Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:51 AM By chester e. finn jr.

Why are so many charter schools mediocre? What went wrong?

In reflecting on the Ohio experience, particularly in the charter-saturated terrain around Dayton, and taking maximum advantage of the benefit of hindsight, I've spotted 10 contributing factors. I offer them as a navigation aid for state and community decision-makers, with the caveat that charter schools, by and large, are doing as well as nearby district schools and that Ohio is blessed with a handful of outstanding charters.

• Lax authorizing. Beginning with the Ohio Department of Education and continuing into today's sponsorship bazaar: Negligence, haste and greed have characterized too many of the entities charged with ensuring the competence and viability of would-be school operators, who then monitor their performance and intervene when results are weak. Quantity trounced quality, timidity trumped courage and politics overpowered wisdom.

• Unfussy consumers. Many families are desperate to find a refuge for their kids from unsafe, unfriendly, dysfunctional district schools. Such considerations understandably take precedence over academic performance. That's compounded by meager information about school effectiveness, a dearth of truly outstanding schools, a shortage of effective advisors and brokers, and the propensity of student-hungry charters to make claims that they don't necessarily live up to.

• Mediocre operators. Only a handful of independent charters have the scale, resources and sustainability to deliver high-quality education year in and year out, and authorizers haven't been good at winnowing them. Especially disappointing is the slipshod performance of large-scale regional and national operators, which haven't given children their best efforts. A few are simply profiteers. Others, including some with excellent results elsewhere, have settled for weak school leaders and second-rate teachers.

• Too little support. Ohio lacks the school-resource centers and help-groups that some states boast and, at the policy/political level, it has lacked quality-focused pro-charter advocacy groups. The universities have shunned charters, not helping with the talent pipeline and professional development, let alone with school authorizing. And the state's business leadership, with honorable exceptions, has sat on its hands when it comes to school choice in general and charters in particular. Most major newspapers, by contrast, have been game to give this education-reform experiment a fair chance.

• Rust-belt geography. It's easier to run high-quality charter schools on the coasts and in a handful of hot cities in between where talented people and zealous education reformers want to be.

• Localism. Partly out of parochialism, partly out of parsimony and partly out of the sheer difficulty of landing distant talent, most Ohio charters have drawn their leaders and teachers from the local market. That has sometimes made for slim pickings, worsened by low pay and inadequate budgets (see next item).

• Inadequate finances. Ohio charters are underfunded, plain and simple, by several thousand dollars per pupil per year compared with adjoining district schools. They don't get facilities funding, either (though the state is spending billions on new district schools) and they depend for transportation on often-uncooperative district busing operations.

• Too much trust in market forces. Ohio charter operators appear to believe that as long as parents are content with a school, it's good enough. This leads to scant emphasis on academic results, a worse problem when the customers aren't fussy.

• Hostile political environment. This has worsened over the past year, but even when most state officials were well-disposed to charters, a plague of union-initiated lawsuits and angry local school systems created insecurity, ill-will and a bunker mentality among charters while scaring off potential supporters, operators and school staffers.

• Cumulative policymaking. Ohio's charter laws now resemble an archeological dig where layers of civilization have been jumbled over the centuries. Ten years of statutory amendments have not just created a maze that high-priced attorneys need many hours to find their way through; they also have led to some truly dysfunctional policies and practices. A thorough cleaning is needed, but in a charter-hostile political environment that could mean sacrificing the baby as well as its soiled bathwater.

Some different decisions should have been made in Ohio, and the current political situation makes recovery harder. But the problems remain solvable, and now it's time to tackle them.

Chester E. Finn Jr. is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, based in Washington, D.C. and Dayton.

By Catherine Candisky

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

School employees would be banned from going on strike under legislation proposed by a Republican state lawmaker.

Instead, teachers and other district employees would be required to settle disputes through binding arbitration, much like police and fire personnel.

Sen. John A. Carey Jr. said he's trying to protect students and teachers, and avoid the lingering "collateral damage" to districts that experience school strikes.

"No child should have to cross a picket line," the Wellston Republican said.

Carey said his concern stems from an incident in which a replacement teacher spent three days in the classroom before officials learned that the substitute lacked proper qualifications and others in which striking teachers were injured on a picket line.

"We've had five or six strikes in Ohio this year, and they can do a lot of damage to the community," he said.

Carey will formally roll out his proposal today at a news conference. He is to be accompanied by Aaron Michael, president of the Oak Hill Board of Education, and Mark DeCastro, an attorney in Springfield who was a student at Wellston High School during a labor dispute in the late 1990s.

The state's largest teachers union vowed to fight the proposal.

"We strongly oppose any weakening of Ohio's long-standing collective-bargaining law which has made vast improvements in the quality of educators and educational services in schools across the state by allowing teachers to advocate on behalf of children," said Michele Prater, spokeswoman for the Ohio Education Association.

"So this so-called reform will undermine a law that provides a powerful voice for students."

Prater said Ohio's collective-bargaining law has created a framework in which strikes are fairly rare and usually short.

Jay Hottinger

I often have said the formula for successful students involves students who come to school healthy and ready to learn, well-trained teachers who want to teach, and parents and guardians who are involved every step of the way. I believe that if every child in Ohio had these supports behind him, school funding would not be such a contentious issue in the public policy arena.

The reality is not all students are afforded these advantages, so school funding is fiercely debated across the nation. Ohio's progress on education is best seen in the numbers. Funding for Ohio schools has increased more than 72 percent over the last 10 years while inflation grew at 24.9 percent.

In Fiscal Year 1996, Ohio spent $4.86 billion on K-12 education, 35 percent of our state budget. In FY 2006, we spent $8.35 billion, 39 percent of the state budget. The base cost per pupil has grown 59 percent in 10 years, going from $3,315 in FY '96 to a per-pupil expenditure of $5,403 in FY '07. It is important to note the base cost does not include additional state funding provided through Parity Aid, Gap Aid, Poverty-Based Assistance, Special Education, Gifted, or Career Tech funding. Nor does it include any School Facilities Commission assistance for school construction or renovation. Dramatic increases in funding can be largely attributed to the state's effort to address the Supreme Court decision in the DeRolph school funding case, which ruled that the state must do more to provide a "thorough and efficient" system of education and must also provide sufficient money for all districts to meet that goal. In the DeRolph decision, the Supreme Court ruled there was an "over reliance" on property taxes to fund schools. It did not say property taxes are an unconstitutional funding method, a common misperception. Ohio has the 27th-highest property tax burden in the nation. That is lower than 26 of our fellow states when all 50 states rely, to some extent, on property taxes to fund their schools. Prior to DeRolph, Ohio ranked 31st in the nation on state assistance to schools. Today, we rank 13th.

Ohio also is No. 1 in the nation on state dollars provided for school construction and renovation. We are spending $3 million a day, seven days a week, to have the most aggressive school construction and renovation program in the United States. That, too, is great progress. In fact, for Ohio's first 190 years of statehood, the state of Ohio provided just $154 million for school buildings. Since DeRolph in 1997, we have provided nearly $7 billion in school construction.

These facts are important because it is imperative that people know the great progress that has been made. Yes, there still is much to do. But the solutions are not easily attained. In fact, the education community itself can't agree on what the "fix" is. According to the Ohio Department of Taxation, schools received $8.97 billion in property taxes (both real and tangible) in tax year 2004. To replace this revenue with income taxes, the rate of each personal income tax bracket would have to double. In order to replace this revenue with sales and use taxes, it would mean increasing the state rate from 5.5 percent to 12 percent. Neither of these is an attractive option.

We all want to put as much money into our schools as we can, but we do not have an unlimited supply of resources. In the last 10 years, 95 cents out of every new state dollar spent went to K-12 education and Medicaid. Only 5 cents out of every new dollar spent in Ohio went to non-Medicaid or non-K-12 issues. In essence, all the rest of state government spending has been flat for more than a decade.

I am proud of the progress we have made on education funding. With three young daughters in our public schools, there are few people who care more about our schools than me. I also recognize there is still much to do and school funding will remain my top priority.

As always, I welcome your questions, comments and input on state government issues. Please feel free to contact me by mail: State Rep. Jay Hottinger, 71st House District, 77 S. High St., Columbus, OH 43215; by e-mail: district71@ohr.state.oh.us; or by phone: (614) 466-1482.

BY BEN FISCHER

CORRYVILLE – Cincinnati Public Schools Treasurer Jonathan Boyd on Wednesday laid out alternatives for the school board to consider after voters overwhelmingly rejected a property tax hike to fund the schools this week.

All the options started with passing a tax levy on March 4 – a step that would require a dramatic turnaround of voter sentiment in just four months.

On Tuesday, voters rejected the district’s first attempt to raise taxes for day-to-day expenses in seven years, defeating the levy 58 to 42 percent.

Layoffs and other dramatic cuts can wait until spring for the 33,900-student district, but board members need to develop a plan to deal with the projected $72.7 million budget gap almost immediately, Boyd said. That means planning the cuts, possibly a larger levy, or the most likely option – a combination of cuts and a levy, the size of which would be open to debate.

“We merely have a matter of a few weeks to come to a decision on whether the board wishes to put something up on the March ballot and what that might entail,” Boyd said.

Up next for the board is a rare Saturday meeting on Nov. 17, when Boyd and the board members will likely decide on the size of a March levy request and its ramifications.

If the March levy fails, a “fiscal emergency,” requiring a tight state oversight of CPS, is a likely outcome, Boyd told the board.

Because any taxes approved in 2008 wouldn’t start flowing for another year, the levy now needs to grow to cover the entire deficit, Boyd said. Even if voters approve the same 9.95-mill levy they just rejected, $40 million in annual cuts would still be necessary.

At the meeting, Superintendent Rosa Blackwell said few corners of the district would be unaffected by impending budget cuts.

“We do have some initiatives we value that have allowed us, as a district, to see some success,” Blackwell said. “We’d like to keep those. But when you’re talking about $72 million deficit, it’s very difficult to assume that some things would be totally protected.”

Meanwhile, the district’s independent pro-levy campaign group will change gears temporarily in the brief lull between elections.

Cincinnatians Active to Support Education will halt its high-gear campaigning and instead work on more quietly building a consensus around the importance of schools, said president Mark Turner.

Turning around a substantial segment of voters will be a tall task, but the March ballot will be a far different political environment, several experts said.

On Tuesday, the CPS levy shared space with Issue 27, the controversial sales tax hike to fund a new jail, among other programs. That campaign drew the vast majority of big-money campaign donors.

But so far, no other major money issues appear headed for March, when Ohioans will also conduct a presidential primary.

For example, Christopher Smitherman, president of the local chapter of the NAACP, was a major player in the victorious anti-jail tax movement this fall but was not active on behalf of the CPS levy.

On Wednesday, he promised he’d enthusiastically back the next Cincinnati schools levy attempt, and said he’d help round up financial support.

“I hope that the business community will rethink their position and invest in a marketing strategy so that the teachers will have the money to tell their story,” Smitherman said. “If they have the ability to tell their story – and they didn’t in this campaign – then I think people will respond positively.”

Public schools critic Tom Brinkman Jr., a Republican state lawmaker from Mount Lookout, said there’s a “credibility gap” for CPS that won’t go away soon, demonstrated by the levy’s large margin of defeat and the defeat of the board’s only incumbent seeking re-election, Rick Williams.

Not all hope is lost for a spring campaign, said school campaign consultant Roger Effron.

Because of the search for a new superintendent and the turnover of three seats on the board, CPS has a narrow window of opportunity where voters might give new leadership a second look.

“It’s climbing a large mountain in a short period of time,” Effron said

Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:38 AM

As a local employee-benefit broker who for the past 18 years has watched how school systems in Ohio negotiate for employee benefits, I feel compelled to begin a public debate in response to the Nov. 8 Dispatch article, "Levies getting hard to pass."

It has been my experience that when school systems fail to pass tax levies, the debate usually centers on certain expenses to be cut. These tend to hurt the students, such as reducing faculty, charging for or taking away certain sport activities or taking away extracurricular activities such as field trips or the arts. There tends not to be a public discussion regarding what could be a gold mine of opportunity to correct an expense item that is out of line and inefficient.

Most school systems are influenced by the collective-bargaining power that teacher unions use to keep their health-insurance benefits rich. Not many school-system superintendents or school boards have the power to counteract collective bargaining in this area. Rarely has this item been a source of public debate.

If the taxpayers only knew how rich and how expensive the health-insurance coverage is for schoolteachers, there would be a public backlash against the teachers union.

It used to be that certain populations in the work force were grossly underpaid and that rich benefits were used to attract talent. Back in the 1970s, the cost of health insurance was not as much of a factor. Over the past 10 years, the cost of health-insurance coverage has tripled. Today, it might cost more than $10,000 per year per teacher, on average, for health-insurance coverage.

Unlike most of the working class, schoolteachers, on average, might pay for only 5 percent to 10 percent of the cost of health coverage through payroll deductions. The rest of us pay, on average, 30 percent of the cost of health coverage, and our benefits are less rich. Teachers' co-pays for office visits and drugs are lower, deductibles are lower or even nonexistent, their co-insurance is richer and their out-of-pocket maximum exposure is lower than the rest of us.

As most of us pay more for less health-insurance coverage every year, teachers have been insulated from that experience, resulting in a huge disparity. Further, teachers have resisted some of the basic cost-maintenance strategies such as health-and-wellness programs and health-consumerism education.

Some help might be on the way, as over the past several years there have been studies and recommendations on this issue provided by collaborative efforts between representatives of Ohio schools systems and Ohio government. However, outcomes of that effort have not yielded mandates to cut health benefits. They have recommended optional best practices to control the rising cost of health coverage, with no teeth if recommendations are not met.

Not until the taxpayers in each school district demand town-hall meetings where full disclosure of plan designs and transparency on the cost of health insurance for teachers is revealed will there be any movement on this issue. If corrective measures occur in this area for any given school district, there could be a gold mine of resources that become available to help students and to help avoid future tax levies.

At the end of the day, I believe the taxpayers of each district are the boss, and they, in effect, sign the paychecks for teachers who serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers.

Wake up, taxpayers. You have been signing a blank check for too long as it pertains to schoolteacher health-insurance benefits. It might be time to exert your power as the boss.

DANIEL S. ROBINS

By PAMELA WILLIS Published: Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Four Worthington science teachers won a state award for the way they teach.

Jacob Bennett, Kelley Conley, Cindy Fushimi and Vince Trombetti, all teachers at Worthington Kilbourne High School, were awarded the Walter-Horn Partnering for Progress Award by the Ohio Department of Education.

The award honors "individuals or teams of individuals who have made outstanding contributions in one or more of three areas, delivering standards-based instruction for all learners, including students with disabilities; building capacity for district or school instruction with academic and behavior improvement plans; or improving a district's or building's accountability efforts," stated information on the ODE Web site, ode.state.oh.us/.

Bennett, Conley, Fushimi and Trombetti won under the "delivering standards," category and were nominated by Intervention Specialist Susan Hrenko.

Fushimi has taught at Kilbourne for 16 years.

"It is very flattering to be honored," she said. "I think we all try to make an effort to help kids who need extra assistance to help them succeed, but we aren't the only ones."

"There are a lot of teachers in the department who really go out of their way to make sure all the kids have a chance to meet the standards set by the state."

Fushimi said her goal in the classroom is to help students of all abilities succeed.

"I have kids of many different abilities in my classroom, and I try to plan lessons so that they can help any kind of learner," she said.

"I try to do a lot of hands-on types of things and use visual aids. What works well is to have the kids up and moving. Even it is something very conceptual, if you try to incorporate something for different learning styles, it benefits all the kids."

Bennett has taught at Kilbourne for the past five years.

"I was very proud to receive the award," he said. "We do the work for the kids and don't do it for attention, but it is nice to get the recognition."

Bennett said he tries to help students see how the things they learn in class can relate to their lives.

"I try to make lessons meaningful to students and try to show them connections to what they are learning and how it might be useful some day in their own lives," he said.

"We do a lot of project type of assignments so that the outcome can be flexible. Students can take the assignment in a direction they think is applicable to the subject."

Trombetti began teaching at Kilbourne in 1991, when the school opened.

"When you get an award like this it is very humbling because I don't think of special things to do, I just do what I do," he said. "For someone to say what you do is really good is very nice to hear."

Trombetti's goal as a teacher is to "turn students onto learning."

"For some teenagers, learning is the last thing on their minds," he said, "but we have the reality of the Ohio Graduation Test, which they will take as sophomores. If I can get them excited about learning, they will soak up the material."

"I also want them to be lifelong learners, which has become a catch phrase that is perhaps used too much," Trombetti said, "but so much information is being produced with the Internet and other sources these days, and you want kids to think on their own. If you can accomplish that, then you've really done something."

Conley said she was "really surprised" to win the award.

"I felt really honored to know someone had taken the time, another teacher in our building, to acknowledge what we are trying to do to help students," she said. "It was really special to me and meant a lot."

Conley has taught at Worthington Kilbourne for 12 years.

"My goal as a teacher is to help all of my students realize their potential and build critical thinking skills, which are useful not only in science, but history, English, math and many other subjects," she said.

"I want to help them apply what they are learning in class to the real world and everyday life."

State Superintendent Suzan Zelman said the teachers should be commended for their efforts.

"We celebrate those who have improved results for all students, including students with disabilities, by differentiating instruction and providing support to meet individual needs," she said.

"As a result of their efforts, more students are improving their academic achievement and preparing for success."

The newcomer to elected office earned the most votes of three candidates in the race, according to unofficial results.

By PAMELA WILLIS Published: Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Worthington residents braved a cold and blustery wind to cast their votes Tuesday, Nov. 6, and by the end of the night, appointed board member Charlie Wilson had won his bid for a four-year term and newcomer Julie Keegan was elected to a first term on the Worthington school board.

Keegan was the top vote-getter by a hair in the race for two seats, receiving 5,794 votes, or 40.33 percent, according to unofficial results from the Franklin County Board of Elections.

Wilson received 5,787 votes, or 40.28 percent, and candidate Geoffrey Scott earned 2,787 votes, or 19.4 percent.

Wilson, 55, was appointed to his seat in February to finish out Gary Tyack's term, which expires at the end of the year.

"I was gratified by the community response and I think it is confirmation that the board is doing a very good job," he said.

Wilson said the district's challenges for the the next four years include "moving our schools into the 21st century."

"We'll be working on the elementary review improvements, more alternative programs in the middle schools and curriculum innovations at the high school," he said. "I think tonight was a strong, emphatic vote for making our schools fit our kids. We need to focus on creating more resources for children who speak English as a second language and for kids on individual education plans, and for helping all of our students succeed."

Wilson is an attorney and an associate law professor at Ohio State University. His wife is Melonie Buller, and his sons are Richard Wilson and Geoffrey Buller, both graduates of Worthington Kilbourne High School.

Keegan, 39, will begin her four-year term when she is sworn in at the first organizational board meeting in January.

"I'm excited and thrilled to have the opportunity to contribute to the school district I think the world of," she said. "I've been attending all the board meetings and I feel like I've developed good relationships with the building principals and other board members and I will continue to meet with them and get to know the issues so that I can hit the ground running in January.

"I'm looking forward to discussing with the community the ideas that have come out of our elementary review program and hopefully being able to input some of those exciting changes into the not-too-distant future," she said.

Keegan is a graduate of Worthington schools and an attorney who opted to stay home and raise her four children. Her husband is Mike and her children are Josh, 14; Casey, 12; Quinn, 9; and Layne, 6.

She was one of five finalists selected by board members out of 26 applicants for an appointed position on the school board, which went to Wilson in February.

Scott also is an attorney and Worthington graduate. He wished both winners well.

"I think the Worthington school district will do just fine with Julie and Charlie on the board," he said. "We were all similar candidates who wanted the same things, and I think Worthington has done very well for itself."

Thursday, November 1, 2007

CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer By Adam Cairns/ThisWeek

If you attended last week's school board candidates' night looking for controversy, you left woefully disappointed.

In fact, the audience had to listen carefully to detect a difference, let alone an actual disagreement, among the three candidates for Worthington Board of Education.

Julie Keegan, Geoffrey Scott and Charlie Wilson each gave their standard two-minute introductions, then fielded seven questions from the audience of approximately 100 people last Thursday night at Congregation Beth Tikvah.

Keegan, 39, of 6675 Lakeside Circle W., grew up in Worthington and has four children attending Worthington schools. She has a law degree from George Mason School of Law, and currently stays at home. She is an active volunteer in the district.

Scott, 39, of 805 Olenhurst Court, is a lifelong resident, a father of three, a former district employee, and a business owner in Worthington. He graduated from Capital University College of Law and is an attorney with Blaugrund Herbert & Martin.

Both Keegan and Scott are running as challengers.

Wilson, 55, of 1116 Baumock Burn Drive, was appointed to the board last February. His two sons graduated from Worthington Kilbourne High School. He has a law degree from New York University School of Law and is an associate professor of law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

Asked if they thought it was ethical for a board member to campaign for a school levy, all three said yes.

In response to another question, they also agreed they would consider the interests of both the east and west sides of the school district when making decisions.

One questioner noted the bomb threat that had been made at Thomas Worthington earlier that day and asked what each board member would do to make the schools safe.

Following a campaign theme about an alleged tendency of the current board to micromanage, Scott said the role of the board is to support the administration and to make sure it has the resources to handle such situations.

"It's not my job to jump in and start managing," he said.

Wilson said it is the role of the board to represent constituents to let the administration know about the views, questions and concerns in the community.

Keegan agreed it is important for board members to communicate with the administration, and to make sure they are well-trained in handling such situations.

She added that, as a parent of a Thomas Worthington student, she had been kept well informed about the situation by the high school principal.

Asked if they would move ahead with another alternative middle school program without voter approval, Keegan said she would, "if the space and numbers would support it."

"We can't go back to the voters every time we make a decision," she said.

Wilson said he agreed, but added that it was crucial for residents to weigh in on such decisions.

Scott agreed, saying he couldn't imagine moving ahead on such a decision without getting the input of the community.

Asked if they favored "green" initiatives in the schools, Wilson was at an advantage because he was allowed to answer first.

He said the schools need to get going on recycling, that Styrofoam needs to be removed from lunchrooms, and that unused roof space could be used for solar panels.

Keegan said she would support all of those steps, as long as they were cost effective.

Scott noted that solar power is used at Bluffsview Elementary School. He said that some efforts may need to start small to make sure they are not too costly.

"Green is a good way to go," he said.

Finally, the candidates were asked about their voting records. Wilson said he has never missed voting in an election; Scott said he has voted regularly; and Keegan said has voted regularly, but not in primaries.

Franklin County Board of Elections records show 13 elections since 2000. The general election of 2006 has not yet been recorded on individual voting records.

Wilson is the only candidate who voted in all 13.

Scott voted in eight, not voting in the primary election of 2002, neither election in 2003 and neither primary in 2005 or 2006.

Keegan voted six times. She voted in all general elections between 2000 and 2005, and in the 2006 primary.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer

Worthington schools will probably not need a school district operating levy until at least 2009, according to a five-year financial forecast presented at the Worthington Board of Education meeting on Monday night.

Treasurer Jeff McCuen's forecast shows the district operating in the black until 2011, when a $3.1-million shortfall is shown.

Worthington voters have not approved a levy since 2004.

In May 2006, voters turned down a 6.25-mill levy.

The only issue that has been approved since then is a bond issue okayed to pay for buses, computers and repairs. It was approved last November.

At the time the May operating levy was defeated, then-treasurer Jonathan Boyd said the district would face a $6-million deficit at the end of the 2007-08 school year.

Now, a $25.5-million surplus is projected.

According to McCuen and board member Marc Schare, the improved financial picture can be traced to the Ohio legislature, which chose to provide a state guarantee to districts like Worthington and which reimbursed the district for losses in the tangible property taxes, which were cut by the state two years ago.

Also, because taxpayers approved the bond issue last spring, district funds once spent on repairs can now go into the general fund.

Also, administrators have successfully cut expenditures. Between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, district spending actually decreased, from $104-million to $100.5-million.

"I'm guessing there are not a lot of school districts who could make that claim," Schare said.

Schare projected that the next levy would be needed in 2009 and would be between 6 and 7 mills. He predicted that taxpayers would pass that amount easily.

He was not as pleased with long-term expenditure projections, which show expenses increasing 6.7 percent in 2008-09, 4.9 percent in fiscal year 2010, 5.6 percent the following year, and 5.9 percent the following year.

Beginning in fiscal year 2009, expenditures will be higher than revenues every year through 2012, which would end with a $28.3-million deficit, without an operating levy

Schare said that even with a levy approved in 2009, a levy of 15 to 16 mills would be needed in 2012.

"I fear the path we are on, as documented by the forecast, will prove to be unsustainable and while we won't feel the pinch for a few years yet because the first eye-popping levy isn't until 2012, if we wait two or three years to alter our course, it may be too late," Schare said.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Voters in the Worthington school district will elect two members to fill seats on the Worthington Board of Education on Nov. 6.

Three candidates' names will be on the ballot: Julie Keegan, Geoffrey P. Scott, and Charlie Wilson.

Wilson is the only incumbent. He took office last February after being appointed by the board to fill the unexpired term of Gary Tyack after Tyack resigned.

The other seat open will be that of current board president Bob Horton, who is not running for re-election.

Board members are elected to four-year terms.

To assist readers in making informed decisions, ThisWeek asked four questions of each candidate. Their responses, which were limited to 100 words each, follow the basic information about each candidate.

Name: Julie Keegan

Address: 6675 Lakeside Circle W., Worthington 43085

Number of years living in district: total of 10 (7 while attending Worthington Schools; 3 as an adult)

Education: B.S.B.A. The Ohio State University; J.D. George Mason University School of Law

Occupation: Currently at home

Name: Charlie Wilson

Address: 1116 Baumock Burn Drive, Columbus 43235

Number of years living in district: More than 21 years.

Education: B.S. in Business Administration (Concentrations in Accounting & Finance), University of Kansas ("With Highest Distinction"). J.D., New York University School of Law ("Summa Cum Laude").

Occupation: Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Name: Geoffrey P. Scott

Address: 805 Olenhurst Court, Columbus 43235

Number of years living in district: Lifetime resident, 39 years

Education: Worthington 1986 / B.S. Education, Ohio State University 1990 / J.D., Capital University 1997 / LLM Taxation, Capital University 2002.

Occupation: Attorney, Blaugrund Herbert & Martin, Inc.

One of the challenges facing the board is the negotiation of a new contract with the Worthington Education Association. The health insurance agreement included in the latest contract did not save as much money for the district as was projected. Should this influence salary increases in the next contract? Do you believe Worthington teachers' salaries are too low, too high, or just about right?

Keegan: Although the latest contract did not save as much money as was projected, 2007-08 projected health insurance costs are lower than district costs for 2004-05. The cost of insurance should be considered an important piece of the compensation package and therefore relevant in the next contract negotiation. Worthington teachers, in general, are paid fairly. Worthington teachers' salaries are at neither the top nor the bottom of the pay scales in central Ohio. Employing teachers with high levels of education and experience drives up the average salary; however, strong teachers make the difference in providing quality education to our students.

Wilson: The cost of all benefits, including health insurance, will always influence salary increases. In Franklin County, the Worthington teachers' pay scale ranks seventh and trails the teachers' pay scales in Upper Arlington, Dublin, Bexley, Grandview, Gahanna and Hilliard. I believe that Worthington compares very favorably with the academic standing of those districts, with whom we compete in the recruitment of teachers. If that is so, we must be prepared to face the fact that our teachers' pay scale may need to be improved. In the end, we must both attract and retain the best teachers available

Scott: Total teacher compensation, both benefits and salaries, should be competitive with similarly situated school districts like Dublin, Arlington, Olentangy and New Albany. If salaries are higher, then some of the cost of benefits may be shifted to the teachers to reach a balanced package. For example, in Dublin salaries are slightly higher, but their board does not contribute to the teachers' HSA, as does Worthington. The WEA and administration are sensitive to the taxpayers' concerns over who bears the cost for the increase in health care expenditures and that public employees generally have more generous coverage than the private sector. I am confident we will work together to equitably share the costs to maintain the support of the public.

The latest state report card rated the district "continuous improvement," the equivalent of a grade of "C." Is this simply an unfair grade, as some have said, or does it indicate that the district is not meeting the needs of some of its students? What changes, if any, are needed?

Keegan: Worthington maintained its "Excellent" rating for six straight years. Each year more tests and measures are added. The district provided an excellent education prior to the "Continuous Improvement" rating and continues to do so following the assignment of that rating. However, the district is not meeting the needs of some of its students and has already begun plans to focus resources in these areas. The rating should be viewed as an opportunity to focus on these groups and address weaknesses while still "holding our heads high" with the knowledge that we are an outstanding school district.

Wilson: The state report card rating is not entirely fair because it assigns a "C" grade to the Worthington Schools even though we passed 29 out of 30 state standards -- certainly laudatory by any ranking. No district our size, or larger, passed more state standards. The state rating does, however, indicate that we are not meeting the needs of a small but important segment of students. We must focus more resources on our students with individual education plans and students who do not speak English as a first language. Our goal must be to meet the needs of every student.

Scott: The "C" grade does not necessarily mean that the district is not meeting the needs of some of its students. I am more interested in how our students in the subgroups that did not meet AYP compare to those same subgroups other districts. If our students in these subgroups are testing in the top 20 percent when compared to other districts, we know our teachers are doing a good job of meeting their educational needs. We need to create an accountability system that allows for such comparisons, which will give parents the tools they need to make informed decisions about their children's education.

An issue has recently arisen about the current board's tendency to "micromanage" the everyday duties of the administration. Do you believe there is any validity to that criticism? What do you believe is the proper role of the school board?

Keegan: I believe current board members seek information from administrators to help them make the best decisions possible. I suspect it is difficult to find a balance in holding the administration accountable while still allowing these professionals the autonomy required to do their jobs. The appropriate role for the board is actually enumerated in its own procedures which state, in part, that the board should "set policy that produces the educational achievement needed by district students." Further, "[T]he board should conduct its business openly, soliciting and encouraging broad-based involvement in the decision-making process by public, students and staff."

Wilson: There is little basis or context for that charge. One person raised it after attending one board meeting - only the first or second that person attended - and that hardly makes it an "issue." The proper role of the board is to determine overall educational policy, to amass a deep understanding of the school district's issues, to determine whether our taxes are being spent wisely, to represent residents, to ask questions to make certain that our programs are effective, and to support our extremely hard working administrative team. If this means long and detail-oriented board meetings, then so be it.

Scott: The board acknowledged in subsequent meetings that the September 10 board meeting was an example of undesirable micromanagement of administration. By all accounts from those both inside the schools and without, this meeting was the culmination of a prolonged drift toward micromanagement. As a result of that realization, the Sept. 24 and Oct. 8 board meetings were better examples of the proper role a school board should fulfill: A school board should express the community's values by focusing on broad educational policy issues and leave day-to-day decisions to the superintendent and her administrative team.

Much has been discussed lately about the success of the Phoenix school and the need to provide other "alternative" types of educational opportunities to Worthington students. Is this something you favor? How much will this cost taxpayers?

Keegan: I support efforts under way to review our elementary schools and high schools and, with the input of staff, administrators and parents, allow individual schools to make changes that will better meet the needs of their student populations. No school should implement change solely for the sake of change. Likewise, our middle schools have and should continue to "tweak" programs based on best practices and successes experienced at Phoenix. It is impossible for any candidate or any district employee at this point to provide cost data since no firm decisions have been made about changes for the district in this area.

Wilson: I strongly support providing our students with increased learning options and opportunities. This board has initiated a process that will empower our teachers and principals to introduce innovative programs so that we can serve the needs of all our students. The Phoenix school is just the first step. Before the board will approve them, all such programs will have to be supported by data showing that they will increase student achievement and are cost-effective. It is time for us to make the schools fit the kids, instead of making the kids fit the schools, at minimal additional cost to taxpayers

Scott: I am in favor of creative, educational programs that make kids and teachers excited about learning. We must take calculated risks and invest in innovative ideas to grow our educational programs. The greatest risk we face is refusing to invest to meet new educational challenges. With that said, there are basic teaching methods that have proven successful for over 100 years. The challenge is implementing the right mix of tried and true methods and innovation. I would support our building principals by giving them greater flexibility to make their schools different. However, I am not in favor of creating 19 "alternative" schools."

Thursday, October 25, 2007

CANDY BROOKS ThisWeek Staff Writer By Ann Tormet/ThisWeek

Charlie Wilson is seeking re-election to the Worthington Board of Education.

Even in a community of achievers, Charlie Wilson's resume stands out.

He graduated with honors with degrees in business and accounting from the University of Kansas, received his law degree summa cum laude from New York University, clerked for a federal district judge, practiced labor law in New York City for five years, and for the past 22 years taught at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

But as impressive as those credentials may be, it is probably his background growing up poor in rural Kansas, and as the father of two boys who went all the way through the Worthington schools, that give him an unusual perspective as a member of the Worthington Board of Education.

Wilson is the only incumbent seeking election this November. He was appointed to the board last February to replace Gary Tyack, who resigned.

He never expected to serve on the board. Even after about 75 people called and encouraged him to apply, he was hesitant.

It was his sons who changed his mind.

His son, Geoff Buller, called from Yale, where he is a junior studying history and American studies.

Then, son Richard Wilson called from Washington, D.C., where he teaches third grade. Richard Wilson graduated from Amherst.

Both are thankful for the education they received in Worthington. Both were well prepared to enter competitive colleges. In many cases, they had received better educations than those who attended expensive prep schools, Charlie Wilson said.

"I feel I owe the district something for my kids' education," he said.

His own life illustrates the importance of education.

Neither of his parents finished high school, and the family was poor.

Wilson remembers the humiliation of being the only boy in his class not in Cub Scouts, because his parents could not afford to buy the uniform, and waiting until the other students had eaten lunch, to see if there were leftovers for the kids who had no lunch money.

Growing up needy gives him an unusual perspective, he said.

At a recent meeting, he questioned the "pay-to-play" policy that charges students to participate in school activities. He believes some are being left out because they cannot afford the fees.

He was not disappointed with the recent state report card that showed the district needs to focus more on students with disabilities and those for whom English is a second language.

"I provide a perspective of kids who don't have everything," he said.

He was also the only student from his high school to get a college scholarship.

He went to junior college on a basketball scholarship, then learned a hard lesson.

"The world is full of great basketball players, and I'm not one of them," he said.

After junior college, he gave up basketball, transferred to the state university, and excelled academically. He could have attended law school at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, but opted for NYU.

After starting his career in New York, Wilson and his wife moved to Columbus, where he accepted a teaching position at the OSU law school. They moved to Worthington 22 years ago, in time for both sons to begin their educations in a system that seemed to be "the best match for us."

He points out that he is the only candidate, and the only board member, whose children have already gone completely through the system.

"I'm the new person on the board, but I've been around longer than anyone," he said.

Wilson said his background in accounting has been valuable in interpreting budget documents as a board member. He not only understands school finance, but enjoys reading the many pages of financial information available to the board.

"I never consider preparing for a board meeting as drudgery," he said. "It has just been a wonderful experience."

The district's treasurer agrees, citing a new five-year forecast. By PAMELA WILLIS Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:55 PM EDT Text Size Worthington schools should be able to stay off the ballot until sometime in 2009, says district Treasurer Jeff McCuen.

McCuen presented the district's new five-year financial forecast at the Monday, Oct. 22, school board meeting, held at the Worthington Education Center.

"Comparing ending balances from the January 2006 forecast to the ending balance in June 2010, we saved a little over $55 million, which should keep us off the ballot until sometime in calendar year 2009," McCuen said.

[EW notes that the $55 million "saved" includes the $38 million bond levy passed by Worthington voters earlier this year. ]

The new forecast shows positive fund balances until 2011, when the budget deficit is projected to be about $3 million.

Board member Marc Schare said that compared to the adapted May 21 forecast, the district has "pulled off an amazing feat for public education in Ohio" in balancing the budget and keeping "expenses flat" from 2004-05 to 2006-07.

"Based on the positive fund balance of $12.5 million in fiscal year 2010, not including a contingency of $3.1 million, there is no justification for a tax issue of any kind in calendar year 2008," he said. "The earliest we should consider a tax issue would be 2009, which means that Worthington would have gone five years between tax increases for operating levies."

Voters last approved an operating levy of 6.35 mills in May 2004.

In May 2006, voters turned down an operating levy request for 6.25 mills.

After instituting a "Reduce, Rethink and Recalculate" plan, Superintendent Melissa Conrath found $1.1 million in immediate cuts and planned about $2 million in additional cuts each year.

With former Treasurer Jonathan Boyd, Conrath proposed the "no new millage" 1.91-mill bond issue that voters approved in November 2006, which cost-shifted $10 million from the bond issue to replace expenses for capital improvements that had been drawn from the general budget.

The bond issue also was expected to generate $37.5 million for the district in needed capital improvements.

McCuen said a number of factors will aid the district in staying on top of expenses through 2010, including state transitional guarantee funds of $9.6 million, $12 million in state funds to replace tangible taxes, investment returns of about $7.1 million from 2006-10, $10 million from the bond issue, $9.6 million in staff reductions already realized and an additional $7.6 million in planned reductions.

Total revenues for 2006 were about $111.6 million, according to the new forecast, with about $103.9 million in total expenses.

Actual 2007 revenues were about $95.8 million, with expenditures coming in at about $100.5 million and a positive fund balance of about $22.8 million.

Fiscal year 2008 is projected to end up with about $116.5 million in revenue and about $106.7 million in expenses.

Expenses begin to exceed revenue, but with positive fund balances, in 2009.

Schare said the "escalating pace" of expenses projected by the new forecast was alarming.

"So what is driving the increase in expenses? The primary cost driver seems to be the health-care plan the board approved a month or so ago," he said.

McCuen's notes presented with the forecast show health insurance costs increasing in January 2008 by 28 percent. Estimated increases are 20 percent per year for fiscal year 2009 and beyond, McCuen said.

"Even if everything in this forecast is reasonable and conservative, can Worthington afford our product?" Schare asked. "Many of our seniors received word that their Social Security increase will be 2.3 percent. The median real income, adjusted for inflation, declined in the Worthington school district by 13 percent between 2000 and 2004.

"If our expenses are outstripping the ability of our residents to pay, the levy issue is not reasonable nor will it be whether our salaries are competitive with other districts -- the issue will be one of affordability and sustainability," he said.

By PAMELA WILLIS Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Around 75 Worthington school district residents attended a Community Conversation last week to provide feedback on the district's new improvement plan, titled "21st-Century Learning for All Students."

The gathering took place Wednesday, Oct. 17, at the Worthington Education Center.

"I started the evening by sharing the district's priorities and goals and the rationale behind each one," said Superintendent Melissa Conrath.

Conrath said the goals were developed after two public forums and several meetings with administrators and staff in the spring.

"We brought people in to talk about the qualities of a high-performing school district and looked at all the information to come up with five district priorities," Conrath said. "At Wednesday's forum, we shared strategies we've developed and the outcome we want, and asked for further feedback from the community."

The five priorities and their rationales are:

* The district will support high-quality learning opportunities that emphasize 21st-century learning skills.

The skills students need to succeed in the 21st century are more complex than they have been in the past.

* All students will develop a mastery of core academic competencies.

Achievement data indicate an achievement gap in the performance of varying subgroups of students in the district.

* Technology will be an integral part of teaching and learning.

Staff must develop technology integration strategies to provide students with a variety of learning experiences.

* High-quality staff will be recruited and retained to meet the diverse needs of students.

The demographics of the staff indicate the district will experience a large turnover in the next several years due to retirements.

* The district will expand opportunities for communication and engagement with the community to increase trust in decision-making.

Parent and community involvement is found to be a strong correlate to student achievement.

Conrath said people attending the forum broke into smaller groups.

"We asked everyone to attend the first priority group, about 21st-century learning skills, then asked them to choose among technology, staffing or community relationships as their second group," she said. "In the community relationship group, we asked how we could best communicate to residents who don't have children in school.

"The comments were interesting and gave us diverse perspectives," she said. "In the technology group, some people said we need to make sure our technology is up to date, and some said technology cannot replace a high-quality teacher in front of the classroom."

Conrath said she will look at the feedback and review the priorities and strategies "to make sure we aren't missing anything."

"If there is a particular response or thought that is rampant throughout the responses, we'll make sure we add it to our strategies," she said.

The final document will become the district's improvement plan and will be posted on the district Web site, worthington.k12.oh.us, when it is completed, Conrath said.

"I think we received valuable input in terms of communicating with people and making sure we use avenues of communication they prefer," she said.

One of the strategies under the first priority, high-quality learning opportunities was, "The elementary program review that began in 2006-07 will be completed and a framework for reform will be developed."

The performance outcome under that strategy was, "All elementary schools will have developed a plan for change and select elementary schools will plan for implementation of those changes beginning in the 2008-09 school year."

Similar strategies were planned for the middle school and high schools, asking each building to develop "a specific targeted plan" to expand 21st-century learning opportunities.

To help students develop a mastery of core academics, strategies included making specific plans to identify learning targets for students performing below benchmark scores and researching best practices to close any achievement gaps.

A performance outcome listed under that goal was, "Percent of students below proficient on the Ohio achievement tests will decrease by 40 percent."

Conrath said she was pleased by the outcome of the forum.

"We had a diverse group of people, those with kids and without kids and senior citizens and younger parents," she said. "I felt it was representative of the district and a chance for us to receive reactions as we move forward on these goals."

Conrath said she would like to have another "community conversation" sometime in the winter to share the district's financial perspective, and one more before the end of the school year to "explore other topics of interest to the community."

Those who could not attend the forum and would like to comment on the goals may e-mail Director of Communications Vicki Gnezda at vgnezdaSC_CODE_ATworthington.k12.oh.us or call Gnezda at 614-883-3000.

"I think we received valuable input in terms of communicating with people and making sure we use avenues of communication they prefer."

--Melissa Conrath

Thursday, October 11, 2007

CANDY BROOKS

Next year's health insurance costs for Worthington schools will increase by approximately 28 percent, more than what was projected when the district switched to a "high-deductible" plan in 2006.

That change was part of the 2005 contract between the Worthington Board of Education and the Worthington Education Association. In a public statement made in August 2005, the district projected that teacher salary increases would be offset by insurance savings of "nearly 40 percent."

During the first year of the new plan, which encourages users to economize through a health savings account, the projected savings was seen. But since the first year, costs have begun to spiral.

In 2005, the district paid $12.3-million in health care premiums. The 2006 cost to the district was $8.4-million.

It increased to $9-million in 2007, and will go up to $11.5-million next year.

That amount is twice the amount of increase projected in the May 2007 financial forecast.

"This is an unplanned, unforecasted $1.25-million transfer of funds that could have been used for programs that directly benefit kids and enhance our product, in favor of an item that clearly does not directly benefit children," board member Marc Schare said.

The school board approved the increase at its Sept. 24 meeting, awarding the contract to current carrier United Health Care (UHC), which was not the low bidder on the contract.

According to district treasurer Jeff McCuen, there were five bids. The highest was dismissed because it was much higher than the others. Of the four companies that were considered, UHC submitted the highest bid.

That did not set well with Schare, who pointed out that the district could have saved approximately $450,000 by going with the lowest bidder, Medical Mutual.

"That is real money that we could be using to fund other programs," Schare said.

Part of the reason for opting to continue with UHC was the wellness program that the company will offer as a way to reduce future costs, McCuen said.

Also, if the district opts for the lowest bidder each year, companies will stop bidding because of the high start-up costs involved with changing carriers, McCuen said.

That happened in the Hilliard school district, which had only one bidder for its latest contract.

"We should have more than one anecdote before abandoning a policy of accepting the lowest bid," said Schare.

The other carriers also offer wellness programs, he pointed out.

Schare was the only board member who questioned the increase at the Sept. 24 meeting.

He does not expect the increase to be popular with voters, who will probably be asked to approve an operating levy in 2008 or 2009.

"I do not believe the citizens in the Worthington School District will vote for a levy whose primary justification is the continuation of a superior health care benefit that those very citizens can no longer afford for themselves," he said.

When the board and the Worthington Education Association ratified a three-year contract in 2005, annual salary increases of 3.75 percent, 3.25 percent, and 3.5 percent were justified by the change to a new type of insurance program that was supposed to "reduce costs in health care insurance nearly 40 percent," according to a press release from the district dated Aug. 30, 2005.

Then-Superintendent Rick Fenton was quoted as saying: "In the short-term, the shift in health-care costs funds the increase to salaries. In the long-term, the agreement has the potential to save money for the district."

The establishment of a health savings account for employees was meant to encourage employees to economize.

Schare pointed out that according to a response by UHC, that has not happened.

McCuen acknowledged that the savings has not been what was anticipated.

"I believe it will get better over time," he said.

He projected that next increase will not be as high as the 2008 increase.

Schare ended up voting in favor of the UHC contract on Sept. 24, but only because McCuen said there would not be enough time to make a change.

Had the contract been awarded to one of the other three companies, a transition in coverage would have taken 60 to 90 days.

"I am going to vote in favor of the administration proposal only because we no longer have any choice," Schare said.

He recommended that the board be represented on the insurance committee and that the board begin to understand in greater detail the correlation between member behavior and plan cost.

He also said there is a need to impress upon employees the importance of reducing claims; there is a need to analyze claims data, and there is a need to analyze whether self-funding is desirable.

By PAMELA WILLIS Published: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:34 PM EDT

As an attorney who elected to stay home to raise her four children, she soon became a dedicated classroom volunteer.

Keegan, 39, is one of three candidates in the Nov. 6 race for two seats on the Worthington school board.

The other candidates are appointed board member Charlie Wilson and resident Geoffrey Scott.

"I've spent an enormous amount of my time volunteering in classrooms and visiting school buildings, and I feel I'm very much in touch with district issues," Keegan said. "I believe I have the time, passion and energy to dedicate myself to a role on the school board."

Keegan is a graduate of Worthington schools. She and her husband, Mike, have four children: Josh, 14; Casey, 12; Quinn, 9; and Layne, 6.

"I have a broad perspective of many levels of education in the district, and I have been and will continue to be an active volunteer," she said. "I've also attended all but one of the school board meetings in the past 13 months."

She earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Ohio State University and a law degree from George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Va.

Keegan was one of five finalists selected by board members out of 26 applicants for an appointed position on the school board, which eventually went to Wilson. The finalists were quizzed by the community in a public forum in February.

She said she has been in and out of district buildings recently to interview building principals. She also serves as a member of the grant committee for the Worthington Educational Foundation, reviewing teachers' grant submissions.

Keegan said the district will face some challenges over the next few years.

"One of the challenges is changing the way we do things," she said. "We keep talking about how to prepare our kids for the 21st century, and this is a community that values tradition and finds change difficult. So a big challenge will be helping to be a part of the changes that will take place.

"It's not clear yet what form those changes will take, but an elementary education reform is already under way, and we know there will be changes in the method we deliver education," she said. "We can't please everyone, but the board will have to stand behind whatever the final plan for those changes will be."

The district likely will be back on the ballot for an operating levy request, Keegan said.

"Board members will need to determine the most responsible way to present financial needs to the community and a plan to manage those resources if the community approves the levy request," she said.

Schools offer textbook case of how strong district can get overall 'C' grade 

Monday, August 20, 2007 3:27 AM By Charlie Boss and Bill Bush THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

SCHOOL FUNDING: HAS OHIO FIXED IT?

Published: Sunday, March 25, 2007 By Jim Siegel and Catherine Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Yet a decade after the Ohio Supreme Court issued its first of four decisions finding the way the state pays for public schools unconstitutional, many problems cited in those decisions persist.

Not counting federal money, the state paid 45 percent of the cost of a child's education in 1997. Today, that share is 45.5 percent.

Districts continue to flood the ballot with levies. And with the continuing reliance on local property taxes, the revenue gap between the state's richest and poorest districts is almost as big as ever.

Ohio taxpayers aren't feeling any relief, either. The average Franklin County district approved 11 mills of additional property tax in the past decade. Bexley started collecting a 0.75 percent income tax.

Student scores on state tests and college-entrance exams are up, but so is the number of districts charging a fee to participate in sports or other extracurricular activities.

So, 10 years after the high court's first ruling, is school funding fixed?

The debate is every bit as fierce today as it was on March 24, 1997, when justices first told state elected leaders that they were not meeting their obligation to pay for the "thorough and efficient" education required by the Ohio Constitution.

Gov. Ted Strickland says his administration will be a failure if he does not mend the system. Republican legislative leaders insist that, while improvements are always possible, it already is constitutional.

"I continue to believe that disparity exists," Strickland said. "I continue to believe that the burden on the local property owner is, for many people, intolerable because of their circumstances, because they've got fixed incomes or limited incomes."

Strickland gives Republican lawmakers credit for improvements, but says, "It's not fixed."

Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Vandalia, a key architect of Ohio's most recent school-funding formulas, said the biggest problem today isn't revenue -- it's spending. Districts, he said, have spent as if the state could keep up 7 percent increases forever, which is not realistic.

"We have a problem in this state that labor contracts get signed based on assumptions about what the money is going to be," he said. "If the money isn't there, there's no way to adjust those contracts backwards."

The Supreme Court's 4-3 majority in 1997 ordered a systematic overhaul of school funding but no specific remedy. Three more 4-3 rulings, in 2000, 2001 and 2002, said changes by the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches fell short.

Though some Republicans admit they didn't start taking the court seriously until after the second ruling, state funding was increased an average of 7.5 percent a year during the six years the court had jurisdiction over the case.

But since the court issued its final ruling in December 2002 and dropped the matter, those annual increases have plunged to 2.4 percent.

"The legislature no longer had the leverage or hammer hanging over their heads," said Tom Slater, in his 12th year as superintendent of North Fork schools. "So they went back to doing business as usual prior to the suit being filed."

Actually, it's worse than that. During the 10 years before the suit, state school funding rose an average of 4.4 percent a year.

The financial strain is evident across the state. Since the November 2004 election, school officials have asked voters 628 times to provide new tax revenue. (That doesn't count renewal requests or bond issues.)

"Yes, the system is broke. We have too many levies, and we have to fix that," said state Superintendent Susan T. Zelman.

New buildings

Justice Francis E. Sweeney, writing for the majority in DeRolph I: "Obviously, state funding of school districts cannot be considered adequate if the districts lack sufficient funds to provide their students a safe and healthy learning environment."

Most everyone agrees that the most beneficial policy to grow from the DeRolph case was the school-facilities program. Since 1997, the state has spent more than $5 billion to construct or renovate 481 buildings in nearly 200 districts. More is on the way.

"You can't argue that, on the school-facilities spending, you probably can't find another state that's undertaken it like Ohio has," said David Varda, executive director of the Ohio Association of School Business Officials. "They deserve credit for that."

Strickland called the buildings program "a huge legacy for Bob Taft," his predecessor.

Equity

"We must ensure that there is enough money that students have the chance to succeed because of the educational opportunity provided, not in spite of it."

Sen. Jacobson says the key directive from the Supreme Court was to fix the disparity between Ohio's poorest and wealthiest districts.

He said lawmakers addressed that in 2001 when he helped create parity aid, money earmarked for the poorest 80 percent of Ohio school districts in an effort to close the gap.

Pointing to a proposed constitutional amendment being pushed by school groups, he said they have forgotten about disparity and are just looking for a money grab.

"Now we've abandoned any pretense toward a principle about this," Jacobson said. "It's all about, 'Can I land as much money as possible based on what me and my friends decide is necessary?' That's pretty blatant. It goes against the basic premise of DeRolph, which was reducing disparity."

Education groups generally praise Jacobson's parity aid. But they are quick to note that, in what they say is an all-too-typical move for state lawmakers, majority Republicans changed the formula in 2006, reducing the aid by tens of millions of dollars.

And how much has disparity really lessened? In 1997, the top one-fifth of Ohio school districts got 60 percent more revenue (federal, state and local) than the bottom one-fifth. In 2006, that gap had shrunk to 51 percent, not enough for some.

For example, Worthington schools ranked 20th in total revenue last year with $12,683 per student. Licking Heights ranked 571st at $7,471.

"We need to address the disparities," Zelman said. "We've never done that."

However, the various changes to the funding formula have significantly altered who makes up the top and bottom districts. Of the bottom one-fifth today, more than half weren't on the list in 1997. Overall, 255 districts have shifted up or down the revenue rankings by at least 100 spots.

But worse than the disparity is the fact that districts at the lower end often don't get enough to provide a quality education, said William Phillis, executive director of the coalition of more than 500 school districts that sued the state.

"Had they overhauled the system and established a formula based on student needs ... then those districts would be raised up to the point where they could have (Advanced Placement) courses and a whole complement of art, music and phys ed in the elementary schools."

Property taxes

"The evidence reveals that the wide disparities are caused by the funding system's over-reliance on the tax base of individual school districts."

As the state's most stable form of revenue, property taxes aren't going away. State leaders say the formula today requires most schools to rely less on local taxes to provide a basic education, though school officials disagree.

Unless districts drop to the minimum 20 mills -- as nearly two-thirds have done -- or pass a new type of levy that grows with inflation, they continue to see little local revenue growth from existing levies. That generates the need to frequently return to voters to pass new taxes.

The lack of built-in growth "has contributed to the instability and unpredictability of the local revenue stream," said Paolo DeMaria, the Ohio Department of Education's top school-finance expert.

But changes aren't as easy as they look, state leaders argue.

"I've been through all of this. Every approach has its upside and downside," said House Speaker Jon A. Husted, R-Kettering. "To make one group of people happy, you have to make another group mad, unless you're going to grow the overall pool of resources."

For example, Husted and Jacobson point to the often-criticized phantom revenue issue, which costs a number of schools state money because the funding formula assumes they are collecting more local taxes than they really do. But fixing the formula, they argue, would pump millions of dollars into Ohio's wealthiest districts, exacerbating the disparity gap.

Varda doesn't buy it. "Tweener" districts such as Lancaster, Zanesville and Reynoldsburg -- those not poor on paper but with large blocks of lower-income residents -- "just get clobbered" by phantom revenue, he said.

The remedy

"Let there be no misunderstanding. Ohio's public school financing scheme must undergo a complete systematic overhaul."

State officials have made numerous changes to state funding over the decade. But at its core, no one disagrees that it's much the same formula as in 1997.

"There is no complete systematic overhaul," said Nicholas Pittner, the schools' lead attorney in the DeRolph case. "We haven't lessened the reliance on property tax and, in fact, we've increased it. We've really done nothing to eliminate the disparities between one district to another."

What's next?

Republicans have blasted the plan, and Strickland isn't supporting it, either. The governor's budget would increase base per-student funding by 3 percent a year and focus more money on low-wealth districts, though 228 districts would get no new money.

Strickland insists he still is meeting with groups and working on a more comprehensive fix.

Republican legislative leaders hope to build on the current formula, perhaps with a focus on science, math and technology classes.

"I don't feel the burden of a new system is on me or the legislature," Husted said.

Some question whether any one solution could satisfy politicians, taxpayers and 614 school districts with such vast disparities.

And just because school leaders consistently demand more money, does that unquestionably mean they need it? Or just because Republican lawmakers argue for the 10th straight year that they have created a constitutional school-funding system, does the public have any more reason to believe them?

No one in 10 years has determined a true cost to educate a student on which all sides can agree. Education advocates cite that as a failure of elected leaders, though not all agree such a number exists.

"I've been really skeptical that there is some magical amount we can home in on," said DeMaria, of the Department of Education. "There are so many nuances and too much anecdotal evidence that shows expenditure levels in many different ways can still result in an excellent education."

And so the debate goes on.

Saturday, March 24, 2007 3:33 AM By Catherine Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

CORNING, Ohio -- The problems in the Southern Local School District were glaring.

Nestled in the hills of poverty-stricken southeastern Ohio were classrooms with crumbling plaster. Pools of water gathered from leaking roofs. Textbooks were outdated.

Word of dismal conditions across the Appalachian region spread when the Perry County school district and neighboring Northern Local filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the governor and legislature weren't meeting the state's constitutional obligation to fund public schools.

Ten years ago today, a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court finding the funding system unconstitutional was met with relief and hope in Southern Local and other poor districts across the state. Educators, parents and students felt they were about to be rescued.

"When the ruling came out, we thought people are finally going to understand our needs," said Southern Local Superintendent Cindy Hartman. "The expectation was that all of those lacks were about to be met."

And, for a time, the future looked brighter. As the state opened the money spigot wider, the district renovated a high school and opened a new middle school and elementary school to replace five rundown buildings. The complex, paid for almost entirely by the state,was a beacon of hope.

"The best thing that has ever happened here was the new buildings," Hartman said. "It is a source of real pride."

In addition to a massive school-building program, the court decision led to an infusion of state aid for operations.

Southern Local bought supplies, books and computers. The district hired a remedial-reading teacher, an elementary guidance counselor and a curriculum director. It created an art program for middle-school students.

"There were so many improvements, so many different programs, technology," said Connie Alfman, a 1992 graduate who returned after earning her college degree to teach music in the elementary school.

But a decade later, Southern Local is again in financial trouble. The salaries of all staff members -- administrators, teachers and support personnel -- were frozen this year, and 13 positions have been eliminated. The remedial-reading teacher, the elementary guidance counselor, the curriculum director and the middle-school arts program are gone.

New science labs lack equipment. Some classes don't have enough textbooks, so students can't take one home at night. And there is not a single advanced-placement course.

"Students get a good conceptual education but lack lab experience," said high-school chemistry teacher Tony Losco.

Superintendent Hartman said, "Students are getting a very basic education. They aren't getting the extras that other communities take for granted."

What happened?

On paper, the financial picture doesn't look so gloomy.

Southern Local's per-student revenue has more than doubled since 1997.

The district received $10,043 in local, state and federal revenue for each student last year, ranking it 102nd among 611 school districts statewide. A decade ago, it was 437th.

Much of the boost comes thanks to a pair of federal grants the district received to help students with reading. As a result, federal aid makes up

17 percent of district revenue this year, nearly double what it was a decade ago.

State revenue, however, makes up a smaller percentage of district income -- 72 percent, down from 78 percent in 1997.

The bottom line: Costs are rising faster than state aid. And the district can't generate enough money through local property taxes to keep up.

Health insurance, salaries and transportation costs are the main culprits. Southern Local is spending $1.1 million more for health insurance than it did 10 years ago, a 150 percent jump. Transportation costs are up, too. In 1997, the district bought two new buses for $74,000; this year it paid $62,000 for one.

The financial troubles began three years ago when lawmakers reduced annual increases in parity aid, assistance for low-income districts aimed at narrowing the spending gap between them and wealthy districts.

"Cuts in state aid drastically impact what we do," said George Johnson, a teacher for 32 years in the district. "When those percentages fall, it plays havoc with budgets."

With some of the lowest property values in the state, 1 mill of property tax raises $44,000 a year in Southern Local. (A mill in Upper Arlington generates $1.5 million.)

At the same time, the district has some of the most expensive students to educate. Two-thirds qualify for the federal government's free breakfast and lunch programs. That means they live in households earning less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level, or $37,000 a year for a family of four.

A quarter of students have special needs.

"Those types of kids come with extra problems and extra needs," Johnson said.

While money doesn't guarantee results, most educators agree that disadvantaged students need more resources than do affluent ones. Johnson noted that lawmakers decreased parity aid as soon as the court released jurisdiction over the case in 2002.

Alfman, among a handful in her class to go to college, said she returned to show students "dreams do come true." She is among the 7 percent of Southern Local residents with college degrees.

"Education is a way out of poverty, and we have a lot of poverty in this area. But we put them right back into low-paying jobs" like their parents work, Johnson said.

"There is not enough money coming in for us to have the kind of quality school system we want for our kids."

ccandisky@dispatch.com Key facts

• Per-student revenue has doubled since 1997.

• Two-thirds of students are low-income; a quarter are considered "special needs."

• For every $1 in state income taxes paid by Southern Local residents in 2005, the district received $4.84 in state funding, third highest in the state.

• The district has no advanced-placement courses.

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:37 AM By Jim Siegel THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Chances are, when you woke up on Election Day in the Hilliard school district during the past eight years, you could plan to vote on a school levy.

The rapidly growing district has been on the ballot in six of those years. Since 1991, voters have approved four operating levies and four bond issues and defeated eight other levies.

A decade ago, Hilliard levied the seventh-highest taxes among Franklin County districts. Now, it ranks third. And officials expect to return to the ballot again no later than May 2008 to ask for yet another levy.

Why so often?

Officials say they remain victims of the state's continued reliance on local property taxes to fund schools -- a lingering complaint from education advocates who say the state never fully addressed the problems highlighted 10 years ago this week by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The 40 percent growth in Hilliard's student population over the past decade also has necessitated bond issues to pay for seven new schools since 1997, pressuring tax-weary middle-class and affluent residents in what is now the state's ninth-largest district with nearly 15,000 students.

"I know a lot of people are getting a little bit tired of it because we feel like we pay enough taxes now," said Tony Currie, 55, a manager at Skyline Chili in Hilliard. He added that he's also concerned because "I think there's a lot of fat on the payroll."

The state's share of school operating costs statewide is down slightly from 1997, when the Ohio Supreme Court first found Ohio's school-funding system unconstitutional, in part because of an overreliance on property taxes.

"The state has, in essence, flat-lined our funding, but our growth continues," said Lisa Whiting, a parent who has helped Hilliard with five levy campaigns and works with a group formed to educate the public about school funding.

"Overreliance (on property taxes), to me, is when we are going back to the same people again and again saying the only solution we have is to ask for more property tax," she said.

While Ohio's share of Hilliard's operating costs has grown slightly since 1997, Superintendent Dale McVey said the state merely is picking up local revenue lost as state lawmakers phase out taxes on inventory and equipment.

McVey is frustrated that Hilliard residents shoulder so much of the burden, while lawmakers have focused on improved equity for poorer districts.

The problem worsened two years ago when GOP lawmakers began phasing out a factor that boosts funding to urban-area districts to compensate for higher labor costs.

Gov. Ted Strickland's proposed two-year education budget gives Hilliard no increases.

"Large, growing suburban districts continue to find themselves on the ballot frequently because that burden continues to be shifted (to the local level)," McVey said. "How does one define equity when our taxpayers are asked to support multiple bond issues?"

Those taxes, many Hilliard residents say, are getting more difficult to handle.

Chris Ayres, 47, who works in pharmaceutical sales, said that the city is allowing too many "rampant housing developments. Along with all that development comes a lot of kids, and with a lot of kids comes a lot of demand for educational needs."

The number of expensive, special-needs students in Hilliard is up. The students getting free or reduced-price lunches have nearly doubled over seven years to 14 percent.

And where most of Hilliard's young, foreign-born students 10 years ago were concentrated in a single elementary school, today six of 13 buildings have at least 70 students with limited or no English-speaking ability.

Beacon Elementary Principal Craig Vroom recently stepped into a kindergarten class and pointed to a girl from Mexico who arrived four months ago with no previous schooling.

"She is expected to pass kindergarten just like her peers who had preschool," he said. "Regardless of their diversity, our (limited-English) students require additional support teachers to make them successful."

That costs money. At Beacon, two full-time teachers and two 30-hour tutors earning $23 to $29 an hour work exclusively with the 85 limited-English students there.

Hilliard is the only district of its size to meet all 25 indicators on the 2005-06 state report card. But when you ask for more taxes every two years, a debate over need is sure to arise.

"Does Hilliard get enough money? Yeah, we have a lot of money," said Jim Underwood, a 24-year district resident who has studied school funding, particularly as a researcher for Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman's brief campaign for governor in 2005.

"We're not talking about how can we feed a hungry kid here in Hilliard. We're talking about should we have more broadcast facilities for our junior high schools."

Although he thinks Hilliard is hurt by a lack of predictable state funding, Underwood also is critical of district management, including the teachers' contract.

In 1997, the average teacher salary in Hilliard was $1 more than the state average. In 2006, Hilliard's $56,139 average salary was nearly $5,400 more than the state average. Employees also pay nothing out-of-pocket for health insurance, while premiums jumped 220 percent in 10 years.

McVey said two-thirds of Hilliard teachers have masters degrees today, compared with 35 percent in 1997.

"It is extremely important that we pay wages that are competitive in this county," he said. Hilliard's starting teacher salary ranks eighth of 16 Franklin County districts.

Whiting said she is confident the district spends efficiently.

"Hilliard has done an excellent job educating our children in light of all of these financial challenges they face," she said.

jsiegel@dispatch.com Hilliard facts

In the Hilliard City School District:

• Enrollment has grown by about 40 percent in the past decade.

• Six of 13 elementary schools now house 70 or more students who speak little or no English, compared with one building in 1997.

• Voters have passed four operating levies and four bond issues (to build seven new schools) in the past 16 years.

Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:49 AM By Catherine Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Two years ago, 14-year-old Talaso Isaac came to school for the first time ever.

He and his family immigrated to Columbus to join the city's growing Somali community. Talaso spoke no English and was terrified.

"The kids would ask me a question and I couldn't answer," he recalled.

French was all Ahmed Camara spoke when he arrived from New Guinea three years ago. Like Talaso, Ahmed had no formal education.

"I was scared the first time I came to school. The kids bullied me," Ahmed said.

But a hunger to learn and desire to fit in kept both youths coming back.

The number of students speaking limited English, or none at all, has soared to 5,000 in Columbus Public Schools.

More than 3,600 students are receiving English-as-a-second-language services. That's up from 898 students in 1997.

Columbus has the highest number of ESL students in the state; most are from Somalia and various Latino nations. But a growing number of such students can be found in most urban school districts and increasingly in suburban districts such as South-Western and Westerville.

That influx creates a dilemma for districts striving to meet tougher state standards for their students. Ohio law requires the incoming children to take standardized tests immediately, just like other students, although the first-year results aren't tabulated with the others.

But starting their second year of school, their scores count toward the schools' academic-achievement ranking -- meaning for students arriving around this time of year, teachers have a little more than a year to bring the newcomers up to grade level.

Such rapid schooling of foreign-born students is expensive.

But while the state funding formula gives districts extra money for students with disabilities and those struggling against poverty, it fails to adequately account for the higher cost of non-English speakers, said Columbus Superintendent Gene Harris.

In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court found the state's school-funding system overly dependent on local property taxpayers. Yet state aid still makes up only 35 percent of Columbus' revenue, virtually unchanged from a decade ago.

The district received additional funding in the first few years after the court's decision, Harris said, and the district improved student test scores and graduation rates.

"We've made great strides with relatively flat funding," she said.

"We've had to stretch these dollars; we've had to lay off teachers; we've had to close buildings; and we've had a great change in our student population."

The financial struggles are magnified in Ohio's large and highly diverse urban districts. Many students are disabled, many live in poverty and many are high achievers in need of gifted services, all variables that complicate learning and add to the cost.

The funding shortage also has caused the Columbus district to put off textbook purchases for the past four years. Books had been replaced on a three-year cycle. At the same time, the district has tried to respond to student needs by expanding advanced-placement offerings and directing more resources to its influx of foreign-speaking students.

One of the district's biggest investments has been three new "welcome centers." The schools provide intense, individualized instruction to English-as-a-second-language students until they are ready to join a traditional school.

The brightly colored artwork decorating the halls of Mifflin International Middle School gives the first hint that the Northeast Side school is not a typical Columbus school. Heavy accents and young girls wearing veils give the next clues.

At Mifflin, specially trained teachers, smaller classes and individual tutoring help students acclimate. There is an aid in each class to assist students.

On average, students need two years of services, said Kenneth Woodard, director of the district's English-as-a-second-language program.

"The district has had to spend a large amount on the program," he said. "It takes more resources, more staff, special training, and a change on (the part of) teachers who need to do things different."

The district has added nearly 100 ESL teachers in the past 10 years.

"Some (students) have never written a letter or read a book," said Brenda Custodio, a district employee training to be a principal. In Barbara Sheridan's sixth-grade reading class, a stack of dictionaries in four languages attests to the countries her 12 students represent: China, Mexico, Somalia and Vietnam. The challenge, Sheridan said, is that new students arrive at Mifflin throughout the year.

As they take turns reading aloud a story about author Maya Angelou, the boys and girls are attentive.

"Char…char…char," a girl stumbles as she tries to sound out a new word.

"Charismatic," Sheridan interrupts. "I don't use that word so much, but it means she is popular and well liked."

The girl nods and continues.

Moments later, nearly every hand in the class shoots up when the teacher asks students to identify the types of words they have read.

"What part of speech is 'their'?" Sheridan asks.

"An adverb."

"No."

"Pronoun?" a boy asks.

"Yes. That is a pronoun."

The boy smiles, turning proudly to his friends.

ccandisky@dispatch.com Columbus district

• One in 11 students speak no or limited English, and enrollment in English-as-a-second-language classes has quadrupled in 10 years.

• More than two-thirds of all students come from low-income families.

• The district receives $11,363 per student in local, state and federal revenue each year, 43rd highest in the state.

• 35 percent of its revenue comes from the state, virtually unchanged since 1997.

UTICA -- As four kindergarten students work on reading exercises with volunteers, Lori Carver watches with pride.

"I have tons of parents come to me and say, 'Please get my child in there,' " she says of the tutoring, part of the OhioReads effort started by former Gov. Bob Taft. "It's such a successful program, I'd hate to see us lose it and then revert back. It breaks my heart."

For 30 minutes twice a week, 83 students identified as needing reading help get one-on-one tutoring in Carver's classroom at Utica Elementary in the North Fork school district.

Reading scores have increased in the past few years. However, the $30,000 state grant that pays for Carver's salary and the structured reading program will go away next year. The school's scores have improved so much that it no longer qualifies for the funding.

"It makes no sense to me that you have a program that's working and, because it works so good, you quit funding it," Superintendent Tom Slater said. "That's what school districts put up with."

For a district that eliminated 11 teaching positions and fielded sports teams only after a community fundraising effort, finding $30,000 isn't easy, even after passing a 1 percent income tax in February on the third try.

This rural, middle-class district spanning six townships between Mount Vernon and Newark can be regarded as one of Ohio's average districts -- ranking near the middle in property values, median income and enrollment. It's one of the nearly two-thirds of districts levying the minimum 20 mills of property tax.

It also seems to have what are, unfortunately, all-too-typical money problems.

Funding wasn't always such an issue in North Fork, though it now ranks in the bottom third of all districts, with total revenue of about $8,000 per pupil. Utica Elementary Principal Sharon Greene remembers Slater boasting of the district's financial stability when he hired her four years ago.

Ten years ago this week, the Ohio Supreme Court issued the first of four rulings declaring the state's school-funding system unconstitutional in a case known as DeRolph vs. The State of Ohio. State lawmakers have poured billions more into grades K-12, but Gov. Ted Strickland and many educators say the system remains flawed.

"Initially, the DeRolph decision was helpful to the district," Greene said. "Then, suddenly, things changed."

North Fork leaders say the district's financial situation started to sour about two years ago, not long after the Supreme Court issued its final ruling and dropped jurisdiction over the case. In the next state budget after that decision, funding increases dropped to less than one-third of what they were in the previous six years.

Two-thirds of the district's operating funds come from the state. Slater said he is getting $600,000 less than he expected in parity aid, based on what was promised when the fund was created in 2002 to help smooth out the disparities between poor and wealthy districts in Ohio.

When North Fork officials found themselves headed for financial trouble, like most districts, they turned to the ballot. Two attempts to pass a 1 percent income tax failed in 2006, forcing cuts, including field trips, supplies and teachers.

"I've never taught in 28 years where I've had to beg, borrow and steal to go on a field trip into Columbus," said Barb Huber, a high-school world history teacher and president of the district's teachers union.

"Going into education, you don't expect a lot of money. But I've never had to supplement my students' things. I've never had to supplement my own office supplies."

Alissa Horstman, an elementary math coach, said that if school funding were fixed, "People like us wouldn't have to beg for a 1 percent income-tax levy to a bunch of constituents who are already stretched to the maximum.

"Schools should not be in a position, if they fail a levy, that programs are going to have to go away."

Before the income tax passed, Horstman worried that her position was going away. She's not a traditional classroom teacher. Instead, she helps team-teach math in the fourth and sixth grades, focusing on story problems, while training teachers in new ways to approach the subject.

Math scores have risen. But the grant paying for Horstman and the teacher training will be cut almost in half next year, putting her on the chopping block before the levy passed.

"Schools that really want to be a cut above are going to have a specialist in the subject areas as a resource for their teachers and as a help in the classroom," Horstman said.

The funding situation dampened an otherwise exciting time for the district. With the promise of major state assistance, a new high school opened in 2003, and ground has broken on two elementary schools set to open in 2008.

"The school facilities opportunity for us has been a blessing," said Mark McDaniel, principal at Utica High School. "Right away, I saw a change in the attitude and enthusiasm of both students and staff when we moved in."

McDaniel applauds the bigger classrooms, expanded storage and proper wiring for technology. At the same time, he wonders about the impact of Ohio Core, the more rigorous course requirements that state leaders passed at the end of 2006.

The high school, McDaniel said, already is short a math teacher. "Adding new requirements, we're going to have to pick that teacher back up and possibly add another."

Key facts

LESS = MORE FOR SCHOOLS

Monday, March 19, 2007 Jim Siegel THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

For every $1 that Bexley residents send to the state in income taxes, the school district gets back about 15 cents.

New Albany residents could be jealous of such a return. Their district receives 8 cents on the dollar.

Meanwhile, for every $1 in state income tax paid by Whitehall residents, the district collects $1.73. It’s $2.02 in Hamilton Local, $2.13 in Amanda-Clearcreek in Fairfield County.

For years, the Ohio Supreme Court and some lawmakers have condemned any funding setup that creates a blatant "Robin Hood" effect, in which rich districts pay for poor schools. But to some extent it’s already happening.

In 1976, state elected officials and Ohio voters decided that property taxes should not automatically increase along with property values. But the provisions of the constitutional amendment, originally known as House Bill 920, don’t really apply in nearly two-thirds of Ohio school districts.

Under the complex state funding formula, 389 of 613 districts do the least to get the most — levying the state minimum 20 mills of property tax in order to get some steady local revenue growth.

Things haven’t always turned out as some might have predicted in the decade since the state Supreme Court decreed Ohio’s funding setup unconstitutional. State lawmakers assembled and tweaked a collection of kindergarten through 12 th grade education-funding plans that, critics argue, never achieved the "systematic overhaul" ordered by the high court.

Former Justice Francis E. Sweeney, writing for the 4-3 majority, said, "We are not stating that a new financing system must provide equal educational opportunities for all. ... Nor do we advocate a ‘Robin Hood’ approach to school financing reform. We are not suggesting that funds be diverted from wealthy districts and given to the less fortunate."

While state income-tax revenue is not specifically earmarked for schools, an analysis of 2005 data shows that the amount Ohio spent on school operations equaled 78 percent of the income tax collected.

Using that baseline, residents in 30 percent of school districts are in effect subsidizing school funding for almost everyone else.

"It became apparent to me that DeRolph was a redistribution," said Rep. Larry Wolpert, R-Hilliard. "When I look at those numbers, to me, I believe we have parity between rich property districts and poor property districts."

Many education advocates disagree but argue that some type of "Robin Hooding" is expected. To some degree it’s always been in the formula but has been amplified in the past decade as lawmakers worked to reduce disparity among districts in reaction to the four Supreme Court rulings.

"The idea that we aren’t going to redistribute dollars to help folks in areas that don’t have that kind of revenue coming in would just mean we would automatically accept a system where some kids don’t have these advantages," said Barbara Shaner, a lobbyist for the Ohio Association of School Business Officials.

Franklin County is home to nine "donor" districts, including Upper Arlington (getting back 13 cents per dollar), Dublin (19 cents), Gahanna-Jefferson (27), Worthington (32), Grandview Heights (34), Westerville (39) and Hilliard (53).

The flow of tax dollars from donor districts would likely accelerate under the proposed state budget introduced last week by Gov. Ted Strickland, who wants to increase aid to poorer schools.

Jim Underwood, an outspoken Hilliard resident who studied school funding as a researcher for Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman’s short-lived gubernatorial campaign, said wealthy districts should give more to poorer ones.

Underwood, a former reporter, visited schools around Ohio and was shocked by the disparities in educational opportunities. The problem is property-tax inequities, he said, not a lack of money.

"Anybody that tells us that we need more money for Ohio’s school system, they’re either a liar, insane or sorely in need of remedial math," he said. "The only solution is fat cats like Jim Underwood who are sitting over here in Hilliard are going to have to share some of our money with poor school districts."

But Wolpert said he is pushing for wealthier districts to start getting the same kind of state funding increases as poorer ones.

"It’s always been skewed to the low-wealth property districts," he said. "Now I’m saying no, we have parity. DeRolph has worked. It’s time to treat suburban districts equally."

With less state money, those suburban districts tend to have higher property taxes that don’t grow until voters approve a new levy, a result of House Bill 920.

A levy that starts out collecting $1 million is not allowed to collect more than that. So as property values rise, the millage rate is reduced.

But under a little-publicized quirk in the law, the reduction no longer applies — meaning tax bills rise faster — when a district reaches the state minimum of 20 mills. That’s caused many districts around the state to actually shed levies so they can deliberately "crash" to the floor millage.

Since 1997, the number of districts at the minimum 20 mills has gone up 60 percent, from 244 to 389.

"Is it because 20 mills is a good number? Not really," said Paolo DeMaria, the Ohio Department of Education’s school-finance expert. "It’s because at that point, I can get growth. If I can migrate to the 20-mill floor and maybe tack on an income tax (which also grows with inflation), that’s a pretty happy position to be in."

Under the state formula, many lower-wealth districts at 20 mills would actually lose state money if they passed more operating levies. However, most have found ways to keep their growing property taxes but still levy additional taxes.

Nearly half of districts at 20 mills also impose an emergency levy, which doesn’t count against the minimum. Another 89 districts impose an income tax. About 1 in 10 do both.

Tired of getting beaten up by phantom revenue — the state funding formula assumes that a district collects more local money than it actually does, causing a loss in state dollars — Delaware City Schools last year dropped to 20 mills by replacing a standard operating levy with a 12.9-mill emergency levy.

"It was not addressed by the legislature, so the community addressed it," said district Treasurer Christine Blue. "Budgets are still tight, but we’re hoping that as (property) values go up, the district will have some increase in revenue."

A decade ago, the Ohio Supreme Court issued the first of four rulings that the state school-funding system was unconstitutional. This week, The Dispatch looks at their lingering effects.

Deliberations raged for seven years at the Ohio Supreme Court, where political and philosophical discord among the seven justices sometimes overshadowed the weighty issue at hand.

The justices declared Ohio’s system of funding schools unconstitutional four times, the first ruling arriving 10 years ago this week. The story of how they made those decisions has never been told, but now it can be based on exclusive Dispatch interviews with four of the seven justices.

They wrote brilliantly and stretched the bounds of credulity. They soared sublimely at times and crashed inanely at others.

One justice, for instance, wanted to shut down state government until the legislature fixed the school-funding system. Two others, desperate to get rid of the case, switched their positions and vainly tried to impose a solution, only to eat crow. Three justices, meanwhile, bet dinner on the cost of that solution.

The case had a face: Nathan DeRolph, the 15-year-old highschool freshman at Sheridan High School in Perry County who lent his name to the 1991 lawsuit against the state by 550 school districts.

And it had a profound impact. Since the Supreme Court first ruled the school-funding system unconstitutional on March 24, 1997, the state has spent billions on new schools, increased per-student aid 66 percent, and spent hundreds of millions in extra money for poor schools.

Even two of the three Republican justices who originally ruled that the court had no business taking the DeRolph case now say schoolchildren in Ohio are better off for the lawsuit being filed.

"There’s just no question that DeRolph has had a positive impact on schools," Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer said.

"Even though I maintained it did not belong in our court, the political reality is there is much more attention focused on education than there used to be before the case," Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton said.

Yet, critics say the system remains unconstitutional because it relies too heavily on the unequal yields of local property taxes, forcing scores of school districts to live a hand-tomouth existence, begging their voters every few years for more money.

As The Dispatch this week focuses on the state of primary and secondary education in the post-DeRolph era, it attempts to reconstruct the Supreme Court’s deliberations in possibly the most consequential and famous case in state history. Four justices — Moyer, Stratton and fellow Republicans Andrew Douglas and Paul E. Pfeifer — agreed to be interviewed. Republican Deborah L. Cook and Democrats Alice Robie Resnick and Francis E. Sweeney declined.

DeRolph I

On Sept. 10, 1996, Moyer had let the two sides argue the case for 90 minutes, an hour longer than usual. Afterward, as the justices took their seats at the round oak table in the deliberation room, the words of school-coalition attorney Nicholas A. Pittner rang in Douglas’ ears.

"I’m not asking you to do the General Assembly’s job; I’m asking you to do your job."

Douglas viewed the case as having the gravity of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren cajoled a partly reluctant court to rule unanimously that a separate education for whites and blacks was not an equal education.

Even before the Ohio justices began deliberating, Douglas had made up his mind: "My vote was clear and unequivocal. We had to do something."

He and Pfeifer, two maverick Republicans who nurtured reputations for siding with the little guy, wanted to send a signal to Gov. George V. Voinovich and the GOPcontrolled General Assembly by giving DeRolph the imprimatur of a 7-0 decision.

But as they went around the table, that quickly became impossible.

Cook dug in her heels. Schoolfunding decisions, she said, were left by the people to the governor and lawmakers, not the court. She never budged from that position.

"I always thought that was so bizarre, because the state never raised that argument," Pfeifer said. "The state never argued that the Supreme Court of Ohio doesn’t have jurisdiction to interpret the constitution."

Arguing in order of seniority, a majority emerged within the first five justices: Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer and Sweeney all favored ruling the system unconstitutional. Moyer and Stratton were inclined to join Cook but left an impression with the other four that a 6-1 outcome was possible depending on how the majority decision was written.

"I was certainly much more open to being persuaded," Moyer said.

"Cook’s position was pretty clear: No way; that’s it," Stratton said. "I tried to be open-minded. I said, ‘OK, I’ve heard the evidence, read the briefs; I’m going to look at whether there’s anything here that might persuade me.’ "

Per tradition, Douglas, the senior justice, reached under the table for the leather bottle containing seven little balls with numbers on them to determine which justice in the majority would write the case. It was a task that Douglas, mindful of his legacy as he approached mandatory retirement at age 70, had wanted for himself. But the ball with Sweeney’s number came out.

For all the historical significance of the case, Pfeifer was struck by how short the deliberations were, a half-hour max, maybe 20 minutes. As they left the room, he said, "I still thought we would come out 6-1."

During the ensuing months, in the justices’ offices and the court’s anterooms, the deliberations, often one-on-one, continued spontaneously and ubiquitously. Moyer and Sweeney, who had come to admire each other, "had very good discussions about it, and I think he was always hopeful he could persuade me to join the majority opinion," Moyer said.

But Moyer was doing his own research and, along with Stratton, gradually concluding that Cook was correct.

"We went through something like 14 drafts before we even got a dissent," Stratton said.

The March 24, 1997, decision shook Ohio. Sweeney’s majority opinion ruled the system unconstitutional and gave the governor and legislature one year to make it lawful:

"We send a clear message to lawmakers; the time has come to fix the system. Let there be no misunderstanding. Ohio’s public school financing scheme must undergo complete, systematic overhaul."

The majority sent the case back to the trial judge, Linton D. Lewis Jr. of Perry County, to oversee the legislature’s efforts to comply with the court’s order.

Moyer wrote the dissent: "The issues of the level and method of funding (Ohio schools), and thereby the quality of the system, are committed by the Constitution to the collective will of the people through the legislative branch."

Pfeifer and Douglas worried that the close decision would spark a firestorm of protests and provide political wiggle room for Voinovich and lawmakers.

"I thought there was a real chance to get six votes, and the failure to get that hurt a lot in terms of getting the legislature to queue up and address this right away," Pfeifer said. "The second thing that hurt was Voinovich’s initial reaction."

Joined by Senate President Richard H. Finan and House Speaker Jo Ann Davidson at a Statehouse news conference the next day, Voinovich, who had labeled himself the "education governor," angrily blasted the majority justices, accusing them of legislating from the bench and suggesting that his administration might defy the decision.

Meanwhile, the state’s major newspaper editorial boards piled on. Douglas thinks they were stoked in advance by Voinovich’s top aides. The Dispatch called the decision "one highly injudicious lurch." The Plain Dealer of Cleveland said it could be "construed as a blank check" by Lewis. The Cincinnati Enquirer said the decision meant that "education policy for 11 million Ohio residents will be dictated in a rural flyspeck on the state map, by a county judge who answers to less than one-thousandth of our population."

The reaction stung the court’s majority, subsequently labeled "the Gang of Four" by Toledo’s newspaper, The Blade.

"We were totally defenseless," Pfeifer said. "We don’t have spin doctors. It was like shooting fish in a barrel when they came after us."

The four justices sought solace in one another and did not publicly respond.

"There was never any hesitation among the four of us about whether what we did was right," Douglas said. "Did we vent among ourselves? Of course we did. We felt at times that we were on a lonely island."

Voinovich’s response to the court order was to ask Ohio voters for a penny-on-the-dollar increase in the state sales tax to raise $1.1 billion a year, half for schools and half for property-tax relief. On May 5, 1998, voters crushed the issue.

Meanwhile, the legislature had made changes to the school-funding formula and had begun pouring hundreds of millions of dollars more into classrooms and for the construction of new schools. Still, Lewis ruled on Feb. 26, 1999, that the state had not complied with the Supreme Court’s order for a "complete, systematic overhaul" of school funding. The state appealed Lewis’ ruling to the Supreme Court.

DeRolph II

As the justices gathered for a second time in the deliberation room to take up the DeRolph case, there wasn’t much more to say. The pounding the majority had taken from Voinovich and the press made it easier for Cook, Moyer and Stratton to restate their position that the case didn’t belong before the court.

"Now it’s getting harder, the other three are gone, and there’s no hope of getting them," Pfeifer said.

This time, Resnick’s ball was drawn from the bottle. As the four discussed writing the majority opinion, Pfeifer proposed a drastic approach. He wanted to create a constitutional crisis, much like the 1985 savings-and-loan crisis, which required quick action by lawmakers. Pfeifer wanted to tell the administration and legislature that they couldn’t spend another dime until the school-funding system was fixed.

"I knew it would create a bit of a constitutional crisis and (legislators) would be enormously angry at us, but I always thought that was the answer to this. Blame the court and do what’s right, and go home and say, ‘Geez, folks, the court made us do it.’ "

Sweeney, Resnick and Douglas refused to sign on. Although Pfeifer tried to reassure him that the crisis would be solved in a week, Douglas said he couldn’t take that risk.

"I considered it, but then what came into my mind was, what about the mothers who couldn’t get their support checks and what about the injured workers who could lose their homes because the checks wouldn’t go out? "

In a 4-3 decision on May 11, 2000, the court upheld Lewis again, although Resnick’s majority opinion oozed praise for the millions more that Gov. Bob Taft and lawmakers had allocated to primary and secondary education.

In a separate concurring opinion, Douglas mischievously established a fictitious "George" character and blamed him for failing Ohio’s schoolchildren. Court observers quickly ascribed a revenge factor — Douglas retaliating against Voinovich for bringing so much heat against the majority.

"It was only coincidental that the governor’s name was George," Douglas said recently with a laugh.

After the second ruling, Taft and lawmakers continued to pour millions more into primary and secondary education and, on June 20, 2001, the court heard arguments on whether the latest measures met the court’s mandate.

DeRolph III

Now more than four years after the court had rendered its first De-Rolph verdict, Moyer was desperate to get rid of the case. Stratton, too, was alarmed by the legislative turmoil and unpredictability for school districts created by two successive rulings that the funding system was unconstitutional.

In moves they acknowledged defied their aversion to legislating from the bench, Moyer and Stratton agreed to join a new majority to craft a school-funding fix and impose it upon the legislature.

"It was not typical for a majority of the court to say it’s still unconstitutional and this is precisely what you have to do to make it constitutional," Moyer said. "I was uncomfortable with that but felt that every rule has an exception, and to me this was the exception because there was so much at stake in terms of the disruption and uncertainty.

"I was uncomfortable with the court having the General Assembly reporting back to it, like we were monitoring them and all that. What really helped was we were able to agree, the four of us, that there wasn’t a whole lot more they had to do."

Stratton, educated in missionary schools in Thailand, had approached the DeRolph case from the first day "with this attitude from life experiences that it’s more than money that makes education work."

Still, she reasoned that there was no way to undo the original majority decision holding the funding system unconstitutional and, in an effort to end the case, decided to accept "a pragmatic compromise to solve an impasse I believe has occurred too long."

Douglas was willing to join a new majority, but Sweeney and Resnick, while still believing the system was unconstitutional, adamantly refused to tell lawmakers how to fix it. Moyer and Stratton had hoped to persuade Cook to change her position, but she remained intransigent. So, Pfeifer was needed.

Thus, a new majority was formed in the deliberation room — Moyer, Stratton, Pfeifer and Douglas. And this time, Moyer’s ball came out of the bottle.

That’s when the horse-trading began.

The hardest part of the DeRolph case always was — and remains — finding a solution that reduces the reliance on local property taxes in the constitutional quest for a thorough and efficient system of schools.

Rumors abounded that Douglas worked behind the scenes with Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Vandalia, on a solution, but both denied they ever talked while the case was pending. Likewise, Moyer denied that his phone conversations with officials in the governor’s office ever were to discuss the case.

The four justices finally arrived at a remedy requiring the legislature to change the calculation of basic state aid to school districts and to speed up full implementation of parity aid, a supplement for poorer school districts.

One afternoon, Pfeifer and Douglas met with Moyer in his Rhodes Tower office overlooking the Statehouse and debated how much their impending fix would cost the legislature.

Moyer and Pfeifer cited Department of Education evidence in court briefs that would put the cost between $300 million and $400 million. Douglas said the cost would be $1 billion or more. Pfeifer bet him dinner, and Moyer said he’d buy dessert if Douglas was right.

On the night of Sept. 6, 2001, the day the new majority ruled that the system remained unconstitutional but provided lawmakers with a road map for fixing it, Pfeifer was on the phone to Douglas.

"He called me at 6 o’clock that night and said, ‘Where do you want to eat?’ " Douglas recalled.

Hours after the decision was released, Senate President Finan was the first to publicly estimate that the court’s fix would cost $1.2 billion, rather than the $300 million Moyer, Stratton and Pfeifer had thought. Later, state budget analysts and officials for the school coalition agreed with the $1.2 billion price tag.

"I remember being truly taken aback," Stratton said.

She and Moyer made public statements indicating that their decisions were based on faulty data in the case briefs; Pfeifer interpreted those statements as improper invitations to the state to ask the court to reconsider the case.

"We’re not supposed to announce how we’re going to vote and to me that was a clear signal: ‘File a motion for reconsideration, I’ll grant it,’ and I think that’s an ethical violation," Pfeifer said.

Moyer said the statements were not out of line: "The amount was so high that I would think the state would have filed for reconsideration regardless of what anybody said."

Taft asked the court to reconsider its third DeRolph decision on Sept. 17, 2001. While his motion was pending, messages were secretly passed between the coalition of suing schools and the administration to assess interest in discussing a settlement. Nothing happened, and on Dec. 13, 2001, the court appointed Howard S. Bellman, a Wisconsin mediator, to oversee settlement negotiations.

Three months later, Bellman notified the court that mediation had failed. The case was back before the justices. Mindful that Douglas would be forced to retire at year’s end, Moyer thought it was crucial for the case to end on this court’s watch.

"We hope we can count to four before Dec. 31," he told a reporter.

DeRolph IV

Back in the deliberation room, the old majority — Sweeney, Resnick, Douglas and Pfeifer — had reunited to, for a fourth time, declare the system unconstitutional, effectively restoring the DeRolph I and II rulings. Despite the tremendous strides made by Taft and the legislature, the majority ruled anew that they had failed to make "a complete systematic overhaul of the school-funding system."

Cook, once again, didn’t budge, and Moyer and Stratton reluctantly joined her. After going out on a limb to prescribe a school-funding remedy in DeRolph III, Moyer was prepared to fine-tune that remedy and get rid of the case. However, he couldn’t get a fourth vote.

"I still felt that we should put an end to it by telling the General Assembly what you need to do," Moyer said.

Stratton said she wanted to join Moyer to amend the DeRolph III solution but saw the futility of that position when the other four plus Cook balked.

"In any other normal case, if you have faulty data, you do a motion to reconsider, you get the true data and you amend the decision to reflect the true data," Stratton said. "They didn’t do that."

In the end, she opposed the finding of unconstitutionality but agreed to give up the case, an option floated after the justices had left the deliberation room. Pfeifer, a Bucyrus hog farmer, was assigned the writing when his ball rolled out of the bottle.

"Francis (Sweeney) was the one who came to me as I was writing it and said, ‘You know, I think we ought to cut this case loose.’ I was not very receptive and said, ‘Let me think about it for a while,’ and I went home and got on the tractor and thought about it for a while."

Here is what Pfeifer thought as November wore on: Maureen O’Connor, Taft’s lieutenant governor, had just been elected to the court to replace Douglas at year’s end. If the court again ordered the governor and legislature to report back what they had done to fix the system, Pfeifer conjectured, they merely "will tweak it a little bit and send it back to us with the belief that it will be ruled constitutional" with O’Connor on the court.

Although he said that he had never discussed the matter with O’Connor, Pfeifer said, "I concluded that Francis was right, and the best position in which we could leave the school districts of this state that brought this litigation was one final declaration that it’s still unconstitutional, dismiss the case, and then (the state) can’t come running back with a new court and suddenly get it blessed as constitutional."

Douglas floated one last-ditch proposal to force a solution by the state.

"We were coming very close to the only thing left was to put Taft in jail, or the General Assembly in jail," he said. "I felt there was an obligation for us to take a step back."

Douglas wanted to make state Auditor Jim Petro and Treasurer Joseph T. Deters defendants in the case, "and then order them not to pay the General Assembly, or the court, until this matter is resolved. We wouldn’t have to put anybody in jail." The other justices balked.

On Dec. 11, 2002, the court ruled 4-3 that Ohio’s school-funding system remained unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to fix it. Then, the court relinquished its jurisdiction in the case.

Moyer and Pfeifer told reporters at the time that the court expected the legislature to comply with its order. But Taft and legislative leaders, heartened that the court had given up its hammer, said they didn’t have to do anything.

"The DeRolph case is over," Taft declared.

Charter-school movement in Ohio has been ‘a dismal, dismal failure,’ he says

Saturday, March 17, 2007 Julie Carr Smyth ASSOCIATED PRESS

Gov. Ted Strickland has proposed eliminating the 2-year-old EdChoice voucher program, except in Cleveland.

Gov. Ted Strickland sliced Ohio’s school-voucher program from his budget because he sees the concept as "inherently undemocratic," he said yesterday.

The first Democrat to run Ohio in 16 years expressed that concern, his distaste for companies that turn public dollars into charter-school profits and his discomfort with next week’s scheduled execution of a Death Row inmate during an interview with the Associated Press.

"To me, vouchers are inherently undemocratic because they allow public dollars to be used in ways and in settings where the public has little or no oversight," Strickland said.

"Those who are paying those tax dollars have no ability to vote for a board of education or to make determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things," he said.

Strickland announced during his State of the State speech Wednesday that his budget would eliminate the 2-year-old EdChoice voucher program, which is the second largest in the country and provides scholarships to 2,829 students in underperforming school districts to attend private schools. Strickland would retain a separate voucher program in Cleveland.

The governor also said he questions the expense because he’s seen little evidence that voucher students do better.

"He called it ‘wastefulness and giveaways’ (in his speech). That’s absurd," said Mike Pecchia, president of the Youngstown Christian School where vouchers supported 45 of 130 new students this year. "We do it way cheaper than anybody else does and we do it better."

Strickland said he also wants to see charter schools — privately run schools that receive public money — prove their effectiveness as an education option, which is why his budget proposes a moratorium on expanding them and a ban on for-profit companies running them.

"Ohio’s implementation of the charter-school movement has been a dismal, dismal failure," he said. "Some states have done it rather well with apparently positive results. In Ohio, it’s been a story of mismanagement, fiscal and educational failure, and it’s turned into a for-profit operation for certain individuals."

During a teleconference with Ohio reporters and editors earlier in the day, Strickland said his priorities during budget negotiations will be his recommendations for primary and secondary schools, his proposal for cutting college tuition, and his strategy for providing subsidized health care to 20,000 uninsured children.

He said he plans to appeal to residents to embrace the sacrifices contained in his $53 billion, two-year spending blueprint — which includes $748 million in state-agency cuts.

"I expect a pushback. We’re going to push back as well," he said.

High price tag is just one reason to reject school-funding proposal

Sunday, February 18, 2007

A new report confirms that a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would take education-funding decisions away from state lawmakers and taxpayers would carry a stupendous price tag.

The Legislative Service Commission says the plan would cost more than $600 million in its first year and much more every year after that.

Along with mandating 5 percent increases in per-pupil spending in 2009 and 2010, it would cost $284 million per year in property-tax relief for seniors and the disabled.

Reducing the amount taxpayers contribute directly to their local schools eventually would cost more than $1 billion per year. And while those who received the proposed tax reductions would cheer, those reductions would have to be made up with new or higher taxes imposed on everyone else.

But the stunning cost is not the only reason this proposal is bad.

Backers of the proposal, which would declare education a fundamental right, want more than just additional money for schools. They want to take decisions about how much money to spend and how to raise it out of voters’ hands and give unchecked authority to courts and an unelected committee.

The plan would place funding for schools above all other state spending priorities. It would disregard reality, declaring that the legislature must provide a certain amount for education, regardless of how much money is available.

Because the legislature can’t conjure cash from thin air, creating an untouchable pot for education would inevitably take money away from Medicaid, prisons, social services and every other important state program and function.

Worst of all, the amount to be spent on schools would be determined not by the legislature, which represents the collective will of voters, but by a committee appointed by the Department of Education. Because any decision by such a committee would be controversial, lawsuits are virtually guaranteed.

This would be an intolerable removal of public input from the funding of one of the state’s most expensive and most important programs.

Giving voters some control over schools’ income is the most effective way to make schools responsive to the public. Some reform of the funding system to reduce the frequency with which school districts are required to go to voters would be helpful. But removing voters altogether from the equation would free those controlling school spending from any accountability.

If the proposed constitutional amendment were to pass, schools never would have to talk to voters again.

That’s not democracy, and it’s not how education should be run in Ohio.

Amendment-plan critics get new ammunition

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 Jim Siegel and Catherine Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Armed with a new analysis showing it would cost the state more than $600 million the first year and $1 billion annually down the road, House Speaker Jon A. Husted is ready to unload on a proposed constitutional amendment to fund education.

"It really is a frightening price tag," the Kettering Republican said of a report he requested from the nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission.

And that sticker price does not include the unknown costs of the plan — the new funding levels that would be set by the state Board of Education to give every Ohio student a "highquality education."

Education advocates are working to collect enough signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would make education a "fundamental right."

The goal is to force elected officials to base funding on what is needed in the classroom, not what is available in the state budget.

Legislative Republicans have been highly critical of the plan, which would give the Ohio Board of Education new power to determine what the state should pay per student.

Now, those lawmakers have new numbers to fuel their arguments.

The amendment calls for a two-year transition period — 2009 and 2010 — when the annual per-student funding levels would increase by 5 percent plus inflation.

If in effect today, this would cost the state an additional $227 million this year, according to the Legislative Service Commission.

The plan also would cost the state $284 million to pay for a new partial property-tax exemption for the disabled and those 65 or older. Mandated funding increases for local governments and higher education could cost $125 million more, the report said.

The plan also reduces over a period of six years how much local districts are expected to contribute to their funding. Once fully phased in, that would cost the state more than $1 billion, the report said.

"Let’s go into this with our eyes open about what that really means," Husted said, mentioning a 2-cent sales tax increase "or an income tax increase that I’d hate to imagine."

Jim Betts, lead spokesman for the Getting It Right for Ohio’s Future campaign, disputes a few of those figures, saying they are somewhat inflated. He also says that some, or even much, of the cost could be covered by inflationary increases in state-tax revenue.

"If the public votes this particular proposal and adopts it, basically they’re saying we want to make education a top priority," he said.

"They’re not saying they want to diminish the support for other services or activities. But they’re also saying that since we made this a top priority, we’re going to ask you, the General Assembly, to provide the resources necessary."

A Quinnipiac University poll last month found that 61 percent of Ohioans said the state should spend more on public schools. Asked whether they’d support higher taxes to make that happen, respondents split 47-47.

Husted said he will use the report to educate people and fellow lawmakers about "what responsibilities go with passage" of the amendment.

While the daunting figures may give ammunition to critics, supporters remain focused on why the money is necessary.

"It’s upon us to convince the public that this investment is worth it," said David Varda, campaign treasurer and executive director of the Ohio Association of School Business Officials.

William Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, said he’s not surprised to see opponents waving big cost figures around in an attempt to scare taxpayers. It’s the same strategy they used after a series of four decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court that found the system unconstitutional.

"It’s my impression from talking to people across the state that, No. 1, they know the system we have now is not working," Phillis said.

"Regardless of what people in Columbus say about this, the citizens of Ohio want a change and this is an opportunity to give people a chance to at least vote on the issue. "

jsiegel@dispatch.com

ccandisky@dispatch.com

By PAMELA WILLIS

Please don't call him Charles. His name is Charlie.

Charlie Wilson, 54, is the newest member of the Worthington school board and a law professor at Ohio State University.

But the formal version of his name "just doesn't suit him."

He was "Coach Charlie" as his sons were growing up, coaching numerous youth booster teams, and he still referees for the local youth soccer teams.

"My wife said she thinks I've been the head coach of more than 100 youth teams as my boys were growing up," Wilson said.

His wife is Melonie Buller, and his sons, Richard Wilson and Geoffrey Buller, are graduates of Worthington Kilbourne High School. Richard is a senior at Amherst College in Massachusetts; Geoffrey is a sophomore at Yale University.

Wilson was appointed to finish out the term of Gary Tyack, who resigned his board seat after winning election as judge of the 10th district Franklin County Court of Appeals in November.

Wilson officially will be sworn in as a board member at the next regular meeting, which will begin at 7:30 p.m. next Wednesday at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road.

Board members cited his "passion for education" as one of the reasons Wilson was appointed.

So where does he get that passion?

"I came from a poor family that didn't have a strong educational background, but my parents knew education was a way to get ahead," Wilson said. "My education enabled me to have a much better life than they had, and that is what the Jeffersonian documentation on public education is all about -- a high-quality public education -- so that even kids from the poorest backgrounds can rise to their own ability level.

"Worthington is a very good school district and I want to do my best to maintain that quality education and work to make it even better," Wilson said.

Wilson's education includes an associate's degree in economics and accounting from a community college in Garden City, Ks.; a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Kansas; and a law degree from New York University School of Law.

Wilson used his law expertise to volunteer in a school mock trial program in the mid 1980s before moving to Worthington, and his youngest son was on Worthington's mock trial team for four years.

"I did some judging of some of the practice rounds when my son was involved, but I didn't want to coach my own son in the trials," Wilson said.

Wilson said he definitely will run for a four-year term in November.

"There is a really long start-up time as a board member, and a lot to learn," Wilson said. "The other board members and the administrators, from Superintendent Melissa Conrath to all the people at the Worthington Education Center, have devoted an enormous amount of time the past week to getting me up to speed. I would be wasting their time if I decided not to run for a full term."

Wilson said he wants the school staff and community to know that he encourages input from the public.

"I'm always open to opinions and arguments based upon data and facts, and if at any time a position I take is contrary to the facts, I hope someone -- whether it is a parent, administrator or teacher -- will set me straight as to the facts," Wilson said. "I like to think everything I do is fact-driven and not based on ideology or philosophy."

He said he also will work to ensure tax dollars are well-spent.

"I'm very proud of my Scottish heritage and will make sure every dollar of taxpayer money is spent to improve the educational quality of the district," Wilson said. "It would be cheating the kids to have any money wasted. Educational quality is No. 1, but every tax dollar must be well-spent."

Researcher says their wages compare favorably; critics assail his study’s assumptions

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Jennifer Smith Richards THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Are teachers underpaid or overpaid?

That’s a judgment call, a school researcher says. But this isn’t, his new report says: On average, teachers make more per hour than architects, chemists and registered nurses.

They make more in hourly wages than physical therapists, dietitians, social workers and librarians, too, but less than airplane pilots, doctors and lawyers.

The bottom line: The commonly held truism that public-school teachers earn low wages compared with workers in the private sector is a flat-out lie, said Jay Greene, a senior researcher with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative advocacy group based in New York City.

"We shouldn’t fool ourselves about how much teachers are, in fact, paid," he said.

"We are not arguing about whether teachers are overpaid or underpaid. We’re simply trying to get this factual information into the debate," Greene said.

Teachers unions and other researchers, however, say these aren’t facts. They say Greene has twisted federal data for his own purposes.

"This research is really ridiculous," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, in a statement. His group is a liberal advocacy group based in Washington.

Greene’s study said that nationally, teachers earn 36 percent more than the average for white-collar workers and 11 percent more than the average for professional and technical workers.

The study is based on hourly wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency that collects worker data.

The wages, from 2005, take into account the hours a school considers to be part of a normal teacher’s workday, which includes planning time, lunch time and time to grade papers. The average American public-school teacher, according to the data, works 36.5 hours a week and is paid $36.04 per hour.

Teachers are considered white-collar workers and are lumped into the bureau’s "professional and technical" category. So are airplane pilots, the highest-paid in that category at $97.51 an hour. Social workers, by comparison, average $19.11 an hour.

Enter the other side of the debate, with different information.

"They’re not looking at the actual hours teachers put in or the demands of the job. The perception (that teachers are underpaid) is reality," said Rhonda Johnson, president of the Columbus Education Association, the Columbus school district’s teachers union.

There’s no way teachers only work 36.5-hour weeks, Johnson said. They grade papers and more on weekends, too. Besides, competitive salaries are needed to attract science- and mathminded people to the profession, she said.

"There is no profession as important as teaching. Everyone has to learn to read and no one can do without education," Johnson said. "If we’re going to be able to compete and have the best and brightest (teachers), our salaries should be more."

Greene fired back: "Teachers are not the only professionals who take work home."

And even if you assume teachers work a 39.4-hour week, they still make more, he said.

Furthermore, he said, the labor data doesn’t just take into account that teachers sometimes work outside of a normal school day. It also considers that other professionals work outside of typical business hours. So that should be equal, he said.

Comparing teachers with other professions using the labor data is a good way to get a handle on teacher pay, said Richard Vedder, an economics professor at Ohio University in Athens. Vedder did a similar study of teacher pay using Bureau of Labor Statistics figures several years ago.

"Unions have been very, very adroit and successful in promoting the notion they are an underpaid group of people. The evidence points to the contrary," Vedder said.

Not true, Mishel said in his statement.

"If one corrected for the understatement of teachers’ weekly hours and weeks worked per year, you wouldn’t find teachers are ‘well-paid,’ " he said.

Thursday, February 1, 2007

Worthington School Board member Marc Schare has a challenge for the 25 unsuccessful candidates for appointment to the board.

"I would like to encourage all the candidates to consider running in the November elections," Schare said after the board announced Tuesday it had selected Charlie Wilson to complete the term vacated Jan. 31 by Gary Tyack.

During a public forum, the five finalists to fill the vacancy each said variously that they intended to run in November or would consider running. Now that the nomination process is over, Schare wants them and their fellow applicants to put their money where their mouths are.

Schare, who won his seat on the board in 2005 during a race in which he ran unopposed, said more residents need to run for the job.

Schare said he hopes more candidates in November will mean there can be meaningful discussion among them, much like the debate he saw at last week's candidates night, during which the five finalists shared their views with about 50 residents.

"I'm really looking for a debate over the direction to take Worthington schools," Schare said. "I would like to see more school board debates of the caliber we saw last Monday."

-Mark Major

OSU professor, attorney will take Tyack's seat By PAMELA WILLIS

Charles Wilson

The Worthington school board has appointed law professor and Worthington parent Charles Wilson, 54, to fill the board seat vacated by member Gary Tyack.

Board members met Monday evening in a special meeting behind closed doors at the Worthington Education Center to consider feedback after last week's public forum, at which the five finalists answered questions from the public.

James Caldwell, Anita Doran, Julie Keegan and Abramo Ottolenghi also were considered for the seat.

Wilson, 1116 Baumock Burn Drive, will be sworn in at the regular board meeting scheduled for Feb. 14. He is expected to finish out Tyack's term, which will expire Dec. 31. His application indicated he'd be interested in running for a four-year term in November.

Tyack relinquished his board seat after being elected a judge in the 10th District Franklin County Court of Appeals.

"I was humbled and very surprised to hear I was selected, because 26 very good candidates applied and the other four finalists were truly superior," Wilson said. "I look forward to working with an outstanding board of education."

Wilson is an associate professor at Ohio State University's College of Law, and also an attorney. Two of his children recently graduated from Worthington schools, and he served on the Superintendent's Task Force under Rick Fenton.

Board members Jennifer Best and Marc Schare said they were impressed by Wilson's work on the task force, which was a 15-month process.

"Charles stayed involved with the process and was always there and helpful and asking questions," Best said. "He is also passionate about public education and is excited about helping with the high school of the future. It was a hard decision, though, because we had very good candidates, but Charles' experience put him up a little notch over the others."

"His obvious passion for the job impressed me, evidenced by his commitment to the task force, plus he is research-driven and data-driven in his decision-making process," Schare said. "I think he will look hard at facts and figures, and I think we can look forward to interesting discussions on the board."

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said she was impressed with all the finalists.

"We had some very qualified candidates and after listening to each individual at the candidates night, I would welcome an opportunity to work with any of them," Conrath said. "The board moved forward and chose Mr. Wilson, who has a lot of experience working with the district and is familiar with Worthington schools. Because of that background knowledge, he can quickly get up to speed and provide strong leadership on the board."

Ottolenghi, a former Worthington school board member who served for 11 years, said Wilson is a good choice.

"Aside from myself, he would have been my first choice," Ottolenghi said. "He was the most experienced after me, and he worked on district committees and will be a good member of the school board."

Thursday, January 25, 2007

By MARK MAJOR
ThisWeek Staff Writer

About 50 area residents turned out Monday night at the Kilbourne Middle School auditorium to hear from the five semifinalists for a spot on the Worthington School Board.

Questions from the audience touched on subjects ranging from Worthington's failed levy bid to teacher pay to whether foreign languages should be offered to elementary school students.

The candidates to fill the seat soon to be vacated by Gary Tyack are:

# James Caldwell, 65, a retired Ohio Army National Guard brigadier general, who said his experience as a leader gives him the experience to do the job of a board member.

"I've served on many boards and committees during my career," he said. "I know what it takes to get things done."

Caldwell's main goal as a board member would be to "get the funding thing sorted out so levies do not need to be continually put on the ballot," he said.

Caldwell, 6449 Strathaven Court E, is a member of the Thomas Worthington High School PTSO and band boosters.

# Anita Doran, 44, an attorney who describes herself as a "mostly-at-home mom."

Her volunteer work for the Worthington Kilbourne High School activity club and other district organizations led her to apply for the position, she said.

"All this involvement has given me a very strong interest in and commitment to the Worthington schools," she said.

Among her goals as a board member would be to explain school-funding mechanisms to the district's taxpayers, she said.

"School funding ... is very complicated and I think that's one of the problems we have with the community," she said. "To communicate it in a clear way is a really thorny issue."

Doran, 7624 Innbrook Place, Columbus, received the Worthington Educational Association Friend of Education award in 2006.

# Julie Keegan, 38, an attorney who lists her occupation as "currently at home."

A 1985 graduate of Worthington High School and a mother of four, Keegan returned to Worthington in large part because of the schools.

"The single most important reason I live in Worthington today is the school system," she said. "We relocated our family ... to improve the quality of the education our children were receiving."

Keegan listed educating the public on school finance issues among her priorities as a board member.

"The more I learn about school funding, the more complicated I realize it is," she said.

Keegan, 6675 Lakeside Circle West, is a member of the Virginia Bar Association.

# Abramo Ottolenghi, 75, 570 Hartford St., retired from his position as a professor at Ohio State University in 1995. Ottolenghi served on the board in the 1970s and '80s and serves as legislative liaison for the Colonial Hills PTA.

Ottolenghi said his time as a board member and his broad experience in education qualify him for the position.

"I was a board member for 11 years, have worked at the state level in curriculum design, I have been abroad to teach, I have coached soccer," he said. "I have spent my lifetime in education."

Among his priorities as a board member would be encouraging new and innovative strategies for educating Worthington's children, he said.

"The issue for me right now is education," he said. "We have to change the paradigm on how we educate our kids."

Several times during the evening, Ottolenghi expressed his frustration that candidates were spending so much time addressing issues such as labor negotiations and declining enrollment during their interview for the nine-month appointment. Those issues would be best addressed during this year's election, he said.

"The reality is that this is a one-year appointment," he said. "There are no major issues, there are no negotiations. It is an appointment until November because the seat is open in November."

# Charlie Wilson, 54, is a law professor at The Ohio State University. Wilson said his experience as an attorney and his education in accounting and finance will help him fulfill the duties of board member.

"My ... background in accounting and public finance will help me understand and question the administration and the treasurer when they seek the board's approval for their budget proposals," he said.

Wilson's priority as a board member would be to move "Worthington schools into the 21st century."

"We still have a 20th-century model," he said. "I want to change education in Worthington while maintaining its quality and reputation."

Wilson, 1116 Baumock Burn Drive, Columbus, is a member of the Columbus, Ohio State and American Bar associations.

The board vacancy came about because voters in November elected Tyack to serve on the Franklin County Court of Appeals. His term begins Feb. 9 and by law he may not serve in two elected positions simultaneously. He has said he plans to step down from his position on the board by the end of this month.

A total of 26 applications were received for the board opening by the Jan. 5 deadline. The board narrowed the field during a meeting in executive session Jan. 17. All semi-finalists were invited to speak to the public at Monday's event.

For his part, Tyack said he was happy with the field of candidates to replace him.

"We have an extremely strong group of five people," he said. "I was very pleased."

The board plans to meet in executive session Jan. 29 to consider the appointment. If no decision is made Jan. 29, a round of closed-door interviews will be held Feb. 5. Board members have said they hope to make a decision by Feb. 12.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

By MARK MAJOR ThisWeek Staff Writer

District residents Saturday morning got their first-ever look at four alternative middle school programs developed by Worthington City School District teachers.

The four plans presented to board members and residents were:

# The Worthington School for Kinesthetic Learning, intended to provide an alternative learning environment appealing to students who learn primarily through movement, touch and active involvement.

According to a presentation given by Perry Middle School teacher Jeff Maddox, the program would be appropriate for "any student who finds enjoyment and learns well through gross motor movement and use of tactile sense."

While the primary focus in a traditional setting is on visual and auditory instruction, with secondary emphasis on kinesthetic processing, the latter would be the primary focus at the School for Kinesthetic Learning.

The program projects capacity for 40 students in seventh- and eighth-grade classes its first year; 80 at each level during its second year.

# The Global Experiential Middle School, which would focus on the world as a global community while using non-traditional learning methods.

The school would focus on problem solving, environmental awareness, cultural awareness and service, said teacher Tricia Lenzo, who created the program with colleagues Tom Masters, Keri Newcomb, Kara Smith and Debbie White.

"These students have such compassion," said Lenzo. "When they see a problem, they want to go out and solve it. We give them the tools to do that."

# The Worthington Experiential Middle School, which would emphasize experiential problem-based learning, focusing on "real-life problems that require real-life solutions."

According to a presentation given by teachers Nathan Davis, Tom Strous and Mike Miller, the Experiential Middle School would be a cooperative venture among Worthington and the surrounding communities aimed at producing "well-rounded lifelong learners with both the education and the experience necessary to succeed."

The key would be to create "synergy" by combining core classes into a cohesive whole, said Davis.

"You could create a learning environment where one plus one plus one equals six," he said.

Kilbourne Middle School would be the ideal location for the program, Davis said. The school would offer class to only 40 seventh-graders the first year; doubling to include eighth grade the next year.

# The Phoenix Project, designed to create in students a deeper understanding of themselves while using creative scheduling to offer varied opportunities to students. The program would focus on the connections among language, social studies, art and mathematics, officials said.

According to the program's abstract, the Phoenix Project is designed to "facilitate our students' opportunity to discover a deeper understanding of self and their relationship to the world in which they live."

Creative scheduling and interdisciplinary curricula will allow the students to develop a deeper understanding of concepts in and out of the classroom, according to the school's designers.

Like the Linworth Alternative Program, several of these proposals include plans for town-hall style student governments and might send students to "home" middle schools for core classes.

The interest in creating an alternative middle school results in part from declining enrollment, officials have said.

Steadily declining middle school enrollment is projected to hit a low of about 1,300 students, a number that would support only three-and-a-half middle schools, officials have said.

The programs selected by the district will be housed in one of Worthington's existing middle school buildings, officials have said.

During Saturday's meeting, residents and board members had an opportunity to rate and rank the proposals. Feedback was be forwarded to Superintendent Melissa Conrath, who is expected to make a recommendation to the board by the end of February, officials said.

For more information on the programs, visit the district's Web site at Worthington.k12.oh.us.

By PAMELA WILLIS

News photo by Dan Trittschuh Worthington school board candidates (from left) Charlie Wilson, Abramo Ottolenghi, Julie Keegan, Anita Doran and James Caldwell answer questions at Monday's public forum at Kilbourne Middle School.

Worthington school board members have selected five finalists from the 26 people who applied for Gary Tyack's board seat.

The finalists -- James Caldwell, Anita Doran, Julie Keegan, Abramo Ottolenghi and Charlie Wilson -- answered questions at a public forum Monday night at Kilbourne Middle School.

Board President Bob Horton said board members met behind closed doors last Wednesday to go over the applications.

"We asked each board member to pull out his top eight, and it was remarkable that the five candidates we ended up choosing were all on each member's list," Horton said.

Horton said the board will meet again behind closed doors Monday and could make a decision on a new member that night, or continue the interview process Tuesday and next Wednesday.

Caldwell is a retired brigadier general with the Ohio Army National Guard. He has a child at Thomas Worthington and has been a parent volunteer.

On a district questionnaire, Caldwell listed funding as a pressing issue.

At Monday's forum, Caldwell said, "I've made government service my career.

"I've lived in Worthington for 13 years, and nothing can generate as much pride in our community as our school system," Caldwell said. "I don't have a lot of experience in education, but as a parent and taxpayer, I'll tell you that I've voted for a levy and against a levy, and I'm very aware of the number of people in Worthington who don't have kids in Worthington schools. I also have a background in facilities management, and I know what it takes to attract and keep good people."

Doran is an attorney, on hiatus as she raises two sons who attend Worthington schools. She was named Worthington Hills volunteer of the year in 2004, and named as a district Friend of Education.

On the district's questionnaire, Doran listed fiscal stability as the most pressing issue.

"My goal is to maintain an excellent school system," Doran said at Monday's forum.

"We face unique problems in Worthington, with an aging population and declining enrollment, but we have to retain fiscal responsibility along with our excellent school system," Doran said. "I would not change our neighborhood school system if we have to go through structure changes, because I think it is wonderful for kids to walk to school when they can."

Keegan also is an attorney raising children at home. She has four children in Worthington schools and has volunteered extensively.

She said the long-term financial health of the district is the most important issue.

At the forum, Keegan said she moved back to Worthington for the school system.

"We considered private schools, but in the end, we went back home and our kids are attending some of the schools my husband and I attended," Keegan said. "I think I would be an asset at a time when the board must make changes to prepare students for the 21st century."

Ottolenghi, a retired Ohio State University professor, was a board member in Worthington for 11 years. He no longer has children in the school system but volunteers with the Circle of Grandparents.

The middle school restructuring is the most pressing issue, Ottolenghi said.

At the forum, Ottolenghi said he looks at the board position as a "one-year" position.

"I feel that in November we should have an open election with many candidates," Ottolenghi said. "But I feel that the middle school restructure is an immediate concern, and I can help with the reorganization of the middle school, because I was instrumental in setting up an independent study school at OSU."

Wilson is an associate professor at Ohio State University and also an attorney. Two of his children recently graduated from Worthington schools. He was a member of former Superintendent Rick Fenton's task force and also has volunteered extensively in the schools.

On the district questionnaire, Wilson wrote that the most important issue is getting all students in K-12 excited about learning.

"The district must make certain that the schools fit the student, not make the student fit the schools," he said.

At the forum, Wilson said it was a tribute to the district that 26 people had applied for the board seat.

"I've been involved in the school community since the early 1980s, even before I had children and moved to Worthington, when I assisted with the mock trial teams," Wilson said. "My experience and background in accounting and public finance will help me question the treasurer and administrators about budget proposals."

The new member will replace Tyack, who was elected as a judge in the 10th district Franklin County Court of Appeals in November. He will leave his board seat next month.

His replacement is expected to be sworn in at 7:30 p.m Feb. 14 at the Worthington Education Center, 200 E. Wilson Bridge Road. That meeting will replace the board meeting formerly scheduled for Feb. 12.

Officials hope to decide on a 'school within a school' by next month.

By PAMELA WILLIS

One of Worthington City Schools District's middle schools may house a "school within a school" in the fall.

Four groups of teachers presented four different proposals for middle school alternative schools Saturday at a special meeting held at the Worthington Education Center.

Each of the schools would begin as a "school within a school" in space that would be available due to a decline in middle school enrollment, said Paul Cynkar, assistant superintendent.

Middle school enrollment was at 1,520 last year, 1,440 this year, and is expected to decline to the low 1,300s.

"We cannot close an entire school, but we won't need four schools, so we will be looking at 31/2 schools, and what we could fit into a half school," Cynkar said.

Global proposal

The first proposal was for the Global Experiential Middle School, presented by teachers Tricia Lenzo, Tom Masters, Keri Newcomb, Kara Smith and Debbie White.

Lenzo said facets of the school would include areas of interaction that stress problem-solving, environmental awareness, cultural awareness and action/service, with integrated curriculum areas.

"Language and communication would be integrated into all the classes to help learn the content," Lenzo said. "The English teacher would be the co-teacher in many classes. She might go into Spanish to help teacher grammar and Spanish folklore, or into math class to help with story problems."

White said students would have a blocked area in the schedule called Global Options, to explore opportunities such as Hot off the Press, in which students produce an online newsletter; Da Vinci's Playground, a look at technology and inventions; Workin' our World, about employment opportunities with a cornerstone of mentorship; and Chinese Distance Learning.

Mentorships would be stressed both inside the school and outside in the community, Masters said.

"We'll work with universities and other schools on global projects and have relationships around the world with schools around the world," Masters said.

Masters said the school is centered on the students' need to be aware of and a part of the global community in an ever-changing technological climate.

Authenticity is key

Teachers Nathan Davis, Tom Strous and Mike Miller presented a proposal called the Worthington Experiential Middle School.

"The Worthington Experiential School would be a cooperative venture between Worthington City Schools and the surrounding communities with the goal of producing well-rounded lifelong learners," Davis said.

The school would stress active learning, constructed knowledge, time with peers, input and choice, Strous said.

Davis said classes would be related to students' lives.

"What is most important is authenticity," Davis said. "Some subgroups of students are not getting their needs met as well as others. Students don't see the lessons as real, so they don't see them as valuable. In the movie Freedom Writers, what the teacher does is relate what she is teaching to the students' lives."

Miller said the school would stress experiential and problem-based learning, service learning, literacy across the curriculum, local partnerships with colleges and the community, and technology.

"Technology will be integrated throughout the program," Miller said.

Art to start

The Phoenix Project proposal was presented by teachers Kelly Allen, Beth Cullinan, Tim Dove, Robert Estice, Judy Harn, Janet Lanka, Paul Roman, Jeff Tewart and Lori Whitlach, and Perry Middle School Principal Jeff Maddox.

"We started with conversations with kids and parents, and three key items arose: more time at school to cut homework time at home, more choice in choosing classes, and the chance to be active participants in how the school is operated," said Estice.

Students would attend school from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., although the end hour would be flexible to accommodate after-school activities, Whitlach said.

The Phoenix school would feature flexible block scheduling; mastery grading, where students would have to attain a 90 percent mastery of lessons; and classes such as Creative Start, Foundations, Connections and Global Education, plus increased opportunity for student/teacher interaction.

Students would begin their day with creativity, Whitlach said.

"We feel it is important for students to start their day with art, which might mean visual arts, Web design, graphic design, fiber art, orchestra or music," Whitlach said.

In Foundations, students would study reading strategies, vocabulary development, research and writing skills, technology and communication, Dove said.

Moving and learning

The last proposal, called the Worthington School of Kinesthetic Learning, was presented by teachers Molly Bates and Brian Lord.

Lord began with a quote by Bill Denney, from Engaging Tactile & Kinesthetic Learners.

"Over 90 percent of middle school students who fail the standardized test are tactile and kinesthetic learners," Lord said. "Our school would build community between teachers and students to avoid discipline issues, and kids would move around as they learn. They might have permission to chew gum or have a drink on their desk during class, to better focus their minds on lessons."

Lord said desks and chairs might be replaced by beanbag chairs and music stands, and classrooms would be open to activities requiring space and movement.

"We would help students explore their learning styles and come up with how each student learns best, and then work with them to improve their learning," Lord said.

Bates said the school would use cognitive science, with a focus on executive functioning, to explore and develop the most successful learning strategies for each student.

"Executive functioning describes a set of mental processes that help us connect past experience with present action," Bates said. "Kinesthetic learning helps develop executive functioning in teens because lessons incorporated with exercise raise the levels of brain chemicals, so that students can focus longer, improve their memory and be less impulsive."

Students would have a 46-minute lunch schedule to eat and take part in school community meetings and self-directed activity time, and the day would incorporate flexible block scheduling, Bates said.

Superintendent Melissa Conrath said she and other administrators will look at the feedback provided by audience members after Saturday's presentation and determine which proposal will best meet the needs of students.

"There may be a way to move more than one idea forward, to combine some of the alternative-school ideas," Conrath said. "We would like to make a decision on which proposal to move forward with by sometime next month."

Monday, January 22, 2007 Jim Siegel and Cathy Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Few would disagree that every child is entitled to a high-quality education.

But making it a "fundamental right" in the Ohio Constitution, as called for in a proposed amendment unveiled last week, could have broad legal consequences, placing education on the same level as the right to vote and freedom of speech.

It would shift more power to the Ohio Supreme Court, which would get final say over every education budget passed by the state legislature. Critics say similar changes in other states haven’t worked.

Experts also say that defining education as a fundamental right, instead of the current constitutional language requiring "a thorough and efficient system of common schools," could empower justices to more directly order lawmakers to change the system.

"It would be easier in court to prove that more is needed for schools," said Rep. Jennifer Garrison, a lawyer and Marietta Democrat.

To supporters who say they’ve grown weary of watching legislatures fail to adequately address the school-funding issue, more court oversight is necessary.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled four times from 1997 to 2002 that the state’s school-funding system is unconstitutional. But only once, in the third ruling in September 2001, did the 4-3 majority make any attempt to specify what lawmakers should do to fix it.

That ruling created such sticker shock — $1.2 billion a year — that the court later voted to reconsider its decision. After its final ruling in December 2002, the court drop- ped its jurisdiction of the case.

"They held the (thorough and efficient) standard hadn’t been met, but at the same time they felt powerless to enforce their decision," said Jim Betts, a leader of the coalition of publiceducation advocates pushing the constitutional amendment.

The proposal would give the court that power, he said, because this change would be enacted by Ohio voters rather than through a lawsuit.

In the rulings in the schoolfunding lawsuit, "Many members of the General Assembly believed it was inappropriate for one branch of the government to tell the other branch what to do," said Betts, a lawyer and former state representative. "If this is adopted by a vote of the people … they are giving the power to the court to enforce it."

If approved by voters, the amendment would require the State Board of Education to determine the elements and ensuing cost of a quality education. The General Assembly would figure out how to pay for it; lawmakers could override the board with a three-fifths majority.

"If lawmakers ignore the board, the Ohio Supreme Court will have the obligation to do something," said David A. Goldberger, a professor of constitutional law at Ohio State University.

"The court is going to have to make sure lawmakers don’t cut (the board’s assessment) too much."

Some say empowering the judicial branch to make what are essentially political decisions about paying for state programs is a recipe for trouble.

"You don’t want judges making those kind of policy judgments, because they’re not matters of law," said John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, in southern California, who has studied how states address education in their constitutions.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Texas case that education is not a fundamental right in the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions cover education in a variety of ways; many use language similar to Ohio’s "thorough and efficient" clause.

In a 1999 "friend of the court" brief filed in Ohio’s DeRolph lawsuit, Gov. Ted Strickland, then a congressman, wrote, "Education should be considered a fundamental right under the Ohio Constitution."

But spokesman Keith Dailey said Strickland was referring to protections already in the constitution, not to raising the legal standard.

Other states, Eastman said, have turned away from making education a fundamental right.

"When you’ve got a funding formula that is separate from the normal give and take of the political process, it becomes impossible to set priorities.

"When you try to pretend there’s some scientifically correct answer to what the funding level ought to be, completely devoid of all the other demands from the public, you’re really living in La-La Land," he said.

The "fundamental right" language was one of the reasons the Ohio Business Roundtable decided to oppose the plan.

"The proposed amendment is drafted in such a way … that almost ensures the matter of school funding and school policy will be subject to continued litigation," its president, Richard A. Stoff, said in a statement early last week.

Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland, said whatever the plan, he’d like a more-specific definition of how much education one is entitled to receive.

"By calling it a fundamental right, what we’ve done is change the scrutiny test when it reaches the Supreme Court, but we haven’t changed the ultimate issue that somebody has to decide what satisfies those words," he said. "You end up with a difference of opinion."

Proposed ballot issue tries to fix funding system

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 Catherine Candisky and Jim Siegel THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH Document

Even before its official unveiling today, a proposed statewide school-funding issue is drawing heavy fire for removing legislative control and lacking specifics on costs that likely would total hundreds of millions of dollars.

Undeterred after nearly a year of closed door meetings, a consortium of education advocates say they have come up with the long-awaited fix for Ohio’s unconstitutional school-funding system.

The proposed constitutional amendment aims to guarantee students a high-quality education based on what is needed in the classroom, not what is available in the state budget. It would shift much of the tax burden for schools from local property owners to the state but does not specify how those dollars would be raised.

Critics, including business leaders and state and local officials, have a laundry list of concerns.

How much would it cost? Would taxes have to be increased or other areas of the state budget slashed to finance education? Would it invite more litigation? Does it divert too much money to wealthy districts? Is there enough accountability?

"This proposal is a dagger aimed at the heart of the poor, elderly and most needy of Ohioans," Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Vandalia, said, referring to potential budget cuts needed to fund the plan.

Jacobson, the No. 2 Senate leader who has played a key role in drafting recent school funding formulas, said the plan offers no relief for taxpayers and would funnel the bulk of new money to wealthy school districts impacted by "phantom revenue," in which the state funding formula assumes a district collects more local money than it actually does.

"It leaves others to take the brunt of the massive funding increase this calls for," Jacobson said, adding that if education groups did not assume this would trigger budget cuts, they would not have singled out higher education and cities for protection.

Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, who along with other big-city mayors contributed to the plan, said yesterday that he asked sponsors to delay it.

"If this is an all-or-none proposal, the current version is one that would be hard for me to support at this time," he said. "It just needs further debate."

Although supporting the elevation of education to a "fundamental right" for Ohio schoolchildren, Coleman said backers of the amendment must provide Ohioans with more information before beginning a petition drive to put the measure on the November ballot.

"The public has the right to know the cost associated with it," Coleman said. "They need to make a proposal obviously that can be paid for. We can’t really have a situation that could be perceived as a blank check.

"What this does is say the State Board of Education establishes criteria for a quality education in the state of Ohio and then sends it to the legislature and say, ‘You fund it.’ Well, how much is that? What’s the public voting on? "

Supporters of the proposal yesterday declined to comment, saying they would wait until a news conference scheduled for this morning in Columbus. They plan to submit the proposed constitutional amendment to the attorney general today for a required review of petition language before gathering the 400,000-plus valid signatures of registered Ohio voters necessary to get it on the ballot.

Defending legislative school funding efforts, House Speaker Jon A. Husted, R-Kettering, said he is withholding judgment on the plan until he sees what Gov. Ted Strickland proposes.

"In this long-running discussion about school funding, I have always asked the school groups to put together their proposal," he said. "I give them credit for proposing a plan. As soon as we have Gov. Strickland’s plan, we can look at what’s best for Ohio."

Strickland, who has vowed to fix the state’s school-funding system, said yesterday he is concerned that the ballot proposal delegates too much authority to the State Board of Education.

"I don’t want to criticize the folks who are putting forth this (amendment) because I think it reflects concern and hopefully a good-faith effort to do something positive with education in Ohio, but at this point, I’m not willing to sign on as a supporter," he said.

Likewise, business leaders commended education advocates for putting forth a "unified and concrete proposal" but said they could not support it.

The plan says too little about student performance and student outcomes and "focuses almost entirely on inputs to schools," said Richard A. Stoff, president of the Ohio Business Roundtable.

"The proposed amendment appears to abrogate legislative authority and effectively creates a new quasi-legislative body (the state board and an advisory commission) to decide on educational funding."

Education advocates have long complained that legislators have not done enough to fix the school-funding system despite four rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court over the past decade that it is unconstitutional.

Most local school district officials said they knew little about the proposed amendment and were eager to hear how it would impact them.

Bexley Treasurer Chris Essman said he hoped the concept that "nothing should restrict schools from going above the minimum" is protected.

Likewise, Jonathan Boyd, treasurer and chief financial officer of Worthington schools, said he is concerned that lowering the local tax contribution to 20 mills could adversely impact programs voters have supported.

Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett and reporters Mark Niquette and Jennifer Smith Richards contributed to this story. ccandisky@dispatch.com jsiegel@dispatch.com

Thursday, January 11, 2007

By MARK MAJOR ThisWeek Staff Writer

Among the applicants seeking to fill the expected vacancy on Worthington's school board are a retired Ohio National Guard brigadier general, a pastor, a self-employed leadership consultant and no fewer than five lawyers.

By Friday's application deadline, 26 area residents had tossed their hats into the ring, looking for a chance to occupy the spot soon to be vacated by Gary Tyack. Voters elected Tyack in November to serve on the Franklin County Board of Appeals. His term begins Feb. 9 and by law he may not serve in two elected positions simultaneously. He has said he plans to step down from his position on the board by the end of this month.

Board members have said they hope to select Tyack's replacement by their regular meeting Feb. 12.

The 26 candidates are:

# Joseph Amato, 1215 Kilhan Ct., is a gynecologist with Associates in Central Ohio. Amato is a member of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Ohio State Medical Association.

Amato works as a football coach at Perry Middle School.

Amato said in his application that Gov. Bob Taft's "ill-conceived" personal property tax plan and rising property taxes made him view a seat on the board as "a challenge that is well worth my time."

# Gary Avedikian, 6520 Meadowbrook Circle, is a retired teacher and soccer coach who has worked for Hilliard City Schools and served as head coach of the Ohio State University's men's soccer team.

Avedikian lists among his references Hilliard City Schools Superintendent Dale McVey and Hilliard Davidson principal John Bandow.

"I believe I will bring a unique perspective to the Board's activities as a person with 30 years experience teaching and administrating in high schools of various sizes," he wrote.

# James Caldwell, 6449 Strathaven Ct. E., a retired Ohio Army National Guard brigadier general, is a member of the Thomas Worthington High School PTSO and band boosters.

Caldwell wants a position on the board in order to "help ensure that the Worthington Schools, one of the most positive aspects of our community, continues to be a valuable asset," he wrote.

# Anita Doran, 7624 Innbrook Place, Columbus, is an attorney who describes herself as a "mostly-at-home mom." Doran is a member of the Worthington Kilbourne High School Activity Club as well as the Worthington Hills Civic Association's parade committee.

"I would like to have a voice on the board as someone who has children impacted by its decisions," she wrote.

# Elaine Edgar, 6215 Olentangy River Road, is an administrator with the Ohio Department of Education.

Edgar has been a member of the PTSOs of Evening Street, Kilbourne Middle School and Thomas Worthington High School and served on the School Improvement Team at Kilbourne Middle School.

"I welcome this opportunity to learn and to share the perspective that I have acquired during my career in education," she wrote.

# Julie Keegan, 6675 Lakeside Circle West, is an attorney who lists her occupation as "currently at home."

Keegan is a member of the Virginia Bar Association and lists among her references Evening Street principal Chris Collaros.

"As a (Worthington High School) graduate and a parent of four current Worthington students, I have a strong interest in maintaining the high quality of our schools," she wrote in her application.

# James King, 307 E. New England Ave., is an attorney with Porter Wright Morris & Arthur. King is a member of the Rotary Club of Columbus and an elder at Worthington Presbyterian Church.

"It is important for me personally, for my two young boys, and the community as a whole that Worthington continues to set the standard for excellence as a public school system," wrote King.

# Anne Lenzotti, 1056 Blinbrook Dr. , Columbus , is director of real estate and shared facilities for the Columbus Public Schools. Lenzotti has served as co-chair of the Worthington Hills Elementary School yearbook committee and lists among her references Gene Harris, superintendent of the Columbus Public Schools, and Janet Jackson, president and CEO of United Way of Central Ohio.

"I have a passion for all children and believe that a high-quality education is vital to their future success and to our community as a whole," she wrote.

# Peter MacKenzie, 554 White Oak Place, is vice president of geosciences for Triana Energy in Worthington.

MacKenzie said he wants to be a board member to help the district navigate the "labyrinth of issues and challenges the district will face."

"I am a passionate believer of public education and in the tradition of excellence in education maintained by the Worthington School Distract," he wrote. "This inspires me."

# Rick Matsa, 462 Park Overlook Drive, works as a "full time parent" and village prosecutor for Lockbourne.

Matsa lists among his references Rich Littell, principal of Thomas Worthington High School, and Pam Van Horn, principal of Kilbourne Middle School.

His experience as a district volunteer would be an asset to the district, he wrote.

# David Nadolny, 175 Kenbrook Drive, works as a fiscal specialist for the Franklin County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. Nadolny is a member of the Colonial Hills Civic Association and of the Colonial Hills Elementary School PTA, according to his application.

"Because I feel that I can make intelligent, logical, wise and fiscally prudent decisions regarding our community's children's education in addition to the well being of the taxpayers in our district," he wrote.

# Steve Nasdeo, 99 Heischman Ave., is a vice president at JPMorgan Chase and father of six school-age children, five of whom attend Worthington schools.

"My work experience could bring a wealth of knowledge from setting strategies to the financial aspects," he wrote.

# Abramo Ottolenghi, 570 Hartford St.,retired from his position as a professor at the Ohio State University in 1995. Ottolenghi served on the board in the '70s and '80s and serves as legislative liaison for the Colonial Hills PTA.

"I believe that my experience and knowledge can help the district with minimal learning curve on my part," he wrote.

# Don Overmyer, 573 Oxford St., is a graphic designer with the Design Collective Inc. Overmyer is a member of the Columbus Metropolitan Club and the Society of Graphic Designers.

He lists among his references Evening Street principal Chris Collaros.

"I believe it is of fundamental importance to support an excellent school system and the inherent educational experiences and opportunities that such a system provides to the youth," he wrote.

# James Palmer, 455 Delegate Drive, Columbus, is a pastor with Capital City Church.

Palmer lists among his references April Domine, superintendent of the Big Walnut School District.

"The ... skills I've honed in state-wide and local ecclesiastical settings can cross over effectively," he wrote.

# Ellen Marie Parker, 7720 Thorncroft Court, Columbus, has been on long-term disability leave from Progressive Insurance since 1994. While there, she served as a trainer of data entry operators.

"I am very passionate about the quality of education for our young people growing up in this new millennium," she wrote.

# Gerald Prince, 6854 Kilt Court, is a self-employed leadership consultant. From 1981 to 2002, he worked for the Worthington Schools as director of human resources and as an assistant superintendent.

Prince is a member of the Worthington Chamber of Commerce and lists Worthington Council member John Butterfield among his references.

"I am motivated to assist in providing an excellent, financially responsible education for Worthington School District students," he wrote.

# Robert Robison, 6803 Maplebrook Lane, Columbus, is an academic program specialist with the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the Ohio State University.

Robison lists former Worthington School board member Sue McNaghten among his references.

The board should consider Robison's "experience, world view, enthusiasm, integrity, knowledge, dedication, creativity, dependability, loyalty, grant writing skills and ability to work with and motivate others," he wrote.

# Geoffrey Scott, 805 Olenhurst Court, works as an attorney with Blaugrund Herbert & Martin Inc. Scott serves as vice chair of the Worthington Educational Foundation and has served on Worthington's Board of Zoning Appeals.

Scott, who graduated from Worthington High School in 1986, said he hopes to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather, who also served on the board.

"I would like to do my part to contribute to the continued success of the Worthington School District and the Worthington community.

# Elizabeth Sherowski, 6882 Ravine Circle, serves as an adjunct professor at the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University.

Sherowski worked as an intern for the Worthington Schools during her summers from 1987 to 1990, according to her application.

"As a parent of three Worthington students, I would like to use my experience as an attorney, volunteer and former district employee to ensure the district's continued growth and improvement," she wrote.

# Douglas Southgate, 455 Longfellow Ave., works as a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at OSU and serves on the Worthington Economic Development Commission.

Among his references, Southgate lists fellow board candidate Abramo Ottolenghi.

"If allowed to serve on the board, I will be a vigorous defender of academic excellence," he wrote.

# Elizabeth Squires, 6710 Merwin Road, Columbus, lists her occupation as "housewife/stay at home mom." She is a member of the Brookside Civic Association.

"I feel that the Board offers a lot of opportunity for the children of Worthington to excel in the schools," she wrote.

# Michael Troper, 85 Highland Ave., serves as Ohio Controller for Mosaica Education in Columbus.

Troper is a member of Congregation Beth Tikvah in Worthington, which he serves as treasurer of its men's organization.

"I want to be a board member to ensure that the Worthington schools continue to offer an excellent education to its students in a safe, nurturing and ever-changing environment," he wrote.

# Arthur White, 475 Riley Ave., a professor at OSU, lists among his professional memberships the Association of Science Teacher Educators and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.

"I have had four children educated in the Worthington schools and I would like to help ensure that those currently in the school system continue to receive the high quality education that my children received," he wrote.

# Jeff Willett, 1323 Mentor Drive in Westerville, works as director of evaluation and research at the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation.

"We recently moved to the district because of its historic performance. I am committed to help the district maintain these standards," he wrote.

# Charlie Wilson, 1116 Baumock Burn Drive, Columbus, is a law professor at the Ohio State University. He is a member of the Columbus, Ohio State and American Bar associations.

Because he is a homeowner and a parent, Wilson understands "the importance of continuing the excellent, cost-effective education of the district," he said in his application.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

By MARK MAJOR
ThisWeek Staff Writer

The number of district residents applying for the soon-to-be vacant spot on Worthington's school board was a surprise to many.

"I don't think anybody anticipated getting 20 applications," board member Marc Schare said Friday morning.

By Friday's 5 p.m. deadline, that number had jumped to 26.

In an effort to involve the public as much as possible in the selection process, board members had said they hoped to hold a public forum during which residents could find out more about all the candidates. That's no longer in the cards, said Schare, who has been given the task of coordinating the selection process for the board.

"There's no way to have a public forum with that many candidates," he said.

Instead, board members plan to meet in executive session Jan. 17 to select a slate of semi-finalists. That doesn't mean the public won't have a chance to have its say. Schare has distributed a questionnaire to the 26 candidates. The surveys are due by Jan. 16 and will be posted on the district's Web site so residents can learn more about the candidates and respond to the board.

"If the public wants to comment specifically on the posted comments, they're only going to have one day to do it," Schare said.

Though the exact details have not been worked out, Schare said he hopes to have a system set up that will allow residents' comments to be sent to each board member for their review.

After the list of semi-finalists is determined Jan. 17, those still in the running will be invited to participate in a public forum Jan. 22, Schare said. No location has been selected for the forum. Schare said he doesn't know how many semi-finalists the board will select.

"It's going to be a number that is sufficient to get public involvement, and yet not so huge as to make the public forum unmanageable," he said. "If we invited all the applicants, there wouldn't be enough time to ask the questions and get to know them."

After the event, which Schare described as being similar to the district's school board candidate nights, the public will be invited to comment to the board, he said. On Jan. 29, the board will meet in executive session to narrow the field even further. Board members plan to interview finalists Jan. 30 and 31.

"They'll have a week to call us, e-mail us or write us letters if they want," he said.

A decision could be made by Feb. 5 and voted on by Feb. 12, Schare said.

Voters elected board member Gary Tyack in November to serve on the Franklin County Board of Appeals. His term begins Feb. 9 and by law he may not serve in two elected positions simultaneously. He has said he plans to step down from his position on the board by the end of this month.

By law, the board must wait until 10 days after Tyack vacates his seat to officially select his replacement.

Still up in the air is whether Tyack's replacement would be seated immediately after the vote during the board's Feb. 12 meeting or at its next meeting two weeks later.

Schare cautioned that exact details of the selection process may change.

"With such a large field, the timeline is going to be tentative," he said.

Schare encouraged interested district residents to check for more details at the district's main page, Worthington.k12.oh.us.

mmajor@thisweeknews.com

By The Dayton Daily News Sunday, September 10, 2006

J. Kenneth Blackwell and Ted Strickland can't duck forever Ohioans' frustrations with the cost of supporting their schools.

One man will be elected governor and, when the honeymoon is over, he'll have to answer to taxpayers buffeted by school levies. For now, though, neither is offering serious or specific proposals. Extras Latest headlines

Why? Because everything about finding a sensible way to fund schools is hard.

Cash-strapped state coffers already are being tapped for $8 billion a year for K-12 education (not counting funds for new schools and renovations). That total represents just under 40 percent of the budget, and is the state's single-largest expense.

One major problem with Ohio's funding system is its heavy reliance on the local property tax, which still divides districts between have's and have-not's. Some school advocates and incensed property owners would, if they could, shift all funding for schools to Columbus. But that's a practical — and political — impossibility. Replacing all the money raised by property taxes would require doubling Ohio's personal income tax rates or raising the state sales tax to an astounding 12 percent (from 5.5).

Blackwell goes for show, Strickland's details are few

No wonder Mr. Strickland responds to questions about school funding with grave expressions and talk of blue ribbon commissions, bipartisan cooperation, and someday putting a reform package to a statewide vote.

Mr. Blackwell, meanwhile, has advanced some policy proposals, but none adds up to a credible plan.

He, for instance, hopes to force major cuts in Medicaid spending, and then put that savings into public schools. Strapped taxpayers shouldn't expect to see that happen anytime soon. Promising to cut Medicaid is easy; actually doing it is not.

Mr. Blackwell also is campaigning on the "65 percent solution," which would require districts to devote 65 percent of funding on "classroom instruction." A few states are experimenting with this mandate, but the idea is more slogan than strategy. Even empirical studies have shown that similar programs don't necessarily improve student achievement or administrative efficiency.

But this idea and every other school funding reform that's been floated so far ignores a big question that Ohio voters should be asking both candidates: More school funding — to pay for what, exactly?

School costs receive little attention in funding debate

For all the "reports cards" and online databases devised to measure and display student achievement, and for all the hand-wringing about the best and fairest ways to increase money for schools, little attention is paid to the other side of the Ohio school funding coin — cost.

Salaries and benefits are the biggest and fastest growing expense. Look, for example, at what's happened in Ohio's six largest school districts, comparing the 2000-01 school year to 2004-05.

Student enrollment is down, and so is the number of teachers — in every district, often significantly.

Dayton's public schools, for example, had 19 percent fewer students, and lost 22 percent of their teachers. Cleveland's enrollment was lower by 13.9 percent, and the teachers in the district dropped 26.9 percent. Columbus lost 6.5 percent of its student body, and a whopping 28.5 percent of the teacher population.

These districts, though, weren't less expensive to operate once they had fewer students and teachers. Total expenditures in Cleveland were essentially level (down just 1.8 percent), while Dayton's rose 7.9 percent, and Columbus' were up 14.9 percent.

Where did the money go? "Instructional" expenditures were up significantly on a per-student basis: Columbus' rising by 16.6 percent, Dayton's by 30.4 percent and Cleveland's by 22.3 percent.

But look what happens when instructional spending is divided not by student, but by teacher.

(The state defines these expenses as the funds a district spends on teachers and teacher aides, as well as books, computers and other classroom materials. The largest share, though, by far is for teacher salaries and, significantly, benefits.)

On a per-teacher basis, instructional spending was up 35.4 percent in Dayton, 44.1 percent in Cleveland, and 52.6 percent in Columbus from just five years before.

What does this suggest? That rising compensation costs are hidden by attrition. School districts are using personnel cuts to fund "instructional" budgets, applying the savings to pay higher salaries and more expensive benefits to fewer teachers and other employees.

Staff cuts help finance fast rise in salaries and benefits

The rise in per-student classroom spending, in other words, doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in class size. Indeed, even with significant declines in student enrollment, the major urban districts had significantly more students per teacher in 2004-05 than in 2000-01 — except for Dayton and Cincinnati, where the ratio changed very little.

The benefits side also spelled trouble, with Ohio school districts increasingly looking like automakers. General Motors lamented last year about how $1,500 of the cost of each automobile goes to pay health insurance — "more per car on health care than on steel," complained former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca.

In education, the trend is the same. On average, $1,690 of the cost of educating an Ohio public school student went for employee benefits in 2003, according to a report by Standard & Poors — representing 19.75 percent of all public school spending, and a 42.38 percent increase over benefits in 1999.

Cutting staff has been the only way to swing healthy salary increases, year after year, while also paying 14 percent into the pension system, and absorbing double-digit increases in health insurance costs.

State officials and local school districts don't make it easy to find the particulars of cost increases, so some numbers aren't precise. But what's clear is that the growth in spending can't be sustained under any funding scheme.

If Messrs. Blackwell and Strickland are committed to equitable, adequate, and predictable school funding, they must master the details and explain to voters what they would do to keep high quality public schools affordable.

Education advocates will campaign for amending Ohio’s constitution

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 Catherine Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Ohioans will get their first look at the latest plan to fix the state’s school funding system next Wednesday when education advocates submit their proposed constitutional amendment to the attorney general.
Supporters say they will hold rallies across the state to mount a vigorous campaign to collect the roughly 400,000 signatures of registered voters required to place the issue on the November statewide ballot.
The attempt by education advocates, who are frustrated by what they view as years of inaction by state legislators, would represent the first statewide school-funding issue since a doomed attempt in May 1998 by Gov. George V. Voinovich. That measure, opposed by most school groups, was swamped at the polls.
Gov. Ted Strickland said he remains committed to working first with the General Assembly and various sides of Ohio’s long-running school-funding debate before considering a constitutional amendment. He said he does not know specifics of the proposal, but he commended the effort.
"I applaud the fact that there are growing numbers of individuals and groups in Ohio that recognize we have a problem with our school-funding mechanism as determined by the Supreme Court," Strickland said.
Education groups, mayors and others met yesterday to complete the proposal, and they have at least one more meeting planned before it is unveiled next week.
Details have not been released, but the proposal aims to resolve a number of problems identified in a series of rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court — especially providing sufficient money for public schools and decreasing the reliance on local tax revenues. It remains unclear when a specific amount or revenue source will be identified in the measure.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled four times that the school-funding setup violates the state constitution’s mandate to provide a "thorough and efficient" education. Many lawmakers say they have met the high court’s mandate, pointing to improved test scores, increased operating money for poor districts and billions poured into building schools.
The new proposal is the culmination of at least 50 meetings during the past year involving representatives of numerous education groups, including the Ohio School Boards Association, the Ohio Association of School Business Officials, the Ohio Education Association and the Ohio Federation of Teachers. The Ohio Mayors Roundtable, including Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, also participated.
If the petition language is approved by the attorney general, the coalition can begin collecting signatures of registered voters.
Supporters plan to hold 28 meetings across the state next month to launch their petition drive and have formed a political-action committee to raise campaign funds.
Sources said the group waited to release their proposal until after the November election so Strickland would not have to take a position since he had his own plans regarding school funding.
Strickland said yesterday that he still considers school funding the most pressing problem facing Ohio. He said he plans to bring all interested parties together to come up with a plan "that would be acceptable to the vast majority of Ohioans and stakeholders while realizing that nobody would get everything they desire."
He said such a fix must deal with both education reforms and money.
"I think if we are able to tell the people of Ohio what they are going to get for the investment, they will be more willing to support it."
Such reforms, he said, would include ensuring that both teachers and students have the opportunities and tools they need.
ccandisky@dispatch.com

Number collecting bigger paychecks, pensions at same time has increased

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 Bill Bush THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The number of Ohio educators who are collecting state retirement pensions while still working is up 62 percent since lawmakers loosened restrictions in 2000.
Of that group, the number making more than $90,000 a year has grown the most, exploding by 1,850 percent.
In 1999, when educators had to wait 18 months after retiring to collect pensions, only 17 were collecting pensions from the State Teachers Retirement System while simultaneously working at jobs paying more than $90,000 a year.
In 2000, lawmakers cut the wait to two months, and by last year the number of retired educators working in those highpaying jobs had leapt to 331, and more are being added to the rolls every month.
The growth of high-paid people who were retired, then rehired shows how hard it is to find qualified people to be district executives, said Scott Ebright of the Ohio School Boards Association.
"It’s keeping experienced administrators," he said. "That pool seems to be shrinking."
With an income of $197,950 and a state pension equal to about 88 percent of that, Solon school Superintendent Joseph Regano is the highest-paid Ohio educator in this status, according to retirement-fund data.
The Solon Board of Education’s decision two years ago to allow him to retire and then be rehired to a four-year contract financially benefited both him and the district, Regano said. He got to keep working fulltime and collect a pension, and the district got to hand his $11,000-a-year health-insurance premiums to the retirement system.
"I think I would be lying to you to say it’s not money-driven," said Regano, 58. "This isn’t like I’m 40 looking at the next 10 years. I’m looking at the end of my career."
Teachers in Solon are also offered a similar deal, but they must leave the district after one year back on the job, Regano said. The district uses it as a retirement incentive so that longtime employees can be replaced with lower-paid, entrylevel workers, he said.
Voters don’t seem to have a problem with the plan, because it’s saving the district money, Solon school-board President Margo Morrow said.
"I have not had anyone call me and express dissatisfaction," Morrow said.
Dennis Leone, retirement system board member, said that while it may be a win-win situation for a school district and the retiring employee, the pension system is paying the bill. It lost $2 million last year providing health insurance to retired rehirees, he said.
The system’s board voted earlier this year to make retired-rehired workers get health care if possible from their employers starting in 2009.
Next month, the board will discuss the long-term financial health of the system in light of the fact that teachers’ payments into the system are not growing as quickly as projected. The board also might discuss what a financial shock, such as a large stock-market downturn, could do to its ability to meet its obligations, Leone said.
However, he doesn’t think the fund is being too generous by allowing retirees to simultaneously work and collect pensions.
Employees contribute 10 percent of their gross earnings to the fund, while employers — mostly public school districts — contribute 14 percent. That money is mostly invested in stocks, bonds and real estate.
Educators with 30 years in the retirement system qualify for pensions worth 66 percent of the average of their three highest years’ salaries. At 35 years, pensions grow to 88.5 percent of their three highest annual salaries and can climb to 100 percent with additional years of service.
bbush@dispatch.com