|
|
[Emphases added: DF] [LETTERHEAD]
STATE OF OHIO Testimony On School Funding Task
Force Proposal And Chairman Ray, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on such a historic policy issue. I want to thank the General Assembly again, and especially the chairs of both finance committees, for the excellent foundation laid in the biennial budget. It makes the job before all of us a more manageable task. Our work in the next few weeks will impact more than the financing and quality of schooling in our state. These discussions will shape the opportunities we give our children for the future as well as determine the strength of Ohio's economy and society well into the 21st century. I read closely the Administration's recommendations over the long July 4th weekend. As I have already said, I believe this framework provides a very good starting point for the legislative debate. In fact, while there are a few proposals with which I do not agree, there are many more components of the plan that should be praised. Having said that, I think we can also improve on this foundation. I have tried to keep my assessment brief and focused, and in doing so have organized my critique of the plan into three categories: strengths, improvement opportunities and weaknesses. Strengths of the Plan A Focus on Results: I absolutely support the plan's call for increased academic expectations and higher graduation standards. Both the State Board of Education (SBE) and BEST have endorsed standards and achievement of the same as the centerpieces of their policy agendas. As we begin this work, I would urge you to look closely at the SBE's proposed school standards that will give us more than a running start both in "raising the achievement bar" and measuring that students and schools have cleared it. You have heard me say time and again that we will have missed a golden opportunity to connect educational spending and results if we do not enact two critical components of the new school standards that the State Board has proposed. The school performance standards and statewide accountability review system contained in our standards package are essential in my view. I say this because they will ensure an additional line of defense in securing higher results for all students by finally requiring organizational -- school and district -- accountability for student achievement. Just as important is the Board's recommendation to replace the current eighth-grade level graduation [the board have never used this terminology] exams with a more rigorous, "high-school" level set of exit exams. We can and should expect more of our students and schools, especially in the wake of a substantive response to DeRolph, which in my mind removes all the excuses for dismal performance. Finally, I have seen a plethora of public opinion polling that shows not only parents and taxpayers, but also students, want higher standards of performance. Finally, the board's proposed school performance standards have already been incorporated into and are driving Dr. Augenblick's adequate-base-cost funding model. It makes sense to me that the same performance measures undergirding this research would be the centerpiece of the new school accountability system. Further, we [who is "we"] have examined the State Board's standards in light of the DeRolph ruling and concluded that they would substantively bring the state in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision. I concur in the plan's call for an approach to academic bankruptcy and appreciate the plan's acknowledgment that the Excellence and Deficient framework still works [then why didn't we ever use it?] if we can just introduce a continuum of consequences to complement the continuum of school performance that exists across the state. We are already rewarding school performance with deregulation and have the opportunity through the new budget to create financial incentives for schools and districts that are producing results. When school performance is inadequate we need to ensure there is a measured response appropriate to a given circumstance. For example, the continuum of oversight and intervention options for low performing schools should include first an emphasis on locally defined school improvement plans. The primary emphasis needs to be on supporting local solution building. However, there are situations where some degree of state involvement --direct or indirect-- is necessary due to the absence of local responsibly for the educational welfare of children. For schools with moderately poor performance, this might entail state approval of a locally defined corrective action plan developed by the local school board and superintendent in partnership with parents, community leaders and school faculties. In the worst cases, state monitoring and control of a district through the appointment of a special master as already called for in S.B. 140 might be necessary. In this latter category, I need to emphasize that only in the very worst situations would the state become deeply involved with a local school system. While we have not yet determined the specific thresholds for evaluating where school systems fall out on the referenced performance continuum, I can tell you that in the majority of the 611 school systems the level and influence of state control would and should be limited. In summary, we need a mechanism to prevent academic bankruptcy that is similar to the way we are handling financial solvency/bankruptcy. I stand ready to work with you in translating all of these concepts into sound policy and practice. A Focus on Financial Stewardship: I concur with all of the recommended enhancements to fiscal accountability, including the call for five-year budget forecasts, comprehensive annual report cards that include both fiscal and academic indicators of performance, and the establishment of "rainy day" accounts to protect school district financial solvency. These proposals will strengthen and extend the early warning system that has been established through S. B. 310. I am also pleased to see that my suggestion for a safety net loan program to deal with the unexpected (e.g., plant closings) is included in the package. This proposal recognizes that financial instability is not always a function of poor management and will ensure that the academic program in any situation remains viable in the short term. Finally, I need to acknowledge the leadership and good stewardship of the Administration and General Assembly over the last few years --and especially for the new biennium-- in targeting new dollars and establishing strategic initiatives might SchoolNet, SchoolNet Plus and a new facilities partnership. All told, these initiatives represent a state investment of more than $1.4 billion. These all add up to a solid foundation for building a new school financing system. A New Funding Framework Dr. Augenblick's performance-based model is an excellent centerpiece for framing a new funding system for Ohio's schools. I believe it is a rational model grounded in reality and, importantly, tied to measurable and successful student performance. Just as critical, I also believe this approach does address the Supreme Court's parameters for defining the basic cost of an adequate education. Further, this approach focuses on results and the investment necessary to achieving those results without locking us into an input-driven model. I believe the latter approach would take us down a cookie-cutter path to designing school programs. In a state as diverse as Ohio we need flexibility in the delivery and certainty in the results. In addition to endorsing the $4269 (FY1999) per pupil starting point that Dr. Augenblick has advanced, I concur in his recommendation to count all students in basic aid. Further, I think the adjustments he has proposed to the base cost -- i.e., costs of special student populations, high concentrations of poverty, and regional economic circumstance-- are rational and should be embraced in your work. Having said that, I would urge a rethinking of the recommended phase-in for the Cost-of-Doing-Business factor. It is my belief that this component of adequacy should be implemented in the same timeframe as the rest of the package. Further, the work of Dr. Augenblick, as well as other researchers who provided important input to that work, left open the issue of funding vocational and gifted education. Dr. Augenblick noted that there was no conclusive evidence that suggests how appropriate weights (above 1.0) would be measured for either of these programs. This finding left open the issue that there are clearly specific expenditures for these programs that can add to the cost of an educational program. His conclusion, as well as mine, moves in two parallel directions. First, acknowledging that this is a work in progress, more research should be done to better understand the costs of these vital programs. In particular, I agree that we need to view the data currently collected on participation in these programs to assure that we are adequately measuring their impact. Second, unlike Special Education, where there is a federal mandate to serve and an IEP process to assure participation, vocational and gifted programs must provide incentives to assure access by students. Without some state involvement to provide that incentive, these important state priorities could be subject to local budget demands and constraints unrelated to the programs' importance. As a result, the best way to assure access and success for Vocational and Gifted Education would be to set aside funding outside of the general distribution of state funds. Specifically, targeted funds linked to program provision and equalized to the state extent as basic aid, would provide a funding "bridge" that will meets current needs and still point us in the direction of incorporating these programs more directly through future research. The School Facilities Program that has been outlined is excellent and in my judgment very responsive to the Supreme Court's concerns. It redefines the state and local partnership for school facility financing by ensuring that this is count a permanent and substantive state partnership. Also, the front loading of capital funding that is recommended is important given the facility needs that exists. Finally, I think we need to find new ways to support and spark the state's capacity and that of the construction industry's to use these funds as efficiently and quickly as possible. I applaud the "new keys" to local property tax options. These new measures will give local boards options that will permit their school systems stability in funding and to keep their eye on the ball -i.e., achievement and school improvement rather than levy campaigns. That said, I believe we need to add one more key to the ring, which I will discuss below. Regarding other contours of the plan, the recommended four-year phase-in is reasonable and assures that new funding will be used wisely. I also support the proposed constitutional earmark for increased new funding and suggest we examine the advantages and disadvantages of protecting all state investments in education in a similar manner. The investment in, and k-3 focus of the Elementary Reading Fund is extremely important. Reading is an essential key to student success but it is not the only essential basic skill needed. We need to set high expectations for all students in all of the core academics, especially. No child should enter the fourth grade before successfully demonstrating mastery of all five components of the state proficiency exams. Later in my specify testimony, I propose some critical and targeted additional investments that can help us secure these results. Finally, while we might disagree on the bottom line of the tax package vis a vis its sufficiency, I will not comment on the specifics of the revenue package except to note that it carefully balances the needs and the means of various taxpayers. That balance seems to me to be an important ingredient of whatever final revenue enhancement package is agreed to by the end of the process. Weaknesses of the Plan I indicated during the School Funding Task Force deliberations that the second joint resolution that would remove the courts from deciding what is thorough and efficient was not a policy proposal I could support. We live in a democracy, and, as such, I respect that all points of view should have a forum and be freely expressed. Having said that, I also believe that a cornerstone of this democracy is the checks and balances between the branches of government. [Note: the cornerstone of democracy is mob-rule, i.e., the French Revolution. We are a Constitutional Republic and as such we elected individuals to represent us - to make decisions based on law - which may or may not be the will of the majority]. I cannot support the proposed amendment to circumvent the court's role in this debate on school funding and improvement. I am pleased that the issue has been separated from the rest of the plan so that we can concentrate our efforts on building a solution. I am troubled by the inclusion of the proposed education expense deduction. I have strong reservations about this component because the benefit to public school families appears to be marginal at best. In addition, Ohio already has an excellent record of investment in its chartered nonpublic school access. I believe the challenge before us in this process is to develop a solution for financing quality public school access. Improvement Opportunities There are a handful of critical add-ons to the base investment and other non-financial policy priorities I ask you to consider. I believe these proposals enhance and strengthen the solid foundation that has been put forward with the Administration's plan. First Things First - We need to continue the special emphasis on early education programming that the Administration and Assembly have championed for several reasons. First, the research shows these programs do make a difference. Second, in public opinion surveys these investments strike a chord with both parents and the public at large as appropriate ways to target funding and improve educational quality. This response is especially strong with efforts focused on reducing class size because parents intuitively believe their children will receive more instruction that is better tailored to their children's needs. Finally, these programs are at the substantive core of the Urban Schools initiative. [The State Board of Education was duped into adopting a resolution pertaining to the Urban Initiative. In addition, the SBE has never formally endorsed the Urban Initiative. The plan, originally promoted as necessary for urban districts, has since been redirected toward all schools. Had all districts known they were going to be impacted by the Urban Schools Initiative, I dare say there would have been far more participation in the crafting of the proposal]. The specific early education programs I would commend to you include (1) Quality Preschool Programs; (2) All-day, Every-day Kindergarten; and (3) Reduced Teacher Student Ratios in K-3 Classrooms. I think that the first priority for school in using the increased Basic Aid funding that is already recommended in the School funding Task Force proposal should be targeted at these three early education programs. For school districts that are currently struggling with the fourth grade proficiency tests, I would recommend requiring that they choose and implement at least two of these three early education programs to better ensure student success by grade four. If it is determine that the Task Force's level of investment is insufficient to cover these program expenditures, I would recommend adding funds to ensure these programs are offered, especially for districts with the greatest academic and economic deficiencies. In either case, we will want to scale-up these programs over the recommended four-year phase-in to ensure as efficient and effective use of this new resource. Performance Innovations and Incentives I would also suggest that is that we give strong consideration to continuing and expanding funding mechanisms that are focused on increasing performance and providing tangible rewards for success. For example, I would continue the existing incentive pool for teachers to pursue National Board Certification and the venture capital investment targeted at supporting innovation focused on increasing student achievement. I would also recommend we seize the opportunity to introduce a "reward for performance fund" as recommended in the State Board standards, the BEST agenda, and the budget just passed. I think we should give strong consideration to earmarking 1% of Ohio's statewide education budget for innovation and performance incentives. Professional Development The more I study the results of the recent TIMSS report and the 1997 proficiency data, the more convinced I am that retooling our teaching force is essential. While the new teacher standards will address the front-end of the teacher production pipeline, we have more than 100,000 teachers in our classrooms who need retraining now. [Why?] In keeping with the best practices of organizational development for high performing organizations in the private sector, we should be investing 2.5-4% of our total state education spending on training and development. I would strongly urge that we earmarked 1% of the state's investment in education as well as require another 2 % of local education funding for ongoing training and retooling. This would guarantee that Ohio invests 3% annually, or approximately the midpoint of the range described above, on staff development. Coupled with this new resource requirement, I also would recommend we use the state's policy authority to align teacher preparation and professional development programs with the performance expectations outlined in the new teacher and school standards. From my perspective, this alignment is critical because without it, we would simply spend more money on the same programs with no assurance they are directed at the result we seek. Stability and Predictability for Taxpayers and Schools I have given considerable thought to the various H.B. 920 relief options that are under consideration. I have dealt with this issue from both the state and local level and fully appreciate the difficulty we all face in responding to the Supreme Court's ruling to re-examine the interplay of H.B. 920 and school finance. As I noted above, I support the "keys" that have already been proposed and would recommend just one more. My opinion is that a relief strategy that is not effected statewide will not instill the stability we need for either school districts or taxpayer access. We need to give all the schools the means for the inflationary growth on that portion of their local millage that supports their share of adequacy. In other words, if the base cost of an adequate education grows with inflation and only the state share of the state-local financing partnership we have assumed to support adequacy increases, then we have not fully ensured adequacy over time. Active Public Engagement You have often heard me talk about the critical importance of building new partnerships with our parents and communities in improving Ohio's schools. Very simply, our school improvement equation will not be successful if we rely solely on legislation and other activity around the State House Square. Ohio needs a school improvement strategy that recognizes significant roles for both the state and local community in improving schools. To realize the level of change and improvement we need requires by necessity both a "top down" and "bottom up" dynamic that actively involves parents and all segments of the community in both the state and local policy debate. To that in, I would recommend the following. On the state level, appoint an independent citizens commission to monitor the state's new investment and to report annually to the people of Ohio on the progress made in realizing the returns on those investments. I also think the Business Roundtable's suggestion that a special statewide management audit of all current education programs, operations, governance and costs makes sense and should be the first order of business for this citizens commission. [It appears that Dr. Goff is calling for another entity to do the work of the State Board of Education.] At the community level, it will be critical for each of us to advocate and support community-level, citizen-driven school improvement efforts like the BEST Communities initiative. [Throughout these remarks, Dr. Goff is zealous in promoting the shadow State Board of Education, i.e., BEST]. The research shows that parent and community involvement is essential to creating schools where students and learn and teachers can teach. Conclusion The funding proposal before you, combined with the progress that you have made in improving school funding over the last several years, is an excellent foundation. In this testimony, I have offered several suggestions for improving it. Adoption of these suggestions, [Dr. Goff's] in conjunction with your approval of the State Board's graduation and accountability standards, should result in a package that meets the requirements detailed in the Supreme Court's ruling. Mr. chairman, as I complete my testimony, I would like to say a couple of things about Ohio's BEST . . .the statewide education improvement coalition that I am privileged to co-chair with Bob Wehling, senior vice president of the Proctor & Gamble Company. As you are aware, Ohio's BEST is a coalition of unprecedented depth and diversity. Parents and educators. Business and labor. Representatives of higher education and community organizations. Never before has such a broad-based group of stakeholders . . . more than 100 organizations from throughout the state . . .come together for the single-minded purpose of improving education. Ohio's BEST recognizes that education is a MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY . . .that all stakeholders must participate in the process of crafting solutions to the problems facing our schools. As all of you know . . . Ohio's BEST has developed a BEST SCHOOLS agenda, which has generated considerable discussion in recent weeks. A copy of that agenda has been distributed to your offices . . . and we have additional copies for your review today. When the BEST SCHOOLS plan first broke in the media . . . there was a predictable emphasis on the money. It certainly makes great headlines . . . so none of us was particularly surprised. But it needs to be emphasized that the BEST SCHOOLS agenda is less about money than it is about results. It's about systemic change. It's about doing things differently . . . about doing them better. The BEST agenda is a comprehensive package of education reform initiatives . . . and as such, it acknowledges that simply tinkering at the margins . . . or implementing changes in a fragmented, piecemeal fashion . . . will NOT create an education system that prepares our children for the 21st century. And while it calls for a new investment in education, that agenda also acknowledges that money ALONE is NOT the answer for Ohio's schools. In this regards . . . let me emphasize that the BEST SCHOOLS agenda is NOT a response to the DeRolph decision. The fact is, we've been working hard for more than three years to put together our BEST SCHOOLS agenda. While the court decision perhaps adds a greater urgency to our efforts, it also provides a unique opportunity to ensure that funding reform is tied directly to substantive education reform. During these hearings . . .several members of the BEST coalition will be appearing before you . . .offering their views and suggestions relative to the legislation being considered by this committee. Each of these organizations will voice its own views . . . its own concerns . . . and its own suggestions. But I believe that from each of these organizations . . .beginning with the Ohio Business Roundtable that will follow me to this podium . . .you will also hear a consistent message . . . one that is grounded in the BEST SCHOOLS agenda. And with the chairman's permission . . . I'd like to take just a moment to highlight the three critical elements of that message. First and most important . . .improving levels of achievement -- results for students and schools -- must go hand-in-hand with funding reform. This means higher standards . . .higher expectations . . .and increased accountability. If we fail to address these issues . . . we will have failed Ohio's children. Second, if we are serious about improving the performance of our children and schools . . .there needs to be a special emphasis on helping the children entering school for the first time in the fall of 1998 to get off to a right start. We call it First Things First . . .a set of actions designed to ensure that every child in Ohio is at least "at grade level" in reading, writing, math and other core areas by the end of the third grade . . .as measured by his or her performance on rigorous fourth-grade proficiency tests. The research here is clear: Children who have not gotten onto the trajectory of success by age 8 are all the harder to recover. Third, while Ohio's BEST has NOT fashioned a new funding strategy for our public schools . . . regardless of what you've heard or read . . . we have developed some principles to help guide you in your deliberations. We need to establish an objective, cost-based funding system to determine the components and cost of a high quality education for all students in every Ohio district. We need to re-examine and redirect existing school dollars. Substantial, new investments will be needed, but they are not the only funding source for improved performance. We should work to phase in new "quality" investments over four to six years. And, finally . . . we need to link new investments to results. e.g. Investments in "learn and earn" Investments for professional development Investments for support innovative practices Mr. Chairman, Ohio's BEST is presently developing a more specific set of recommendations on these and other issues . . . recommendations that we will be sharing with this committee shortly. Most importantly, these recommendations will be based on the principles that I have highlighted here . . . and on the values that will be reflected in the testimony of BEST's member organizations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman |
|