ohio s school funding system n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Ohio’s School Funding System PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Ohio’s School Funding System

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 58

Ohio’s School Funding System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated on

Ohio’s School Funding System. It’s not that complicated. Really!. Founders and Followers. Education is the Original Heart of it All. Land Ordinance of 1785. “There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township”.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Ohio’s School Funding System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Ohio’s School Funding System It’s not that complicated. Really!

    2. Founders and Followers Education is the Original Heart of it All Land Ordinance of 1785 “There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township”

    3. Founders and Followers Ohio Constitution “The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state…”

    4. What Does That Mean?

    5. How it works: • The State calculates how much it should cost to provide an education in a school district • The state assumes each district can raise 22 mills in local property tax • The State picks up the rest

    6. What’s a Mill Anyway? One mill = $31/$100,000 home

    7. What if the Formula is off? What if the calculation is wrong? An Even Greater Property Tax Burden

    8. DeRolph v. Ohio

    9. 1991 Nathan DeRolph, a high school student in Perry County sues the state’s funding system

    10. 1997Ohio Supreme Court rules that the system needed an overhaul and a reduction in the need for property taxes.

    11. 2000 Ohio Supreme Court considered the system again. Constitutional?

    12. 2001 Ohio Supreme Court considered the system again. Constitutional?

    13. 2002 Ohio Supreme Court considered the system again. Constitutional?

    14. “Until a complete systematic overhaul of the system is accomplished, it will continue to be far from thorough and efficient and will continue to shortchange our students. The overreliance on local property taxes is the fatal flaw that until rectified will stand in the way of constitutional compliance.” Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice RobieResnick, DeRolph IV, December, 2002

    15. So the General Assembly got us a Constitutional Funding System, Right?

    16. Not So Fast!

    17. So What Happened? • The Ohio Supreme Court dropped its jurisdiction over the DeRolph case in 2002

    18. 18 years later… • In 2009, Gov. Ted Strickland introduced the Evidence-Based Model • It was a systemic overhaul that cut the need for property taxes by an average of 13 mills over 10 years.

    19. Present Day However, Gov. John Kasich eliminated the EBM

    20. Historic, Massive Cuts The biennial budget cuts nearly $3 billion from education

    21. Impact of Budget Cuts Increase, rather than decrease need for property tax levies to pay for schools On average, more than 3 mills will be lost to school districts

    22. Impact of Budget Cuts Disproportionately hurt districts that can’t raise much property tax

    23. Impact of Budget Cuts Example: Under the budget as passed, folks in Trimble, who make less than half what folks in Upper Arlington make, will have to tax themselves at 8 times the tax rate to replace the cuts On average, folks in Ohio’s most challenged districts have to raise more than 1 ¾ times the tax rates of the most advantaged districts

    24. Statewide Examples

    25. Charter Schools and Vouchers Gov. Kasich and General Assembly leaders seek to expand Charter Schools and Vouchers

    26. What Are They Anyway? • Charter Schools: Public Schools that are freed up of most regulations school districts face, theoretically allowing them more creativity and innovation • Vouchers: A check the state gives to a parent for their child to attend a private school

    27. At What Cost? $721 Million

    28. Percentage Increases Since Court Dropped Case

    29. Bottom Line Post-DeRolph Charter Schools have seen a nearly 103% increase in state money over inflation Traditional Public Schools have seen a more than 13% cut in state money, relative to inflation

    30. Are the Choices Better? In a word,

    31. Ohio State Report Card • Rates districts and charter schools based on their pupils’ academic success • 5 levels: • Academic Emergency – F • Academic Watch – D • Continuous Improvement – C • Effective – B • Excellent – A • Excellent with Distinction – A+

    32. Performance Difference Nearly Half of all Traditional Public Schools rate A or A+ on the State Report Card Nearly half of all Charter Schools rate either a D or F on the State Report Card

    33. So… Where does the $ come from? Money for Charter Schools and Vouchers is taken out of the amount the state distributes to a district The amount transferred out is almost always more than the state would have given the district for that pupil

    34. Example: • Columbus receives $2,040 per pupil from the state through the formula for the more than 65,000 kids it educates • The state transfers an average of $6,392 per pupil for each of the more than 2,000 kids Columbus loses to E-Schools • Implications: Columbus has to either cut services, or use local property taxes to make up the difference

    35. Comparing Costs for the State • Local school districts: $3,193/ pupil • Charter Schools: $7,219/ pupil • E-Schools: $6,320/ pupil • Vouchers: $5,200/ pupil

    36. Bottom Line On average, all Charter and Voucher options remove more state money per pupil from a district than the district ends up receiving per pupil from the state. Districts have to make up those losses through cuts or local property tax.

    37. Historic Annual Increases Charters: 30% EdChoice voucher program: 23%

    38. Increasing the Burden If they expand faster, then that’s more property tax that will have to be raised locally The budget would quadruple the EdChoice Voucher program to a greater than $200 million a year deduction

    39. Myth: Vouchers Allow Kids to Be “Rescued” from Failing Districts Fact:Vouchers have little to NO IMPACT on student success

    40. It’s All Teachers’ Fault • Unprecedented attack on the teaching profession • Like other public employees, teachers are also impacted by Senate Bill 5

    41. Senate Bill 5 Anti-Teacher • Would permit school districts to adopt any method of evaluation they chose to determine merit pay • Ridiculous: How many football games have you attended? • Cruel: What sexual orientation are you?

    42. Budget Anti-Teacher Provisions Forces Merit Pay based on system developed by State School Board

    43. OOPS!!!!!

    44. Been There, Done That • Ohio’s already developed a Model Teacher Evaluation System with the cooperation of teachers over the last two years • In many ways it’s actually more rigorous than what the Radical Republicans passed

    45. Student Safety Jeopardized • Teachers would no longer be able to advocate for the safety of their students through negotiating things like: • Asbestos removal • Video monitoring equipment • Numbers of safety officers at school

    46. There is Hope! 1.3 million signatures gathered to kill the bill That’s more than 10% of allOhioans!!!

    47. Summary Ohio’s taking a step back with this budget, furthering districts’ dependence on local property tax levies