Committees
Funding for Success Committee
June 17, 2004 Minutes
Committee members present included Chairman Matthew Filipic, Vice Chairman Richard Maxwell, Eric Burkland, Paolo DeMaria, Russ Harris, Representative James Hoops, Senator C.J. Prentiss, Dennis Woods, and Scott Williams. Other Task Force members present included Chairman William W. Wilkins and Vice Chairman James Hyre. Chairman Filipic called the meeting to order at approximately 10:10 a.m.
Presentations:
- Base Cost Policy Discussion (PDF*, 125 KB)
- Counting Enrollment in the Foundation Model (PDF*, 6 KB)
Base Cost Policy Discussion
The first agenda item was a presentation by Ms. Kelly Weir entitled Base Cost Policy Discussion. The text of this presentation is a separate link on the Task Force's website. The minutes reflect the discussion resulting from Ms. Weir's presentation.
Mr. Harris opined that it costs more than $1.8 million for each dollar added to the per-pupil foundation level. Ms. Weir responded that the estimated cost of $1.8 million for each dollar added to the foundation level considers only the cost of increasing the per-pupil amount: The net effect on the entire foundation program is a $1.6 million increase for every additional dollar. Ms. Weir added that the reason for the lower number is that many districts are on a guarantee and so do not benefit from the increase.
Mr. Harris also noted that the average teacher salary used to compare Ohio to the nation will increase considerably next year. The Ohio average teacher salary will increase from $45,490 for fiscal year 2003 to $48,042 for fiscal year 2004 (a 5.6% increase). Mr. Harris suggested that this increase might be caused by some downward pressure in the prior years where there had been little or no increase in the salaries of teachers.
Mr. Maxwell asked what the statewide regular teacher salary is. Ms. Weir responded that the average regular teacher salary for FY 2003 was $43,265. He then asked how the class size of the Gap Aid districts compares to the statewide average class size. Task Force staff will research this question and report the answer to the committee.
Senator Prentiss would like to move toward a class size of 15 as the committee discusses additions to the base-cost formula.
Mr. Burkland asked whether the state captures salary data by subject and by grade level. Ms. Weir responded that she was not sure, but thought that salary information may be available by grade level but not by discipline. Task Force staff will find the answer and report to the committee. Mr. Burkland stated that if school districts do not have these data, he does not see how they can redeploy their resources to achieve better results.
Mr. Filipic noted that salary differences by discipline among higher education faculty are huge, but he is not sure what the differences are in primary and secondary education. Mr. Marshall added that school districts' salary schedules are for all teachers, not for particular disciplines. Years of experience, not discipline, determine salary levels.
A general committee discussion about how "class size" is determined ensued. Mr. Maxwell noted that "pupil-teacher ratios" include all teachers (such as physical education, art and music) and it is the class room size that is important.
Senator Prentiss returned the attention of the committee to the 26 Gap Aid districts. She expressed her concern that these school districts are too far from the average Ohio school district. She asked how the committee can arrive at a base cost looking at these school districts, which are so different from the state of Ohio as a whole.
Mr. Filipic responded that these districts show how schools that have achieved some measure of success with a bare minimum of resources are spending their money. The intention is to use the spending of these districts as a starting point for our discussion. We also have many school districts that are augmenting this amount with local levies. Mr. Filipic opined that the committee needs to determine if this is a good starting point, because any money the committee adds to the base is money that we cannot target toward special needs.
Mr. Maxwell opined that this is a good way of looking at things. We are at a point where we can say, is this what we want as a base? Before now, we did not really know what the base cost bought. Now, we can see if we agree that these are appropriate salaries and class sizes.
Mr. Harris repeated that 80% of school districts that have this level of funding are not effective or excellent. He opined that they do not receive enough funding to do anything. We do not know what we are buying with funding of $5,000 per pupil. You say that we are paying certain salaries and have class sizes of 20. However, we do not know what else we are doing with these resources. Are there advanced-placement courses and curricula for college-bound students? We cannot base our model on an 80% failure rate. Mr. Harris advocated again for an independent study to determine what an adequate level of funding should be in Ohio. Mr. Harris suggested that, in lieu of this study, the committee look at all the excellent and effective school districts and see what they are spending per pupil. He stated that the average fiscal year 2003 spending for these school districts was about $5,900 per pupil.
Mr. Maxwell noted that the committee is not saying that $4,949 per pupil is the appropriate base-funding level. The purpose of going through this analysis is to determine what this level of funding is buying so that the committee can then decide what else should be included in this amount.
Senator Prentiss stated that she does not want to look at minimal programs.
She feels that the committee needs to determine a realistic base cost. Mr. Maxwell replied that $4,949 per pupil is simply the starting point. The committee's task is to determine what the new number should be by deciding what needs to be added to $4,949 per pupil.
Mr. DeMaria added that, if the committee wants to build a base-cost model using a higher teacher salary, we can do that. That is our policy decision.
Mr. Marshall interjected that there is a range of decisions that the committee can make to the base cost. Staff has focused on the main cost drivers, which are teachers' salaries and class size. Nobody is saying this spending level is enough. We are just identifying what is being bought with this level of spending.
Mr. DeMaria noted that these are the costs if class sizes are reduced or teachers' salaries are increased for everyone. Maybe we lower class sizes but keep salaries the same, or the reverse. There are tradeoffs that can be made.
Mr. Harris stated that this approach just measures salaries. We are not looking at these school districts' educational programs. We need to find school districts that have the full range of educational opportunities. We should look at some of those districts and determine how much these educational opportunities cost. What are the teachers teaching? What opportunities are there? What courses are offered? These are the questions.
Mr. Burkland opined that this line of thinking is a different world than his. He finds it difficult to comprehend how educators look at themselves. He thought that the committee was starting with some definition of success. If that is getting into Ohio State or achieving a certain score on the ACT that is very different from what we said we were seeking.
Mr. Harris stated that the approach being used, by definition, will result in the current base cost. Mr. Burkland responded that this implies that the committee is rigging the results to arrive at a predetermined result. That is not his purpose. In his opinion, this approach gives committee members a foundation that can be used to build on for the future. There are similar school districts that have similar amounts of money that have very different levels of success. Mr. Burkland wants to examine practices and fund those that are successful.
Mr. Woods stated that he saw a common road between the two extremes. If you find that your model is funding a lower than average ACT score, that says something about the program. You have a good starting point but you need to dig deeper. You are achieving success based on proficiency scores, but you are not doing well enough for the higher education institutions of the state. He suggested that more research was necessary.
Senator Prentiss opined that the committee is trying to fund a minimal level of education with its base cost. She does not believe that is the best place to start. She is troubled by this approach. Mr. Marshall replied that nobody is suggesting that the amount being discussed is the right number. This is the starting point for discussions, not the end product.
Mr. Filipic stated that he was confused why some committee members are comparing a minimum to an average. If the committee uses an average to determine a new minimum, the average will continue to increase. We would end up in a cycle of chasing an average. Mr. Filipic believes that committee members should be asking whether the amount under discussion is adequate, and if not, what should we be adding.
Mr. Maxwell noted that if the committee recommended a class size of 18 and the current average salary, the per-pupil foundation level would be $5,800.
Mr. Harris observed that inputs include more than just teachers' salaries.
Mr. Filipic suggested that many of the school districts that the committee has heard from have achieved success by having good data. Access to good data is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for school districts to make progress. All school districts should know what their students are learning. This should be a minimal requirement of all school districts, not a function of poverty.
Mr. Harris and Senator Prentiss both expressed again their concerns regarding the use of Gap Aid districts as the starting point for committee discussion.
Mr. Maxwell suggested that school districts' fiscal problems being highlighted by the five-year forecasts might be part of a structural problem, not a part of adequacy. We can be arguing adequacy for another 12 years. If we can solve Phantom Revenue, that would be an accomplishment. Passing levies with what we have is really hard. If this system allows us to sell a levy by telling voters something specific that we plan on buying with the money, this is more important information than we have right now.
Mr. Filipic opined that the committee's recommendations should include something to fund data-based decision making capacity for all school districts. He stated that his bias is to fund this for school districts whether they already have it or not, so as to not penalize school districts who have taken the initiative with their own funds.
Mr. Maxwell noted that if funding for data-based decision making becomes a part of the foundation it might disappear, since we do not track funds that way. If the decision is to fund this input outside of the foundation we can track it.
Mr. Filipic added that the real issue in his mind is not the base cost, but the interaction between the formula and local property taxes. Whatever the committee proposes will be inadequate if the local revenue stream proposed by the Revenue and Taxation Committee is inadequate. He stated that the Funding for Success Committee needs to focus its attention on the needs of poor children. If there is money to spend, that is where we should put it.
Mr. Burkland stated that he likes the approach being used by the committee because the committee is looking at school districts that are doing well by the standards that we currently have. If we decide that orchestra is important, we can fund that. If we only talk about averages, we do not get anywhere. If we talk programs, we can actually move forward.
Senator Prentiss observed that the committee only has so much time to work on this before being done in August. We know what inadequacy is. We need to move to where we want to go.
Mr. Harris opined that the premise that these 26 Gap Aid school districts are doing well is wrong. They are not doing well. They are not getting a complete academic core program, there are no advanced placement courses and their students are not getting ready for college. They are meeting the state's artificial standards.
Mr. DeMaria asked Mr. Harris if he was suggesting that we should revisit the criteria for success. Mr. Harris replied that part of the process of funding a high-quality education is defining what should be included in it. Once you decide the components you can cost it out. We are saying that effective and excellent are good enough without knowing what their education standards actually are. If we would have hired national professionals we would have gotten that. We do not have time to do that now.
Mr. DeMaria responded that the 26 Gap Aid school districts are good districts. If all school districts were as good as these he would be happier than he is today. He added that it does not take more money to make the courses more rigorous. It takes demand for more rigorous courses. Deployment issues play a part of this. We do not mandate advanced placement courses. That is a policy question.
Mr. Wilkins stated that the committee now knows what makes up the $4,949. The question is whether that is a satisfactory number. Perhaps when we are done building the number we will have more satisfaction.
Mr. Maxwell suggested that the committee begin by continuing the discussion of the two major cost drivers that was begun in the morning. Senator Prentiss agreed that this is where the committee should begin its discussions. Mr. Maxwell suggested that the committee consider using the state's unweighted average salary for all school districts in lieu of the roughly $40,000 average teacher salary of the Gap Aid school districts.
Mr. Filipic asked Mr. Maxwell to provide a rationale for this action. Mr. Maxwell responded that the foundation formula is going to be based on all school districts so the formula should use the statewide average of teacher salaries.
Mr. Filipic questioned increasing the salary amount. All we know about the $43,265 is that it is an average. Is that enough or is it too much? We do not know anything about the number.
Mr. Maxwell asked if we should base our formula on the salaries of people who are at the minimum (and with 80% not doing well). He suggested that we need to bring the bottom half up.
Mr. Harris stated that local levies are paying for a lot more than just teacher salaries. You have to rob from the regular programs to pay for the rest of the mandated programs.
Mr. Woods observed that two things drive teachers' salaries: the salary schedule and longevity. Mr. Burkland asked what the relationship is between those two things and success.
Mr. Woods replied that you need a balance of new and experienced teachers. You need new teachers who have new ideas that help the school district as a whole. Too many of either group is bad.
Representative Hoops added that teachers who have been teaching for 30 years now want to stay for 35. He hears that the reason they are staying is for the better retirement benefits, which is costing the school districts money and not bringing in the new blood. We moved it to 35 years because we were not seeing enough teachers coming into the field. Are we doing this for the right reasons? Is this helping?
Mr. Maxwell opined that teachers also are staying longer because of concerns with health care costs. A higher salary might allow the hiring of more experienced teachers.
Mr. Filipic noted that he could understand a recommendation to change the class size. He does not understand why the committee would take an average salary and make it the minimum. Why would we recommend this?
Mr. Harris stated that he does not have a good policy reason for this. He believes that we do not have a better number than the state average. If the legislature does not like the number we give them, they will change it.
Mr. Filipic does not know if $40,307 is the right number. He would like to hear an argument that demonstrated why a different number was better. If we were going to bring everyone up or down to the average, that would be one thing, but that is not what is being suggested.
Mr. DeMaria observed that whatever salary level the committee decides is appropriate does not change any salaries. This is still a decision for the local school district to make. He supports making the number higher, but does not support tying it to the average teacher salary. If we do that we will always be behind. Mr. DeMaria tends to believe that the best way to increase teacher quality is to increase professional development more than salary. What is the policy that we are trying to embed in this process? If it is the quality of the teaching corps, more money for professional development might be the way to go about this.
Mr. Burkland asked what the relationship is between the compensation of teachers and the success of students. If salary is based on longevity and training, he is unclear how the committee can arrive at a number here that relates to improved student success.
Mr. DeMaria remarked that, if there are always federal funds and some school districts that want to raise funds on their own, we can not take that out of the overall scheme. It is easy to miss that with all of the problems that so many districts are having, but the base cost does not stand alone and support all of the distribution.
Senator Prentiss opined that, because the base cost is so low it erodes the choices that school districts can make. Why would we set this at a level that, regardless of grants and levies, keeps school districts from having a successful program?
Mr. DeMaria stated that when someone writes a grant, it is not to raise salaries; it is to fund a certain program or project. That is where the success is.
Committee Discussion – Decision Points for Six Inputs
After lunch, Mr. Filipic called on Mr. Marshall, who provided updated information on the expenditures of the six high-poverty school districts that staff has identified. Mr. Marshall reviewed the data that had been updated from that which had been presented to the committee at its June 7th meeting. Mr. Filipic reminded committee members that they were now discussing the additional needs of high-poverty school districts, not base costs.
Mr. Marshall asked whether committee members were comfortable with the salaries and pupil-teacher ratios that staff has developed from the six school districts. He noted that staff recommended that the committee use the middle range of costs since this is probably more reflective of the costs statewide.
Senator Prentiss asked if the recommendation was to use the mid-range cost, even for school districts whose costs are above this mid-range. Mr. Marshall responded that the staff recommends using the mid-range cost. Senator Prentiss said that the state would then be paying $20 an hour for intervention services when it costs Cleveland $38 an hour. What is the state's responsibility for this expenditure? We need to come to what the real cost is.
Mr. Woods opined that the committee should be looking at all children who require intervention, not just poverty students, because they are all legally required to receive intervention.
Mr. Marshall noted that the purpose of the analysis conducted by staff was to look at the needs of school districts that have the greatest number of economically disadvantaged students. These students have been the top priority of the committee since the beginning.
Mr. DeMaria added that the committee does not want to create a system where, when someone succeeds, they get less money or one where they necessarily get more money for more failure. There is no perfect solution here.
Mr. Marshall iterated that the proposal before the committee is only the starting point. If the committee begins with an hourly teacher salary of $20 for intervention, the committee might not want to give Steubenville $20 an hour because that is too much, or that $20 an hour is too little in Cleveland. The committee can mold this formula as it wishes.
Mr. Harris opined that is not as simple as giving $20 an hour and making this work. Instead of having one hourly rate for intervention, he believes that perhaps we should have four levels of intervention. We need that kind of detail so that we are targeting the children who really need the help. We cannot treat all children who require intervention alike. We need to be more discriminating than that.
Senator Prentiss added that the law provides designations for children of basic, below basic and so on. This gives you some range of the levels of knowledge that students have. There is a continuum of need for intervention.
Mr. Marshall interjected that staff is not advocating anything. Staff is looking at what exists. In the data that staff is presenting, there are children who are receiving one or two hours of help, and some who are receiving hundreds of hours of assistance.
Mr. Maxwell suggested that, before the committee gets specific, there are some policy issues to be discussed. Are we dealing with all children or just those that are economically disadvantaged? Are we attempting to address intervention as an input or levels of intervention? Do we have a system that is going to provide funds based upon success? These are the policy issues.
Mr. Woods stated his belief that it is a good idea for a school district to identify students who need intervention before they fail the tests. Providing preventive intervention to these children would be a good place to put money. As a superintendent, he would not mind losing intervention money if he did not have children who needed it.
Mr. Maxwell asked if it was worth the committee's time to go over how staff developed the model being discussed. For example, where did the staff get 60 hours of summer school and 300 hours of before- and after-school intervention?
Mr. Marshall responded that the data in the model are based on what staff learned from the six districts being analyzed. Data elements in the model are overall averages. The needs of individual students will vary widely.
Senator Prentiss asked what the numbers of students shown for Cleveland mean. Mr. Marshall replied that two numbers are listed. One column lists the number of students that the school district estimated actually received intervention. The second column provides the number of students that the district estimates it would provide intervention to if it possessed sufficient revenue. The model costs are based on the total number of economically disadvantaged students in Ohio.
Mr. Filipic observed that, in the course of the committee's discussion, we have gone back and forth between statewide approaches and ones that are specific to certain districts. If school districts spend different amounts for various services, what is the state's responsibility? If Cleveland spends $60 an hour, is the state's responsibility $60? Mr. Filipic does not believe that is the state's responsibility.
Senator Prentiss stated that if $60 an hour is what it takes, that is what we should fund. If the committee comes up some place in between, that seems to fund incorrectly.
Mr. Filipic asked how much control school districts have over their costs. He suggested that they might be victims of their environment or they might have chosen to go in a certain direction.
Senator Prentiss remarked that teachers' salary schedules are different because of union agreements and where they live. There are very different agreements everywhere. Senator Prentiss asked if Mr. Filipic was suggesting that the committee ignore these differences. Mr. Filipic responded that if the committee recommends paying school districts whatever they spend that will lead to increased spending all around with no extra benefit.
Senator Prentiss stated that she wants the committee's recommendation to be reality-based instead of something that is so far from realities that children fall out of the safety net. This would lead us to pay half of the actual costs in Cleveland.
Mr. Hyre asked if Cleveland receives additional dollars for intervention right now. Senator Prentiss replied that Cleveland receives funding for intervention from the Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid (DPIA) program and from other sources. Mr. Hyre noted that all those additional dollars will still be available in addition to the funding that the committee is discussing.
Senator Prentiss said that she thought the committee was cleaning the slate and starting fresh and these were all the money that schools would be receiving. The question is then, how much does it cost so that every child who needs intervention receives intervention?
Mr. Hyre observed that the committee needs to set some reasonable amount. The committee is trying to allocate funds and we cannot do that. Give the money to the Department of Education and let them determine the allocation. Mr. Hyre continued that the committee should not get bogged down on determining whether teachers should be paid $20 or $40 per hour. The committee should be focusing on what we should do for intervention.
Mr. Woods stated that the committee should focus on all children who need intervention, not just those who are economically disadvantaged.
Mr. Filipic reminded the committee that our focus of attention is on the success, or lack thereof, of poor children. Some other children need intervention and some economically disadvantaged children do not require intervention, but the success rates with economically disadvantaged children are much lower than for other students. We are trying to look at a range of investments that might help economically disadvantaged students succeed. We have developed some estimates for what different programs might cost and extrapolated them to the universe of disadvantaged students.
Mr. Woods noted that all students have to pass required tests so school districts should receive money from the state to assist these students, whether they are economically disadvantaged or not.
Mr. Burkland suggested that the committee has been trying to understand where state dollars can best be used to achieve the ends that the state wants. One of the things we have learned is that a high concentration of poverty is a driver that needs to be addressed. If that is the case, what kinds of additional programs can we put in place for poor children?
Mr. Woods remarked that it should not be called intervention then. It is actually supplemental services for disadvantaged students.
Mr. Maxwell opined that the committee could perhaps add a weight to the per-pupil foundation number for disadvantaged students.
Mr. Harris stated his belief that there is a state responsibility regarding proficiency tests. He believes that not all intervention is related to proficiency tests. He does not see the need for the committee to determine what hourly rates should be. Those decisions will be made locally. All the committee has to say is that they will be compensated adequately.
Mr. Maxwell interjected that, if the committee looks at intervention as a function of hours, then we can relate students to base cost.
Mr. Harris opined that state-level numbers do not give you costs for intervention. You cannot have one cost for intervention because all children are different. You need a report from every school district that shows which students need help and how much they need.
Representative Hoops asked where the parents fit into this calculation. There are probably children that the schools are trying to help, but cannot because there is a lack of parental involvement. Mr. Harris stated his belief that schools must have resources to give to parents so that the parents can help.
Mr. Filipic asked if there is a difference between what the committee can recommend and what ultimately needs to be done. He thought that the committee was attempting to estimate an amount that they might recommend for intervention. He did not assume that this per-student amount was the sum that would need to be spent on every single child. The Department of Education would make some decisions regarding the allocation of those funds. The committee is trying to calculate a benchmark amount of money to deal with this problem.
Mr. Harris stated that the committee should recommend different levels of intervention. If a child needs lots of intervention, the committee should recommend that this child requires more intervention than someone who is close to meeting the standards.
Senator Prentiss added that the law requires that school districts provide intervention to all children who require it. It is the state's responsibility to fund the amount of intervention that these children need.
Representative Hoops opined that perhaps we could have weights for intervention the way we do for children with disabilities.
Mr. Maxwell suggested that the committee could begin with the three levels of intervention recommended by Mr. Harris, determine how many hours each of them requires and then find out how many children need each level of help. These costs should be related to the foundation number.
Senator Prentiss expressed her concern that the committee will not recommend an overall school funding system that changes everything. There are children all over the state who are failing and they need help. Focusing only on economically disadvantaged children does not help all of these children. We have never dealt with the impact that rich parents have on student achievement.
Mr. Maxwell responded that the committee is considering policies that deal with exactly what Senator Prentiss is saying. The draft recommendations from staff note which of the interventions should be funded for all school districts.
Mr. Woods expressed his concern that the committee might recommend something that does not call for funding for all children who need intervention. Mr. Burkland replied that the state has limited resources and the committee members need to target them to the best of our ability. We need the best return for our investment.
Mr. Filipic noted that the committee is still dealing with the same impasse that has been discussed for several meetings. He does not believe that there is any reasonable prospect that the committee will recommend, or the legislature approve, some of the concepts that have been discussed. Mr. Filipic believes that the committee should consider what can be enacted and focus on poor children who have not been successful. The committee can either move towards this end or continue on our current path and tell the Task Force that we could not come to a decision.
Mr. Harris responded that some of the things the legislature has mandated are good ideas, and he hopes they will be funded in the future. He believes that the committee cannot recommend a solution that does not even get us through the current biennium. He would prefer that the committee recommend a good system that cannot be funded currently than to just have a short-term solution that does not lead to anything. He hopes that the committee issues recommendations that solve problems in the long run. It is that simple.
Mr. Filipic replied that a solution is not that simple and he does not believe that there is any agreement that it is. He does not believe that the committee has come to the conclusion that the only way to solve these problems is to spend more money. He would like to focus on the needs of poor children. Our recommendations are the beginning, not the final solution. Our goal must be to get to a point that is better than where we are today. If we can promote a plan that shows what we are buying with our money we will be in a better position to argue for more funds. We need to acknowledge that whatever we recommend is only a partial solution.
Mr. Filipic asked Mr. Marshall to proceed through the policy questions and staff recommendations, focusing on the staff's prioritization of the six inputs: data-based decision making, professional development, student intervention, parental involvement, early childhood education and class-size reduction.
The committee's staff recommends that the committee use the poverty indicator developed by the Legislative Office of Education Oversight (LOEO). This indicator seems to be the most reflective of need.
Senator Prentiss asked whether the committee was considering reallocating current education funding, requesting new funding, or some combination of both to pay for the intervention and other inputs for school districts with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged children. Mr. Filipic responded that he would rather target the funding for the cost-of-doing-business factor toward intervention. Mr. DeMaria added that the reallocated money could be used for any of the six inputs, not just intervention.
Senator Prentiss wants a really strong recommendation relative to class size. She believes that we need to change the definition of what constitutes class size. The current definition is much too broad. We need to make sure that the additional dollars are used to reduce class sizes.
Mr. Filipic noted that the staff recommended that funding for class-size reduction would be separate.
Mr. Marshall added that staff suggested that funding be linked to the foundation, so that it would go up with any increase in the foundation. However, the use of the funds would be restricted to reducing class sizes.
Mr. Filipic asked committee members if there were inputs other than the six listed by staff that should be included in the committee's recommendations.
Senator Prentiss would like to include a recommendation for funding for the costs of English as a Second Language (ESL).
Mr. Marshall stated that ESL students are concentrated in the major urban centers. The Department of Education estimates that there are about 21,000 of these students, but they have a significant impact on those urban districts that have the highest concentration of them.
Senator Prentiss observed that class size, professional development, intervention and early childhood education are listed in a legislative handbook as things that help schools.
Mr. Maxwell asked if we should fund ESL costs through an earmark or a weight. He suggested that it might be better to use a weight the way the state does for special education.
Mr. Marshall noted that the statewide ESL estimate is based on Cleveland's reported expenditures for their ESL teachers and aides. It shows how much it costs above the foundation amount to teach an ESL child.
Senator Prentiss opined that there is a real problem with finding teachers who can communicate with these students. We need to make sure that this is part of our final report. We should get the definition from the federal definition of ESL.
Mr. Harris suggested that we might want to focus resources on high-poverty school districts first, but it is important that funding for all school districts be phased in.
Mr. Marshall stated that the staff's recommendation relative to parental involvement was to provide state support to the large urban school districts. The cost of parental involvement in smaller school districts is very minor, but larger school districts might need to expend significant resources to involve their parents.
Mr. Harris feels that the 21 urban school districts should be the minimum number of school districts that would receive funding for parental involvement. Parental involvement is extremely important to teachers. The return on this investment would be huge.
Mr. Maxwell asked Mr. Harris if he was suggesting that the committee recommend a policy of phasing in funding by targeting state resources to those with the most need then expand it over time to all school districts. Mr. Harris agreed, but noted that he means targeting the 21 urban school districts, not just the "Big 8" school districts.
Mr. Filipic indicated that he does not have strong feelings for either the Big 8 or Urban 21 threshold, but noted that this does seem to be a very important factor.
Mr. Harris observed that the Urban 21 school districts have 24% of the state's students.
Mr. Filipic reviewed for the committee that the staff's top two recommendations are that the state pay for software costs of data-based decision making and professional development in the use of the data for all school districts. There was no dissent. He observed that this is probably the cheapest way to achieve some level of success. Once we find out what we get from a functional data system, then we have a problem of unknown magnitude that we will have to deal with.
Mr. Filipic asked for committee members' opinions regarding when the state should require that money be allocated to school districts for a specific purpose and when the state should just give them extra money that may be used for that purpose.
Mr. DeMaria suggested that there is something to be said for flexibility and the people in the best position to make decisions on how money should be spent are the people in those buildings. There is some pressure by the public to get things done. Maybe the committee could set criteria where schools are given flexibility unless they are not successful, in which case the state could be prescriptive in how these dollars are spent.
Mr. Burkland asked how we could make sure that school districts actually use data to make decisions. Mr. Marshall responded that the state has some models for assuring accountability in the expenditure of funds.
Senator Prentiss asked if the state could receive a report at the end of the year that says how school districts used the money. Mr. Marshall responded that this requirement would mean the generation of more than 600 reports that someone would have to read. Senator Prentiss stated that she just wants schools to prepare the reports. She does not need an evaluation of them.
Senator Prentiss expressed that she has a difficult time prioritizing the inputs. We need data-based decision making, professional development and intervention right now.
Mr. Filipic replied that his interpretation of the staff's recommendations is that they are a relative weight of priorities. It is not worth doing the second priority if you do not fund the first is what staff is saying. He does not think that staff is recommending delaying funding for intervention until a later biennium.
Senator Prentiss asked the staff to explain the class-size reduction recommendation. Mr. Marshall responded that research says that class-size reduction helps the most with children of poverty and minorities, and that is where we would start. If you found it to be successful, in time you could expand it to additional children as well.
Senator Prentiss observed that to implement class-size reduction successfully, school districts need adequate space and numbers of teachers. She believes that the committee should recommend that the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) build classrooms that support a class size of 15. Right now their guidelines all but prohibit such arrangements.
Mr. DeMaria suggested that the committee should get a better idea of what the OSFC is doing. If a school is getting money for all-day kindergarten OSFC would build the building to fit this program.
Mr. Filipic asked that staff consider whether there is a logical flaw in developing a cost per student for those who need intervention using only the costs for students who are poor. Is this the right thing to do?
Mr. Marshall said this is a proxy for a number that is not really knowable. Mr. Marshall indicated that staff would take another look at this, with the caution that we need to be mindful that we are dealing with orders of magnitude. Given the data available we cannot put too fine a point on any cost estimates.
Mr. Burkland opined that getting on the right path is probably the right goal at this point, since we do not have the data to put a point on everything. Putting the emphasis on poverty does seem like a good place to start.
Mr. Filipic asked staff to look at the data we have and ask the question, does the number of poor students in a school district relate to the additional number of students needing intervention? For example, compare the number of students who need intervention to the number of poor students.
Mr. Harris distributed some materials dealing with professional development and described them for the committee. He wants funding for professional development that is much broader than just data-based decision making. He observed that school-focused professional development is very important.
Counting Enrollment in the Foundation Model
Mr. Schaller provided an overview for the committee of average daily membership (ADM) versus average daily attendance (ADA) as methods for counting students. He noted that there are variations in how states use ADM to count students, with some counting more than once a year.
Mr. Schaller went through the benefits and disadvantages of each method. His presentation is posted on the Task Force's website.
Currently, Ohio uses the ADM method of calculating enrollment. We use current year ADM to calculate funding. In the past, the greater of a three-year average or the current year was used. This method protected school districts whose enrollments were declining.
Mr. Filipic asked about using the three-year average. Is this essentially the same as using last year's enrollment? Mr. Schaller answered that it was for districts with declining enrollment. There followed a brief discussion of why the three-year average enrollment alternative was dropped in the current budget.
Mr. Filipic asked a question about rewarding higher attendance. How much control does the school district have over attendance? Senator Prentiss opined that school districts cannot be held accountable for mobility.
Mr. Maxwell noted that school districts already have a strong incentive to get students to school because of the strong accountability systems in place. He feels that we should continue funding on ADM. Consensus was to continue with ADM and restore three-year averaging.
Chairman Filipic adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:10 p.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
