Meeting Schedule, Agendas and Minutes
August 21, 2003 Minutes
The second meeting of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success convened at 1:00 pm on August 21, 2003.
Presentations:
- Ohio School Funding (PDF*, 247 KB)
-David Brunson, Legislative Service Commission - Ohio Funding and Achievement Compared to Other States (PDF*, 162 KB)
-Michael Griffith, Education Commission of the States
In attendance were Chairman Bill Wilkins, Vice Chair Jim Hyre, Ted Adams, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, John Brandt, Charles Calvert, Walt Davis, Paolo DeMaria, Matt Filipic, Robert Gardner, Chuck Gossett, Christine Hansen, Russ Harris, William Hartnett, Jim Hoops, Jeff Jacobson, Tom Johnson, David Locke, Dick Maxwell, Jim Mahoney, Tom Mooney, Dan Navin, C.J. Prentiss, Barbara Shaner, Jennifer Sheets, Barbara Sprague, Richard Stoff, David Varda, Scott Williams, Dennis Woods, Tom Zaino, and Susan Zelman.
Chairman Wilkins talked briefly about process and introduced Kelly Weir and Scott Schaller, who are on loan to the Task Force from the Office of Budget and Management. Chairman Wilkins announced that the next meeting of the Task Force will be held on September 11. The meeting will consist of presentations on Ohio’s taxation system (with emphasis on the property tax), the recommendations of the Governor’s Commission for Student Success, the Governor’s Commission on Teaching Success and No Child Left Behind. Chairman Wilkins then introduced David Brunson from the Legislative Service Commission, who provided a review of Ohio’s system of funding primary and secondary education and showed how Ohio compares to neighboring states and the country as a whole on various measures.
Mr. Brunson noted the changes that have been made to school funding in response to the DeRolph decision. Task Force members asked several questions of Mr. Brunson. There was particularly intensive discussion of the state’s Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid program and the Cost-of-Doing-Business factor
After Mr. Brunson completed his presentation, Michael Griffith, from the Education Commission of the States, gave an overview of how Ohio compares to other states, both in funding and in student achievement as measured by scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
In response to a question about graduation rates, Mr. Griffith noted that states that have higher academic standards tend to also have higher graduation rates. He also noted that Ohio lags on college-going rates and in the number of adults who have college degrees but indicated that Ohio is at or above the national average and its peers in every academic category.
Mr. Griffith observed that Pennsylvania has gone away from its formula, and now just gives every district inflationary increases from what was received the year before. Mr. Griffith noted that Michigan funds its schools through an 18-mill statewide property tax, with limits on what local districts can do beyond this level. There is also a state-mandated local levy of six mills. Mr. Griffith observed that New York has an extremely complicated school funding system, with 53 categorical funds, and that Ohio is about average in its complexity as compared to other states. Mr. Griffith described advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to funding schools.
In response to a question from Richard Stoff about performance incentives, Mr. Griffith responded that, typically, performance incentives have not remained in effect long enough to see whether they work. Such incentives tend to be the first items eliminated during economic downturns. Mr. Griffith noted that there have been some good results when states target funding toward specific areas rather than just increasing overall funding without restrictions. This additional funding is often combined with some loss of local control. Mr. Griffith will send more detailed information on the school funding formulae that he described.
Mr. Griffith expressed his opinion that Maryland is about the closest to a “perfect system.” The Maryland school funding system was based on the work of the Thornton Commission, which was charged with developing a school funding system that was more adequate and more equitable than its previous system. Maryland hired two contractors to estimate the cost of an adequate education. One contractor’s estimate was about $9,000 per pupil, the other was approximately $8,200 per pupil. The $9,000 was adopted by the Maryland legislature as the maximum that school districts could spend, and the lower number was the minimum, which was assured by the state of Maryland. If districts do not meet requirements, they could lose up to 10% funding and some loss of control.
The Maryland plan is in the 3rd year of a seven-year phase-in. There is currently some discussion in Maryland of whether they can afford to continue the phase-in of the new funding system. Also, it is not clear whether Maryland will actually take money away from school districts that do not perform adequately.
After Mr. Griffith completed his presentation, Chairman Wilkins noted that in his individual meetings with Task Force members he is sensing the need for a break into two or three groups and a division of the Governor’s charges among these groups so that all charges are addressed by the Task Force. Structural issues and a draft meeting schedule for the Task Force should be decided by the September 11 meeting.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:45 pm.
* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.
