FUNDING PUBLIC EDUCATION IN OHIO
WHERE ARE WE IN THE NEW CENTURY?
What has happened in the realm of funding public education in this state over the past three years. What has changed and why did it change? Is the issue settled once and for all? It's a complicated subject (there's an understatement!) that's constantly undergoing modification as legislators deal with the task of finding funds for 611 school districts, 4,000 school buildings, approximately 180,000 employees.(including faculty, administrators, and other staff) and 1.8 million public school students. Total annual expenditures are approximately $12 billion.
The Catalyst
In December 1991 a complaint was filed in Perry County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs, Nathan DeRolph and five school districts, sued the State claiming that Ohio's method of funding public education was unconstitutional. In July, 1994, Judge Linton Lewis ruled for the plaintiffs (who numbered about 500 school districts by this time). He determined that Ohio's system of funding public education violated Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution, which requires the state to provide a "thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." Judge Lewis's decision was overturned by the Fifth District Court of Appeals, forcing the plaintiffs to the Ohio Supreme Court. On March 24, 1997 in a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court declared that Ohio's funding system was indeed unconstitutional. The court gave the Legislature one year to remedy the situation.
What were the bases for the Court's decision? Basically there were four major findings:
The Foundation Program (State Basic Aid): The General Assembly determined a funding level based on how much money was available for education. The Court said that "they should determine how much is needed for this purpose, and then should fund it."
Local Property Tax: Emphasis on local property tax money to fund schools creates inequities among the districts. As a result, some districts have much more money to spend than others do.
Borrowing: The state cannot force school districts to borrow money to stay open.
School Facilities: The state does not provide sufficient assistance to school districts for construction and maintenance of school buildings.
The most important aspect of the Supreme Court's decision is it reaffirmed that providing adequate funding for public education is a state responsibility. It is not primarily the responsibility of local government.
The Legislative Response
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision and mandate to the Legislature, Ohio legislators had a very busy summer in 1997. A Task Force on Education Funding was established. It was headed by Dr. John Augenblick and charged with developing a process to calculate the cost of a basic education. Additionally, the task force was asked to recommend changes in the calculation of the cost for special education, gifted education, vocational education, transportation, and "cost of doing business" rates. After eliminating the wealthiest 5% and the poorest 5% of all Ohio districts, Dr. Augenblick identified 102 districts that met certain performance standards and could serve as a basis for determining the cost of an adequate basic education. He determined that in Fiscal Year (FY)1998, the cost of a basic education in Ohio was $4,153 per student; that sum did not include monies for building repair and maintenance.
After Dr. Augenblick's Task Force submitted its report, several pieces of legislation were enacted by the General Assembly. The GA felt that measures of accountability to taxpayers were necessary, and they passed the following bills in late summer, 1997:
Substitute Senate Bill (SB) 55. When paired with House Bill (HB) 412, addresses school performance and fiscal accountability. SB 55 establishes the mechanism whereby school districts are identified as being effective, needing continuous improvement, academic watch, or academic emergency. These characterizations are based on dropout rate, graduation rate, and the percentage of students who pass proficiency tests. A report card on each district will be published. Other features of the bill include: increased graduation requirements from 18 to 21 units; passing the 10th grade level proficiency tests for graduation; and required retention, summer remediation, or intervention for students who have not made satisfactory progress in reading at the fourth grade level. The bill also permits the creation of community schools in the Big Eight districts, expands interdistrict open enrollment, and requires that student attendance in school be considered in district policies for promotion.
Substitute HB 412. Increased the role of the state in monitoring the fiscal operation of school districts. A School District Solvency Assistance Fund was established to provide state advancements to financially troubled school districts to enable them to remain solvent. The act also requires every school district to set aside a portion of their annual revenue in a Budget Reserve Fund (5%), a Capital and Maintenance Fund (4%), and a Textbook and Instructional Materials Fund (4%). Additionally, there are other items that deal with school districts' finances.
HB 650. This is the very important piece of legislation that revises the basic aid distribution to schools. One major component of the bill is the establishment of a separate education budget. The bill set up a formula amount based on objective criteria and beginning July 1, 2001 requires that every six years, a legislative committee must select a rational method for calculating the costs of an adequate education. Education must be funded first, with appropriations for other agencies determined after an "adequate" education budget is passed.
HB 650 replaces the per pupil amount for basic aid with a figure for the "base cost of an adequate education." It counts special education and vocational education students in average daily membership; changes funding for gifted, disadvantaged pupils, and transportation; phases-out equity aid. Additionally the bill accelerates the cost-of-doing-business factor phase-in up to 18% by 2004; provides districts that fall below the statewide valuation per pupil and are at 23 or more mills with an "enhancement payment" of up to two mills. It also separates the education budget from the biennial budget process.
HB 650 set the base cost of an adequate education in 1999 as $4063 and adjusted it for inflation to $4414 by FY 2002. The base will be phased in as follows: $3851 (FY 1999); $4038 (FY 2000); $4226 (FY 2001); and $4414 (FY 2002). There are caps imposed, however, on how much a district may receive. In FY 1999-2002 districts receive either the greater of a 10% increase in total state foundation funds or a 6% increase in per pupil funding for the previous year.
By FY 2000, HB 650 phases out the income factor--which was originally established to assist districts with below-average personal income--for districts above the state average income level. Legislators kept the factor in place for districts below the state average income level. The effect is that low wealth districts keep more, and higher wealth districts lose less.
School districts are required to tax themselves at least 23 mills, but may, if voters approve, levy millage in addition to the first 23. In addition, the state provides funds for special education, vocational education, gifted education, DPIA, transportation, and equity aid, and various other categories.
In an effort to fund the new requirements, legislators placed two issues on the May, 1998 ballot. One issue would have increased available monies for education by increasing the sales tax by a half-cent and earmarking it for education. The other would have allowed the General Assembly to issue bonds for improving school facilities throughout the state. Because of several problems inherent in the first issue, however, many groups united to defeat it. (The LWVO was one of the groups.) Both issues were soundly defeated at the polls.
The Facilities Situation
In 1990, the Ohio Department of Education surveyed public school facilities throughout the state. They found that over 33% of all elementary and junior high schools and over 20% of all high schools should be replaced. Indeed, more than half of Ohio's public school buildings were built in or prior to 1940; ninety buildings were constructed in the 19th century.
Throughout the 1990s, the Legislature dedicated funding to facilities construction and maintenance. SB 102 appropriated $300 million for facilities in low-tax-base districts and the eight largest urban school districts. The bill also exempted school districts from prevailing wage requirements for school construction projects. HB 215, the Biennial Budget Bill passed in 1997, added $250 million for facilities in low-tax-base districts. HB 850, the capital appropriations bill passed in March 1999, set aside $305 million in new funding for school facilities. In all, approximately $1.6 billion has been appropriated during the last decade for school building contraction; these monies are generally targeted to low-wealth districts. We should be aware, however, that it has been estimated by some consultants that Ohio's school building needs total over $10 billion, and our facilities rank near the bottom when compared to the other 49 states.
And Now For the Rest of the Story...
The school funding formula is adjusted in each biennial state budget cycle. Last year, the education budget bill, HB 282, was separated from the general budget bill and passed in June 1999. In this bill, the per pupil allocation was increased to $4052 in FY 2000 and to $4294 in FY 2001. The millage requirement is still 23 mills.
After the State Legislature revamped its approach to funding education, increased the per pupil allocation, and defined measures of academic and fiscal accountability, they felt that the State had met the Supreme Court's mandate. However, Judge Linton Lewis, who had been appointed by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not this was indeed the case, disagreed. He held that the funding system was still unconstitutional. The defendants then filed briefs with the Supreme Court asking that Judge Lewis's decision be reversed. The two sides (the State and a coalition called the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy) argued their cases again before the Supreme Court in November 1999. It was at this point that the LWVO filed its amicus curiae brief for the plaintiffs. Although a decision is expected at any time, nothing has been announced as this VOTER goes to press.
Meanwhile, in November 1999, voters passed a constitutional amendment that allows the state to issue bonds for the purpose of public school and university building projects. Legislation is now under consideration in both the Ohio House and Senate that would implement the sale of bonds for that purpose. Additionally, the legislature has agreed that monies from the tobacco settlement will be used for school construction.
We have many positions on financing public education in Ohio. They are LWVO positions, and we act on them in the Ohio legislature. The LWVO Board based its decision to file its amicus brief for the plaintiffs on those positions. You may review those positions at the end of this article.
The story of public education in America over the last 100 years has been one of increasing access. In 1900 only 6% of all young people graduated from high school; more than half failed to get as far as eighth grade. Today, 83% graduate from high school. While this is a significant achievement, it has been tarnished by the question of equity and adequacy within the system. In 1954 the United States Supreme Court declared separate but equal school systems segregated by race unconstitutional. Today, the conversation around equity is stronger than ever. Here in Ohio we are waiting to see what the courts think of the legislature's latest attempt to equalize funding. Along with equity in funding, many feel a standardized accountability system will help to ensure equity and efficiency in our public schools.
Why testing?
There are two reasons for this trend toward standardized accountability systems. For most of our history, public schools have always been under the domain of local school boards. The community elected citizens to oversee their public schools. As we have looked for ways to equalize funding through state and federal programs, we have also lost some of that local control. Today, we are operating under a standards system designed by the state.
In addition, many people feel that our public schools are not as good as they used to be, nor are they as good as they need to be. In 1983 the Department of Education issued a report on public education, "A Nation at Risk, The Imperative for Education Reform." The study reported "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people." A list of recommendations included:
 Increasing high school graduation requirements (the New Basics) in English, mathematics, science and social studies, adding a computer science requirement and foreign language for college-bound students.
Adopting rigorous and measurable standards.
Increasing time spent on the New Basics, through more efficient use of the school day a longer school day, or a lengthened school year.
Improve the teaching profession through higher graduation criteria, improved salaries, longer contracts, career ladders, incentives to attract people to the teaching profession, and involving master teachers in teacher preparation programs and supervision of teachers during their probationary years.
Hold elected officials and educators responsible for results.
Expect citizens to provide fiscal support to effect improvement.
From "A Nation at Risk" a list of national goals was developed. Today, these goals are known as Goals 2000. Goals 2000 supports state efforts to develop clear and rigorous standards for what every child should know and be able to do. Forty-nine states have developed standards and accountability systems that are supposed to measure student achievement. Iowa is the only state that did not adopt a standards approach
Ohio's System
Ohio's accountability system is based on standardized testing. Standardized testing is a relatively inexpensive way to collect data on students.
For students:
Testing fourth, sixth, ninth, tenth graders who have not passed the ninth grade test and twelfth grades.
Tests are administered in reading, math, writing, science, and citizenship.
Fourth graders who do not pass the reading test will be retained beginning in 2000. This is the fourth grade guarantee. (In 98-99, 60% of four graders passed the reading test. During his January 2000 State of the State address, Governor Taft proposed that the fourth grade test be given to third graders, on the premise that this will help more students pass the fourth grade test.)
The ninth grade test will be phased out and a tenth grade test will be required for graduation, beginning with the current seventh grade class.
A higher score will be needed to pass the tests than was needed in the past, beginning in 2000.
For districts:
Report cards are published based on 27 standards-25 of them the results of the standardized tests.
75% or more of students must pass the test for a district to meet the standard.
90% graduation rate standard
93% attendance rate standard.
At this time the state is still putting together the criteria for continuous improvement plans. If a district is on Academic Watch or Academic Emergency' someone from the Department of Education is assigned to assist with the improvement plan.
Ohio would also like to participate in the National assessment of Educational Progress testing program. This would compare Ohio to other states and the nation as a whole. At this time, however, there are not enough districts interested in participating in the program for Ohio to qualify.
Support for testing
While many legislators and citizens are generally supportive of the testing program, not everyone is convinced that high-stakes standardized testing does much to improve the quality of education for all children.
In 1997, FairTest, The National Center for Fair & Open Testing conducted a survey on states' accountability systems. According to "Testing Our Children: A Report Card on State Assessment Systems," two-thirds of the states are in need of improvement. Ohio's system is need of major improvement. Only one state, Vermont, was evaluated as having a model system.
Fair Test used the "Principles and Indicators for Student Assessment Systems," a 1995 publication by a coalition of education and civil rights groups working together through the National Forum on Assessment as criteria for the study. In broad terms, the "Principles" calls for assessments that are:
Grounded in solid knowledge of how students learn; Connected to clear statements of what is important for students to learn;
Flexible enough to meet the needs of a diverse student body; and
Able to provide students with the opportunity to actively produce work and demonstrate their learning.
"The Principles and Indicators" calls for large-scale assessments that combine sampling from classroom-based assessment data, such as portfolios and learning records, with performance exams administered to samples of students. In this way, essential standards are promoted and accountability information is gathered, while schools are encouraged to become communities of learning that support all their students. Only one state, Vermont, approaches this model, though elements of the assessments in a few other states are headed in this direction.
The companies that write the proficiency tests for the state of Ohio, and other states around the country, do not recommend their product be used as the only factor to determine promotion or graduation. Moreover, in Ohio, Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction, has said that she would like to see the standards and testing program better aligned.
In a study of teachers conducted by the Ohio Coalition for Equity of School Funding, only 24% of the elementary teachers and 30% of the secondary teachers felt that the state proficiency tests contributed to the learning process. Many teachers complained that they were forced to "teach to the tests" and that this often hindered rather than helped them to achieve the goals expressed in the curriculum standards.
Many are concerned about the 40% of Ohio school children who may not move on to fifth grade under the new reading test requirement. Almost all of the research on grade retention recommends that students not be held back. The consequences are enormous in terms of a youngster's long-term development. It is well known that students who are over-age by junior high school are the ones who usually drop out of school altogether. Remediation is obviously necessary for those who cannot pass the reading test, but blanket retention is not a good solution to this problem.
There is concern that measuring student achievement only through testing is unfair. Some students are not good test takers. Also, there is concern about racial bias in standardized testing. Many educators prefer using an assessment system that asks students to "show what you know."
Parent groups around the country are forming to contest many of these testing programs. Virginia, Massachusetts, Chicago and Wisconsin have all seen parent groups develop parent education and lobbying plans to bring changes to accountability systems. Students in Chicago and other areas are also beginning to form protest groups. They see the present system as unfair and inadequate. Ohio has some groups forming ;n the Columbus and Akron area. Last year a professor from Ohio State kept his child home during testing week to protest.
There seems to be broad consensus for standards and accountability systems. There is still much debate on what those systems need to look like so that student learning is enhanced and reporting to the public is fair and accurate. In addition, we cannot address accountability without talking about equity. Before we can hold all children accountable to the same high standards, we need to ensure they all have the opportunity to attend high quality schools.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following materials were relied upon heavily in the preparation of this material:
Ohio Business Roundtable, "Straight Talk About School Funding. Columbus," July, 1997.
Richard Rothstein, "The Way We Were ? The Myths and Realities of America's Student Achievement", Century Foundation, New York, 1998
"A Nation at Risk", United States Department of Education, April 1983
Ohio Department of Education web site: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/
FairTest website: http//fairtest.org
"Basket of Essential Learning Resources for the 21st Century", Ohio Coalition for Equity of School Funding, Columbus, Ohio, October, 1999
Ohio Department of Education, "The DeRolph Decision". A 5-page summary of the decision and what the legislative response was.
Joan Platz, "The 1997-1998 Legislative Changes to Ohio's System for Funding Schools". LWVO Education Fund, 1998. Extrapolated from 1998 Primary Election Information.
New Ohio Institute, "Money Where It Matters; Meeting Ohio's Education Needs for the 21st Century" Toledo, 1997.
LWV of Ohio Education Fund, "Financing Education in Ohio". Columbus, 1990.
LWVO POSITION ON EDUCATION FINANCE
LWVO supports the following principles as the role of the state in funding elementary and secondary education in Ohio:
9. LWVO supports a funding system for public elementary and secondary education that is accountable and responsive to the taxpayers. LWVO believes that public funds should be used only for public schools. (Adopted May 1994)
10. LWVO supports a guarantee by the state of a realistic level of per pupil expenditure in all school districts, including compensatory education programs where needed. (Adopted March 1969)
11. The equalizing function of the distribution formula for Foundation Basic Aid should be enhanced by decreasing the use of Basic Aid Guarantees. (Adopted January 1985)
12. Additional state education funding to school districts should be allocated primarily through Foundation Basic Aid, as these moneys are unrestricted in use (Adopted January 1985)
13. State aid should be distributed to compensate for variations among school districts in their ability to raise local revenue to fund education. (Adopted May 1991)
14. The state aid formula should be calculated to reflect the effects of the tax reduction factor on the amount of revenue school districts can raise through property taxes. (Adopted May 1991)
15. The state aid formula should be calculated to reflect income wealth of school districts. (Adopted May 1991)
16. The state aid formula should be calculated to reflect: (Adopted May 1991)
a. the actual costs to school districts for state mandated programs;
b. meeting the educational needs of the children within the district;
c. consideration of the economic/geographic characteristics of school districts statewide.
17. The state should be able to assist school districts in capital improvements and building construction to comply with appropriate codes in order to ensure health and safety. (Adopted May 1991)
18. Tax revenue from commercia/industrial/mining/ public utility property should be distributed to compensate for variations in taxable wealth among school districts. (Adopted May 1991)
19. The General Assembly should establish a method to minimize fluctuations in state funding for elementary and secondary education programs. (Adopted May 1991)
20. The state share of the cost of pupil transportation should be separated into two budget line items: public and nonpublic. (Adopted January 1985)
21. The functions and operations of the county school system should be evaluated for possible action by the State Board of Education and/or the legislature. (Adopted January 1985)
LWVO supports the following principles as the role of the total community in financing elementary and secondary education in Ohio:
22. Individual school districts should be required to assume a reasonable share of the financial burden and should retain the option of increasing per pupil expenditure beyond this level through local taxes. (Adopted March 1969)
23. School districts should be participants in the decision-making process when tax abatements are being considered (Adopted May 1991)
April 2000
|
|
