Community Schools - Trying to Fix What's Not Broken
Legislators often feel compelled to address a perceived public crisis, regardless of whether there is a need for political intervention. With all of the recent media attention surrounding community schools in Ohio, it is not surprising that legislators are attempting to tackle the issue. Unfortunately, in an effort to “do something,” legislators may actually undermine their own cause — namely, improving education and assuring that tax dollars are well spent.
One measure under consideration is a two-year moratorium on community schools. Two things seem to be motivating the legislators supporting this legislation; one is to address the alleged loss of local funds and the other is to undertake a review of community schools in the name of public welfare.
As for the loss of local funds, Rep. Larry Price (D - Columbus) supports the moratorium by saying, "I don't want to see the community schools not doing what they're supposed to do at the expense of Columbus Public Schools." [1]
Are community schools draining the treasury of public schools? The heavily studied Dayton City School District provides a good opportunity to examine this claim.
The introduction of community schools into Dayton - a district already in "academic emergency" - did not lead to ruin, financially or academically. According to a recent study published by the Fordham Institute in March, local schools “funding was nearly 44 percent higher than funding received by community schools” in 2002. [2]
Far from draining the public school treasury, community schools serve as a catalyst for more effective use of public dollars. [3] In fact, while community schools often “serve a more expensive student population” such as students that need special education or that come from low-income families, their funding generally lags behind their public school counterparts.
The funding disparity becomes even more evident when state construction funds are factored in, which are not shared with community schools. As well, in larger public school districts such as Dayton, local tax dollars contribute to the budget, while “community schools receive none of these funds.” [4]
The other moratorium argument relates to effectiveness. As moratorium sponsor Sen. Teresa Fedor (D – Toledo) explains, “The Ohio legislature was promised a five-year review of community schools. It's been seven years now and we still haven't seen it.” [5]
Actually, the Legislative Office of Education Oversight has conducted a formal review of community schools. Regardless, Sen. Fedor fails to see the ongoing informal review taking place in community schools. One parent, Roxanna Redick, said that her daughter Sarah “never woke up wanting to go to school” while she attended public schools in Dayton. Now that Sarah is in a community school, “She loves school.” [6]
Just like Ms. Redick, parents make an informal review of their child’s education every day. If they don’t like their child’s current school, they can “vote with their feet” and send them to another school that better caters to their child’s needs. This helps to explain the recent explosion of growth in community schools in Dayton and across Ohio.
While legislators are right to seek assurance of a responsible use of taxpayer dollars, a moratorium will only limit education choice. Indeed, not only are community schools already under public and state scrutiny, but their reason for being is to allow students an opportunity to escape failing public schools. Therein lies the crux of educational reform – parents being given the ability to select the best option for their child. In an attempt to “do something,” legislators wish to halt this process.
Neither a huge drain on public schools nor unaccountable, community schools bring choice to parents and students. This is the key element to improving education in Ohio. State legislators should not attempt to fix what isn’t broken.
Footnotes:
[1] Michael J. Maurer, “Moratorium Proposed on Community Schools,” This Week Newspapers, 15 April 2004. Available at http://www.thisweeknews.com/.
[2] Bryan Hassel and Michelle Godard Terrell, School Finance in Dayton: A Comparison of the Revenues of the School District and Community Schools, (Dayton, OH: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, March 2004). Available at: http://www.edexcellence.net/.
[3] Aengus Barry and Danielle Mendola, "Choice and Competition Spur Educational Improvement," The Buckeye Institute, 10 June 2003.
[4] Hassel and Godard Terrell, School Finance in Dayton…
[5] Maurer, “Moratorium Proposed...”
[6] Catherine Gewertz, “Dayton Feels the Heat From Charter Schools,” Education Week, 24 April 2002. Available at http://www.edweek.org/
Nathan Dolezal is a former research intern with The Buckeye Institute. Matthew Hisrich is a Policy Analyst with The Buckeye Institute.
