From: Ann Brennan
FYI: Senate Finance Committee reported out the Senate version of the budget late yesterday, HB 64, full Senate will vote later today, attached is a summary of the major education related changes in the Senate version. Next steps: the House/Senate Conference Committee will convene and determine the final budget bill which must be passed by the end of June. Click here for synopsis.
Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
June 1, 2015
1) Ohio News
•131st Ohio General Assembly: The Ohio Senate has scheduled a session on Wednesday, but cancelled sessions on Tuesday and Thursday. The Ohio House and Senate education committees are not meeting this week.
After several hectic weeks of hearings, lawmakers in the House and Senate are taking it easy this week. The next Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Oelslager, will be held on June 8, 2015, when the Senate’s version of Substitute HB64 will be released. Hearings on the substitute bill will be held on June 9-12, 2015, with a floor vote expected on Wednesday, June 17, 2015.
According to news accounts, Senate President Keith Faber announced last week that the Senate’s plan for the biennial budget bill, HB64 (Smith), will include an overall net reduction in state taxes, a new severance tax, and tax cuts for small businesses. The Senate will also propose an increase in funding for schools based on the current funding formula, and incorporate a plan to eliminate the use of caps and guarantees in the future.
The Senate President also reported that he expects charter school reforms to be approved before the summer recess. The Senate Finance-Education Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Hite, has been receiving testimony on two bills - HB2 (Dovilla-Roegner) and the more comprehensive SB148 (Lehner/Sawyer). HB2 will probably be amended to include SB148, because HB2 has already been approved by the House, and the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bills can be worked-out in a conference committee.
See “Ohio Senate Republicans eye larger tax cuts in their budget plan” by Jeremy Pelzer, Northeast Ohio Media Group, Cleveland.com at
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/05/ohio_senate_republicans_eye_la.html
See “Ohio Senate leader disagrees with House on school-funding plan” by Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch, May 29, 2015 at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/05/29/lawmakers-disagree-on-school-funds.html
•HB153 Sent to the Governor: The Ohio Senate approved HB153 (Dovilla) Primary Elections on May 27, 2015. The bill would move Ohio’s 2016 presidential primary election to the week of March 15th rather than the first Tuesday after the first Monday, March 8th. The move would allow the winner of the Republican party primary election to take all Ohio delegates to the Republican presidential convention in Cleveland. Based on the rules adopted by the Republican National Committee, if the Republican primary is held earlier in March, the delegates would be awarded proportionately to candidates. The bill now moves to the governor to sign into law.
•Ohio Awarded NSC Grant: The National Skills Coalition (NSC), Andy Van Kleunen CEO, announced on May 29, 2015 that Ohio, California, Mississippi, and Rhode Island will participate in its State Workforce and Education Alignment Project (SWEAP). Each state will receive $180,000 to implement new data tools to better align workforce development and higher education programs with industry, employer, and employee needs. In Ohio the NSC will partner with the Ohio Board of Regents. The National Skills Coalition was founded in 1998 as the Workforce Alliance to ensure that state and federal policies are aligned with the employment needs of industries. The NSC has more than 3,200 members in 25 states and is funded by JPMorgan Chase, Ford Foundation, and USA Funds.
See http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org
•Cincinnati Organizing Preschool for All: Education Week reports that the Cincinnati Preschool Promise is developing a proposal to publicly fund a preschool program for young children in the Cincinnati area. Details about the program have not been finalized, but the program could provide free preschool for four-year-olds, or three and four-year-olds, in the city or throughout Hamilton County. The program would be funded by a tax, which voters would have a chance to consider on the November 2016 ballot.
See “Cincinnati Leaders Launch Preschool-for-All Initiative” by Christina Samuels, Education Week, May 26, 2015 at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early_years/2015/05/cincinnati_leaders_launch_preschool-for-all_initiative.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS3
•Report on Charter Audits Released: The Akron Beacon Journal published on May 31, 2015 an analysis of audits conducted by the State Auditor’s office last year, and found that no other sector of government misspends tax dollars more than charter schools. According to the article, “While there were fewer than 400 charter schools among the 5,800 [audits], they accounted for 70 percent of all the tax dollars found to be misspent, often intentionally and illegally, according to 14 years of audits reviewed by the Beacon Journal”. Since 2001 state auditors have identified $27.3 million in improper spending by charter schools. The article goes on to explain how the State Auditor’s Office is rethinking its practice of outsourcing charter school audits to private companies after concerns were raised about the financial stability of some of the privately audited charter schools.
See two articles:
“State auditors try to pinpoint ill-spent funds”by Doug Livingston, Akron Beacon Journal, May 31, 2015 at http://akronbeaconjournal.oh.newsmemory.com/?token=5eaf3cb3b11f783f2838e9be81e4ce80_556b09f3_21aa&selDate=20150531&goTo=A01&artid=art_0.xml
“Charter Schools Misspend Millions in Ohio” by Doug Livingston, Akron Beacon Journal, May 31, 2015 at http://akronbeaconjournal.oh.newsmemory.com/?token=5eaf3cb3b11f783f2838e9be81e4ce80_556b09f3_21aa&selDate=20150531&goTo=A01&artid=art_0.xml
2) Update on HB64: The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Oelslager, received reports last week from several subcommittees reviewing the state’s biennial budget proposal, Sub. HB64 (Smith). Each of the chairs of the subcommittees provided a recap of the testimony presented, which was followed by a response from the ranking Democrats on the subcommittees.
According to Hannah News Service, the Senate Republican summaries of the budget hearings highlighted concerns about a number of issues, including the shortfall in the budget for developmental disabilities; addiction services for inmates; cuts to the Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security, and Criminal Justice Services; college affordability; food insecurity; additional funds for absentee voting; tax cuts and tax reforms; and more.
The Senate Republican caucus’ recommendations for primary and secondary education are likely to include increasing state aid over current levels; using the current school funding formula to create a consistent and stable school funding formula; and finding a way to phaseout the use of caps and guarantees.
Senate Democrats reported that the biennial budget should focus on ways to support the middle class by lowering the unemployment rate, securing living wage jobs, and strengthening Ohio’s economy.
Among the overall budget recommendations, Democrats support increasing funds for local governments and libraries; ensuring Medicaid eligibility; investing in small businesses; and restoring the collective bargaining rights of health and child care workers. The caucus also opposes tax cuts, when so many Ohioans are struggling and need government services.
Senator Tom Sawyer, Vice Chair of the Senate Finance-Education Subcommittee, presented to the Finance Committee the Democratic caucus’ priorities and vision for K-12 education in Sub. HB64. He said that after hearing from hundreds of witnesses, there are concerns about the uncertainty and adequacy of the state’s funding system for schools and the decision to phaseout the Tangible Personal Property Tax reimbursements (TPP).
According to his testimony, Senate Democrats agree that the caps, guarantees, and reimbursements for TPP must go, but he goes on to say, “However, the bottom line is this: we believe that the system is still woefully underfunded, and there are still many districts throughout the state that simply do not have the resources necessary to offer the variety of educational opportunities that students need.”
The Democrats propose the following amendments be included in HB64 regarding primary and secondary education:
-Maintain the structure of the Governor’s formula and his vision to eliminate guarantees and TPP, but infuse substantial additional funding into school districts to meet the goals of DeRolph.
-Increase by 2 percent sub-group funding for gifted, limited English proficient, and economically disadvantaged populations.
-Fund transportation outside of the guarantee and cap to enable districts to realize the full amount of their transportation funds.
-Restore the minimum state share applied to a district’s calculated transportation cost to 60%.
-Revise the Transportation Task Force to include three school district representatives (rural, suburban, urban), and minority chamber appointees.
-Revise the Transportation Task Force’s topics to be studied to include, but not be limited to, the motor fuel excise tax, the cost and lack of funding for school buses, operational challenges associated with transporting to district, charter, and nonpublic school buildings, and barriers to considering alternative fuels.
-Add SB148 (Lehner/Sawyer) as an amendment to HB64.
-Require that, in the event that a district approves the submission of a levy proposing to share funding with a charter, that the levy be separated from the levy of the sponsoring district, and that the charter school bear all levy costs for their levy.
-Remove the bill’s provisions allowing all school districts to contract out their health services.
-Clarify the language to allow non-licensed teachers in high performing districts to participate in STRS.
-Remove the Cleveland voucher expansion in its entirety.
-Remove language prohibiting GRF funds from being used to purchase PARCC assessments, and restore the Student Assessment line item to Executive levels.
3) National News
•Wisconsin Bill Would Eliminate Teacher Training Requirements: The Minneapolis StarTribune reported on May 28, 2015 that lawmakers in Wisconsin are considering legislation to create an alternative teacher licensing process that eliminates teacher coursework and training requirements, but requires a school or district to prove that a teaching candidate is proficient in the subject(s) to be taught. According to the article,
“Under the change, anyone with relevant experience could be licensed to teach non-core academic subjects in grades six through 12. They would not need a bachelor’s degree and they could even be a high school dropout.”
“Anyone with a bachelor’s degree could be licensed to teach in core subjects of English, math, social studies or science.”
The provision is included in the state’s budget proposal, and is not the only controversial provision in the bill. The budget bill would also cut $300 million for higher education and $130 million for K-12 education; expand vouchers; and increase funds for charter schools.
Lawmakers in Ohio are also considering legislation that would lower teacher licensing requirements for high performing school districts. The House approved version of HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, expands from 12 to 40 the number of hours that an unlicensed teacher can teach. The Ohio Senate approved in March 2015 Sub. SB3 (Hite/Faber), which exempts high performing school districts from requiring teachers to be licensed specifically in the grade levels in which they are teaching. The bill would also allow the superintendent of a high performing school district, with board approval, to employ an individual “who is not licensed as required by sections 3319.22 to 3319.30 of the Revised Code, but who is otherwise qualified based on experience, to teach classes in the district.”
See “Wisconsin may be first state to license teachers who don’t have bachelor’s degree,” by Scott Bauner (Associated Press), Minneapolis StarTribune, May 28, 2015 at http://www.startribune.com/wisconsin-may-be-first-to-license-teachers-without-degree/305380021/
•States Receive NCLB Exemptions: Alyson Klein reports for Education Week that the U.S. Department of Education has granted exemptions from school rating systems consequences this year to five states that do not have “waivers” from the No Child Left Behind Act. The exemptions were granted to California, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and Washington as they implement new tests aligned to new standards. States will still be required to publish assessment data.
See “Five Non-Waiver States Will Get to Pause School Ratings For a Year” by Alyson Klein, Education Week, May 21, 2015 at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/05/five_non-waiver_states_will_ge.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS3.
4) Latest Condition of Education Released: The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, released on May 28, 2015 an annual report to Congress about the nation’s education system entitled The Condition of Education 2015.
The report includes the status and condition of preK, K-12, higher education, and private schools based on 42 indicators. According to the report, “These indicators focus on population characteristics, such as educational attainment and economic outcomes, participation in education at all levels, as well as aspects of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, including international comparisons. New to the report this year are three spotlight indicators that describe approaches to learning behaviors for first-time kindergartners, disparities in educational outcomes among male youth of color, and differences in postsecondary degree completion by socioeconomic status.”
The following are some highlights from the report:
-The nation spent $620 billion in federal, state, and local dollars on public schools in 2011-2012, compared to $553 billion in the 2001-2002 school year.
-91 percent of young adults ages 25 to 29 had a high school diploma or its equivalent in 2014, and 34 percent had a bachelor’s or higher degree.
-20 percent of school-age children (10.9 million) lived in poverty in 2013. This is an increase of 6 percent in the poverty rate from 2000 when one in seven school-age children lived in poverty.
-65 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds were enrolled in preschool in 2013, which is about the same as in the previous year.
-In the fall of 2012, nearly 50 million students were enrolled in public schools.
-Charter school enrollment increased from 300,000 students in 1999-2000 to 2.3 million students in 2012-2013. The proportion of public school students who attend charters increased from 0.7 percent to 4.6 percent.
-42 percent of students attending charter schools are White; 35 percent are Black; and 20 percent are Hispanic.
-Private school enrollment for preK through grade 12 decreased from 6.3 million in 2001–2002 to 5.3 million in 2011-2012. The percent of all students in private schools decreased from 12 percent in 1995-96 to 10 percent in 2011-12.
-The total number of private school students attending Catholic schools decreased from 2.7 million in 1995–96 to 2.1 million in 2011–12, and the share of private school students in Catholic schools declined from 45 percent in 1995–96 to 40 percent in 2011–12.
-Postsecondary enrollment was at 20 million students in the fall of 2013, including 17 million undergraduate and 3 million graduate students.
-In school year 2011–12, some 3.1 million public high school students, or 81 percent, graduated on time with a regular diploma.
-66 percent of 2013 high school completers enrolled in college the following fall: 42 percent went to 4-year institutions and 24 percent went to 2-year institutions.
-The percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and do not have a high school credential, declined from 11 percent in 2000 to 7 percent in 2013.
-In 2013, over 1 million associate’s degrees, over 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees, and over 750,000 master’s degrees were awarded.
-In 2012 in Ohio, less than 45 percent of staff in public elementary and secondary schools were teachers. This is less than the national average of 50.3 percent.
See “The Condition of Education 2015,” by Grace Kena, Lauren Musu-Gillette, Jennifer Robinson (National Center for Education Statistics); Xiaolei Wang, Amy Rathbun, Jijun Zhang Sidney Wilkinson-Flicker (American Institutes for Research); and Amy Barmer, Erin Dunlop Velez (RTI International). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf
See “One in five U.S. schoolchildren are living below federal poverty line”, by Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post, May 29, 2015 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/one-in-five-us-schoolchildren-are-living-below-federal-poverty-line/2015/05/28/2402f164-0556-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html
5) A Different Path to Ensure Successful Schools: ASCD released on May 20, 2015 its Global Policy Agenda for 2015. The agenda includes goals and strategies for a comprehensive public education system that moves beyond the priority that all students be college, career, and citizenship ready. Instead the policy agenda sets as its goal the successful development of the whole child, which includes a well-rounded education in all academic subjects and social-emotional learning supports.
The Global Policy Agenda includes the following recommendations to promote the success of students, educators, schools, and communities:
•Establish a multi-metric accountability system: A comprehensive accountability model for schools should incorporate multiple measures of performance, include all subjects, nonacademic factors, and promote continuous improvement and support. Community level data should be reported to highlight the shared responsibility for student success, and governments must be held accountable for the progress and ongoing support for the most needy students.
•Reduce the reliance on standardized testing: “Many existing testing requirements are woefully inadequate to determine whether students possess the knowledge, skills, and traits needed for school and career success.” The results of standardized testing provide an incomplete assessment of student achievement and school quality, and should never be used for high-stakes purposes, or to rank students, educators, or schools.
•Promote a whole child education: “A whole child approach can best prepare students to be college, career, and citizenship ready,” and includes comprehensive opportunities in all academic subjects, including the arts; social and emotional learning; mental health and counseling services; meaningful student and parental engagement; early childhood education and affordable postsecondary learning; and appropriate and necessary supports for each child across multiple sectors.
•Honor and support the education profession: Efforts should be made to recruit, train, and induct teachers into a teaching profession. All educators should participate in an induction process that provides time to “....reflect and refine their practice, and personalized professional development that recognizes their strengths and allows them to grow.” Time and resources are needed to provide ongoing professional development for teachers and school leaders.
ASCD represents over 125,000 superintendents, principals, teachers; advocates from more than 138 countries; and is dedicated to excellence in learning, teaching, and leading,
See ASCD Global Policy Agenda 2015 at http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/2015-Global-Policy-Agenda.pdf
6) Bills Introduced:
•HB231 (Grossman/McClain) Property Valuation Complaints: To require counties, municipal corporations, townships, and school boards that file complaints against the valuation of property they do not own, to pass a resolution approving the complaint and specifying the compensation paid to any person retained to represent the county, municipal corporation, township, or school board in the matter of the complaint.
•SB173 (Jordan) Special Elections: To eliminate the ability to conduct special elections in February and August.
FYI ARTS
•A Place for the Arts in the STEM Curriculum: Melissa Beattie-Moss asks where the arts fit into the school curriculum that is more focused on science, technology, engineering, and math in an article for PhysOrg.com. In an interview with Christine Marmé Thompson, director of the Penn State School of Visual Arts Art Education, she learns that, “The visual arts are a powerful language for communicating concepts and theories in any field, both during the process of being developed and once they are finished ‘products’ to be shared with others.”
The article goes on to say that an important concept for students to learn in order to be successful in today’s creative economy is understanding that the knowledge and skills that they are learning are interconnected and can be applied to other situations. The arts help students to better understand this concept, and make connections among the lessons they are learning during the day.
In addition to all the practical reasons for supporting the arts in school, the author also writes that participating in the arts makes children and adults happy, proud, and confident, and supports the development of creative thinkers.
See “Probing Question: Is art an essential school subject?” by Melissa Beattie-Moss, Phys/Org, May 25, 2015 at
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-probing-art-essential-school-subject.html
Testimony on Sub. SB 3 to the House Education Committee
Presented by: Ann Brennan, Executive Director
Ohio School Psychologists Association
May 19, 2015
Chairman Hayes, Vice Chairman Brenner, Ranking Minority member Fedor and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the members of our association, over 900 school psychologists serving Ohio’s students.
I am Ann Brennan and I am the Executive Director of OSPA. School psychologists are highly trained in the multi-layered area of educational assessments, including: selecting which diagnostic assessments are best to use to determine a student’s academic level and progress, assisting school based evaluation teams in interpreting assessment results, and using the data gleaned from assessments to both design interventions and monitor the progress students are making during the intervention period. School psychologists also serve on evaluation teams responsible for evaluating students referred to them with a suspected disability. Additionally school psychologists play an essential role in designing and implementing behavioral interventions, as well as serving on school teams focused on delivering and improving school based mental health services to students.
OSPA has a long-standing position that opposes the use of single indicators based on high stakes test that are then tied to grade promotion or graduation as well as using such test results to evaluate educators or school districts. We believe there is a disconnect between the requirements in NCLB, IDEIA and state testing requirements and an over reliance on high stakes testing in our state accountability system. We are supportive, however, of well-developed uniform state curriculum standards and support the new Ohio learning standards. Although NCLB does require uniform standards and certain grade testing, it does not require that states elevate those tests into a high stakes accountability system that in turn harms students. OSPA would like to explore alternatives that strike a better balance between accountability for school districts while also using appropriate, multiple measures, for assessing student achievement. We are also appreciative of the need to address the conflict between NCLB, IDEIA, and state law and rules with regard to the issue of the extended years students with disabilities have to graduate high school- this issue needs to be addressed in the federal and state accountability systems.
In addition to this overarching position, we have specific concerns related to the following SB 3 provisions:
- Diagnostic assessment testing: We believe that testing limits be developed in a way that is meaningful rather than arbitrary and agree that this area needs thoughtful and deliberative study. OSPA opposes testing limitation mandates on diagnostic assessments or other curriculum based local measures of educational progress. These curriculum driven, short cycle formative assessments give educators the most useful information to determine where students are and how best to get them where they need to be. They also are designed to focus on particular strengths and weaknesses so that specific interventions can be designed to address them. Additionally they are the only type of assessments where progress towards the desired educational outcome can be tracked at regular intervals, with immediate results, throughout the school year and then compared to the benchmark data collected at the beginning of the assessment cycle. This progress monitoring informs educators whether the interventions are working, and if not, directs them to design different ones. We recommend allowing school districts to make this a local decision, and recommend adding language that exempts all students at risk for failure from these restrictions on the use of diagnostic assessments.
- Exempting high performing districts from teacher licensure and class size requirements: We do not support exempting high performing school districts from educator licensure standards or class size requirements. We do not believe that students will be well served by allowing unlicensed individuals to teach any subject or grade level. Teachers should be licensed in their content areas or grade level areas. We understand the notion that individuals expert in certain fields may want to become teachers and would recommend this be considered through a specific waiver process, rather than this carte blanche approach. OSPA also does not support exempting school districts from the class size requirements. School psychologists believe in reasonable class sizes for optimum student learning, regardless of the mixed bag of imperfect research on this issue, large class sizes seem absolutely counter intuitive. Research on improving mental health outcomes for students indicate where there is a more personal, mentoring relationship between students and teachers school climate and individual mental health is enhanced, the larger the class sizes the less likely this will occur.
Thank you for considering OSPA’s concerns and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Ohio School Psychologists Association
4449 Easton Way, 2nd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43219
614-414-5980
Written Testimony on HB 64 to the Senate Finance Education Subcommittee
Submitted by: Ann Brennan, Executive Director
Ohio School Psychologists Association
May 13, 2015
Chairman Hite, Vice Chairman Sawyer and members of the Senate Finance Education Subcommittee, thank you for his opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of Ohio’s school psychologists. I am Ann Brennan and I am the Executive Director of OSPA. Our association represents over 900 school psychologists serving Ohio’s students. School psychologists are highly trained in the multi-layered area of educational assessments, including: selecting which diagnostic assessments are best to use to determine a student’s academic level and progress, assisting school based evaluation teams in interpreting assessment results, and using the data gleaned from assessments to both design interventions and monitor the progress students are making during the intervention period. School psychologists also serve on evaluation teams responsible for evaluating students referred to them with a suspected disability.
Before focusing on a few of the many important education related provisions in HB 64, I would first like to express OSPA’s appreciation for the continued state funding of the school psychology intern program, included as a special education enhancement. This program is vital to the Ohio school psychology profession as it supports the ODE approved school psychology training programs by funding the intern placements in school districts. We are again experiencing shortages of school psychologists in parts of the state, the university training programs address these shortages by working in their geographic regions to determine where the unmet needs are, and then working with school districts to encourage them to become an approved intern site. OSPA supports the OCECD’s funding recommendations for both this special education enhancement as well as the parent mentor program.
I would like to focus my comments on the following:
- School funding formula: OSPA supports the House passed version of the funding formula, and supports retaining these improvements.
- ESC funding and related policy provisions: OSPA supports the subcommittee testimony presented by OESCA, including retaining current ESC funding levels as recommended by the State Board of Education. ODE utilizes the ESC network through the State Regional Support teams to assist all districts with school improvement initiatives as well as other statewide training initiatives for all schools. ESC’s also provide essential special education services to school districts, many of which could not offer all the services without the collaboration with the ESC’s. OSPA supports funding all ESC’s at a per pupil level of $28.42 per pupil, we do not support the language which calls for defining high performing and low performing ESC’s with tiered funding. We believe this could be particularly onerous to some of the poorer rural school districts that are in greatest need of ESC services, particularly in the area of special education services.
- Diagnostic assessment testing: We believe that testing limits be developed in a way that is meaningful rather than arbitrary and agree that this area needs thoughtful and deliberative study. OSPA opposes testing limitation mandates on diagnostic assessments or other curriculum based local measures of educational progress. These curriculum driven, short cycle formative assessments give educators the most useful information to determine where students are and how best to get them where they need to be. They also are designed to focus on particular strengths and weaknesses so that specific interventions can be designed to address them. Additionally they are the only type of assessments where progress towards the desired educational outcome can be tracked at regular intervals throughout the school year and then compared to the benchmark data collected at the beginning of the assessment cycle. This progress monitoring informs educators whether the interventions are working, and if not, directs them to design different ones.
- Exempting high performing districts from teacher licensure and class size requirements: We do not support exempting high performing school districts from educator licensure standards or class size requirements. We do not believe that students will be well served by allowing unlicensed individuals to teach any subject or grade level. Teachers should be licensed in their content areas or grade level areas. We understand the notion that individuals expert in certain fields may want to become teachers and would recommend this be considered through a specific waiver process, rather than this carte blanche approach. OSPA also does not support exempting school districts from the class size requirements. School psychologists believe in reasonable class sizes for optimum student learning, regardless of the mixed bag of imperfect research on this issue, large class sizes seem absolutely counter intuitive. Research on improving mental health outcomes for students indicate where there is a more personal, mentoring relationship between students and teachers school climate and individual mental health is enhanced, the larger the class sizes the less likely this will occur.
- Special education funding: OSPA supports the Ohio Coalition for the Education of Students with Disabilities (OCECD) funding request, as it was generated from a research based cost study.
- Gifted funding: OSPA supports the OAGC recommendation to increase the level of accountability for gifted funding by requiring all districts to spend gifted funding in the foundation formula on identification and appropriately licensed gifted personnel.
Lastly, OSPA has a long-standing position that opposes the use of a single indicator based on a high stakes test that is then tied to grade promotion or graduation as well as using such test results to evaluate educators or school districts. We believe there is a disconnect between the requirements in NCLB, IDEIA and state testing requirements and an over reliance on high stakes testing in our state accountability system. Although NCLB does require uniform standards and certain grade testing, it does not require that states elevate those tests into a high stakes accountability system that in turn harms students. OSPA would like to explore alternatives that strike a better balance between accountability for school districts while also using appropriate, multiple measures, for assessing student achievement. We are also appreciative of the need to address the conflict between NCLB, IDEIA, and state law and rules with regard to the issue of the extended years students with disabilities have to graduate high school- this issue needs to be addressed in our state report card system.
Thank you for considering our views.
Ann Brennan, Executive Director
Ohio School Psychologists Association
4449 Easton Way, 2nd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43219
614-414-5980
From: Ann Brennan
FYI: Note the Senate Advisory Committee on Testing's recommendations on the state assessments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>
To: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 10:10 pm
Subject: Arts on Line Education Update May 4, 2015
Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
May 4, 2015
1) Ohio News
•131st Ohio General Assembly: The Ohio House and Senate will hold hearings and sessions this week.
The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on May 5, 2015 at
9:00 AM in hearing room 017. The committee will receive testimony on HB70 (Driehaus/Brenner) School Restructuring; SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemption; HB160 (Devitis) Textbooks-Higher Education.
The Senate Finance Education Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Hite, will meet on May 6, 2015, at 2:30 PM in the North Hearing Room or after session. The committee will receive testimony on
SB148 (Lehner) Charter School Oversight; HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship; and HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.
The Senate Finance Education Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Hite, will also meet on May 7, 2015, at 11:00 AM in the South Hearing Room, to receive testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.
The House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Representative McClain, will meet on May 7, 2015 at 1:30 PM in hearing room 121. One of the bills the committee will consider is HB99 (Curtin) Income Tax-School Funding. This bill would require that an amount equal to state income tax collections, less HB99 amounts contributed to the Ohio political party fund via the income tax checkoff, be distributed for the support of elementary, secondary, vocational, and special education programs.
•School Issues and More on the May 5, 2015 Ballot: A primary/ special election will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 2015. Voters will be asked to decide 336 local issues, including 102 school issues. The school issues include 78 tax levies; 15 income tax issues for schools; two school bond issues; and 7 combined tax issues for schools. Information about the issues is available at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Voters/whatsontheballot/whatsOnBallot.aspx
•ODE Releases Literacy Improvement Results: The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released on April 30, 2015 K-3 Literacy Improvement results for the 2013-14 school year. These results will be added to the state report cards for districts and schools.
The K-3 Literacy Improvement measure shows if a district or school is making progress in improving literacy in kindergarten through grade three, and the progress that “not on tract” students are making to become a proficient reader by the end of third grade.
The measure is based on the results from the fall reading diagnostic assessments, which students take in kindergarten through grade three, and the results from the third grade reading assessment.
Along with the report card data, the ODE also released the results of a longitudinal study that showed a connection between reading proficiently at the third grade and graduation rates for the class of 2013. The ODE examined the third grade assessment results of about 113,000 students in the class of 2013, and found that 95 percent of those scoring as “advanced” readers at the end of third grade graduated on time, while 57 percent of those scoring at the “limited” reading level graduated on time.
See “New Study Finds Strong Relationship Between Third Grade Reading Proficiency and On-time Graduation Rate for Ohio Students”, Ohio Department of Education, 4/30/15 at
2) National News
•States Reduce Testing: Catherine Gewertz reports for Education Week that the Miami-Dade school district in Florida dropped all but 10 end of course exams after Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a new law permitting districts to make decisions about testing. The districts had been administering 300 exams a year. The district will also give end of course exams to a randomly selected pool of students as a field test, rather than require all students to take the assessments.
The Miami-Dade school district is the largest in Florida, and fifth largest in the country. The new law caps the number of hours students can spend on state tests, and eliminates the 11th grade English/language arts test.
The law responds to concerns expressed by parents and educators about the amount of time students are spending on testing. The article notes that the Texas legislature is considering bills that also eliminate some of the testing state’s requirements.
See “Florida’s Biggest District Cuts Nearly All End-of-Course Exams”, by Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, April 27, 2015, at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/04/miami_dade_cut_nearly_all_end_of_course_exams.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2
•Symposium Addresses Poverty in Schools: The ASCD will stream live a symposium on May 6, 2015 entitled ”Poverty and Education: Addressing Poverty as a Sector, as a School, and as a Classroom”. This free event is part of ASCD’s Whole Child Symposium, and will examine poverty as it relates to school reform and education improvement efforts. According to the advance information, the Southern Education Foundation reports that for the first time, a majority of public school children in the United States come from low socioeconomic households. Unfortunately there is a strong correlation between poverty and student achievement. For example, a 2014 study published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that poverty could explain up to 46 percent of the scores on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
•Update on Student Privacy Bills: A Policy Update from the National Association of State Board of Education describes some of the bills that Congress is considering to regulate online service providers to ensure student privacy, student data security, and family privacy.
U.S. House Representatives Jared Polis (D-CO) and Luke Messer (R-IN) introduced a privacy bill on April 29, 2015 to regulate how online service providers that serve state and local education agencies, handle student data. Lawmakers shared a draft of the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act of 2015 in March 2015, but student privacy advocates soon identified a number of problems with the bill, and so the sponsors worked with parent groups, students privacy experts, and the Obama administration to tighten the language.
The bill prohibits vendors from selling student data or marketing to students; requires vendors to meet new standards about data security; provide information about data breaches and contracts with third parties; includes metadata (data about data); and directs the Federal Trade Commission to take charge of enforcement and regulation of the education-technology industry. Vendors would be required to publicly list the kind of personal information being collected or generated, how the information is being used, with whom is it shared, and how long the data will be held.
Also in the U.S. House, Representatives John Kline (R-MN) and Bobby Scott (D-VA) are working on a bipartisan update of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), first signed into law in 1974. The law helps parents access the education records of students, but has been amended over the years to regulate online service providers as well.
The proposed bill would regulate state education agencies, local education agencies, and contractors that serve state agencies and schools. Among its provisions, the bill would require that parents be notified when a state or local education agency shares data with a third party, and how the third party is protecting the student’s data.
In the U.S. Senate, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is expected to introduce a privacy law, while Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ed Markey (D-MA) are updating FERPA.
See “A Tale of Two Federal Student Data Privacy Bills,” by Amelia Vance, National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), May 2015.
http://www.nasbe.org/wp-content/uploads/Tale-of-Two-Data-Privacy-Bills_May-2015.pdf
•Pell Grants to Support Earning College Credits in High School: Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced on April 28, 2015 the Go to High School, Go to College Act. The bill would allow Pell Grants to be used by high school students from low-income families to pay for college-level courses. High schools would be reimbursed with Pell funds for the student’s tuition and fees after the student earns the credit. Representatives Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and Chris Gibson (R-NY) will introduce similar legislation in the U.S. House. There is some discussion about including this provision in the Higher Education Act.
3) OBM Critical of House School Funding Plan: Tim Keen, director of the Office of Budget and Management, told the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Finance Education Subcommittee last week that he and Governor Kasich have concerns about the House changes in the biennial budget bill, HB64 (Smith).
After presenting to the Senate Finance Education Committee on April 29, 2015 an overview of the education provisions supported by Governor Kasich, Director Keen summarized the changes made by the House to the school funding formula, and the concerns that he has with those changes.
Director Keen explained that Governor Kasich’s proposed school funding formula builds on the current formula; targets resources to districts with the least capacity to fund an appropriate educational program; and establishes a way in the future for state aid to be distributed to schools through the state formula, rather than using guarantees and the gain cap.
According to Director Keen, the House school funding provisions, which ensure that school districts receive at least FY15 funding levels, could undermine the stability of the state’s school funding system in the future. The House school funding plan directs limited resources to some school districts with high capacity to raise local revenue; perpetuates reliance on the guarantee; increases the number of school districts that are affected by the funding cap; and creates new state funding obligations, which will be difficult to support in the future. For example, about 28 high capacity school districts are guaranteed at least $1,200 per student in state aid in the new House formula, and the new capacity aid provision will cost the state $260 million. This provision distributes additional state aid based on how much a district can raise with one mill of local property tax effort.
According to an OBM chart comparing the number of districts affected by the gain cap and the guarantee in the Executive and House budgets, 204 school districts would be on the gain cap under the Executive Budget in FY16, while under the House Budget the number of school districts capped would increase to 408 school districts.
In FY17 under the Executive Budget, 130 school districts would be capped and under the House version 328 school districts would be capped.
While in the Executive Budget school districts fail to receive over the biennium about $943 million through a 10 percent gain cap on the maximum annual rate of increase in state aid, in the House version school districts fail to receive $1.75 billion, because the maximum rate increase in state aid is dropped to 7.5 percent per fiscal year. The total amount of funds being withheld from school districts as a result of the gain cap would make fully implementing the House formula a major obstacle in the future.
See Director Keen testify before the Senate Finance Committee on April 21, 2015 at http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=146312
See Director Keen’s testimony before the Senate Finance Education Subcommittee on April 29, 2015 at http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committee/finance-education-subcommittee#
•Editorial Supports House Plan: An editorial by Michael Douglas in the Akron Beacon Journal on May 3, 2015 weighs in on the House vs. Executive Budget funding plan for public schools. Noting the number of changes in the state’s school funding formula over the past years, the editorial concludes that the House plan finally “applies real money to the challenges of equity, adequacy, and an overreliance on local property taxes.” The editorial recognizes the House for “taking a mess of a formula to a much better place”, and keeping in sight the big picture, and how it would look if lawmakers cut taxes by a billion dollars and cut funding for schools at the same time.
See “Eighteen years after DeRolph, a real plan” by Michael Douglas, Akron Beacon Journal, May 3, 2015 at
4) Testing Panel Releases Recommendations: The Senate Advisory Committee on Testing released on April 30, 2015 its recommendations for revising Ohio’s state assessment system. The 30 member panel, created by Ohio Senate President Keith Faber and chaired by Senator Peggy Lehner, was formed to respond to concerns by parents, educators, and lawmakers, about the amount of time students are spending on testing, and the efficacy of the new assessments based on the new academic content standards. The state has contracted with the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers (PARCC) for math and reading assessments, and with the American Institute for Research (AIR) for the social studies and science assessments at various grade levels.
The committee recommends the following changes for Ohio’s state assessment system:
•Administer state assessments once a year and shorten the tests. Move the testing window closer to the end of the school year to provide more time for classroom instruction and less disruption in learning.
•Improve accommodations for children with Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and improve communication with parents and schools. Training must be provided for intervention specialists and paraprofessionals who assist students with IEPs.
•Return test results in a timely manner to benefit student instruction – although the committee recognized that results from a writing test may not be able to be returned as quickly as the rest of the results.
•Make available within a reasonable amount of time test questions and answers to ensure the tests are aligned to Ohio’s learning standards and the questions are developmentally appropriate for grade levels.
•Improve online testing, but continue to provide the option that schools administer paper/pencil tests for at least the next two school years. State funding for technology based on need should be considered.
•Provide a single technology platform for next year’s tests. Improvements in technology are needed to ensure smooth administration of the tests.
•Enact a “safe harbor” provision that allows results from this year’s tests to be reported, but holds students, teachers or schools safe from consequences this year due to the transition to a new test, and the concern that results may not accurately reflect a student’s achievement level.
•Develop a comprehensive communications plan to provide parents, teachers, school leaders, and the general public with clearer information about the tests.
•Find a vendor that will make changes for the test next year. If the current vendors for state tests - PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers) for the math and English language arts assessments and AIR (American Institute for Research) for the science and social studies assessments, will not make changes to the test for next year to accommodate these issues, the Ohio Department of Education should find another vendor.
See “Senate Advisory Committee on Testing Recommends Improvements to State Tests”, April 29, 2015 at http://sact.ohiosenate.gov/
5) NEPC Reviews One of the CREDO Studies: The Think Twice Think Tank at the National Education Policy Center in Boulder, CO released on April 27, 2015 a review of the study Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions, published by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute.
According to the review, since 2009 CREDO has published several reports comparing student achievement in charter and traditional public schools. This CREDO study examined the differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools in 41 urban areas in 22 states.
CREDO found a positive effect on student achievement overall in both math and reading scores for students who attend a charter school in an urban environment when compared to peers in traditional public schools (TPS) in urban areas. The study concludes that ‘...urban charter schools on average achieve substantially greater levels of growth in math and reading relative to local TPS (p. 43).’
The review of the study was conducted by Andrew Maul at the University of California-Santa Barbara. He found that the actual effect sizes on student achievement are very small, under a tenth of one percent of the variance in test scores, questioning how the study could report that the effect was “substantial”.
He also found that although the “propensity-based method” is a more acceptable technique among researchers, CREDO used its own “virtual control record (VCR)” technique, to match charter school and traditional public school students for the study. According to Professor Maul, this technique is “insufficiently documented” and might not account for all relevant differences among students, because it matches fewer characteristics. Using the VCR technique the researchers only found matches for 80 percent of charter school students, while a match closer to 100 percent could have been achieved by using the propensity-based method.
The review also notes that previous reviews of the CREDO techniques by other researchers have raised technical and conceptual concerns about the “days of learning metric” that CREDO uses to report year to year changes in test scores. Apparently the report doesn’t explain the process used to translate “growth,” estimated via average year-to-year gains on state standardized tests expressed in standard deviation units, into “days of learning”. Professor Maul finds that this metric “cannot be regarded as credible.”
Professor Maul also found that many lower-scoring students were excluded from the analysis; that the study doesn’t clearly communicate that the comparison is not with traditional public schools in general, but with a subset of TPS schools that students have left to attend charters; and the decisions made in reporting the results are “insufficiently described and justified.”
See “Review of Urban Charter School Study 2015” by Andrew Maul, University of California-Santa Barbara, April 27, 2015 at http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr-urbancharter-credo.pdf
See “Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) (2015, March). “Urban Charter School Study”. Palo Alto: CREDO, Stanford University. March, 2015, from
http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/index.php.
6) Voucher Study Released: The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability released on April 16, 2015 an analysis study of the Indiana Choice Legislation, and concludes that aside from supporting parental choice ideology, “there is no compelling policy reason to subsidize it with public taxpayer dollars meant to educate children.”
The Indiana Choice Legislation uses public tax dollars to subsidize school choice in the form of vouchers, state income-tax deductions, and state income-tax credits. It is one of the most comprehensive school choice programs in the nation, and in 2014-15 provided $115 million for vouchers.
To answer the question, “can Indiana expect its school choice program to enhance student performance or help build a better public education system statewide?” researchers examined objective peer reviewed studies of voucher programs in a number of states.
What they found is voucher programs do not enhance student achievement, and furthermore, voucher programs are not among the education reforms used to improve student achievement among the highest ranking nations on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) “Programme for International Student Assessment” (PISA) exam.
The researchers state,
“In fact, it appears that core aspects of Indiana’s voucher program are directly contrary to best practice education reforms implemented by the five global leaders in education: Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Canada.5”
“Indeed, based on the available evidence, rather than improve student performance and the overall public education system in Indiana, the Indiana Choice Legislation may actually impede student achievement specifically and harm the education system generally. At a time when public resources are scarce, it is not advisable for state decision makers to divert public education funding to programs that cannot be expected to help children learn or improve the education system.”
See “Analysis of Indiana School Choice Scholarship Program” by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability (CTBA), April 16, 2015 at
7) Bills Introduced
•HB181 (Clyde) Online Voter Registration-Automatic Update: Requires that eligible persons in certain government and school databases be automatically registered to vote or have their registrations updated automatically unless those persons decline to do so, and creates an online voter registration system.
•HB179 (Stinziano) Automatic Voter Registration: Amends the versions of sections 4507.05 and 4507.06 of the Revised Code that are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2017, to continue the provisions of this act on and after the effective date, to require that eligible persons in the database of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles be automatically registered to vote, or have their registrations updated automatically, as applicable, unless those persons decline to be registered or to update their registrations.
•HB174 (Barnes) Graduation Degree Entrepreneurial Skills: With regard to entrepreneurial skills education requirements for professional graduate degree programs at state institutions of higher education.
FYI ARTS
•Poetry Out Loud Finals: Congratulations to Bexley High School senior Sarah Binau, who received a $1000 award and $500 for her school in the national Poetry Out Loud competition on April 29, 2015. Ms. Binau presented the poems After Apple Picking by Robert Frost, Onions by William Mathews, and Anne Bradstreet’s The Author to Her Book.
The National Endowment for the Arts and the Poetry Foundation partner with U.S. state arts agencies to support Poetry Out Loud. The program helps students master public speaking skills, build self-confidence, and learn about their literary heritage.
Ms. Binau was Ohio’s representative in the national competition and finished among the top nine contenders out of a field of 53. This year’s national champion is Maeva Ordaz from Alaska, who will receive a $20,000 prize.
•OAC Announces Grant Recipients: The Ohio Arts Council (OAC) announced on April 29, 2015 that it will award nearly $383,390 to 88 recipients in its latest round of approvals. The OAC board met on April 15, 2015 to approve recommendations for Individual Excellence grants, and ratify grants for Artists with Disabilities Access and Building Cultural Diversity.
The OAC has received for FY15 to data a total of 1,222 grant requests totaling over $14 million, and has funded 589 of those requests for $9.76 million this fiscal year. In most cases these grants will be matched dollar for dollar by private or other public funds. The grant programs support artists, arts organizations, and arts programs across Ohio.
For a list of grant recipients please see http://oac.state.oh.us/news/StaticFiles/2015spring_council_meeting_citypio.pdf
See http://www.oac.state.oh.us/News/NewsArticle.asp?intArticleId=783
