Meeting Schedule, Agendas and Minutes
November 18, 2004 Minutes
Members in attendance included Task Force Chairman William W. Wilkins, Vice Chairman Jim Hyre, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, Susan Bodary, John Brandt, Eric Burkland, Representative Chuck Calvert, Fred Church, Walt Davis, Paolo DeMaria, Matt Filipic, Christine Hansen, Russ Harris, Representative William Hartnett, Representative Jim Hoops, Senator Jeff Jacobson, Thomas W. Johnson, David Locke, Dick Maxwell, Tom Mooney, Dan Navin, Senator C.J. Prentiss, Barbara Shaner, Barbara Sprague, Richard Stoff, David Varda, Scott Williams, Dennis Woods, Tom Zaino and Susan Tave Zelman.
Presentations:
- Funding Public Schools (PDF*, 72 KB)
- November 18th Discussion Draft (PDF*, 157 KB)
- Ohioans Consider Funding of the Public Schools (PDF*, 234 KB)
The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:10 a.m.
Focus Groups and Telephone Polling
Chairman Wilkins noted that the Task Force would hear from Belden, Russonello and Stewart (BRS), the consultant that conducted the focus groups and telephone polling for the Task Force. After this presentation, the balance of the meeting will be devoted to discussion of the draft recommendations that were sent to members on November 12th. Mr. Wilkins emphasized that the focus of the discussion should be on the 15 recommendations, not the text of the report. The draft report that was circulated to members will be changed considerably, so Mr. Wilkins urged members to stay focused on just the draft recommendations. He added that he is sensitive to the fact that the Governor's budget is going to be introduced soon and the Task Force needs to keep its work relevant.
Kate Stewart, of BRS, summarized the findings of their focus groups and telephone polling.
Representative Calvert objected to the wording of one of the questions, which seems to state that only 2.2% of property taxes go to schools. He opined that responses to this question are invalid, since 65% of property taxes go to schools.
Dr. Byrd-Bennett asked whether equity and reliability of funding were two separate discussions or were they connected. Ms. Stewart responded that the questions were separate.
Senator Jacobson asked why BRS did not ask that, if you want the things that the Task Force is proposing, "How much would you be willing to pay for these items?" That would have been a great question.
Senator Prentiss asked how long were the focus groups, what was the diversity of the people involved, and what does "older" mean? Ms. Stewart replied that the focus groups averaged 8 to10 people and the sessions lasted two hours. The two Cleveland focus groups drew from the suburbs and were racially mixed. Participants were all middle-income, registered voters, who had at least some college education. Ms. Stewart added that she realizes that there are limitations to the focus groups, but the survey was a representative sample of the voting population in Ohio.
Mr. Williams stated that he was one of the people surveyed. He observed that he did not know where the 2.2% from property taxes piece came from because that was not anything that he had heard before. Ms. Stewart answered that, even if you take that one question out, the rest of the questions in the survey provide very good information.
Senator Jacobson observed that there are many reasons people give an answer to a question. Without more probing you do not know why. Follow-up questions need to be asked to get true information. There is some good information here. For instance, the concern with the number of levies is good information. There is a disconnection between increases in funding and fixing the formula. People do not necessarily think that their taxes are too high.
Mr. Mooney suggested that you can only get so much information from these questions. Our context for reducing levies is to increase reliability. We wanted to get rid of the roller coaster ride in funding.
Mr. Woods noted that funding is the priority. The number one issue was that schools should focus on teaching and not on funding. Currently, a lot of time needs to be spent on repetitious levy campaigns.
Dr. Byrd-Bennett expressed concern that there was a very large group of people who were missing from the focus groups. Rural and urban communities were not represented.
Ms. Stewart responded that the telephone surveys did represent everybody.
Mr. Mooney asked why the focus groups were all in suburban areas. Ms. Stewart answered that there had been a lot of internal discussion regarding this. They wanted to do more focus groups, but had to keep it limited due to time and budgetary constraints.
Discussion of Draft Recommendations
Mr. Wilkins turned to Mr. Marshall to take the Task Force through the draft recommendations.
Mr. Marshall observed that the draft report needs substantial revision, urging the members to focus on the draft recommendations. He added that there are 15 recommendations included in the draft report.
Mr. DeMaria stated that he struggled with the description of inputs provided in the draft report. He felt that the inputs were items such as instruction, student support, staff support and building operation and maintenance: not the inputs listed in the draft report. There was general agreement that these should be the inputs, not those listed in the draft report. Mr. Marshall replied that staff would make the necessary changes.
Mr. Marshall asked whether there was general agreement on the first recommendation. Mr. Mooney asked how the building blocks translate into money. Senator Jacobson replied that this recommendation just relates to a proposed framework: it is not a dollars question.
Mr. Harris asked how the Task Force had addressed the Governor's charge to calculate a new per-pupil funding methodology. He does not see a description of the approach that involved the gap aid school districts to develop a new methodology. Mr. Marshall answered that, as had been mentioned in earlier meetings, this approach has been abandoned. What staff has done is build on the current level of per-pupil funding and add additional parts: data-based decision making, professional development, and student intervention. Staff also used the new inflators for salaries, fringe benefits and other costs.
Mr. Harris asked whether this means that the Task Force is simply starting where we are right now. Mr. Marshall replied that, for the per-pupil, basic aid component, that is correct. He added that the Task Force has discussed having a successor group study the per-pupil base-cost formula using additional data that will become available from Battelle for Kids and the Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Senator Jacobson opined that it was pretty clear to most people on the Funding for Success Committee that the correlation between more money and results was non-existent. That does not mean there is not a minimum amount needed for any results. However, in the absence of the ability to make this into a straight production function, the committee decided to talk about things that people agree make a difference.
Ms. Shaner noted that the ratios used for application of the inflation factors came from the analysis of the 26 gap aid school districts, so this approach has not been abandoned totally.
Senator Prentiss objected to the statement in the draft report that was presented to Task Force members that says there is no correlation between spending and student achievement. The Task Force did not do an adequacy study. We looked at some graphs that Mr. Filipic prepared, but we never had a full-fledged discussion on this issue. She believes that the assertion in the report is wrong.
Mr. Filipic suggested that the discussion needs to begin by discussing the inputs. We need to know what the base looks like. He believes that it is preferable to focus resources in particular areas rather than increasing funding across the board. Special attention needs to be given to what we can buy with given levels of resources.
Mr. Harris agreed with Senator Prentiss that the report should not say that there is no correlation between funding and academic success. He referred members to a study entitled, "Of Course Money Matters."
Ms. Bodary suggested that there is a middle ground. We could say that we need better data than we have today, but simply spending a certain amount of money does not guarantee results. We should say that data support the Task Force's recommendations as good things to do. As more data are analyzed and collected, we can make changes based upon what is working and find out what it costs.
Mr. DeMaria opined that the Task Force is not going to resolve the base cost issue. So, in some ways, our work is not finished. For the report, we need to lay out the various sides of the equation in a fair manner. This is one perspective, and here is another. In that way, we can be fair to the members of the Task Force. We need to capture that there was not consensus, but this is where we landed.
After a lunch break, discussion of the draft recommendations continued. Mr. Marshall noted that the first recommendation will be revisited at the next meeting of the Task Force.
Discussion then turned to the composition and purpose of the successor group to the Task Force. Dr. Zelman opined that we need to position Ohio to get the best analysis possible, so this should be a continuously serving group that can recommend things as more data become available. There should be a group of about eight to look at the data and the unresolved issues.
Mr. Harris observed that, in other states, the approach has been through directed and funded through foundations. There needs to be direction given to the group from some independent institution, such as Battelle or Ohio State University. An independent group would offer objectivity and credibility to the process. Dr. Zelman responded that this is a legislative issue. While she supports the use of foundation money, there should be some state funds committed to this to make a private/public partnership that would show commitment from the state.
Mr. Filipic suggested that monitoring research developments to make them state policy is really the responsibility of the Ohio Department of Education. The successor group needs to be appointed by those in power at the time. It is the leaders at the time who are ultimately going to make the decisions, so we should take that into consideration.
Discussion then turned to the second recommendation, which related to the proposed building blocks approach.
Mr. Brandt asked whether the intention was to implement these building blocks using weights that would be applied to the per-pupil foundation amount. Senator Jacobson replied that this would be done where appropriate. Mr. Brandt stated that it is important for the report to state this.
The third recommendation, dealing with the new poverty-based assistance program, was discussed next.
Dr. Zelman remarked that there should be a comprehensive study on early childhood education funding in the state of Ohio. Senator Prentiss observed that we have an Ohio study that says that preschool is important. We should not have any doubts at this point.
Mr. Mooney agreed that funding for preschool should be part of the Task Force's recommendations, at least for the areas with high concentrations of poverty. He added that he does not have a problem conceptually with the third and fourth recommendations, but he wants to see printouts that show how this affects individual school districts. What do these recommendations actually buy?
Senator Jacobson expressed agreement with Senator Prentiss relative to preschool. He noted that the draft report urges that efforts be made to identify sources of funds for a long-term benefit for preschool for the high-poverty areas. That is something that we can do without danger of getting into a lawsuit. Senator Jacobson added that he would work with Senator Prentiss on funding preschool education. Spending more on preschool should reduce the need for intervention spending.
Mr. Varda stated that he has supported early childhood education from the very beginning. He does not support doing a study that would delay us from moving forward. He feels very strongly that preschool should be a priority.
Representative Calvert observed that the preschool discussion makes him feel like he is back on a school board. The education community needs to identify something as a priority. If early childhood education is important, they can convince the people to support them with more money. You can reprioritize your current allocations to fund it, but that is not what he is hearing. Not everything that is important can be funded by the state. Local school districts need to make hard decisions as well before this can happen.
Ms. Shaner remarked that the Task Force's report should be a picture of what we think education funding should be in ten years. She would like the report to state what we are working towards, recognizing that it cannot be funded in the next budget.
The fourth recommendation, dealing with reallocation of funds was discussed next.
Senator Prentiss asked where the recommendations stood relative to protecting districts that lose state funding due to the elimination of the cost-of-doing-business factor (CODBF). There has been discussion of the impact on wealthy districts, but not on its impact on districts like Cleveland and East Cleveland.
Senator Jacobson replied that what is supposed to happen is that school districts like Cleveland and East Cleveland that would lose state support because of the loss of the CODBF would have the loss more than made up because of the additional intervention money that is targeted to the school districts with the highest rates of poverty.
Mr. DeMaria stated that this hold-harmless should be made explicit within the report.
Ms. Shaner noted that the base-cost amount derived from the analysis of gap aid school districts was about $80 per student higher than the actual fiscal year 2003 basic aid amount. She would like to see this amount, which includes some CODBF money, used as the basis for calculations.
Mr. Varda remarked that "hold harmless" needs to be defined. Mr. Church replied that the hold harmless does not take into account local revenue. It works as a guarantee. Mr. Varda observed that, in looking at all the recommendations together, reducing the charge-off by one mill n a rich district will offset a lot of what he might be missing.
The fifth recommendation was discussed next, which addresses the excess costs of special education, career-technical education and pupil transportation. Mr. Mooney stated that he was part of the group that developed this approach and that this methodology is getting there. Those districts that do not have the 3.3 mill local match for these costs would receive the required funding from the state. He suggested that one option for dealing with the local contribution would be to allow the local school board to levy the necessary amount without submitting it to voters, since it is mandatory. Mr. Church answered that this idea had been discussed. To do this it would have to be part of the constitutional amendment.
Mr. DeMaria observed that the 3.3 mills for categorical programs is not an obligation of school districts: it is a stop loss. The challenge to the group that developed the proposal was how to devise a continuing state and local partnership for these costs.
The Task Force next discussed the sixth recommendations, which calls for limited growth on 22 mills.
Mr. Marshall noted that some Task Force members supported allowing school boards to put additional growing mills on the ballot. Is there support for this idea? Ms. Shaner replied that she thought this would be a good idea. Mr. Sobul interjected that this would have to be part of the constitutional amendment.
Senator Prentiss iterated her request for an alternative to the proposed constitutional amendment because does not believe that the General Assembly will agree to place the issue on the ballot. It is a great plan but it punts the responsibility to Ohio's voters.
Mr. Varda opined that it is important for the Task Force to recommend what it believes is the right approach. It is important that our recommendations address the structural problems in the current school funding system. An alternative plan will not address them.
Mr. Woods agreed with Mr. Varda. The Task Force was charged with developing its best plan: not two plans. He does not support the idea of alternate plans.
Senator Jacobson observed that the Task Force has done some good work and he has changed his mind on several important things. However, he will not support the constitutional amendment. The problem for him is that phantom revenue is not an equal problem across the board and should not be the starting place for the Task Force. For the most part, the school districts that have this problem are wealthier: fixing the problem will encourage disparity. Senator Jacobson believes that this is a problem that should be dealt with at the school district level. He does not want communities who do not support this notion to be forced into accepting it because people in other school districts approved it.
Mr. Filipic stated that H.B. 920 is a problem because revenue just disappears and no one understands why. In the Funding for Success Committee, we focused on the inputs that school districts might not be able to buy because of H.B. 920. If this problem is not fixed, you cannot fund this committee's other recommendations. If you cannot depend on a stable revenue source, you cannot do anything.
Representative Hoops remarked that his main goal as a member of the committee is that, when we say that school funding has gone up by 3%, it actually goes up by 3%. If this is the best way to do that, this is the way we have to try to do it. We have to try to get a statewide solution for this problem. If this is to be voted on by the people of Ohio, it is up to people to show that this is important, which we can do.
Mr. Navin added that the Revenue and Taxation Committee focused on the problems created by reappraisal phantom revenue and the differential between the formula's 23-mill charge-off and the 20-mill floor. That is not to suggest that phantom revenue was the sole problem that we were trying to deal with. He is not convinced that people understand what phantom revenue is. The committee reviewed numerous other proposals that we rejected for one reason or another. We are not suggesting that this is the only way to address phantom revenue, but this is the best way that we could develop. This recommendation would fix one of the major defects of the current system. Any solution must be statewide: it cannot be implemented on a district-by-district basis.
Ms. Shaner added that this is a pervasive problem that needs to be addressed. With so many school districts currently at the 20-mill floor, there are many taxpayers who do not have a cap on their property taxes. This would help all of those people. We would like the opportunity to make our, instead of just assuming that it will fail and not moving forward with it.
Representative Calvert also disagreed with Senator Jacobson. The proposal would require all school districts to have a minimum level of funding.
Mr. Harris offered that there needs to be recognition of the financial crisis facing school districts. His problem with the amendment is the context. If this is sold as a total fix to school funding, it is not true. Everyone would lose a lot of credibility if it were presented this way. Mr. Harris opined that this is the only recommendation in the draft report that really deals with the financial crisis.
Mr. Zaino disagreed with Senator Prentiss that the Task Force is "punting" the problem to voters by asking to have the constitutional amendment placed on the ballot. This is not a fair statement. We need the legislature to get the issue there, and the citizens are part of the team to help with this situation. Mr. Zaino responded to Senator Jacobson's statement that a school district could vote against the constitutional amendment but still get the increase. Another way of looking at this is that real property taxpayers in the 350 districts that are at the 20-mill floor currently experience unvoted increases: this change would protect the people in those school districts. Mr. Zaino also disagreed with proposing an alternative plan. If the General Assembly does not agree with the Task Force's recommendations, it can make its own recommendations.
At about 2:00 p.m., Mr. Wilkins noted that the Task Force will need at least one more meeting to complete its work. He thanked the members for their participation and their persistence.
Senator Prentiss asked how Task Force members who have different opinions can get them into the report. How are we going to address this issue? Mr. Wilkins replied that nobody is going to agree with everything in the report. This process will not end with us. What follows this group is extremely important. If something makes it in the report or not, it does not mean that is the end of that item. We are trying to come to some consensus.
Ms. Bodary added that the Task Force has come to conclusions on some things today. Send any ideas for language to Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Wilkins adjourned the meeting was at 2:10 p.m.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
