Don't Worry, Be Happy?

Reading the news every morning is requiring more and more intestinal fortitude. Unemployment is up. The stock market is down (way down). The cost of higher education is out of sight and often requires that the average student assume large debt. Too many high school students drop out and fail to graduate while many graduates with a diploma are not college or workforce ready. It's tough out there, but take heart! Governor Schwarzenegger, while visiting Columbus this week, told Ohioans, "Never worry. Never worry about anything." Okay. I feel better.

In education news today:

Universal, all-day kindergarten apparently is neither universal or all-day. Based on the provisions in HB1, districts would receive full day funding for kindergarten students, but students would not necessarily attend school all day. First, parents could opt to enroll their child for a half day instead of a whole day. In addition to parents making the decision to only have students attend kindergarten for a half day, school districts could obtain a waiver from State Superintendent Deb Delisle and forget all-day K all together. No word yet on the specific criteria for the renewable waivers. (Didn't I tell you that districts would be able to obtain waivers for virtually every component of the Ohio Evidence-Based Model?) So districts can get full day funding but students won't be in class for a full day? Hmmm. This must be an example of the "unprecedented accountability" contained in HB1.

The Columbus Dispatch is focused on math this morning. In an editorial this morning, the Dispatch suggests that the Governor's "fuzzy" budget math will make it difficult to reach consensus on a budget in these tough economic times. Cited as a major stumbling block is the teacher salary cost included in the Governor's evidence-based school funding model. HB1 utilizes $45,094 while many education groups prefer the Ohio Department of Education average salary of $54,210. (I seem to recall posting a suggestion that this figure would change -- with or without evidence.)

The next item isn't in the news but probably should be. I've started receiving e-mails that tell a sad story. Based on the gifted education provisions in the Governor's executive budget, gifted personnel are starting to receive pink slips. Most school personnel decisions, especially where layoff and non-renewals are concerned, are made in March-April. Districts and educational service centers have to make decisions based on the information they have today and can't always wait until the budget is "fixed." We've heard OBM Director Pari Sabety, John Standford (education policy adviser to Governor Strickland), State Superintendent Deb Delisle and members of the Primary/Secondary Finance Subcommittee all say that they know that the gifted provision needs to be changed. Any chance we could get this fixed before any more people lose their jobs?

Somehow we missed the fact that last week was Dr. Seuss' birthday. Fortunately students at London Elementary School celebrated by practicing rhymes and alliteration. Happy Birthday Dr. Seuss. Great job kids!

Fordham Fireworks

I've been attending education budget hearings for about 15 years and eight budgets. (Time sure flies when you're having fun!) It's fair to say that the majority of these hearings are deadly dull affairs. There are a few highlights when children and parents offer their testimony, but mostly you spend your time in hearings, sitting on very uncomfortable chairs listening to government employees and lobbyists talk about what should be done and how much money they want/need. So it is a rare treat indeed when fireworks fly in a legislative hearing.

During a morning session the Primary/Secondary Finance Subcommittee heard first from State Superintendent Deb Delisle and Governor Strickland's education policy assistant John Standford. Superintendent Delisle and Dr. Standford had answered quite a number of subcommittee questions. The next witness was Dr. Stan Heffner, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Assessment for the Ohio Department of Education. Stan is the ODE expert on content standards and tests and is the point person for revising the content standards and implementation of an aligned system of assessments. (Stan's also one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.) His role today was to explain why Ohio's standards need revision and how Ohio looks to infuse innovative and creative instructional approaches into model courses of study.

Dr. Heffner laid out the "five prong strategy for content standards revision." The fourth prong of the strategy was to utilize critiques of our current standards. That's when it happened. Dr. Heffner used a word Representative Clayton Luckie found offensive: Fordham. Dr. Heffner mentioned that national associations and organizations such as Achieve and Fordham Foundation had completed extensive reviews of Ohio's content standards and that those reviews could help us as we move forward to revise and improve our standards. Representative Luckie was moved to offer a somewhat unflattering and animated assessment of the value of Fordham's work. Adding insult to injury, Chairman Dyer chimed in that he shared his colleague's concerns about Fordham. Specifically Chairman Dyer offered that their work was "suspect."

A reporter from Gongwer news service reported the exchange as follows:

One of the national experts he (Dr. Stan Heffner) mentioned drew a reaction from Rep. Clayton Luckie (D - Dayton), who objected to ODE's intention to incorporate recommendations from the Fordham Foundation, which sponsors several charter schools in Ohio. "How can you use an organization that constantly bashes public education?" he said. "I would think that all the superintendents in the state would have concerns about using their analysis to figure out how to improve their school districts."

Although we have not always been in complete agreement with our friends over at Fordham, we've generally found their research to be high quality and pretty even-handed. With respect to the content standards, Fordham is right on.

You Heard It Here

When information starts dribbling out about the substitute budget bill, look for some of the following changes:

Teacher's salary: Look for some adjustment to the teacher's salary figure. I'd look for either an adjustment in salary level or for the evidence-based model to include a full application of benefits. The Governor's original evidence-based model included only the 14% mandated retirement contribution instead of the full benefits cost which is closer to 26-28% of salaries.

Gifted education: This item was botched pretty badly. The original proposal would cut gifted education funding by more than 50%. Even worse, the nearly third of overall funding currently assigned to educational service centers (ESCs) was left out of the districts' transitional aid guarantee. Everyone from OBM Director Sabety to John Stanford to State Representative Dyer are all on record saying gifted needs to be fixed.

Poor rural districts slated to receive little or no increase in funding: More than a few of us were surprised to see how many poor, rural districts received little or no increase in funding while a number of more affluent districts received the maximum 15% increase. Those districts already at the 20 mill floor and/or losing enrollment missed out on an increase in state aide. Expect the cap for maximum increases to drop from 15% to 8-10% so more money can be funneled to poor districts. These poor districts will either become additional evidence-based "pilots" with faster phase-in or receive additional transitional aid over this upcoming biennium.

Career technical education: This was a major boo-boo. Someone assumed that all the career technical students were served at a career center. Truth is,the majority of students enrolled in career and technical programs are enrolled in programs in career compacts. These compacts are agreements between school districts where programs are located in high schools (some in one district, some in other districts) and not in a separate career center. The Governor's proposal would all but wipe out these programs by cutting funding more than 60%.

Support/central office staff: Although the original model included central office support staff such as curriculum supervisors and school psychologists, the Ohio model provides no ratios or allowances for these positions. It may be a small piece of the puzzle, but how can you offer a full range of special education services without school psychologists or focus on implementing new curriculum and instructional strategies without the appropriate support?

Ohio Instructional Quality Index: A decent idea poorly executed, this index factor "double weights" the income factor by including both income and educational attainment (income level is closely correlated to educational level) while overlooking factors like cost of doing business that vary significantly from one county to the next.

Educational Service Centers (ESC): This should be adjusted, but may not make the cut. ESCs had their funding cut 10% in the last budget cycle and stand to get whacked again. ESCs are slated to lose nearly 10% in each year of the budget to pay for performance audits. In the meantime, many small districts depend on ESCs for a myriad of services, will have to pay more because ESCs have fewer resources.

Clarification on staffing, waivers, and accountability: Districts are trying to figure out how much they'll have to do and when they'll have to do it. The Governor's office sounds like they want districts to staff according to the ratios, but they refuse to answer the question with a straight answer. Everyone's answer: send us the funding, don't put the ratios and requirements in Ohio Revised Code, and everyone gets waivers from spending and staffing requirements and accountability measures for years to come.

What's making these changes so tough? There's no money to add to the bottom line, so the changes will most likely have to be made from within the existing model and funding recommendations. I wonder what evidence will be used to rationalize the changes to the Ohio model?

One thing you won't see is any mercy for community schools.

A Substitute Bill in the Making?

Gongwer news service reports today that education groups are working with the administration to develop a substitute bill that will more accurately reflect teachers' pay and redistribute resources toward poor, rural districts, according to Russ Harris, a consultant with the Ohio Education Association.

Caps on revenue increases, temporary transitional aid, and weighted teacher salaries are among the ideas the administration is considering to revise its proposed school funding formula, a participant in the discussions said Monday.


Mr. Harris said the administration is considering adding temporary transitional aid to ensure poorer districts don’t see decreases in state resources and limits on percentage increases for wealthier areas.

“In terms of freeing up money to improve the formula so that we can provide better aid to the low-wealth and poorer districts, we’re probably going to have to cap the increases that go to the wealthier and suburban districts. And that’s on the table,” he said.

Deficiencies in the proposed Educational Quality Index that is designed to reflect school district wealth, along with the elimination of parity aid, would have the effect of minimizing state funding for high poverty, rural districts, while some wealthier areas would see much larger increases.

“There’s a lot of talk that maybe a 10-12% cap seems reasonable in this economic crisis that we’re in,” he said. Estimates are that a 10% cap would enable the administration to redistribute about 10% of state funding toward higher need districts.

Caps would be phased out along with transitional aid as the economy rebounds in the upcoming biennium, he said.

Another critical factor in the funding proposal that has gathered much attention – the administration’s low-ball figure for average teacher salary – is also the subject of likely changes that could move to either a “weighted” average, or simply a name change, he said. While the formula assumes about $45,000 per educator, the actual figure is $54,210.

“We need weighting to represent the proportional size and importance of where the teachers are,” he said, adding the figure should be linked to the size of the district.

However, since educators in larger urban and suburban districts are higher paid, a weighted salary average would drive up the cost of the overall plan considerably, he said.

“We either need to do that and use an honest number, or we need to retreat from that and say that this parameter is only going to be a base figure in the overall funding scheme,” he said.

Most of the 130,000 members in OEA likely know that the average teacher salary is not $45,000, he said. “It’s a problem of perception and acceptance. The education community can’t accept, by convention, you labeling a number something that it isn’t.”

Although OEA would rather see an increase in funding for teachers’ pay, the current economic crisis make that unlikely, he said. Increasing educator salaries would add hundreds of millions to the plan’s overall cost.

“I honestly don’t believe that there’s resources available for that at this time,” he said. “We think the governor’s doing the best job that he can to not only hold the line with the investment in public education, but increase it in some areas, and that’s heroic, given this economic context.”

Mr. Harris doesn’t anticipate the substitute measure including any new proposals to increase state revenue.

“I think that when we get to the next budget, that’s the point at which Ohio’s going to have to face the overall adequacy of state revenues,” he said.

So. . . where do I begin? First, this supports my position that the State Board of Education was acting prematurely when it voted to "commend" the governor on his education plan. The plan has major deficiencies and we (the board) have not fully reviewed the plan, the budget bill, nor the line by line document (red book) which is not yet available. (**update - available online this afternoon)

Second, maybe the governor and the education lobbyist, vendors, and special interest groups who are meeting behind closed doors to plan a substitute bill should do some research. Isn't it the responsibility of the House (based on information presented during legislative hearings), not lobbyists and the Governor to craft a substitute bill?"

Third - maybe they should read the Legislative Service Commission report from November 2008 titled: Illustrations of School Funding in Ohio. It has nice pictures and graphics so it's easy to read. Then surf on over to ODE and listen and watch a briefing on district expenditures.

And finally, some ramblings about this education reform/budget bill.

1. Should we be funding the child or the district?


2. Why should wealthy districts (students) receive less - what data is available to show that they already have too much money per student? Are poor districts (students) really underfunded?


3. Are we trying to satisfy lobbyists or provide the best possible scenario for student success?
   

I'll post more information and data to try to answer the above questions in the next few days - now I have to do some more research, reading and laundry.

Budget Hearings: Gifted and Charter Schools Turn Out

Later today (probably this evening) I'll be sharing a post detailing the education budget hearing held Monday evening in Akron. More than 250 people filled the Springfield High School auditorium for the first of three "remote" budget hearings.

The hearing lasted more than four and a half hours with more than 60 witnesses signing up to testify. The majority of witnesses came to talk about two subjects: the unmet needs of gifted children and why charter schools must be funded equitably.

Subcommittee members, especially Chairman Dyer, seemed a little startled by both the turnout and the passion with which witnesses spoke.

Right now I'm off to Columbus for more hearings today. We'll try to provide you a front row seat to the education budget process without leaving home.

Off to a Bad Start?

While we're working on a post about the licensure provisions in the budget and waiting for the education "redbook" to be released, I did notice an interesting article in Education Week. According to a recent study, our nation's first grade classrooms are not what they should be.

A study of 820 1st grade classrooms suggests that many are not as warm, friendly, and academically stimulating as some experts think they ought to be.

According to research, published this month in the Elementary School Journal, only 23 percent of classrooms could be judged to be of "high Quality" in both their instructional practices and social and emotional climate.

Another 31 percent of classrooms -- the largest percentage in the study sample -- were deemed to have a positive emotional climate, but a low level of academic quality. Researchers judged 28 percent of classrooms to be "mediocre"; the remaining got a rating of "overall low quality."

Perhaps the most telling finding revolves around our notion of "highly qualified" teacher and the impact of class size.

The study also found that teachers' years of experience and sizes of their classes did not seem to have an effect on the quality of the classroom learning environment.