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

November 24, 2003 Minutes

The meeting of the Funding for Success Committee began at 8:30 a.m. In attendance were Matt Filipic, Dick Maxwell, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Russ Harris, Jim Hoops, Jeff Jacobson, C.J. Prentiss, Scott Williams, and Susan Zelman. Other Task Force members present included Barbara Shaner and William Wilkins.

Presentations:

Chairman Filipic introduced the first presenter, Michael Charney, who is Professional Issues Director of the Cleveland Teachers Union. He explained that students will soon be required to take the new Ohio Graduation Test. The area of most difficulty for most students is the mathematics portion of the test. Teachers and students must be prepared to address the content of the test if expected to succeed. He began the "I Took the Math Test Project" to bring about this awareness.

Mr. Charney then distributed a booklet with examples of mathematic problems that resemble those that will appear in the Ohio Graduation Test and gave participants time to calculate the solutions. Committee members commented that the problems were more difficult and required more mathematical reasoning than current state assessments. It was noted that many teachers do not reach the point of teaching mathematical reasoning because they feel students first need to master computational skills. Mr. Charney also highlighted the importance of addressing a defeatist mentality that many pupils have toward taking this test.

Next on the agenda was Dr. Zelman, who gave an overview of what would be discussed for the remainder of the meeting. She said that when building a framework for developing an allocation formula we have to create a model that will guide us in developing a rational system of distributing funds that is more directly aligned with efforts to improve student achievement. There are five key elements to achieve such a model: 1) principles, 2) key policy inputs, 3) categories of funding, 4) deployment/allocation, and 5) methodology and tools.

She gave some examples of principles such as developing a system that is transparent, linked to student success, easily understood, and stable. Another principle mentioned is to allow superintendents to be educational leaders rather than fund raisers. On the latter point she noted that fund raising is the main issue on superintendents' minds.

Dr. Zelman also talked about some key inputs such as preschool and all-day kindergarten, educator quality, student-teacher ratios, length of the school day and year and instructional/student/administrative support. She said that Senate Bill 2 addresses teacher quality in the areas of preparation, recruitment, development, and retention. For instructional support she noted the importance of short-cycle assessments (or those given every nine weeks).

She talked about different categories of funding from the state level down to the student level and the necessity to meet the needs of all students within and across districts. She said many central offices in school districts currently allocate funds to buildings by programs, which brings up the issue of deployment. Dr. Zelman explained that deployment at the district level should be viewed in two ways. First is the issue of budgeting (fiscal equity) and second is the issue of promoting an academic program (program equity).

Chairman Filipic noted that spending in urban districts is higher than other schools but questioned the extent to which this higher level was due to social and health care costs rather than instructional costs. Dr. Zelman said it is important to develop more sophisticated methodologies and tools to look at this. Such tools can help districts and schools better understand how resources are spent.

Dr. Brandon then began his presentation by explaining that he would provide an overall framework to focus the discussion on achieving student success by linking the following:

  1. The differential needs of students in different categories;
  2. Educational inputs and costs;
  3. Attributes of districts;
  4. Allocation formulas; and
  5. Effective deployment of resources.

He indicated that the points he would make in his presentation were to stimulate discussion, not to propose solutions.

Dr. Brandon commented on each of the above elements in the framework, outlined a number of principles to consider, and then returned to discussing the framework elements in more detail. In general he said that the Committee should start with identifying categories of students known to require differential levels of inputs. He said it is cleanest to start with the smallest unit of analysis because it helps everyone focus on the purpose of the funding. With regard to inputs, he said the Committee should focus on the inputs that have been generally accepted to make large differences in educational outcomes and then figure out the costs of these inputs. The district attributes to consider are the number of students in each category, the costs of the inputs, and the fiscal capacity of the district (assuming there is a local contribution). Once the above three elements are identified, an allocation formula can be developed.

Dr. Brandon made a number of points concerning the development of an allocation formula, including that policymakers must balance desired allotments with available revenues. He also said requirements and incentives for performance must be considered. In the latter point, he gave an example of monitoring strategies versus checklists. He said success is not achieved by having a list of inputs and making sure districts have them all. Rather, success comes from educational leaders taking the inputs and developing a coherent strategy with them. A balance of accountability and flexibility is important for ensuring that resources are used effectively.

There was some discussion on whether categorizing students should be based on performance. Dr. Brandon said students should not be categorized in this way because funding should focus on the inputs at the front end, not on the outputs at the back end. He said the allocation formula should not give extra funds for success or failure but instead allocate funds to those students who need more to succeed based on identified characteristics. Chairman Filipic expressed concern that something might be missed if performance is not used as some sort of determining factor. Do socioeconomic variables adequately capture differences in student needs? Dr. Brandon replied the first issue is getting the right resources to the right students and the second issue is whether you are effective once that happens. He said that 80% of differences in test scores is due to demographics while resources account for the other 20%. He also warned against creating formulas that reward poor educational outcomes.

Representative Hoops wondered if funding at the student level would actually make the allocation formula more complicated rather than more simplistic. Dr. Brandon replied that such an allocation formula provides a rational basis for certain levels of funding being distributed to each district.

Dr. Brandon then outlined three groups of principles to consider: overarching, determining funding levels, and monitoring performance.

Overarching: The first principle in this area is to distinguish between funding levels per student/school/district and funding deployment so that money is spent effectively within each school and district. The second overarching principle is to recognize the tension between flexibility and accountability. The third principle is to use a simulation model to estimate costs and equity impacts of alternative formulas.

Dr. Brandon said there must be a balance between flexibility and accountability. He gave an example of a three-tiered system where districts and schools meeting performance standards are given flexibility while those not meeting such standards are given less flexibility. Those not meeting standards would be required by the state to implement "known" successful strategies.

William Wilkins asked Dr. Brandon whether such a model gets the state to a "thorough and efficient" system. Dr. Brandon believes it does. He said the model is thorough because it is built upon student needs and it is efficient because of the balance of flexibility and accountability.

Determining Funding Levels: Dr. Brandon described many principles with regard to determining funding levels. Some of the main principles he explained includes:

Monitoring Performance: Dr. Brandon said that funding expectations should be linked to performance expectations. The degrees to which performance is to be monitored and funding controlled should be considered at the state, district, and school levels. This control may vary by size of district.

After discussing various principles, Dr. Brandon discussed each of the elements in the framework in more detail. For student characteristics and categories, Dr. Brandon said that research shows that the following areas should be considered: 1) total number of students, 2) low income, 3) limited English proficiency, 4) special physical or emotional needs, and 5) known dropouts or at-risk population. He noted that there may be more.

Dr. Brandon also outlined the inputs or cost factors that are known to have an impact on student performance noting that some of these may overlap. He separated the inputs into those for which all students should have an allocation and those that could be allotted on a flexible allocation, such as fiscal capacity. Those inputs for all districts include 1) teacher numbers and characteristics, 2) instructional support such as time on task, 3) professional development and preparation, 4) early education, 5) school size, and 6) monitoring, assessment, and regular feedback on student and staff performance. Those inputs for flexible allocation included 1) facilitation of parent engagement, 2) co-curricular and after school activities, 3) dropout prevention and alternative programs, and 4) social and health services.

Senator Jacobson expressed concern that this model was leading the Committee down the path of a market basket approach with a series of expensive items on the list. He said this approach implies that every input must be cost out and funded. Senator Jacobson said that districts make trade-offs with the levels of funding they receive but this approach would not take such trade-offs into consideration. He also pointed out that Dr. Brandon had identified areas that are not currently in Ohio's funding model. For example, he said Dr. Brandon is suggesting that a thorough and efficient system requires funding for all preschool children. He also inferred that Dr. Brandon's approach would lead to a formula in which drop-outs are funded.

Russ Harris said it is important to identify all the critical components even if they cannot all be addressed at this time. He said that those inputs proven to result in success cannot be ignored.

The next presentation was by Dr. Barbara Byrd-Bennett, along with Thandiwe Peebles and Richard Larrabee (supervising superintendents), on "District Deployment of Resources: A Way to Manage Student Outcomes." The presenters discussed Cleveland's School Performance Indicators (SPI) – a system by which Academic Achievement Plans in schools are evaluated. The purpose of SPI is to 1) give each school a systematic process by which the core planning team can develop, monitor, review, and revise the Academic Achievement Plan and 2) give the district a uniform method for observing school-level activities and identify best practices and needs. SPI provides schools with the funding and accountability supports they need to achieve high standards of excellence.

It was explained that data from the first 27 elementary schools reviewed were disaggregated in order to identify where a correlation existed between SPI results and student performance indicators. It was found that four elements strongly correlate with the student assessment data: 1) student support services, 2) external and physical resources, 3) assessment and evaluation, and 4) curriculum and instruction.

SPI is built upon 10 research-based elements: 1) school mission/philosophy, 2) school climate, 3) school organization, 4) curriculum and instruction, 5) professional development, 6) instructional resources, 7) parent/community involvement, 8) student support services, 9) external and physical Resources, and 10) assessment and evaluation. It was explained that each element has a number of areas and each area has a number of standards. Each standard is rated on a scale from one to five, with five meaning the standard has been met.

It is important to make sure everyone understands the process and the standards before the actual review begins. A review team is then formed that collects and reviews school data. The team includes the principal, educators inside and outside the school, other district staff, and parents.

The team reviews documents about the school such as school profile information and student performance data, conducts interviews with various stakeholders, and observes school facilities and classrooms. All of this is done to determine whether the SPI standards are being met. The ratings are decided by consensus of the team. The areas for improvement are then prioritized. It was noted that it is important to remember that SPI rates schools not individuals.

The priorities are then used to plan corrective actions that will have immediate impact on student learning, that are critical to the health and safety of students and staff, and that maximize available resources. The results are shared with all staff, with parents, and with students through various media.

Dr. Byrd-Bennett explained that principals must justify through a detailed plan how additional resources will be used. They then must be held accountable that they used the dollars as they said they would. Targets and benchmarks must also be met. She explained that those buildings meeting targets are given more flexibility. The degree of flexibility must be limited and schools must be given the necessary tools to make them successful.

A Committee member asked Dr. Byrd-Bennett whether deployment should be part of a funding methodology such as requiring all school districts to have a similar review process like that used in Cleveland. She said she feels that this process is necessary because when people know they are being watched they perform. Another member said it is important to keep in mind that not all districts would assess themselves in the same manner. Some may believe they are doing well but are not.

The Committee talked about the sensitivity of the state mandating management practices while also providing flexibility. There were concerns raised on how to balance this. Dr. Brandon said that management and deployment must be built into the system but not into the allocation formula.

Chairman Filipic ended the meeting by having a general discussion on where the Committee currently is with its work. He asked the members whether they were comfortable with proceeding with an input-based model. It was felt that a better understanding needed to be reached of the research behind each input suggested by Dr. Brandon. It was also stated that the framework outlined by Dr. Brandon provides for many choices and tradeoffs and that not everything he outlined had to be implemented.

The Funding for Success Committee will present the status of it work to the full Task Force on December 18. The Committee will begin meeting again in January (dates and time to be determined). The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.



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


THE FINAL REPORT
Governor Taft reading with a student.