Ohio’s state policymakers are working to eliminate large budget deficits for the current fiscal year and the next biennial budget. Difficult choices will have to be made to balance the budget without increasing taxes on working Ohioans. State funding will be frozen for some programs, reduced for others, and a few programs may be eliminated altogether.
Policymakers should make these decisions with a focus on making state government as efficient as possible. Programs without a proven track record of success should be analyzed closely as should programs that may duplicate private sector initiatives. What follows is a list of line items and their costs from the education section of the proposed executive budget for FY 2004 that, at some level, may run counter to an efficient state government consistent with maximizing individual liberty and personal welfare.
GRF 200-408
Public Preschool
$19,019,000
These funds are used to assist school districts in financing preschool programs for three and four year olds in low-income families and those that are not but choose to pay for the service. Little compelling evidence exists that public preschool improves student learning in later years.[1] In addition, as the Goldwater Institute in Arizona has pointed out, the private market makes options available for both preschool and kindergarten.[2]
GRF 200-410
Professional Development
$36,185,000
This line item contains several measures related to professional development and recruitment programs for teachers and administrators. The intent is to mimic the private sector’s ability to attract and build a group of the best and brightest employees. The nature of collective bargaining and a unified salary schedule, however, inhibits the effects of such incentives in the public sector. National Board Certification, for example, merely rewards teachers who go through the process, with little evidence that their teaching is actually improved by the process.[3]
GRF 200-420
Technical Systems Development
$5,704,000
The need for such a large funded item for technical systems development is questionable. This is a line item that jumped over 250 percent into the $6 million dollar range in 2001 from just under $2 million in 2000. The only vague description of the program is that “These moneys support the Department of Education’s internal information management system.”[4]
GRF 200-421
Alternative Education Program
$16,497,000
The funds for this item are used to provide grants that will aid programs focusing on at risk students of all types—those who have been expelled, suspended, habitually truant or disruptive, at risk of dropping out, etc. This population of student should be the local district’s responsibility and any programs to aid this population should probably come from local funds and basic aid.
GRF 200-431
School Improvement Models
$14,014,000
These funds are used to provide competitive grants to school districts that demonstrate the capacity to invent or adopt school improvement models. It is unclear why school districts need grants to implement school improvement models that presumably will help their students learn. Competition between school districts is perhaps a more cost-effective way to see innovative practices spread across districts.
GRF 200-432
School Conflict Management
$583,000
These funds are used for grants for school districts choosing to train teachers and administrators in conflict management techniques. This is not directly an education function and its elimination is unlikely to have a negative impact on student learning.
GRF 200-433
Reading / Writing Improvement
$21,061,000
This item contains funding for a host of literacy-related programs. These programs, to the extent they are necessary, should be funded out of general basic aid.[5]
GRF 200-509
Adult Literacy Education
$8,774,000
These funds are for adult education programs in reading, language development and mathematics. Adult education programs, if worthwhile, should likely be separated from the ODE and the school districts that receive the payments. This program has the potential to distract administrators from their role in a K-12 education organization.
GRF 200-513
Summer Intervention Services
$35,041,000
School districts with at least 10 percent of their children falling well below the 4th grade reading proficient level are eligible for this funding to boost learning opportunities. This line item rewards districts that fail to meet basic levels of proficiency, creating the wrong incentives to improve student learning.
GRF 200-520
Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid
$367,267,000
This line item is used to provide funds to school districts that have a high number of students in poverty, and thus are assumed to incur higher educational costs as a result. This line item contains funding for all-day kindergarten, K-3 class size reduction, and safety and remediation measures. School districts will soon be required to spend this money in these three areas. While the goal of helping poor children is laudable, there is little evidence that these three uses of funds will do anything to help poor children.[6]
In addition, to the extent that poor children are in poor school districts, their needs are mostly taken care of through the school funding formula. A sensible, middle range solution would be to reduce DPIA in half and distribute the rest to school districts in the form of block grants – with no strings attached.
Notes
[1] See Darcy Olsen, “Universal Preschool is no Golden Ticket,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 333, 9 February 1999. See also, “Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low Income Children Significant but Effectiveness Unclear,” Statement of Marnie S. Shaw, Associate Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, Health Education and Human Services Division before the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families, 11 April 2000. Available on-line at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00083t.pdf.
[2] See Stephen Slivinski, “It All Adds Up: Unnecessary Spending in the Arizona Budget,” Goldwater Institute Issue Analysis no. 170, 2 May 2002.
[3] Danielle Dunne Wilcox, “The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Can It Live Up to Its Promise?” in Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn Jr., eds. Better Teachers, Better Schools (Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, July 1999). Also, see Michael Podgursky, “Should States Subsidize National Certification?” Education Week, 11 April 2001.
[4] Legislative Service Commission, “Department of Education Catalog of Budget Line Items.”
[5] Krista Kafer, “B+ for H.R. 1’s Education Reforms,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 1434, April 2001.
[6] See previous discussion of all-day kindergarten and Eric A. Hanushek, “The Evidence on Class Size,” in Susan E. Mayer and Paul E. Peterson, eds. Earning and Learning: How Schools Matter (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999): 131-168.
Joshua C. Hall is a senior fellow and Matthew S. Hisrich is a policy analyst with The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.