Committees
Funding for Success Committee
March 8, 2004 Minutes
Committee members present included Chairman Matthew Filipic, Vice Chairman Richard Maxwell, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Representative James Hoops, Senator Jeff Jacobson, Susan Tavakolian (for Dr. Susan Zelman) and Scott Williams.
Other members present included Task Force Chairman William W. Wilkins, Dan Navin, John Brandt, Fred Church and Barbara Shaner.
Presentation:
- Research-Based Approaches to Improving Student Achievement (PDF*, 103 KB)
-Dr. Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, Director, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Dep't of Education
Chairman Filipic called the meeting to order at approximately 10:15 a.m. Mr. Filipic called on Paul Marshall to share with the committee an update on the staff's efforts to use Schools of Promise to develop some cost estimates for educating students in high-poverty schools.
Task Force Staff Research Update
Mr. Marshall began the presentation with an overview of Schools of Promise. Schools of Promise are those schools that have high poverty and high achievement. The Schools of Promise are primarily located in Northeast Ohio. In FY 2002 - 2003 there were 31 buildings identified as Schools of Promise. Of these 31 buildings, 3 were excluded from the analysis (two were excluded because they were community schools and one had no report card). The remaining schools are broken down as follows:
- 18 elementary schools
- 2 middle schools
- 3 high schools
- 3 elementary/middle schools
- 2 middle/high schools
Staff contacted the Schools of Promise superintendents by telephone for preliminary information regarding what they were doing and what they considered to be most important. Mr. Marshall commented on the high level of cooperation that was received from these school officials. Based on these conversations the staff noted some commonalities. Grant money was an important resource for such things as extra intervention and hiring specific staff, such as curriculum directors. The grant application process was also significant.
The following, more formal questionnaire was then sent to the superintendents of the Schools of Promise. The goal of this questionnaire is to identify the commonalities that may exist and costs associated with successfully educating economically disadvantaged students, including estimates of the costs associated with those things that would be incurred because of the economic status of the students in the buildings. The questionnaire follows:
- What is the total number of regular education teachers - by grade - in your building? What is the total number of regular education students - by grade? (Career-technical and special education teachers/students should be excluded.)
- What is the average years of experience for your teachers (again, excluding special and career-technical education), your principal and other administrators in the building?
- What is the average salary for your teachers (same exclusions)?
- Do you have any breakdowns of your budget that would help us as we attempt to provide the Task Force some guidance on costs associated with educating successfully large numbers of economically disadvantaged students? Within this request, we would like to see the total amount of federal dollars and other foundational or state grants allocated to this school building. (Is it possible to prepare a 4502-like report by building for fiscal year 2003?)
- Can you provide a list of total staffing levels by the following subgroups: Administration, Buildings and Operations, Regular Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers, Gifted Teachers, Career-Technical Teachers and Other Support Staff?
- How do you involve your parents? Can you provide some examples of the types of things that you do?
- Could you describe for us what you do for your teachers relative to professional development? This could be either for the building or for the district?
- What role does the use of technology play in your success?
- Do you reduce class sizes intentionally for certain subjects or for any other special reasons?
- What role, if any, do your building's teachers play in helping guide the policies employed in the building? For example, do your building's teachers play a role in selecting new hires into the building?
- What role do community organizations, colleges or universities, churches or local businesses play in your success? For example, do you have a partnership with a local college or university? If so, how does this partnership facilitate your efforts?
- What types of non-educational services do you provide, including services of social workers and health care professionals?
- How would you describe the physical condition of your building?
- What types of interventions do you provide to your students? (For example, after school, one-on-one tutoring, summer school, etc.)
- Do you have an idea of what percentage of students in your building were provided preschool services or all day kindergarten?
- Anything else that we have neglected to ask?
Mr. DeMaria inquired as to the informal nature of the initial contact. Mr. Marshall clarified that the telephone conversations were informal but that the more formal questionnaires have been sent out and that he does not expect any resistance because of the high level of cooperation that he received in the initial telephone conversations.
Dick Maxwell asked why the superintendents were chosen as the contact persons within the Schools of Promise. Mr. Marshall added that he thought that the superintendents were a good starting point. The superintendents could either answer the questions themselves or refer him to the appropriate principals or other staff.
Mr. DeMaria inquired if there would be a distinction made between state grants awarded and competitive third-party grants given and whether these grants show up in the school expenditure report. Mr. Marshall confirmed that based on the telephone conversations that this distinction has been made. Susan Tavakolian added that the grant money is accounted for in the expenditure reports as local money.
Scott Schaller continued the staff presentation with a discussion of Gap Aid School Districts. Schools get Gap Aid when there is a gap between the charge-off amount (23 mills) and what the district annually raises through property or local income taxes (which total less than the equivalent of 23 mills). In these cases the state funds the difference between 23 mills and what the district actually raises so that the district receives at least the foundation level of funding for each child.
The Gap Aid districts chosen in the model include the districts that are either excellent (eight districts), effective (seventeen districts), or continuous improvement (twelve districts) but with at least a six percent improvement in their performance indices from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003 for the continuous improvement districts.
These districts also fall into the following ODE-defined typologies: thirteen (or 35%) are low socio-economic status (SES), six (or 16%) are small towns with moderate SES, five (or 14%) are small cities/towns with very high poverty and low SES, one (or 3%) is in a major urban area with very high poverty, one (or 3%) is in an urban/suburban area with high SES, one (or 3%) is in an urban/suburban area with high SES, and one (or 3%) is an urban/suburban area with very high SES. There is one typology not represented at all in this list; that of urban, average poverty, with moderate SES.
The average salaries of regular teachers in these districts are lower in all categories. Regular teachers' salaries are $4,099 (or 9.9%) less per year, special education teachers' salaries are $3,878 (or 9.3%) less per year, vocational education teachers' salaries are $7,004 (or 16.3%) less per year, and educational service personnel's salaries are $3,805 (or 8.8%) less per year. While these districts come from mainly rural areas, the amount of the difference is larger than expected and will need to be researched further.
That said, the expenditures for all five of the areas that we were able to find data for show that the Gap Aid districts spend less than the statewide average as the following chart shows:
Per-Pupil Amounts |
Gap Aid Districts |
Statewide Average |
% Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
Administration |
871 |
1,009 |
-13.7% |
Bldg. Operations |
1,448 |
1,626 |
-10.9% |
Staff Support |
158 |
230 |
-31.3% |
Pupil Support |
704 |
866 |
-18.7% |
Instructional Support |
3,984 |
4,703 |
-15.3% |
Total |
7,165 |
8,435 |
-15.1% |
Analyzing these two sets of data brings us to the conclusion that class size in the Gap Aid districts must be higher than the statewide average. This is derived by seeing that instructional support spending by the Gap Aid districts is 18.1% less per pupil than the statewide average, but teachers' salaries are only 9.9% less in the gap aid districts than statewide average teachers' salaries.
It is surprising to see that the administrative costs are lower for the Gap Aid districts, as they are smaller (a median of 1,593 or 177 students smaller than the statewide median) and so the costs for basic administration have to be spread over fewer students. While this will require further research, perhaps this difference is due to the fact that smaller districts might not have a curriculum coordinator, IT staff, or other positions found in larger districts.
Mr. Schaller ended his presentation with some of facts of interest:
- Gap Aid districts have $27,792 or (25.9%) less in per-pupil adjusted valuation than the statewide average.
- Median income is $1,347 (or 4.7%) less than the statewide average.
Kelly Weir continued the discussion of the Schools of Promise concentrating on the characteristics of the Schools of Promise. The following chart shows the average enrollment of the buildings by grade level:
Elementary Schools |
271.9 |
Middle Schools |
492.3 |
High Schools |
611.5 |
Elementary/Middle Schools |
155.0 |
Middle/High Schools |
479.0 |
These schools buildings are located within 17 districts. The following table indicates the typology of the districts in which the Schools of Promise reside:
# of Districts |
# of Buildings |
|
|---|---|---|
1-Rural, High Poverty, Low SES |
6 |
8 |
2-Rural, Low Poverty, Low SES |
3 |
4 |
3-Small Towns, Moderate SES |
0 |
0 |
4-Small Cities/Towns, Low SES-Very High Poverty |
6 |
7 |
5-Urban, Moderate SES, Average Poverty |
0 |
0 |
6-Major Urban, Very High Poverty |
2 |
9 |
7-Urban/Suburban, High SES |
0 |
0 |
8-Urban/Suburban, Very High SES |
0 |
0 |
Interestingly, the Schools of Promise, on average, are below statewide averages for the percentage of teachers certified in their buildings in both core courses and all courses at all grade levels. The following chart reflects the percentage point difference.
Schools of Promise |
Statewide |
% Point Difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|
% of Teachers Certified in 9-12 all Courses |
94.58 |
95.96 |
(1.37%) |
% of Teachers Certified in 9-12 Core Courses |
96.08 |
96.59 |
(0.51%) |
% of Teachers Certified in K-8 All Courses |
97.25 |
98.22 |
(0.97%) |
% of Teachers Certified in k-8 Core Courses |
97.00 |
98.23 |
(1.23%) |
On the other hand, the teachers in the Schools of Promise are, on average, 0.8 of a year more experienced than teachers statewide. A comparison was also made of the experience levels of Schools of Promise teachers as compared to the districts in which they reside. On average, the Schools of Promise teachers have 0.9 of a year more experience. The Schools of Promise also have higher teacher attendance rates, on average, than the statewide average by 1.52 percentage points.
Regarding salaries, Schools of Promise teachers are paid less than the statewide average by $1,081. This is not surprising since the schools are located in low-wealth school districts. Compared to the other teachers in their districts, Schools of Promise teachers are paid an average of $2,268 more.
It can be expected then that expenditures are higher in the Schools of Promise over other schools within their districts. Based on FY 2002 data, total expenditures are 10.7% higher. A more disaggregated view is as follows:
Expenditures |
Percentage higher funding over other buildings within district |
|---|---|
Instruction |
9.9 |
Building and Operations |
10.3 |
Administration |
16.7 |
Pupil Support |
11.8 |
Staff Support |
35.1 |
Total statewide comparisons for expenditures were desired, but due to the difficulties with obtaining the data it was not done. It should also be noted that the data on which the above percentages are based are subject to misrepresentations. As Dan Wilson pointed out a few meetings ago, data can be unreliable because of districts' coding variations.
Ms. Weir concluded that the questionnaires will show more in depth expenditure data. The staff also needs to dig into the numbers more and remove factors that may skew the data. She noted that these are preliminary data based on a small sample size. It is hoped that once this is done and we receive the questionnaires, we will have better expenditure estimates.
Mr. Maxwell inquired as to whether the questionnaires can identify those districts that participated in the Battelle pilot program. Ms. Weir confirmed that it was not specifically identified in the questionnaires. It was shared that a list of the school districts participating in the Battelle for Kids pilot project could be obtained.
Mr. Maxwell observed that one of the potential reasons the administration costs are lower in Gap Aid districts is their use of contractual sources for administrative purposes. For example, the salary for a curriculum coordinator might be under administrative costs but if such services were contracted the costs might fall under staff support. There should be some clarification as to each district's use of out-sourcing.
Mr. Filipic commented that Gap Aid districts may manage themselves differently because of their rural setting.
Senator Jacobson added that this presentation confirms the idea that districts that have less money will hire fewer people.
Research-Based Approaches to Improving Student Achievement
Mr. Filipic called on Paul Marshall to introduce Dr. Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, Director of the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. Dr Whitehurst addressed the committee relative to those educational activities that seem to make the most impact. He noted that he has little expertise in education funding or federal education policy. His office is nonpartisan. He also noted that he cannot provide definitive research on education programs, since it does not exist. Dr. Whitehurst observed that the U. S. Department of Education spends less than one-half of one percent on research.
Dr. Whitehurst assumes that funding for education is necessary but not sufficient. It is not just the amount of money. Academic achievement is most important. He noted that his remarks would focus on those inputs that Ohio can affect through policy decisions. This evidence may help the state make better decisions. Dr. Whitehurst discussed research in the areas of teachers, curriculum, assessment, preschool, remediation, setting, time on task, and management.
Teachers — Dr. Whitehurst opined that teachers are the most important element in the educational process. Research provides strong support for this statement. He mentioned value-added studies that examine the impact of particular teachers on students' academic performance. The effect of having really good teachers versus those that are not has a huge cumulative impact.
Dr. Whitehurst stated that there is a strong correlation between teachers' cognitive abilities and their teaching performance. Overall, those in the education field do not score as highly on tests that measure cognitive ability as those in the social sciences, science or engineering. He said that this presents a challenge to get people with high cognitive abilities to enter the education field. Dr. Whitehurst noted that options for bringing in professionals through alternative means are worth pursuing.
Mr. Burkland asked what teachers who have higher cognitive abilities are doing differently in the classroom. Dr. Whitehurst opined that such teachers are more likely to have a greater mastery of their subject and to do things like bring in outside resources to improve their classes. He noted that brighter teachers are also more likely to leave the profession.
Content knowledge, measured by courses taken in relevant subjects, is an important predictor of a teacher's performance according to Dr. Whitehurst. Research findings in this area are principally at the high school level and principally in mathematics and science. After about five courses, more coursework does not seem to improve performance. A master's degree in teaching does not appear to have any impact on teaching performance, but masters' degrees in content areas do. It is important here to think about how to provide incentives for teachers to obtain masters' degrees in content areas.
Mr. Burkland asked what are the best practices used in offering teachers incentives. Dr. Whitehurst responded that there is not a lot of evidence in this area. He further explained that sustained and focused professional development is the most effective way to improve teachers' performance. He mentioned the importance of the professional development being the right type.
Senator Jacobson asked if Dr. Whitehurst could give an example of a state that is doing professional development well. Dr. Whitehurst replied that the nature of professional development is such that it relates more to what school districts are doing than states. He stated that research is available that would be helpful in evaluating the quality of professional development.
Mr. Burkland asked if some districts have instituted performance-based pay. Dr. Whitehurst responded that some have, mentioning the research of Dr. Allen Odden. He referenced a recent national report on teaching compensation and other factors. Dr. Whitehurst observed that deployment of teachers is important because poor children tend to get the poorest-performing teachers. Teachers with more experience tend to migrate to the buildings with the fewest challenges. This is partly a result of collective bargaining and partly perhaps a result of attempting to retain good teachers. Compensation is one way, but not the only way, to retain the best teachers. Teacher performance seems to peak sometime between six and 10 years of experience.
Dr. Whitehurst stated that program implications for improving teaching performance include providing alternative routes into teaching; using adjunct and part-time teaching; offering differential pay for performance, areas of shortage, filling open positions in high-need schools and for attracting teachers with higher cognitive ability; time for professional development; and provision for induction, mentoring and training.
Senator Jacobson asked about Ohio's licensure requirements and whether the required masters' degrees needed to be in education or could they be in an area of specialty. Staff will find the answer to Senator Jacobson's question and report to the committee.
Curriculum — Dr. Whitehurst stated that most research in this area has been conducted in reading. A reading curriculum should include phonemic awareness instruction; systematic phonics instruction; fluency instruction (e.g. repeated and monitored oral reading); vocabulary instruction; and text comprehension instruction. The focus needs to be on those curricula that research demonstrates are successful. Senator Jacobson inquired where challenged districts are in relation to curricula. Dr. Tavakolian said that the choice of curriculum is a local choice but that the Department of Education does have more involvement in the challenged districts. Dr. Whitehurst noted that less is known about mathematics curricula than about reading curricula. There has not been the same level of research into mathematics curricula. He mentioned the importance of international comparisons. Through such comparisons, it was found that one problem with the mathematics curricula in the United States is that some tend to teach the same material every year (known as a spiraled approach), rather than organizing the mathematics curriculum hierarchically as is the case in other nations.
Mr. Burkland asked if Ohio's new mathematics standards are hierarchical or spiraled. Staff responded that the new standards are hierarchical. Dr. Whitehurst noted that the content of a curriculum is important, but how it is implemented is more important.
Dr. Whitehurst opined that curriculum has strong effects in reading. He noted that the design of many mathematics curricula is questionable, and the effects of reform in mathematics curricula are unclear. Curriculum implementation is very important.
Assessments — Dr. Whitehurst said there is not a lot of definitive research in this area because it is never known if improved performance is as a result of testing or some other changes that were made. He did note that instructional-based assessment enhances student performance.
Preschool — Dr. Whitehurst said that evidence shows that preschool is effective to the extent that it is content based. Dr. Whitehurst explained that high-quality preschool is one in which the teachers are well trained, academic content is being delivered and the preschool has a curriculum that is designed to meet the needs of children that are in greatest need. The curriculum meets the needs of those children who do not receive certain experiences at home. Content is aligned with what is expected in kindergarten and first grade. The evidence of good preschool on academic performance is some of the strongest available, according to Dr. Whitehurst.
Remediation — Dr. Whitehurst stated that remediation strategies can work, especially with reading. A good, targeted remedial program can have a tremendous impact on reading skills. It has been shown that the achievement gap can be closed significantly in about 35 weeks if remediation is targeted at those in need. This is not inexpensive, but it is not a budget buster. Effective programs require about 30 minutes a day over a number of weeks in small groups.
Setting (Is smaller better?) — Dr. Whitehurst opined that dramatic reductions in class size for the youngest students result in measurable, but not huge, improvements in academic performance. The cost of reducing class size needs to be balanced against other ways to improve academic performance. Implementation is important. The way that California implemented class-size reduction did not work because it created a need for many new teachers. The new teachers were inexperienced and many times replaced high-quality teachers in programs for students with the highest needs Dr. Whitehurst suggested that, if you do class-size reduction, do it in the first and second grade. He added that marginal reductions in class size do not have a significant impact on student achievement.
Dr. Whitehurst stated that having smaller schools is another approach to improved students' academic achievement. He feels that most of the research on smaller schools is correlational and so the impact is difficult to measure. He expressed reservations about the validity of the studies that demonstrate the impact of smaller schools. The cost of smaller schools is another factor. There needs to be more research, but evidence for smaller schools is not yet compelling.
Time on Task — Dr. Whitehurst noted that homework, especially in grades six to 12, is important. Summer school has been shown to reduce knowledge loss during the summer, especially for low-wealth students. The more rigorous courses taken in high school, the better the chance of success in college. The evidence on after-school programs is that it depends on the nature of the program. Many have shown that they do not improve academic performance because they are based more on childcare than on instruction. Dr. Whitehurst noted that there is a negative correlation between how much students enjoy mathematics and how well they do.
Management — Dr. Whitehurst opined that management skills in the school building and the district are important. Successful schools focus on student achievement; emphasize reading and mathematics; can drill down to the classroom; have a district-wide curriculum; strongly support high-quality professional development; and have strong building leadership. He also said that alignment within the system is important and acknowledged that identifying the critical parts of the system so that they can be replicated is very hard.
Dr. Whitehurst's closing recommendations were to:
- Use effective programs (as identified through his institute's What Works Clearinghouse or some other trusted source);
- Organize for implementation (leadership, training, materials, alignment); and
- Measure performance and progress towards goals.
Fiscal Stress on School Districts
After Dr. Whitehurst's presentation, Mr. Chuck Gossett (Treasurer of West Clermont Local School District) presented information on the fiscal stresses facing school districts and the impact that school levies have on school districts' educational processes. He noted that levies direct the district's attention away from academics to finances. He discussed the impact of the reduction of the personal tangible tax, especially the inventory portion.
Mr. Gossett noted that West Clermont's financial projections show slight increases in local property tax revenues, but projected declines in state aid. He noted a 19% increase in health care insurance costs. West Clermont's projected total revenues are essentially flat. He feels that his district's position is not unusual. West Clermont's total enrollment is approximately 9,000.
Some reasons for fiscal distress in school districts are as follows:
- Phantom Revenue
- Property tax reduction factors
- Basic cost, including both local and state share, is $5,058 while the district's actual cost to educate a child is $6,900 (the state average is $8,400).
- The use of voted millage over the basic amount to supplement a declining state share in the foundation formula.
- Changes made in H.B. 95 to valuations and to formula decreases, especially the elimination of the three-year averaging for enrollments.
Expenditure considerations include:
- Health care insurance increases — 19% ($750,000) next year in West Clermont
- Sky rocketing utility costs
- Uncertainty in the liability insurance market
- Unknown total impact of No Child Left Behind
- Increasing need for in-service to keep pace with technological instruction models as well as new methodologies for inclusion, intervention and differentiated instruction
- Cost of maintaining and keeping current with required technology for both instruction and business
Mr. Gossett noted the importance of the "state share" percentage in driving special and career-technical education weights. West Clermont's projections show continuing declines in the state share and in the absolute dollar value of state aid.
Mr. Gossett noted several changes in the state's current biennial operating budget that had a negative impact on school districts, including:
- Reducing the planned increase in the per-pupil foundation level from 2.8% to 2.2%
- Continued phase-out of the inventory portion of the tangible property tax
- Elimination of three-year averaging for school districts with declining enrollments
Mr. Gossett noted that things such as Parity Aid that had been implemented during the past several years have helped his district. Even with these improvements, however, he is projecting declines in his state aid. He also is concerned about the impact that the Foundation Program alone will have once all the phase-ins are complete.
Strategic issues identified by Mr. Gossett included:
- Eroding tax base, especially in the personal tangible tax with no replacement revenues
- Interaction with current formula causes school districts to use money voted in by taxpayers to provide additional educational opportunities just to supplement basic aid
- The formula allows districts to go on Gap Aid with no mechanism to get them off
- Growth in funding is stymied at the local and state level.
Mr. DeMaria asked how Mr. Gossett determines the appropriate size of a levy. Mr. Gossett responded that he presents several different alternatives to his board, and they select one. One factor is how long do you want to go before you have to return to the voters?
At the next meeting, staff will provide a progress report on their work with Gap Aid school districts and Schools of Promise. Also, there will be discussion at the next meeting on what the committee wants to say to the full Task Force at the April 1 meeting.
Chairman Filipic adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:00 p.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
