Late this afternoon, State Superintendent for Public Instruction Debra Delisle offered testimony before the House Finance Committee. The Finance Committee invited testimony today regarding additional budget reductions that may be necessary. Delisle's task was to "speculate" on the impact of hypothetical reductions to K-12 funding.Don't you just love speculating on the hypothetical ? It gives a whole new meaning to "walking a tightrope."
Superintendent Delisle outlined two scenarios of funding reductions to primary and secondary education. One scenario would exclude cuts to Foundation Funds and the result in a reduction of $290 million. The second scenario would make reductions across all line items – including Foundation Funds for reductions totaling $345 million. (The totals listed would be the total over two years.)
Results of the doomsday scenario:
- Not enough funds to meet NCLB testing requirements
- No more value-added training (Would a year or two off really be devastating?)
- Ohio would lose their ability to compete for "Race to the Top" funds (Were we guaranteed these funds?)
- Eliminate funding for gifted services (Whacked again. Gifted's always on the cut list.)
- Further cuts in aid to nonpublic schools
- Few if any performance audits
- Reductions to ODE staff (Who outside of ODE will object to this?)
- Reductions in basic aid to school districts (Is this the item that's supposed to throw a scare into the Senate and force them to agree to video slot machines?)
I'm having difficulty understanding why Superintendent Delisle would pour this speculative "gasoline" on the budget "fire." What's the ultimate goal? How does this bring budget discussions to a successful conclusion?
8 comments:
Speaking of witness credibility, guess who made these recommendations--while opposing longer school days and summer school--on January 2, 2004?
- A full day preschool program for 3 and 4 year olds
- Full day kindergarten
- Class sizes of 15 in grades K-5
- Individual tutoring if a student is still struggling to meet achievement standards.
...Why the report ignores these interventions is perplexing to my, [sic] and why it proposes longer years and longer days instead is equally perplexing, especially because the report offers no [sic] one citation as evidence that these other recommendations are more effective.
The fact of the matter is that every where you look, every one or everything is broke. Look at the state of Calif.? I wonder how many states are just a short month or so away from being where they are? Schools are getting near empty and cities and counties are having problems, too. Every new change to education or anywhere else requires monetary support. So, where did all the money go? Do all the greedy bankers now have all the money? Or, was there no real money 2 years ago?
During the depression the feds had money which got the economy going again. The feds don't really have money now, they just keep borrowing from China. Pretty soon China will own the USA. This whole situation is just frightening to me.
Anonymous 1 said "Pretty soon China will own the USA." Not to be flippant, but that might actually be a good thing for gifted students in the US -- especially Ohio. The Chinese actually value their brightest students.
I think the reason that Delisle would come up with such a list of suppositions is because she was asked, presumably by the legislature. My understanding is that their response to the Gov's most recent proposal has been to set up two sets of hearings--one on the implications of cuts and the other on video gambling. They are stalling and treading water because they are loathe to take responsibility for doing what is necessary to balance the budget. At this point it is clear that the result of cuts across the board will be loss of services--library, mental health, health care, various supports for low-income persons, prisons, state parks, and finally education. When handing any public agency a 30% (additional) cut--beyond what has already been put in place--we are far beyond looking for efficiencies or cutting out adminstrative bloat.
On the one hand, I would argue that concern for the loss of jobs in any area of public service should be of concern to the public who rely on that service, it is doubly disconcerting to read the comment that no one outside of the Department of Education would be bothered by cutting staff there coming from a blog authored by members of the current and past state Board of Education.
As the entity with oversight responsibility (through hiring, firing and evaluation of the State Superintendent), is this an official position of the Board, or of individual Board members? Did the Board submit a budget that suggested diminished levels of state staffing?
As a citizen who has at times been reliant on the services offered by various state departments, I can say that the public is not served well when staffing falls below optimum levels (waits are longer, service poorer, more people fall through cracks). It becomes particularly critical when the state is unable to access federal match, or qualify for various other funding opportunities (such as Race to the Top--whether guaranteed or not).
It would be more helpful to look at why the legislature is unwilling to act on replacing lost revenue to ensure that basic services can continue.
"On the one hand, I would argue that concern for the loss of jobs in any area of public service should be of concern to the public who rely on that service, it is doubly disconcerting to read the comment that no one outside of the Department of Education would be bothered by cutting staff there coming from a blog authored by members of the current and past state Board of Education."
I did not offer an opinion regarding whether or not it was a good idea to reduce ODE staffing. I suggested that with all the cuts being mentioned, I do not believe that school districts taking their own funding hit are going to go to bat to keep ODE jobs. I'm fairly certain that legislature also will not lose sleep over potential staffing cuts at ODE.
"As the entity with oversight responsibility (through hiring, firing and evaluation of the State Superintendent), is this an official position of the Board, or of individual Board members? Did the Board submit a budget that suggested diminished levels of state staffing?"
I don't speak for the State Board. This blog explicitly states it does not represent anyone's official position. The State Board did in fact submit several budget recommendations for FY10-11 that would have reduced admin staffing at ODE. Two of our recommended budget scenarios specified 5% and 10% cuts to the entire education budget including reductions at ODE and district basic aid.
"As a citizen who has at times been reliant on the services offered by various state departments, I can say that the public is not served well when staffing falls below optimum levels (waits are longer, service poorer, more people fall through cracks). It becomes particularly critical when the state is unable to access federal match, or qualify for various other funding opportunities (such as Race to the Top--whether guaranteed or not)."
As I recall, neither the State Board and the Governor recommended reductions that would eliminate or reduce federal match. Although states are faced with meeting "maintenance of effort" funding levels (FY06 spending) as a condition for continued receipt of federal funding, they may request waivers if their budget circumstances warrant such consideration. Ohio could, but did not, request a waiver.
I have no doubt that both ODE and districts will be called on to operate differently as a result the state's economic condition, but they're not alone. Very few Ohioans have been let untouched by the economic downturn.
"I have no doubt that both ODE and districts will be called on to operate differently as a result the state's economic condition, but they're not alone. Very few Ohioans have been let untouched by the economic downturn."
Colleen--that is exactly the point. To dump on the head of one department for responding to a request to report on what the result of cuts would be--as if all departments have not been called upon to do the same--is really ripping Delisle's comments out of context.
I am glad that you clarified what you meant when you said that no one outside of ODE would be upset if their staff was cut. Apparently the only people outside of ODE who count are school districts and the legislature. As a parent, I would like to point out that there are some of us who are aware of the role of the state, albeit limited at times, in reining in some of the excesses at the district level. While ODE is not primarily a regulatory agency, they do play a valuable role to those who have children with disabilities in ensuring that minimal basics are adhered to. I have found employees at the state level to be far more congenial to listening to parent concerns than those at the local district level.
But--it's not at all unusual to be discounted as nobody.
Ohio could, but did not, request a waiver.
YGBSM.
"The conference agreement provides that the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any requirement of this title relating to maintenance of effort, for States and school districts that have experienced a precipitous decline in financial resources. In granting such a waiver, the Secretary shall determine that the State or school district will maintain the proportionate share of total revenues for elementary and secondary education as in the preceding fiscal year."
Who has time to prepare for "precipitous decline in financial resources" when electoral constituencies await...
I would never suggest that a parent is a nobody. Would it have helped if I said "in general" no one outside ODE would be concerned about reductions in ODE staff?
You may have identified the one area (special education compliance) where parents might miss ODE services. But since many ODE staffers in the Office for Exceptional Children are supported by federal funding, I expect those services should remain intact. Strong federal laws with funding attached have a way to maintaining service levels.
This entire episode was more about politics than plans. That's part of Ohio's problem -- continuing to pursue political solutions to policy and budget problems. Such an approach will only delay inevitable and potentially painful action.
I think that Superintendent Delisle is/was in a very difficult situation, but she could have pursued other options. If the legislature were sincerely seeking a plan, it wouldn't have come down like this. I suggest that in this case it might have been more productive to refer to the State Board budget reduction blueprint issued last September. Although the dollar amounts have changed in the last 9 months, the recommendations identified priorities, alternate methods to make basic aid reductions and offered recommended reductions of as much as 10%.
I continue to believe adding more fuel to this fire by offering up new sacrifices wasn't particularly productive.
Post a Comment