COLUMBUS — Former Jefferson High School teacher, now State Rep. John Patterson (D-Jefferson) has been working hard on the Cupp-Patterson school funding plan to make it more transparent and more predictable.
That work got a boost when Rep. Bob Cupp (R-Lima) was elected Speaker of the Ohio House July 30. Cupp has been working with Patterson on school funding for six years.
In 1997, an Ohio Supreme Court case, DeRolph v State, found that Ohio’s school-funding system violated the state’s constitution. The Ohio constitution requires the state to provide a “thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” In DeRolph v State, the supreme court said the state’s current system did not meet that requirement.
Cupp-Patterson aims to make the school funding formula transparent and predictable, Patterson said.
The plan was introduced in June 2019 and was referred to committee, according to the Ohio House’s website. The bill did not make it out of committee.
The base cost component of the plan, which determines how much it costs to educate an average student in an average district, is solid, Patterson said.
Cupp-Patterson also uses both income and property values to assess the wealth of a district, Patterson said. Each district also stands on its own under the formula, instead of being compared to other districts like they are currently, Patterson said.
“Because we know what the base cost is, because we know what the land valuation is and because we take the wealth as based on [income], we know exactly what that local district ought to be able to pay,” Patterson said.
Since the plan was initially introduced in June 2019, Cupp and Patterson have been working to address criticisms of the plan.
One of the criticisms was that the plan didn’t do enough for districts that are severely economically disadvantaged, Patterson said. Changes have been made to how money would be distributed to those poor districts.
Another criticism of the plan is that the plan didn’t move enough money to districts where there are economically disadvantaged students.
“Research says that, typically, a student who is economically disadvantaged requires 30 percent more spending for various services,” Patterson said. Those services include remedial help in the classroom, counseling and help of other means. The need for more help is not the child’s fault, Patterson said.
The original plan had an add-on formula that approached the 30-percent level, Patterson said.
The version that is being worked on will be very close to 30 percent, Patterson said.
“When you take that, with the distribution component, … it ought to help more districts because of the interwoven nature of economic hardship in some districts,” Patterson said.
Transportation is the third criticism to Cupp-Patterson that has been addressed. Transportation is an additional formula outside of the foundation, Patterson said.
“Transportation brings its own set of variables,” he said. “It’s complex in itself.”
In areas with dense populations, busses can be used more efficiently, Patterson said. In more rural areas, it’s not as efficient, he said.
“And so what we’ve done is add a factor for density [to the formula], so that those districts with less dense populations get more help from the state, depending upon their need,” Patterson said.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the state’s revenue was growing at a rate where Cupp-Patterson could have been implemented in four to six years, Patterson said. That is no longer the case, he said.
“Our idea is to get the framework of this school funding plan in place and agreed to, and in permanent law, the formula, that is,” Patterson said. “And when money becomes available to fund as much of it as possible.”
One of the questions now is what to do as funds become available.
“If we only have X amount of dollars and it only gets us a third of the way where we need to be, … do we take that third and apply it to the whole formula?” Patterson asked. “Do we take it and address the real crisis needs and then backfill later as more revenues become available? We’re not sure yet, and that’s where we’ve got to figure out, though help from our colleagues, … how that should be.” Another option would be just putting the formula in place and leaving the decision about where to put money as it becomes available, Patterson said.
The plan is currently being drafted into legislation, Patterson said. A few more questions, including the question of what to do as the bill is partially funded, need to be answered before it can be introduced, he said.
The formula’s predictability and transparency are popular with districts, Patterson said.
“It’s fair for the taxpayers, it’s fair for the districts, and most importantly, it’s fair for our kids,” Patterson said.
