pay the should do so as a surprise but not to force a kid to get grades.  Where does it stop?

 

Hell my parents didn't pay me.  My father said, "Get good grades or I'm going to put my foot in your -ss.  "A's" and "B's" only, "C's" are not acceptable!"  That was enough motivation for my brother.

 

  It doesn't have to be money. Any reward will help. Otherwise, why bother?

Maybe I'm old fashioned. 

 

I don't think a child should be paid.

 

If a parent/parents decide to pay the should do so as a surprise but not to force a kid to get grades.  Where does it stop?

 

Hell my parents didn't pay me.  My father said, "Get good grades or I'm going to put my foot in your -ss.  "A's" and "B's" only, "C's" are not acceptable!"  That was enough motivation for my brother.

 

I don't know how to make you understand that this is just not motivation for a lot of people. This would have done nothing for me.  I would have answered "go ahead and try it" and then ended up in a huge physical fight with whomever was threatening me, and then I would have purposely done NOTHING in school and gotten Fs.  Different people/children are motivated different ways.  With my older sister, just a sideways dirty glance was enough to send her into fearful mode and she would do nothing else wrong.  It didn't work at ALL with me.  The more you told me you didn't want me to do something, the more I did it.

Did anyone here participate in Pizza Hut's "Book It" program when in school?  I participated, and enjoyed the pizza.(at the time, Pizza Hut was a rare, expensive luxury)

 

But, does the program work?  I know it's still in existence, so that must mean something.

Maybe I'm old fashioned. 

 

I don't think a child should be paid.

 

If a parent/parents decide to pay the should do so as a surprise but not to force a kid to get grades.  Where does it stop?

 

Hell my parents didn't pay me.  My father said, "Get good grades or I'm going to put my foot in your -ss.  "A's" and "B's" only, "C's" are not acceptable!"  That was enough motivation for my brother.

 

I don't know how to make you understand that this is just not motivation for a lot of people. This would have done nothing for me.  I would have answered "go ahead and try it" and then ended up in a huge physical fight with whomever was threatening me, and then I would have purposely done NOTHING in school and gotten Fs.  Different people/children are motivated different ways.  With my older sister, just a sideways dirty glance was enough to send her into fearful mode and she would do nothing else wrong.  It didn't work at ALL with me.  The more you told me you didn't want me to do something, the more I did it.

 

You needed your ass whipped!  LOL  Obviously you were the "problem child".  LMAO

Did anyone here participate in Pizza Hut's "Book It" program when in school? I participated, and enjoyed the pizza.(at the time, Pizza Hut was a rare, expensive luxury)

 

But, does the program work? I know it's still in existence, so that must mean something.

 

I think vaguely remember doing something like that.  I also know of area schools that give out Cavs tickets to kids who are high achievers.  And perhaps as punishment, those who don't do well in school should be forced to attend an Indians game.

You needed your ass whipped!

 

I got my ass whipped.  It didn't work.

 

I've never heard of the Pizza Hut thing, what was that?

^Here's what I remember: (I might be remembering wrong, because it was almost 25 years ago)  In elementary school, if you wanted to participate, you were given a purple button that read "Book It."  Every time you read a book, (I don't remember how they proved you read the book) you got a gold star to stick on the pin.  After you got so many gold stars on your pin, you got a free personal pan pizza from Pizza Hut.  If enough kids participated, and read enough books, I think the whole class got a pizza party at the end of the year.

 

Again, I might be remembering wrong, and it has probably changed since then.  So, here is the website: http://www.bookitprogram.com/

I think they had you "prove" that you read the book by forcing you to get your parents to sign off that you completed it.

I think they had you "prove" that you read the book by forcing you to get your parents to sign off that you completed it.

 

If your parents are the type that would get into fights over or wait in line 3 hours for a 23 cent pizza from Papa Johns, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to get them to sign a piece of paper for a free Pizza Hut pizza, as long as you'd give up half.

I was involved in the Pizza Hut thing.  However, I wasn't motivated by the pizza so much as having the most stars on the chart we had hung up on the doors to our classrooms.

I was also involved in the Pizza Hut thing, but I think that the incentives to do better should change as children age. When I was in high school those of us who were in the top 20 of our class got tickets to Cedar Point. This could be another way to encourage older students to do better in school.

I think they had you "prove" that you read the book by forcing you to get your parents to sign off that you completed it.

 

If your parents are the type that would get into fights over or wait in line 3 hours for a 23 cent pizza from Papa Johns, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to get them to sign a piece of paper for a free Pizza Hut pizza, as long as you'd give up half.

 

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I thought it was at least partially based on the honor of the parents.  Not a big problem at Canterbury Elementary School back in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

I think they had you "prove" that you read the book by forcing you to get your parents to sign off that you completed it.

 

If your parents are the type that would get into fights over or wait in line 3 hours for a 23 cent pizza from Papa Johns, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to get them to sign a piece of paper for a free Pizza Hut pizza, as long as you'd give up half.

 

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I thought it was at least partially based on the honor of the parents. Not a big problem at Canterbury Elementary School back in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

 

I'm sure there's some of these types of parents at every school, urban or suburban.

Neighborhood schools, walkable communities, more choices for parents, more local control and fewer mandates.  I think entire districts should be broken down into areas maybe 2-3 sq miles depending on density.

 

I think this post is kind of a contradiction.  If we're going for more localized/neighborhood schools, I think options are going to be limited.  In fact, in most suburban areas in Ohio, that's already what we've got.  Parents of kids are assigned to a local school based on geography, and that's that.  If you're a family in an inner-ring suburb with troubled schools, your kids are stuck, unless you have money to send them to a private school.  At least in the larger urban districts, there is some choice available.  Families in Cleveland have the opportunity to send their kids to John Hay or the School of the Arts.  In Columbus it's the highly-rated Alternative High School.  And in Cincinnati there's Walnut Hills.  While more localized control might help to some degree in urban districts, you have to be careful about limiting choices.

^agreed.  I once believed this ideal about small community schools. 

 

The reality is that forcing kids to only go to the closest school results in segregation by location and results in slums vs exclusive areas.  If you want families to live in the city, and if you want diverse neighborhoods, magnet schools are the best answer IMO.

95% of the time it really comes all down to parenting.  Teachers can make a subject matter interesting, they can inspire, they can push a kid, but it starts with the kids understanding that education is important and that starts at home.  If you want to fix education you have to target the PARENTS and kids early.  We need more head start type of programs that are more encompassing for the both adult and child.  Until you address the root problem lengthening the school day/year, adding classes or testing more is meaningless. 

 

 

Interesting read on Slate.com from one of the archeticts of NCLB

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/05/17/diane-ravitch-on-being-wrong.aspx

 

 

 

Diane Ravitch on Being Wrong

Posted Monday, May 17, 2010 12:53 AM | By Kathryn Schulz

 

"We are in the grips of a kind of national madness," Diane Ravitch told me, "closing schools, firing teachers, shutting down public education." What makes this statement interesting is that, for many years, Ravitch was a powerful voice within the national education reform movement she now rejects as faddish, empirically unfounded, and bad for America's kids. 

 

As assistant secretary of education under George H.W. Bush, Ravitch became an outspoken supporter of educational testing, school choice, charter schools, and No Child Left Behind. Later, she championed those positions as a member of the National Assessment Governing Board (the entity that oversees education testing in the United States) and through her involvement with two prominent conservative think tanks, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Koret Task Force.....

 

Looks like Kasich might be serious about making this happen.  Thoughts?

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110730/NEWS0102/107310374/Is-614-school-districts-too-many-?odyssey=nav|head

Good for him.  It must be done for the good of our educational system.  I just hope that his intent is not to simply transfer any and all savings back to the taxpayers, but to invest a good chunk of those savings in improving our schools.  It's not that we pay too much for our schools.  It is that we don't get what we pay for.

Lots of the money is going into diesel. Perhaps this will allow kids to attend schools closer to their homes so that the diesel money can go towards actual education.

 

Also, this is going to really change property taxes and assessments.

Also, this is going to really change property taxes and assessments.

 

Wow, this would be a really big deal.

Do it. He has a massive majority in both houses to help him. Kasich has the ability and the attitude to make sweeping changes, and the school district system is in dire need of them. I don't agree with all of SB 5, but if some of the teacher provisions stick, and this happens - I think it could be a good thing.

 

But what it may end up as is forced marriages between successful districts and unsuccessful ones. If someone tried to merge my old district with one particular district bordering us (not Cleveland) I would throw a fit because it would mean we'd never again pass a school levy. It's going to take a LOT of work to do this because each situation is different, and finding a set of conditions under which districts will be merged will be very difficult. One size doesn't fit all, but everyone will demand equal treatment, resulting in gridlock. So there will have to be some nominal 'winners' and 'losers'. So it goes...the funding just doesn't work with the suburban development model. Consolidation is a must.

In the grand scheme of things a county based system will work best.  But if you are looking for the best possible solution, it is to combine similar districts.  You don't add things to a Cleveland, or Columbus, you consolidate the other districts around them.

 

I'm in Summit County.  There is no reason for there to be 8 districts in the southern part of the County.  Springfield, Lake, Mogadore, Manchester, Copley, Green, Coventry, Northwest.  These areas could easily be consolidated.

 

The primary reason for this is to get rid of redundant positions. Having 614 districts means 614 superintendants, and who know's how many paid school board members.  You could keep the individual districts and reduce the admin down to 88 super's, make the school board an elected position for each district, and let the most "successful" district be the model for the curriculum in each district.

County based districts with cities retaining their districts if they already have one and/or are over a certain student population. There is no need for township school districts.