Deep Dive
Have you seen texts, emails, and postcards urging you to vote NO? Let's take a deep dive into the real information you need to make an informed decision.
A significant reduction occurred between 2016 and 2017, when teaching positions declined by approximately 15 FTE. This reduction was largely associated with the confirmed closure of the Gund School at Beech Brook in 2016.
Since 2017, teaching staffing has remained relatively stable, ranging from approximately 190 to 198 FTE through 2025.
The overall reduction is real, but it is misleading to present the ten-year percentage without explaining the significant closure-related reduction and the relative stability that followed.
2. The claim that Orange increased administrative positions by 9%
Better Ohio PAC also reports a 9% increase in administrative staffing between 2015 and 2025. Here are the actual annual figures.
Orange Schools Administrative Positions, 2015–2025
Year-Administrative Positions (FTE)
2015-20.0
2016-19.0
2017-20.0
2018-20.0
2019-21.0
2020-19.6
2021-19.6
2022-18.6
2023-18.6
2024-19.8
2025-21.8
Source: Orange City School District annual financial reports.
Administrative staffing was actually below its 2015 level in six of the following ten years, including as recently as 2024. The numbers show fluctuations, not a steady decade-long expansion of administrative positions. Both staffing tables demonstrate why looking at the complete history is more informative than selecting two years and presenting only a percentage.
3. The claim that Issue 8 will automatically increase spending to $35,300 per student
One of Better Ohio PAC's recent text messages claims that Issue 8 will increase Orange's operating expenditures to approximately $35,300 per pupil, or 45% more than its selected comparison districts. That figure requires an important explanation.
Spending measure-Amount per pupil
Orange's actual FY 2025 operating expenditures-$30,716
PAC's estimated FY 2026 expenditures-$31,385
PAC's hypothetical post-levy spending-$35,314
PAC's six-district comparison average-$24,352
The $35,314 figure is calculated by assuming that every dollar of additional annual revenue from Issue 8 will become additional spending.
Orange Schools' current five-year financial forecast does not project operating expenditures of $35,300 per pupil.
The PAC's own explanation identifies the $35,314 figure as a hypothetical calculation rather than an adopted district spending plan.
There is a fundamental difference between revenue and expenditures. Passing a levy authorizes additional revenue, but it does not automatically require that every dollar be spent immediately.
Comparing Orange's hypothetical future spending with other districts' estimated expenditures creates a misleading impression of what Issue 8 would actually do.
4. The claim that Orange spends 31% more on administration
Another Better Ohio PAC graphic states that Orange spends 31% more per pupil on administration than six selected comparison districts.
This figure concerns administrative expenditures, not the number of administrators employed.
Administrative expenditures include costs beyond administrative staffing. A higher administrative expenditure per pupil does not mean the district employs 31% more administrators.The spending difference deserves examination, but it should not be confused with the separate claim about administrative staffing. The staffing table above shows that Orange had 20 administrative FTE positions in 2015 and 21.8 in 2025.
5. The third-grade mathematics claim
Better Ohio PAC also highlights that approximately 42% of economically disadvantaged third-grade students did not meet Ohio's mathematics proficiency standard.
This statistic applies to a particular subgroup, not all Orange third graders.
The percentage represents approximately eight students.
Every student deserves the academic support necessary to succeed, and areas needing improvement should be addressed. However, presenting a subgroup percentage without explaining the size of that group or the district's broader academic performance leaves out meaningful context.
Orange City Schools earned an overall five-star rating on Ohio's school report card.
6. The claim that a continuing levy means continually increasing revenue
Issue 8 is a five-mill continuing operating levy, with collections beginning in 2027 if approved. It has no scheduled expiration date.
However, a continuing levy does not mean the district automatically receives all the additional tax revenue associated with rising home values.
Under Ohio's House Bill 920, effective tax rates on existing property are generally reduced as valuations increase, subject to statutory exceptions. New construction and certain other levy components are treated differently.
Consequently, increasing property valuations do not translate into an equivalent increase in operating revenue for Orange Schools.
The district has not requested a new general operating levy since 2011, a period of 15 years. If operating levies expired after a set number of years, Orange Schools would have needed to return to voters for renewal much sooner. Continuing levies have allowed the district to maintain existing voter-approved funding without asking residents to renew those levies repeatedly. Orange also currently has the lowest residential school property tax rate in eastern Cuyahoga County, according to the district.
The district reports that 83% of its general fund expenditures are for personnel costs, including salaries and benefits. Those expenses, along with transportation, utilities, educational materials, and other operating needs, continue over time.
7. The claim that Orange Schools' revenue per student increased 54% over 15 years
Better Ohio PAC recently circulated a graphic stating that Orange Schools' revenue per student increased from $19,270 in FY2011 to $29,636 in FY2026, representing an increase of approximately 54%.The graphic also projects revenue per student of $34,658 in FY2028 if Issue 8 passes. Those numbers require important historical context.
The PAC begins its comparison in FY2011, before Orange Schools' last new operating levy was approved by voters in November 2011.
As noted below, the revenue generated by that levy was not collected all at once.
Fiscal year - Status of the November 2011 levy
FY2011 - Before voters approved the new operating levy
FY2012 - Approximately half of the new levy revenue was realized
FY2013 - First fiscal year reflecting full collection of the levy
By selecting FY2011 as its starting point, Better Ohio PAC includes the increase in revenue associated with the district's last voter-approved operating levy.
This is an important distinction because Orange Schools has not requested new operating millage since 2011.
There is another issue with the comparison: revenue per student is not the same as total district revenue.
When enrollment declines, revenue per student can increase even if the district's total revenue remains relatively stable.
For example, a district receiving the same amount of revenue but educating fewer students would report higher revenue per student, even though its total revenue had not increased.
Additionally, the figures are not adjusted for inflation or the rising costs of operating schools over a 15-year period.
The projected FY2028 figure is also not actual revenue received. It is a projection based on assumptions about Issue 8.
A more meaningful comparison would examine revenue growth beginning in FY2013, the first full collection year of the previous levy, while also accounting for enrollment changes, inflation, and actual operating expenses.
The 54% figure does not, by itself, establish that district revenues have kept pace with the costs of operating Orange Schools.
The starting year, the effect of declining enrollment, and the distinction between actual and projected revenue all matter when evaluating this claim.
8. The claim that Orange Schools lost nearly $620,000 through fraudulent payments
Better Ohio PAC has highlighted a 2024 incident in which Orange Schools was the victim of fraudulent payments totaling $619,984.
The incident occurred in 2024 and involved a payment fraud scheme targeting the district.
The district recovered the funds through insurance and implemented additional training and security measures to prevent a similar incident from happening again.
The incident was serious and warranted corrective action. However, presenting the original amount without acknowledging the recovery and the steps taken to strengthen financial safeguards leaves out an essential part of the story.
Financial accountability includes identifying problems, recovering funds, and strengthening procedures to prevent similar incidents.
9. Financial accountability and the district's record
Orange Schools has received recognition for financial reporting and management, including the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement and the Association of School Business Officials International's Certificate of Excellence.
The district has also maintained the highest credit ratings from both S&P Global Ratings and Moody's, a distinction it reports holding for 20 consecutive years.
These recognitions do not eliminate the need for questions or oversight, but they are important information when evaluating claims about financial management.
The district has also renegotiated its teacher salary schedule to produce long-term savings while maintaining educational programming.
10. Why the complete picture matters
Residents have every right to ask questions about school finances, staffing, academic outcomes, and the proposed levy.
But those questions deserve answers based on complete information.
The annual staffing tables demonstrate why context matters. Comparing only 2015 and 2025 leaves out the Gund School closure, the subsequent stability in teaching positions, and the year-to-year fluctuations in administrative staffing.
Likewise, presenting hypothetical levy spending as an automatic increase in expenditures does not accurately explain the difference between additional revenue and a district's actual financial plan.
The revenue-per-student comparison provides another example. Beginning with FY2011, before the last new operating levy was approved, and failing to explain how enrollment affects per-pupil calculations can create an incomplete picture of the district’s financial history.
without acknowledging the insurance recovery and the additional training and security measures implemented to prevent a similar incident
Accurate numbers matter. The context behind those numbers matters just as much.
We encourage residents to review the information, examine the district's published financial reports, and ask questions.
11. Who is funding Better Ohio PAC?
There is another important piece of information residents should understand.
Based on the campaign finance records, approximately 99% of Better Ohio PAC's donors are from outside the Orange City School District.
Better Ohio PAC is based in Strongsville, not within the Orange City School District.
Outside organizations and individuals are entitled to participate in public discussions. However, residents also deserve to know who is funding the messages arriving in their mailboxes and on their phones.
Understanding the source of campaign messaging is part of making an informed decision.
Orange City Schools official levy information:
https://www.orangeschools.org/levy
Support Orange Schools:
https://supportorangeschools.org
Facebook and Instagram: @SupportOrangeSchools
The Facts Behind the Orange Schools Issue 8 Claims
Recent mailers, text messages, and social media graphics from Better Ohio PAC have presented a series of claims about Orange City Schools' staffing, spending, academic performance, and the proposed Issue 8 operating levy.
Residents deserve accurate information when making decisions about their schools. While some of the percentages presented are mathematically correct, they often omit important context about how those numbers were calculated, what occurred during the years being compared, and what the district's financial forecasts actually show. Let's examine the information more closely.
1. The claim that Orange eliminated 14% of its teaching positions
Better Ohio PAC reports that Orange Schools reduced teaching positions by approximately 14% between 2015 and 2025.
However, looking at only the first and last years of a ten-year period does not tell the complete story.
Orange Compared to Other Districts
State Performance Index Ranking. Analysis by Orange City Schools Administrative Team, October 2026.
One tab compares the the top 22 districts in the state of Ohio, including the 21 that either tied or outranked Orange on the state’s single number Performance Index (PI). A closer examination on the other tab compares each building in each district along with their overall stars, as well as stars for “the big 3” areas: achievement, progress and gap closing. Nobody outperformed Orange on the Big 3.
Another School Levy?
Ohio Law, Our Inequitable Tax System, and the Ongoing Crisis for Public Schools. David Murad, PhD, October 11, 2026
Town Hall Questions
Commonly Asked Questions from In-Person Town Halls. Support Orange Schools PAC, September 2026.
Residents asked: Why does Orange need a levy now if property values have gone up so much? What has the district actually done to control spending before asking taxpayers for more money? If the levy doesn't pass in November, what gets cut?
Analysis of Residential Property Taxes
“Voices in Leadership Summit” Presentation. Allerton Hill Communications + Martha Holden Jennings Foundation, July 2026. A series of graphs that explain Ohio school funding, such as this chart that shows how the state's voucher program for private schools has tripled since 2018.
