After years of operating under a school funding system repeatedly declared unconstitutional, Ohio is now moving toward a new approach to paying for public education. Gov. Ted Strickland has proposed broad changes to the state’s school funding system as part of a larger education plan.
School Funding Matters has reviewed the proposed changes, which include adopting an evidence-based approach and changing tax policies, and found much to like about the governor’s plan – as well as areas that could be improved or that need more study.
See a similar analysis of changes to the governor's plan adopted by the House.
What is good about the governor’s plan?
1. It is based on what works.
For the first time, school funding levels would be determined by evidence about which policies and practices actually help children learn. Rather than deciding how much of the state budget to allot for education and then figuring out how to spend it, the evidence-based approach starts by determining what’s needed to provide a quality education.
2. It makes education a top priority.
In a time when the state budget is shrinking overall, Governor Strickland is increasing spending on public education - investing in the future. The proposed budget for 2010-2011 would allot $925 million more for public education over the next two years.
3. It gives school districts the chance to keep pace with inflation.
By creating a mechanism that allows school districts to go to local voters with a different kind of levy, the governor's plan eases restrictions on property tax revenue. That change could give districts a reliable source of funding, reducing the need for repeated levies that waste resources and strain voters' patience.
4. It corrects an illogical and punishing conflict in state policies.
The education plan eliminates the damaging effects of "phantom revenue," a phenomenon unique to Ohio that results from the interaction of the state school funding formula and tax law. Addressing phantom revenue will create a system that more accurately reflects how much local revenue districts can contribute to the cost of education.
5. It positions Ohio to prosper in a global economy.
With its emphasis on 21st-century skills such as creativity and critical thinking, the education plan combines a commitment to raising achievement in core subjects with a view to the future. Effective funding, combined with expanded learning opportunities and new performance measures, can create a workforce ready to meet new economic challenges.
What could be better about the plan?
1. It appears to shortchange poor districts.
Perhaps as an unintended consequence of trying to fix an overly complex school funding system and its legacy of inequity, the education plan provides larger funding increases for wealthy school districts than poor ones. Tax policy changes that tend to favor wealthier districts, specifically lowering local districts' share of the total cost, may need to be adjusted so that resources are directed where most needed.
2. It should allow local districts more control over how they use resources.
While districts should be encouraged to use state funding for the practices shown to have results, mandating exactly how local educators spend each dollar would be unduly restrictive and would not allow them to make the best decisions for their students. General guidelines tied to a strong accountability system could be a better balance of state/local control.
3. It may underestimate some costs.
Formulas used to estimate the cost of the plan's various components appear to underestimate the resources needed. The formula should be recalculated to more accurately account for such things as average teacher salaries, the cost of fringe benefits and funding for dual enrollment and gifted programs.
4. It lacks explicit measures of success.
The education plan calls for increased accountability and introduces new tools for measuring student progress, such as the ACT college entrance test and end-of-course exams. Yet the package could benefit from the addition of clear benchmarks or goals against which to measure its overall effectiveness.
What needs further examination?
1. The separate impacts of the plan's funding components aren't clear.
The education plan's two major changes to the funding system - adopting the evidence-based approach and revising tax policies - will have different results on Ohio schools, but those differences are impossible to quantify with the data that's currently available. Each component of the plan will need to be assessed separately to make the best decisions for the state moving forward.
2. The schedule for phasing in the changes may not be optimal.
Because tax policy changes take effect immediately and the evidence-based approach is being phased in, the introduction of the education plan could result in temporary imbalances or create other funding issues if the timing of implementation is not carefully considered.
Learn more about the governor's school funding proposals.