Monthly Checklist

The P.O. Zone

Blog Box

Photo credits >

Search this site


March 2009: Education Updates

printer friendly >

Political Landscape section is a collection of news items, updates, and essays on policy issues, state and federal legislation, academic standards, testing issues, the politics of funding, and other issues.

Updates from the League of Women Voters’ Joan Platz:


February 2009 Election Results

According to the Ohio Department of Education’s website,10 of 23 school ballot issues, including 4 building assistance issues and 2 school income tax issues, were approved by voters on February 3, 2009 in special elections held in 16 counties. The passage rate for the school issues was 43.48%. In February 2007 there were 30 issues on the ballot and 9 were approved. More information >

128th General Assembly

The Democratic Agenda

House Democrats, led by House Speaker Armond Budish, held a news conference on February 9, 2009 to outline their initial legislative agenda for this session. According to the presenters, the Democratic Caucus intends to focus first on passing the biennial budget (HB1-Sykes), but will also introduce legislation to create jobs, support energy initiatives, expand distance learning technologies in schools, protect homeowners, expand health care, support families, increase government accountability, support a movie maker tax credit, and provide veterans with bonuses funded through bonds.

One of the proposed legislative recommendations, the Distance Learning Initiative, will be introduced by Representatives Phillips and Garrison. This proposal creates the Distance Learning Pilot Program, and requires education agencies to work together to offer three Advanced Placement courses via teleconferencing to every public high school in the state beginning in 2009-10 school year. According to Representative Garrison, approximately 600 of 800 or so high schools in the state do not have teleconferencing capacity. The cost to equip those schools with the technology is approximately $6 million.

Back to top

Federal Stimulus Package

Governor Strickland announced on February 17, 2009 that Ohio will receive $8.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These federal funds will help stabilize the state’s next biennial budget to protect essential state services, save or create more than 130,000 jobs for Ohioans, and provide tax cuts to working families. The impact of the federal assistance is still being analyzed by the Office of Budget and Management, and adjustments are being made to the FY10-11 budget proposed by Governor Strickland (HB1-Sykes). Early reports from the Federal Funds Information for States and the General Accounting Office provide the following information on how the $8.2 billion will be distributed in Ohio:

  • Direct Relief through State Fiscal Stabilization Funds and Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance percentages (FMAP): $4.8 billion. This includes approximately $3 billion in increased Medicaid reimbursements; $1.5 billion for education (including school modernization), and $326 million in general government operations for health and human services, public safety, education, and protecting and preserving Ohio's natural resources.
  • Infrastructure: $1.5 billion. This includes $971 million for highway and bridge projects; $203 million for transit capital grants; $9 million for rail modernization; $58 million for the Drinking Water SRF program; and $224 million for the Clean Water SRF program.
  • Health and Human Services: $597 million. This includes $146 million for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA); $68 million for child care services; $27 million for the Head Start program; $39 million for community services block grants; $129 million to the Public Housing Capital Fund; $65 million to the HOME program and $66 million for homelessness prevention efforts.
  • Energy: $399 million. This includes $277 million in home weatherization assistance, and $123 million for the State Energy Program.
  • Criminal Justice: $75 million. This includes $62 million for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) and funds for crime victims' assistance, internet crimes against children, and violence against women.

The U.S. Department of Education also provided information about the amount from the ARRA that will be supporting education programs in states. The following information was provided for Ohio:

  • Education Total - $2.6 billion
  • State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - 1.7 billion
  • Title 1 Grants to Local Educational Agencies - $373.2 million
  • Educational Technology - $23.9 million
  • IDEA Part B - $437.7 million, Part B Preschool - $13.3 million, Part C - $14.4 million
  • Vocational Rehabilitation - $21.5 million
  • Independent Living State Grants - $242,913
  • Federal Work Study - $7.7 million
  • Federal Pell Grants - $969 million

More information >

Back to top

Governor Strickland’s Education Plan

J. Pari Sabety, Director of the Office of Budget and Management, submitted to the Ohio House of Representatives on February 2, 2009 the “Blue Book,” which includes information about Governor Strickland’s proposed FY10-11 budget. The proposed budget includes a plan to reform and modernize the state’ education system to ensure that students learn the skills to be successful in the 21st century, and, according to Governor Strickland, creates a constitutional school funding system.

The plan uses an “evidence-based” approach, called the Ohio Evidence-Based Model (referred to as OEBM or EBM), to determine state aid, and, when the plan is fully phased in in 8-10 years, the state’s contribution to local schools would be 59%. The plan also increases accountability and transparency through a variety of new reporting requirements and oversight by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).

Governor Strickland and his administration have been developing the evidence-based model with input from business, education, and community stakeholder groups, and from citizens over the past year. The Governor hosted 17 community-based “Conversations on Education” from July through December 2009 to listen to ideas and concerns of Ohioans regarding public education and to share his ideas to create a world-class and relevant education system for all Ohio students in the 21st Century. (See November 2008 and December 2008 Political Landscape for more.)

Governor Strickland’s proposed education plan completely changes the current school funding system, which is now based on a foundation level of per pupil support (base cost per pupil). The new evidence-based system is combined with a new Instructional Quality Index to allocate resources to students to meet their needs. The index addresses factors such as teacher quality, student poverty, community wealth, and the level of college attainment in a community. The Ohio Instructional Quality Index replaces the poverty-based assistance and parity aid supplements currently in the school funding formula.

The proposed budget is expected to increase funding for primary and secondary education by 4.7% in FY10 and 4% in FY11, for a total increase of $925 million for education over current funding levels.

The Governor’s Education Reform Plan will be clarified further through the language of the budget legislation, which is expected to be introduced in the Ohio House over the next few weeks. Based on the information that is currently available, the plan does the following:

  • Proposes a new evidence-based model (OEBM or EBM) for allocating resources to primary and secondary schools, including traditional and charter schools, based on student-centered reforms to ensure that students learn the skills required to be successful in a 21st century economy. The plan also funds all-day kindergarten.
  • Increases the length of the school year by phasing-in 20 days over the current minimum of 180 days.
  • Requires strategic planning and collaboration among state departments, including the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), the Ohio Board of Regents (BOR), the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, Department of Health, etc.
  • Requires the ODE to develop a 10-year strategic plan to implement both academic and funding reforms.
  • Calls for a number of planning commissions to further articulate, identify, and coordinate recommendations. For example, a commission will be formed to coordinate merging all early childhood education programs into the ODE, and other commissions are proposed to study Educational Service Centers and Joint Vocational School Districts. The State Board of Education will be required to adopt a number of new rules (Ohio Administrative Code) to implement most of the provisions of the plan.
  • Revises Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools, Academic Content Standards, and state assessments. Replaces the Ohio Graduation Test with new graduation requirements (ACT-Plus), which include the ACT, end-of-course exams, service-learning projects, and a senior thesis/project. A composite passing score will be developed.
  • Revamps the teacher licensure program, and includes a 4-year residency program, mentors, lead teachers, and a career ladder program.
  • Provides administrators the ability to dismiss teachers based on the same standard applied to public employees.
  • Expands accountability reporting requirements for schools, requirements for charter schools, and responsibilities of the ODE regarding oversight of schools and school districts.
  • Creates a Center for Creativity and Innovation in the ODE to monitor research and inform best practices.
  • Requires the ODE/State Board of Education to adopt new standards for innovative teaching formats such as interdisciplinary instruction, project-based learning, service-learning.
  • Expands current intervention programs, such as Closing the Achievement Gap.
  • Lowers the charge-off from 23 mills to 20 mills.
  • Creates a method called the conversion levy, that, with voter approval, will allow school districts that are not at the 20 mill floor to convert millage to the 20 mill floor and experience growth on 20 mills when property values increase. Any millage that remains above the 20 mill floor will be converted into mills that operate like emergency levies.

Back to top


More Discussion on the Education Plan

The Ohio Business Roundtable, Richard Stoff president, issued a statement on February 10, 2009 endorsing Governor Strickland’s education reform plan. According to the statement, the roundtable believes that the plan builds on the recommendations of the Achieve Report and the Public-Private Collaborative Commission and promotes a 21st Century education system. It urges state officials to “embrace the plan and work together to make it even better.” Full OBR statement >

The evidence-based approach for determining state aid to school districts has been selected by Governor Strickland to determine the resources needed to provide students in Ohio with a 21st Century education system in his education reform and funding proposal. Details about the model are outlined in the book School Finance, A Policy Perspective by Allan R. Odden and Lawrence O. Picus (McGraw-Hill 2004). Chapter 4, “Adequate Staffing and Resources for America’s Schools,” provides more information about the research that supports many of the recommendations included in Ohio’s Evidence-Based Model and offers some insight about how certain decisions were made about key components of the plan for Ohio.

For example, chapter 4 defines an adequate education and describes issues that should be considered when determining adequacy, such as preschool, full-day kindergarten, student counts for funding purposes, and school size. The authors also cite the research that supports their recommendations for optimum class size and staffing levels for core teachers, staffing levels for other personnel, extra services for struggling students, professional development, and resources, such as books, technology, and computers.

There is also a section in chapter 4 called “Staffing for Extra Student Needs,” which includes research on successful strategies to support struggling students, students who have limited English proficiency, gifted students, students in career technical programs, and students in special education programs.

As detailed as this information is, however, questions remain regarding the research supporting some of the components of the evidence-based model. For example, specialist teachers, defined as teachers for art, music, and physical education, are not allocated to schools based on any research that aligns the number of art, music, and physical education teachers needed to ensure that students achieve the academic content standards in these areas. Instead, an additional 20% is allocated for specialist teachers at the elementary and middle school levels so that each classroom teacher can be provided with “one period a day for collaborative planning and professional development.” At the high school level the authors recommend a 33% additional allocation for specialist teachers for the same purpose. No support is provided for dance or drama teachers at any level.

The Ohio EBM includes the recommended 20% additional allocation at the elementary/middle level for specialist teachers, but applies a 25% additional allocation at the high school level rather than the 33%. No support is directly provided for dance or drama teachers at any level.

The recommendation for gifted education is also perplexing. Even though the authors cite the research and best practices for high-quality gifted education programs, they conclude the section on gifted education with a description of an “Internet-based platform” which can be used to assess student interests and abilities, and direct students to interactive websites and simulations. According to the authors, “such an approach may be the future for the very bright student” (p. 14). The only cost associated with gifted education in this chapter is a recommended $25 per student, hardly enough to fund a gifted intervention specialist or gifted coordinator, or even identify gifted students, but maybe enough for the Internet-based program.

Ohio’s proposed Evidence-Based Model includes $25 per formula ADM for gifted education and $200 per ADM phased in at 25% for Enrichment Funds. Questions remain about the adequacy of this level of support for gifted education programs, which must meet Ohio’s standards for gifted education and Ohio law.

Once the language of the budget bill is available some of these questions regarding the Evidence-Based Model for Ohio will be clarified, and work can then begin on better aligning the components to address student needs.

More information on the Education Plan >

Back to top


Untitled Document