The other day the Columbus Dispatch ran an article assessing Gov. Strickland's school funding plan and the extent to which he's kept his 2006 campaign promise to fix school funding in Ohio. Overall it's a fair article that places an appropriate amount of blame on the recession for Ohio's ?battered tax revenue.? It also calls the governor out for falsely attributing a five percent biennial increase in school funding as his own doing, when in reality this increase was due to a one-time shot of federal stimulus money that was as much to his credit as last week's thunderstorms.
There are a variety of angles from which to assess the success of his funding overhaul promises. Did he try to install a constitutional system of school funding more comprehensive and equitable than his predecessors? Yes. But unfortunately for Ohio, good intentions can't mask fiscal reality. Will it be fully funded this year? Nope. Will it be funded ten years in the future, as promised in the legislation (HB 1) enacting the change? Unless you're a perennial optimist, not likely: ?Analysis has shown that, as it stands now, it will take a string of unprecedented funding increases to hit the mark.? Did the plan diminish the need for districts to ?march to the ballot for local levy requests or make new cuts?? Not yet, although I genuinely hope one day that Ohio's school funding system ? in whatever iteration it's in ? will.
Anyone who's from Ohio or familiar with the state knows there are a ridiculous amount of schools levies put on local ballots and that the state is unique in this regard. The same day I read this article appraising Strickland's funding promises I also read this one from the Mansfield News Journal about Madison Junior High School where I attended grades seven and eight. Madison Schools' superintendent is pleading with the community to pass a $35 million bond levy in an upcoming special election so as to build a new middle school building (the same request failed by thin margins in May). (Note: bond levies for facilities are very different from the operational ones frequently requested as the Dispatch piece described above, but both illustrate the frustration faced by communities in need of either/both overhaul of facilities or more operational revenue.)
I can barely imagine calling a school funding overhaul a success when it doesn't fully address Ohio's over-reliance on local property taxes.
When I read this, my jaw dropped. That building still exists?! Back in 1996 they were talking about tearing it down any minute, as it was built in 1924 and was in pretty bad shape even back then. I still recall vividly the odor from the basement, the way the building looked as if it were sagging from the outside (structural issues), the cloudy, immovable windows in each classroom that looked forty years old, and the fact that everyone was well aware of the asbestos in the ceilings. I promise that my recollection isn't biased from my sullen adolescent outlook on life; this building really was that bad. It was in worse shape, by far, than either of the schools I taught in during Teach For America in Camden (by all accounts, a pretty beat up place).
All of this is to say that it's really unfortunate that Madison Schools hasn't gotten approval for rebuilding yet, although it's worth noting that Mansfield has been hit hard by the recession and plenty of folks there are probably more worried about finding jobs and feeding their kids than about paying more in taxes for a new school. Still, I can barely imagine calling a school funding overhaul a success when it doesn't fully address Ohio's over-reliance on local property taxes, districts' ritualistic march to the ballot, and situations like this one in Mansfield where a the plea to rebuild a decrepit middle school building takes two decades.
-Jamie Davies O'Leary
