The Ohio Senate has proposed a radically different approach to school funding than that taken by Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio House. The Senate plan does not employ the evidence-based model at the heart of the Strickland proposal, adopting instead a per-pupil funding model that would allow funding to follow students to whatever school they choose to attend. School Funding Matters has taken a closer look at the Senate plan and offers perspective about what is good, what needs improvement and what requires more study.
What is good about the Senate plan?
1. It encourages innovation.
Like earlier proposals from the Ohio House, the Senate plan maintains support for existing innovative programs like STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) schools and Early College High Schools (which combine high school and college experiences). Coupled with the establishment of "innovation zones," these provisions will allow Ohio students to benefit from schools to exploring creative approaches to teaching and learning. The Senate plan also seeks to promote successful practices in parental involvement, showing a progressive understanding of the integral role of families in the educational success of their children.
2. It recognizes the link between teacher quality and accountability.
The Senate plan maintains many elements of the governor's original proposal related to teacher quality, including the establishment of a teacher residency program and updates to educator standards and licensing requirements. Similarly, the Senate plan maintains important elements of the House plan including additional funding for National Board Certified Teachers. These teacher quality measures take a necessary first step toward the overall reform of Ohio's accountability provisions and will help ensure that Ohio students have the best teachers possible.
3. It shows willingness to work collaboratively.
The Senate has shown interest in working with the governor to update Ohio's academic standards and in considering additional education reforms from the governor's plan. This interest in some of the proposed reforms, such as replacing the Ohio Graduation Test with the ACT and extending the school year, shows an openness to collaboration that serves to move Ohio forward.
4. It expands all-day kindergarten to more economically disadvantaged students.
The Senate plan acknowledges the importance of all-day kindergarten for giving the youngest students a strong start in education, especially in high poverty schools, and would cover the costs for an additional 5,000 children in districts serving economically disadvantaged students. Although the Senate removed the provision that would mandate all-day, every-day kindergarten for all school districts, this expansion of all-day kindergarten would be beneficial for the students it reaches.
5. It gives school districts the chance to keep pace with inflation.
By maintaining the governor's plans to create a a new kind of property tax levy, the Senate gives districts an option to help secure a more reliable and predictable source of school funding. The Senate plan removes the five-year limit on districts for seeking passage of these levies (called conversion levies) that was contained in the House-approved version of the budget. If voters are receptive to these levies, they could reduce the need to go back to the ballot repeatedly, which wastes resources and strains voters' patience.
What could be better about the Senate plan?
1. It is not based on evidence about what works.
The Ohio Evidence-Based Model proposed by Strickland would determine school funding levels based on policies and practices that have a proven record of success in improving student performance. With the complete elimination of an evidence-based approach from the Senate plan, Ohio's school funding system would continue to be based on arbitrary allocations rather than evidence about what it actually cost to provide an adequate education for every child.
2. It misses a historic opportunity to end the question of constitutionality.
According to the plaintiffs in the DeRolph school funding case, the House-approved education plan would have put Ohio's public school system on the path to constitutional compliance. The Senate-approved plan fails to address the fundamental flaws inherent in the current system, instead preserving the status quo. The strong momentum for change set into motion by the governor, preserved by the House, and perpetuated with the support of key education and business groups across the state could come to a screeching halt as a result of the Senate's decision to reject the proposed reforms.
3. It does not hold districts accountable for how they spend their money.
When the Senate abandoned the House-approved version of the Ohio Evidence-Based Model, it simultaneously eliminated many elements that would have strengthened Ohio's current fiscal accountability measures. The Senate plan leaves Ohioans without a way to measure whether public schools are spending dollars well. Even with across-the-board yet modest increases in school funding for all districts, there is no mechanism for determining how those dollars will be spent.
4. It fails to adequately address "phantom revenue."
Many of Ohio's school districts are plagued by the problem of "phantom revenue," a tax policy phenomenon in the state's school funding system that assumes school districts are receiving more dollars than they actually are. The plan approved by the governor and the House addressed the problem by calling for a reduction in the local school district's contribution (the charge-off) from 23 mills to 20 mills. The Senate's exclusion of this recommendation means that local school districts are left contending with this longstanding and punishing tax policy flaw.
What needs more study?
1. More details are needed about the student-centered model of school funding.
The Senate plan replaced the proposed evidence-based model with a student-centered approach, but provided little detail about what makes this model student-centered or how it improves Ohio's current unconstitutional funding system. While it creates and then charges the "Student-Centered, Evidence-Based Funding Council" with the responsibility of creating a per-pupil school funding system, more study is needed to determine how the approach would play out for districts and how the two models can work in concert to produce the best results for Ohio's schools.
2. The state needs to chart a course for long-term, sustainable education policy.
In an effort to focus on the state's current economic situation, Senate Republicans limited the scope of their proposals to the two years covered by the budget bill. That approach would leave Ohio without a plan for making long-term, sustainable improvements to the education of Ohio's students. While it is of course impossible to predict economic and cultural fluctuations or to control future legislatures, Ohio needs a vision for where it hopes to go over the next decade. The state can and should look beyond the typical budget cycle and set a broader vision for Ohio's schools.