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

February 9, 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, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Russ Harris, Representative Jim Hoops, Senator Jeff Jacobson, Senator C.J. Prentiss and Scott Williams.  Also in attendance were Task Force Chairman William W. Wilkins, John Brandt, Dan Navin and Barbara Shaner.

Presentation:

Mr. Filipic opened the meeting by outlining the day's agenda. First the committee would discuss the revised principles document. He noted that staff had revised the principles based on committee members' feedback. Next the committee would discuss revisions made to the inputs document shared at the last meeting. After lunch the committee would hear a presentation on Ohio's current accountability system.

Mr. Filipic indicated that the next meeting of the committee is scheduled for February 26. Topics include a presentation from the Department of Education relative to the relationship between spending and student success, a discussion of the recommendations of the Commission on Teaching Success, and a presentation on the fiscal stress facing school districts.

Mr. Filipic also mentioned that he, Dick Maxwell, and Task Force staff had a meeting with Kevin Bright and Dick Gardner, the superintendent and treasurer of the Mason City Schools, relative to their budgeting model. Mr. Harris asked whether the committee would hear a presentation from Mr. Gardner on this model. Senator Jacobson opined that he had reviewed this model and that it was not very helpful for the work of the committee in that it assumed state responsibility of the full cost of the model and that it is based on arbitrary spending assumptions. Mr. Filipic noted that the model had the advantages and disadvantages of specificity. It provides a tool to identify what costs might be included or excluded in a different input model, but this detail, while useful at an analytical level, might not belong in a state funding formula, which should permit tradeoffs of different inputs. Mr. Harris asked if the document could be shared with the committee. Mr. Filipic said he would share the document given to him by the treasurer but that it will probably require some explanation for committee members to understand.

Senator Prentiss asked if there had been any discussion of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) cost estimate completed by an outside consultant on behalf of the Ohio Department of Education. She feels that the study should be reviewed by the committee to understand the components that need to be funded through federal requirements. Senator Jacobson opined that the study was written by somebody who had an interest in generating a large number. He said the study is of something that is inherently incapable of being studied and does not think it is credible. Senator Prentiss still feels that it would be worth the committee's consideration.

Mr. Maxwell agrees that the report is speculative given the nature of NCLB. He agrees with Senator Prentiss that the study does identify the right issues. He pointed out that there will be a tremendous amount of intervention required as a result of NCLB. Senator Jacobson feels that school districts should be doing this intervention anyway. He feels that many of the required items do not cost anything.

Mr. Harris suggested that the number of children not meeting the standard is so high that it could cost a considerable amount of money to bring such children up to state standards. He asked whether the Legislative Office of Education Oversight should do a study since it is impartial. He stressed the importance of knowing what it costs to meet state and federal standards.

Mr. Burkland said that no study can factor in the waste that may be occurring in the current system. For this reason he is not in support of new studies being conducted. Estimating the cost of new state and federal requirements cannot be done.

Mr. Filipic asked the committee to turn to the day's agenda and defer additional discussion on the cost analysis of NCLB until after the afternoon's presentation on Ohio's accountability system.

Discussion on Committee Principles

(For original draft of the principles document go to the following web link http://www.blueribbontaskforce.ohio.gov/committees/pdf/FS_1-29-04_pres1.pdf PDF*)

Mr. Filipic then began a discussion of the committee's principles. Senator Prentiss asked about the purpose of the principles regarding the work of the committee. Senator Jacobson noted that they are simply a benchmark to inform the committee as recommendations are made. Mr. Filipic observed that the principles could assist staff as they look at alternatives.

Principle #1: There must be a rational, defensible basis for whatever school funding system the committee develops. There was no further discussion on this principle.

Principle #2: The school funding system should be structured in a way that allows it to remain viable for future years. Mr. Filipic noted that this does not mean that the formula would stand for all time.

Principle #3: The system should provide each school district sufficient resources to afford all the school districts' students the opportunity to be academically successful, as defined by No Child Left Behind and state performance requirements implemented in H.B. 3 and S.B. 1. (Adequate levels of funding are not sufficient to assure that all children will be academically successful, but they are the amounts necessary to provide an opportunity to succeed.) The committee considered two alternatives to Principle #3. The first defined success as meeting federal and state requirements and the second left success undefined. There was some general discussion regarding whether this is a good idea. Mr. Maxwell feels that the broader the principle the better. Representative Hoops agrees. Mr. Harris suggested that the first option be amended to read that success includes meeting the requirements of NCLB, H.B. 3 and S.B. 1, but is not limited to these. Mr. Maxwell noted that he would prefer creating a separate principle for NCLB. Senator Jacobson does not want this to stand as a separate principle. Mr. Filipic suggested that this item be deferred until after the afternoon's presentation from the Department of Education.

Principle #4: School districts that are meeting expectations should be given the flexibility to spend their revenues as they determine best meets their needs. School districts that are not meeting expectations may be restricted in their ability to spend their funding through progressive steps of intervention. The committee was comfortable with the fourth principle.

Principle #5: All current state funding sources (e.g. the cost of doing business factor and Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid) should be reviewed and, if appropriate, redirected within the new funding system. The fifth principle was proposed by staff to be deleted based on committee member feedback. Senator Jacobson stated he would like to keep it. He wants to change the word "sources" to "components." It was also suggested that "etc." be added after Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid to emphasize that all components of the current school funding system be reviewed. The consensus was to include the suggested changes.

Principle #6: The school funding system should provide an adequate level of funding and should be allocated in accordance with needs of students at the state and local level. Mr. Hoops wants to add language similar to that in the third principle that states that adequate funding levels are not sufficient to assure that all children will be academically successful. Mr. Harris asked how we determine what "adequate" is. In many ways it is a matter of opinion. Senator Jacobson agreed that it is a matter of opinion. He believes that nobody can prove that any level of funding guarantees student success. It is up to policymakers to ultimately determine this. Mr. Harris again brought up the need to fund standards of opportunity. He wants agreement of these standards and then wants them costed out. Mr. Burkland feels that Principle #4 and Principle #6 are the same and should be combined. Task Force staff will attempt to combine the two.

Principle #7: The system should be phased in so as to minimize any negative financial impacts on school districts during the transition but assure at least a maintenance of effort on behalf of the state and should assure that districts are deliberate and planful in spending additional resources. Senator Jacobson questioned the phase in and said he only wants a phase in if the change is substantial. He also wants the state's effort to be "overall" rather than a maintenance of effort for each district.

Principle #8: The school funding system should minimize possible negative, unintentional consequences (such as encouraging school districts to reduce local effort). The committee had no suggestions for change to the eighth principle.

Principle #9 had been previously deleted and combined into Principle #6. Committee members were comfortable with this change.

Principle #10: School districts should be able to predict future levels of funding based on the needs of their students and the characteristics of the districts. Mr. Harris would like to see this principle combined with Principle #16. Mr. Filipic asked staff to harmonize the two.

Principle #11: The reason for the collection of data necessary for the school funding system should be clearly articulated and related to specific policy decision-making requirements. Mr. Filipic was concerned that this principle may be short-sighted because districts may not realize the benefit of collection of some data for future research. Senator Jacobson suggested the addition of "research-based" as another requirement to which collection should be related. Committee members concurred with this addition.

Principle #12: School districts should not have to rely on grants to meet their students' needs. Mr. Harris asked that this principle be amended to include specific references to districts meeting assessment and monitoring requirements. Senator Jacobson does not see the need for this. Consensus was to change reliance on grants from meeting "students' needs" to meeting "adequate levels of success."

Principle #13: The principles on which the school funding formula is based should be simple enough to explain to community members. Committee members agreed with this principle.

Principle #14: The school funding formula should not be so restrictive that it denies the Governor and General Assembly the opportunity to exercise appropriate policy and budgetary discretion. Committee members concurred in this principle.

Principle #15: Fiscal incentives should be used where possible to drive state policy. The committee felt that this principle should be changed to read that state policy should drive local behavior through the use of fiscal incentives.

Principle #16: The school funding system must provide for reasonable growth in revenues to the school districts. It was thought a disclaimer should be added that reasonable growth should be provided unless there are valid systemic reasons otherwise (like decline in enrollment). The committee felt this principle should be combined with Principle #10.

Principle #17: The funding system should incorporate a formula to reflect the cost of complying with No Child Left Behind. Mr. Filipic thought it would be best to defer discussion on this principle until after the afternoon presentation.

Principle #18: The school funding system should encourage deployment practices within school districts that target appropriate levels of funding to those students with the greatest needs. Committee members felt this principle should be combined with Principles #4 and #6.

Principle #19: The way resources are used toward improving student achievement is as important as the amount of those resources. Hence a funding system needs to include mechanisms that ensure that resources are used appropriately to maximize student achievement. It was felt that this principle should be combined with Principle #4.

Committee Discussion on Inputs

(For original draft of the inputs document go to the following web link http://www.blueribbontaskforce.ohio.gov/committees/pdf/FS_1-29-04_pres2.pdf PDF*)

After a short break the committee began a discussion on which inputs should be included in a school funding formula. Mr. Filipic noted that staff had deleted several of the possible inputs based on committee discussion at the last meeting. He said the deletions were an attempt to identify the inputs that will be key drivers of a new school funding formula. Also, he introduced Cyndi Yoder, Director of the Center for the Teaching Profession at the Department of Education. Her participation is to help answer members' questions relative to teachers.

Mr. Filipic reviewed the listed inputs for committee consideration. Following are the inputs believed by staff to be the primary drivers according to discussion at the last meeting:

Mr. DeMaria would prefer that intervention be separately identified, apart from early childhood education. Mr. Filipic wants to specify that early childhood education should be targeted to those students who are most in need of it.

From the previous list, "school size" was deleted by staff as an input. Senator Prentiss noted that smaller schools are important. Mr. Maxwell asked whether this should be included in the formula. He thinks that size is not the issue, but rather things like professional development. Senator Jacobson does not see how school size can be modeled. There was consensus to leave this input out.

General discussion regarding whether "monitoring, assessment, regular feedback regarding student and staff performance" was costly enough to be one of the drivers in the funding formula. Mr. Maxwell would like to hear from Dr. Barbara-Byrd Bennett on this input again. He also thought it might be a type of progressive intervention. Mr. Burkland would like to keep this input. The committee concurred.

Senator Prentiss addressed the parent engagement input. She noted that Hispanic people feel this is important due to the parents' limited English skills. Senator Jacobson questioned how this input could be made operational. Mr. Filipic opined that much of the lack of success in some school districts is attributable to the families' inability to help their children academically. He feels that, while attempting to assist families is important, it should be one of the tools of intervention that schools can use but not directly incorporated into the school funding formula.

Senator Prentiss said that the input of "dropout prevention, re-enrollment, alternative schools or programs" should also be one of the intervention tools available to schools as an option. This input had been deleted by staff.

Mr. Harris feels that intervention should be recognized in the formula. The amount should be established broadly so that school districts can choose the type of intervention that best fits their students' needs. The funding should also go to those students that are most at risk of failing.

Senator Jacobson cautioned against having school districts identify students in need of intervention because they may identify more than is necessary. Senator Prentiss questions what proxy would be used to identify intervention needs. Some thought that a measure of the concentration of low-performing students may be a possibility. Others preferred to rely on demographic variables that tended to be related to low performance, to avoid rewarding districts for low test scores or for punishing districts if they were successful in helping their students improve on state tests.

Mr. Filipic noted that the list of potential inputs is not intended to be exhaustive, but is to be used by staff as they work on an input-driven funding formula. For example, there is no input being considered for administration, even though this is clearly necessary for school districts.

Senator Prentiss asked about the input of "social and health services, prevention (substance abuse, violence and pregnancy)." This input had been deleted by staff. She is not sure whether it should be pulled out by itself. She knows that these things are important but is not sure how to account for them. Senator Jacobson is against including these costs in a school funding formula since these things should be funded elsewhere.

Mr. Filipic addressed the "teacher numbers and characteristics" input and asked Ms. Yoder how the committee could address teacher issues related to standards. She noted that professional development is important. Teachers are at different levels of mastery. It is also important that higher education institutions are preparing teachers according to state standards. Professional development is also necessary relative to the state's new assessment system. This is a multi-year process and the state is currently building capacity. She feels that teachers have embraced the standards but are not yet fully aware of how to implement them.

Senator Prentiss feels that there needs to be a discussion about the state's role in educating teachers regarding academic content standards.

Ohio's Education Accountability System

Dr. Mitchell Chester, Assistant Superintendent at the Department of Education, gave an overview of Ohio's accountability system for school districts, which is driven by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and H.B. 3. Dr. Chester began by describing the changes being made in Ohio's testing system, which involves phasing out the old proficiency tests and phasing in the new achievement tests. The new generation of tests includes a new High School Graduation Test (HSGT), which first impacts the class of 2007.

Previously Ohio had four levels of student success: advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. Now Ohio has five levels: advanced, accelerated, proficient, basic and limited. Success is defined as proficient and above. These designations apply to students, not schools.

Mr. DeMaria asked how the cutoff was set for each level of performance. Dr. Chester responded that these levels were set through a professional judgment process of educators and non-educators. Judgment is made on various examples of students' responses on tests. There was some discussion about the "politics" of setting the cutoff scores based on how many children would be expected to meet the passing threshold. Dr. Chester noted that there is pressure to adjust the targets downward.

Mr. Filipic wondered whether the level of proficiency needed for students to succeed at the next grade was used to establish cutoff scores. Dr. Chester went through the intervention requirements, which must be commensurate with children's scores. Mr. Filipic noted that third graders who score below "basic" must receive "intense" remediation — an adjective that does not apply to the other interventions. He asked if this was a statutory requirement. Dr. Chester confirmed that it was a part of the third-grade guarantee.

Dr. Chester then went through the definition of success at the building and school district levels. Prior to last year, the number of performance indicators met was the only measure of success. There were 22 indicators — 20 of which were test scores, plus the graduation and attendance rates. He noted two limitations to the old system. First, there was no indication of improvement. Second, the system was not sensitive to gradations of improvements.

To address the above mentioned limitations the performance system now includes multiple measures to determine building and district success. Added to the performance indicators were a performance index (new), a growth calculation (new), and adequate yearly progress (federal requirement).

The performance index is more sensitive to gradations of achievement than the performance indicators. This measure weights higher performance more than lower performance. This creates strong incentives for moving students up, whether they are low-performing or high-performing. There is a strong disincentive for schools to not have children take the tests since such students receive a weight of zero.

The growth calculation takes into account where the students started and the improvements made. This measure is being piloted right now by Battelle for Kids. A temporary growth calculation is being used currently, pending the availability of state test scores in each grade.

The fourth performance measure is the federal requirement of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Dr. Chester explained that districts and schools must meet AYP for all students and for specific at-risk groups of students. There are targets set for each district, building, and group in both reading and mathematics. Senator Jacobson asked who set the targets. Dr. Chester responded that federal law is the starting point for the targets. The state then established the trajectory from the starting point to the end, which is the 2013-2014 school year.

Dr. Chester then went through the consequences for school buildings and districts of not meeting AYP requirements. The Department of Education determines what support, intervention, and consequences are for school districts that do not meet AYP requirements. Each school district has primary responsibility for support, intervention, and consequences of its buildings.

Senator Prentiss asked Dr. Chester about the study that the Department of Education commissioned to ascertain the cost of NCLB. One of the questions is where the state obligation ends and the federal obligation begins. Ohio had already done much of what NCLB requires. Mr. Filipic opined that, whether the requirements are state or federal does not really matter for the work of this committee.

Next Steps

Senator Prentiss asked what the target date is for completion of the committee's work. Mr. Filipic stated that this was still uncertain. The committee would like the Department of Education to give some guidance for costing out some of the main drivers of the inputs.

The next meeting of the Funding for Success Committee will be held on February 26, 2004 on the 23rd floor of the Rhodes Tower. Mr. Filipic adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:10 p.m.


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


THE FINAL REPORT
Governor Taft reading with a student.