Committees
Funding for Success Committee
October 28, 2003 Minutes
The meeting of the Funding for Success Committee began at 9:30 a.m. In attendance were Matt Filipic, Dick Maxwell, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Russ Harris, Jim Hoops, Jeff Jacobson, C.J. Prentiss, Scott Williams, and Susan Zelman. Other Task Force members present included John Brandt, Dan Navin, Barbara Shaner, and Bill Wilkins.
Presentations:
- Success in Rural School Districts (PDF*, 204 KB)
-Dr. James Payne, Superintendent, Dawson-Bryant Local School District - Adequacy — Recent Studies & Other States' Models (PDF*, 25 KB)
-Howard Fleeter, Levin, Driscoll & Fleeter
Chairman Filipic began the meeting by having Paul Marshall introduce Dr. James Payne, Superintendent of Dawson-Bryant Local School District, and Dr. Brenda Haas, the district's high school principal. The two presented on variables that have contributed to the district's successful academic outcomes.
Dr. Payne started by giving an overview of the demographics of Dawson-Bryant Local School District. The district has about 1,300 students and covers a land area of 99 square miles. About 16% of the students are special education and 28% live in poverty. The per capita income is $14,000 dollars and 20% of households live in rental properties. The mobility rate within the district is about 12%. Contributing to the mobility rate is an issue with foster families where children are placed in the district but do not generate state funds. Of total district revenue, 85% comes from the state. On average the district's millage raises about ¼ of the revenue that the average district in the state raises.
Dr. Haas then went through some recent successes of the district. She mentioned that the district had its levy for new school facilities pass by a 76% passage rate. Also, money received from SchoolNet allowed the district to look at its curriculum and make changes because of the infusion of technology. For example, technology has allowed them to offer virtual courses for honors and fine arts courses. Technology has also provided professional development opportunities that were previously not there.
Dr. Haas also pointed out that two of the district's three schools have been given the distinction of being Schools of Promise, which are schools that meet a certain level of poverty and also meet mathematics or reading state standards. The district has also achieved an academic ranking of effective.
Dr. Payne then continued by outlining some common characteristics for the district's academic success. These characteristics include 1) rigorous instruction aligned to state standards, 2) instruction designed to ensure all students succeed (e.g. professional development for differentiating instruction), 3) leadership for improvement of teaching (e.g. teachers training other teachers), 4) engaging parents and community members for student success (e.g. parent workshops), and 5) creating an environment where students, parents and employees feel valued.
One example of the rigorous instructions being provided is the requirement that all students take algebra in the ninth grade. This has been a difficult policy for many local citizens to accept, since educational attainment has not been an important community value. Many do not understand that the world is changing, requiring more of our children than it did of us.
Dr. Payne outlined some challenges faced by rural school districts. One is the recruitment and retention of teachers and administrators, which is often contributed to by low salaries. For example, it takes 27 years to move to the top of the district's salary schedule, which ranks 12th from the bottom in the state.
Dr. Payne also mentioned the long bus rides endured by students that take away time that could have been used more productively. This transportation is very costly. When compared to other districts in the county the district would rank first on money spent on instruction if transportation expenses were not included. With transportation included, the district ranks last.
Dr. Payne also said it is difficult to sustain grants over a long period of time. The district does not have grant writing staff and must depend on regular staff. This staff does not receive financial incentives for such work. Recently, the district has been finding it no longer qualifies for grants it once received because of academic improvements that have been made.
Committee members asked Superintendent Payne some questions on salaries and the district's ability to recruit and retain teachers. Dr. Payne noted that the district has set its beginning salaries higher in order to attract teachers but set lower salaries in the out years for financial reasons. These lower salaries in latter years make it difficult to retain teachers. It was also mentioned that many times when teachers leave, an entire program will have to be eliminated.
Committee members asked about the availability of data on such items as teacher turnover and teacher compensation systems. During this discussion it was noted that districts cannot unilaterally negotiate with one teacher. Dr. Zelman said that performance compensation systems are currently being analyzed on a limited basis.
Representative Hoops asked Dr. Payne if he would prefer that grant money be eliminated and funding simply be placed in the formula. Dr. Payne agreed this would be helpful since so much time is spent applying for grants that may be temporary. Dr. Haas later commented that teachers do have more ownership of programs funded by grants when they take part in the application process. Paolo DeMaria noted that many grants are either federal or from private foundations that the state would have no control over.
Dr. Payne then continued his presentation on outlining challenges and indicated that in a small poor district many teachers are forced to teach out of their fields. This will now be illegal with new legislation, which will put a strain on the district's finances.
The district is also hindered by distance and sparsity. Even though these challenges have been helped with the internet there are many homes that still do not have access. In some cases this is due to the infrastructure not yet being in place to support connectivity.
Dr. Payne next discussed some of the realities of a rural district. First, he noted that the district's accountability model is important. This allows them to concentrate on all students rather than just those who take the 9th grade proficiency test. The model helps them look at progress made over time.
The district also provides intervention services that cost about $144,000. Dr. Payne said that without consistent funding such intervention would have to be eliminated. He also shared that, based on the 2000-01 Report Card, no districts in the top quartile of socio-economic status (SES) were placed on "academic emergency" or "academic watch" but 109 districts from the lowest SES quartile were.
Dr. Payne and Dr. Haas concluded by summarizing some key factors to the district's success. They shared the importance of having a common vision and communicating that vision to all staff and the local community. They also noted the importance of spending more time on the core subjects of reading, writing, and mathematics. Districts must prioritize, align funding to meet goals and objectives, and must make data-driven decisions.
Considerable conversation then ensued. Senator Jacobson asked about total millage in the district. Dr. Payne said the district is at the 20-mill floor and has no emergency levies. Dr. Payne also said the problem with the district raising additional funds locally is that it would result in the loss of state funding for the first three mills raised.
In response to further questioning, Dr. Payne noted that if it were not for funding through grants the district could not have made the academic gains it has in recent years. One member pointed out that many districts receive the same level of grant funding but do not perform as well. Another member asked what the state could do to produce a culture where commitment to success is as exemplified as it is in Dawson-Bryant. Dr. Payne expressed the importance of a district making decisions based on good data and on providing effective professional development.
Dr. Zelman noted the importance of leveraging dollars across state systems. She said it is important to partner with health and human service agencies. The problem is that sometimes funding for such services is there and sometimes it is not. School funding should be a multi-agency responsibility.
The next presentation was given by Howard Fleeter on Approaches to Determining the Cost of Adequacy. Dr. Fleeter explained that there are two main components of adequate funding: base cost and excess costs. Base cost is the cost of providing an adequate education to typical students under typical circumstances. Excess costs are additional costs incurred by schools as a result of pupil characteristics and economic circumstances. Excess cost categories include costs for educating students who are classified as special education, vocational education, gifted, and economically disadvantaged. Other excess costs include transportation and cost-of-doing-business variations. Dr. Fleeter noted that more analysis needs to be done with economically disadvantaged pupils. He also indicated that the cost of adequacy is going to be different in every school district because of varying excess costs. Other excess costs not recognized within Ohio's formula, but included at times by other states, is the size of the district and sparsity.
The committee had a discussion on the use of the word adequate. Eric Burkland wondered why this word is used rather than something else. It concerned him that adequacy is not an operative word that can be measured. There was considerable conversation about determining adequacy. One member noted that there is no way to determine how much it will cost to educate everyone. For example, there are those who will succeed in spite of what is taught and others who have lots of individual attention costing infinite amounts of money who will fail. Dick Maxwell concluded by saying that adequacy is the most difficult piece of the equation and that every state struggles with it. He also noted that this is the heart of the debate.
Dr. Fleeter then continued his presentation by explaining that there are four methods for determining adequacy: 1) successful schools approach, 2) input/standards based approach, 3) school reform program approach, and 4) statistical cost function approach. Dr. Fleeter outlined the definition of each and gave advantages and disadvantages to using each.
In the successful schools approach, districts performing at a desired level based on some criteria are identified. The criteria used in most states are performance test rates, graduation rates, and attendance rates. Inputs can also be used as criteria, such as specific course offerings provided by districts or student/teacher ratios. Schools considered as outliers are typically excluded in this model and then the base cost expenditures (per pupil) in the selected districts are averaged. This method is also referred to as the "outcomes" or "inferential" approach. It is currently being used in both Ohio and New Hampshire.
The input/standards-based approach is based on the premise that the necessary components of an adequate education can be identified and then cost out. Components can be identified by professionals, on the basis of state educational standards, or both. Dr. Fleeter noted that delineation of inputs does not necessarily imply that districts must provide the inputs determined. This method is also referred to as the "market basket" or "professional judgment" approach and is currently used in Wyoming, Oregon, and Massachusetts.
The school reform approach utilizes specially designed curriculum and school reform programs that have demonstrated educational success as the basis for adequate cost. It is unclear how well these programs can be transferred to all schools and districts. Currently, this model is not used as the basis for a school funding system in any state.
The statistical cost function approach uses data on expenditures, inputs, outcomes, and the educational environment. These variables are analyzed through a complex statistical analysis to derive a cost equation that reflects the cost of adequacy in different districts. The cost equation is based on the correlation between educational outcomes. Variables in the model allow (in theory) for the estimation of the marginal costs of specific district characteristics. No states currently rely solely on this approach.
Dr. Fleeter then outlined a number of recent adequacy studies completed on Ohio. He grouped the studies into the various adequacy approaches he explained previously. He ended by explaining how the studies moved Ohio to the approach currently used in law.
During discussion following the presentation members expressed interest in analyzing building-level data. It was noted that such data may be skewed for various reasons. It was then suggested that maybe data from Schools of Promise would be helpful. Another member opined that that these data may be useful if the limitations of the data are realized.
Senator Prentiss expressed concern that the outcomes approach used in Ohio is based on districts that are not very diverse. Senator Jacobson added that another big problem is that the current system looks at every child as having problems needing additional funding but this may not be the case. He stressed the importance of prioritizing what is determined should be spent.
In response to Chairman Filipic, Dr. Fleeter noted that there is not really any consensus nationally on the best funding model to use but the trend seems to be moving toward the successful schools approach. Dr. Fleeter said this will most likely continue to change.
Members expressed interest in looking at commissions determining adequacy in other states such as California and New York. It was also noted by members the importance of keeping in mind the political reality when considering various models. The committee needs to look what at works, why it works, and prioritize.
Members also expressed interest in looking at what it costs for districts to comply with recent education laws passed by the state and federal government. Particularly, it would be important to look at data showing where Ohio currently stands with having highly qualified teachers and what it would cost to meet new federal mandates. Another specific area mentioned for studying the cost of compliance was intervention services.
Chairman Filipic raised the question to committee members about the desire to have another adequacy study performed. Most indicated that another study is not the preference. Some members also disputed the notion that any study would supplant the role of the legislature in determining funding levels. Bill Wilkins, Chairman of the entire Task Force, suggested having Task Force staff and the Department of Education come up with some options. He said he would like to learn about factors contributing to progress in schools where we know data indicates academic problems exist. It was determined that the Department of Education should begin to gather research on what works in schools to bring about academic success.
It was announced that the next meeting will be Monday, November 10th at 11:00 a.m. The meeting will include discussions on early childhood and value-added indicators. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
