Gov. Ted Strickland's education plan has now made its way through the House, where a series of changes were made. School Funding Matters has taken a closer look at these changes and offers perspective about what is good, what needs improvement and what requires more study.
See a similar analysis on the governor's original proposal.
What is good about the House plan?
1. It phases in a reduction in the local contribution.
The governor's proposal attempted to correct a longstanding tax policy flaw in the school funding system by lowering the amount local districts contribute (the charge-off) from 23 to 20 mills all at once. This policy change favored wealthier school districts, tipping the initial funding changes toward wealthier school districts and shortchanging poor ones. The House plan attempts to correct the effects of the this policy change by phasing in the charge-off reduction over six years starting with reducing it to 22 mills this biennium.
This much-needed change will free up more funding for less wealthy school districts and minimize the effect of this necessary, but uneven, change.
2. It more accurately accounts for the unique needs of rural districts.
Some components of the Strickland model did not sufficiently capture the unique needs of rural districts. Because of the low density of rural areas, schools often are smaller and students have to travel greater distances. The House plan more accurately assesses the costs of reform components for rural districts, ensuring that they are properly staffed and have the necessary transportation funding.
School administration: Guarantees a principal for every school in small districts (rural districts), where previously some schools would not have been assured a principal.
Transportation supplement: Provides additional funding for low-wealth and low-density districts to ease the transition to a new transportation formula and provide resources to districts during the phase-in.
3. It establishes the Harmon Commission to promote creativity and innovation.
The vision of the Strickland plan includes fostering creativity and innovation, establishing the Center for Creativity and Innovation in the Department of Education. The House version creates a more concrete plan for fostering creativity by establishing the Harmon Commission, a 21-member board to be appointed by legislative leaders and the governor. By offering a pilot subsidy for recognized creativity in classrooms, the state is setting up a way to reward creative classroom teaching and channel best practices for replication throughout the state.
What could be better about the House plan?
1. It should use additional days for professional development.
Strickland called for increasing the number of school days over time, a change that would increase costs. To help alleviate the financial impact, the House reduced the number of calamity days from five to three, essentially converting the two calamity days to school days and allowing for more school days in the year without additional cost.
This proposal raises two concerns. First, this change does not seem to be based on the reality of how many calamity days are needed. School districts already often use more than the number of available calamity days due to inclement weather and must find ways to make up those days. With this change, many more schools are likely to run out of calamity days before the school year is over.
More important, this change does not use the additional days to increase the number of professional development days for teachers. Quality teachers and teaching are central to improving student performance, and one of the main ways to ensure quality teaching are meeting this standard is through professional development. The authors of the evidence- based model, Allan Odden and Lawrence O. Picus, consider professional development pivotal.
Download a review of the original education proposal by Odden and Picus.
The days should be designated for additional professional development instead of instructional days to help ensure that Ohio's teachers are receiving the ongoing professional development they need.
The study: The House plan calls for a study of the best use of school hours, in consultation with teachers, superintendents, school district boards and gifted associations to be completed in a year. This study should help solidify the best way to craft additional days and hours for the school year.
2. It should provide more funding in some key areas.
The formulas used to calculate some key components of the Strickland plan appeared to underestimate the resources needed. While the House tackled some of these concerns, a few critical pieces remain:
Central administration: While the House version allows for more flexibility in how central administration funding could be spent and fully funds these components immediately, like the original plan it still only funds a superintendent and a treasurer, which does not seem sufficient. The Odden and Picus evidence-based model calls for nine professional and nine support positions for a district of 3,500 students.
Lead teachers: The House made no change to the formula calculating the number of lead teachers for a school. The model still funds one lead teacher per organization unit (418 to 763 students, depending on the school level), while Odden and Picus recommend one per 200 students. Odden and Picus stress that lead teachers, or instructional coaches as they call them, are "one of the potentially most effective ways to help students learn."
What needs more study?
A number of items in the House proposal still need study. As with the governor's plan, the effort to comprehensively reform the education system means that many details are still in development or need more information to determine what additional changes should be made.
1. The effect of the Educational Challenge Factor is unclear.
The Strickland plan used a computation called the Instructional Quality Index to drive additional funding to areas of greater need, where it is harder to attract quality teachers. The index used property wealth, college attainment of area residents and the number of economically disadvantaged students as equal measures to determine which districts needed extra funding. The House changed the essence of this index by renaming it the Educational Challenge Factor and weighting the index more heavily for poor districts.
The effect is unclear. The information provided is not adequate to determine whether the index does what it is intended to do on its own or even whether it is needed.
A separate analysis of the Ohio Evidence-Based Model without the index should be done. A side-by-side comparison of how funding would flow to districts with and without the index is the only way to isolate their separate effects and determine if the OEBM could provide adequate funding distribution without the index. It may also be sensible to reconsider whether measures are needed to help disadvantaged districts attract and retain quality teachers.
2. Funding for teacher benefits may not be sufficient.
While the House plan made the important adjustment of increasing the average teacher salary used in the formulas, it did not change the amount set aside for benefits. The 14% figure for benefits appears low, as fringe benefits cost 36% of salaries in 2008. However, because the average teacher salary is weighted by the Educational Challenge Factor, it's hard to determine what percentage would be adequate.
The House took the needed step of increasing the average teacher salary to $49,914 from $45,094 (based on median school district salary). That results in a salary amount of $56,902 when the 14% for benefits is included. This figure is used for calculations throughout the formula, so making sure it is correct will be critical.
3. Measures for ensuring that schools use resources to get better results are incomplete.
The Strickland education plan laid out the components of a quality education and required that all districts comply or seek a waiver for any variations. It put in place a fiscal accountability system that required all districts to report on their finances to the state and the public.
The House improved on this plan by injecting layers of flexibility into the model, giving the most freedom to academically successful districts while directing low-performing districts to make key reforms. It also kept the fiscal accountability provisions of the Strickland plan.
While these efforts help balance local control with the need for accountability, more study and thoughtful policy design will ensure Ohio has an optimal, effective accountability system.
The details of this tiered system of compliance are still being finalized. One aspect that could benefit from further consideration is whether consequences should be based on results at the district or school level. Looking at each school's individual performance could avoid an accountability system that punishes successful schools in underperforming districts and ignores failing schools in districts that otherwise are performing well.
More important, though, is what is still missing in this accountability model. While the plan focuses on the "inputs" to education - such as all-day kindergarten, smaller class-sizes, and expanded learning opportunities for students - it still lacks a similar focus on "outputs," such as improvements in student performance and graduation rates. There has been little discussion about ways to hold schools responsible for the academic achievement of their students.
More study is needed to ensure an accountability system that:
- Accounts for the needs of individual students and their attributes.
- Establishes clear benchmarks or goals for student achievement against which to judge the overall effectiveness of OEBM elements.
- Measures global, 21st century skills in addition to more traditional, objective measures such as test scores and graduation rates.
- Emphasizes schools and the performance of individual students as the unit for accountability.
- Uses incentives in addition to punitive measures and consequences.
- Taps into teacher motivation and responsibility to move beyond simple compliance.
- Includes a community of stakeholders in identifying problems and solutions, with data and support from the state for conducting the process.
- Creates a better balance of state/local accountability for results.
- Allows for accountability measures to be phased in with the availability of resources, so that schools are not held accountable for mandates that have not yet been fully funded.