You don't like politicians?
Consider how vehemently William Phillis despises them. He is the longtime leader of the coalition of school districts that successfully sued the state over school funding in the 1990s. He has weathered a trial, countless hearings, four rulings by the Ohio Surpreme Court, two governors and eight sessions of the state legislature. All the while, he has chased the goal of liberating public education from the clutches of politicians who have neglected their responsibility to schoolchildren.
Phillis is nothing if not dogged. Eleven days ago, he joined the leaders of other education groups in unveiling yet a new effort to address the trouble with school funding. They proposed a constitutional amendment that would dramatically rework the way the state pays for public education. They want education to be a fundamental right.
The usual suspects howled in opposition. Phillis noted in an e-mail to allies last week that ``the negative tone'' reminded him of the reaction to the first high court ruling a decade ago (yes, 10 years!). He concluded: ``The amendment will put school funding on `autopilot' in that the level of resources will be based on student needs and not residual budgeting. This is scary to those who wish to maintain the status quo of the unconstitutional, inadequate and inequitable system.''
Actually, the ``autopilot'' scares just about everyone else with a stake in state spending. Require the state school board (with a commission) to define a high quality education and lawmakers to put up the money, and soon enough others will yelp, those concerned about mental health, the disadvantaged and a sea of other priorities. The school groups revealed as much, their amendment protecting higher education and local governments.
Truth be told, the ``autopilot'' sounds Blackwellian. It feeds the illusion of an easy answer, that what is essentially a political process (we elect those lawmakers, don't we?) can be squeezed clean of the political.
How deeply do Phillis and friends loathe the pols? The legislature could reject the mandate of the state school board by mustering a supermajority of 60 percent, yet lawmakers could then be taken to the Supreme Court, where the ``right'' to an education would bolster the position of the board.
In other words, if critics of the proposed amendment have beaten a familiar drum, so, too, are the school groups prone to looking back. Stymied in the courts and legislature, they have added new moves to evade past roadblocks.
This editorial page has been noisy in its support for a comprehensive repair of school funding, sharing many of the goals of school groups. The system has become a psychological burden, a constant reminder of the state's struggle to achieve a necessary economic transition. Plain, too, the past decade, has been the need to face the political imperative. The governor and the legislature cannot be avoided, or gagged and hand-cuffed until released to follow the orders of a board that wondered about the merits of something as certain as the science of evolution.
Advocates would do well to elect new lawmakers dedicated to the work of an enlightened overhaul. Ted Strickland has stressed that he will fail as governor if he does not achieve substantial success on school funding.
What will he deliver -- with Republican majorities in the legislature?
Everyone at the Statehouse should be embarrassed at the rank inefficiency of the system. On Wednesday, an editorial in this paper traced the path of the Akron schools, adding, then cutting, then adding valuable programs in a span of several years. A sound company doesn't operate so haltingly. The schools are driven to do so by the excessive reliance on local property taxes.
Show ambition by seeking, among other things, to elevate reading levels in early grades at troubled schools, and soon a district must ask voters to approve a levy allowing revenues to keep pace with inflation. In the 1970s, the legislature approved House Bill 920, limiting the growth of local property tax revenues. At the time, inflation soared. Today, it is tame. Yet needed adjustments have not been made.
The thinking is that schools must be held accountable. The trouble is, the principle applies to an absurd degree.
The Ohio Grantmakers Forum recently reported that
school districts held 10,478 levy elections between 1983 and 2005. That's an
average of 456 a year. Roughly half were approved, leading many districts to
return (again and again) to the ballot, annoying voters and eroding the
likelihood of a productive debate about education priorities. The
A worthy use of time?
Local property taxes will long play a substantial role in funding public schools. What schools and property owners want is a measure of relief. That translates into the state playing a larger part in funding, not wildly so, rather by easing the pinch of HB 920 and assuming responsibility in such a way that districts have a steady source of revenue, allowing for the careful planning and programming that will improve Ohio schools.
If Ted Strickland and Republican legislative leaders deliver something along
those lines, Ohioans will have reason to cheer. William Phillis
could claim credit, his persistent promotion of sweeping change expanding the
realm of the possible. Ohioans would then have more time for the essential
political question of how best to use the resources available to advance public
education and the state.