On November 5, 2013, Columbus voters will consider an additional levy of 9.01 mills to fund Columbus city schools. For the Columbus taxpayer, this levy will add around $315 in new tax burden for every $100,000 of residential property value. This tax increase is in addition to the half percent income tax increase implemented in 2009. About 11 percent of the levy, or $8.5 million, will go to charter schools, and a large majority of the $76.6 million a year raised will go to the Columbus City School District.

The timing of this levy request is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse: asking voters for more money prior to showing the type of consistent, long-term reforms that could keep the district on a sounder financial footing.

And reform is direly needed. This levy request, the first since a mixed bond and additional levy passed in November 2008, comes in the wake of a student enrollment scandal. In 2012, both the state and federal government initiated investigations into a practice called “scrubbing.” Administrators would manipulate or “scrub” the enrollment records of their students in an effort to minimize the impact that students with low standardized test scores would have had on the district’s state report card.

Fortunately, there are a few rays of light. The new interim Superintendent of Columbus City Schools, Dan Good, already initiated the implementation of new policies to avoid any repetition of the scrubbing scandal. This is a positive step; however, the investigations, including one being conducted by State Auditor Dave Yost, are still ongoing, and there continue to be concerns about the scope and repercussions of the prior malfeasance.

Leaving aside the outright improprieties that have plagued the district, any consideration of increased taxes should begin with a review of how existing money is being spent. Current school district expenditures are in large measure dictated by the collective bargaining agreement between the Columbus Education Association and the Board–particularly the provisions governing salaries and benefits. The most recent agreement between the two reflected positive albeit small changes to teacher salaries, but the board still contributes an above-average amount toward teacher health benefits packages. Furthermore, there have been concerns over a practice called “gainsharing,” a form of performance bonus for principals, teachers, and others, and whether individuals involved in the data manipulation scandal may have personally profited through performance bonuses as a result of their wrongful actions.

Despite modest salary changes in the most recent collective bargaining agreement, spending by the district has increased steadily over the past 20 years. The spending increases continued despite falling enrollment over the same period. While the increase in spending and drop in enrollment have contributed to high per pupil spending, the rate of increase is well above the rate of inflation over the same period. Even with rapidly increasing per pupil spending, the Columbus City School District has not shown reliable signs of academic improvement. This raises the uncomfortable question, at least for many school bureaucrats, of whether academic performance is a function of the amount of money spent per pupil. Columbus’s own experience, which has been repeated time-and-again across the state, is that increasing spending alone does not lead to better performance.

The new levy will be costly to taxpayers—this much is certain. Without guarantees of significant, tangible reforms, however, the increased spending will not address a status quo that has failed the city of Columbus and its citizens for years.

Columbus City Schools can have a brighter future, but not until spending is under control, and real reforms are implemented that re-establish trust between taxpayers and the district. Otherwise, taxpayers will see the cart (the money) come before the horse (reforms) with no assurance of improved academic achievement.