How Ohio's new plan came about

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has long made solving the state's school funding crisis a top priority. In his State of the State address in Jan. 2009 he unveiled a comprehensive proposal for reforming Ohio's education system and its approach to funding schools.

In that speech, he said:

“It is absolutely clear to me that simply tinkering with centuries-old education practices will not prepare Ohio’s children for success in college, for success in the workplace, or for success in life.”

Governor's proposal

Strickland introduced the Ohio Evidence-Based Model, an adaptation of a national approach designed to provide resources for teaching strategies shown by research to be most effective in improving student performance.

He also proposed changes to the state's tax policies to address problems that made it difficult for districts to keep pace with inflation and forced them to the ballot with repeated levy requests.

The funding changes were coupled with an education reform plan that called for such things as mandatory all-day kindergarten, longer school years, a teacher residency program, broader graduation requirements, smaller class sizes in lower grades and an emphasis on skills like teamwork, problem-solving and critical thinking.

Strengths and weaknesses

The governor's plan made important improvements to Ohio's school funding system. It:

based funding on research into what works.
made education a priority in a tough economy.
addressed tax policy issues.
emphasized 21-st century skills.

It also had significant shortcomings and some unresolved issues. It:

shortchanged poor districts because changes to the tax policy tended to favor wealthier districts.
underestimated some costs, causing the plan to be underfunded.
didn't give local districts enough control over how they spent their money.

Improvements

Ohio's House of Representatives addressed many of those problems. The House-approved version:

lessened the impact on poor districts by phasing in some changes in tax policy.
gave high-performing districts more flexibility in how they spent state dollars.
more accurately accounted for the needs of low-density rural districts.

However, it:

did not correct inadequate funding calculations in areas such as central administration, lead teachers and teacher benefits.
introduced an index designed to weight the funding formula more heavily for poor districts but whose effects were unclear.

The Senate plan

The Ohio Senate adopted a radically different approach to school funding, adopting a per-pupil funding model that would allow funding to follow students to whatever school they chose to attend. The approach aimed to address inequities among schools and give school-level educators more control over how money is spent.

Strengths and weaknesses

The Senate plan had several strong points. It:

encouraged innovation and parental involvement.
retained elements of the House plan that emphasized teacher quality.
allowed for a new kind of school levy introduced by the governor that could reduce the need for levy campaigns.
expanded all-day kindergarten to more economically disadvantaged children than were previously eligible.

Among its shortcomings were that it:

did not use research to determine what practices should be funded.
did not hold districts accountable for how they spent money.
failed to address the issue of the system's constitutionality and did not provide a long-term plan for school funding.
left in place a conflict in policies that caused in a illogical and punishing phenomenon called "phantom revenue."

Conflict and compromise

Complicating the fact that the two chambers of the General Assembly adopted conflicting budget approaches were new revenue estimates for the state. Revised figures projected a $3.2 billion shortfall, prompting the need for additional spending cuts and other measures to balance the budget.

After lengthy negotiations and three interim budgets, lawmakers narrowly passed a compromise two-year spending plan that included the evidence-based approach to funding and several significant education reforms, but relied on federal stimulus funds to maintain funding levels and phased in funding changes over 10 years.

Ohio funding and you

Where's the evidence?

The evidence-based funding model directs resources to successful practices. Current research and resources behind the model are compiled here.

Public reaction to education reforms

A poll conducted shortly after Gov. Ted Strickland announced hs education reform plan found clear support for such measures as all-day kindergarten, a residency program for teachers, lower teacher-student ratios in the early grades, broader graduation requirements, more emphasis on skills such as teamwork and problem-solving, and giving districts more authority to fire underperforming teachers.