Skip navigation.

Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of The Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success' website. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled. We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.

State of Ohio | Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success

Committees

Operations and Efficiency Committee

January 22, 2004 Minutes

Chairman Walt Davis called the Operations and Efficiency Committee to order at approximately 10:20 a.m. Committee members present included Chairman Walt Davis, Vice Chairman Denny Woods, Robert Gardner, Tom Johnson, Jim Mahoney, Barbara Sprague and David Varda. Other Task Force members present included Chairman William W. Wilkins and Barbara Shaner.

Presentations:

Health Care Insurance Issues

The first item on the day's agenda was a discussion of health care insurance. Chairman Davis asked if the committee should first decide whether it wants to recommend a statewide or a regional plan for the purchase of health care insurance. Mr. Woods responded that he would prefer not to specify either. If an expert consultant is engaged to make recommendations, whether the plan should be statewide or regional should depend on what the consultant determines is the best approach.

Mr. Mahoney observed that there seems to be a good opportunity for savings here. He suggested that someone who really knows this field should go through this and tell us what they think. He agreed that the committee's recommendations should not be too specific — that the specifics of the plan should come from the consultant's findings.

Mr. Woods stated that health care insurance is getting to be a bigger problem each year, but he does not feel comfortable making a statewide or regional heath care insurance plan mandatory for all school districts.

Mr. Johnson suggested that the committee could recommend that school districts consider forming labor/management health care committees, as is currently done by the State of Ohio.

Ms. Sprague asked how the regional or statewide purchase of health care insurance would affect negotiated agreements that are already in place. Health care is normally a big issue during negotiations and this will have a direct impact on those negotiated agreements. It was suggested that a three-year time lag for implementation be recommended.

Mr. Davis noted that he had just spoken to a large group of superintendents who, by and large, seemed to think that this was a good idea.

There was a general discussion regarding to whom the consultant would report findings. Mr. Marshall noted that there were many options in the state, but that this is a detail that could wait until enabling legislation is drafted. There was also discussion about establishing a timeline for completion of the expert consultant's report. The consensus of the committee was to allow a year for completion of this report.

Mr. Woods noted that even though a school district might not purchase through a particular consortium, the fact that one exists can have positive effects on rates. Carriers get afraid that you might go to the consortium so they keep their rates low.

Mr. Davis suggested that the expert consultant consider the following in making recommendations relative to health care insurance:

The expert consultant would be given one year to complete the study and issue recommendations.

Senator Gardner suggested that perhaps the consultant should work with associations such as the Ohio School Boards Association since they are going to be the ones impacted more directly.

Mr. Davis asked who should be in charge of the consultant's study. Mr. Woods suggested that it should be the governor, in conjunction with the appropriate agency.

Mr. Mahoney concluded the health care insurance discussion by opining that the committee should focus on "the what" and leave "the how" to the consultant and others.

Recommendations of the Governor's Commission on Teaching Success

One component of Governor Taft's charge to the Blue Ribbon Task Force is to consider the recommendations of the Governor's Commission on Teaching Success as recommendations are developed . In accordance with this directive, the Operations and Efficiency Committee reviewed the 15 recommendations of the Teaching Success Commission.

The first recommendation of the Commission was that Ohio "Adopt clear standards for what all teachers and principals should know and be able to do."

Senator Gardner noted that almost all of the recommendations of the Commission that require legislation are included in S.B. 2, which is currently in conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of this bill. Senator Gardner observed that one of the issues that needed to be resolved was the appointments to the 21-member Educator Standards Board, which is created in S.B. 2. The issue is whether certain stakeholders can just place members on this Board, or they offer nominees that would need to be approved by the governor before they would be seated. Senator Gardner wants nomination to be an open process, with the governor having final approval of membership. There seemed to be a consensus among committee members that the governor should have the right of final approval of members who would serve on the Educator Standards Board.

The second Commission recommendation was to "Develop a framework of essential criteria for school districts to follow when creating locally determined evaluation systems to assess the performance of teachers and principals." Senator Gardner stated that the Educator Standards Board will be responsible for putting together a boilerplate framework so that each school district will not need to develop its own evaluation system. He added that we need buy-in from school districts to do this. The Operations and Efficiency Committee had no further additions or clarifications to this recommendation of the Governor's Commission for Teaching Success.

The Commission's third recommendation was to "Establish an integrated, data-driven, statewide plan to assist school districts and schools in recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers, principals and other school personnel." Mr. Mahoney suggested that, given our charge, the committee should only review those recommendations that involve funding. He noted that the Commission has already considered these issues, so the Operations and Efficiency Committee does not need to duplicate their efforts. Mr. Davis wanted to be sure that this plan included administrators. Mr. Woods opined that mathematics, science and special education teachers should be included as well. Mr. Marshall noted that the purpose of this plan is to identify the problem areas, not necessarily to fix them.

The fourth recommendation of the Teaching Success Commission was to "Expand and develop the pool of high-quality teachers and principals by making more effective use of the state's colleges and universities." After a brief discussion, the committee decided that there was nothing to add to this recommendation.

The Commission's fifth recommendation was to "Use 'grow your own' recruitment strategies to recruit and retain high-quality teachers and principals in hard-to-staff schools." The committee had nothing to add to this recommendation.

The sixth recommendation was to "Improve teacher retention by creating teaching and learning environments characterized by a supportive professional culture; shared leadership; and time in the school day and school year for ongoing, job-embedded professional development and collaborative planning." Mr. Davis noted that it is difficult for schools to retain science and mathematics teachers because they are heavily recruited by industry, which can pay them more than they earn as teachers. Senator Gardner opined that the biggest reason teachers leave is because of the teaching environment. He agreed that mathematics and science teachers are being recruited, but he expressed concern that giving more money to some teachers than others might cause more problems than they solve. Pay differentials cause many problems with individuals and the unions.

Mr. Woods observed that this is a very important recommendation. We cannot train our teachers enough.

Mr. Mahoney suggested that administrative support is one of the biggest reasons teachers leave the profession. Professional development for administrators is important as well, because they are the main reason that their teachers stay or leave. The committee agreed that professional development should also be available to administrators.

Mr. Woods opined that job-embedded professional development needs to be part of the funding formula. The consensus of the committee was that job-embedded professional development should be highlighted and emphasized.

The seventh recommendation of the Teaching Success Commission was to "Raise the minimum salary for beginning teachers and assist school districts in developing and implementing new compensation systems that are linked to standards-based evaluations, that broaden the factors on which compensations is based and that include options for tiered career paths." Mr. Mahoney observed that there are many implications to raising the minimum teacher salary schedule in the current system. If you change the minimums, it has a very big ripple effect in the current system. This has to be done very carefully.

Senator Gardner noted that Ohio is probably ranked 30th or 35th in the country for starting salary, but about 15th in average salary. Once you get past the first few years, our teachers do very well. Mr. Mahoney cautioned that there are huge variances among school districts in how much teachers get paid.

The Commission's eighth recommendation was to "Ensure that teacher and principal preparation programs more closely reflect the realities and challenges educators face in today's classrooms by funding a variety of high-quality clinical and field experiences for teachers-in-training, principals-in-training and higher education faculty, including a variety of partnerships between teacher preparation programs and P-12 school districts."

Mr. Woods wanted to make sure that superintendents are included in this list.

Senator Gardner opined that there are lots of things that are important, but this one seems to be of particular importance. The committee should put its focus on this.

Mr. Mahoney suggested that this is an integral part of the system. This should be a line item in the SF-3. The consensus of the committee was that funding for this recommendation should be a part of any new funding scheme.

The ninth recommendation of the Teaching Success Commission was to "Strengthen teacher-and principal-preparation programs' accountability for the performance of their graduates." Mr. Woods wants to assure that there are adequate supplies of teachers across all areas of certification. Senator Gardner suggested that perhaps the committee should direct the Department of Education to monitor shortages and overages of various certifications in the state. (Mr. Marshall noted that the Department of Education does this currently.) Senator Gardner added that, perhaps in college, this information should be given to teachers-to-be so that they might be able to make their decisions based on what areas will have a high demand.

The Teacher Success Commission's tenth recommendation was to "Increase opportunities for qualified individuals to become teachers and principals through alternative routes — and ensure that all routes into teaching and the principalship are high-quality and standards-based." Senator Gardner noted that much has been done recently to facilitate alternative routes for becoming a teacher. Alternative licensure used to be very difficult, but now you just have to take a few courses in pedagogy and you can get your certificate.

Mr. Mahoney noted that in Texas they let other entities participate in this process, not just colleges and universities. He feels that this is an appropriate role for educational service centers and perhaps other regional providers. Mr. Marshall suggested that if the process for taking courses to achieve alternative licensure is changed that we also need to consider how to provide continuing education to other educators. Teachers now need to obtain the equivalent of a master's degree within their first 10 years of licensure to maintain their license. There was a consensus among committee members that it would be desirable to allow educational service centers to participate in the offering of educational training for those pursuing alternative certificates.

The 11th recommendation of the Commission was to "Require and fund high-quality induction experiences for all new teachers and principals, including those who enter the professions through alternative routes. In hard-to-staff schools, provide three years of structured mentoring designed to support teachers and principals." Senator Gardner noted that this is a funding issue. He suggested that, while it is addressed in S.B. 2, there might not be enough money to fund it. Mr. Woods wanted the committee to recommend full state funding for the induction-year program. It started with the state giving $2,000, and now it is down to $500. It has really become an unfunded mandate. The committee took no further action on the Teaching Success Commission's recommendation.

The Commission's 12th recommendation was to "Adopt statewide standards for professional development." The committee added nothing to this recommendation.

The 13th recommendation of the Teaching Success commission was to "Require and fund additional high-quality professional development for all licensed school personnel that is aligned with the state's academic content standards for students and that builds instructional capacity by focusing on the analysis and use of data to improve student achievement." Senator Gardner suggested that instead of supporting five additional days of professional development for teachers in academic emergency school districts, this recommendation should say 35 hours. This change would give more flexibility to school districts and might be better policy. There was consensus on the committee that this additional flexibility was desirable.

The Commission's 14th recommendation was to "Support teachers who pursue National Board Certification, reward those who attain National Board Certification and encourage school districts to engage National Board Certified teachers in ways that add value beyond their own classrooms." There was considerable committee discussion regarding the value of National Board Certification. The consensus of the committee was that the National Board Certification program should be evaluated to determine whether this certification does really translate into improved performance in the classroom. There was further consensus that teachers who demonstrate superior teaching skills should be recognized in some way.

The final recommendation of the Teaching Success Commission was to "Appoint a Task Force on Regional Service Delivery to develop a plan for aligning and restructuring Ohio's configuration of regional service delivery agencies." Mr. Davis noted that Roger Nehls of the Department of Education would be addressing this recommendation.

Ohio Regional Education Delivery System

Mr. Nehls provided an overview of the status of the Department of Education's work in developing an Ohio Regional Education Delivery System (OREDS), as required by H.B. 95. Mr. Nehls noted that the department has been meeting with many people in many places about the regionalization of educational service providers. He has some preliminary recommendations that have been released, but there is still time for the items to be changed. It is not yet a final report.

Mr. Nehls noted that the Department of Education is committed to the principles in the draft, but not necessarily to the words that are currently in the report. He is not sure what the right number of regions is — 10 or 12 is the guess at this time — but that can be changed.

Superintendents are the owners of the system, and if they are unhappy, they should have the ability to raise the issue and create change. A process has been identified that creates a governance structure controlled by the superintendents.

Mr. Nehls then outlined the plan for transition to OREDS. The Department of Education strongly believes that current regional entities need to be integrated into the OREDS, including data acquisition (DA) sites. Mr. Nehls noted that the role of DA sites is different than some of the other regional entities, making it vital to be included within the new organization.

The Department of Education's proposal will not require school districts to change their relationships with the DA sites, until some trigger event when the relationship would have to become more standardized. Some will be integrated much more quickly than others.

Mr. Nehls anticipates that much of the new enterprise will require more communication among the state to the regions and the regions to the state. He noted that the department has not made as much use of the Ohio Board of Regents or the Ohio Educational Telecommunications Network as they should. The department wants to include them much more significantly.

Mr. Nehls noted that there needs to be flexibility in order to customize services on the regional level. Accountability has been framed so that at every level of the system, improvement of academic performance is the measure of accountability. Many disagree with this measure, saying that that is unfair to require regional providers to be accountable for student achievement. Mr. Nehls explained that the state would not be dictating how, or that this is the only measure, but that this should be the focus of the end product. This keeps everyone in the same game and stimulates conversation so that there is interdependence among the parts of the system. If one part is not doing well, the other parts will create pressure for them to act.

The system will be driven by standards, not the Department of Education. What are the standards of operation and how do we define quality? There is a $6.50 per-pupil automatic deduction from school districts currently for educational service centers (ESCs). The department proposes taking away some of the flexibility that currently exists, by earmarking how some of those dollars must be spent. This change would give all local school districts an opportunity to direct those dollars to areas they wish to the ESCs with which they already have a relationship. It would also allow them to engage in relationships with other ESCs that might have a better product for their specific needs.

There will be some real tension in the system relative to policy. In the past, there has been an incentive to satisfy the market demands of your area. Data acquisition sites might get only 15% of their revenue from the state. Educational service centers might receive a third. We need to make sure that we do not break the business functions that have been established because of local needs.

Representative Harnett stated that the system should be as responsible as the people that they serve. If we are going to identify the student, building, and district as having problems, we should also identify the regional service provider as well. Mr. Nehls noted that the department has identified a strategy to do that. Representative Harnett added that if we have school districts that are doing well, things should stay the same for them, but if they are not doing well, the state should have more say in how things should change for them.

We should be directing the funds where the most good can be done. If students are having problems in one school district but not another, the funds should be aimed more to the students having problems.

Mr. Mahoney asked who decides who gets what. Since everyone is being merged into one service center, how do you figure out how everything is going to be provided, since the old systems have basically been thrown out? Mr. Nehls replied that it will be different in different areas. There will probably be different systems depending on the type of configurations and needs in that region. For example, there may be some regions where everyone receives free or low-cost programs for those who are in academic emergency, those getting Title I money, and so on. Each region also is unique and will want to tailor its regional structure around those unique items.

Mr. Mahoney asked who will mediate disagreements. Mr. Nehls responded that the superintendents' governing structure will be in charge of dealing with that type of situation.

Representative Harnett asked how the department would see to the advancement of students who are not currently achieving. That should be the first thing that these regions should be doing before getting to secondary items (like buying more films for the library). Mr. Nehls replied that the department agrees with this view.

Mr. Davis asked if the OREDS proposal would allow us to do the same with less money or more with the same money. What efficiencies are made with this plan?

Mr. Nehls replied that the state will be able to do more with the same amount of money. There should be greater effectiveness and efficiency for school districts, with products that are more focused to district needs. Cost savings occur downstream, meaning that you might be able to have people purchase facilities instead of paying rent. We could have paid for a many facilities with all the rent that the state has paid over the years.

Mr. Woods asked what happens to the governing boards of the regional entities when they are incorporated into OREDS. Mr. Nehls replied that there will be a new governance structure for all of these organizations as they transfer over to the new organization. Each region will have just one board.

Mr. Wilkins asked whether the new organizations are instruments of the state or of the school districts. Mr. Nehls responded that they will be instruments of the school districts but contracted with the state.

Mr. Wilkins noted that no amount of money by itself guarantees student success, but money is one of the key elements needed for student success. A funding formula cannot be created so that it takes care of implementation issues. Intervention can only be provided for school districts by the Department of Education and educational service centers. Where in the new plan is intervention provided?

Mr. Nehls replied that the contracts have not yet been written. Our notion is that if school district superintendents are not happy with the service they receive they will be able to change the new organization so that they become happy with it. With accountability across every element, it might point out problems. If the new organization is performing well in some school districts but not others, perhaps it is a problem with the remaining school districts.

Chairman Davis noted that the Operations and Efficiency Committee's next meeting is February 6, which is the last one scheduled. He suggested that there should be one last call for issues. The agenda for February's meeting might be to invite all the committee members to give the items that need to be cleaned up.

Mr. Marshall asked that all ideas from the committee be given to Mr. Davis and Mr. Woods by January 29th.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:00 p.m.



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


THE FINAL REPORT
Governor Taft reading with a student.