Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
.JPG)
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > April > 26 > Entry
Editorial: Governor’s goals are good, but where’s money?
The hype and fury about Gov. Ted Strickland’s education reforms are overblown. Schools are not going to be much different, at least in the next two years.
The governor and lawmakers have just 60 days to agree on a two-year budget. Some of the big changes the governor wants probably will make it past the Democratic House of Representatives and the Republican Senate.
But even the governor’s Democratic allies — who made significant changes to how the governor proposed divvying up money in the near term— aren’t proposing to increase support for very many districts any time soon.
Meanwhile, the biggest policy changes would be phased in over 10 years. The state doesn’t have the money to pay for new, bold plans now, and, actually, schools would be cut in the upcoming budget if Washington were not giving Ohio stimulus money. Republicans are critical of the governor for creating a budget that relies on the federal dollars, but many also still support taking the money. Those views can’t be reconciled; if the state accepts the money and spends it (the feds won’t allow it to be saved), that inevitably creates a problem in 2011, when those funds run out.
That said, Republicans are absolutely correct that Gov. Strickland should not get credit for identifying sustained funding for the reforms he wants. They are also right that doing so likely would require a tax increase.
That hot question has been put off for another day by the governor, who will be running for re-election next year.
Gov. Strickland’s plan is ambitious. It pushes Ohio to think of itself as competing against the best education systems around the world. It requires more of students (moving away from proficiency tests and instead requiring all students to take the harder ACT exam). It asks more of teachers (who would teach more days a year). It requires more professional development. It sets new requirements about the kinds and numbers of professionals who would be in every school.
Gov. Strickland insists these ideas can be implemented — and paid for — if future leaders are committed enough to the goals. That’s easy for him to say; after all, he’s not going to be in office for the next decade.
Arguably the biggest change Gov. Strickland wants relates to how the state decides what to spend on schools. He would create a panel of about 25 experts to examine research and other states’ practices and then assign price tags to the expenses that make for excellent and effective schools.
In essence, the panel would decide the cost of educating children and then leave it to the legislature to figure out how to pay the tab.
Compared with Ohio’s historical approach — determining how much cash is available and then giving out that amount — the new process would set a higher bar.
But where would lawmakers find the money to pay for what unquestionably would be new demands? Would the panel recognize that the state’s responsibilities go beyond just funding schools?
Those are the multibillion-dollar questions.
If by 2011, say, the economy is recovering, money won’t be as tight, but Republicans and undoubtedly some Democrats are worried about creating expectations that can’t be met without raising taxes.
The critics, though, have no alternative to the governor’s plan.
Gov. Strickland is right to acknowledge that, in many communities, homeowners are tapped out when it comes to increasing their property taxes. He’s also right that Ohio should aim to standardize academic opportunities, ensuring that children from city, suburban and rural schools all have genuinely similar education options.
But a big battle lies ahead. Even if the governor gets much of what he wants, Ohio hasn’t settled on how to pay for goals that are as laudable as they are expensive.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Ohio politics, Scott Elliott
Comments
By max
April 26, 2009 6:36 AM | Link to this
There’s no money for this ~ people are not going to be happy campers w/ taxes being raised. And where is this “model” that Strickland keeps talking about in practice - in real life, not on paper??? What’s the point in doing something w/ schools if there aren’t any jobs in Ohio for them to get after completing an education….By Basil
April 26, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this
Like Barack Obama, Governor Strickland has been saying one thing and doing another-Strickland has just been doing it longer. There is virtually no funding attached to any of these “reforms.” It is no different than under Taft or Voinovich. Public Education has not and is not a priority in Ohio. Thanks Governor Strickland for a lot of talk and no action!By Informed Taxpayer
April 26, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this
Gov. Strickland would do well to ask the taxpayers to consider this question: If we “front-load” our taxes into school reforms aimed at reducing the effects of poverty on children whether they are in rural or urban schools (suburban and private schools are doing fairly well) so that those students can become productive members of society, wouldn’t we save money in the form of imprisonment, welfare costs, and so on? This economic downturn should make us examine why it is that public schools have, in the recent past, gone begging for funds while we don’t discuss the high cost of allowing too many to fall by the wayside because of where their parents live. That would require an honest discussion not noticeable in the comment sections of this paper, sadly.By Laura
April 26, 2009 9:01 PM | Link to this
Before the governor tries to implement major changes, he needs to fix the current funding problem using the standards we currently have and then find out what the public is willing to support. Given the way the public votes down local levies, I’m going to bet they won’t support any new standards if they require more taxes.By max
April 27, 2009 5:11 AM | Link to this
I agree Laura. It would be nice to see what the schools good to w/in the system that is already in place. Strickland is already funding the budget shortfall by raising all those fees and adding late fees ~ we didn’t have a choice in that. How many other things is he going do to raise money without us having a say? There is still 18 months till we can vote for him again. That’s a lot of time for a lot of damage.By RAW
April 28, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this
I have a more fundamental question regarding school funding. If I am paying local school tax in the form of levies, then why am I paying the state to support schools? Let us put aside for a moment that no one really knows where the state eduction funding comes from in the budget, not even lawmakers. I fell as though I am double-paying for a service. The big reform that needs to happen first is not the education standards, but avenues by which our schools are funded. This process needs to be clear before any other reforms can happen so that we know how much money is available. After that is determined, then we can figure out what reforms need to happen given the available funds.By Earl Moreo
May 4, 2009 8:41 PM | Link to this
This editorial and the related complaint on Strickland’s school funding on the editorial page in today’s DDN gave me a zazen moment. I like deep politicians, even when they are not of my party, but I really appreciate deep and laconic Democrats, being of their persuasion. Strickland is playing a wonderfully deep game, and up to now has gotten by with it. But John Husted at least has recognized the game that he may have already have lost: The Governor has used the well established republican strategy of kicking the can down the road with just a bit more finesse. Whoever gets Ted’s job next year, including Ted, has an instant funding problem on his hands that Democrats and Republicans alike see as requiring lots of higher taxes. The programs will not be something that, say, John Kasich will be able to cancle, so he will have to pay for them. The good Republicans who currently eye the Governorship as a desirable goal better calculate how they can keep their scalps when they find themselves forced to raise taxes. The current Gov merely needs enough lame ducks and dedicated, or insulated, legislators to raise the taxes, as he will be at the end of his public service and will be essentially untouchable. Whoever gets the Republican nod goes into the race damned if he wins and worse if he doesn’t. Governor Strickland has nothing to lose after he takes his oath for the last time.