More Testimony on Sub. HB 1 (Sykes), the FY10-FY11 Budget

The House Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Dyer, continued to hear testimony on Sub. HB 1 (Sykes), the biennial budget bill, on March 10-12, 2009. The following are selected summaries of the testimony presented, prepared from written testimony. Testimony from representatives of the Ohio Department of Education is available online >.

• Family and Community Engagement: Jane Weichel, associate superintendent of the ODE’s Center for Students, Families, and Communities, provided an overview of the provisions included in Sub. HB 1 that support families and students. The center provides support for a range of students (preschool, special education, gifted, and at-risk) through a variety of programs that focus on wellness, intervention, safety, community engagement, and extended learning. According to the testimony, “A systematic method for pooling the efforts and supports of schools, families, and communities to better serve the needs of children and youth is needed, especially in the difficult economic times the citizens of Ohio are facing. It is becoming increasingly important for Ohio to find ways to maximize resources for children and families with fewer and fewer public, private, formal, and informal resources allocated in support of them.”
  
  Sub. HB1 would require that a family and community engagement team of educators, support staff, parents, business representatives, and community members be established in every school district. This team would create a 5-year family and community engagement strategic plan, a work plan, and an annual progress report, which would be aligned with the work of the Family and Children First Councils and P-16 Councils in every county. The State Board of Education is required to formulate standards for the team. Resources are provided in Sub. HB 1 for a family-community engagement coordinator for each organizational unit, and a linkage coordinator in high schools with a 70% or lower graduation rate. Some of these efforts will build upon the work that the State Board of Education has been doing to strengthen parent and community engagement with schools.
  
  
• School Options: Kim Murnieks, executive director of the ODE’s Center for School Options and Finances, provided information about the provisions in Sub. HB 1 pertaining to community schools, the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, the Educational Choice Scholarship, and nonpublic schools.
  
  
• Community Schools: In FY09 state foundation funding for community schools totaled $637 million. Sub. HB 1 includes $497.4 million in FY10 and $533.7 million in FY11 for community schools allocated through the new Evidence-Based Model formula. $1.3 million is also included for technical support and assistance, and $225,000 for sponsorship training. According to the testimony there are approximately 88,000 students enrolled in 321 community schools. 28 of those schools are Internet-based schools, including seven statewide e-schools, and 21 e-schools sponsored by school districts. There are 73 community school sponsors in Ohio. Since April 2003 the ODE has had oversight over community school sponsors. However, the ODE does not have authority over sponsors operating before 2003, and Educational Service Centers and school districts that sponsor community schools. As a result, 55% of community schools currently operating fall outside the ODE’s authority.
  
  In 2007-2008 8% of community schools were rated Effective or Excellent; 20% were rated Continuous Improvement; 18% were rated in Academic Watch; and 32% were rated in Academic Emergency. Since the passage of 126-HB 79, the ODE has the authority to close community schools with persistently poor academic results, except those that are dropout recovery. Two schools will close at the end of this school year, and 19 are at risk of closing in 2010. There are also 14 community schools listed as “unauditable” for one or more fiscal years. Six of those schools have already closed. The ODE is also monitoring several community schools that have lost enrollment, because these schools have the potential to close due to finances.
  
  Sub. HB 1 includes the following provisions related to community schools: (1) distributes funds to community schools through the new Evidence-Based Model; (2) authorizes the ODE to oversee all sponsors and annually review sponsors; (3) allows progressive sanctions to be applied against sponsors that do not comply with the law or sponsorship agreements; (4) establishes performance criteria for dropout recovery schools; (5) eliminates “first offer” language on school district property sales; (6) prohibits for-profit management services; (7) requires community school teachers to be highly qualified and teach in the subjects for which they are licensed; and (8) eliminates the 2-year waiting period between when community schools open and the issuance of the first school report card.
  
  
• Non-Public School Options: Sub. HB 1 includes support for the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, which serves approximately 6,000 students, and the Educational Choice Scholarship Program, which serves approximately 10,000 students. Sub. HB 1 includes two accountability measures regarding the scholarship programs. Students who wish to participate in the EdChoice Program must attend a public school for the entire school year before applying for the scholarship. In addition, private schools that participate in the program must participate in Ohio’s statewide assessment system.
  
  
• Non-Public Schools: Sub. HB 1 includes $131.7 million in both fiscal years for Auxiliary Services provided to private schools, and $59.8 million for nonpublic administrative cost reimbursement. These line items have been increased by 1.9% in FY10 and are flat-funded in FY11. Transportation funds have also been changed to provide, through a new funding model, more support to school districts that are required to transport students attending private and community schools.
  
  
• Coalition for Public Education (CPE): Barbara Shaner from the Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO) and Andy Jewell from the Ohio Education Association (OEA), presented testimony on the provisions in Sub. HB 1 that relate to charter schools. The CPE promotes the value of public education as the foundation for good economic health and a strong society, advocates for accountability for the public tax dollars spent on education, and believes that traditional public schools provide the best choice for students and their families. According to the testimony, Ohio’s charter school program has turned into a multibillion dollar enterprise, with the results less than satisfactory. Charter schools have also had a negative effect on students and taxpayers.
  
  An OEA study called The Effect of Charter School Competition on Student Achievement in Ohio shows that charter schools actually have a negative effect on the public schools in their communities. When students leave traditional public schools and lose state support the result is larger class sizes, increased student mobility and disruption, and fewer resources for programs to meet the needs of the students who remain in the traditional public schools. According to this report, “For each of the tested subjects and grade levels that were analyzed, the percentage of traditional school district students who attend charter schools is found to be significantly and negatively related to changes in pass rates. All things being equal, for every one percentage-point increase in charter school market share, proficiency levels decrease by a range of one-fifth to one-half percentage points.”
  
  The CPE supports the following measures to increase the accountability of charter schools:
  
  
  • Clarify that the ODE has oversight of all sponsors, including the grandfathered sponsors.
  • Apply new sanctions (probation and suspension) on charter school sponsors who fail to have proper oversight of performance of the schools they sponsor.
  • Apply sanctions on sponsors when charter schools do not meet legal standards.
  • Publish an annual report on charter school sponsors.
  • Require that charter school operators must be nonprofit entities competitively bid.
  • Require that charter school teachers meet the State’s requirement to be “Highly Qualified”.
  • Require that charter schools receive report cards beginning with the first year of operation.
  • Codify “unauditable” charter school language.
  • Repeal the requirement for school districts to offer property to community schools.
  • Require on-site evaluations of charter schools by ODE at least once every 5 years.
  
  
  
• Accountability Measures: Kim Murnieks, executive director of the ODE’s Center for School Options and Finance, presented information about the accountability measures included in Sub. HB1. The State Board of Education and the ODE are already committed to ensuring the financial integrity of Ohio’s school system through a number of initiatives. Currently seventeen school districts are in fiscal caution; eight districts are in fiscal watch; and eight districts are in fiscal emergency status. Sub. HB 1 includes $1 million in each fiscal year for the Auditor of State to conduct performance audits of school districts. $2.16 million is included for the ODE to provide technical assistance and monitor the fiscal status of school districts. The ODE must also conduct performance audits of school districts and community schools at least once every 5 years to ensure compliance with academic and operating standards. A series of consequences for noncompliance is also outlined in the bill.
  
  Sub. HB 1 includes $600,000 in each fiscal year to establish the Office of School Resource Management. School districts and community schools are required to annually submit a budget plan aligned to the evidence-based model, and school districts with high schools that have a graduation rate of 70% or less are required to work with the Governor’s Closing the Achievement Gap Initiative. $350,000 is also included in Sub. HB1 to continue the Fiscal Data Project, which analyzes spending patterns and identifies effective and efficient use of resources in alignment with student achievement goals.
  
  
• Transportation Funding: The proposed budget provides $376.9 million to support a new fairer transportation formula. A school district transportation base cost is determined by either using the cost per mile or cost per pupil, adjusted by the wealth of a district. School districts can also receive additional funding for the percentage of nonpublic and community school students transported, meeting efficiency targets, or exceeding minimum transportation standards. Currently, school districts receive a set amount for transportation regardless of the services provided to students. Since 2006 the number of students being transported by school districts has dropped by 147,000 students; $10.85 million per year is also included for bus purchase allowance.
  
  
• Accountability and Testing: Stan Heffner, associate superintendent of the ODE’s Center for Curriculum and Assessment, reviewed provisions in Sub. HB 1 that relate to accountability and assessment. Sub. HB 1 includes $71.9 million each year for testing. This is an increase of $3.15 million over the current fiscal year. The bill also includes $5.789 million each year to update the academic content standards, and $4.4 million each year for accountability programs administered by the Office of Policy and Accountability. This is an increase of about $20,000 over current estimated spending.
  
  Sub. HB 1 includes several changes related to the state’s assessment system. The proposed new system replaces the Ohio graduation tests with a nationally accepted college entrance exam to be given to high school juniors; creates high school end-of-course exams; requires a service learning project and senior year capstone project; revises the assessments in grades 3 through 8; combines the reading and writing tests in grades 4 and 7 into a single English language arts assessment; and reduces the number of performance levels from five (i.e., basic, limited, proficient, accelerated and advanced) to three (i.e., limited, proficient, advanced).
  
  
• Teaching Profession: Lou Staffilino, associate superintendent for the ODE’s Center for the Teaching Profession, reviewed the provisions in Sub. HB 1 that relate to teacher licensing, teacher preparation, alternative licenses, and a four-level career ladder system, which includes resident educator, professional educator, senior professional educator, and lead professional educator.
  
  Major restructuring changes are proposed in Sub. HB 1 for the teaching profession, including a provision that transfers the authority for teacher preparation programs statewide to the Ohio Board of Regents, and changes the process that a school district uses to dismiss a teacher. Under the bill the dismissal process will be the same used to dismiss other state employees. According to the testimony, the changes proposed for teacher career advancement are consistent with the vision of the State Board of Education, the ODE, and the Educator Standards Board.
  
  Sub. HB 1 also includes $6.1 million in the ODE’s budget and $2.5 million in FY11 for the Board of Regents’ budget to create the Ohio Teach Program, and $1.68 million each year for the Educator Standards Board to implement educator standards and develop professional standards for superintendents, treasurers, and business managers.
  
  
• Special Education: Jane Weichel, associate superintendent of the ODE’s Center for Students, Families and Communities, provided an overview of the provisions included in Sub. HB 1 regarding special education services. According to the testimony, there were 265,000 students who received special education services last year, which is 15% of the K-12 student population. The formula for special education included in Sub. HB 1 retains the six categories of special education weights, but revises the weights and applies them to the number of special education students in a category in a school district, rather than to a per-pupil amount. The level of funding is also applied at 90%. A 1:20 teacher ratio is used to determine the number of special education teachers that will be funded through the model. A special education aide is included for every two special education teachers. Funds are also provided to support home instruction reimbursement, special education and related services at county MRDD boards and institutions, and preschool special education and preschool supervisory units at county MRDD boards, educational service centers (ESC), and school districts. Additional funds are included to reimburses school districts at least 50% of the cost of providing services to students above $27,375 in categories two through five, and $32,850 for students in category 6.
  
  
• Gifted Programs: Ann Sheldon, executive director of the Ohio Association for Gifted Children, described the current funding system for gifted students, the proposed funding levels for gifted education in Sub. HB 1, and noted several concerns about adequacy of the proposed system. The current structure for providing services to gifted students includes approximately $5 million for identification and approximately $42 million for “gifted units,” which support gifted coordinators and intervention specialists. There are 1,110 gifted units allocated to some, but not all, school districts throughout the state. These units provide services to only 20% of the identified gifted student population, and local funds support another 7 percent. The number of gifted students served has been decreasing from 43% in 1998 to 27% currently. According to the testimony, “Where you live definitely determines whether you will receive appropriate services or not.”
  
  The average gifted unit is funded at $37,000, which is below the state average teacher salary level. Approximately 300 of the gifted units are allocated to Educational Service Centers to provide gifted services to students in school districts that have too few gifted students to efficiently provide a gifted program. No state share is applied to the current gifted funds. Another $1 million is spent on the Summer Honors Institutes including the Martin Essex program.
  
  The proposed budget for gifted education in Sub. HB 1 provides school districts with $25 per ADM, but these funds are adjusted for each district by the charge-off in the new formula. As a result, gifted funding is reduced to $21 million in the proposed formula, and no funds are provided for identification or the Summer Honors programs. In addition, no funds are tied to an intervention specialist or coordinator for gifted students. According to the testimony, “In fact, almost all of Ohio’s districts lose gifted funding under the new plan. The only “winners” are those districts that serve no gifted students or substantially fewer than the majority of other like districts. In essence, the new plan rewards districts who have done the least for gifted students.”
  
  The new system for gifted funding would need to provide $56 per ADM rather than the $25 per ADM to provide the current level of support for identification and units, and this would still only serve 20% of gifted students identified. Even though Sub. HB 1 has included transitional aid as a “hold harmless” provision to ensure districts don’t lose funding during the phase-in of the new funding system, unit funding for ESCs and funds for identification are not held harmless. According to the testimony, “In short, the funding system as currently laid out in HB 1 will be devastating to gifted children and gifted educators in Ohio and the effect is already being felt across the state. A dangerous number of gifted coordinators and intervention specialist positions are already being terminated.”
  
  An evidence-based gifted education program based on Ohio’s operating standards for gifted should include the following components:
  
  
• Identification of gifted students, especially underrepresented populations
• Gifted staff, including both gifted coordinators and gifted intervention specialists based on ratios in the operating standards
• Professional development for both gifted staff and classroom teachersv
• The Summer Honors Institutes and the Gifted Research and Demonstration projects (eliminated two biennia ago)
• A mandate to serve ALL gifted students based on the gifted operating standards
• Student Intervention and Support: Ann Brennan, director of the Ohio School Psychologists Association (OSPA), explained the role that school psychologists play to help students overcome both academic and nonacademic barriers to success; provide expertise to school districts regarding data related to student achievement and evaluation; and participate in the identification, delivery, and evaluation of services for students in special education and gifted education programs.
  
  According to testimony, “School psychologists are trained in a prevention/intervention research based model that measures student outcome data against the expected achievement of groups of students and individual students. In other words, their training provides expertise in evidenced based reading and math instruction, as well as behavioral interventions that can be used at different levels of intensity and frequency with both groups of students and individual students.”
  
  Although OSPA generally supports the provisions in Sub. HB 1 directed at student-centered learning, the following recommendations were presented:
  
  
  • Include state funding for the school psychology intern program in the special education enhancement line item. This 40-year-old program, funded through the ODE, supports school psychology interns, who are placed in school districts in the last year of their three-year graduate program under the supervision of an ODE licensed school psychologist.
  • Include related service providers, such as school psychologists, speech and language pathologists, and physical therapists, in definitions and other components of Sub. HB, so that school districts can continue to use state funds to employ these specialists mandated by Ohio Operating Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities.
  • Include related service professionals, such as school psychologists, on the various student support teams described in Sub. HB 1, including the school organizational leadership team; the family and community engagement teams; academic improvement teams; and community engagement and linkage coordinators.
  • Continue to provide support for the parent mentor program and adequately fund gifted education and Educational Service Centers.
  • Continue analysis of the special education weights to ensure they meet the service needs of students with disabilities.

Back to top