DaytonDailyNews.com

site web

J. Kenneth Blackwell and Ted Strickland can't duck forever Ohioans' frustrations with the cost of supporting their schools.

One man will be elected governor and, when the honeymoon is over, he'll have to answer to taxpayers buffeted by school levies. For now, though, neither is offering serious or specific proposals.

Why? Because everything about finding a sensible way to fund schools is hard.

Cash-strapped state coffers already are being tapped for $8 billion a year for K-12 education (not counting funds for new schools and renovations). That total represents just under 40 percent of the budget, and is the state's single-largest expense.

One major problem with Ohio's funding system is its heavy reliance on the local property tax, which still divides districts between have's and have-not's. Some school advocates and incensed property owners would, if they could, shift all funding for schools to Columbus. But that's a practical — and political — impossibility. Replacing all the money raised by property taxes would require doubling Ohio's personal income tax rates or raising the state sales tax to an astounding 12 percent (from 5.5).

Blackwell goes for show, Strickland's details are few

No wonder Mr. Strickland responds to questions about school funding with grave expressions and talk of blue ribbon commissions, bipartisan cooperation, and someday putting a reform package to a statewide vote.

Mr. Blackwell, meanwhile, has advanced some policy proposals, but none adds up to a credible plan.

He, for instance, hopes to force major cuts in Medicaid spending, and then put that savings into public schools. Strapped taxpayers shouldn't expect to see that happen anytime soon. Promising to cut Medicaid is easy; actually doing it is not.

Mr. Blackwell also is campaigning on the "65 percent solution," which would require districts to devote 65 percent of funding on "classroom instruction." A few states are experimenting with this mandate, but the idea is more slogan than strategy. Even empirical studies have shown that similar programs don't necessarily improve student achievement or administrative efficiency.

But this idea and every other school funding reform that's been floated so far ignores a big question that Ohio voters should be asking both candidates: More school funding — to pay for what, exactly?

School costs receive little attention in funding debate

For all the "reports cards" and online databases devised to measure and display student achievement, and for all the hand-wringing about the best and fairest ways to increase money for schools, little attention is paid to the other side of the Ohio school funding coin — cost.

Salaries and benefits are the biggest and fastest growing expense. Look, for example, at what's happened in Ohio's six largest school districts, comparing the 2000-01 school year to 2004-05.

Student enrollment is down, and so is the number of teachers — in every district, often significantly.

Dayton's public schools, for example, had 19 percent fewer students, and lost 22 percent of their teachers. Cleveland's enrollment was lower by 13.9 percent, and the teachers in the district dropped 26.9 percent. Columbus lost 6.5 percent of its student body, and a whopping 28.5 percent of the teacher population.

These districts, though, weren't less expensive to operate once they had fewer students and teachers. Total expenditures in Cleveland were essentially level (down just 1.8 percent), while Dayton's rose 7.9 percent, and Columbus' were up 14.9 percent.

Where did the money go? "Instructional" expenditures were up significantly on a per-student basis: Columbus' rising by 16.6 percent, Dayton's by 30.4 percent and Cleveland's by 22.3 percent.

But look what happens when instructional spending is divided not by student, but by teacher.

(The state defines these expenses as the funds a district spends on teachers and teacher aides, as well as books, computers and other classroom materials. The largest share, though, by far is for teacher salaries and, significantly, benefits.)

On a per-teacher basis, instructional spending was up 35.4 percent in Dayton, 44.1 percent in Cleveland, and 52.6 percent in Columbus from just five years before.

What does this suggest? That rising compensation costs are hidden by attrition. School districts are using personnel cuts to fund "instructional" budgets, applying the savings to pay higher salaries and more expensive benefits to fewer teachers and other employees.

Staff cuts help finance fast rise in salaries and benefits

The rise in per-student classroom spending, in other words, doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in class size. Indeed, even with significant declines in student enrollment, the major urban districts had significantly more students per teacher in 2004-05 than in 2000-01 — except for Dayton and Cincinnati, where the ratio changed very little.

The benefits side also spelled trouble, with Ohio school districts increasingly looking like automakers. General Motors lamented last year about how $1,500 of the cost of each automobile goes to pay health insurance — "more per car on health care than on steel," complained former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca.

In education, the trend is the same. On average, $1,690 of the cost of educating an Ohio public school student went for employee benefits in 2003, according to a report by Standard & Poors — representing 19.75 percent of all public school spending, and a 42.38 percent increase over benefits in 1999.

Cutting staff has been the only way to swing healthy salary increases, year after year, while also paying 14 percent into the pension system, and absorbing double-digit increases in health insurance costs.

State officials and local school districts don't make it easy to find the particulars of cost increases, so some numbers aren't precise. But what's clear is that the growth in spending can't be sustained under any funding scheme.

If Messrs. Blackwell and Strickland are committed to equitable, adequate, and predictable school funding, they must master the details and explain to voters what they would do to keep high quality public schools affordable.