Skip navigation.

Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of The Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success' website. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled. We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.

State of Ohio | Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success

Committees

Funding for Success Committee

January 29, 2004 Minutes

The meeting of the Funding for Success Committee began at 10:15 a.m. In attendance were Chairman Matthew Filipic, Vice-Chairman Richard Maxwell, Paolo DeMaria, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, Eric Burkland, Russ Harris, Representative Jim Hoops, Scott Williams, Senator Jeff Jacobson, Senator C.J. Prentiss and Susan Zelman. Other Task Force members present included Task Force Chairman William W. Wilkins, Fred Church, and Dan Navin.

Presentations:

Discussion of Committee Principles

Mr. Filipic asked Mr. Marshall to address the draft principles put together by Task Force staff for the committee members to consider. The principles will ultimately be used as a basis for the recommendations made by the committee in formulating a new school funding system. Mr. Marshall noted that the document before the committee included the seven components of the Governor's charge, as well as other items that have been discussed by the committee where there seemed to be some amount of agreement.

Senator Jacobson commented on principle #2.This principle states, "The school funding system should be structured in a way that allows it to remain viable for future years." He opined that the new school funding framework should remain viable by being flexible enough that changes can be made over time, instead of changes distorting the formula as is the case with the current system.

Mr. Filipic asked committee members about principle #4.This principle states, "School districts that are meeting expectations should be given the flexibility to spend their state revenues as they determine best meets their needs.School districts that are not meeting expectations should be restricted in their ability to spend their funding." He noted that this principle deals with the autonomy that school districts have with their funds and asked whether committee members were comfortable with it.

Mr. Harris opined that many school districts who "meet expectations" are the ones who do not receive much state funding.He feels that these districts should be allowed to spend all of their money the way that they feel is necessary.

Senator Jacobson asked whether school districts that do consistently well should be released from certain statutory mandates or be given some leeway.

Mr. Harris recommended districts be released from mandates if they are academically successful. He added that school districts should be asked what mandates are the most cumbersome and cause the most problems for them.

Mr. Burkland stated that his opinion is that standards are not mandates, but instead system requirements that may or may not have costs. He explained that there is a distinction between accountability mandates and operational mandates.The committee should focus on operational mandates.

Senator Prentiss objected to the assumption that some school districts are failing because they are not meeting state mandates.This belief leads to the notion that the state should restrict how these school districts should spend their resources.She believes that mandates can be an obstacle to student achievement.

Senator Jacobson said that restrictions in spending are sometimes necessary when districts are not performing.The committee then discussed how districts who are not properly managing funds should be constrained.Mr. Filipic explained that principle #4 was referring to more control of district spending when districts are not academically performing rather than when they are not properly managing resources.

Mr. Filipic then asked whether it was being suggested that rich suburban districts should be given autonomy with their spending since they are achieving academically and urban school districts should be run by the state.

Mr. Maxwell responded that maybe the definition of success should be changed to mean how much improvement a school district is making rather than whether a district has met proficient levels.If a district is not improving, the state would restrict how funds can be spent.

Senator Prentiss referred to the Expenditures Per-Pupil hand-out and indicated that the $10, 889 per-pupil average being spent in Cleveland is not a true reflection of what is being spent on each child.She explained that while expenditures may be high for some students - like those with special needs - other children have much less than $10,889 spent on them.

In reference to Senator's Prentiss' comment, Dr. Susan Tavakolian from the Department of Education (ODE) summarized an analysis done by ODE that compares school districts' per-pupil base-cost funding (excluding such things as weights for special and career-technical education) to passage of the ninth grade proficiency test. This analysis was conducted in an attempt to address the question of whether more spending (once funds for services outside the base cost are removed) lead to higher student achievement. Dr. Tavakolian noted that this analysis suggests a relationship between base-cost spending and student achievement but does not demonstrate direct cause and effect.The committee asked a number of questions such as what types of students were included in the average daily membership (ADM) and how the base cost was determined. Dr. Tavakolian said that she would have to get back to the committee after ODE had more time to review the analysis.

Mr. Burkland asked if ODE could provide a definition of "success" for the committee.

Dr. Zelman responded that H.B. 3 blended the federal requirements with state requirements. Senator Prentiss said that success is really driven by how students perform on proficiency tests. She added that the state should take improvement into account as well.

Mr. Filipic suggested that there are two ways of looking at progress. One is the way it is currently measured, which is the increase in the percentage of students that pass a test.A better way to measure progress is by measuring improvement by individual students against the standard.

Mr. DeMaria offered that Cleveland is an example of a school district that is not necessarily meeting standards, but is making considerable progress and so should be given more flexibility.

Dr. Byrd-Bennett feels that it is too narrow to define success as meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind.She recommended that the reference to No Child Left Behind be removed in principle #3. This principle states, "The system should provide each school district sufficient resources to afford all of the school district's students the opportunity to be academically successful, as defined by No Child Left Behind."

Mr. Filipic requested the Department of Education to put together a document that could be used to assist the committee's understanding of the various state and federal requirements that relate to what constitutes success. Dr. Zelman suggested that Mitch Chester come and present to the committee again.

Senator Prentiss asked if there was consensus among committee members on the third principle. Senator Jacobson said he agreed to this principle, as long as committee members recognize that simply putting more money into the system does not assure success. The key element is how school districts spend the money they have.

Senator Prentiss suggested that the committee leave in the reference to No Child Left Behind in the third principle, but add to it the state performance requirements implemented in S.B. 1 and H.B. 3.Dr. Byrd-Bennett agreed that adding state performance requirements to the principle was an improvement.

The committee then went back to discussing principle #4 and what type of spending controls should be placed on school districts.

Senator Jacobson opined that ODE should have some flexibility in determining what mandates are imposed on districts based on what they think success is. Districts like Cleveland should be relieved of some mandates while there also needs to be a sense of what mandates are off limits.

Mr. Maxwell stated that the committee should consider another principle of offering financial incentives to school districts for programs the state believes result in successful outcomes.For example, funding for all-day kindergarten funding would be made available to districts that choose to provide it.

Senator Jacobson noted that grants are often used to support experimental programs, which may or may not be successful.He said he is reluctant to build into the funding system ongoing support for programs that may or may not work.He wants a formula that accommodates the fact that some school districts face greater challenges than others.

Review of Uniform School Accounting System (USAS)

The next agenda item was an overview of the USAS by Dan Wilson, Associate Superintendent of the Department of Education's Center for School Finance and Accountability.The purpose of Mr. Wilson's presentation was to give committee members an understanding of the type of data available from the state about school district expenditures..

Mr. Wilson explained USAS and how it came to be used.He pointed out that the system was not created with the intention of showing how districts allocate dollars to achieve academic success of students. He explained that there is a lot of room for interpretation by school districts in how transactions are coded. This hinders the state's ability to analyze how dollars are spent.

He went on to describe the Expenditure Flow Model (EFM) used by ODE to help assign costs in a more useful manner.He said this model is also limited in its capacity to reveal how districts spend dollars. EFM divides costs into five major categories: administration, operations support, staff support, pupil support, and instruction.

Mr. Wilson explained that all school districts have different processes for budgeting and allocating resources.He said ODE is trying to build models that will enable the state to collect data so that it can be used to understand student success.

Dr. Byrd-Bennett expressed concern that this will lead to another operational mandate. Mr. Wilson responded that this would be a tool to get dollars to the students who need it the most. Such management tools would be used to analyze effective allocation methodologies and would make the student the unit of analysis.

Mr. Harris commented that this is the future of information systems. He questioned how the data could be used to determine intervention. He also expressed concern that the data are not currently submitted in a uniform fashion.

Mr. Maxwell agreed with Mr. Harris' concern but pointed out that there is useful analysis that can be made by breaking the data down to the object level.

Senator Prentiss said that the committee should have a principle about encouraging equity within districts.In other words, resources should be distributed in manner that reflects student needs.

Senator Jacobson said that management tools that indicate how districts distribute resources would help the state encourage effective deployment of resources within districts.

Discussion on Inputs

The committee's final topic of discussion was on inputs that might be included in a new school funding formula.Serving as a resource for the committee were four staff from the Department of Education: Sandy Miller — Director of the Center for Students, Families, and Communities, Mary Lou Rush — Executive Director for Center Operations in the Center for Students Families and Communities, Marilyn Troyer — Associate Superintendent in the Center for the Teaching Profession, and Pam Young — Associate Superintendent in the Center for School Reform and Options. These individuals were invited as experts on research supporting the efficacy of the various inputs considered by the committee.

Mary Lou Rush stressed the importance of "time on task" to student achievement. Given different abilities, some children need more time in some subjects in order to master them. Given that there is a limited amount of time to work on academics during the school day and school year, sometimes it is necessary to extend the school day and year in order to be able to fully teach a child certain items.

Mr. Filipic asked if there is any uniformity in how schools provide more time on task. Are schools mostly increasing hours or days?

Ms. Rush replied that the data are being collected now, but summer school seems to be the method that is most commonly used by school districts. Two to six weeks of summer school is the norm.

Dr. Byrd-Bennett noted that it is the quality of the time spent on the task that is most important. There needs to be a seamless transition between regular classroom instruction and summer school or extended-day instruction.

Mr. Wilkins suggested that the committee concentrate on the research that supports the effectiveness of the input variables and prioritize them based on relative effectiveness. Trying to deal with implementation issues could be overwhelming.

Mr. Burkland feels that the committee should be looking at productivity. What inputs are the most critical in driving student success? These inputs should be the focus.

Dr. Byrd-Bennett opined that the three most important elements of the educational system are the quality of the teacher, time on task, and monitoring what is happening in schools.

Senator Jacobson stated that it is important for school districts to have the right leadership that can assess the quality of the district's educational product. He supports giving funding to school districts that develop plans and monitor their progress against these plans.

Dr. Zelman noted that the state has academic standards, but school districts need to make these standards their own.This is something that the best school districts do.

Mr. Wilkins observed that some of the items being discussed by the committee seem to be management issues. Monitoring should not be the target for funding, because schools should be doing that already. The fact that some schools already do this means that there is enough money to do it.

Dr. Byrd-Bennett noted that Cleveland does not have enough general fund money to build a good assessment tool. She said she spent $1.2 million in grant funds to set up an embedded assessment system.

Mr. DeMaria suggested that, once the system is in place, it should not cost more to monitor it. There is a one-time up-front investment. After that, the ongoing operational cost should not be significantly more.

Senator Prentiss opined that obtaining regular feedback through a monitoring system could be very expensive.The monitoring equipment itself can be costly. The state should track children from grade to grade, but right now this is not possible.Dr. Zelman noted that the state can do the necessary monitoring and assessment if committed to do so.

Mr. Maxwell stated that the committee needs to decide what should be in the foundation formula and what should be funded as an enhancement.With time on task, for example, should everyone receive funding for additional hours or should such funding be provided as an enhancement to allow for additional time on task.Senator Jacobson commented whatever items are important for student success should be reflected somehow in the formula.

Mr. Filipic asked Marilyn Troyer to tell the committee her opinion of the most important considerations relative to teachers.Dr. Troyer offered the following:

Senator Jacobson observed that the research he has seen shows that the impact of reducing student/teacher ratios is differential, with the most benefit accruing to poorer and minority children in lower grades (kindergarten through 3rd grade). He asked if Dr. Troyer agreed with his observation.

Dr. Troyer agreed that the biggest impact is with those children. She added that simply reducing pupil/teacher ratios does not necessarily improve student achievement until the student/teacher ratio is about 15 to one. The benefits are not as significant in later grades.

Senator Jacobson asked whether there should be other enhancements for low-wealth children above third grade to reduce student/ teacher ratios to 15 to one or some other appropriate level.Dr. Troyer responded that research is really mixed on the impact of reducing student/teacher ratios beyond third grade.

Ms. Rush opined that in pre-kindergarten through grade three, lowering student/teacher ratios increases the probability that more time is spent with each child. In the later grades, the focus is on intervention around the individual needs of each child. This requires a different funding model.

Dr. Zelman stated that there is so much variability in how children develop that what is needed is more time for the teachers to assess what their students need. If the teachers have the analytical tools to recognize things early, they can solve a lot of problems early.

Mr. Burkland asked Dr. Troyer to discuss teacher quality and share what would have the greatest impact on student success.Dr. Troyer replied that the state has already invested a lot in professional development around literacy and has stressed effective mathematics and reading instruction in the early grades.Also, middle schools really need educators who have content-area expertise. There is a serious problem with having teachers in grades sixth through eighth with general teaching degrees rather than possessing an adequate depth of knowledge.

Mr. Maxwell observed that part of the problem is that 45-minute classes are not conducive to in-depth instruction.He suggested that teaching fewer things in more depth is more effective.

Senator Jacobson said that perhaps the state should fund the average experience level of teachers in the state.This might move some people from school districts that have "too much" experience to school districts that have too little. He said the current formula does the opposite. The cost-of-doing-business factor gives the suburbs extra money when they already have the capacity to attract higher levels of experience through higher salary levels.

Senator Jacobson asked how the state can enhance teacher quality in school districts that need help. Should such districts be funded at higher levels than those that do not need assistance?

Senator Prentiss suggested that the committee review the work of the Governor's Commission for Teaching Success, which addressed these issues. She said many of the recommendations of that committee were not funded.She also commented that early education should be part of the input model.

Senator Jacobson stated that funding for school-age students should be addressed before funding for pre-school children.He agrees that early childhood education is important but should not be the focus of the committee's work.

Mr. Harris expressed concern that the committee may not fund the standards of opportunity. He would like foreign languages to be available to every primary student and advanced placement classes to be available to every secondary student.

Mr. DeMaria opined that if a system is all things to all people in the beginning, the effectiveness of everything will be diluted.The committee should concentrate its efforts in those areas that have the potential for the most significant impact on academic success.

The next meeting of the committee will be February 9 from 10:00 to 3:00 on the 23rd floor of the Rhodes Tower.Chairman Filipic adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:00 p.m.


* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.


THE FINAL REPORT
Governor Taft reading with a student.