FROM: Ann Brennan 

FYI: UPDATE : Note the extensive report on the various the charter school reform bills currently being considered.

ACTION ALERT

TAKE ACTION

Please contact the members of the Senate Education Committee and request that SB3 (Hite/Faber) Testing/High Performing Schools be amended to eliminate the following two provisions for high performing school districts regarding teacher licensing:

• Section 3302.16 (A)(4) exempts high performing school districts from requiring teachers to be licensed specifically in the subject area or grade level in which they are teaching.
• Section 3302.16 (B)(1) allows 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 onexperience, to teach classes in the district."

Both of these provisions could lead to individuals who are not appropriately qualified to teach the arts in Ohio classrooms.

Ohio already has a provision in current law allowing non-licensed instructors to teach for up to twelve hours per week (3319.301 ORC). Ohio also has an alternative licensing program, which provides a different pathway for individuals to become licensed teachers. These provisions provide flexibility for individuals to become licensed teachers, and for school districts to hire individuals with special skills on a temporary basis.

SB3 could undermine the great track record that Ohio school districts have made to hire highly qualified and licensed teachers in the arts. These teachers meet the graduation requirements of their institutions of higher education in their arts discipline, and also meet Ohio's rigorous standards for beginning teachers, including passing a national assessment for teachers in their content area, and fulfilling all requirements for earning a permanent license.

Request that the Senate Education Committee eliminate the provisions that exempt high performing school districts from teacher licensing standards, to ensure that Ohio students continue to receive the highest quality of instruction from licensed teachers.

Senate Education Committee Members:

Senator Peggy Lehner, chair sd06@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Cliff Hite, vice chair sd 01@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Troy Balderson sd 20@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Bill Coley sd 04@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Randy Gardner sd02@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Kris Jordan sd19@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Gayle Manning sd13@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Bob Peterson sd17@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Chris Widener sd10@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Tom Sawyer sd28@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Cecil Thomas sd09@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Sandra Williams sd 21@ohiosenate.gov
Senator Kenny Yuko sd 25@ohiosenate.gov

BACKGROUND

The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Peggy Lehner, has been holding hearings on SB3 (Hite/Faber) Testing/High Performing Schools, and expects to consider amendments to the bill this week.

The bill includes provisions that limit testing in Ohio's schools in response to the increased frustration about over-testing. The bill also establishes criteria to identify high performing school districts, and exempts those school districts from certain provisions in law, including provisions regarding teacher licensing standards.

Based on the proposed criteria in the bill, about 125 districts would be consider high-performing this year. According to testimony provided by Ann Sheldon, executive director of the Ohio Association for Gifted Children, "Of those districts 73 have a third-grade reading proficiency rate of less than 95% (the rate required for high-performing in the governor's budget bill); 37 districts have grades of "D" or "F" either for the overall or a sub-group value-added measure, and, finally, 93 of those districts have ACT remediation free rates of less than 50%."

SB3 could undermine successful efforts in Ohio to ensure that all students have access to qualified teachers in the arts. According to OAAE data for the 2012-13 school year, there were 8,990 arts teachers in Ohio's traditional public schools. Ninety-seven percent of those arts teachers were certified to teach courses in the arts, holding the appropriate multi-age license in an arts discipline. In addition, 98.2 percent of arts courses were taught by a certified arts teacher in the 2012-13 school year.

Thank you for contacting the Ohio Senate Education Committee with this important request.

Ohio News
131st General Assembly
The Ohio House and Senate will hold hearings and session this week.

House Bill 7 Signed Into Law
Governor Kasich signed HB7 (Buchy) into law on March 16, 2015. The law prohibits individual student scores from certain elementary and secondary achievement assessments administered for the 2014-2015 school year from being used to determine promotion or retention or to grant course credit; allows students who opt-out of taking state assessments to keep a voucher; and makes changes regarding the administration of high school end-of-course examinations. The requirements of the Third Grade Reading Guarantee are not affected by HB7. The law became effective immediately with the governor's signature.

Inhaler Bill Advances
The Ohio House approved HB39 (Duffey) School-Camp Inhaler Permit, by a vote of 96 to 0. The bill would permit schools and camps to procure and use inhalers for alleviating asthmatic symptoms, and exempts the schools and camps from licensing requirements related to the possession of inhalers.

Operating Standards Move Back to State Board
The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) allowed Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3301-35-05 Faculty and Staff Focus, also known as the '5 of 8' rule, to move forward on March 16, 2015, after a motion to invalidate the rule failed.

The rule is among ten rules being updated by the State Board of Education, and referred to as Operating Standards for Ohio's Schools in Grades Kindergarten through Twelve, Rules 3301-35-01 through 10, JCARR tabled the '5 of 8' rule last month, and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) re-filed the rule in early March 2015.

During the JCARR hearing Representative Debbie Phillips made a motion to invalidate the rule, saying that it conflicted with "legislative intent". The proposed new rule eliminates the requirement that school districts employ five educators in eight areas for every 1,000 students. The areas include school nurses, counselors, library media specialists, school social workers, visiting teachers, and elementary art, music, and physical education. Representative Phillips explained that the intent of the legislature is for school districts to provide these opportunities for students as part of the public education system.

The panel received testimony opposing the rule change from Susan Yutzey with the Ohio Educational Library Media Association, Steve Mitchell with the Ohio Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, and George Edge with the Ohio Music Education Association. The witnesses said that without the '5 of 8' rule school districts facing a budget crisis could cut these teachers, diminishing the quality of eduction for all students, and conflicting with the legislative intent to provide a high quality education.

Speaking in favor of the rule was Tom Ash with the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and Keith Horner, Superintendent from Wapakoneta City Schools. They said that school districts should have the ability to make employment decisions at the local level.

The motion to invalidate the rule failed, because the opposition was unable to prove a clear conflict with legislative intent, and, as explained by Representative Duffey, who chaired the panel, the State Board of Education has the authority to change its rules.

But, several members of the panel expressed their support for school districts to continue to provide the learning opportunities and services included in the rule. And, there was support from Senator Frank LaRose and others to seek a legislative remedy.

The State Board of Education is expected to take final action on the revised Operating Standards at their April 2015 meeting.

Senate Testing Panel Meets
The Columbus Dispatch reported that the new Senate Testing Advisory Committee, chaired by Senator Peggy Lehner, met for the first time onMarch 18, 2015. The committee was created by Senate President Keith Faber, in response to concerns raised by students, parents, and teachers about over-testing. The committee includes teachers, administrators, representatives from the State Board of Education, senators, and testing experts. Its charge is to evaluate the tests created by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the American Institute for Research (AIR), and make recommendations to the Senate by May 2015. The committee will also review during the summer the goals for testing in Ohio's schools and the overall quality of assessments. Matt Williams, vice president of policy and advocacy for KnowledgeWorks, will facilitate the work of the committee.

See " Panel gets to work on testing in Ohio", by Catherine Candisky, The Columbus Dispatch, March 19, 2015.

This Week At The Statehouse
The House Finance Committee will meet three times this week to continue hearing testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.

The committee will meet on March 24, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 313; on March 25, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 313; and on March 26, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 313.

The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on March 24, 2015 at 10:00 AM in hearing room 121 and on March 25, 2015 at 8:00 AM in hearing room 017. The committee will consider amendments to HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship. No testimony will be received.

The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, will meet on March 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM in the Senate Finance Hearing Room. The committee will receive testimony on SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemption, and is expected to consider amendments.

House and Senate Committees Consider Charter School Bills
Charter schools were first established in Ohio in FY99. They have grown from 15 schools educating 2,245 students (0.1 percent of public school enrollment) in FY99 to 388 schools educating 120,826 students (7 percent of public school enrollment) in FY14. According to theLegislative Services Commission (LSC) charter school funding will reach nearly $1 billion ($990 million) annually by FY17.

Recent investigative reports in the newspapers, studies conducted by CREDO of Stanford University and Bellwether Education Partners, and audits conducted by State Auditor David Yost have intensified scrutiny of charter school operations. These investigations and reports have identified a number of problems plaguing Ohio's charter school industry, including conflicts of interest, misappropriation of funds, poor accounting practices, unrecoverable funds, student attendance irregularities, closed schools reopening, and an unprecedented number of school closures.

In response to these reports and investigations, the following four bills have been introduced in the 131st General Assembly to increase accountability and transparency for charter schools: Governor Kasich's Executive Budget, HB64 (Smith); HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner), SB20 (Schiavoni) Record Keeping, and SB59 (Skindell) Defines Public/Private Funds.

In addition, Senator Lehner, chair of the Senate Education Committee, is expected to introduce legislation that includes recommendations that she has gathered from groups representing the charter school industry and advocates for more charter school accountability.

The following is a review of the provisions in the four bills:

Charter School Bills in the Ohio Senate
Last week the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, heard testimony on two charter school bills: SB20 (Schiavoni) Record Keeping and SB59 (Skindell) Defines Public/Private Funds.

• SB20 would require the state auditor to audit accounts, reports, records and files regarding the receipt or expenditure of public funds for every community school, sponsor, and operator.
• SB59 states that any state funds that are paid to a charter school and are used as payment for services rendered by an operator or management company shall maintain their status as public money once transferred to the operator or management company. The bill states that property, furniture, books, computers, etc. purchased with public funds are not the property of an operator or management company.

Charter School Bills/Provisions in the Ohio House
There is one bill addressing charter schools in the House, HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner), but HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, has a number of policy changes that would affect charter schools.

HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner): The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, approved several amendments for the charter school reform bill, HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner), on March 17, 2015.

Some of the amendments incorporate the charter school provisions included in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, into the bill, including the provisions for charter schools that consolidate and charter schools that offer preschool programs.

But, several recommendations presented to the committee by State Auditor David Yost onMarch 4, 2015 in the areas of accountability, finance, and governance, were not included. Auditor Yost recommended, for example, that charter schools follow Governmental Accounting Standards Board practices for financial reporting, and that operators submit a more detailed footnote on their spending in the schools' financial statements.

The following is a summary of HB2 and the recent amendments to the bill:

Conversion Schools
• Section 3302.03 Performance Ratings (I): Requires that the grades of dropout recovery and prevention conversion charter schools be included with other report card indicators for the school districts sponsoring those schools on and after July 1, 2016.

The bill was amended by the committee to clarify that only the performance of students in a conversion dropout recovery charter school residing in the district will be included on the district report card.

Responsibilities of the State Board of Education/ODE
• NEW Section 3314.031 (A): Requires beginning December 31, 2015 that the ODE maintain an accurate record of the names and identifying information of all entities that have entered into a contract with the governing authority of a charter school to manage or operate that school, and receive from the governing authority of each charter school a copy of the contract between a governing authority and its operator. Requires that the performance of management companies and organizations be reported and included in the annual charter school report required under 3314.015 (A)(4)
• Section 3314.031(B): Requires the ODE not later than July 1, 2016, to develop and publish an annual performance report for all operators of charter schools in the state. The report will be made available on the department's web site.
• NEW Section 3314.034: Requires the ODE to approve charter school contracts with new sponsors on and after December 31, 2015, if the charter school has received a grade of "D" or "F" for the performance index score, and an overall grade of "D" or "F" for the value-added progress dimension on the most recent report card, or the charter school is one in which a majority of the students are enrolled in a dropout prevention and recovery program, and it has received a rating of "does not meet standards" for the annual student growth measure and combined graduation rates on the most recent report card.
• Section 3. Requires the State Board of Education not later than December 31, 2015, to make recommendations to the General Assembly regarding performance standards for community schools in which a majority of the enrolled students are children with disabilities receiving special education, and if it is possible, to remove the exemption from permanent closure.

Amendments Added for State Board of Education/ODE
• Section 3314.029: Permits the ODE to establish the format and deadlines for applications to the ODE Office of School Sponsorship. Permits the state board to establish additional criteria necessary for approval for sponsorship by ODE. These provisions are similar to provision in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.
• Section 3314.03 Clarifies that ODE shall approve financial plan of new charter schools, and the plan shall stand as approved if ODE fails to make a decision within 14 days of submission.
• Section 3314.016 Exemplary Sponsors: Adds incentives for sponsors rated exemplary.
• Section 3314.031: Requires the ODE to include the performance report in the department's annual report on charter schools.

Responsibilities of Charter School Sponsors
• NEW Section 3314.46: Prohibits a sponsor from selling any goods or services to any charter school it sponsors. States that If the sponsor of a community school entered into a contract prior to the effective date of this section that involves the sale of goods or services to a community school it sponsors, the sponsor shall not be required to comply with this division until the expiration of the contract.
• NEW 3314.025 (A): Requires that each sponsor of a community school shall annually submit a report describing the amount and type of expenditures made to provide oversight and technical assistance to each community school it sponsors. (B) Requires the state board of education not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, to establish requirements and a reporting procedure.
• Section 3314.023 Sponsor Monitoring and Technical Assistance: Requires that when a representative of a sponsor meets monthly with the treasurer or governing authority, that copies of financial and enrollment records be furnished to the community school sponsor, members of the governing authority, and the fiscal officer.
• Section 3314.19 Sponsor assurance to ODE before school opens: New (N) Requires sponsors to examine in detail charter schools that plan to use the blended learning model, and report certain information to the ODE.
• Section 3314.23 Internet or computer-based school: (C) Requires that the sponsor of each internet- or computer-based community school be responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the online learning standards and report a school's failure to comply with these standards to the ODE.
Amendments Added for Sponsors
• Section 3314.07 (3): Requires sponsors to notify schools by December 1, rather than February 1, of non renewal.
• Section 3314.02 (E)(7): Requires sponsors to annually verify that there are no outstanding findings for recovery against any governing authority member.
• Sections 3314.023 and 3314.019: Requires that a charter school sponsor, not a contracted agent, is responsible for communicating and meeting with the Auditor of State regarding the condition of enrollment, financial records, and audits of schools authorized by the sponsor.
• Section 3314.025: Clarifies that expenditures by sponsors for oversight and technical assistance shall be reported according to the ODE.

Amendments Added for Exemplary Sponsors
• Section 3314.074 (D): States that a charter school that engages in a merger or consolidation and becomes a single public benefit corporation will not be required to distribute assets provided that the governing authority of the charter school created by the merger or consolidation enters into a contract for sponsorship with an entity rated as "exemplary" by the ODE. A similar provision is included in HB 64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.
• Establishes other incentives for exemplary sponsors including an extended contract.

Responsibilities of the Governing Authorities
• Section 3314.03 (9) and NEW 3314.032: Requires that the contract between the charter school governing authority and the sponsor include an addendum outlining the facilities to be used and their locations, and include additional information. Requires clear agreements with sponsor and operating companies about ownership of facilities, equipment, supplies, computers, etc.

Amendments Added for the Governing Authority
• Section 3313.131: Prohibits any member of a charter school governing authority from serving on a district school board and vice versa.
• Section 3314.035: Requires the names of charter governing authority members to be posted on the school's web site; and requires the names and addresses of governing authority members to be provided to sponsors and ODE.
• Section 3314.011: Requires that the fiscal officer of a charter school be employed by the governing authority, but permits a governing authority to annually waive the requirement by resolution with sponsor approval. In the bill as introduced the governing authority was required to hire the fiscal officer.
• Section 3314.02 (E) (5): Removes the provision prohibiting a vendor from serving on the governing authority board. The bill now prohibits employees of school districts or educational service centers from serving on a governing board of a charter school sponsored by the district, but would permit a vendor of a school district or educational service center to serve on a charter school governing authority.
• Section 3314.02 (E) (6): Requires each member of the governing authority of a charter school to annually file a disclosure statement with the names of any immediate relatives or business associates employed by the sponsor or operator of that charter school, school district, or educational service center, that has contracted with that charter school, or a vendor that is currently engaged in business or has previously engaged in business with that charter school. Clarifies that the governing authority members' disclosure for vendors is limited to the "past three years."
• Section 3314.035: Requires that a charter school governing authority retain independent counsel for purposes of negotiating the contract with their sponsor and operator.
• Section 3314.035: Requires governing authority members, administrative and supervisory staff of charter schools to receive annual training regarding public records and open meetings.

Contracts
• Section 3314.03 Contracts between schools and sponsors: (A)(4) Requires sponsors to evaluate the performance standards by which the success of the school will be evaluated, including, but not limited to, all applicable report card measures.
• Section 3314.03 (9): Requires that the contract between the charter school governing authority and the sponsor include an addendum outlining the facilities to be used and their locations, and include additional information.
• NEW 3314.032 Requires that on and after the effective date of this section, any new or renewed contract between the governing authority of a community school and an operator shall include the criteria to be used for early termination of the operator contract; required notification procedures and time line for early termination or non renewal of the operator contract; and a stipulation of which entity owns all community school facilities and property including, but not limited to, equipment, furniture, fixtures, instructional materials and supplies, computers, printers, and other digital devices purchased by the governing authority or operator.

Amendments Added for Contracts
• Section 3314.03: Clarifies the information that should be included in the contract, such as details about facilities, blended learning model, accounting for outstanding loans, internal financial controls, financial plans for new schools, and more.
• Section 3314.031: Requires school-operator contracts to be posted on the ODE web site.

Amendments Added for Preschool Programs
• Section 3301.52 (O) and other sections: Permits high-performing charter schools to operate a preschool program and permits exemplary sponsors to authorize a new charter school to operate a preschool program. (H) (j) Requires that the preschool program operated by a charter school comply with current laws and minimum standards prescribed in rules. A similar provision is included in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget. Dropout recovery charter schools are prohibited from operating a preschool program. States that if the school operates a preschool program that is licensed by the ODE admission to the school may be open to individuals younger than five years of age, but the school shall not receive funds for those individuals.

Amendments Added for the Cleveland Transformation Alliance
• Section 3314.029 (5): Permits the Transformation Alliance to offer a recommendation regarding an application for a new charter school to be located within a municipal school district received by ODE's Office of Sponsorship.


House Bill 64 (Smith) Biennial Budget
Several provisions are included in HB64 to change laws regarding charter schools, and require all community school sponsors to be subject to the approval of the ODE. The following is a summary of the provisions:

Responsibilities of the State Board of Education/ODE
• Section 3314.015 Sponsor Criteria: Establishes conditions for sponsors of charter schools to meet with the ODE to obtain an agreement to sponsor charter schools, including educational service centers, Lucas County (Section 3314.027), and universities. Reduces the initial agreement from seven to five years. The first two years of the initial term will be for training, planning, and collecting the resources required to carry out high quality sponsorship practices. Allows agreement to be renewed for a term of up to twelve years based on the academic performance of the schools and the sponsor's adherence to quality practices. Removes the provision that allowed a sponsor to sponsor up to 100 schools, and leaves that up to the agreement. States that if a sponsor's agreement is revoked under 3314.016, a hearing is not required.
• Section 3314.016 Criteria for Rating Charter Schools: Requires the ODE to evaluate and rate sponsors based on annual academic performance and adherence to the quality practices, and annual compliance with applicable laws. In developing the evaluation system, the ODE will differentiate categories of sponsors based upon at least the total number of community schools to be sponsored, the geographic proximity of the school or schools to the sponsoring entity, and the entity's organizational capacity. The ODE will rate all sponsors as either exemplary, effective, ineffective, or poor. A separate rating will be given for each component of the evaluation system according to the established timeline. The ODE will also assign an overall rating, at such intervals to be determined by the department.
• Section 3314.016 NEW (C)(1) Provides a list of incentives for exemplary sponsors. Entities that receive an overall rating of "ineffective" will be prohibited from sponsoring any new or additional charter schools and will be subject to a one-year quality improvement plan with time lines and benchmarks that have been established by the department. Entities that receive an overall rating of "poor" shall have all sponsorship authority revoked. Within thirty days after receiving a rating of "poor" the entity may appeal the revocation of its sponsorship authority to the superintendent of public instruction, who will appoint an independent hearing officer to conduct a hearing in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code. If, after the hearing, the state superintendent determines that the revocation is appropriate, the revocation will be confirmed.
• Section 3314.016(E) (2): Allows the Office of Ohio School Sponsorship to assume sponsorship of any schools sponsored by entities that have lost their authority to sponsor charter schools.
• Section 3314.016 (F): Requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code prescribing standards for measuring an entity's compliance with applicable laws and administrative rules.
• Section 3314.029 Ohio School Sponsorship Program: Allows the Office of Ohio School Sponsorship to promulgate the form, format, requirements, procedures, deadlines, and ratings for the submission and processing of applications for approval, and for entering into written sponsor contracts. Requires the office to assign each applicant school a rating. States that the department may, in its discretion, limit the number of approvals in any given year, taking into consideration the standards for quality authorizing, capacity requirements, financial constraints, or any other criteria it determines are necessary and appropriate.
• Section 3314.029 (A)(5): Allows the Office of School Sponsorship beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, to solicit applications for up to five new start-up charter schools that meet at least the following criteria: Locational parameters; Academic requirements;
• Fiscal considerations; Any other criteria as determined by the department.
• Provides access to exemplary sponsors to a new $25 million charter school facilities grant program to be administered by the Ohio School Facilities Commission in collaboration with the ODE. The purpose of this fund would be to increase the supply of seats in effective schools and serve specific un-met student needs through charter school education.
• Section 3314.35 Charter School Closures: Adds the early literacy component to the criteria for closing a charter school.

Contract
• Section 3314.03 (28): Requires that all moneys the school's operator loans to the school, including facilities loans or cash flow assistance, must be accounted for, documented, and bear interest at a fair market rate. Requires each contract between a sponsor and a governing authority to contain a statement that all moneys an operator loans must be accounted for, documented, and based on fair market lender rates.
• Section 3314.03 (11)(d): Adds 3301.0728 (limits on testing) and 3313.721 (health care providers) to the list of laws that charter schools must comply with.
• Section 3314.03 (11) (f): Adds that each school will comply with the plan for awarding high school credit based on demonstration of subject area competency, and beginning with the 2016-2017 school year, with the updated plan that permits students enrolled in seventh and eighth grade to meet curriculum requirements based on subject area competency adopted by the state board of education under division divisions (J)(1) and (2) of section 3313.603 of the Revised Code.
• Section 3314.03 (27): Requires that, if the governing authority contracts with an attorney, accountant, or entity specializing in audits, the attorney, accountant, or entity shall be independent from the operator with which the school has contracted;

Responsibilities of the Sponsor
• NEW Section 3314.46: States that no sponsor of a charter school shall sell any goods or services to any charter school it sponsors, but allows services to continue until the expiration of the contract.
• Section 3314.07 (A): Removes a provision that allowed a school to appeal to the state board of education when a sponsor terminated its contract.
• Section 3314.07 (5): States that any charter school whose contract is terminated or not renewed shall close permanently at the end of the current school year or on a date specified in the notification of termination or non-renewal. Any charter school whose contract is terminated or not renewed for failure to meet student performance requirements stated in the contract, or for failure to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management under this division will not enter into a contract with any other sponsor.
• Section 3314.07 (E): States that a sponsor is not liable for harm arising from a (3) failure of the community school or any of its officers, directors, or employees to meet the obligations of any contract or other obligation entered into on behalf of the community school and another party. A sponsor who prevails in an action for a failure to meet contractual obligations as described in division (E)(3) of this section shall be awarded, upon request, reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation to be paid jointly and severally by the governing authority of the community school, individual members of the governing authority, or from any other plaintiff the court considers necessary and appropriate.

The Responsibilities of the Governing Authority
• Section 3314.011 Fiscal Officer: Requires the fiscal officer of charter school to be employed by the governing authority and be independent from the school's operator.
• REPEALS Section 3314.026 Appeal Process: Repeals a statute that prescribes an appeal procedure in cases in which the governing authority has notified the operator of its intent to terminate or not renew the operator's contract.

Consolidated Charter School
• Section 3314.074 Community School Assets: NEW (D) States that a charter school that engages in a merger or consolidation and becomes a single public benefit corporation shall not be required to distribute assets provided that the merger or consolidation satisfies all of the following: At least one of the charter schools involved in the merger or consolidation is sponsored by an entity rated as "exemplary" by the ODE; the governing authority of the community school created by the merger or consolidation enters into a contract for sponsorship with an entity rated as "exemplary" by the department pursuant to section 3314.016 of the Revised Code; the community schools being merged or consolidated are located in the same county or school district.

Preschool Program
Permits a charter school sponsored by an entity that is rated "exemplary" by the ODE to be licensed by the Department to operate a preschool program and to admit individuals who are general education preschool students (preschool students who are not receiving special education) to that program.

• Section 3314.06 Preschool Program (A): States that if the school operates a preschool program that is licensed by the ODE the school must comply with the same licensing and operational standards that apply to preschool programs operated by school districts, eligible nonpublic schools, and county DD boards under current law. Specifies that a charter school that operates a preschool program that is licensed by the ODE may not receive state charter school operating funding for students enrolled in that program, but authorizes the program to apply for early childhood education funding.
• Section 3314.08 EMIS Reporting: Requires charter schools to report the number of students enrolled in preschool programs operated by the school who are not receiving special education and related services pursuant to an IEP.

Transportation
• Section 3314.091 Transportation Charter School: Removes the requirement that a charter school governing authority that enters into an agreement to transport students or accepts responsibility to transport students must provide or arrange transportation free of charge for each of its enrolled students who would otherwise be transported by the students' school districts under those districts' transportation policies. However, the bill retains this requirement for the enrolled students who are required to be transported under current law. Clarifies that payments made to a charter school for transporting students must be calculated "on a per rider basis.

FYI Arts
Arts Advocates Support More Funding for the OAC
The House Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education, chaired by Representative Duffey, held a hearing on March 17, 2015 at the Ohio Theatre to learn more about the status of the arts in Ohio as the committee considers the provisions to fund the Ohio Arts Council (OAC) in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.

HB64 includes $24.4 million in General Revenue funds (GRF) to support the OAC. According to previous testimony, this appropriation equals less than 0.04 percent of the state's total GRF appropriations. The OAC grants are matched by grant recipients, so that every OAC dollar is matched with local and private funds at a ratio of 53:1 during the last grant cycle.

Arts advocates are requesting that the subcommittee increase the OAC GRF appropriation to $30 million. The current funding levels of the OAC are the same as 1991, 25 years ago, and raising the amount to $30 million would still be below funding levels in 2001.

The witnesses represented statewide and community arts organizations and institutions, including Tom Katzenmeyer, president of the Greater Columbus Arts Council; George Barrett, chairman and CEO of Cardinal Health; Larry James, a partner at Crabbe Brown James and president of the Lincoln Theatre; Edward Liang of BalletMet Columbus; Jim Sweeney of the Franklin Development Association; and Erin Hoppe, executive director of VSA Ohio. They spoke about the impact of the grants from the Ohio Arts Council on individuals and in revitalizing their communities.

Tom Katzenmeyer, President of the Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC), explained to the committee the impact of funding from the Ohio Arts Council, and how it has enabled GCAC to strengthen current programs and launch new programs for artists and organizations. According to the testimony, last year the GCAC hosted visits from national leaders in the arts: Jane Chu, chair of the National Endowment for the Arts and Bob Lynch, President and CEO of Americans for the Arts. Both leaders acknowledged the amazing contribution that the arts have made in central Ohio to increase the economic and cultural growth of the community.

The Chairman and CEO of Cardinal Health, George Barrett, told the committee how important the arts, especially music, was in his life, and that he actually moved to New York at one time to be a singer. The qualities and skills that children learn through the arts are just what it takes to be successful in business, and they are the qualities that he and other business leaders look for when hiring. The arts also bring vitality to a community. He said that without a vibrant artistic community in central Ohio it would be harder to attract the best talent in the world.

Representing the Board of the Lincoln Theatre in Columbus, Larry James, said that he is grateful to the Ohio Arts Council for their support of several programs at the theatre, but especially for the Expand Your Horizon Program, which nurtures emerging performing artists. The program covers subjects "that are integral to the process and business of art, such as production value, marketing, managing social media, fund raising, copyright, legal contracts, insurance, taxes, finances." Citing those who participated in the program, it provides information about resources, networks, making career decisions, and keeping talented young people in central Ohio.

Jim Sweeney with the Franklinton Development Association & Franklinton Arts District, also thanked the Ohio Arts Council for their support in revitalizing the Franklinton Community in downtown Columbus. After years of neglect the community came together and identified ways to use the arts to bring the arts, people, and businesses back into the area. One of the major projects has been the Idea Foundry, which will be the "largest 'maker space' on the planet when completed". The Glass Axis has also moved into the area, and has become a "civic hub for art creation and learning, and a place of cultural equity that continues to adapt and grow."

Speaking for VSA Ohio, Executive Director Erin Hoppe described the impact that funding from the Ohio Arts Council has on her organization, which works "...to make the arts and arts education more accessible for people of all different disabilities across the lifespan, and across artistic mediums." The most recent statewide initiative supported by the OAC is called the Arts & Autism in Ohio Initiative. The purpose of the project is to increase access to the arts for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. According to the testimony, "Art may be one of the strongest keys to unlocking the thoughts, emotions, and needs that a person with autism often struggles to convey. It will require preparation, partnership, and flexibility for the creative sector to embrace this underserved community. The Ohio Arts Council is now a leading convener in the effort to prepare the cultural field and families to connect with creative opportunities designed specifically to meet the needs of someone on the spectrum."

Director Hoppe requested that the House increase funding for the OAC to $30 million "to continue to make our communities great places to live and work."

The testimony is available online for March 17, 2015.

This update is written weekly by Joan Platz, Research and Knowledge Director for the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education. The purpose of the update is to keep arts education advocates informed about issues dealing with the arts, education, policy, research, and opportunities. The distribution of this information is made possible through the generous support of the Ohio Music Education Association ( www.omea-ohio.org ), Ohio Art Education Association ( www.oaea.org ), Ohio Educational Theatre Association ( www.ohedta.org ); OhioDance ( www.ohiodance.org ), and the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education ( www.oaae.net ).

 

From: Ann Brennan

FYI: Important update, note that HB 7 has passed both the House and Senate and is on the way to the Governor for signing into law.

Also note the OCMC voted to retain the Ohio constitution's "thorough and efficient"  public school funding clause. Note that the bills limiting testing and assessment time are being heard in both the House and Senate Education committees, as well as the House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education- as similiar provisions are also included in the State Education Budget proposal.This update also contains a thorough report of House Education Committee hearings on HB 2, the charter school reform bill.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>
To: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 15, 2015 9:16 pm
Subject: Arts on Line Education Update March 16, 2015

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education

Arts on Line Education Update 

Joan Platz

March 16, 2015

1)   Ohio News

•131st General Assembly:  The Ohio House and Senate will hold hearings and session this week.  More details are available at This Week at the Statehouse below.

•Thorough and Efficient Clause to Stay:  The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission (OCMC) Committee on Education, Public Institutions, and Local Government voted unanimously on March 12, 2015 to retain the “thorough and efficient” clause in Article VI Section 1 & 2 of the Ohio Constitution.  Last April Chad Readler, the chair of the committee, proposed new wording for this section, which addresses primary and secondary education, and removed the “thorough and efficient” standard that the courts have used in the DeRolph school funding cases to determine what is constitutional. The recommendation will now go to the OCMC’s Coordinating Committee and the full commission for consideration.

The OCMC Coordinating Committee voted on March 12, 2015 to send three reports from the Bill of Rights and Voting Committee to the full commission for consideration in April.  The reports recommend retaining current language in Article I, Section 2, concerning the right of the people to alter, reform, or abolish government, the right of government to repeal special privileges, and equal protection; Article I, Section 3, concerning the right to assemble and petition; and Article I, Section 4, concerning the right to bear arms, the prohibition against maintaining standing armies during peacetime, and the subordination of the military to civil power.

•JCARR Agenda Includes “Five of Eight Rule”:  The “5 of 8 rule”, Ohio Administrative Code Rule (OAC) 3301-35-05 Faculty and Staff, is once again on the agenda of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) for their meeting on March 16, 2015.  Last month the committee considered the request to rescind and adopt new Rules 3301-35 through 10, known as Operating Standards for Grades Kindergarten through Twelve. Rule 3301-35-05 was pulled and later re-filed by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). 

The current rule requires school districts to employ five of eight educational service personnel for every 1000 students.  Educational service personnel are defined as counselor, school nurse, librarian media specialist, school social worker, visiting teachers, and elementary art, music, and physical education teachers.

The definition of educational service personnel is broadened considerably in proposed Rule 3301-35-01 (B)(11) Definitions, but this rule was not pulled to be re-filed. 

The amended rule 3301-35-05 states: “(A)(3) The local board of education shall be responsible for the scope and type of educational services in the district. The district shall employ educational service personnel to enhance the learning opportunities of all students. Educational service personnel assigned to elementary fine arts, music and physical education shall hold the special teaching certificate or multi-age license in the subject to which they are assigned.”

The JCARR meeting will be held at 1:30 PM on Monday, March 16, 2015 in the Statehouse Hearing Room 121.

•Safe Harbor Bill Heading to the Governor:  The Ohio House concurred on March 10, 2015 with Senate amendments to HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determination, sending the measure to Governor Kasich.  The House vote was 90 to 0.  

The bill as enrolled ensures that the scores on the new assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) in math and English language arts, and AIR in science and social studies, do not affect decisions about student promotion, retention, or credits for classes. The bill does not impact retention guidelines tied to third grade reading test results. 

The bill also clarifies that schools/districts will not lose state aid if students don’t take state assessments, and students will not lose their voucher if they refuse to take the state assessments.  Once signed by the governor the law will go into effect immediately.  

2)  This Week at the Statehouse

•The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) will meet on Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:30 PM in hearing room 121.  The “five of eight” rule is on the agenda.

•The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on March 17, 2015 at 8:00 AM in hearing room 121 to receive testimony on HB74 (Brenner) Primary-Secondary Assessments and HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship.

The committee will also meet on March 18, 2015 at 8:00 AM in hearing room 017 to receive testimony and consider amendments to HB74 (Brenner) Primary and Secondary Assessments.

•The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, will meet on March 17, 2015 at 4:00 PM in the Senate Finance Hearing Room.   The committee will consider the following bills:

-SB20 (Schiavoni) Charter Schools Record-Keeping:  Regarding audit and record-keeping requirements for community school sponsors and operators.

-SB34 (Tavares) School District Policy-Disruptive Behavior:  With respect to school district policies for violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior.

-SB59 (Skindell)  Community Schools-State Appropriated Funds:  With respect to the use of state-appropriated funds by operators of community schools.

-SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemption:  To exempt high-performing school districts from certain laws.

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet on March 18, 2015 at 4:00 PM in hearing room 116 and on March 19, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 116.  The committee will continue to receive testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.

3)  Senate Committee Hears from Teachers:  Hannah News and Gongwer reported last week that the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Peggy Lehner, invited teachers to address the committee on March 10, 2015 about testing and its effect on students, teachers, and schools.

According to the reports, the teachers included Becky Higgins, president of the Ohio Education Association (OEA); Chuck Rollins and George Scott from Van Wert Local Schools; Dan Greenberg from Sylvania City Schools; Kevin Jackson from Columbus City Schools; Angela Nichols from Cincinnati Public Schools; and Jackie Duncan. 

The teachers told the Senate Education Committee that testing and test preparation have reduced instructional time for students.  Jackie Duncan said that the time spent on the English language arts exams has nearly doubled from last year.

Angela Nichols-Cincinnati Public Schools explained that because the tests are high stakes, teachers have increased test preparation. She also told the committee that there were ways to ensure that subgroups of students, such as students with disabilities, students learning English, and disadvantaged students, are receiving a high quality education without over testing and over preparing.  She suggested that assessments tied to instruction and intervention be administered three times per year to determine if students in subgroups are learning, and interventions be provided for students who do not meet benchmarks.

Becky Higgins -OEA said that student data should be used to improve instruction rather than other purposes, and recommended that the moratorium on using test results to grade students, schools, and teachers be extended to three years.

The teachers also gave support to the use of “student learning objectives” rather than “shared attribution” to evaluate teachers, but also opposed using student data for purposes other than improving instruction.

The teachers also described some of the technical problems with the administration of the state tests, and expressed concern about accommodations for students with disabilities.

See “Teachers Bring Testing Concerns to Senate Hearing”, Hannah News, March 10, 2015 at

http://www.hannah.com/ShowDocument.aspx?HRID=6477

See “Senate Hears Teachers’ View Of Testing Problems”, Gongwer, March 10, 2015 at

http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news.cfm?newsedition_id=8404602#sthash.VuC4Kde7.dpbs

See “VWHS teachers testify on student testing”, The Van Wert Independent, March 12, 2015 at http://www.thevwindependent.com/news/2015/03/vwhs-teachers-testify-on-student-testing/ 

4)  Update on HB2:  The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, was expected to review amendments for HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) on March 9, 2015.  However, the chair postponed action on the amendments due to the number of amendments submitted, and accepted more testimony on the measure on March 9, 2015 and March 11, 2015.  The following witnesses provided written or in-person testimony:

March 9, 2015

Dennis Hetzel, Executive Director of the Ohio Newspaper Association   

Darold Johnson,  Joint testimony from the Ohio Federation of Teachers, American Association of University Women, League of Women Voters Ohio, Ohio PTA, and the Ohio Association of Public School Employees    

Dr. Richard Varatti, Quaker Digital Academy   

Bill Phillis, Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding   

Stephen Dyer, Innovation Ohio 

March 11, 2015

Jennifer Dillard, American Association of University Women of Ohio   

Denis Smith, Retired, ODE   

Mary Addi and Mustafa  Emanet

Most witnesses came prepared with a list of additional provisions  to add to HB2 to improve transparency and accountability for charter schools.  The following is a summary of some of those recommendations arranged by topics:

•Revamp charter school law completely:  

Stephen Dyer told the committee that charter school problems are deeper than the provisions in HB2, and called for a complete rewrite of charter school law.  

Darold Johnson and others said that HB2 is just the start of a process to reform charter school laws.

Bill Phillis added that HB2 needs to be “greatly expanded to bring this largely unregulated enterprise under control for the benefit of students and taxpayers.”

He went on to say, “A complete systematic overhaul of the charter regulations is required”,  and called for the creation of a Legislative Office to Research Vouchers and Charter Schools.

According to Bill Phillis, all schools that operate in full or in part on public money should comply with the same rules and require public governance.

•Close poor performing charter schools faster: 

There was some concern expressed by Stephen Dyer and others about the quality of education children are receiving in poor performing charter schools.  He said that improving sponsor accountability is a start, but Ohio needs to close poor performing charter schools faster. He referred to the December 2014 CREDO study on Ohio’s charter schools, in which researchers reported that after three years poor performing charter schools seldom improve.  Unfortunately charter schools in Ohio can fail for 6-7 years before closing.  

Jennifer Dillard  also asked that HB2 be amended to allow the ODE to close poor performing schools faster, and prevent poor performing charter schools from receiving public monies at the same level as local public schools that are doing well.

•Fund charter schools separately, and base funding on what is costs the charter to educate the child:  

Bill Phillis recommended that charter schools be funded separately from the foundation program.  

Stephen Dyer explained to the committee how the per pupil amount in state aid actually drops for school districts after funds for charter schools are deducted.  He used Columbus as an example, and said that the per pupil amount for Columbus City Schools dropped from $3,774 per student to $2,711 per student, because school districts have to “backfill lost state revenue with local revenue.”  The statewide average lost in state revenue is about $250 per student. 

•Clarify that property purchased with public funds is public property:

 

This provision was supported by Darold Johnson, Stephen Dyer, and Bill Phillis.

•Prohibit for-profit management companies from operating, especially as they expand online opportunities: 

This provision was supported by Darold Johnson, Denis Smith, and Bill Phillis.  Denis Smith also recommended that the $500,000 threshold for sponsors be increased to $10 million.  He said that the current threshold is inadequate and “.....does not allow sufficient capacity and expertise to do the work.”

Bill Phillis reported that charter schools have become “competitors of the traditional public system. The charter industry is essentially a counterfeit of the public common school.”

•Make surety bonds for low performing charters equal to the estimated amount they would receive from the state:

Darold Johnson and Bill Phillis asked the committee to include in the amendments the requirement that charter school sponsors have the fiscal capacity to re-pay the taxpayers of Ohio if any charter school closes prior to the end of the year.

•Require charter schools, sponsors, and management companies to adhere to the same laws and rules as traditional public schools regarding open records and meetings; filing reports with the Ohio Ethics Commission; and financial reporting:

Most witnesses recommended a variety of measures to increase transparency in operations for charter schools, sponsors, and management companies.  

Bill Phillis explained to the committee that the current laws and rules for traditional public schools were passed to prevent nepotism, conflicts of interest, fraud, abuse of legal rights, segregation, etc. and these laws should apply to charter schools.

Darold Johnson suggested that criminal background checks should be conducted on all sponsors, school personnel, and management companies employees,  and members of governing boards should file full financial disclosure reports and identify conflicts of interest.

Dennis Hetzel told the committee, “We note that public funding of charters likely will pass the $1 billion threshold under the proposed budget for 2017. However, there remains only minimal ability for the public to know how those dollars are being spent in many cases.”

He went on to describe the inability of Ohio journalists to report meaningfully on the activities of charter schools, because the schools and management companies refuse to comply with open records requests.   

He suggested adding language in HB2 to clarify that charter schools and entities that they contract with must comply with RC149.43 - Open Records; requiring charter school officials to undergo Sunshine Law training; and including expenditures for charter schools on the OhioCheckbook.com website operated by Treasurer Mandel.

•The State perpetuates an inefficient system of schools:  

Bill Phillis explained to the committee how the State demanded school districts to consolidate during the early 1900s to reduce inefficiencies and increase educational opportunities for students.  About 3,500 school districts were consolidated into the current number of 613.  But then lawmakers re-created a similar inefficient system by sanctioning the creation of close to 400 charter schools since 1999.

5)  House Hears Testimony on HB74:  The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, received testimony on March 11, 2015 on HB74 (Brenner) Primary and Secondary Assessments.  Superintendents from several school districts testified about three provisions in HB74:  Resident Educator Program, Selecting Assessments, and Teacher Evaluations.

Karen Mantia, Superintendent of the Lakota Local School District, asked the committee to amend HB74 to change the Resident Educator Program to address components that overlap now with the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES).  She said that in interviews with beginning teachers in the Resident Educator Program, she has found that they appreciate the first two years of the program, which includes mentoring and cooperation with other teachers, but are frustrated with years three and four and the amount of hours it takes to submit the Resident Educator Summative Assessment (RESA).  The results of the assessment are not available for six months, and the new teachers are often assessed by people who they have never met. She recommends that the Resident Educator Program be reduced from four to two years, and OTES be used to evaluate new teachers.  In years three and four teachers should transition to the Individual Professional Development Plan.

David Hile, Superintendent of Licking Valley Local Schools and Brenda Boeke, Superintendent of Minster Local Schools, suggested that time and money could be saved if school districts were allowed to select their own assessments.  They asked that the ODE identify high quality, research vetted assessments, and allow school districts to select appropriate exams for each grade band and report the results to the ODE. They said that over 300 school districts are already using Measured of Academic Progress (MAP) and 200 school districts are using Renaissance Learning’s STAR.  They believe that they are better assessments than the state tests, and provide information about how to improve instruction more quickly than the state tests.  They also use these assessments to identify gifted students.  

According to their testimony, the ODE should also identify other assessments to use for kindergarten, and give school districts the option of using the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) or another assessment.  They said that the KRA is not easy to administer and is not accurate.

The results of these assessments would be reported to the ODE, and, using crosswalks and concordance tables, the ODE would be able to create the state report cards.

Jeff Brown, Superintendent of Granville Exempted Village Schools, and Paul Imhoff, Superintendent of Upper Arlington City Schools, told the committee that the Teacher Performance Rubric used by principals to evaluate teachers through the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) is a very useful tool to improve teaching, but using value added data to evaluate teachers has created unintended consequences. 

According to Superintendent Imhoff, because most teachers do not have value added data, “There are concerns about the equity of using these different data sources for such a high stakes purpose as teacher evaluation.” 

They suggested eliminating student learning objectives, and using value-added data as part of the reflective process in the Teacher Performance Rubric, so that teachers would be evaluated on how they use data to improve student learning.  

They also suggested that school districts be allowed to obtain a waiver to use value added data differently in the evaluation process.

6)  Update on HB64:  The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Senator Cupp, received testimony last week on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget from private school groups, charter school groups, and several statewide education organizations, including the Ohio Association for Gifted Children and the Ohio Educational Service Center Association.

Gifted Education

Ann Sheldon, Executive Director of the Ohio Association for Gifted Children, described in testimony on March 12, 2015 the inadequate funding system for gifted education; the lack of accountability for gifted spending, identification, and services for gifted students; concerns about the testing restrictions included in HB64 and the use of the PARCC test to identify gifted students; and concerns about the de-regulation recommendations for high performing school districts included in HB64. 

According to the testimony, while gifted students represent 16 percent of the student population in Ohio, only 23 percent of this population is being served. And, while $72 million would be allocated through HB64 for gifted education, the lack of strong accountability requirements for school district spending on gifted education means that only about $3.8 million in Educational Service Center funding is “undisputedly” dedicated for gifted coordinators and intervention specialist units.

Ms. Sheldon requested the following be added to the HB64 (Smith):  

Gifted Funding:

•Restore gifted ESC funding back to the 2011/2012 level of $8.1 million. “ESCs supporting smaller, low-wealth districts should be given priority in funding. We also ask that the cap on gifted funding in the education funding formula be removed and that gifted funding be moved outside of the transitional aid guarantee to allow more funding to flow to smaller districts.”

Accountability:

•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. “Districts showing great promise in the area of gifted performance could be waived from this requirement.”

•Require ODE to collect and post data on gifted services offered by each district by grade band as well as the number of licensed gifted personnel employed or contracted by the district. 

•Revise the sub-group accountability language in law to allow ODE to use the full gifted performance indicator to gauge the success of the gifted sub-group. •Require districts to provide gifted services that are either accelerated or supported at minimum levels by qualified gifted intervention specialists.

Testing:

•Exempt assessments to identify gifted students from the testing limits, and discontinue the use of PARCC assessments for gifted identification until the assessments are reviewed for this purpose through the established ODE process for reviewing and approving tests for use in gifted screening/identification.

Other Provisions:

•Remove the provisions that allow the state superintendent to waive any law, rule, or standards at his discretion; add to the definition of high-performing districts that all sub-group value-added grades be at least a “B” or higher; and allow districts to keep the high performing designation for two years if their overall and sub-group value-added measures are maintained.

•Develop alternative service models for gifted students, such as regional gifted schools, expanded community schools for gifted children in areas of high need, open enrollment, and vouchers.  Allow the Straight A Fund to be used to support gifted education initiatives.

•Revise or remove the provision in current law that allows principals and others to serve as gifted coordinators.  

•Revise or remove the limitations on the College and Credit Plus program; allow the highest district weight be applied to any CC+ course a student takes; increase funding to ensure that all students can access CC+, including public students who wish to access private CC+ courses; target additional funds and awards to the neediest districts; retain provisions that allow students to take CC+ courses with no charge. 

Gifted Education

Judy Chaffins, Director of Gifted Education, Allen County Educational Service Center, told the committee that there is great confusion and misinformation about state funding for gifted education, and as a result, the level of formal services for gifted students in Allen County “have been dramatically cut”.  The program, which served 300 students in 2009, now serves 136 students for the 2014-15 school year.  

This is in spite of the fact that Allen County school districts received $649,974,000 in the 2014-15 school year for gifted education. She states, “Most of the public, including many administrators, are unaware there are funds in school budgets designated for gifted. Some treasurers have informed me they do not get any “gifted funding” anymore. Some say they have to use it for “all” their students, not just the “gifted” ones.”

There is also a belief that general education teachers can provide services to gifted students through differentiated instruction.  Unfortunately general education teachers are not adequately trained to deliver education through this model, and there is little evidence that it is effective.

According to the testimony, “The bottom line is simple: funding needs to be tied to trained gifted personnel, and it was less complicated when it went directly to the Educational Service Centers instead of the districts. Funding also needs to cover the total cost of the employee and not put a burden on districts or ESCs to use other money to help support the positions. However, if districts are given the money, they need to be held accountable for its intended use.”

Educational Service Centers (ESC)

Craig Burford, Executive Director of the Ohio Educational Service Center Association, described the roles and responsibilities of ESCs to implement federal, state, and regional education initiatives and school improvement efforts “assigned to the service centers by the general assembly or the department of education”. 

He told the committee that HB64 reduces funding for ESCs by 5.8 percent in FY16 and 20 percent in FY17, which will compound the impact of the reductions that ESCs received in the last budget. “The proposal fails to recognize that ESCs play a critical role in the deployment of such statewide initiatives. It is contrary to the recommendations of the State Board of Education which recommended flat funding.”

According to the testimony, HB64 should be amended to include the following:

•Retain current ESC funding levels as recommended by the state board of education and provide funding to include the additions of Cincinnati, Columbus and Southwestern City School Districts;

•Remove the ability for “high performing” districts to opt out of the alignment to an ESC;

•Remove the ability for “high performing” districts to opt out of consulting with an ESC regarding the provision of services to students with disabilities;

•Utilize ESCs in the statewide deployment of professional development and technical assistance;

•Allow ESCs to lead consortia of districts related to the competency-based education pilots;

•Enable ESCs to lead consortia applications for the Community Connectors initiative;

•Continued transition toward full-funding of the 6-weight special education cost-based funding model; and

•Full funding of ESC gifted coordination units.

He concluded by saying, “In closing, the executive budget proposals aimed at ESCs appear to be inconsistent with the needs of Ohio’s school districts, inconsistent with the needs of the Ohio Department of Education, inconsistent with the recommendations of the state board of education and inconsistent with the requirements that Ohio have a state system of support under both federal and state law.”

 

Private Schools

Dan Dodd, director of the Ohio Association of Independent Schools (OAIS), requested that HB64 clarify that private schools can choose their own criteria for issuing diplomas, rather than administer the seven end of course exams.  He also said that private school participation in the College Credit Plus program should be optional, because some of the requirements might not align with the philosophy or standards of the school.  

Rabbi Yitz Frank, Ohio director of Agudath Israel of American, asked the committee to increase the EdChoice scholarship for high schools to $5,900 in FY16 and $6,000 in FY17.  He told the committee, “...we believe that assigning funding parity to students who wish to attend a different school than their local public school is appropriate.” The scholarship is increased in HB64 from $5000 to $5,700.  The Rabbi also requested that HB64 permit private schools to administer the ACT in lieu of the seven end of course exams.

Larry Keough, representing the Catholic Conference Ohio, also requested increases in the EdChoice scholarship from $5,000 to $8,500 for high schools and from $4,250 to $5,000 for K-8.  

Jason Warner, legislative director at School Choice Ohio, also requested an increase in the EdChoice scholarship and the Cleveland scholarship to keep in line with the statewide average cost of private school tuition.  He also requested that the caps on the Jon Peterson Special Needs and the Ohio Autism be raised to scholarships to $27,000 annually.

Charter Schools

John Zitzner, president of Friends of Breakthrough Schools, asked the committee to consider some unintended consequences of proposed changes for charter schools.  He said that Breakthrough Schools employs a fiscal officer for several of its schools to save money.  The bill would require that each fiscal officer be appointed by the governing authority and work independently from the management company.  Instead, governing authorities should have the option to hire their own fiscal officers or contract services through an operator.

Regarding the $25 million charter school facilities fund, he said that some high performing charter schools might not be eligible for these funds if their sponsor is not exemplary.  The sponsor rating system is being implemented for the first time, and so he recommended that high performing schools, rather than sponsors, be eligible for money through the fund.

The testimony is available at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance-subcommittee-on-primary-and-secondary-education

7)  The Public/Private Dilemma for Policy Makers Regarding Charter Schools:  State Auditor David Yost identified the policy quagmire that stands in the way of meaningful accountability for charter schools in Ohio in a commentary published in the Columbus Dispatch on March 10, 2015.  

As policy makers create more and more public and private hybrid entities, he asks the question, “How do we protect the public interest while harnessing the best qualities of a mostly private-sector actor?”

To develop a rigorous accountability system for charter schools in Ohio, policy makers will have to address conflicting purposes and goals.  Not doing so has consequences for children, families, communities, and tax payers. 

He writes, “If we were to require such entities to comply with the accountability measures that apply to the public sector, we would lose most of the benefit of using a hybrid structure. Innovation, speed and nimbleness simply don’t happen in a government structure.”

“At the same time, it’s mostly or all our money and, therefore, the public’s business. Somehow, treating these entities — usually private corporations — as though they were a sole proprietorship, operating in private, doesn’t seem right, either.”

He then offers some examples of practices that should be applicable for public/private entities and strengthen accountability:

•Require certain relevant information be provided to the public at particular intervals.

•Verify certain information independently, such as through a certified public accountant or another body.  

•Segregate certain duties and responsibilities.

•Require independent governing boards to ensure divergent points of view and oversight of management decisions.

How these practices are weighted depends, he writes, on “how much discretion the entity has in exercising the authority of the state”.  Hybrid entities exercising little authority would not be required to comply with the more stringent rules and laws that entities with a high authority must follow.  

Where the accountability lines are drawn is still being debated in Ohio, but there should be agreement that the stakes are high when the education of our children and close to $1 billion in taxpayers funds are involved.

See “Dave Yost commentary: Public-private hybrids raise accountability questions”, by David Yost, Columbus Dispatch, March 10, 2015 at 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/03/10/1-public-private-hybrids-raise-accountability-questions.html

Legal Status of Charter Schools 

Researchers at the University of Connecticut, Rutgers, and Montclair State published on January 21, 2015 an article that examines “how courts have treated the hybrid nature of charter schools in a variety of state statutory contexts”, including governmental immunity, accountability, prevailing wage, student expulsion requirements, and more.

According to the authors, “While charter schools are generally characterized as ‘public schools,’ courts have had a difficult time determining their legal status because charter schools exhibit both public and private characteristics.”

In most of the cases reviewed in the article the courts have agreed that charter schools are public entities and subject to the same treatment as other public entities in several cases.

In three cases, however, the courts held that charter schools were not public entities under state statutes.  

In one of these cases the Supreme Court of California found the charter school was not entitled to immunity, because they were “operated by non-profit corporations that had substantial freedom from the requirements to which school districts were subject.”

In another case the Court of Appeals of New York found that charter schools were not public entities under the state’s prevailing wage statute.

In the third case a California appellate court held that charter schools were not subject to the same student expulsion requirements as traditional public schools, because the expulsion provision in law didn’t apply to charter schools. 

The courts have also ruled on the question “Are Charter School Officials Public Officials?”

According to the authors, in three cases the courts held that charter school officials are public officials who are subject to the same treatment as other public officials. 

 

The article also reviewed three cases regarding educational management organizations (EMO) and whether or not they are public entities subject to the same requirements or protections as public entities.  

In one case an Ohio appellate court found that an EMO and principal employed by the EMO are not entitled to governmental immunity under the state’s tort liability act, because the statute did not identify EMOs as political subdivisions that were

entitled to immunity.  The court also found that charter schools did not qualify as “bodies corporate and politic” under the statute, because the courts had defined this term to cover only public organizations.

In another Ohio case, an Ohio appellate court held that an EMO was not a public official with a fiduciary duty to return property to charter schools, because the corporation obtained the property from its own income derived from former public funds.  This case, Hope Academy Broadway Campus v. White Hat Management, has been appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In another case, a Pennsylvania appellate court found that charter school records controlled by an EMO were still public records, because they were related to a governmental function.  The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania later remanded the case.

According to the authors, these cases identify some areas for legislative changes, because the courts relied heavily on the statutory language in the decisions, and have had to interpret the intent of legislatures when the statutory language is not clear.  

In the case Hope Academy Broadway Campus v. White Hat Management, the Ohio Supreme Court is reviewing an appellate court’s decision that the EMO, White Hat Management, had a fiduciary duty to return property purchased with public funds to the charter schools that it was managing.  The attorney for White Hat is claiming that the EMO is not a public official, and the property purchased is not public property.

According to the authors, “This position is disturbing, especially in light of the fact that the Ohio legislature has a constitutional duty to provide a ‘thorough and efficient system of common schools.’ 238 One wonders whether a system that allows EMOs to abscond with millions of dollars in publicly funded school equipment is truly ‘efficient’.”

The authors suggest that state legislatures adopt language from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, requiring that all “instructional materials, furnishings, and equipment purchased or developed with public funds be the property of the school, and not a third party.”

The authors also recommend that state legislatures ensure that charter school statutes specify that charter schools must comply with public school due process provisions, in response to decisions about student expulsions, dismissals, and violations of due process rights.  Cases in California, Hawaii, and Maine all raise questions about a student’s right to a free public education, and what rights students give-up when they enroll in a “school of choice.”      

See “The Legal Status of Charter Schools in State Statutory Law” by Preston C. Green III, University of Connecticut; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University, and Joseph Oluwole, Montclair State University, University of Massachusetts Law Review, Forthcoming, January 21, 2015 at

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2560896

8)  Bills Introduced

HB120 (Schuring) Innovation Grant Program: To create the Ohio Higher Education Innovation Grant Program and to make an appropriation.

HB114 (Roegner/Bishoff) School Door Barricade:  To require the Board of Building Standards to adopt rules for the use of a barricade device on a school door in an emergency situation and to prohibit the State Fire Code from prohibiting the use of the device in such a situation.

SB122 (Gentile) Homestead Exemption: To extend eligibility for the homestead exemption to elderly or disabled homeowners who did not receive the exemption for 2013 and have $30,000 or more in Ohio adjusted gross income.

SB125 (LaRose/Hottinger) School Emergency Barricade Device:  To require the Board of Building Standards to adopt rules for the use of a barricade device on a school door in an emergency situation and to prohibit the State Fire Code from prohibiting the use of the device in such a situation.

SB126 (Sawyer) Interdistrict Open Enrollment:  To require a study of interdistrict open enrollment not later than July 1, 2017, and to terminate interdistrict open enrollment on that date with the possibility of renewal following the General Assembly’s examination of the study’s findings.

FYI ARTS

Congratulation to Ohio’s Poetry Out Loud Winners!  The Ohio Arts Council announced on March 9, 2015 that Sarah Binau, a senior at Bexley High School, is the winner of Ohio’s 10th Poetry Out Loud State Finals. The finals were held on Saturday, March 7, 2015 at the Lincoln Theatre in downtown Columbus where Ms. Binau recited three poems:  “After Apple-Picking” by Robert Frost, “Onions” by William Matthews, and “The Author to Her Book” by Anne Bradstreet.

The award includes a prize of $300, $500 for her school’s library to purchase poetry books, and an all-expense paid trip to compete for a $20,000 prize in the Poetry Out Loud National Finals in Washington, D.C., on April 27-29, 2015.

Second place was awarded to Lake Wilburn, who is the 2014 state champion and national runner-up.  He is a senior at Centennial High School in Columbus and received a prize of $200 and earned $200 for his school library. 

Third place was awarded to Ares Harper, a senior from Columbus Alternative High School in Columbus, who received $100, and $50 for the school library.

Students who earned honorable mentions include Anna McMurchy, a senior at Western Reserve Academy in Hudson, finished fourth; Genevieve Urban, a freshman at The Lyceum in South Euclid, finished fifth; and Xander Borne, a senior at Green High School in Green, finished sixth.

According to a press release from the Ohio Arts Council, “More than 9,000 students from nearly 60 schools around Ohio participated in Poetry Out Loud competitions this year. After classroom-level and school-wide contests, 34 students remained to compete in the final event. They performed classic and contemporary poems for a panel of poetry and performance experts. Students were awarded points for voice and articulation, physical presence, dramatic appropriateness, level of complexity, evidence of understanding, accuracy, and overall performance.”

Ohio’s Poetry Out Loud champions have also successfully competed at the national level.  Jackson Hille was the nation’s first Poetry Out Loud winner in 2006;  Lake Wilburn was last year’s national runner-up; Mido Aly was among the top five national finalists in 2009; and Taribo Osuobeni, received an honorable mention in 2013.

Poetry Out Loud is sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Poetry Foundation in partnership with the Ohio Arts Council. The program encourages high school students to learn about great poetry, master public-speaking skills, build self-confidence, and study their literary heritage.

See http://www.oac.state.oh.us/News/NewsArticle.asp?intArticleId=779

 

From: Ann Brennan

FYI: IMPORTANT UPDATE of State Education Activity:HB 7 passed the Senate and note budget update and testimony, as well as upcoming hearings in the Senate before the Advisory Committee on Testing, also note State Auditors Charter school reform recommendations and big 8 testimony.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>
To: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 11:04 pm
Subject: Arts on Line Education Update March 9, 2015

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
March 7, 2015

1)  Ohio News

•131st Ohio House:  The Ohio House and Senate will hold hearings and sessions this week.  The schedule of hearings is included under “This Week at the Statehouse.”

•Senate Approves Safe Harbor Bill:  The Ohio Senate approved HB7 (Buchy) unanimously on March 4, 2015.  The bill ensures that the scores on the new assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) in math and English language arts, and AIR in science and social studies, do not affect decisions about student promotion, retention, or credits for classes. The bill, however, doesn’t impact retention guidelines tied to third grade reading test results. 

The Senate Education Committee amended the bill to clarify that schools/districts would not lose state aid if students didn’t take state assessments.  The bill was also amended on the floor of the Senate so that students would not lose their voucher if they also refused to take the state assessments.  The bill now goes back to the House for concurrence.  The bill passed with an emergency clause, so that it can go into effect before the end of the school year. 

•Senate Forms Advisory Committee on Testing:  The Senate announced on March 4, 2015 the formation of the Senate Advisory Committee on Testing to study student testing in Ohio and develop recommendations for lawmakers to consider before the summer recess at the end of June. The committee will be chaired by Senator Lehner, chair of the Senate Education Committee.  The committee roster includes the following individuals:

Teachers: Dar Borradaile, Miami Valley Career and Technical Center; Melissa Cropper, Georgetown Exempted Village Schools; Amy Holbrook, Mad River Local Schools; Kimberly Jones, Columbus City Schools; Shari Obrenski, Cleveland City Schools; Billie Sarich, Grandview Heights City Schools; and Kay Wait, Toledo City Schools.

Superintendents: Adrian Allison, Canton City Schools; Jan Broughton, Fairfield Union Local Schools; April Domine, New Albany Plain Local Schools; John Marschhausen, Hilliard; Keith Millard, Hamilton City Schools; and Paul Imhoff, Upper Arlington City Schools. 

Curriculum and testing specialists: Cheryl Irish, Miami University; Machelle Kline, Columbus City Schools; Jim Mahoney, Battelle for Kids; Char Shryock, Bay Village Schools; and Julie Sellers, Cincinnati City Schools.

State Board of Education: Michael Collins and C. Todd Jones 

Educational experts: Earl Oremus, Marburn Academy; Andy Boy, United Schools Network; Jessica Voltolini, Ohio Department of Education; and Chris Knight, Catholic Schools, Diocese of Toledo.

Legislators: Senator Peggy Lehner; Senator Cliff Hite (R-Findlay); and Senator Tom Sawyer (D-Akron).

Parents:  To be named later.

•ODT Changes Formula for Agricultural Valuation:  According to the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Department of Taxation announced on March 6, 2015 changes in the Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) formula that could lead to lower valuations for farmland in Ohio.

Since the beginning of the 2009 recession, the value of agricultural land has increased while the value of land in urban and suburban areas has decreased in Ohio.  

This is because the value of agricultural land is determined based on a complex formula that incorporates factors such as soil type, cropping history, crop prices, yields, non-land production costs and interest rates, and provides more stability for agricultural land values compared to residential and commercial real property. 

The new CAUV formula includes modifications to the Capitalization-Interest Rate and woodland values that could lower valuations of farm land, and decreases the lag time for retrieving some data, which will improve its accuracy.  

The change in CAUV formula has implications for the proposed state funding formula for school districts in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.  The proposed school funding formula determines the school district’s local contribution through the State Share Percentage which considers property valuation as one of the factors, along with median income, to determine school district wealth.  Dr. Howard Fleeter, an economist at the Ohio Education Policy Institute, told the House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education on March 5, 2015 that CAUV was one of the factors that contributed to rural school districts seeming wealthier in the formula, thus leading to a decrease in state aid for these districts.

See http://ofbf.org/media-and-publications/news-room/734/

•Charter School Web Site:  Innovation Ohio announced last week that the Charter School Accountability Project has updated data on the KnowYourCharter web site to include school information in addition to school district information. Comparisons can now be made between school districts, public schools, and/or charter schools in the areas of academic achievement and finances. The project is a collaboration between Innovation Ohio and the Ohio Education Association. See http://knowyourcharter.com/school-performance/

2) This Week at the Statehouse

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet three times this week to receive testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget:

On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 1:00 PM in hearing room 116 the subcommittee will receive

testimony from the following:

- Agudath Israel of America

- Catholic Conference of Ohio

- Ohio Association of Independent Schools - School Choice Ohio

- Buckeye Christian School Association

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM in hearing room 116 the subcommittee will receive testimony from the following:

- Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools

- Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers - Ohio Coalition for Quality Education

- Breakthrough Schools

- Buckeye Charter School Boards

On Thursday March 12, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 116 the subcommittee will receive testimony from the following:

- Ohio Association for Gifted Children

- Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities 

- Ohio Association for Career and Technical Education

- Ohio Association of Career-Technical Superintendents

- Ohio STEM Learning Network

- Ohio ESC Association

- Ohio Education Computer Network

•The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet twice this week to receive testimony on HB74 (Brenner) Primary-Secondary Assessments and HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship:

The committee will meet on Monday March 9, 2015 at 4:00 PM in hearing room 121 and on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 8:00 AM in hearing room 018.

•The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, will meet on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM in the Senate Finance Hearing Room.   The committee will receive testimony from teachers regarding State Superintendent Richard Ross’ report on testing and assessment.

•The Ohio Constitution Modernization Commission’s Committee on Education, Public Institutions, and Local Government will meet on Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:30 AM in hearing room 017.  The committee will receive a review of proposals on the “thorough and efficient” clause from senior policy adviser Steven Steinglass.

3)  State Board of Education to Meet:  The State Board of Education, Tom Gunlock president, will meet on March 9 & 10, 2015 at the Ohio Department of Education Conference Center, 25 South Front Street in Columbus.

On Monday, March 9, 2015, the Board will conduct a Chapter 119 hearing on two rules:  Rule 3301-42-01, Criteria for Enrolling Eligible Adults in Public Secondary Education Programs, and Rule 3301-102-10, Drop-out Recovery Performance Ratings. 

The Achievement and Graduation, Capacity, Urban Renewal, and Accountability committee meetings will follow.

After lunch at about 1:00 PM the Board will receive an update from the Superintendent of Public Instruction on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.

Public participation on agenda and non-agenda items is scheduled for 3:00 PM, followed by the State Board’s Business Meeting.  The Board will move into executive session and will recess following the meeting.

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 the State Board will reconvene at 8:30 AM.  The Board will receive a Welcome Poem by Lake Wilburn, the 2014 Poetry Out Loud State Champion.  The Board will then take action on the Report and Recommendations of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, consider old business and new business, and adjourn.

At the March State Board of Education Meeting, the Board will consider the following resolutions:

#4 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rules 3301-32-3301-32-01, 3301-32-02, 3301-32-04 TO 3301-32-06, and 3301-32-08 to 3301-32-12 of the Ohio Administrative Code Regarding School Age Child Care Programs. (Volume 2, page 13).

#5 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rule 3301-35-15 of the Ohio Administrative Code entitled Standards Concerning the Implementation of Positive Behavior Intervention Supports and the Use of Restraint and Seclusion. (Volume 2, page 49)

#6 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Consider Confirmation of the Cincinnati City School District’s Determination of Impractical Transportation of Certain Students Attending Immaculate Heart of Mary School, Cincinnati, Hamilton County. (Volume 2, page 58)

#14 Approve a Resolution to Amend Rules 3301-19-01, -02, and -03 of the Ohio Administrative Code regarding Expenditure Flow Reports. (Volume 3 page 239).

#15 Approve a Resolution to Adopt Rule 3301-24-10 Entitled Alternative Pathway to Professional Principal License for the New Leaders for Ohio Schools Pilot Program. (Volume 3, page 239). 

#16  Approve a Resolution to Adopt Rule 3301-24-23 and 3301-24-24 of the Ohio Administrative Code entitled Resident Educator License Renewal and Alternative Resident Educator License Renewal. (Volume 3, page 242). 

#17 Approve a Resolution to Adopt New Rules 3301-24-25 and 3301-24-26 of the Ohio Administrative Code entitled Senor Professional Educator License Renewal and Lead Professional Educator License Renewal.  (Volume 3, page 249)

#18 Approve a Resolution to Amend Rule 3301-27-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code entitled Qualifications to Direct, Supervise, or Coach a Pupil Activity Program. (Volume 3, page 257). 

#24 Approve a Motion to Permit Board Members to Seek Reimbursement for Meals in Connection with Travel in Accordance with OBM Travel Rule 126-1-02. (Volume 4, page 4). 

#25 Approve a Resolution to Revoke the Charter of Phoenix, Akron, Ohio.  (Volume 4, page 13)

#26 Approve a Resolution to Designate Selected Science Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Exams as Substitutes for the State’s Biology End of Course Exam. (Volume 4, page 19) 

#27 Approve a Resolution to Designate Graduation Points Earned Based Upon Scores on the Substitute Exams. (Volume 4, page 26). 

#28 Approve a Resolution Finding Portage County Educational Service Center is Non-Compliant with its Community School Sponsorship Obligations.  (Volume 4, page 28). 

Please Note:  Resolution #19, to rescind and adopt Rules 3301-35-01 through 3301-35-10 of the Ohio Administrative Code regarding the Operating Standards for Ohio School Districts and Elementary and Secondary Schools, has been pulled from the March voting agenda.

4)  State Auditor Proposes More Amendments to Charter School Law:  The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, continued to receive testimony on March 4, 2015 on HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner), a bill that focuses on charter school governance and accountability. State Auditor Dave Yost and representatives of the Ohio 8 school districts presented oral testimony, while the Ohio School Boards Association, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and the Ohio Association of School Business Officials submitted written testimony.  The committee expects to meet next week to accept amendments, and plans to vote on the bill possibly March 11, 2015.  

State Auditor Yost told the committee that since 2001 the State’s auditor’s office has issued findings for recovery in 309 audits of charter schools totaling $27 million, and 22 people associated with charter schools have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing.  

He then offered the committee recommendations to improve charter school law in the areas of accountability, finance, and governance:

Accountability

-Change current law to require charter schools to comply with the same laws about truant students as traditional public schools in Section 2152.02(D) chronic truant.  Currently charter schools follow different laws to dismiss students who are truant than traditional public schools.  Traditional public schools follow Section 2152.02(D) chronic truant, which is defined as any child of compulsory school age who is absent without legitimate excuse from public school for seven or more consecutive school days, ten or more school days in one school month, or fifteen or more school days in a school year. Charter schools must withdraw a student who misses 105 unexcused consecutive hours of school.  But, if a student returns to school after missing 104 hours, the clock starts again.  This means that it is possible for a charter school to receive funding for a student who attends school for as few as 10 days.

  -Clarify and define blended learning and internet-based schools so that there is assurance that the schools are providing the equivalent of the required 920 hours of instruction. Auditor Yost told the committee that his office cannot verify if online charter schools and those that are using blended learning are meeting the 920 hours of required instruction.  “Like so much else in the Department of Education, it is taken on faith, on an honor system.”

He also called for independent evaluations of the components of online learning and suggested that the highest rated sponsors supervise schools using blended learning.

-Require that charter school treasures have a fiduciary duty to the school’s board, and allow a sponsor to stand in for the school board as plaintiff if the school board is otherwise unable to maintain an action for recovery.

Finance:  Counting Students

-Allow the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) to have access to the identities of individual students to address the problem of multiple SSID numbers being generated by charter schools. Ohio is one of two states that do not allow their departments of education to collect data including students’ names, addresses, and social security numbers.

Finance:  Facilities

-Place a lien on a charter school building representing the proportional risk actually assumed by the State for a certain amount of time. “Education of our children ought not be a back-door means to acquire real estate.”

Finance:  Reporting

-Require charter schools to change their accounting and reporting model to the government model, which is the model used by traditional public schools. This change could be phased-in over a year.  This change would allow for “more apt comparisons between educational sectors.”

-Expand the level of information currently reported in the “twenty percent” footnote.  This is a narrow footnote added to a financial report of a charter school in which most of the funding goes to a management company.  The CPA firm that audits the private management company adds the footnote.  The recommendation calls for the level of information currently reported under USAS by traditional public schools. “This compromise protects the agility, privacy and trade secrets of a private company while still providing substantially more information about how public money is spent.”

Governance

-Eliminate ODE’s role as a sponsor of charter schools.  “In particular, ODE’s role should be explicit. Is it a sponsor, a coach, a regulator, a funder, a licenser? In part, ODE’s muddled role in community schools is a by-product of its muddled role in education in general.”

-Phase-out the authority of local school districts to sponsor their own conversion schools.

-Provide the ODE more details about the requirement in law to rank sponsors. (129-HB555)

-Create incentives for high-performing sponsors.

•Testimony from the Ohio 8:

Superintendent Lori Ward, Dayton Public Schools and Kevin Dalton, Toledo Federation of Teachers, testified on HB2 on behalf of the Ohio 8 school districts.  They said that the Ohio 8 supports the charter school provisions in HB2 and the Executive Budget, but recommended that specific information be added to the bill about public audit requirements and the process for opening a closed charter school.

To increase transparency the Ohio 8 recommends establishing requirements that the annual audit include the receipt, transfer, and expenditure of all public funds; the names of board members, treasurer, CFO, etc. be posted online; conflict of interest statements be made available online; assets acquired with public dollars be returned to local educational agencies; teacher and administration salary schedules and total expenditures be disclosed.

They also suggested that a closed charter school be prohibited from reopening if the new school has the same sponsor as the closed school; the new school has the same chief administrator as the closed school; fifty percent or more of the governing authority of the new school consists of the same members as the closed school; fifty percent or more of the teaching staff of the new school consists of the same individuals who were teachers at the closed school.

7) Subcommittee Hearing Focuses on the School Funding Provisions in HB64:  Statewide education organizations weighed-in on Governor Kasich’s new formula and plan for funding schools included in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget on March 5, 2015, and all agreed that the state could do more to support its public schools.

Testifying before the House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, were the following individuals and organizations: 

•Russ Harris, Government Relations Division, Ohio Education Association (OEA)

•Melissa Cropper, President of the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT)

•Bill Phillis, Executive Director of the Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding (E & A Coalition) 

•Thomas Tucker, Superintendent of Worthington School District

•Tom Hosler, Superintendent of Perrysburg Schools

•Jenni Logan, Treasurer of the Lakota Local School 

•Linda N. Reid, Superintendent South Euclid Lyndhurst Schools

•Damon Asbury from the Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA), Barbara Shaner from the Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO), and Tom Ash from the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) presented joint testimony.  

In addition, Dr. Howard Fleeter, from the Ohio Education Policy Institute presented to the committee an analysis of the components of the formula.  A summary of his analysis and recommendations is included below.

The following are some of the key issues and themes identified by witnesses during the testimony:

•The state has failed to provide a stable school funding formula: 

Representatives from BASA, OASBO, and OSBA told the committee that there have been at least five different school funding formulas since the DeRolph school funding decision was issued by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1997. In general these formulas have attempted to address the many diverse needs of students across the states, but the “...current school funding formula established in HB 59, and the proposed changes contained in HB 64, still fall short in meeting the needs of all students.”

Thomas Tucker - Worthington asked the committee to “adopt the current formula as the foundation for your deliberations and fully fund it to meet the needs of Ohio’s 1.7 million public school students.”  He said that a “stable, permanent formula for providing the right amounts of state aid to meet varying needs is essential”.

•The state funding levels are inadequate even though the state is projecting a budget surplus:  

Some witnesses told the committee that the proposed levels of state aid for K-12 education in FY16-17 were about the same as the funding levels districts received in 2010-11, and asked that the projected budget surplus be used to increase state aid for schools.

Representatives from OSBA, OASBO, and BASA told the committee that an analysis of the proposed formula has identified “wide gaps in available resources for some districts.”  

Russ Harris-OEA said that the proposed budget supports a modest increase of $460 million over the biennium, but with “growing state revenues, this is the time to make investments in our future to address the shortfall in state funding for public education.”

Bill Phillis- E&A Coalition reported to the committee, “The proposed state budget increase of $459 million for the next biennium will position school funding about where it was in the FY 2010 and FY 2011 biennium. An additional concern is that the transfer of funds from districts to choice programs in FY 2016 and FY 2017 will be at least $500 million more than in FY 2010 and FY 2011.” 

•School districts are relying more on local tax revenue:  

According to some witnesses overreliance on local property taxes has increased over the past few years, in direct opposition to the Ohio Supreme Court directive in the DeRolph school funding decisions.

Tom Hosler - Perrysburg told the committee that rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investment Services rate Ohio’s schools lower, because increasingly districts must go to the voters to seek operational dollars, and they consider that an unstable form of funding.

Melissa Cropper-OFT said that it is becoming more difficult for families to reach into their own pockets to afford levies.

•The components of a high quality education should be determined and the resources allocated: 

Some witnesses stated that the proposed funding levels for K-12 education in HB64 are determined through residual funding, in which the state determines the total spending, and backs into the per pupil amounts.

Bill Phillis-E & A Coalition asked the committee to consider,  “What is the premise of the current school foundation program level of $5,800 per pupil? On what is that number based?” And, “What is the rationale for the level of funding for the line item appropriations and subsidies or the absence of line items? For example, why is there not a line item for school bus purchase as was the case two decades ago?”

Representatives of OSBA, BASA, and OASBO recommended that, “Ohio’s school funding formula should be calibrated in such a way that allows every district to prepare its students for college or a successful career. We believe the current funding formula (adopted in HB 59) and the proposed changes in HB 64 have made progress, but fall short of this objective.”

•The purpose of school district balance reserves is to ensure sufficient revenue between levies:  

The Kasich administration has suggested that school districts that could lose state funding due to the proposed new funding formula in HB64 make-up losses by using their spending reserves.  But witnesses told the committee that would not be prudent.  

Russ Harris-OEA said that the balances are not “unencumbered” resources, but necessary to carry the financial burden until the next levy. 

Representatives from OSBA, BASA, and OASBO said “....that there are valid reasons for districts’ carryover balances, including cash flow protection for future expenditures, levy management, and concerns about future reductions in state and local revenue.”

Tom Hosler - Perrysburg’s Schools explained to the committee the relation between the reserve fund and bond ratings.  When he tried to upgrade his district’s bond rating, Moody’s Investors Service in Chicago said that his cash reserve would need to be at least 25 percent of the annual budget to get an upgrade, even though his district demonstrated strong management practices.  

•The new formula doesn’t redistribute state aid based on capacity to raise revenue locally:  

Russ Harris explained that it appears that the new formula makes less wealthy rural districts with low student population and lower income levels look wealthier.

Jenni L. Logan - Lakota Local School District said that her district will lose $9.7 million in state aid through the new formula, and will be forced to return to the ballot or make cuts, after making $20 million in cuts between 2010-2013.  She went on to explain that the proposed formula is designed to adjust for a district’s ability to raise local revenue, but what also should be considered is tax effort.  Lakota’s effective millage rate is 16 percent higher than the state average, meaning that the residents of the district are already exceeding the fiscal effort standard.

•The new way to count students causes instability:  

This is the first year that school districts will report student counts three times per year in October, March, and June, rather than during one week in October.  State funding for schools will be adjusted based on the adjusted enrollment in June, after the school year is over, and expenditures are finalized.

According to testimony from representatives of OSBA, BASA, and OASBO this new policy “creates instability for districts. Not only have they set their budgets and programs at the beginning of the school year based on the number of students enrolled, an adjustment in the last payments of the year could be problematic.”  They recommend that the June adjustment be carried-over to the following school year to provide more stability.

•The number of school districts on the guarantees (transitional aid) is the result of inadequate state aid:

According to Russ Harris-OEA and representatives from OSBA, BASA, and OASBO, the number of school districts on the guarantee in FY16 is 226 districts and 184 districts in FY17. The major reason, as explained by Howard Fleeter from the Ohio Education Policy Institute, is the “overall inadequacy of the funding formula” rather than enrollment or changes in property value.  

•The loss of tangible personal property tax revenues affect many districts.  According to the testimony by Russ Harris - OEA, there are about 200 school districts that have been negatively affected by the loss of tangible personal property tax revenues. The proposed formula in HB64 would re-activate a phase-out of the Tangible Personal Property and Public Utility Tangible Personal Property Tax replacement payments to school districts.  

Representatives from OSBA, BASA, and OASBO testified that many districts that receive these payments are also seeing reductions in transitional aid, and “would have extreme difficulty in raising the lost revenue locally.”  

•Funding for charter schools and vouchers should not be a deduct from school districts: 

Some witnesses asked the committee to change the way charter schools are funded. Currently the state deducts from school district accounts the full per pupil amount ($5800) plus categorical aid even if the district only receives a portion of the per pupil amount in state aid.

Linda Reid-South Euclid Lyndhurst Schools (SEL) explained that her school district receives only $1,350 out of $5800 per student in state aid, but, “...for every student that leaves the SEL district and enters a charter school $4,400 is made up through local tax dollars. SEL Schools pay more in local dollars to charter schools than is deducted from the state foundation on a per pupil funding basis.”

She added that, “the $5800 is the base cost per student from the state. It does not consider any additional costs that may be incurred for transportation services, special education services or other cost-related services; so in some cases the amount of money leaving the district could be closer $7,000.”

According to Russ Harris-OEA nearly $1 billion is being diverted from the public school system to charter schools in the 2014-15 school year, and as a result of charter school deducts, only 200 school districts will realize an increase in state aid this year.

Bill Phillis-E & A Coalition recommended that, “The effectiveness of the choice programs and the impact of the revenue removed from school districts should be subjected to intense legislative review. Since there are major fiscal implications for all students, this is a matter that should be addressed in HB 64.”

Other organizations, including OSBA, BASA, OASBO, OFT, and OEA opposed the expansion of the Cleveland voucher program and increasing the voucher amount for high school.  

Melissa Cropper -OFT told the committee, “Ohio has too many voucher programs as it is. Data shows little difference between the performance of voucher students and their peers who remain in traditional public schools. OFT conducted a poll last year and results show that parents prefer the state focus on providing excellence in all public schools, not choice. All vouchers programs - except the income-based voucher - drain resources from traditional public schools. Ohio already provides funding to private schools for auxiliary services. There is no public demand for vouchers, yet Ohio’s traditional public schools have a great need for additional funding.”

•Charter schools should not receive funding from a local levy:  

Most witnesses said that they didn’t support a provision in HB64 that allows community schools with “exemplary” sponsors to partner with the resident school district to receive funding from a local tax levy. Boards of education would have to approve the community school levy before it could be posed to the voters.

As explained by representatives from OSBA, BASA, and OASBO, “First, community schools already receive revenue from local taxes. The statewide average funding on a per pupil basis in FY 2015 is $7607, all deducted from the public school districts of residence. Meanwhile, the statewide average per-pupil state aid for traditional public schools is $4184.”

“The difference between what a school district receives from the state for a community school student and what is deducted from the district’s state funds must be made up by the district using local tax dollars. Further, a district does not receive the full basic aid amount from the state for any of its students, as is the case for community schools.”

Melissa Cropper - OFT told the committee that one of reasons that the levy failed in Columbus was the proposal to allow charter schools to receive funding from the levy.

See March 5, 2015 testimony at

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance-subcommittee-on-primary-and-secondary-education

  

8) Economist Examines School Funding Provisions in HB64:  On March 5, 2015 economist Dr. Howard Fleeter from the Ohio Education Policy Institute, walked the House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, through an analysis of the formula changes in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, and offered some ideas for changing the proposed formula to provide more state resources for rural districts.

He began his testimony by saying that while the state has invested over $10 billion in school facilities and increased funding for operating purposes, “many problems continue to persist, including heavy reliance on local school levies and lingering questions about the overall adequacy and equity of funding across Ohio’s 611 school districts.”

He also described the current economic conditions in the state as the most “challenging” for constructing a school funding formula.  In no other time has there been such instability in property values, income levels, state revenues, and state funding formulas and funding levels for schools.  “The ramifications of this combination of circumstances is that current and proposed funding levels seem to many of Ohio’s school districts to be disconnected from either past funding levels and/or current circumstances.”

In trying to explain the estimated amount of state aid districts could receive through the new funding formula in HB64, Dr. Fleeter examined the effect of the 2009 recession on residential, business, and agricultural property values; described the changes in determining the “local share” using the proposed state share percentage; described the changes in transitional aid and the gain cap; and the changes in the three-year averaging of property values. 

According to the Legislative Service Commission (LSC), real property values declined statewide by 6.5 percent between 2008 and 2012. Residential property value declines ranged from 2.2 percent for rural school districts to 17 percent for urban school districts. The value of real property in urban districts declined 14 percent and real property values in suburban districts and small town districts declined by 7.4 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. 

•CAUV:  Dr. Fleeter explained to the subcommittee that a 1975 program known as Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) helps preserve farmland by taxing it based on its agricultural productivity rather than its development value. The formula is highly complex and incorporates factors such as soil type, cropping history, crop prices, yields, non-land production costs and interest rates. The CAUV are applied when property is evaluated every six years, or updated every three years.

According to the presentation CAUV values increased by nearly 4 times from 2005 to 2013, both in per acre and total value terms. CAUV varies considerably across the state, and in some areas CAUVs are now very close to market values. 

•Changes in the Three-Year Averaging of Property Values:  Dr. Fleeter noted that the new formula “skips” ahead a year in the three year averaging process, rather than averaging property tax values over three years with a two year lag between the most recent Tax Year of valuations used and the school year in which they are applied.  He found that this change means that a year of estimated values will be used to determine the state share of funding; the original intention of three-year averaging, which is to smooth over changes in valuation from year to year, will be undermined by averaging tax years with no overlaps; “Skipping ahead a year in the three-year averaging process particularly disadvantages rural districts where the CAUV increase have been the highest. By adding in an extra year of growth rural districts receive less state aid than they would otherwise.”

•Three Year Average Total Property Valuation:  A comparison of three year average total property valuation using ODE district typology categories shows that rural school districts show a 10.8 percent average increase in property values from FY14 (also used in FY15) to FY17. According to the presentation, “These districts also fare the worst under the Governor’s proposed plan. Rural districts experience the second highest increase in values and receive the next smallest increase in state aid. At the other end of the spectrum, the urban districts that receive the largest increases in funding actually see their values decline over this time period as did the suburban districts.”

A comparison of foundation formula aid in FY15 vs. the estimated state aid amount per HB64, using ODE school district typology categories, “...shows that urban, suburban and poor small town districts receive the largest percentage increases under the Governor’s plan, averaging double digit percentage increases. Poor rural districts and small towns and wealthy suburban districts all receive average increases of less than 5 percent, while rural districts actually receive a decrease in funding on average.”

To see if there was a way to adjust the negative outcome of the new formula on rural districts, Dr. Fleeter applied the traditional three year average, and found that the increase in rural school district values were lowered by about 2.6 percent, while other types of districts are not affected as much.

In addition, averaging property valuations over six-years for school districts with more than 20 percent of real property classified as agricultural reduced the growth rate in values in these districts nearly in half.

Dr. Fleeter also examined the efficacy of the proposed state funding formula to meet Governor Kasich’s intent to direct state funding to districts based on their capacity to raise local revenue by comparing FY15 (current formula) and FY17 (proposed formula) total state and local resources for school districts by typology.  

According to this comparison, urban and poor small town districts receive the largest percentage increases in total resources from FY15 to FY17 under the Governor’s proposed formula, while rural, poor rural and small town districts receive the smallest increases (with rural districts actually going down). Suburban districts are in between. 

Rural and small towns also have less total resources (often by $1,000 to $2,000 per pupil) than do the suburban and urban districts.

In FY15, the rural districts are $18 below the suburban districts in total resources. However, in FY17, the rural districts are $445 per pupil below the suburban in total resources. 

According to the presentation, “This pattern reveals that despite having the largest increase in property valuation, the rural districts actually lost ground compared to the other typology groups. So even if many rural districts are at the 20 mill floor (meaning that they would in fact get additional local revenue as a result of their increase in property values — even increases from CAUV), Table 7 shows that after the effects of the proposed state aid formula occur they are worse off on average than they are now.”

Dr. Fleeter recommends that the proposed state aid formula in HB64 should be modified to provide rural districts with more state resources.  He notes that a previous study that he conducted found that rural districts offer fewer courses overall and fewer advanced courses, and additional state aid could help to close the opportunity gap for rural districts. 

One way to modify the formula would be to provide additional funding component for districts that raise less revenue from a mill of taxation than other districts.  Another option would be to use another method to compute the state share, rather than ranking districts on a value per pupil basis, which is done using the state share index and the state share percentage. 

See March 5, 2015 testimony at

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance-subcommittee-on-primary-and-secondary-education

9)  Bills Introduced

HB92 (Hagan) School Employees-Sexual Conduct:  To prohibit an employee of a public or nonpublic school or institution of higher education who is not in a position of authority from engaging in sexual conduct with a minor at least four years younger than the employee who is enrolled in or attends that public or nonpublic school or who is enrolled in or attends that institution of higher education

HB99 (Curtin) Income Tax-School Funding:  To require that an amount equal to state income tax collections, less 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.

FYI ARTS

1)  Arts Advocates Request More Funding for the Arts in HB 64:  The House Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education, chaired by Representative Duffey, received testimony on March 3, 2015 on the proposed budget for the Ohio Arts Council included in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.  Presenting to the Committee were Donna Collins, executive director of the OAC, and Tim Greenwood, a member of the Board of Directors for Ohio Citizens for the Arts.

According to the testimony, as introduced HB64 includes $24.4 million in General Revenue funds to support the OAC.  This investment equals less than 0.04 percent of the state’s total GRF appropriations.  The OAC grants are matched by the grant recipients, so that every OAC dollar was matched with local and private funds at a ratio of 53:1 during the last grant cycle.

The OAC also received a $2 million grant from the National Endowment for the Arts for the biennium. 

Donna Collins, executive director of the OAC, opened her remarks to the subcommittee by saying that this was an exciting time for the arts council, because it would be celebrating its 50th anniversary in May 2015.  The council was created in 1965 through legislation sponsored by Senator Stanley Aronoff (then a representative), and since that time has provided public funding in support of the arts throughout Ohio.

Director Collins told the committee that public investment in the arts has “far-reaching economic, educational, and cultural benefits”.  According to research from Bowling Green State University, the arts sector in Ohio supports 231,000 jobs, “contributing more than $31.8 billion to the state’s economy and generating about $3.4 billion in annual tax revenues at the federal, state, and local levels.” 

The arts also inspire educational success.  Research confirms that an education in the arts creates the critical thinkers and problem solvers that employers need for the innovative and creative economy.

The OAC will begin to implement a new strategic plan, which will focus on ways to invest, innovate, engage, and lead, and improve agency funding, services, and processes to the meet the needs of constituents. Director Collins told the committee that “...the Ohio Arts Council is making a positive impact in the lives of children, families, arts

professionals, artists, and communities. The arts are economic drivers, sources of innovation and creativity, and at the very heart of our cultural infrastructure in Ohio. They are what makes Ohio -- Ohio. Your investment through an appropriation to the Ohio Arts Council is a commitment to more creative sector jobs, arts education, works of art in every genre, and the preservation of cultural heritage for all Ohioans.”

Also testifying on HB64’s impact on the Ohio Arts Council was former House Representative Tim Greenwood.  He requested that the subcommittee increase to $30 million GRF appropriations for the Ohio Arts Council. The current funding levels of the OAC are the same as 1991, 25 years ago, and raising the amount to $30 million would still be below funding levels in 2001. 

According to the testimony, investing state resources in the arts makes sense because the creative industries “contribute to the economies of every county in Ohio.  They provide an economic benefit in both urban and rural areas, catalyze new ventures, stimulate entrepreneurship and deliver the activities and attractions that fuel tourism in our state.” 

2)  March is Music In Our Schools Month® (MIOSM):  The National Association for Music Education (NAfME) is celebrating all things music during the month of March.  This year marks the 30th anniversary of Music In Our Schools Month®, which “began as a single statewide Advocacy Day and celebration in New York in 1973 and has become a month-long celebration of school music in 1985.”

MIOSM engages music educators, students, and communities from around the country in promoting the benefits of high quality music education programs in schools. 

The celebration includes a week-long bus tour from March 7-14 in which singer/songwriter RaeLynn will perform at five schools.  Student ensembles at the schools will also perform RaeLynn’s new song, “Always Sing”.

The Concert for Music in Our Schools Month will include this year student video performances from across the U.S.  The performances will be featured on the NAfME website throughout March.  The school video that receives the most views between March 1 and March 31, 2015 will win the Presonus Music Creation Software Suite.

According to NAfME, “Music teachers celebrate MIOSM in many ways by offering special performances, lessons, sing-alongs and activities to bring their music programs to the attention of administrators, parents, colleagues, and communities to display the positive benefits that school music brings to students of all ages.”

See “Celebrating Thirty Years of Music In Our Schools” at

http://www.nafme.org/celebrating-thirty-years-of-music-in-our-schools/

###

-- Ohio School Psychologists Association (OSPA) Listserv

Usage Instructions: http://www.ospaonline.org/index.php/resources/listserv

Post Message: ospa@listserv.kent.edu

Help: listserv@ospaonline.org

 

From: Ann Brennan

Update on HB 7: has been reported out of the Senate Education Committee and is on a fast track for passage: The following summary is from the Legislative Service Commission analysis, the full analysis is here:

- Prohibits public schools from utilizing, at any time during a student's academic
career, a student's score on any elementary-level state assessment or high school
end-of-course examination that is administered in the 2014-2015 year school as a
factor in any decision to (1) retain the student, (2) promote the student to a higher
grade level, or (3) grant course credit. ( this section does not apply to the third grade reading guarantee provisions)

- Prohibits the release of individual student score reports on the state elementary
assessments and high school end-of-course examinations administered in the 2014-
2015 school year, except to a student's school district or school or to a student or
student's parent or guardian.

- Authorizes a student to take an end-of-course examination at a later time in the
student's academic career if the student did not take, for any reason, an end-of-
course examination on that examination's scheduled administration date.

- Authorizes a student to retake any end-of-course examination during the student's
academic career at a time designated by the Department of Education.

- Requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules to implement the bill's
provisions regarding the retaking and excused delay in taking of the end-of-course
examinations.

- Specifies that the current prohibition on including a student who did not take a state
achievement assessment administered during the previous school year in a district's
or school's enrollment count used for state operating funding does not apply to any
student who did not take such an assessment during the 2014-2015 school year.

- Declares an emergency.