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

October 13, 2003 Minutes

The meeting of the Operations and Efficiency Committee began at approximately 10:00 am. In attendance were committee chair Walter Davis, vice chair Dennis Woods, and committee members Robert Gardner, William Hartnett, Thomas Johnson, David Locke, James Mahoney, Jennifer Sheets, Barbara Sprague and David Varda. Other Task Force members in attendance were John Brandt, James Hyre, Daniel Navin and Barbara Shaner.

Chairman Davis introduced Dr. Steven Hinshaw, who presented the findings of his doctoral dissertation, entitled "Assessing Efficiency of Ohio's Public School Districts."

Dr. Hinshaw noted that efficiency is not the same as effectiveness. He defined efficiency as a measure of the relationship between inputs and outputs. Effectiveness "only measures the intended, expected effects (outputs) without regard to inputs." The question that Dr. Hinshaw addressed in his dissertation was, "Which variables are statistically significant in predicting efficiency in Ohio public school districts?" The 22 input variables are independent, while the 27 output variables are dependent. He evaluated the correlation between these inputs and outputs using a stepwise multiple regression analysis. All data came from the Ohio Department of Education's Education Management Information System (EMIS).

The 22 input variables included enrollment size, percent of students with disabilities, median income, student mobility, average number of students per teacher, percentage of appropriately certificated teachers, teacher attendance rate, revenue per pupil (federal, state, local and total), and the per-pupil spending amounts for instruction, building operations, administration, pupil support, staff support, and total. The dependent 27 output variables Dr. Hinshaw used were the 2001 Report Card indicators for each school district. Twenty-five of the indicators are proficiency test results, with the other two being student attendance and graduation rates.

Nine of the 22 input variables (federal revenue per pupil, median income, enrollment, teacher attendance rate, spending on pupil support, spending on building operations, percent of students with disabilities, state revenue per pupil and students in same school less than half the year) were statistically significant. Of the nine, median income, teacher attendance rate and per-pupil spending on pupil support were correlated positively with efficiency. The other six were correlated negatively.

In concluding, Dr. Hinshaw offered three implications for policy, four implications for practice and four implications for research.

Policy Implications

  1. Since several factors explain student performance, measuring all school districts on one scale is insufficient.
  2. Efficiency and effectiveness are not the same. Effectiveness considers only level of output. Efficiency is the combination of inputs and outputs.
  3. Funding all districts on the same scale may be insufficient.

Practice Implications

  1. Increase per-pupil spending on pupil support
  2. Decrease per-pupil spending on building operations (Dr. Hinshaw noted that a separate capital improvement levy may allow for more operating funds to be targeted to pupil support)
  3. Improve teacher attendance
  4. Decrease student enrollment (perhaps create separate districts within one large district).

Research Implications

  1. Use databases other than Ohio's EMIS (such as Census 2000 or National Center for Education Statistics databases) to compare results.
  2. Research how spending can maximize predicted levels of efficiency.
  3. Use statistical methods other than regression analysis and then compare results.
  4. Research the combination of inputs to better predict proficiency test results in specific subjects.

Dr. Hinshaw closed by observing that his study was not meant to be used as a statistical excuse for underperforming school districts. He noted that a colleague is completing a comparable study using Census 2000 data instead of (EMIS) data. Given the negative correlation between school districts size and efficiency, a committee member noted that the committee should probably examine school district size. Another member asked, "Do we have the correct number of schools in the right places?" He noted that there are two kinds of efficiencies – academic and financial. Academic efficiency might suffer with size, even if financial efficiency improves.

In response to a question related to the negative correlation between federal aid per pupil and efficiency, Dr. Hinshaw noted that more federal aid illustrated that these districts tended to be poorer. Statistically, poorer school districts tend to have lower proficiency test scores (which are 25 of the 27 output measures). Dr. Hinshaw found no statistically significant relationship with total revenue, which includes federal, state and local funds. Except for per-pupil student support (which has a positive impact) and spending on building operations (which has a negative impact), there is no significant correlation between spending and achievement. Spending more on teachers did not improve efficiency.

One committee member asked why spending on instruction was not statistically significant? Dr. Hinshaw noted that the data available through EMIS are inadequate to answer that question. He added that using Ohio's new performance variables might change this answer. The committee will look at the possibility of a more in-depth review of data to attempt to examine some questions that cannot be answered with EMIS data. One committee member observed that you cannot talk about effectiveness separate from efficiency. They are interrelated.

Committee Calendar

The Operations and Efficiency Committee will meet on October 29th, November 12th and November 25th. Tentative meeting times are from 10 am to 2 pm. Meeting locations have not yet been decided.

Chairman Davis described briefly the possible topics that the Operations and Efficiency Committee could consider. He asked committee members to prioritize these possibilities so that the committee can develop its agenda for the coming months. Possible topics for study include:

  1. Number of School Districts
  2. Centralize Functions, Including
    1. Purchasing
    2. Health Insurance
    3. Contract Negotiations
    4. Regionalize Services
  3. Length of the School Year
  4. Staff Hiring and Compensation
    1. Specialty pay for Math and Science Teachers and Other Hard-to-Staff Positions (Special Education and Inner City)
    2. Merit Pay for Performance
    3. Eliminate Tenure
    4. Open Teacher Credentialing
  5. Board Makeup
    1. Set Minimum Qualifications
    2. Prevent Conflicts of Interest
    3. Appointed Boards
  6. Eliminate Need for Voted Levies
  7. Align Curriculum with Real World
  8. Student Discipline and Teacher Authority
  9. Make each Principal Responsible for Budget
  10. Alternative Education Delivery Models
  11. Mason School Budget Model
  12. Maintain Local District Discretion with Regard to Spending
  13. Stop Mainstreaming Special Ed Students
  14. How are Prison Schools Funded?
  15. Cost of Doing Business Factor
  16. Human Resource Factor

One committee member wants to know what prior commissions recommended on these issues so that the Operations and Efficiency Committee's recommendations are consistent with these earlier ones. Another member observed that she wants to stay away from things that have already been studied by prior commissions, including things like academic standards.

The committee adjourned at 1:00 pm.


THE FINAL REPORT
Governor Taft reading with a student.