In the seven weeks since Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland unveiled his new school funding plan, the reaction has been fast and furious.
Some have hyperventilated over the calculations and how they affect school districts, particularly low-wealth districts. Some have quibbled about whether there truly is enough evidence of what works on which to base a plan. Others have complained about how the plan phases in funding. And still others wag their finger about the governor using one-time sources of funding to pay for education and balance the entire budget.
There is no question that improvements need to be made to the Ohio Evidence-Based Plan in order to make sure that it works as intended. Ideally, the governor's office would have gotten feedback and made those fixes before releasing the proposal, but politics and pressure to meet deadlines don't always allow for the ideal.
Moving forward, the Strickland administration has indicated its willingness to improve the plan, and the Ohio House Finance Committee is indeed working with educators and the governor's office to make those improvements.
The governor's plan has a lot to like. In our review, we highlighted the benefits of the proposal. (More on our review).
1. It is based on what works.
2. It makes education a top priority.
3. It gives school districts the chance to keep pace with inflation.
4. It corrects an illogical and punishing conflict in state policies.
5. It positions Ohio to prosper in a global economy.
But some of the deficiencies have to be addressed in order for the benefits to be seen. Some of the calculations are not working as well as intended, with the result being that low-wealth districts are not getting the benefit you would like to see under the plan. Our review identified other areas where the plan may be underestimating costs.
It is important to note, however, that much of the quibbling appears to be centered on the calculations and not the entire approach. That means the fixes done right ought to be able to satisfy many - and maybe most - of those who truly want to see school funding reform in Ohio that links spending inputs to academic outcomes.
One area, though, that the governor will need to revisit is whether the components of the plan - such as student-teacher ratios - are mandated standards to be met or simply criteria with which to make calculations in the formula. The governor's office has indicated that some of these may be standards to meet, but staffers have not indicated which ones will be those standards, and they indicated that districts could get waivers from the Ohio Department of Education to spend differently from the standards.
The governor's office is rightly concerned that, as research has shown, local school districts and schools will spend new dollars in the same manner as they spend existing dollars. That could really blunt the benefits of the evidence-based plan since spending will be increased in school districts but might not be applied on what works. But setting all these components as new standards for all school districts may be unworkable, as school districts cannot change spending patterns overnight even under the best of circumstances and even a revamped Ohio Department of Education could not adequately handle a flood of waiver requests from districts.
A better way would be to use the components as guidelines for spending in districts that are not performing well or failing to meet academic standards for students. Ultimately, school districts and schools that cannot seem to meet academic standards should be compelled to revisit how they spend their resources and whether they are supporting practices that research shows will improve academic achievement.
Discussions on changes to the plan are well underway, so stay tuned.