Committees
Funding for Success Committee
May 18, 2004 Minutes
In attendance were Chairman Matt Filipic, Vice Chairman Dick Maxwell, Barbara Byrd Bennett, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Russ Harris, Representative Jim Hoops, Senator C.J. Prentiss and Susan Zelman. Other Task Force members present were Task Force Chairman William Wilkins and Vice Chairman Jim Hyre.
Presentations:
- Introduction by Paul Marshall (PDF*, 11 KB)
- Summary of School District Visits (PDF*, 26 KB)
- Chosen Districts Statistics in Graph Form (PDF*, 26 KB)
Chairman Filipic called the meeting to order at approximately 8:10 a.m. He asked Task Force staff to give the committee an update on what they have learned about the costs involved in helping poor children succeed through their research relative to the six school district visits.
Synopsis of the District Visits
Mr. Marshall provided a synopsis of the research and visits to the six school districts. He began by describing how staff narrowed their focus to these six districts. All six districts have relatively high poverty. Five of the six contain buildings designated as Schools of Promise and all have made significant academic progress.
Mr. Marshall explained how the six districts provided a good representation of the costs statewide because they include urban, rural, suburban and a small city. Staff focused their research on six inputs identified previously by the committee as key to academic success. They are: intervention, class size reduction, professional development, data-based decision making, parental involvement, and preschool. He indicated that among the six districts there was a wide disparity in costs in some areas like intervention, whereas the parental involvement costs are moderate in all districts.
Mr. Marshall continued with a more detailed description of districts by telling the committee that Coshocton, Dawson-Bryant and Steubenville received effective academic rankings on their report cards. There were not a lot of high schools identified as Schools of Promise, although Lockland does have a small high school that is a School of Promise. Cleveland and Youngstown were both chosen because of the significant improvement in the state performance indices of many of their buildings.
Mr. Marshall commented that the personnel at the six districts were very helpful. They truly wanted to assist the Task Force. The staff collected quite a bit of information from these districts and is currently doing some follow-up. For this reason, the information shared today will not be too specific as far as costs go. Mr. Marshall then asked Mr. Schaller to talk about the demographics of these districts.
Demographics
Mr. Schaller began by describing how he gathered the information in the graphs that he presented. The data were pulled from the districts' local report cards. These data were then compared to statewide averages. One commonality is that all six districts have large percentages of students who are economically disadvantaged. Mr. Schaller focused the group's attention on the graph titled "Percent of Total Enrollment for Economically Disadvantaged SY 2003".
Data and Measurement Issues
Committee members engaged in a discussion of how the data on the graphs were gathered. Mr. Filipic pointed out that it appears there is an issue with regard to how poverty is measured. For example, Coshocton shows a percentage of economically disadvantaged of 42.6% but Lockland shows a 100% percentage. Ms. Weir said that one of the problems is that these data are self reported and that Lockland and Cleveland have a universal lunch program. Therefore, these districts consider all their children to be economically disadvantaged. She added that Cleveland should realistically be in the 70% range of poverty. Mr. Filipic cautioned that we need to be careful with this measurement because we are trying to focus our resources on poverty. The Task Force should consider what should be used to measure poverty. Mr. Marshall commented that is a critically important issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. DeMaria asked where the data were reported. Mr. Schaller stated that he used the data on the state report card.
The Definition of Poverty
The discussion on data gathering and measurement led to a conversation on the definition of poverty. Senator Prentiss asked if the staff had developed a definition of poverty and if the Legislative Office of Education Oversight's (LOEO) definition of poverty had been rejected. Mr. Schaller stated that we did not reject LOEO's definition of poverty. Mr. Marshall stated that the measurement of poverty was a data collection and a definitional issue. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has struggled with the same issue.
Senator Prentiss also wanted to address the number of black children in these districts and the graduation rate. If you look at Dawson-Bryant and Coshocton, they have a high graduation rate even though they have a high concentration of poverty. The real issue is race and poverty. That is different from looking at poverty alone. Senator Prentiss went on to say that she was concerned about using Schools of Promise. She felt that these schools are not a true reflection of the larger school population. Mr. Schaller noted that is why the research was expanded beyond simply Schools of Promise.
Dr. Zelman suggested that perhaps an index on race and income should be developed. She said perhaps a different set of interventions in urban areas with high poverty should be considered because interventions in these areas cost more. Mr. Marshall indicated that the difference is a reflection of the concentration of poverty. Mr. Filipic questioned whether generalizations can be made from only these six districts.
Demographics
Mr. Schaller continued with his description of demographic information and referred members to the Indicators Met SY 2003 graph: three districts are at the state average with respect to indicators met, one is slightly below average, and two are significantly below average but have made significant progress. He then described the Sources of Funding SY 2003 graph and how much each district receives in state, local and federal dollars. There was a short conversation about grants and private foundation dollars and where those funds would be reflected in a school district's accounting system. It was determined that foundation grants that flow through a school district would be reported as local funds. Foundation monies that are spent by a foundation on behalf of a school district but are not given to the district do not show up anywhere as district expenditures.
Mr. Schaller then talked about the graph for Average Regular Teacher Salary SY 2003. All six districts are below the statewide average for average teacher salary and Mr. Schaller believes there is a direct link between years of experience and teacher salaries. He was not surprised because less experienced teachers are not paid as much. Mr. Schaller then directed the committee's attention to the next graph Years of Teaching Experience SY 2003. Some committee members were surprised that Cleveland's average years of experience for its teachers is below the state average, given that Cleveland has so many teachers with considerable experience. Mr. Marshall suggested that Cleveland might have a bimodal distribution of teachers, with many experienced and many inexperienced teachers, with relatively few teachers in the middle.
Mr. Schaller then talked about the Performance Index Comparison for school years 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, and how all six school districts have made improvement. He noted that the Graduation Rate SY 2003 graph shows that three districts were significantly above the state average graduation rate of 73.6% with the two urban districts below the state average.
The committee talked briefly about the ADM SY 2003 graph and the huge disparities in student population especially when looking at poverty. Mr. Schaller described the racial make-up of the six districts using the Racial Makeup of Observed School Districts SY 2003 graph. Dr. Byrd-Bennett noted that Cleveland's school district racial makeup is not reflective of the City of Cleveland. There is a higher population of white students in the city than in the school district. Dr. Byrd-Bennett said there could be an exodus of white students to private schools.
Finally the group talked about Cost of Doing Business Factor (CODBF) graph. Mr. Maxwell noted that this factor is based on countywide average weekly wages for each county and its contiguous counties. Mr. Schaller stated that Steubenville and Dawson-Bryant are less expensive places to live and the CODBF reflects that.
Poverty Index
Senator Prentiss opined that we need to understand more about the demographic differences between Cleveland and Lockland, especially with regard to the districts' racial compositions. Mr. Marshall noted that there is a legal issue with attempting to factor race into a funding formula. Mr. Harris opined that the conversation should be about the achievement gap and providing funding to close that gap. We should not talk about Hispanic people and African-American people. How much intervention each individual child needs should be determined and funded.
Mr. Filipic noted that what Mr. Harris stated is a paradox. We started by looking at districts that are achieving success with high concentrations of poverty and spending less. Dayton is a good example of a district that has a high concentration of economically disadvantaged children but is not achieving the same results as Cleveland. Should we shift funds to Dayton, where children are not achieving success, from Cleveland, where they are? Mr. Harris responded that we have a responsibility to make sure all children are meeting the state average. If that means redistributing money that seems fair. Mr. Filipic asked Mr. Harris if we should reward districts for failure. Mr. Harris stated that you should audit, test and look at short-cycle assessments. How well was that money spent? Dr. Byrd-Bennett noted that intervention money has been provided to some districts but the districts are still failing its children. She would not take the intervention money from such district but instead find out what is wrong with the grown-ups who are running these districts. Mr. Filipic noted that Cleveland is doing intervention well and we do not want to remove their dollars.
The committee then had a short discussion on how to measure what the grown-ups are doing. Dr. Byrd-Bennett said that a formalized accountability model needs to be used internally by the district. Districts should have to reveal their internal strategy to the state. Mr. Harris commented that once it is known what districts are doing we can then be more prescriptive.
Summary of School District Visits
Intervention
Ms. Weir began the discussion of the summary of school district visits by talking about summer school. Dr. Zelman asked if standards-based curricula were included in the inputs reviewed by staff. Ms. Weir responded that curriculum is interwoven throughout the document, especially in class-size reduction and intervention. Dr. Zelman expressed concern that some school districts are purchasing curricular materials that do not have proven results, and are not designed to do what that district might be trying to implement. Mr. Filipic asked the staff if, in the visits to the six districts, was it possible for them to say something critical to their success was missed. The staff responded that district personnel were given the opportunity to share other keys to their success. Dr. Byrd-Bennett was present at the Cleveland interview and thought that the staff did an incredible job of probing what makes Cleveland successful.
Mr. DeMaria asked about teacher salaries for summer school and how those numbers compare to the regular school year. Ms. Weir described one school district in an area with a relatively low cost of living paying $10.85 an hour for summer school and other additional work. At the other end of the scale, one school district in an area with a high cost of living pays $38 an hour for additional work. Mr. Marshall stated that there are numerous compensation models for additional work, all of which is subject to negotiation between school districts and their employees.
Mr. DeMaria asked about the three most common intervention practices. Did the staff feel that there was one that had more impact than the others? For example, was summer school better than before- and after-school intervention? Mr. Marshall replied that it was the collective impact of aggregating all of these things together.
Class Size
Representative Hoops asked what the ideal class size was. Ms. Weir replied that between 17 and 20 to 1 for regular classrooms seemed normal and between 15 and 10 to 1 for intervention seemed appropriate. Districts seem to be nervous about having too many teachers. They want to reduce class size but do not want to make a mistake of hiring teachers they cannot afford. Mr. DeMaria asked if aides were counted in the pupil-teacher ratio. Staff answered that the pupil-teacher ratio is based on teachers only.
Mr. DeMaria asked if a teacher and three aides would provide some additional impact for intervention. Ms. Weir replied that one district used an interventionist in the room to pull out students who need help. The districts observed make sure that the aides are trained to provide effective intervention. Dr. Byrd-Bennett commented that aides typically take the child that needs help out of the classroom. This model does not typically work well because these are the children who are most in need of a highly qualified teacher, not an aide, who has not received the same training as the teacher.
Mr. Maxwell asked if an interventionist was a licensed teacher. Mr. Marshall replied that these are regular teachers that focus on intervention. Dr. Byrd-Bennett commented that the best scenario is 12 to 15 children in a class with a reading specialist and a highly qualified teacher. Dr. Zelman commented that schools that have made the greatest gains have a reading specialist and a teacher.
Recruiting and Retention
Ms. Weir described what districts are implementing for recruitment and retention. In one of the six districts visited, science and math teachers were elevated three steps on the salary schedule in order to recruit these teachers. For the most part, however, districts visited tried to create a good learning environment to retain teachers. They also did things like providing luncheons to recognize teachers. It was the management of the district that made teachers want to stay. Also, there was always a good collaboration between the school district's management and the union to achieve common goals.
Data Base Decision Making
Ms. Weir and Mr. Marshall began the discussion by talking about the ratio of computers to teachers and children. Mr. Harris asked what kind of software was loaded on the computer and what makes the data usable for teachers? Dr. Zelman replied that this varies widely from district to district. Dr. Byrd-Bennett noted that Cleveland has a system that tracks performance of every single student and there is one person who is responsible for making the data usable for the teachers. Teachers can download the information and determine what a child needs to learn. Committee members felt that such a system was extremely important to allow teachers access to the data necessary to intervene appropriately with their students.
Members asked Dr. Byrd-Bennett how Cleveland's data system was put in place. She stated that the system was designed in-house as a partnership with the local business community. After implementation of the system the teachers were then provided professional development on how to use the data. Mr. Burkland asked about how teachers are handled who are found not to be using the data provided. Dr. Byrd-Bennett said there is a conversation with the principal and if there is no improvement after that she speaks with the teacher and the principal. Mr. DeMaria commented that having the data helps to make the conversation between the principal and teacher much richer. Dr. Byrd-Bennett agreed. Teachers actually love the data analysis. It has changed the way they approach their work. Teachers can take control of the data. It is not personal. These are the facts - it really sharpens the accountability.
Parental involvement
There was a conversation on social capital. Smaller communities are able to encourage parental involvement at a lesser cost through collaboration with community organizations. Cleveland cannot involve parents in the same way that Dawson-Bryant does because of this size difference. Such larger districts spend more on parental involvement because of hiring parent liaisons. One large district even had a Parental Involvement Office. In a larger community you have to be strategic and systematic in engaging parents. Committee members discussed the impact of forced busing to achieve racial integration and how this divided communities and hurt social capital.
Senator Prentiss asked if there was No Child Left behind (NCLB) money that could be used for parental involvement. Mr. Marshall stated that there was not a lot of money available for parental involvement. He added that smaller school districts can probably engage their parents at less cost than larger school districts. Dr. Byrd-Bennett agreed.
Preschool
Ms Weir told the committee that district representatives generally considered preschool to be extremely important, but there is not a lot of money to invest in it. Senator Prentiss asked if there was a pay scale at public preschools. Dr. Byrd-Bennett replied that preschools are a part of the collective bargaining salary schedule. All teachers should have a degree. Dr. Byrd-Bennett noted that Head Start has lower requirements for its staff. Mr. DeMaria asked if those districts that did not have public preschool reached out to the local Head Start providers. Dr. Byrd-Bennett replied that there are difficulties in reaching out to Head Start because it is federally funded, with its own federal requirements. Dr. Byrd-Bennett said that it is like having a tenant live in your house. There are very restrictive guidelines with Head Start. Staff did indicate that some districts visited did indicate a good working relationship with their local Head Start agencies.
The Future
Mr. Filipic talked about the many meetings the group has had on successful school districts serving children of poverty. The group has heard research and specifically looked at six districts. In the opinion of committee members, has staff captured the reasons for these districts' success? Would the schools that are failing say that they were doing the same things?
Dr. Byrd-Bennett replied that failing schools would say that they are doing the same things. It is the accountability and the execution that are lacking in these school districts. Part of it could be that these school districts do not have good enough data to guide changes that need to be made. Another possibility is that they are engaging their teachers adequately in the improvement process. Dr. Zelman agreed some districts have no data system. Other districts may have data systems, but do not know how to use the data generated by the system. There was a general discussion relative to data-based decision making, accountability, and related costs.
Costing Out the Inputs
Senator Prentiss talked about the cost of the inputs the staff presented. She felt there would be considerable work in costing out these inputs. For example, preschool and class-size reduction would involve facilities people. The reality is that the buildings are not presently constructed for class-size reduction or preschool. How do you cost out professional development with salaries all over the place? She stated that these items need to be costed out district by district.
Mr. Filipic asked the staff if they had gathered any information on cost. Ms. Weir stated that some data have been collected but staff is doing some follow-up. Senator Prentiss talked about the mandates of Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 3. She wants to know the costs of these acts. For example Cleveland had 16,000 students in summer school in 1999 and this summer they cannot afford to offer summer school so costing out what Cleveland does is not going to be helpful.
Mr. DeMaria asked if we were going to provide cost data on a per-pupil basis. He commented that the challenge is the cost effectiveness and that resources are limited. School districts will have to make choices and we need to provide a universe of options. We are creating a roadmap.
Mr. Burkland opined that we need to think about how the pieces and parts are connected, not just look at the pieces and parts. If teachers do not have data and if there are inadequate management and leadership, these are the biggest problems. Cleveland's system is in place. If another school district does not have a comparable system in place, they will not be able to achieve the same results with comparable funding. Success for school districts is building the process. We need to do a better job of targeting and deploying the inputs we know work. If we provide a number, that puts us in a box for what we recommend. We need to determine what the highest and best uses of resources are and put them into a system by the end of June.
Mr. Filipic agreed. His hopes are that: we identify the significant problems, create a process, design a more effective management system with better use of teachers and data and improve our state of knowledge. Mr. DeMaria believes we are creating a framework to work towards a solution. If you ask an educator if the funding of $4,949 per pupil is the right amount you get a blank stare. If you develop ranges of policy options around what is bought with the $4,949, then you can have the debate about what needs to be done and the conversation is richer. Build the framework and then assess what happens with the investment if the solution is not working.
Timeline
Mr. Filipic told the group that we have six weeks to complete our mission. What do we need the staff to complete? Mr. Marshall told the group that there is still much work to complete: our research on Gap Aid districts, issues with the funding formula such as how to count enrollment and what to do with the cost of doing business factor. Mr. Marshall stated that the staff would provide the committee with inputs and cost ranges with some financial information but the committee must make the decisions on inputs. The committee members must have the final say. Committee members agreed to meet three more times in June, with dates to be determined. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
