BY ANDREA TORTORA
The Cincinnati Enquirer
Kentucky, like Ohio and other states across the nation, struggled with how to equitably fund schools after courts declared old systems unconstitutional.
While states like Ohio, California and Texas are still wrestling with proposed overhauls that may yet go down in flames, Kentucky passed its education reform bill in 1990, and has been refining its reform system ever since.
Now, Kentucky's historically prosperous school districts are crying foul, and talk of further changes to state funding formulas fills the air.
Kentucky's plan, still recognized by many national education organizations as the best model available, was supposed to correct funding inequities among poor and rich schools to give every child the same opportunities to learn.
And in the eight years since the Kentucky Education Reform Act was passed, Kentucky is on the way to closing the equity gap. Poorer districts are catching up to the richer ones in both finances and academics. That makes some educators squirm.
"We are replacing one unfair system with another," Beechwood Schools Superintendent Fred Bassett said. "We did not look at the long-term effects of this."
In Northern Kentucky, superintendents of richer districts like Beechwood, Fort Thomas, Kenton and Boone counties say reform is going overboard. While their funding has remained stagnant, state money per pupil for poorer districts now exceeds the amount rich districts received when education reform began.
As the state switches to a new assessment test tied to financial rewards, there are rumblings that it's time for changes to the reform's financing formula.
The 1989 state Supreme Court decision that threw out Kentucky's education funding system made some predictions that a new formula could go too far in the other direction.
The court suggested the General Assembly assess property at 100 percent of its value because of the disparity in municipal tax efforts. To ensure an equal system, the court said a uniform property tax rate would ensure that residents make the same effort to finance the schools.
The formula created by the General Assembly definitely gave poor schools more money. Some superintendents say the formula fails because it doesn't take into consideration all taxes.
A district like Beechwood, where most property is residential, generates less through personal property and utility taxes than a district like Frankfort, where there are numerous office buildings that also help generate funds through those taxes and payroll taxes.
What's killing the rich districts, their superintendents say, is this hidden discrimination. Taxpayers in Fort Thomas and other places are paying more than other districts and getting the same or less money per child from the state.
But that's what the education reform was supposed to accomplish. The legislation increased state taxes by $1.26 billion; gave districts 8 percent to 25 percent more money; and set a $2,900 minimum for each student.
Jack Moreland, former president of the group that helped
initiate Kentucky's reform act, said he knows it has been difficult for the wealthier districts to stay put while others catch up.
"I don't think we've made big steps in the last four years. My sense is that almost an equal amount of money is going to the schools," said Mr. Moreland, former superintendent of schools in Dayton, Ky. "It all depends on whose ox is being gored."
Figures for per-pupil spending do show reverse disparities between those rich and poor schools. In the rich districts -- Beechwood, Boone, Fort Thomas and Kenton -- no more than $4,500 is spent per student, according to 1997 figures from the state education department. Poorer districts spend at least $500 more per child. Newport spends $5,889; Covington $6,126; Letcher County, one of the poorest in the state, $5,228; and Augusta $6,018.
Studies conducted since Kentucky started its education reform show earmarking more money for schools can boost student performance -- if the cash is used to create smaller classes, and hire more experienced and better educated teachers.
To find out what works, states need to take a hard look at on what money is spent, according to a new study published by the Educational Testing Service, the Princeton, N.J.,-based organization that administers the SAT exam.
Different state education reforms usually find a lot of regulations wiggling in underneath them, said Chris Pipho, spokesman for the Education Commission of the States in Denver.
"A lot of the mistakes made in other places were corrected in the Kentucky plan," Mr. Pipho said. "The reason Kentucky is on sounder ground is because they tied performance on tests to incentives and sanctions. Other states didn't do that."
Mr. Pipho said he thinks more and more states will follow Kentucky's lead and use financial incentives to help improve educational standards.
Kentucky's reform -- increased financial support and a state assessment test tied to financial rewards -- has shown success. Though it is the fourth-poorest state in the nation, Kentucky students score at or just above the national level in most subjects.
"This is all despite the fact that poverty has been a stable predictor," said Ed Reidy, an education consultant with the Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia. "Despite poverty, the learning is better than we were able to predict."
Mr. Reidy, the former testing chief for Kentucky, said he thinks the reform is starting to take hold. "In Kentucky, education matters now," he said. "Education is front and center now in the minds of citizens."
The same trend is happening across the country. States are benchmarking their standards against other states. And the reason for that is the reliance on a national economy. Students from all cities must be educated enough to work in any place they choose.
Kentucky's reform is used as a model by Mr. Reidy and Mr. Pipho as they help other states improve their education systems, but Kentucky's plan is not perfect.
Problems with the state's first assessment test led to the creation of a new one, due this spring. There are concerns with the financial incentives tied to the tests. And there are the inequities in funding between rich and poor schools.
But the reform put the focus in the right place, said Robert Sexton, director of the Pritchard Committee for Academic Excellence in Lexington.
The Pritchard Committee and others who pushed for reform probably made a mistake by starting the assessment tests before schools had a chance to rewrite their curriculums and learn more about the reforms, Mr. Sexton said. Educators recognized those problems and fixed them and are continuously tweaking the reform system. They may never create the perfect school.
"When we see schools that use the extra funding and the test data to make changes we know it can be done," Mr. Sexton said. "But some of the slowest schools to recognize this are schools that were too self-confident. It's amazing to see the denial you get. And it's very painful when one of those rich districts don't score well. But what we're getting is an education system where everyone is improving."
