Committees
Funding for Success Committee
January 16, 2004 Minutes
The meeting of the Funding for Success Committee began at 10:20 a.m. In attendance were Chairman Matthew Filipic, Vice-Chairman Richard Maxwell, Paolo DeMaria, Rep. Jim Hoops, Scott Williams, Sen. Jeff Jacobson, and Susan Zelman. Other Task Force members present included Task Force Chairman William W. Wilkins, John Brandt, and Barbara Shaner.
Presentations:
- Funding for Success Committee: Meeting its Charge (PDF*, 17 KB)
-Task Force Staff
Mr. Filipic shared with committee members the results of research he has conducted regarding some of the issues facing the committee. Specifically, he described his work in looking at spending in relationship to performance, as measured by the number of state standards met by a district. Using FY 2002 data, he was unable to establish a relationship between additional spending and improved performance, even when controlling for district economic type by using the Department of Education's school district typology that sorts all school districts into eight groups.
Mr. Filipic has tentatively drawn the conclusion — subject to rebuttal by other commission members - that there is no correct amount of spending that will ensure academic success in all districts or even a series of correct amounts for the different types of districts. He indicated that the Department of Education has suggested that a correlation of spending and performance does exist if more extensive analysis is conducted. Mr. Filipic said he is open to suggestions but is skeptical that a spending number can be found that will either assure student success or even make it possible. The tentative conclusion is that it will be very difficult to find data to support a very high base-cost number tied to a goal of improved student success.
Mr. Filipic then discussed the issue regarding the impact of H.B. 920, which results in school districts having less capacity to support programs above base-cost funding. The school district's share of the cost of providing a basic education increases because the state's share declines through real property reappraisal. The Committee discussed this issue in some detail. It was stated that this phenomenon results in the need for school districts to return to voters to replace lost state revenue. Senator Jacobson questioned why this is a concern as long as districts are guaranteed the base cost amount, which is increasing. Mr. Filipic thought that districts face an unusual challenge in trying to maintain a margin over the base-cost amount. Other taxing districts do not experience a similar loss in revenues from their taxes. This decline in the availability of property tax revenues to provide a margin over the base-cost is an issue that should be addressed either by the Funding for Success Committee or the Revenue and Taxation Committee.
The Committee then returned to discussing the difficulty of correlating spending and performance. Mr. Filipic observed that perhaps measuring the number of state standards being met is not the right way to measure success. There may be some more appropriate measure of success to use or some more detailed analysis that would offer different results.
Senator Jacobson noted that families are the most important variable in student success. He does not think there is a number that can be found that will assure student success because there are too many factors that cannot be measured. It makes more sense to look at giving districts opportunities to succeed.
Mr. Maxwell noted the difficulty of developing an objective foundation number. He suggested that maybe a different look at success should be taken such as performance improvement rather than achievement. This could be combined with opportunities. Mr. Maxwell also observed that perhaps the new Adequate Yearly Progress data that will become available in the near future will be helpful in assisting efforts to construct a formula.
Senator Jacobson feels that more data will not necessarily help because there are too many intangibles that affect performance that have nothing to do with spending. He does not believe it is possible to link funding with success. He wants to look at funding inputs and focus on things like professional development and improved use of resources rather than student/teacher ratios. He thinks student/teacher ratios would not be changed significantly enough to produce a difference in performance and, therefore, more spending is not necessary in this area.
Mr. Maxwell observed that it is necessary to find a way to have the best teachers in the classrooms with the greatest needs. He feels that the Committee may need to look at different funding models for different types of school districts. He suggested the possibility of a different funding model for urban districts.
Mr. DeMaria asked Senator Jacobson to expand on his funding ideas.
Senator Jacobson responded that the Committee should look at what resources should be provided. The state should support different types of things like intervention, professional development, and others and then make sure that those resources are available to school districts. He believes districts should not be required to spend the dollars in the manner prescribed by the state unless they are not achieving desired results.
Mr. DeMaria asked if the base-cost number would be rebuilt using Senator Jacobson's approach. Senator Jacobson feels that this approach might be productive, as long as the model does not try to provide too much detail. The inputs should be on a macro basis to allow for school district trade-offs and avoid unnecessary duplication.
Senator Jacobson said the Committee could begin the process of modeling by discussing Dr. Brandon's list of inputs but is not sure whether he agrees with all of them. He thinks that this is a good place to start, however. Also, he is not sure that better data will lead to additional funding, but may help with a better understanding of how to deploy existing resources.
Mr. DeMaria concurred with Senator Jacobson and asked how a system of accountability and deployment like used in Cleveland Public Schools could be encouraged. Senator Jacobson feels that there is a role in this area for the Department of Education through performance evaluations.
Senator Jacobson gave an example of how costs could be modeled by identifying the average salary and student/teacher ratio. Mr. Maxwell asked if Senator Jacobson is talking about funding classrooms instead of students, which is something that Ohio did many years ago through unit funding. Senator Jacobson noted that units could be developed and then converted to per-pupil funding amounts. He is skeptical, however, that this approach works with special needs children and would prefer to continue using the special education weights. Senator Jacobson opined that it is easier to fund initiatives using an inputs-based model because it would be known how much the various components cost.
Mr. Maxwell observed that the time it takes to complete the work of the Committee should not be artificially constrained. The Committee should spend the time necessary to complete its work.
Afternoon Discussion
Mr. Filipic identified the afternoon topics as:
- Link to success
- Deployment and issues of local autonomy
- Response to fiscal stress
- Next steps
Senator Jacobson observed that there is a problem with trying to link success to dollars. He suggested that success is more about how dollars are deployed than the amount that is spent. This focus would help the state to determine what works and redistribute resources.
Mr. Wilkins feels that funding at any level is no guarantee to student success. Funding is important, along with other factors. It is necessary, but not sufficient. The significant factors differ by district, by building, by class, and by child. The state cannot figure out the proper mix of these factors.
Dr. Zelman said she agrees that the state has not determined the proper mix but thinks that it is possible. She feels that the state should identify tools by which schools would be able to determine what is needed for successful results. Mr. DeMaria noted that some buildings in Ohio have figured out the proper mix. Senator Jacobson thinks that this is the job of policy makers over time.
The Committee then shifted the discussion to the fiscal stress currently being felt by school districts. Mr. Filipic noted that there seems to be an increasing level of fiscal stress among school districts. He asked the Committee their thoughts on this issue and whether this is a problem that could be addressed in the funding formula.
Senator Jacobson indicated that collective bargaining provides pressure on school districts to include every new dollar into salaries.
Mr. Maxwell directed the committee's attention to Mr. Filipic's analysis of the impact of the property tax reduction factors. He said since districts many times realize a reduction in total revenue, school districts must go to the voters to maintain programs. Voters question why districts are losing money when their (individual) tax bills may be going up. This often results in school districts losing credibility with voters.
Next Steps
Dr. Zelman wants staff to articulate a set of principles to present to the committee for debate. An example of a principle might be that the funding system should produce predictable, reliable revenue streams. Task Force staff will work with ODE staff to develop these principles.
Mr. DeMaria would like to begin building the base cost number concurrently with the principles. Mr. Filipic likes this idea of a two-track approach.
Senator Jacobson feels that the cost of doing business factor needs to be eliminated. It should be replaced with other factors that are more defensible. He feels there are better ways to use this money to reflect different needs among districts.
Task Force staff will put together a list of the inputs along with the principles for the Committee to discuss at its next meeting on January 29. Chairman Filipic adjourned the meeting at approximately 2:00 p.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
