The Ohio House of Representatives has proposed improvements to Gov. Ted Strickland's education reform and school funding plan that address a number of issues. Some of the key differences in the plan are outlined below.
How will the changes affect your district? A chart comparing how Ohio districts would fare under the revised plan as compared to the original is available for download here.
Implementation and compliance
While the Strickland plan mandated that all districts comply with all reform components of the Ohio Evidence-based Model,
The House plan...
Adds flexibility to the model - House changes give the most flexibility to academically successful districts, while directing low-performing districts to make key reforms:
The effect:
Targets low-performing districts and calls for a more reasonable and realistic implementation schedule.
The phase-in
While the Strickland plan:
- Lowered the charge-off from 23 to 20 mills (used to determine state aid) all at once, which favored wealthier school districts.
- Phased in the Ohio Evidence-Based Model, which theoretically favored poor school districts, over an 8-year period.
- Created an Instructional Quality Index (meant to provide more funding in harder-to-staff school districts) that weighted property wealth, college attainment and economically disadvantaged families equally,
The House plan....
Slows down the charge-off change - Phases in the charge-off reduction over 6 years starting with 22 mills this biennium.
Creates the Educational Challenge Factor - Replaces the Governor's Instructional Quality Index with the Educational Challenge Factor, placing greater weight on property wealth and applying it to additional parts of the Ohio Evidence-based Model (tutors, summer remediation and enrichment funds), thus driving resources to areas of greatest need.
Creates a longer phase-in - The House plan extends the timeline for implementation of the components from 8 to 10 years to make sure districts have adequate time to adjust. Also, it specifically phases in the lower student/teacher ratio for grades K-3 will, from 19:1 for the first two years to 15:1 over six years to avoid teacher shortages and ensure adequate school facilities.
The effect:
Ensures that poor districts are not adversely affected by the charge-off change and that all districts have adequate time to prepare for the changes.
Cost adjustments
While the Strickland plan underestimated certain costs and resource allocations - most notably teacher salaries, which are integral to computing the majority of the formula,
The House plan makes the following key cost adjustments...
Teachers: Increases the base teacher salary to $49,914 (from $45,094), based on median school district salary with 14% added for base benefits.
School Site Administration: Guarantees a principal for every school in small school districts (rural districts), where previously one was not always allocated.
Dual Enrollment Programs: Includes adequate funding ($3.5m) for Early College High Schools (previously no provision).
Gifted Programs: Ensures that staff for gifted students will be funded for every building and provides funding for gifted identification testing, additional enrichment funds for activities, field trips and opportunities to districts with the greatest need (previously gifted funding was computed at $25 per pupil).
Transportation Supplement: Provides a transportation supplement for low-wealth and low-density districts that were previously underfunded for transportation to ease the transition to a new transportation formula, and provide resources to districts during the phase-in.
The effect:
More accurately assesses the costs of the reform components in the model, making adjustments for the variety of school district characteristics in Ohio.