The process of creating a new state budget is quickly drawing to a close, with key lawmakers set to hammer out the final legislation in conference committee. Those negotiations are ongoing, with the budget for FYs 2024–25 likely to pass by Friday.
As usual, this new budget bill is the vehicle for significant policymaking in the realm of K–12 education. From the unveiling of Governor DeWine’s spending plan and the subsequent discussions in the House and Senate, one thing is clear: Primary and secondary education is a major priority for Buckeye State leaders. Schools across the state, both public and private, are set to receive significant funding increases in the coming biennium. Along with this extra money will come numerous policy reforms that seek to improve the quality of education Ohio students receive, most notably literacy initiatives that would require schools to align instructional practices to the science of reading.
Yet several significant issues remain unsettled as the House and Senate bills head to conference committee. Let’s take a look at five of them. (We discuss a couple important charter school issues, as well as student transportation, in separate pieces.)
Third grade retention
Just over a decade ago, Ohio lawmakers enacted the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, a package of early literacy reforms that aim to ensure that all children have the foundational reading skills needed to succeed in the upper grades. One of its cornerstones is a requirement that schools retain students who are still struggling to read fluently by the end of third grade. Rigorous research finds that Ohio’s retention policy significantly boosts the achievement of retained pupils. But under political pressure from the education establishment, House lawmakers chose to ignore the benefits for students and voted to ditch the policy in their budget plan and in separate legislation. The Senate, however, disagreed and maintained this component of the Guarantee in its budget. Retention is bound to come up in conference committee, and our view at Fordham—along with other reform groups—is that Ohio must preserve the requirement. Without it, there will no longer be any “guarantee” that struggling students receive the extra time and supports needed to become fluent readers.
School governance reform
One of the Senate’s priorities this year was to pass a school governance overhaul. Leaders incorporated their original proposal, which previously passed via standalone legislation, into their version of the budget. It consists of several significant changes that include refocusing the Ohio Department of Education as the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW), requiring DEW to be led by a director appointed by the governor (instead of being a State Board of Education hire), and transferring most of the responsibilities of the state board to DEW. The overhaul appears to be on track for passage, as two of the “big three” at the negotiating table—the Senate and the governor—have made clear their desire for governance change. The House is a little more of a mystery, but based on similar revamping attempts in the past, there seems to be support in that chamber as well. Here at Fordham, we’ve supported these changes and argued that they will create a more accountable state education agency, strengthen educational leadership in Ohio, and more closely connect education and employment efforts, all while preserving reasonable checks and balances.
School funding formula
The hottest topic of the previous budget cycle in 2021 was the state’s school funding formula, with legislators ultimately green-lighting the much-discussed “Cupp-Patterson” model for use in FYs 2022–23. Its formula prescribes much higher state expenditures on K–12 education—so large, in fact, that the spending increases had to be phased-in to be affordable—and one of the questions going into this cycle was whether the new model would stick. Likely reflecting flush state coffers, state lawmakers this year are poised to keep this formula intact. House lawmakers proposed to continue phasing in the funding increases, as well as updating the “inputs” (e.g., teacher salary data) in the “base cost” model. Both of those proposals help maintain the formula, but at a $1 billion-plus expense to the state. The Senate largely stuck with the House plan, but added some tweaks that improve the functioning of the formula and rein in some of the costs. Most notably, the chamber removed an unnecessary component known as supplemental targeted assistance, as well as two guarantees based on district funding levels in FY 2020 and 2021 (though it also added a new one based on FY 2023). The Senate also made a tweak to the state share computations by removing one of the two income measures of district wealth. This probably reduces some of the formula costs and creates a more straightforward calculation of local capacity.[1]
All this means that overall K–12 education spending is bound to go up as a result of this year’s state budget. By how much—and whether the Senate modifications to the formula will hold—are the questions to keep watch on in the final budget.
Private school scholarships
At this point, there is little doubt that there will be a significant expansion of EdChoice eligibility. The question now is whether lawmakers will go the universal-eligibility route, per the Senate plan, or restrict access above a certain income level, as the governor and House proposed (400 and 450 percent of the federal poverty level, respectively). All three options ensure that more Ohio families will have access to private school education, and that is to be celebrated.
Beyond questions of eligibility, lawmakers must still consider the following: First, they should remove a provision added by the Senate that reverses a current requirement for private schools to accept EdChoice scholarship amounts as full tuition for low-income families (incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or below an annual income of $60,000 for a family of four). Eliminating this policy would allow private schools to charge low-income families amounts above the voucher amount, which could place valuable options for them out of their financial reach again (for a closer look at this topic, see here).
Second, because many parents will have more educational options at their fingertips, they will need more complete information about private school quality. To that end, we continue to recommend that a student growth measure be added that shines a light on the academic progress students make year-to-year in private schools. The state already reports basic point-in-time proficiency data, as private schools are required to administer standardized exams to scholarship students. Publishing growth results alongside the existing test data would provide a more holistic picture of quality, and assist parents in making decisions on behalf of their children.
Interventions for struggling students
The Senate put forward new provisions that require schools to take steps to improve the achievement of students who are significantly behind. Specifically, schools would be required to provide, either directly or through a contracted vendor, interventions to any student scoring at the lowest achievement level (“limited”) on state exams in math, science, or English language arts. The bill isn’t prescriptive on what those interventions must be; tutoring, extended learning time, or “any other academically centered support service” can all serve the purpose. That flexibility makes sense, given the range of needs low-achieving students may have. The proposal also includes some important reporting and monitoring requirements. Schools must report to the state education agency about the progress such students are making (e.g., through diagnostic assessments), and the agency is supposed to monitor their progress. The bill also requires the agency to survey schools to determine if indeed they are providing intervention services, and submit a report to lawmakers detailing the results.
These are all promising measures that legislators should keep in place. Especially in the wake of pandemic-related learning loss, state leaders have an obligation to ensure that students who are struggling get the help they need. Requiring schools to provide intervention supports and report what they’re doing is a critical step in that direction.
***
It’s been a busy budget season filled with debates over school choice, early literacy, and a wide variety of important education-related policies. The finish line is in sight, but there are still a few more key decisions to be made. If lawmakers can keep the focus on kids and families while deciding on the issues outlined above, Ohioans can look forward to a brighter future for Buckeye students.
[1] Specifically, the Senate removes the income measure based on the median income of districts’ residents multiplied by the number of tax returns and divided by district enrollment. The other income measure—total federal gross adjusted income of district residents per pupil—is retained, as is the measure of property wealth per-pupil.
