Am. Sub. H.B. 1 (2009) — FY2010-11 Budget; Evidence-Based Model
The FY2010-11 operating budget, which replaced the existing foundation formula with the Evidence-Based Model — the most direct legislative attempt to answer DeRolph’s central criticism. verified Rather than dividing available money by pupils and calling the quotient a base cost, the EBM specified the components of an adequate education as resource inputs — class sizes, instructional staff ratios, counselors, tutors, professional development, technology — priced them, and summed them into a per-district amount. verified
legislation/hb-1-2009 · 7 nodes point here
The model was designed for a ten-year phase-in. verified It survived two fiscal years. H.B. 153 in 2011 repealed it before the phase-in reached its third year, which means the Evidence-Based Model was never operated at the funding level it was designed around and its adequacy claim was never tested. verified
The enactment coincided with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and a substantial share of the FY2010-11 education appropriation was federal stabilization money rather than state revenue — a fact that makes the state-share figures for these two years non-comparable to the years on either side unless the federal component is separated out. inference
Properties
| Designation | Am. Sub. H.B. 1 |
|---|---|
| General Assembly | 128th General Assembly |
| Signed | 2009-07-17 |
| Effective | 2009-07-17 |
| When each part took effect | Two dates, and effective above carries the appropriation one. Signed 17 July 2009, with the appropriation sections effective then, seventeen days into the biennium they fund; the codified amendments, the Evidence-Based Model among them, took effect on 16 October 2009, and some provisions on other dates. verified LSC's enrolled analysis; the legislature's version index |
| What it did | Enacted the FY2010-11 operating budget and replaced the prior foundation formula with the Evidence-Based Model, which derived a per-district adequacy amount from specified staffing ratios and resource inputs rather than from available appropriation divided by enrollment. Designed for a ten-year phase-in. |
| Vetoes | Several, and two of them change a number rather than strike a provision. verified the greenbook Tangible personal property reimbursement, made permanent and then not. The act as passed would have fully reimbursed districts in perpetuity rather than phasing the payments down from FY2012 to FY2018. The Governor kept full reimbursement through FY2013 and vetoed the rest, so the phase-down resumes on its original schedule from FY2014. It is the largest of the three TPP protections the legislature has passed and lost — see Tangible Personal Property Tax Replacement Payments. EdChoice maximums, partially vetoed downward. The act set scholarship maximums and eliminated the annual increase that had run since FY2007. The Governor kept the elimination and reduced the maximums to their FY2007 levels — $4,200 for grades K-8 and $5,000 for grades 9-12. A partial veto that lowers a figure rather than removing a clause is the only one of its kind in this class. The Early Learning Initiative was ended by veto, not by repeal: the act carried the defining language as previous budgets had, the Governor struck it, and the program discontinued. A companion veto removed the requirement that certain early learning providers repay FY2004-05 start-up funds to the GRF by FY2019. Also vetoed: a two-year moratorium on transfers of districts between educational service centers and the revised procedure for dismantling one; the date by which business education standards were to be adopted; an EdChoice eligibility route for pupils in newly opened buildings drawing most of their pupils from a qualifying one; the transfer of the School Employees Health Care Board to the department; a community school calamity-day waiver; and an earmark of $1,279,948 and $1,500,000 in School Management Assistance for the Auditor of State to run performance audits of districts in fiscal caution, watch or emergency. |
| Effect on accountability | It made a rating decide how freely a district could spend its money, not how much it got. The act required spending rules for the Evidence-Based Model's components affording districts "degrees of flexibility depending on their current report card performance ratings": districts rated excellent were exempt, and the academic improvement rules bound only districts in academic emergency or watch for two or more consecutive years. Non-compliance fed graduated sanctions ending in a trustee, an accountability compliance commission or revocation of the district's charter, none before July 1, 2011. inference LSC's final analysis Whether any was ever imposed is not established. open It also ordered the Ohio Graduation Test replaced as the diploma requirement by a college readiness assessment, end-of-course exams and a senior project, and new report card performance indicators with a fiscal reporting dimension from FY2011. verified greenbook |
Where this appears on the site
The pages outside the corpus that link here, and the section of each the link sits in.
Links
| Instance of | Legislation |
|---|---|
| Establishes | Evidence-Based Model |
| Makes measurable | Adequacy |
| Appropriates for | FY2010-2011 Biennium |