BuckeyeBlog

The news that Governor Strickland’s education finance proposal is being modeled not by the analytical research resources of the Ohio Department of Education but by a private firm of Driscoll and Fleeter is worth noting on several levels.

First, the Akron Beacon Journal among others scores the move for its obvious obfuscation of the workings of government.  Observers can’t see how ’the sausage is being made’ as they could have when the ODE was doing such work.  We’ve long pointed out that one of the characteristics of a government worthy of a free people is that its inner workings are thoroughly transparent to citizens.  When the Governor hides from public scrutiny the development of the policy he has staked his incumbency on, he is, in effect, insulting the freedom of Ohioans.    

Second, the Governor has turned to a firm which has enjoyed a cozy relationship with a key vested interest in the school funding debate.  As the AP notes Driscoll and Fleeter are “….on the payroll of a private tax institute run by the Ohio School Boards Association…”.  That’s a pretty generous assessment as any examination of the public record would reveal that the OSBA, their so-called private tax institute (”Education Tax Policy Institute”) and Driscoll and Fleeter are a thoroughly integrated entity.  Just take a look at the ETPI’s tax filing submitted in August of last year (available through Guidestar service, free registration required) and you’ll see it was initially ’signed’ by Rich Levin, a former partner in Driscoll and Fleeter and now the state’s tax commissioner — some 18 months after Levin had left private practice for his current position. 

Much research has documented that school finance in Ohio is a largely a political exercise distributing tax dollars among and according to the interests of adults who work in the system and the bureaucracies they control, all according to their relative political power.  The interests of children and their parents, relatively powerless in the universe of school politics, come in a distant second in this exercise.  (See for example, this report by our Matt Carr.)  

By outsourcing the design of his proposed system to the OSBA, the Governor continues to put the interests of education bureaucrats over that of children and parents. 

Finally, we just have to ask why the Governor allows himself the freedom to choose a for-profit provider in the vital task of designing a new school finance system when he won’t permit the same choice to Ohio children and their parents seeking to get the best possible education?   Clearly Strickland’s objections to for-profit schools are not based on consistently applied principles.  And our research shows that they aren’t based on fact, either.  The reality is the Governor just continues to serve up special interest politics when it comes to school finance reform.

Looks like a strike at a school district in Swanton.

This story says the school’s budget is $13 million or so. Around these parts, that’s a pretty small school district. Good for them.

There’s trouble brewing, though. The board has made an offer that isn’t disclosed, except to say that it’s “less than the 2.75 percent raise teachers received last year.”

The first thing to note is a big boo-hiss brickbat for this reporter and editor. There should never be a school salary story that fails to note the step chart. What this really means is that there is a 2.75 percent raise in the works, or in any event something less than that, PLUS the ordinary step chart raise. I’m guessing this means, let’s say, 2 percent base pay, PLUS 2 percent on average step chart. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were more than that.

Is a 4 percent raise really all that bad? I don’t know about you folks, but when I get an ordinary annual raise, it’s usually a matter of additional experience and such-and that’s not even mentioning those times when the raise is only a percent or two, or maybe no raise at all. No business is a perpetual money machine; just ask the newspapers and automakers.

Most of us don’t get to claim our raise twice, but public sector union employees sure do, and no news story about one is complete until it acknowledges the other.

“Schools need ‘additional dollars’” is the headline, and sure enough they do. Yes, it must be that levy season is upon us.

Nothing could better demonstrate the essential problem of government. (Well, nothing short of a war.) Most of us don’t spend a lot of time on the income side of the budget issue, because that’s a whole different set of activities — changing jobs, increasing skills, all big, difficult, long term major efforts.

No, real budgeting is spent on the expense side of the ledger. It doesn’t do any good to say we need additional dollars. So does Donald Trump. The real issue is, given our dollars, how are we going to spend them?

But no, let’s not go there. Let’s just say the school funding system has been ruled unconstitutional four times and raise taxes.

Yikes. The apocalypse is upon us.

Strickland said the economic pressures the state is facing extend far beyond school funding. He said he doesn’t think the energy and foreclosure crises are just part of a normal cycle of ups and downs.

”Part of what’s happening with the economy is, I think, potentially cataclysmic,” Strickland said. ”Whether or not people will maintain confidence in our financial institutions, whether or not there will be some way to deal appropriately with the energy crisis we face, it’s affecting everything. It’s not only affecting schools. It’s affecting households, it’s affecting the ability of people to work and get to work and feed their families.”

Don’t forget global warming, AIDS and Dick Cheney.

During the 2006 gubernatorial race, a friend wondered during the Strickland-Blackwell debates, “Do you think Strickland is deliberately trying to emulate Ronald Reagan?”

No doubt about it. Apparently having checked that off the list, though, now the governor appears to be trying to emulate Jimmy Carter.