Firefighters dress up for softball game
House fire in Dayton
You've Been Spotted: SummerFest
OTHER VOICES
Randy Overbeck: Cuts for Reading Recovery don't serve state's children
Monday, March 24, 2008
In February, Gov. Ted Strickland directed state department heads to identify budget reductions in response to slowing tax revenues caused by the sluggish economy. For all involved, this is a painful process. But, for those under the aegis in the Ohio Department of Education, it was more painful for some than for others.
A review of the cuts by Superintendent Susan Tave Zelman revealed some interesting anomalies. Perhaps, examples from the Office of Literacy will serve to illustrate.
Extras
Most program cuts ranged from 3 percent to 4 percent. For example, for the State Institutes for Reading Improvement — a new, untried initiative funded at $18 million — this reduction is 3.79 percent over two years.
However, the Reading Recovery Training Network, with a budget of only $1.8 million, was hit with an astounding cut of 20 percent in the first year and 0 percent in the second, for an average reduction of 10 percent.
Other program initiatives, such as the Waterford Project and Reading Summits, were not slated for any reductions at all.
Such choices are cause for concern about the decision-making process Zelman used. On the one hand, you have the Reading Recovery Network, which serves scores of districts and thousands of children statewide, receiving the largest first-year cut of any significant program on the education department roster.
This is the same Reading Recovery program that has served struggling first-grade readers in Ohio for the past 25 years and the same Reading Recovery that recently earned the highest marks from the "What Works" Clearinghouse from the U. S. Department of Education. This is the same Reading Recovery program that serves as the cornerstone of the reading improvement program for schools across the state.
No other program in the education department roster carries such impressive credentials. The new SIRI initiative may turn out to be positive — though the numerous problems of the first eight months do not bode well — but it is hardly a sure bet.
Other initiatives, such as the Literacy Summits, may be a nice addition, though hardly critical to schools' success and certainly not needed in a tight budget year.
The Waterford Project, which was reviewed by the same federal "What Works" panel, did not receive good marks and yet emerged unscathed in the budget battle.
Finally, one other aspect of these decisions needs to be questioned. While the reductions within each state department were left to the discretion of the head, Strickland's directive was clear:
Whenever possible, the cuts were to have as little impact upon the end customer as possible. With the huge reduction of the Reading Recovery Training Network, districts will have to absorb much of the 20 percent cut this year or cut services to their most needy children.
Clearly neither option is desirable, or what Strickland wanted. Fortunately, most districts, like mine, will always come down on the side of children.
For those of us in the field — actually devoted to serving children on the ground — this is but one more example of questionable decision-making by the state superintendent and her staff.
Having been involved in the agonizing process of budget-cutting at the local level several times, I have empathy for the difficult task Zelman faced.
But it gives me pause to wonder what knowledge base or priorities she used in protecting such department initiatives as Literacy Summits and the Waterford Project and chopping the critical resources districts need like Reading Recovery.
I have to agree with Strickland's assessment. Those of us in the field have learned the hard way — the best we can expect from Columbus is tepid support, a heavy hand and faulty vision.
Randy Overbeck lives in Lebanon and is assistant superintendent of Xenia Community Schools.
