School Funding Matters

The Ohio Senate is expected to bring out its own school funding plan soon, and undoubtedly, there will continue to be rhetoric about perceived deficiencies in the Ohio Evidence-Based Model that is contained in Governor Strickland's proposal and modified by substitute House Bill 1. (More on substitute House Bill 1.) There is no question that the changes made by the House addressed nearly all of the primary shortcomings in the governor's proposal, which in and of itself made major leaps forward in meeting the school funding crisis in Ohio.

But, either out of differences in politics, policy or practice, some continue to criticize this new school-funding strategy that has now been accepted by both the education community and business leaders. The criticisms seem based on ideological differences, or in some cases, ignorance of what the Ohio Evidence-Based Model (OEBM) does or does not do.

Here, then, are the top 5 myths about the Ohio Evidence-Based Model.

1.      It unfairly creates unfunded mandates for school districts.

This myth is an outgrowth of the desire of the governor's office to make sure that tax dollars were used efficiently and effectively to improve academic achievement. The governor's staff knew that the Ohio Evidence-Based Model can't alone compel local educators to rethink how they use their resources to promote improved achievement, and the experience in other states showed that old habits were hard to break and resources were not always spent effectively. So, the governor's office suggested that the components of the OEBM (such as staffing ratios, instructional coaching positions, all-day kindergarten) were not merely mechanisms to calculate funding but were requirements. However, after many complaints and much feedback, the governor's office relented and the House passed a plan that primarily requires only poor-performing schools and districts to meet the spending components and allows the rest to largely keep doing what they are doing as long as they can meet academic goals. That makes sense and will go a long way to ensure dollars are used effectively. Unfortunately, the lingering impression is that mandates still exist.

2.      It stifles the creativity and innovation of local educators.

This issue is related to the myth above about unfunded mandates. Some have tried to argue that the OEBM is a cookie-cutter approach that will make all schools the same and not allow for any freedom to try different strategies. That is just wrong. Like the issue about the mandates, all schools will have the resources to follow the educational practices that many other schools across the country have followed to dramatically improve the academic performance of their students. But most schools will also have the freedom to try different strategies to improve performance as long as they are doing so. If the schools are not performing, then the strategies in the OEBM come into play. It should be noted that most of those strategies, like having instructional coaches guide professional development for teachers as they need it during the year and the use of data to guide instructional strategies, are in and of themselves considered innovative and creative for most schools. So it is not as if the schools will be forced to pull out McGuffey Readers and the slate boards to improve instruction.

3.      The model is not funded adequately.

The State of Ohio is in a bind. Like most other states, Ohio is facing an unprecedented economic crisis that is similar to the one sweeping the world. Yet, during this crisis, the state and now the federal government are trying to ensure that investments are made in education to help prepare the economy to pull out of the economic doldrums. Gov. Strickland made education a priority in his budget, and President Obama has ensured education gets support by providing billions in stimulus dollars to education stabilization and improvement. Using this one-time money, along with state reserves designated as a "rainy day fund," postpones tough decisions that the state will need to make, some maintain. It also saddles future legislators and state leaders, they say, with a huge hole to fill in the state budget. There is, of course, a reason that the Obama administration and the Congress wanted to postpone that pain by providing dollars now: To avoid sending the economy further into a tailspin with more layoffs and cuts. Part of the requirements for the state receiving stimulus money is that they don't cut their education budget, and in the case of Ohio, Gov. Strickland is tackling school funding reform as well. His option: Phase in the pieces of the reform over time, which seems well reasoned. That seems like the strategy many of us use when, say, we buy a house or car. We pay it out over time.

4.      The model favors wealthy districts over poor ones.

The initial proposal from Gov. Strickland was widely misunderstood, partly because the administration tried to show too much on one spreadsheet that outlined how the changes affected specific districts in Ohio. The overall education plan not only changed the funding formulas, but it also changed tax policy. Some components, like central office support, were phased in over time, while the changes in tax policy were not. The result? The tax policy changes resulted in a one-time jump in funding for wealthier districts, which largely overshadowed the more modest increases in funding for less wealthy districts which were to get benefit from the Ohio Evidence-Based Model once it was phased in. The Ohio House made significant changes in this area, phasing in the tax policy changes and speeding up the implementation of some aspects of the funding model. In addition, the House recalculated some of the funding that was targeted to low-wealth district, resulting in additional gains for poor districts.

5.      The model funds buildings and teachers, not children.

This is rhetoric coming from those who would prefer a resource distribution system that is advocated by the Fordham Foundation's Fund the Child report. (More on weighted student funding.) The use of this rhetoric is to try to make a distinction that the Fordham system provides funding based on what children need and then provides a "weighted" amount of funding to support that. The comparison, they say, is that the Ohio Evidence-Based Model calculates funding based on average school building enrollments and average teacher salaries. The rhetoric is designed to make the weighted funding system more attractive because it is funding "children" while the evidence-based model is funding "buildings and teachers." Of course, this is a false argument. In fact, the Fund the Child approach is actually a cruel hoax, in that it really does not care if there is enough money for each child to accomplish what is needed. The folks at Fordham are happy to accept, well...whatever money is available, just as long it is weighted for the characteristics (disadvantaged student, or special education student) of that student. In stark contrast, the Evidence-Based Model actually does care whether each child has the resources needed to achieve. The model is built on education strategies that have been shown to produce dramatic gains in student performance in schools and districts across the country. The model in Fund the Child has little research support and evidence that it actually works.

These myths will no doubt resurface in the coming weeks as the Senate proposes its own plan and then debates again what the governor and House proposed. Our hope is that, in the end, enough are is able to separate myth from reality to produce the best school funding and education approach for Ohio's students.

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.

At first glance, the governor’s education plan might seem to some like high school math – you know, the complicated high school math you might have never really understood well or, if you did, you simply forgot over the years.

Instead of (3x + y) = (2x – 2y) or some such thing you get the following from the Executive Budget for FYs 2010-2011: More on education budget.

So, the district in the example above with growth in value of existing property from $100 million to $120 million would see its chargeoff rise from $2.3 million to $2.76 million (an increase of $460,000), while its Class I property tax would increase from $2.0 million to $2.4 million (an increase of $400,000). So, the increase in local revenue does not quite match the increase in the charge-off (it falls short by $60,000), and reappraisal phantom revenue is ameliorated but not eliminated.

That’s clear, right?

But, interestingly enough, any of the complexities in the education plan really speak more to the necessary transition: Taking us from an extremely complex and unworkable tax and school funding system to something that is relatively simple and called for in these tough economic times.

The unpleasant truth about the old school funding system is that it just doesn’t work well. And everyone knows it.

Governor Strickland and his staff released the details of his education and school funding plan yesterday, which calls for an evidence-based approach to funding public schools and making provisions so local school districts can keep more of their local tax revenue to help pay for growing expenses.

The simplicity of the evidence-based approach and the rest of the governor’s education plan should not be confused with the difficult transition everyone must make from the current system, which uses a foundation formula to represent an adequate education, to a new system of funding that is based on other approaches. There is no doubt that the transition will be a bear.

To try to help reporters and others in Columbus at a briefing understand the new system, the Office of Budget and Management included the following PowerPoint slide in the Budget in Brief document: “Forget everything you know about the Foundation Formula!”

But the new system can be thought of in three simple ways:

1. The evidence-based plan uses research and best practices to determine the amount of resources that should be available to every student based on that student’s need. Thus, if the governor’s plan is adopted, you can be reasonably assured that your local school district has enough resources to reach the academic standards set out for them. More on evidence-based plan.

And

2. Local school districts will be asked to pay 20 mills of local residential property tax toward that system (2% of valuation), and the state will pay for the rest. Thus, this plan does not push off funding for fundamental needs to local districts outside of the initial contribution of local property taxes. More on tax changes.

And

3. Through changes in state law, local school districts will have more of their local property tax growth available to them to help keep up with inflation and avoid going to the ballot so often for more money. Thus, school districts have some limited relief from levy fatigue. More on tax levies.

If you get all that, then you generally understand what is being proposed for the next two years in Ohio education

We previously called for the evidence-based approach for several reasons, not the least of which is that it transparently links resources to those outcomes we all want for children. But it became clear yesterday that another benefit of this approach right now, with an economic crisis pushing down state tax revenues 11% over two years (FY2009 and 2010), is that taxpayers can be assured that scarce tax dollars are less likely to be wasted if they are tightly targeted to spending areas linked to research and best practices on how children learn and succeed.

“I will be making suggestions that, if enacted, will result in a transformed system of education in Ohio.’’

                                                                                       Governor Ted Strickland, January 2009

 The governor of Ohio is promising to transform the educational system of the state, both in the delivery of education and in the delivery of the dollars to pay for it. More on his statement. There is no better time to take this on, as the state needs to retool and revamp itself in order to withstand and then emerge from this economic crisis. Standing still and waiting for it to pass is no option.

On Wednesday, he will outline his plans in his third State of the State address, and discussion and debate will ensue as his budget proposal makes its way to the Ohio General Assembly and into public debate.

Of course, there is no shortage of ideas and proposals to fix education and fix school funding. Some ideas masquerade as reform but are really just more of the same, and some ideas are so far out there as to be unworkable and actually counter productive to the ideals of public education.

We have spent considerable time researching, studying and discussing the Ohio school funding issue, and we have offered the governor our advice on what transforming the school funding system in Ohio could look like.

Today, we released two reports on school funding that spell out two fundamental changes that the state can make to successfully reform Ohio’s unconstitutional school funding system.

The reports underscore the need for the state to:

– Adopt a method for estimating adequate funding for education that relies on research into successful practices, an approach known as the evidence-based model for costing out.

 – Ease the harmful effects on school districts of property tax restrictions created by House Bill 920, while keeping some protection for property owners against unvoted tax increases.

The first report, entitled, “The Importance of Costing out a Quality Education in Ohio: Why Evidence-based Should be Ohio’s Choice,” lays out a plan that would target tax dollars to those spending areas that research and best practices indicate will dramatically improve academic achievement. More on evidence-based.

We don’t have that system now, and the public knows it. They have no confidence that their tax dollars are being spent on areas that will help students succeed.

The second report, entitled “Property Taxes for Funding Public Education: Ohio’s Unique Method for Controlling Tax Increases,” was prepared with the Education Tax Policy Institute, a respected research arm of education groups. It makes the case that Ohio needs to figure out a better way to ensure that school districts have a stable and secure source of revenue to pay for operations. More on HB920.

We don’t have that system now. Instead, school districts must go back to voters again and again just to keep revenue in pace with inflation. Since the law, known as House Bill 920, was enacted in 1976 to protect property owners from unvoted tax increases, school districts have placed 9,800 levies on the ballot – enough on average for every school district in Ohio to have a levy on the ballot every other year! Over that time frame, Ohio voters have on average voted to increase their local property taxes more than their taxes would have increased automatically had the House Bill 920 cap not been in place. Yet, what we hear from voters is that they are tired of so many ballot issues.

Just as all of this mess was created over the years, the state can’t put all of this into place at once, however. The state will need to develop and then follow a plan to phase in over time any revenue increases to pay for an improved education system. It cannot possibly be done all at once.

We look forward to seeing what the governor will propose to transform education in Ohio. This is the year to take those first steps toward transformation, so that years later we can look back on this time with the knowledge that we did what we needed to do in Ohio to make a significant difference in how we provide public education for children.

“The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

                                                                                                President Barack Obama

                                                                                                Inaugural Address, 2009

This historic day of an African-American taking the oath of office as President of the United States reminds us that history has not been kind to large groups of people in this country, a history that remains a vexing problem for the nation.

President Obama spelled out clearly this nation’s enduring spirit and noble idea: “All are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” More on the speech. This no doubt covers lots of rhetorical territory for our new president, but I am reminded of the nagging problem – an inconvenient truth, if you will – that the promise of equal opportunity is still denied to some in this country.

Equality of opportunity does not exist in education, for instance. The concept of public education offers the promise of equal opportunity, but much has been written about how that falls short for many schools serving disadvantaged children. Not enough accountability, some cry. Ineffective teachers, others lament. Hapless administrators, still others contend. Suffocating union control, many argue. Meager incentives, some say. Poor parental support, even more declare.

It is no doubt some of that is true and maybe all of it. But my sense is that we are still not very serious about providing the capacity that is needed in schools that serve the underserved. Dollars that flow into urban schools, for instance, are often calculated to provide something extra to help the disadvantaged to succeed. Of course, in Ohio and elsewhere, we really don’t know if we are sending enough to make a difference and whether those dollars are being used in such a way as to make a difference. On the face of it, those dollars seem inadequate to me when compared to the resources in time and attention and materials that we believe are needed for those students to succeed. And they seem painfully short when compared to the highest spending suburban districts where local wealth often equals wealthy schools.

Does the disparity and inadequacy of resources have consequences? Well, the achievement gap between races is an enduring fact, not one that is created by union contracts, nor by poor administrators, nor by lapse attention to data and results. The link between disadvantaged neighborhoods – often predominantly minority – and disadvantaged kids and disparity in performance is so clear and pervasive that it is tiresome to hear all the explanations why that should not be the case.

You’ve already seen the facts. For instance, in Ohio, black males graduated at a rate of 64%, compared to 88% for white males. In some schools, the graduation rate for black males was as low as 22%.

So, for me, when I hear that this nation’s enduring spirit, precious gift and noble idea is that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness, I think of the savage inequalities that exist between our richest and our poorest schools and wonder whether we can ever fulfill that ideal.

A week from today, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland will deliver his own address, his third State of the State, in which he is expected to propose his much anticipated package of education reform and school funding reform. While it is doubtful that this address will be historic, my hope is that it will nudge this state much closer to the dream that was revisited on this historic day.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland gave end-of-year interviews to the major news media in Ohio this past week, and in each of them he pledged to keep his promise to fix the school funding problem that has plagued the state for decades. With the state hemorrhaging revenue in what is arguably the worst economic crisis in generations, how can he keep that promise?

Here is what he told the Toledo Blade. "Someone has said that you should never waste a good crisis," Governor Strickland said. "We've got to continue to think of the future... One of the things that I think happened in Ohio for a long time is that there was not sufficient attention given to what we ought to be doing to move forward. It was more of short-term, myopic view of state government." (More on Blade story.)

Yet, pundits and naysayers are already chortling that this first-term Democratic governor has backed himself into the corner by promising to fix school funding but facing an historic financial crisis. He cannot fix school funding, they say, in the midst of a financial crisis because there will be no additional revenue to direct toward schools.

But that does not have to be the case.

School funding is not just about finding the revenue to pay for public schools. It is also about figuring out how to calculate an adequate amount that provides support for students to meet academic standards. It is also about figuring out what resources are best to support public schools, be they local or state. And, then, it is also about where and when to get the revenue to pay for the school funding plan. Each is important to a comprehensive school funding proposal.

So, it is easy to envision a scenario where Governor Strickland first lays out a plan about how to calculate an adequate amount to support students. That would be great progress, in that the current plan to cost out an adequate education was declared unconstitutional a decade ago, and thus, this funding system does not have the confidence of the public (More on public attitudes) that is provides what students need to succeed.

It is also easy to envision a scenario where Governor Strickland then lays out a plan that identifies funding sources that would pay for the costing out plan. That could include state tax resources, like sales tax, income tax, or fees. It could also include local property taxes and other local sources.

It is not easy to envision a scenario where Governor Strickland identifies in the next biennial budget the money he will find revenue to pay for this plan. How could he? And why should he? This historic economic crisis means he will not have the revenue to completely fund any school funding plan for the next two years. But, with a plan in hand, he can make a reasonable start toward getting the public school funding system on track.

That is a huge accomplishment and moves the public school funding system to a better place.

So in the storm that is this financial crisis, the state can plan ahead for a calmer time when revenues are more stable and available to fully fund a school funding plan that makes sense and gets public school students where they need to go.

At the annual conference and trade show put on by the Ohio School Boards Association in Columbus last week, everyone seemed to be talking about school levies.

Some of the urban schools were cheered by passage of their levies, no doubt fueled by the heavy turnout for the presidential race. Other schools were lamenting levy failures, which meant back home they had to face budget cuts, delayed spending on needed maintenance or materials, and difficult decisions on when to go back on the ballot. More on election results.

Not if they go back on the ballot, but when.

As you no doubt know, Ohio has the distinction of having more levies than any other state. That's because Ohio school districts are prevented by state law (House Bill 920) from collecting the additional revenue that could come from higher valuations of property every year. More on HB 920. This barrier makes it difficult for school districts to just keep up with inflation without going back to the ballot again with more levies.

Ironically, the property value growth in school districts could be partially credited to the performance and reputation of the schools, as many communities tout their schools as a reason to buy property there.

No other governmental entity in Ohio faces this problem, and very few if any states have this problem. The state had 237 school levies on the ballot just this month.

The state law, House Bill 920, was passed in 1976 during a feverish debate about how to protect property owners from higher taxes that were resulting from rapid growth in property values. That inflationary time has not been repeated since, but the state law, later imbedded in the Ohio Constitution, is still in place and creating havoc for schools.

Consider that Ohio school districts have placed nearly 10,000 school levies on the ballot since the law was passed in 1976. That's about 16 levies for every school district over the past 32 years, or a levy on the ballot every other year during that time. Consider the time, resources and energy for school districts in keeping up with that pace, and the fatigue and confusion for voters who must think that the schools are insatiable in their appetite for tax revenue.

For some, the revenue is just to keep even. Batavia, for instance, got to be on the local news in Cincinnati this week, not for its academic progress or sports team victory or band concert, but because its 9.8 mill bond levy failed in August. More on Batavia. That leaves it without enough money to improve the poor condition of its buildings.

We'll talk more about the growing conversation that one way to fix Ohio school funding is to allow school districts to keep more of their local revenue so they can deliver the results that are expected of them.

Last week, I wrote about the failure of the Milford school levy by 54 votes in the general election. Milford, a suburb of Cincinnati, was seeking a 5.5 mill operating levy - what would have been its first since 2003. More on that posting. While supporters are waiting to see if the count of provisional ballots on November 25^th might put them over the top, they are also scratching their heads to figure out what they need to do - after four past failures - to get the revenue they need to keep the school rated "Excellent" on academics and no longer rated "Fiscal Caution" on finances. More on Milford.

Anyone who has been around a school levy campaign knows this is hard work. It is not just reporting to the public how well you have done and showing the public that you are being responsible with the tax dollars. People vote no for lots of reasons, and people vote yes for lots of reasons, and people stay home and don't vote at all for lots of reasons. In campaigns, you have to find the right message to deliver and then effectively deliver it. That takes time, money, and lots of volunteer effort.

In Milford, they are exhausted.

Below is a letter written shortly after the election Tuesday by Todd Munro, the Milford levy chair, who expresses what I think many of his peers have expressed and will express in the future with a state school funding system that places too much burden on local school districts and communities to pass local levies just to keep up with inflation.

I have been involved with many of the Milford School levies over the past several years - four failures and a potential fifth failure that currently hangs in the balance of a 54 vote differential and the effects of provisional ballots and possible recount.

In the early campaigns, energy was high, volunteers were many, and funding was easily raised. The hope that all of the energy and time would make a difference in the futures of many, and the community at large, was the reason.

After four failures, energy is low, volunteers scarce, and fund raising difficult. The driving force is no longer the hope for the future, but the fear of what will be lost. The efforts of many over the years to create a school district that is doing great things - that is making a difference - could all be lost.

Timing is everything and for our district the timing could not have been worse. We have a new administration and BOE that is working with the community and has put our district back on the right path and corrected many of the wrongs - this should have been our time.

Our campaign this November was no longer about how good a job was being done with the tax payers' dollars or the decisions that were being made by the school district. It became a fight against the economy, foreclosures, healthcare costs, utility costs, job losses, and all of the uncertainties that those things bring - things that are out of the community's and school district's control.

So, pending a miraculous outcome in the provisional ballots and potential recount, our district will face another defeat. Where do we go from here? How do you motivate community members to "try and take the hill" one more time, when they have seen defeat so many times and the taste of victory only 54 votes away?

We should not have to place this burden on our communities. We should not have to pit neighbor against neighbor. We should not have to choose between paying bills and paying for education. There should not be a difference in the level of education that is provided because of a geographical location and the ability of one community to provide more than another. With the current funding system, the number of communities that will be able to continue to provide a quality education, that continues to see increasing costs, standards, and unfunded mandates, will be fewer and fewer.

The funding of education should be like our roads. When they are broke, we fix them. We they are covered in snow, we clear them. When they are maintained, they take us where we want to go. Can you imagine if every time there was a pothole, stoplight repair, or heavy snow that we put the repairs up for a vote? I can hear it now, "I never drive on that road. Why should I have to pay for it."

Education is the foundation of every community. It is the key to job growth, innovation, and future prosperity. It has to be made a priority. Our funding system for education has a pothole and every year that we put off fixing it - it gets bigger and deeper - we need to fix it. There are many that offer suggestions that are beneficial to themselves. The perfect tax is the one that someone else pays. We don't need a funding system that is perfect, just one that is equitable.

Todd Munro

Levy Chair

www.4milford.com

In the final total, more than 61% of the local school levies passed Tuesday, and nearly 39% of the local school levies failed, which was a new record high of support for the past five years but not as good as a decade ago. More on election results. In a statewide phone survey, we asked Ohio registered voters last month how they voted on local school levies and then asked them what they thought about a number of other education issues. More on poll.

The answers they have were interesting. I was particularly interested in the attitudes and positions of those who say they always or usually vote against local school levies and bond issues in their communities. Only 14% of the respondents said they voted against local school issues, and they tended to be older voters living in urban areas and earning middle-income wages. If they had kids in schools, they were more likely to be in private school than public school.

Here is what they thought about a variety of education issues:

• Compared to those who always or usually vote for local school issues and those who vote for some local issues, this group of levy opponents tended to be more pessimistic about the direction of the state of Ohio, more pessimistic about the direction of Ohio public education, and more critical of the quality of education in the state and in their communities. For instance, only 32% rated the quality of public education in Ohio as excellent or good, compared to 41% of the levy supporters who gave those ratings. When asked to rate the quality of the schools in their community, only 46% rated them excellent or good compared to nearly 72% of levy supporters.
• The levy opponents were also more likely to agree that the system of public education makes school districts generally inefficient structures for using and managing tax dollars. Fifty-seven percent agreed that school districts were generally inefficient, compared to 44% of levy supporters.
• This group is more likely than others to want voters to primarily be making decisions about how much of the annual state budget is allocated for public education and schools. More than 51% expressed this opinion, compared to less than 30% of those who are levy supporters and 44% who vote for some levies.
• They are less likely to support more state spending on education, less likely to think that the state is spending too little on education, and less likely to support any change in the mix of tax resources to fund schools. For instance, 76% oppose the creation of a statewide property tax for education to increase amount of money for schools and reduce the amount of local levy elections. That is compared to 44% of levy supporters who oppose such a change.

Without more in-depth research, it is hard to know fully what the levy opponents think about the issues, and voters can oppose local issues for many reasons that are unique to their communities and the particular issues. But this preliminary data suggests to me that hard-core levy opponents just don't think their schools and public education in general are doing a very good job and they don't need more money to do better.

That may seem self-evident (the no-brainer, you might say) but this might serve as a good reminder that getting the support of these hard-core opponents lies in convincing them that public education is or will be getting the results that earn their support in the future.

Or, more importantly, earn their tax dollars.

In Milford, a suburban school district outside Cincinnati, levy supporters were anxious about their 5.5 mill operating levy defeat Tuesday. The loss by only 54 votes is attributed to a poor economy that is forcing voters to make tough choices based on their personal financial situations. Given that Milford has not passed an operating levy in five years, this loss means the school district will likely remain in the state's Fiscal Caution category and will likely not be able to reinstate cuts made earlier. Going forward, they will also have some tough choices to face regarding future levies and spending.

"We need to hear more from the community about their expectations for Milford schools," said Milford Superintendent Bob Farrell. More about Milford.

That's an awful thing to happen to a school district that is perennially rated Excellent on academics.

This is the way it is in Ohio school funding. School districts that find ways to ensure the academic success of their students - thereby earning top ratings for that effort - are nonetheless unable to find stable sources of funding to continue to pay for those successes.

In all, Ohio school districts placed 237 issues on the ballot Tuesday - more levies than the last two general elections combined. Preliminary numbers show that 58% of those levies passed yesterday; 36% failed (and another 5% were not yet decided.) If it holds, that passage rate is higher than last year (54%) and higher than results for last six general elections. You have to go back to 2002, when 59% of the levies passed, to find that kind of success. More election results.

Success came Tuesday to school districts not normally used to it. Levies passed in urban districts like Toledo, Columbus, Youngstown, Dayton, and Lima. Yet, suburban and rural school districts had mixed results. School districts like Bedford and Richmond Heights in Cuyahoga County saw their operating levies fail, while nearby Euclid and Mayfield saw success. More on Mayfield.

But even those who had success yesterday are not convinced we have the right funding system in Ohio. The celebration in Mayfield of the passage of its 6.9 mill operating levy was not even over when district officials concluded: We need to use the same energy and efforts that passed the levy on a much larger goal - changing the school funding system in Ohio.

We agree that there has to be a better way to fund public schools in Ohio.

We are launching this blog today with the fervent hope that Ohio can find a way to remake its public school funding system so that teachers and parents and students have a stable source of revenue to pay for resources that are adequate to reach the standards the state wants them to reach.

Over the coming months, the School Funding Matters initiative wants to explore what the problems really are with this system, debate what the best approach might be to fix those problems, and figure out how to get it done. Ohio won't snap out of its economic doldrums without putting into place a fair and reasonable funding system for its public schools.

That sentiment may or may not win at the ballot box, but it is the right thing to do. Stay tuned.