Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at ASU
Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at CU-Boulder

****NEWS RELEASE--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE****

BUCKEYE REPORT’S CENTRAL CLAIM LACKS EVIDENCE
Reviewer says data don’t support think tank’s claim that Ohio school funding gaps are the fault of the state’s school districts

Contact: Bruce D. Baker, (785) 864-9844; bbaker@ku.edu
Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@gmail.com

TEMPE, Ariz and BOULDER, Colo. (Oct. 17, 2007) – A recent report from the Buckeye Institute argues that funding disparities in high-poverty Ohio schools are the fault of school districts, not the state. Districts, the report contends, have adequate funds but don't allocate them properly to high-poverty schools under their jurisdiction. A new review of that report, however, finds no basis for the report’s central claim that district-level policies are responsible for continued spending and achievement gaps.

The original report from Buckeye is Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An analysis of intra-district spending patterns in Ohio, and was written by Matthew Carr, Nathan Gray and Marc Holley. The report was reviewed for the Think Tank Review Project by Professor Bruce D. Baker at the University of Kansas, who is also a Faculty Affiliate of the Institute for Policy and Social Research.

The Buckeye report contends that:

- The Ohio legislature has met its obligations under the state’s constitution to increase school funding and target it to high-poverty districts where it is most needed;
- School districts are responsible for continued inequity in spending that hurts high-poverty schools, because districts allocate staffing in ways that allow senior, higher-paid teachers to move to or stay in low-poverty schools;
- The inequity within districts is the primary cause of Ohio’s remaining achievement gaps between high- and low-poverty students; and
- Ohio can fix the problem by requiring districts to use so-called weighted student funding within districts.

In his review, however, Baker finds that the Buckeye report never supports its basic interpretation of the problem. "The authors fail to validate their central thesis that the problem with Ohio school finance is a predominantly a within- rather than between-district problem and that the state system of allocating resources to districts is the most appropriate and equitable system to be used by districts allocating resources to schools," Baker writes.

One problem with the paper, he says, is its scant review of existing research. "The authors of the Buckeye report either ignore entirely or are simply unaware of a vast body of directly and indirectly relevant literature," he writes.

The report's contentions and conclusions are also severely weakened by other problems, according to Baker. It fails to take into account the way different grade levels may have different cost structures. Additionally, it makes analyses and comparisons on the basis of very small sample sizes, leading to distorted conclusions. And it appears to ignore evidence that the suggested solution, for a weighting system to be used in allocating funds, can in some instances "yield even less equitable financing than might exist if there were no weights at all."

But the larger flaw, Baker says, is the paper's simple assumption that school districts are already adequately funded. "The Buckeye authors have failed to make their case that sufficient resources have already been allocated across districts, in part because they have failed to conduct any detailed analysis of the margins of additional funding in higher-need districts."

Ultimately the report "is built on the weakest of foundations," he concludes. "It wrongly assumes that improving within-district disparity is the primary if not the sole remaining problem for the Ohio school finance system. Even more dubiously, it argues that remaining achievement gaps between high- and low poverty children are mainly a function of within-district financial disparities.

"As such, high-poverty districts are asked by these authors to bear the burden of correcting those disparities at no additional state expense. The report’s weak methodology compounds it shortcomings. If taken seriously, the Buckeye Institute report will only misguide policymaking."

A technical appendix to the new review by Baker further undermines the report's claims. The appendix presents Baker's analysis of Ohio data, demonstrating that the state’s funding approach provides only modest poverty-based support across districts. Contrary to the Buckeye report’s basic assumptions, Baker's new analysis shows within-district equity and poverty supports to be no worse and no better than state efforts across districts.

Find Bruce Baker's review on the web at: http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/ttreviews/EPSL-0710-245-EPRU.pdf

About the Think Tank Review Project

The Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org), a collaborative project of the ASU Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) and CU-Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC), provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

Kevin Welner, the project co-director, explains that the project is needed because, "despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks can be of very poor quality. Too many think tank reports are little more than ideological argumentation dressed up as research. We believe that the media, policy makers, and the public will greatly benefit from having qualified social scientists provide reviews of these documents in a timely fashion." He adds, "we don't consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks' contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate."

CONTACT:
Bruce Baker, Associate Professor
University of Kansas
Faculty affiliate, Institute for Policy and Social Research
(785) 864-9844
bbaker@ku.edu

Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com

**********
###

The Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) conducts original research, provides independent analyses of research and policy documents, and facilitates educational innovation. EPRU facilitates the work of leading academic experts in a variety of disciplines to help inform the public debate about education policy issues.

Visit the EPRU website at http://educationanalysis.org

###

The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder seeks to contribute information, analysis, and insight to further democratic deliberation regarding educational policy formation and implementation.

Visit the EPIC website at http://education.colorado.edu/epic

###
**********