Committees
Funding for Success Committee
October 16, 2003 Minutes
The meeting of the Funding for Success Committee began at 10:10 a.m. In attendance were Matt Filipic, Dick Maxwell, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Russ Harris, Jeff Jacobson, C.J. Prentiss, Scott Williams, and Susan Zelman. Other Task Force members present included John Brandt, Chuck Gossett, Jim Hyre, and Dan Navin, and Bill Wilkins.
Presentations:
- Building a Legacy of Achievement (PDF*, 259 KB)
-Dr. Gene T. Harris, Superintendent, Columbus Public Schools - Cleveland Municipal School District (PDF*, 36 KB)
-Dr. Myrna Elliott-Lewis, Chief Academic Officer, Cleveland Public Schools - Successful Ohio Schools (PDF*, 256 KB)
-Dr. Susan Zelman, State Superintendent, Ohio Department of Education
Chairman Filipic opened the meeting by giving a brief overview of the agenda and shared some reading materials from the National Research Council (NRC) that might be of interest to committee members. First was a book of readings entitled Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives and the other was the report of an NRC committee entitled Making Money Matter: Financing America's Schools. The latter is available for downloading at www.nap.edu/books/0309065283/html/. Chairman Filipic then introduced Dr. Gene T. Harris, Superintendent of Columbus Public Schools, to discuss how success has been achieved in an urban district.
Superintendent Harris first outlined the broad, system-level initiatives the district has implemented to achieve improved results. These broad initiatives included changing board of education policies, having curriculum alignment, implementing early childhood education, having parent and community engagement, ensuring that decision making is data-driven, providing operational support of student achievement, and expanding choices for parents and students. Superintendent Harris shared that the short-term goal of moving the district out of academic emergency has been met by meeting seven of the state's 27 standards in FY 2003. The long-term goal is to have a 90% graduation rate by the end of the decade.
Some of the board policies mentioned by Superintendent Harris included aligning professional development, targeting funding to student needs, and aligning the district's budget to teaching and learning. She stressed that equity is very important, which means that all children will be served and those with the greatest need will receive all necessary resources. She also highlighted that through efforts to deal with truancy the district's attendance rate has increased from 89% four years ago to 93% today.
When talking about curriculum alignment Superintendent Harris mentioned the importance of having a common curriculum in all schools within the district so that student mobility is not as harmful to students. She also stressed the importance of correlating the district's curriculum with new state standards.
With early childhood education, Superintendent Harris said that preschool is the foundation for learning and is used to teach readiness skills necessary to begin kindergarten. The district would like to offer more preschool services but space is an issue. She also commented that Columbus Public Schools was one of the first districts to provide all day kindergarten for all students. In response to a committee member's question on the demand of all day kindergarten, Superintendent Harris replied that when it began parents were given the choice to opt out, but by the second year no one opted out.
Superintendent Harris shared that the district has engaged parents and the community a great deal in the process and stressed this as a critical element of success. This engagement has occurred through such initiatives as community meetings and a parent consultant initiative where parents are welcomed into schools and asked to offer feedback and programming to other parents.
Superintendent Harris said the district has stressed data-driven decision making by providing a variety of assessments, using performance objectives and strategies, and having measurable goals. The district has also improved operational practices to help support student achievement. For example, the district's budget is linked to its goals. The district has also implemented cost-saving measures and stronger fiscal controls, which resulted in higher bond ratings and better audit results.
Superintendent Harris also outlined some Universal School Success Strategies. One such strategy is providing gifted services to all 12,000 students identified as gifted. While the state requires that all gifted students be identified it does not require that all such students be provided gifted services. She also mentioned that advanced placement courses are provided in all 18 high schools.
The provision of Proficiency Institutes is another universal success strategy mentioned by Superintendent Harris. Proficiency Institutes began two years ago and provides intensive tutoring to students on Saturdays for eight weeks. The district also has after-school programs and summer intervention to provide students the extended time needed to meet success standards.
Superintendent Harris shared that 60% of the district's funding comes from local revenues. She talked about how extra resources and lower class sizes are targeted in the lowest performing schools. She then outlined how much the district spent in FY 2003 on its major initiatives such as professional development and special education. A financial challenge mentioned was the loss of $15.5 million in FY 2003 to community schools.
Members asked many questions regarding how funds are allocated and whether intervention is provided commensurate to the level of need. Superintendent Harris commented that kids are academically on many levels and it is important that time be used wisely — whether that be for after school assistance or extending the school year. Dr. Zelman said that the focus should be first to fix the system and then to provide necessary intervention.
Committee members also asked about state and federal mandates and how such mandates determined how dollars were allocated. The Superintendent shared that increased flexibility would be helpful because even though urban districts have common needs none are exactly the same. The Committee asked that she get back to them on specific areas where the state may hinder flexibility.
In response to a question regarding how dollars are allocated, Superintendent Harris said the focus was on the lowest-performing schools but that resources would not be provided at the expense of higher-performing students. She also commented that if progress is not seen in a low-performing school the district looks at reconstitution. This includes looking at new program offerings and replacing principals and staff. Finally, the committee expressed interest in reviewing the student-weighted method used to allocate dollars within the district.
To continue the discussion on success in urban districts, Myrna Elliott-Lewis, Chief Academic Officer for Cleveland Public Schools, presented to the Committee. She focused on reforms made over the last five years since Barbara Byrd-Bennett became Superintendent of the district. At that time the district was in academic emergency, failed to meet any state standards, and was ranked at the bottom of Ohio's "big eight" urban school districts. By 2003 the district had moved to academic watch, meeting six of the 27 standards, and has been identified as one of Ohio's most improved districts.
Dr. Elliott-Lewis explained that the most significant gains were made in literacy and this was achieved by the district changing from a top-down approach in decision making to a more "system" approach that brought coherence to the district. This system includes addressing key areas of academic success such as standards, curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, intervention, professional development, district commitment, and parent involvement.
With literacy as the focus, the district had a seven-step approach: 1) Restructure centrally to support schools, 2) Restructure school configurations to support learning communities, 3) Set high academic standards, 4) Build teacher capacity at the school level, 5) Improve planning and accountability, 6) Provide nonacademic support, and 7) Collaborate with Cleveland teachers union, parent groups, and community.
More specifically, the approach consisted of the district placing superintendents over groups of schools and refocusing their budgets. Middle schools were changed to grades K-8 and a 15:1 student teacher ratio was set as a goal in the early grades. Dr. Elliott-Lewis said that budget constraints have hindered the district from moving to 15:1 student teacher ratios in all early grade classes.
She then went on to explain that high schools are being transformed into smaller learning environments and that extended days and summer/Saturday school are provided in targeted areas. "CEO schools" are schools that are low performing. Such schools are directed more by the district's central office.
Dr. Elliott-Lewis explained that the district helped to build teacher capacity by training teachers to rate students on different academic levels, to use data to make decisions, and to train other teachers on best practices. There is a real focus on teacher collaboration and relationship building.
To improve planning and accountability the district requires every school to develop a plan of how literacy will be taught. Teams within each school develop these plans. Also, frequent short-cycle assessments are provided to students in reading and math.
Dr. Elliott-Lewis explained that the district is very aggressive with obtaining grants and that if it were not for grants the district would not have been able to accomplish what it has. Funds received through foundation grants are also important. One committee member asked whether these private funds were just to lay the foundation of a program or were ongoing, to which Dr. Elliott-Lewis said that most were foundational. It was asked that the district provide the percentage of the district's budget made up of foundation grants.
The last presenter of the day was Susan Zelman, who outlined overall variables of success in districts. Dr. Zelman stressed the importance of looking at schools that defy demographics. The Department of Education labels such schools as "Schools of Promise." There are 31 such schools and are more specifically defined as those schools where more than half of the students met low-income criteria but more than 75% demonstrated proficiency in reading or math based on fiscal year 2003 data. The Department of Education has been looking at what these schools have in common. Some observations are that these schools have strong teachers and principals where everyone feels valued and believes that all students can learn. These schools also have instruction aligned to state standards and teaching is continuously improved. She said it needs to be determined whether more funding has been distributed to these schools.
Dr. Zelman outlined eight essential items necessary for successful schools. They include 1) Curriculum aligned to clear academic standards, 2) Assessments that influence instruction 3) Quality teachers, 4) Quality professional development for teachers and leaders, 5) Data collection and analysis, 6) Interventions and multiple pathways, 7) Parent engagement and education, and 8) Accountability for results.
Dr. Zelman commented that Ohio has made great strides with creating academic content standards, curriculum models, and assessments but investment must now be made in professional development to train teachers how to use these tools. She said the development of tools without implementation is a recipe for failure. Dr. Zelman expressed concern with having the curriculum models only available on the internet because there are many teachers who do not have access to the internet.
Another concern raised by Dr. Zelman is that Ohio is now changing standards for graduation. Instead of requiring students to pass a test based upon 8th-grade work students will soon be required to pass a test based upon 10th-grade work. To meet such challenges the state must require the administration of short-term assessments, build the capacity of schools and districts, and ensure quality teachers in all classes. Research shows that having a good teacher for five straight years will close the achievement gap but low-income, minority, and low-achievement students are those most likely to have teachers with low levels of experience or certifications not matching the area they are teaching.
Regarding parent involvement, Dr. Zelman said that there are many materials available for districts to use to stimulate parental engagement, but more support at all levels (state and local) is needed for parent engagement to succeed. Again she noted the problem is that such information is only available on the internet and many do not have access. The Even Start Program (which is no longer funded by the federal government) was mentioned as a great program that helped both parents and children. During this discussion Dr. Zelman said she plans to recommend more investments in parent education and hopes to connect such funding to adult GED programs within school districts. This will also help parents to obtain better jobs for themselves.
Scott Williams asked how many districts have high concentrations of poverty to which Dr. Zelman replied that she did not know the specific numbers but could obtain those data.
Russ Harris expressed concern over teachers not having access to technology. He said the state should continue its commitment to providing technology to all grades through SchoolNet. Dr. Zelman noted that new School Facility Commission standards are making sure that the schools are wired. She also said that laptops for teachers would ensure teachers have internet access. If access is not provided, then critical documents must be published and sent to all the teachers across the state.
Senator Prentiss asked whether the state is going to fund new mandates for school districts in No Child Left Behind, SB 1, and HB 3. She said the state has never determined how much it costs to educate a poor child. Russ Harris added that with the new mandates the state should reevaluate the cost of educating a regular student.
Dick Maxwell asked whether funds for professional development should be distributed through a general formula or be more targeted. Dr. Zelman suggested that a percentage of foundation program funds be distributed to schools for professional development where districts would use half of the funds for local initiatives and the other half for statewide initiatives.
Paolo DeMaria asked whether the state evaluates continuous improvement plans developed by school districts. Dr. Zelman responded that the state has limited resources and that currently the state mostly looks at outcomes. Mr. DeMaria went on to question whether the state should be telling a school district how to spend resources if the district is not making academic progress, but others in the group said this is difficult because of Ohio's belief in local control.
Chairman Filipic ended the meeting by having committee members set future meeting dates. The committee settled on October 28 (9:00 to 1:00), November 10 (11:00 to 3:00), and November 24 (9:00 to 1:00).
The meeting ended at 2:20.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
