Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
American Idol 2012 finale
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > January > 18 > Entry
School Funding: Welcome to Wyoming
Make no mistake about it — Wednesday’s proposed constitutional amendment would be a radical change for Ohio. If the amendment makes it to the ballot and is passed, it will make Ohio one of the few states that will determine how much money goes to schools based solely on the “actual” cost of educating kids, as determined by a new statewide committee.
(Here is today’s main story on the proposal.)
But the amendment goes farther than that, establishing a student’s constitutional right to a “high quality public education.” That is a far higher standard for the legislature to maintain than what the constitution currently requires — that lawmakers maintain a “thorough and efficient system” of schools.
And it also makes profound structural changes in the way the state’s political structure manages its education systems and its budget process.
Perhaps the best model for what Ohio wants to try is Wyoming, but even that state’s system wouldn’t match Ohio for uniqueness.
Wyoming’s system resulted from a court order to change that state’s funding system, which the state’s top court found both inequitable and underfunded. To determine adequate funding, the state turned to economist Richard Rothstein and a colleague for a plan.
The result is known as the “basket of educational goods.” State officials routinely go through a process of determining the attributes of a “model school” — determining, for instance, how many teachers are needed based on a “standard” class size and deciding, say, whether the model elementary school should have auxiliary staff, like nurses, counselors, etc.
Once the attributes of the model school are decided, state officials set a cost for those services by looking at data from Wyoming and neighboring states. That “actual cost” of education then becomes the basis for funding schools.
This is where critics of Ohio’s plan will say the potential is there for an escalation in costs.
Right now, the legislature considers many factors to decide how much to set aside for schools. But the conversation begins like this — “How much have we got and what can we afford?”
Under the proposed amendment, the state board of education and a new “Education Advisory Commission” will follow the Wyoming model — determining the attributes of a quality education, setting a per student cost for that and presenting that dollar figure to the legislature for funding.
There is a good chance the funding level using this method will be more, since it is based on what is needed to educate kids rather than on how much money the state has and what lawmakers decide they can afford to set aside for schools.
But the legislature can only override the new funding level if a three-fifths majority in both houses agree — a high standard. And even if that happened, the state supreme court would have to sign off on the legislature’s new figure — verifying that it is adequate to fund the model school.
Education also must be funded first under the amendment, leaving lawmakers to figure out how to fund other state services with the money that is leftover.
What made even supporters of public schools — such as the state’s big city mayors — back off from the plan was that it has the potential to raise state spending but does not provide for any new revenue. Many, including Dayton Superintendent Percy Mack, expected a 1 percent sales tax to be part of the amendment, assuring new money for new costs.
Why was the new tax left out? Perhaps because, as some supporters said, tax policy is best left to elected officials and kept out of the constitution. Or perhaps promoters of the amendment thought it would be harder to pass with a tax attached. Gov. Ted Strickland and legislative leaders also are wary of the proposal, as it takes much control for budgeting away from them.
Assuming the amendment makes it to the voters as a ballot amendment in November, it will be a complicated measure to explain to voters.
What do you think of this proposed change to school funding in Ohio?
(Image credit: http://www.oars.com/)
Permalink | Comments (11) | Categories: School Funding
Comments
By Tom
January 26, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this
I read with great interest the editorial view of the proposed constitional amendment to change the method that we fund schools. I agree with you that the method that is proposed by “The Getting It Right for Ohio’s Future” is not the correct way to modify school funding. You were correct when you stated that the amendment requires the State Board of Education to determine what monies are needed for a “high quality” education, whatever that means. What you left out is that the State Board of Education is also to appoint an 18 member board of non-elected people to help the State Board to determine what that expenditure will be. That brings the total to 37 people who will make this most important decision. Please keep this next fact in the front of your mind. Only 11 of the 19 State School Board seats are elected. The other 8 are appointed by the governor. That means that the 37 people who will make the final decision as to how much we spend on education only 11 are elected. I believe our forefathers called that “Taxation without Representation”. We fought a revolutionary war over this principal.By daytondriver
January 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
Somewhat unrelated, but still related: If DPS is so short of monies, how was the operations unit able to purchase a global positioning system to monitor all district vehicles? The memo announcing said GPS system was passed out to DPS employees today.By Keith
January 22, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
I find it amusing that the teachers and their associations are being blamed already if things don’t go as certain groups would have them go. Not a good sign. It’s the groups not wanting their own little facet of laws and practice changed that has us in the current mess: religious groups wanting public money (more of it) for parochial schools, charter/community schools were started as a solve-all solution, no tax increases on property for older folks who don’t care about kids in school because theirs already graduated and they don’t want to pay for someone else’s kids but someone else paid for theirs to get an education, and the Republicans who hoped to break the teacher associations and decrease salaries and lower number of school districts in Ohio to reduce total cost. But that ain’t worked… .. . . . . . . . .Now we have a setup that’s going to let the Department of Education headed by Zealman decide what should be the level of education—they’re the ones who totally bought into No Child Left Behind rather than barely bowing to the requires, as did other states. I’ve decided I’m against the plan. We used Minnesota’s pattern for open enrollment as a solution to the “bad schools” years ago; now we’re going to copy Wyoming. We aren’t Wyoming.By Mary
January 19, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
I was pointed to www.rightforohio.org to read the actual amendment - about 4 pages long. Supposedly, the basket is no more. The State Board of Education will determine the components of a quality education - whatever that is. The words thorough and efficient are also used. The legislature is involved in approving the budget, including the budget for the education commission. So that means the legislature can still tie the knots. The words used to describe what the commission really will do other than “bureaucrat” have already been dumped by my brain. I guess I will have to go back and read that part again. However, the 18 member commission seems to be stacked heavily in favor of union and education representatives - which begs the question, is this to improve education or take care of unions. Parents are never mentioned.By lou
January 19, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
Money for schools should come 1st. I have always worked with children and not always in education. What I see is that we really do not care about our children or the elderly. We always put their NEEDS last and others WANTS 1st.By Mary
January 19, 2007 7:46 AM | Link to this
Scott, that is why I am confused. I will try to check on this a little more. However, at some point isn’t it difficult to vote all the details in a public vote and exclude the legislature from the process?By Scott Elliott
January 18, 2007 7:50 PM | Link to this
Mary, I’m not sure what your friend means. This is a constitutional amendment so whatever the legislature thinks about it or has rejected in the past doesn’t make much difference. If voters approve, the amendment goes into the constitution and everyone will be required to live with this process.By Mary
January 18, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this
According to a knowledgeable educational lobbyist on another list,and whom I greatly respect, Ohio’s general assembly has already rejected the concept of a basket of educational services and this will not apply to the current amendment. (I am not sure what this all means). Also, isn’t Wyoming an entirely different state demographically than Ohio - sparsely populated, no major urban centers, etc. I will not assume the amendment means less taxes for me personally, or that tax dollars will be wisely spent.By Rob
January 18, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
Can you sense the desire for change? The current inequity of the present system has been declared Unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court yet “our” lawmakers ignore the situation. Well, the chickens are coming home…By School Supporter
January 18, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this
“far higher standard” does not fairly represent the issue. Yes, “fundamental right” is the highest standard for civil liberties review, like life and liberty. However, “high quality” is so vaguely defined it may mean lower quality than currently indicated by case law and administrative code. This is not so much a “far higher standard” as a “far more generous standard.” Just the opposite of Meijer: Higher prices, lower standards.By Paul Nardini
January 18, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this
Scott what are your thoughts on this proposal. I certainly believe something needs to be done but I’m not sure this will fly. Allowing the legislature to determine the method of funding is a good idea if they indeed do it!!