Kasich Education Record: From 5th to 18th

In 2010, Ohio was riding high, from an education policy perspective. The state had just tightened its charter school closure standards and created a new funding formula that promised to make the system constitutional as part of a national award winning education reform overhaul.

And the culmination of this was a national ranking of 5th best education system in the country, as judged by Education Week's national Quality Counts report.

But things started changing when Gov. John Kasich took office. Most of those award-winning changes were wiped out. His own funding formula was trashed and dropped by his own party. Ohio's charter schools are now a national joke. And his efforts at local, urban reform are off to a dubious beginning.

The culmination of Kasich's work? The state is now ranked 18th in the country.

This is not the kind of education record I would want while running for President.

Kasich's Frankenstein Complex

In today's Columbus Dispatch, Gov. John Kasich came out attacking those who call his school funding plan "Robin Hood" -- a pretty clear response to sentiments captured in an Akron Beacon Journal story this morning.

He said that "we need more superintendents who are educators and fewer who are politicians."

What Kasich forgets is the reason Ohio superintendents have had to become politicians -- because more than 1/2 of school districts will have less state money in his current budget than they had six years ago.

That forces districts to ask for levy money. Levies are political campaigns. So, yes, superintendents have to be more political because they have to win elections every few years to provide the education their kids deserve and the state won't pay for.

Like Frankenstein, Kasich has declared war on a monster of his own creation. Unlike Frankenstein, he is in denial of his handiwork.

Noticeably absent from Kasich's anger is any mention of the real Ohio "educator politicians" -- poor performing charter school operators. This state has seen $1.7 billion going to two big campaign contributors (more than $6 million at last count) who run mostly failing charter schools -- one out of every four charter school dollars ever spent here.

I doubt superintendents have given even $10,000 total over the last 16 years to state politicians, let alone the $6 million plus that just two charter school operators have.

If Kasich wants superintendents to not think like politicians, he needs to provide state funding increases in more than 45% of school districts compared with 6 years ago, even though he has $20 billion more to spend.

If he did that, superintendents would have to worry less about passing levies and could actually be that which they trained to be -- educational leaders.

The Artful Dodger

If anyone wants to learn how to avoid answering tough questions, take a look at Ohio Office of Budget and Management spokesman Jim Lynch in today's Gongwer. He is responding to the report I authored for Innovation Ohio that showed school districts have had to go for far more levies and far more additional operating money since Gov. John Kasich took office than the during the similar time frame under Gov. Ted Strickland:

" Office of Budget and Management spokesman Jim Lynch, said, however, data and news reports reviewed by the office indicates the total number of school levies this fall is below the historical average, which holds the same for earlier election cycles. 

'It's easy to be innovative with statistics, to slice and dice data in ways that yield the particular conclusion that serves your agenda,' he said. 'Before you're satisfied with these agenda-oriented reports, ask if the sources have looked across a longer period of time - say 10 years - for some historical perspective.' 

Mr. Lynch said Gov. Kasich has made education a key priority to help improve results in Ohio's classrooms. 

'His Achievement Everywhere Plan, signed in late June, allocates $1.6 billion in new state funds for the next two fiscal years, putting more dollars into Ohio classrooms so that FY 2015 funding levels will exceed FY 2011 actual state spending by $1.39 billion,' he said.

Mr. Lynch simply dismissed what we did without disputing a single thing we did. He actually didn't look at the data at all, citing simply some media reports and nebulous "data" his office had reviewed (from where, he doesn't say). I do give him credit for the "innovative with statistics" line. Get it? Innovation Ohio. Innovative with statistics.

Yup. He went there.

The reason Mr. Lynch won't dispute our report is because it is right. I looked at each levy on the ballot for the two time periods to determine which levy was an ask for new money to fund operations and which was not. I used both the Ohio School Boards Association database and the Ohio Secretary of State's office for the data. I did not include Bond issues, nor did I include renewal or replacement levies. If there were combination levies, I only included the money for operations. Why did I do it this way? Because cuts to the state's operating budget would most directly impact the operational portion of a district's budget. As Ohio School Boards Association President Charles Wilson put it: 

"‘….if you are trying to measure the impact of state funding cuts on the (schools’) main operating budget, Innovation Ohio’s measurement is better because it effectively measures the local operational impact of cuts made in the state’s operating budget.’

Mr. Lynch knows this. Which is why he didn't really dispute our methodology, just impugned the reasons we did it. He said we should look at a 10-year time frame for comparison. Sounds reasonable, except that would tell us nothing about the question we were looking at, which was whether there has been any impact on new money asks for operations as a result of the historically huge cuts Gov. Kasich made in his first budget ($1.8 billion), and only partially replaced in his second (now $515 million cut). 

By the way, three out of four districts still receive less over the next two years than they did in the last budget under Strickland, which, coincidentally, was the first time on record that a larger share of the education funding pie came from the state (as is required under the Ohio Constitution) than local property taxpayers. 

And Kasich's Achievement Everywhere plan that Mr. Lynch cites was so universally panned that the Ohio Legislature, run by his own party, ditched it this spring for one of their own.

It is true that overall numbers of new levies are about the same between the two governors. However, that number alone is misleading. Which is why you have to "slice and dice the data" (as Mr. Lynch suggests) to determine which levies are increasing and decreasing. What you find is that the only reason the amount of levies are similar is because there were about the same number of additional bond issues under Strickland as there are additional operational issues under Kasich. Why would that be? Because in 2007, Strickland securitized about $5 billion in tobacco settlement money that he put into the Ohio School Facilities Commission. So districts took a run at incredible financing opportunities for new facilities. 

The only reason there are more bond issues under Strickland is because he put $5 billion more into school facilities. The reason there are more operational levies under Kasich is because he has provided hundreds of millions dollars less for public education.

Look, I don't mind Mr. Lynch coming after me or my organization. Because I know it's all he has, and that's his job. When you can't argue the facts, attack the one making the argument. Or Artfully Dodge the question. Whatever works.

But the data demonstrate pretty clearly that state funding cuts have forced School Districts to go for more new operating money more often. And for that, Mr. Lynch apparently has no real answer.

Cutting through the Rhetoric

Here's my letter to the editor for one of my local newspapers, the South Side Leader:

To the editor:What the Ohio General Assembly did last week to education is extremely troubling. While legislators are trying to fool the public into thinking that somehow they increased money for education, in fact, school districts are receiving $515 million less than they received from the state three years ago.

Three out of four Ohio school districts have less state revenue than they did then, including Green ($1.4 million), Manchester ($1.3 million), Mogadore ($389,000), Springfield ($1.1 million), Copley-Fairlawn ($2.8 million), Coventry ($760,000) and Revere ($3.5 million).And these cuts don’t include the additional money districts will be losing to charter schools, 70 percent of which will rate an F on the new report card. Currently, every kid not in a charter school loses 6.5 percent of their state money because charters remove so much from districts. Nearly every dollar sent to a charter from a South Side News Leader-area district goes to one that performs far worse than the district.

Finally, every district will be subject to losing money to private school vouchers, even if the school is highly rated.

In short, this budget represents an attack on public education. In the 2010-11 school year, 50 percent of the revenue for education came from the state — the first time that’s happened in three decades. Today, that number is back down to about 47 percent.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled four times that the state’s duty is to reduce the need for property taxes to pay for schools. This budget will continue to increase the need. Since 2011, a record $1.3 billion in new levy money to fund operations have been before Ohio voters as property taxpayers continued to foot the bill for our legislators’ constitutional failure.To add insult to injury, since the state decided to eliminate state support of property tax cuts in this budget, anyone who voted for it will have voted for what could be the largest property tax increase in state history.

Stephen Dyer, Green (Stephen Dyer is a former District 43 [now District 36] state representative and current education policy fellow at Innovation Ohio, a Columbus-based think tank.)

What's amazing, is this letter could be written about most every area of the state. Yet that's not what many are saying, accepting $1.8 billion less for education as the state's new funding reality. I fail to understand how it can be with a budget that has billions more in revenue than the one from three years ago.

2013 Education Budget Bottom Line

There's going to be a lot said about how public education fared in the 2013 state budget. However, I think it's important to put this budget in context. Once you do, this is the bottom line:

• School districts will receive $515 million fewer in this budget than they got in the 2009 biennial budget
• 3 of 4 districts will get less money than they got in the 2009 budget, with Cleveland losing $81 million and Cincinnati $15 million
• Once you remove Career Tech and Transportation funding from this budget, 1 in 4 districts will get less non-Career Tech and Transportation funding than they got in FY13
• Those numbers do not include additional lost revenue to failing Charter Schools and Private Schools coming from a huge bump in funding for them
• This budget includes the smallest commitment to overcoming poverty in education since the 2005-2006 school year, yet the state is now dictating how that historically low amount can be spent
• In the 2010-2011 school year, the proportion of state to local funding for education reached 50-50 for the first time in at least three decades. The first year of Kasich's first budget saw that drop back down to 47% state, 53% local
• Charter operators that have given about $1 million to politicians get 38% of the Charter School increase, even though they only run about 9% of the state's Charter Schools.

The budget started out -- as introduced by Gov. John Kasich -- as an overall disaster, got a little better, but still was insufficient to make up for the dramatic cuts contained in Kasich's previous budget.

And to add insult to injury, the state will no longer subsidize property tax cuts, which means this budget could represent the largest property tax increase in state history.

I will leave you with the words of the Ohio Supreme Court as you consider this budget:

“. . . until a complete systematic overhaul of the system is accomplished, it will continue to be far from thorough and efficient and will continue to shortchange our students. The overreliance on local property taxes is the fatal flaw that until rectified will stand in the way of constitutional compliance.” -- Justice Alice Robie Resnick

OH Republican Mega Donors Get Lion's Share of Charter Money

As we reported today at Innovation Ohio, one of the real concerns with the current state budget, which is working its way through a joint House-Senate Conference Committee is this: Republican mega-donors David Brennan (White Hat Management) and William Lager (ECOT) saw major increases in their funding. Meanwhile, Charter Schools that actually do a far better job educating children received far less additional revenue.

To give you an idea of just how much better Brennan and Lager's schools do, take a look at this statistic: Brennan and Lager run 33 of the state's 369 Charter Schools, or 9 percent. Yet according to the Ohio Senate's Charter School simulations, Brennan and Lager's schools will receive $8.6 million additional over last school year. That represents 38 percent of all the increases to the rest of the 336 Charter Schools. So 38 percent of the increase to Charters went to 9 percent of the schools.

Looking at it another way, Brennan and Lager's schools take so much money away from the state's other Charter Schools that their average increase gets cut 32 percent.

Brennan and Lager are the top individual contributors to the Republican leadership in the House and Senate  (or close to it) . And they're no slouches when it comes to Gov. John Kasich either. They've given nearly $1 million to politicians since 2008.

Is it just a coincidence that they receive the lion's share of the benefit in the area of the budget that most interests them?

I think not.

Kasich Ed Plan Increases Charter Funding 4.5%

After many weeks of anticipation, the Legislative Service Commission has made preliminary estimates on the cost of Gov. John Kasich's education plan for Charter Schools. The bottom line is Charters will get a 4.5% increase under the plan.

For the last week or so there was real concern that the plan would lead to Charter School cuts. Instead, it represents an increase. At first glance of the LSC projections, 75 Charter Schools would receive less funding, which is about 20% of all Charters. About 60% of traditional schools would get cut under Kasich's Plan, but for a pot of guaranteed money that Kasich has indicated would go away soon.

Some of those Charters that get cut, though, are high-performing Charters, like the Intergenerational School in Cleveland, which would lose $20,000.

Now the challenge is this: Last week it seemed that Charters and Traditional Public Schools were starting to coalesce around the idea of raising the per pupil foundation aid in Kasich's Plan from the really low $5,000 per pupil (the lowest in two decades, in constant dollars) to a more robust number around $6,000 per pupil.

Will these Charter runs be enough to convince Charters to back off that demand? And will the Charter-Traditional School War be perpetuated with the results of these Charter School projections that show Charters doing a bunch better than Traditional Schools?

I hope the answer to both questions is an emphatic "No."

Ohio Charter Schools Confirm Kasich Ed Plan Insufficient

Today's testimony before the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee was quite revealing about Charter Schools' concerns with Gov. John Kasich's new education funding plan. Namely, this reliably Republican constituency was clear about one thing: Kasich's plan will hurt them.

When a group that's been as solidly in your corner politically as Charter Schools remains publicly neutral on your signature Education Reform plan, you have problems.

This is important as the debate moves forward because if even Charter Schools are saying the funding plan is inadequate, then perhaps changing the plan becomes more feasible. As I blogged about last week, there was plenty for Charter Schools to be worried about in Kasich's education plan. The per pupil foundation amount was being dropped from $5,700 per pupil to $5,000 per pupil, Charters weren't given a guarantee that their funding wouldn't dip below previous years' levels, and the economically disadvantaged weighted funding was low.

And it appears that Charter School advocates agreed with that assessment.

According to testimony from Stephanie Klupinski, of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools,

"The per pupil amount for Ohio’s charter schools is currently not enough, and we are concerned that HB 59 will make things even more difficult by reducing funding for many public charter schools and widening the gap.

Although we do not have spreadsheets for charter schools, we have done preliminary estimates.  Schools that will be particularly devastated by the proposed change include e-schools and some of the highest performing charters—schools that attract students from many different districts.  Many charters are helping blur district lines by enrolling a cross-section of students, and we don’t want to penalize our charters who serve students from different districts. That, unfortunately, is what we fear this proposal does.
 

Consider the effect of the proposed changes on Columbus Preparatory Academy (CPA), one of the highest scoring schools in the state with a Performance Index of 111.1.  Our simulation estimates that CPA is likely to lose at least $100,000 in funding, even after factoring in funds intended to support enhanced Early Childhood and Gifted services and to address facility inequities.

 

Governor Kasich has repeatedly emphasized that no district will receive less under his budget proposal.  We think it is only fair and equitable that public charter schools do not receive less per pupil than what they currently receive.  To remedy the problem, one possible solution may be that the per pupil funding amount that follows the student be the greater of the current amount of  $5,704 or the amount generated by the combination of Opportunity Grant and Targeted Resources funding as proposed in HB 59.  Schools should be assured that charter students will be funded at no less than the amount that they are today, while also being able to take advantage of increases where they are available.  We believe this may be an appropriate fix, but without having seen the budget spreadsheets for charter schools, we cannot be certain.  We thank you for your efforts to obtain the spreadsheets—I know we are all looking forward to seeing them."
 

Klupinski's testimony mirrored the testimony of other Charter School advocates, including those from White Hat Management -- David Brennan's outfit.

What's very clear is that Charters don't like the $5,000 per pupil foundation amount, nor do they like that they're not going to be getting any guarantees that their funding won't drop from the previous year.

There is a potential synergy here with what traditional public schools have been saying throughout this process. Is there a way to finally have Charters and traditional public schools come together around a set of principles?

Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope. And wouldn't that be a welcome change from the last 15 years of distrust between the two groups?

Further Exploring Kasich Plan's Fatal Flaw

In an earlier post, I tried to explain how flawed it is for Gov. John Kasich to bet his education plan on per pupil valuation. I thought explaining how it would take 191 years for folks in Noble County to catch up to Olentangy's capacity to raise a mill of revenue, if Noble County continued growing its property wealth at 66% every five years.

Yet today in the Ohio House of Representatives, Kasich's Education Funding Czar Barbara Mattei-Smith called Olentangy "Property Poor". That's right. A district that raises $3.2 million on a mill is property poor, according to Mattei-Smith. That's why a district as property wealthy as Noble (which raises $125,000 on a mill) should sacrifice state funds so kids in Olentangy can get over 320% increases. Or so went the argument.

Since apparently I was unable to make my case effectively with the 191 year thing, here are two charts. The first shows the difference between Olentangy and Noble's per pupil valuation, which is what Kasich is trying to "equalize" (and not very well at that). The second is a graphic showing the difference between Olentangy and Noble's ability to raise money on one mill of property tax.

Which do you think, dear reader, best describes the property wealth disparity in this state?

I'll let you decide.