Special kids get chance to play
Benefit held for crash victim
WSU vs. Milwaukee
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 > August > 16 > Entry
Editorial: Strickland’s new plan might prompt more levies
Gov. Ted Strickland’s new “evidence-based” school funding plan is supposed to ensure schools get the money that research says they need to educate children.
Perhaps it will. But, in the short run, it’s creating big headaches for school districts — and maybe the politicians who’ll have to defend the changes.
Gov. Strickland spent two years crafting a plan aimed at improving Ohio’s education system and changing the funding scheme. One major goal was to limit how often school districts have to ask voters for money.
Some of his changes are part the state budget that was passed last month. The Ohio Department of Education is briefing school officials now on how those changes will play out, but the best they can say is that the system will be completely different than the way the state allotted money previously.
What administrators need to know — how much money they will receive this school year and next — won’t be known until at least October.
This means that districts, which started a new financial year July 1, can only guess (and hope) that the funding will be roughly comparable to last year. This has put some school boards in a bind.
Consider Sugarcreek schools, which just passed two critical levies in May and August that are supposed to stabilize the budget and avert a deficit.
After this month’s levy win, Superintendent Keith St. Pierre remained cautious. Early projections showed Sugarcreek could actually see a slight decrease in state aid under the new model.
There’s also the question of mandates. Districts must, for instance, offer all-day kindergarten by the 2010-11 school year unless they’re given a waiver. But the state is still deciding the rules for getting waivers.
High-performing suburban districts like Sugarcreek think they can make a case for moving slowly to all-day kindergarten, which would phase in the costs of new classroom space and new teachers. But they don’t know if their argument will prevail.
Likewise, there are questions about how the state will adopt other features of Gov. Strickland’s plan, such as smaller class sizes. How will the state calculate student-teacher ratios? Will teachers’ aides, for instance, be factored in?
Those answers haven’t been spelled out and will affect hiring decisions and personnel costs.
Bob McClintock, business manager for Northmont schools, said he needs more information before he can deliver the district’s five-year forecast, which is normally due to the state by the end of October.
He also needs to inform the school board about the finances because the board is looking ahead to a renewal or replacement levy in 2010. About half the district’s revenue comes from state aid, so fluctuations can have a big effect.
“We need good information to make that choice,” he said. “This is so new and such a revolutionary, systemic change.”
West Carrollton Superintendent Rusty Clifford expects his district will be on the ballot in May with a 6.5-mill renewal levy last passed in 2007. But he thinks the district could need another levy soon thereafter, especially if new requirements aren’t funded by the state.
This is where it could get sticky for Gov. Strickland.
He’s said that the whole point of the coming changes are to limit the need for levies. But if districts are contradicting him, chances are good that voters are the ones who will think local school members have the story right.
Gov. Strickland’s school funding reforms are supposed to shift the burden for financing schools more toward the state, with the goal of reducing inequities between rich and poor communities. But with Ohio’s money tanking, any big step up in state aid won’t occur soon.
This is especially true for suburban districts — like Sugarcreek, Northmont and West Carrollton — because some extra aid in the new formula is being redirected toward poorer urban and rural districts.
Gov. Strickland is eager to say his plans are transforming education. Talk to school administrators who are trying to make the numbers work, and they’re not so sure the shift is for the better.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Comments
By Ice Bandit
August 16, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this
One of the sad truths of American life is that one can’t beat an education into the heads of the young and reluctant. And if we triple our education expenditures and more youth are hanging out at Third and Main than in a classrooms than it is money poorly spent. So here is the Old Bandito’s Ohio Education Plan, which the Governor can adopt or ignore; give local districts the maximum amount of money, power and autonomy and let the good districts educate while the bad districts will continue their downward spiral. Oakwood is a public school district whose scores compare with the best of private academies. The state should stop the practice of punishing successful districts so as to reward the schools where sloth and disinterest reign….By Basil
August 17, 2009 7:29 AM | Link to this
Sadly, this editorial is very true. Supporters keep saying that the funding model is totally different. If there is no more money-it will never be different. It’s just the same as always. A lot of words that mean nothing-especially nothing good for Ohio’s students.