The Education Gadfly

Ohio can boast of praiseworthy gains over the past decade in making school funding more equitable across districts. The next step must be to make funding fairer within districts, according to a new report--Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance--from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (see here). This imperative also gives Ohio the opportunity to modernize its public-education finance system to keep pace with powerful changes in the education system itself.

To mitigate the school-finance inequities that remain within districts and gear school funding toward the realities of student mobility, school choice, and effective school-based management, the report recommends that Ohio embrace weighted student funding (WSF). Weighted student funding makes equity a reality within districts by allocating resources based on the needs of individual students and by sending dollars directly to schools rather than lodging most spending decisions at the district level. It represents a fundamental shift in public-education finance by redirecting money from paying for programs, buildings, and administrative staff at district headquarters toward paying for the education of real children in actual classrooms.

Ohio's funding system is antiquated--as are funding systems in most states. It simply has not kept pace with student mobility, school-level accountability, or historic advances on the school-choice front. Today, one in seven Ohio students is educated in a school other than his or her neighborhood district school. Families, especially in urban areas, increasingly change schools during the course of their children's K-12 careers and more of them select options other than their assigned district schools, options that include magnet schools, community (charter) schools, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) schools. Yet there is no mechanism to ensure that as students move from one school to another, resources move, too.

Under weighted student funding:

Dollars follow students to the public schools that they actually attend. A high- poverty student, for example, would be funded in whatever school he or she enrolls in. That money also would move with the student to a different school;
Spending is calibrated to each student's needs. It costs more to educate disadvantaged, disabled, and non-English speaking youngsters. WSF allots resources accordingly; and
Principals gain the flexibility to spend their schools' budgets in ways that maximize results for their pupils. Funds arrive at schools as real dollars, not staff positions or categorical programs.

Fund the Child was written by expert analysts at the University of Dayton's School of Education and Allied Professions and at Public Impact, a North Carolina-based education policy consulting firm. The report's conclusions and recommendations affirm those of thoughtful groups that have already urged Ohio to move toward weighted student funding. These include McKinsey & Co., Achieve, and the school funding subcommittee of the State Board of Education.

Weighted student funding ensures that the money Ohio spends on public education, about $16.8 billion annually, is spent more effectively across schools. For example, if teachers with different experience levels and credentials were evenly distributed around a district, per-pupil spending on teacher pay would be about equal from school to school. In reality, studies have shown that more experienced and higher-paid teachers tend to gravitate toward more affluent schools (and schools attended by better-behaved children, often in wealthier neighborhoods) as they accumulate experience and degrees. Further, per-pupil funding levels are only loosely related to the proportion of a school's students living in poverty. For instance, the Fordham report shows that despite educating a pupil population (of similar numbers) that is predominantly low-income (84 percent), the Columbus City Schools' Avondale Elementary receives $1,500 less per-pupil than Gables Elementary, where the student population is just 41 percent disadvantaged. Even more glaring, some Columbus schools are funded at a level similar to those in the wealthier suburb of Bexley, while other city schools are funded at a level closer to poorer districts.

The movement toward WSF is a natural evolution for school funding in Ohio. The state, for example, has already moved toward "weighting" through its special education funding, though not toward portability. Still, while Ohio has made a start at targeting education funding according to the needs of individual children, most school dollars are doled out without regard to student circumstances. Even when they are, districts may not channel the additional dollars to the school that a child actually attends. Schools serving the most challenging students and operating in the toughest neighborhoods rarely receive funding equal to the challenges of serving those children effectively.

The principles are simple and they work to create a more responsive system. Just fund education according to student needs, make sure the money follows the child to his or her actual school, and give principals the authority to spend the money for the children in their schools.

Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance can be viewed and downloaded here.

By Terry Ryan and Mike Lafferty

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capital Matters

Inside ODE's budget cuts

After being dragged over the coals by Governor Ted Strickland in his State of the State Address, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has identified $101.2 million worth of budget cuts (see here) to help the governor pare $733 million from state government spending.

The $733 million target could be just the beginning if Ohio's economy and the state's tax take don't improve, and as many as 2,700 jobs could be eliminated throughout state government (see here). Estimates of the potential deficit run as much as $1.9 billion for the two-year budget, although the governor has said he would dip into the state's $1 billion rainy day fund to lessen the impact if more cuts are needed (see here).

The education department will save $29 million each year by returning unspent money to the General Revenue Fund (GRF) and releasing prior year encumbrances. The remaining savings will come from the department's operating budget. Cuts were made to a variety of programs and services, though no reductions were made to basic aid to schools or early childhood education programs.

Ohio's 60 educational service centers saw their budgets cut by 9.6 percent, or $5 million, in each fiscal year. Efforts to boost student achievement in reading also took a hit. Next year's allocation for the state's literacy training for teachers was reduced by 4.8 percent ($501,000). The grant program that funds literacy prevention and intervention services in school-improvement status buildings took a $582,000 hit.

The funding to subsidize the application fee for teachers seeking certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and reward teachers who achieve certification was chopped by $2 million (or roughly 20 percent) per year--but this cut probably won't hurt much in practice. Ohio offers up to $2,200 per applicant for fees and provides stipends of $2,500 per year and $1,000 per year to NBPTS-certified teachers. Last fiscal year, 361 teachers utilized the application dollars, 1,908 received the $2,500 stipend, and 337 received the $1,000 stipend--for a total of about $5.9 million.

Programs providing continued education beyond high school will have to tighten their belts. For fiscal year 2009, ODE cut $402,000 (4.8 percent) of the funding for early-college high schools, $1.9 million (9.9 percent) from the allocation for post-secondary adult career-technical education, and $567,000 (10 percent) from the budget for supplemental post-secondary enrollment participation.

The department cut $3 million per year from its $77 million budget to support the statewide testing system. The state may well be able to carry out its assessments despite this 3.8 percent cut, but Ohio's students and schools could still be affected: ODE is permitted to spend funds left in this line item to develop end-of-course exams--a key recommendation in the 2006 Achieve and McKinsey & Co. report, Creating a World-class Education System in Ohio (see here).

The department also cut 16 percent, or $505,000, of next year's allocation to train educators in the use of value-added data--the same year that value-added data will begin affecting school ratings on the Local Report Card.

The department realized smaller savings by trimming earmarks--many of which do not make clear their connection to the department's mission or to improving student achievement. GRF line item 200-433 sets aside $100,000 per year for the Contemporary Arts Center for "art education for children and a children's museum;" GRF line item 200-431 earmarks $250,000 annually "to support Amer-I-Can," but attaches no purpose or funding parameters to the money; and GRF line item 200-514 provides $40,000 per year for "statewide coordination of the activities of the Ohio Young Farmers." ODE eliminated the Contemporary Arts Center's funding in both fiscal years and trimmed Amer-I-Can's and Ohio Young Farmers' by about 10 percent each year.

By Emmy L. Partin

State sets requirements for STEM instructors

Currently, at least 20 Ohio public schools are seeking high school math and science teachers (see here). When the first STEM schools open next year, administrators should have an easier time filling such positions, thanks to licensure exceptions included in the biennial budget bill. Hiring the right teachers is critical at all schools, and the STEM program's success hinges of the quality of the people in the classrooms.

H.B. 119 requires the State Board of Education to issue a two-year provisional educator license to teach science, technology, engineering, or math courses in grades six through 12 in a STEM school. Applicants must hold a bachelor's degree in a field related to the subject to be taught and pass a subject-area examination to be prescribed by the board, and then participate in an on-the-job apprenticeship. By contrast, a candidate with similar credentials wishing to teach the same course in a non-STEM school would need to obtain an Alternative Educator License by passing the subject-area examination and taking coursework in teaching methods and pedagogy.

The budget bill also requires the board to issue a 40-hour teaching permit to STEM school teachers who are not otherwise licensed and who teach fewer than 40 hours per week of science, technology, engineering, or math courses in a STEM school. Non-STEM schools can employ such teachers for only 12 hours per week.

The board's capacity committee this week nodded approval of the language for the STEM provisional license rule. The group also approved the 40-hour permit rule language after clarifying that there is no limit as to how many permit teachers one school could employ and that teachers working under the permit will not be considered highly qualified.

By Emmy L. Partin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviews & Analysis

Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program
School Choice Demonstration Project
Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas
2008

The School Choice Demonstration Project, based at the University of Arkansas, has started a massive, five-year longitudinal evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP)--the largest voucher program in the country--serving over 18,000 low-income students. This evaluation, intended to be the most comprehensive of its kind, is investigating the impact of the program on students, parents, taxpayers, schools, and the larger community. Specifically, does the program work? If so, how, where, when, and at what cost?

Here are some findings from the baseline year evaluation:

First, the MPCP generated an estimated $25 million in tax savings in the 2006-2007 school year but these savings affected the pocketbooks of citizens differently. Because of the design of Wisconsin's funding system, taxpayers in Milwaukee are actually paying higher property taxes, while those outside of Milwaukee are receiving sizeable tax benefits from the program.
Second, most of the MPCP schools participating in the program enroll Choice students that comprise more than 80 percent of their total population. Additionally, most of the MPCP schools are religious and tend to be much smaller and have lower student-teacher ratios than Milwaukee Public Schools' (MPS) buildings.
Third, the limited snapshot indicates that the Choice students tend to perform below national averages but at levels comparable to similar economically disadvantaged students in MPS.

As policymakers continue to debate the merits of Ohio's growing EdChoice Scholarship Program--with scant evidence suggesting whether the program is working or not--Ohioans would be wise to pay close attention to lessons that can be learned from the Milwaukee study as the evaluation unfolds. In fact, Ohio should examine its voucher program in a similar way. How can we make policy decisions about a politically hot issue that affects thousands of children with virtually no information about the impact it is having?

We urge readers to "stay tuned" but for now, read all five of the baseline reports here.

By Kristina Phillips-Schwartz

The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of Inadequate Education
Clive R. Belfield and Henry Levin, Editors
The Brookings Institution Press
2007

If a year's worth of 18-year-old dropouts graduated from high school, federal and state governments would receive an additional $156 billion over their working lives from income taxes paid on higher earnings. Even in a trillion-dollar economy, those billions amount to real money equal to about 1.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, according to The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of Inadequate Education, edited by Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin.

A punchier title for this book might be "Support Schools and Save Money." This 2007 publication cites the costs rung up by inadequate school systems and is the work of 13 education experts, from Sigal Alon of Tel Aviv University to Tamara Wilder of the Teachers College at Columbia University. The book digs into the financial impact that poor education has on the labor market, welfare and public assistance, crime, and health care. The authors believe that education reforms today will definitely pay off tomorrow. For example, every person who graduates from high school will save the government $39,000 in health-care costs.

Additionally, the book presents intervention strategies to strengthen American schools. Preschool and community-learning reforms top the list. These experts argue (statistically, of course) that the financial benefits of education far outweigh the costs of fixing problems in the classrooms. Check out the book here.

By Alex Karas

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gadfly Readers Write...

... in response to our interview with Ohio's First Lady

First Lady Frances Strickland's February 27 interview in The Gadfly sparked this response from Dayton educator Mike McCormick, superintendent of the Richard Allen Schools:

Ohio First Lady Frances Strickland's recent interview with the Ohio Education Gadfly is cause for concern. Mrs. Strickland's thoughts concerning the state's K-12 schools are a blend of 1960s nostalgia, anti-charter-school animus, and wrong-headed retro strategies, especially for urban students.

She tells us that Governor Strickland's proposed education czar means he's serious about K-12 education reform. This may or may not be the cure for what ails our state's classrooms. But the top-down approach, with mayors (New York, Chicago, Cleveland) and retired generals (Washington, D.C.) playing chief education officers, has had mixed results at best.

It appeared initially encouraging that the First Lady was willing to concede that "you can reduce the achievement gap by focusing on basic facts," what she dismissively refers to as "procedural knowledge." The achievement gap between urban students and those in most of the rest of the state is the most critical issue facing Ohio's urban centers. There are few urban success stories these days, but when they occur, the following ingredients are always in place: longer school days, longer school years (including Saturdays), a laser-like focus on academic content standards, rigorous assessment, data-driven instructional strategies, and demanding behavior expectations. This may not sound like fun but students thrive in such settings. Students also call their peers to accountability and reap the many benefits of surpassing established goals and exceeding high expectations.

Mrs. Strickland, however, does not want "accountability in the basics . . . (to) drive our curriculum like it is." This seems to ignore Ohio's well-established, academic content standards, the just-completed phase-in of the Ohio Achievement Tests, and local districts' adoption of texts and materials aligned to content standards and achievement tests. Just as troubling is her almost cavalier dismissal of agreed-upon academic content at and across grade levels and the introduction of revised Local Report Cards which now take into account academic progress over time.

The First Lady is most perplexing, however, with her contradictory stance on Ohio's charter schools. She claims that charters are ". . . not being held accountable to the same standards that public schools are and, at the same time, draining money away from the public schools that (they) desperately need." The short retort is: wrong and wrong. While it is true some charters have failed to distinguish themselves from their public-school counterparts, an equal number have. And there is emerging evidence that charters routinely outperform traditional public schools while being held to identical academic standards. The financial drain is an old and equally erroneous refrain. State dollars follow the student. However, local millage does not. Few, if any, traditional public schools have made changes to reflect lower enrollment and higher per-pupil revenues or have taken full advantage of staff-reduction opportunities.

The First Lady's interest in Ohio's schools is commendable. Hopefully, the attention and subsequent debate will make it possible to find middle ground and improve education in the state. For Ohio's low-performing urban schools, traditional and charter, hope and help are long overdue.

If you have something to say about The Ohio Education Gadfly, say it in an e-mail to an article author or to the editor, Mike Lafferty, at [email protected]. Correspondence may be edited for clarity and length.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement

In search of the next great Gadfly

Do you have a passion for improving education and a sense of humor? Are you hard-working yet cheerful? Are you able to flex with changing circumstances and work in a fast-paced, demanding environment? If so, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute might be just the place for you. We are currently seeking an Ohio policy and research analyst--learn more here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Us

The Ohio Education Gadfly is published bi-weekly (ordinarily on Wednesdays, with occasional breaks, and in special editions) by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Have something to say? Email the editor at [email protected]. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email [email protected] with "unsubscribe gadfly" in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward the Gadfly to others, and from our website you can even email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may either email [email protected] with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message or sign up through our website. To read archived issues, go to our website and click on the Ohio Education Gadfly link. Aching for still more education news and analysis? Check out the original Education Gadfly.

Nationally and in Ohio, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, along with its sister organization the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, strives to close America's vexing achievement gaps by raising standards, strengthening accountability, and expanding high-quality education options for parents and families. As a charter-school sponsor in Ohio, the Foundation joins with schools to affirm a relentless commitment to high expectations for all children, accountability for academic results and transparency and organizational integrity, while freeing the schools to operate with minimal red tape. The Foundation and Institute are neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.