Cautious hope for bipartisan state school funding plan

After decades of failed efforts, it’s wise not to expect too much from the newest effort to rework Ohio’s school-funding system. A system that’s fair to all districts, affordable and politically feasible has eluded a generation of lawmakers. Still, we wish the best of luck to the latest effort, led by state Reps. Bob Cupp, a Republican from Lima and John Patterson, a Democrat from Jefferson.

Since the landmark 1997 DeRolph ruling held that the wide funding variance among Ohio school districts was unconstitutional, the aim has been to devise a system that ensures every Ohio child has an education that meets basic needs.

But 21 years later, stateissued “report cards” for schools and districts each year show that a school’s success can, in the majority of cases, be predicted by how rich or poor the school and its families are. That’s a central failure for public education.

A basic challenge has been to define what an adequate education should include. Advocates for more school spending have said any funding formula must be based on providing that minimum. Others have rejected the idea that such a “magic number” can be defined.

But defining a goal seems the rational first step toward achieving it.

Cupp and Patterson are a step ahead of previous efforts in that they’re working more closely with the folks who live and die by whatever formula is enacted: school superintendents and treasurers.

Educators alone shouldn’t dictate the formula — their demands always have to be balanced and tempered by available resources and political differences. But relying mainly on politicians and bureaucrats to prescribe the right plan for 600-plus diverse districts never has been a good idea.

Providing an adequate base for every district is only part of what’s needed. To eliminate the persistent achievement gap between poor and wealthy districts, state funding needs to help provide extra services to counter the effects of poverty. Those can include preschool, counseling and medical services and moreeffective ways to handle behavior problems.

Any state funding formula also aims to account for the fact that wealthier districts — with higher incomes and higher property values — can provide for themselves more easily. Rural districts are especially disadvantaged by how heavily Ohio school funding relies on property taxes.

Overreliance on property taxes, and the disparity that creates, was at the center of the Ohio Supreme Court’s finding 21 years ago, but no General Assembly has been willing since then to meaningfully change where the money comes from.

Following the DeRolph ruling, Republicans put a 1 cent sales-tax increase before voters in May 1998 to provide new money for education and some property-tax reduction. Voters trounced it.

To be clear, money alone can’t make schools better at enabling students to overcome poverty. Different teaching methods, organizational models and schedules likely are necessary.

But some of the necessary changes will require more money, and Ohio won’t see the improvement we need without a fairer way to raise funds and divide them up.

Working almost a year, Cupp and Patterson hope to unveil recommendations in late November for next spring’s budget-building. We hope this bipartisan effort with input from educators yields something that will make a real difference.