When the long-awaited college financing simulations were released Friday by state Reps. John Patterson, D-Ashtabula, and Robert Cupp, R-Lima, because of their Fair education funding plan, people didn’t really learn how to respond. 718 million statewide for universities. But did Ohio’s suburban districts need to swallow up more than 1/3 of that increase while the state’s biggest urban districts only got 5 percent of the increase?
And flat funding Northern Local in Perry County – the district that originally sued the condition over its failing to properly fund education? How is that “fair”, as the plan’s writers claimed? Something didn’t appear right. The formulation Cupp and Patterson talked about made sense. Figure out what students need. Fund it Then. The elements they picked (teachers, mental health, etc.) all made sense.
So why were rich, suburban districts getting more than 1/3 of the increase? One description is that Ohio has held down raises in suburban districts through so-called “gain caps” for years. This allowed the state to continue investing in districts that couldn’t raise local revenue – insufficient condition investment there, by the way, but this Robin-Hooding has occurred for many years.
So if you’re removing gain hats – one of the hallmarks of the Cupp Patterson plan – you’re heading to see large raises in districts which have been capped for a long time. In lots of ways, you are making up for 30-40 many years of Robin Hooding essentially. But the issue is more complicated than that. A decade ago, I had been in the same position as Patterson and Glass. I used to be the chair (they are co-chairs) of the principal and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the House Finance and Appropriations Committee when then-Gov.
- Process light on cooperation and containing handful of key technological evaluation factors
- 2007 $1,465.00 $8,795.00 16.7% $1,563.00
- Grant program to disseminate best practices on applying health workforce investment programs
- J.P. Morgan Markets Investment Bank Client Platform
- Silver Platter Retains it Sheen – U.S. v. STONEHILL, Cite as 108 AFTR 2d 2011-6436
In a quite similar way as Cupp-Patterson, the original EBM poured millions into wealthy initially, suburban districts while doing significantly less, speaking relatively, in poorer districts. Yet by enough time, the method still left the House and eventually became rules for a couple of years, the plan did the best job of distributing income to the most needy districts the state had ever seen. And it won the prestigious Frank Newman Honor from the bipartisan Education Commission payment of the carrying on says.
We found Han Solo. You didn’t need to trust in the Force to believe in Han Solo. Because Han Solo was us. To school funding Back. The EBM’s Han Solo was the Education Challenge Factor – an index that calculating a school district’s extra-curricular challenges (and I don’t mean football teams). It required into consideration a district’s relative poverty and its own parents’ educational attainment level – what we’ve known for years is the one most significant determinant of the student’s success.
Those were merged into a number that we put on lots of the formulation elements. Why do we decide to apply the ECF to the formulation elements? Because it’s hard to find, for example, educators who want to show in districts where in fact the parents don’t value education that much and will much more likely to impede than support learning. Likewise, it’s simpler to find those educators in wealthier districts with an increase of supportive parents.