From: Ann Brennan

FYI- The following update contains important information on the major education bills being considered, including the education budget bill, the actual bill (HB 64) was just introduced last Thursday.

The school psychology intern funding is included in the biennial budget bill, funded at $2.5 million in each of the 2016-17 fiscal years. It is one of the special education enhancement line items.

The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education will first consider the primary and secondary education part of the budget bill, that subcommittee is chaired be Representative Robert Cupp, a long standing former state Senator and retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>;
To: Joan Platz <joan.platz@gmail.com>;
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 3:57 pm
Subject: Arts on Line Education Update
Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
February 16, 2015

1) Ohio News

•131st General Assembly: The Ohio House and Senate will hold sessions and hearings this week. For more details about the hearing schedule, please see This Week at the Statehouse.

•Safe Harbor Bill for Students Passes: The Ohio House approved HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determination on February 11, 2015, as an emergency measure, which means that it would go into effect immediately after being signed into law. The bill prohibits individual student scores from certain elementary and secondary achievement tests administered for the 2014-15 school year from being used to determine promotion, retention, or to grant credit; prohibits the release of student scores except to a student’s school and parent; allows students to retake any end of course exams; and requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules to make available to a student an end of course exam that was missed due to an absence from school. The provision about student individual scores does not apply to the third grade English language arts assessment.

The bill now moves to the Ohio Senate Education Committee, where hearings on it will be held this week, pending introduction.

•Report on Teacher Preparation Programs Released: The third annual report entitled 2014 Ohio Educator Performance Report is available on the web site of the Ohio Board of Regents. The report includes information about classroom teachers traced back to their teacher preparation programs, including the pass rates on licensing exams, teacher candidate survey results, Value-Added Data, candidate academic measures, and more. The report includes data for individual universities and colleges in Ohio (public and private), and how many teachers are rated as “ineffective,” “developing,” “skilled,” and “accomplished” categories between 2010-13.

See “The 2014 Ohio Educator Performance Report”, Ohio Board of Regents, February 2014 at https://www.ohiohighered.org/educator-accountability/2014-performance-reports

•Higher Education Task Force Created: Governor John Kasich signed an executive order on February 11, 2015 creating the Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency in Higher Education. The task force is required to develop recommendations to improve the efficiency of colleges and universities, and submit a report by October 1, 2015. The task force will examine the use of assets, personnel, and resources, with a goal to reduce costs and tuition increases for students.

2) This Week at the Statehouse:

•The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, will meet on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 4:00 PM in the Finance Hearing Room. The committee will receive testimony on HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determination and SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemption, which would exempt high-performing school districts from certain laws.

HB7 would prohibit individual student scores from certain elementary secondary achievement assessments administered for the 2014-2015 school year from being used to determine promotion or retention or to grant course credit.

More information about SB3 is included below.

•The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:00 AM in Hearing Room 121. The committee will receive testimony on two bills:

HB25 (Kunze) Food-Drink School Sales, would require the State Board of Education to adopt rules regarding the sale of beverages and food during the regular school day in connection with a school-sponsored fundraiser.

The committee will also receive testimony on HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship, which would make several changes to charter school law to increase accountability.

More information about HB2 is included below.

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education, chaired by Representative Duffey, will meet on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 2:00 PM in hearing room 311 or after session. The subcommittee will receive presentations from the Inter-University Council, AICUO, Ohio Association of Community Colleges and Ohio Association of Career Colleges and Schools, and an overview of the higher education provisions included in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education, chaired by Representative Duffey, will also meet on Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:00 AM at the Ohio Historical Connection, 800 E. 17th Ave. The following agencies will be presenting on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget:
- Library Board of Ohio
- Ohioana Library Association
- Ohio Historical Connection

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet on Thursday, February 19, 2015 9:00 AM in Hearing Room 116. The following agencies will be presenting on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget:
Agencies to be heard include the following:
- LSC funding formula presentation (9-11 AM)
- Ohio Casino Control Commission
- Ohio Lottery Commission
- Ohio State Dental Board
- Ohio Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs
- Ohio Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy and Athletic Trainers Board - Ohio Board of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology

3) HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget Introduced: The language for Governor John Kasich’s FY16-17 Biennial Budget was introduced on February 12, 2015 as HB64. The bill makes operating appropriations for the biennium beginning July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2017, and provides authorization for the operation of state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and programs.

The Legislative Service Commission now has on its web site the text of HB64 and “Budget in Detail”, which provides the line-item requests for each department and agency in the Ohio government. Hearings on various parts of the bill have begun in the House Finance Committee and its subcommittees. (See http://www.lsc.ohio.gov)

•Superintendent Richard Ross Presents Testimony on HB64: State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Richard Ross, presented testimony on February 10, 2015 to the House Finance Committee regarding HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget. Dr. Ross told the committee that he and Governor Kasich believe that, “we need to take Ohio to the next level and create more pathways and more opportunities for Ohioans to succeed.“

He also said in his testimony that his “vision for K-12 education in Ohio”, and the priorities of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) include providing “the basic education funding necessary to support student success and achievement.”

Dr. Ross then highlighted the bill’s key provisions that provide “flexibility, focus on student success and create quality choices for students and families.” A summary of his testimony follows:

•Increased Funding: According to Dr. Ross, HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget includes “GRF and lottery appropriations for the department of education at their largest amounts ever: $8.7 billion in FY16 and $9.1 billion in FY17. This represents growth of $401.1 million, or 4.9 percent, in FY16 and another $345.8 million, or 4 percent in FY17.”

•Regulatory Relief: The budget bill provides regulatory relief for all school districts in the following areas:
-raises the competitive bidding threshold for schools from $25,000 to $50,000
-permits schools to contract with a hospital or other licensed health care program to provide health care services to students
-eliminates district and school EMIS reporting, and the department’s posting, of information related to extracurricular services offered to students
-eliminates the need for a concurrent educational service center resolution in cases where a local school board determines that transportation of certain students is impractical
-removes the requirement that consistently high-performing teachers complete additional coursework to renew their license
-provides “accomplished” teachers flexibility regarding the annual teacher evaluation requirements
-provides an option for local boards of education to exempt new teachers from the annual teacher evaluation requirements in the year the new teacher takes the Resident Educator Summative Assessment.
-reduces the Resident Educator program mentoring requirements and allows districts to make local decisions regarding the professional development needs of Resident Educator program participants
-eliminates the current requirements that certain school districts establish a site-based management council to operate a poor-performing school building using state board rules
-expands opportunities for districts to contract with providers of academic remediation and intervention services to serve all grades outside regular school hours without state board rules
-modifes the duration for which a pupil-activity program permit is valid for licensed educators.

•Exemptions for High Performing School Districts: The proposed budget bill includes provisions to exempt “High Performing School Districts” from certain laws and rules. A high performing school district is defined as one that has received a grade of A in overall Value-Added; at least 95 percent of third grade students scored proficient or higher on the third grade reading assessment; and has a four-year cohort graduation rate of 93 percent or higher. Another requirement, at least 75 percent of students are remediation-free on a nationally standardized assessment that measures college and career readiness, will be added beginning with the 2017-18 school year.

High Performing School Districts would be exempt from the following:
-Teacher credential qualification requirements under the Third Grade Reading Guarantee
-Minimum or maximum class size requirements
-Service agreement with an educational service center
-Consultation with an educational service center to provide services to children with disabilities
-Employment of licensed teachers. According to Dr. Ross’ testimony, “A high-performing school district also will be permitted to hire qualified nonlicensed staff to teach for up to 40 hours a week and will have the opportunity to request from me a waiver from additional statutory requirements, which I will approve or deny on a case-by-case basis.”

•Reduced Testing Requirements: HB64 includes the following provisions to reduces testing requirements:
-Reduces the number of hours students spend testing by 18 percent.
-Limits the amount of time a student takes tests at the state and district levels to 2 percent of the school year and limits the amount of time students spend practicing for tests to 1 percent of the school year.
-Shifts the fall administration of the third grade reading test to a summer administration of the test for students who need it, and allows districts to use a state-approved alternative test as a way for their students to show they are reading at grade level.
-Permits rather than requires the administration of the state’s diagnostic tests in mathematics and writing for students in first through third grades.
-Eliminates the use of Student Learning Objective tests (SLOs) as part of the teacher evaluation system for grades preK-3 and for teachers teaching in non-core subject areas in grades 4-12. “Teachers teaching in these grades and subject areas will demonstrate student growth through the expanded use of differentiated shared attribution. We estimate that eliminating these SLOs would reduce the average amount of time students spend taking tests by 3.1 hours per grade level.”

•New Competency-Based Program: A new provision in HB64 would support a three-year competency-based pilot program for 10 districts and schools. The bill also includes grants of up to $250,000 each year for planning in FY16 and implementation in FY17.

•Innovation School Waiver Pilot Program: The budget bill also expands the Innovative School Waiver Pilot Program to 10 additional school districts, STEM schools, and community schools. The program will seek waivers from the U.S. Department of Education for alternative state-approved assessment systems for up to 10 applicants.

•Straight A Fund: Support continues for the Straight A Fund, which would receive $200 million in lottery proceeds over the biennium.

•Community Connectors Program: Support also continues for the Community Connectors Program, which would receive $30 million over the biennium, and match $3 for every $1 provided by local partners.

•Early Childhood Education Program: Additional support of $40 million over the biennium for early childhood education is also included in HB64. The added funds would serve an additional 6,125 children in early childhood education programs. Also included is $10 million for the Ohio Department of Mental Health to provide mental health counselors to work with educators to reduce the preschool expulsion rate.

•Third Grade Reading Guarantee: To support the Third Grade Reading Guarantee Program HB64 includes up to $2.5 million in each fiscal year to provide grants for summer literacy camps.

•Guidance Counselors: A new provision in HB64 directs the State Board of Education to adopt standards for school counselors and a framework for evaluating school counselors. Each board of education would be required to adopt a policy that conforms to the statewide framework, which will be implemented during the 2016-17 school year. HB64 also includes $2 million over the biennium to improve access to school counseling services for all students, and directs the Ohio Department of Education and the Board of Regents to provide professional development services for school counselors.

•Support for Persons with Disabilities: The budget bill includes $5 million over the biennium for Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD) to use as matching funds to draw down federal funding for vocational rehabilitation services. There is also an additional $5 million in the proposed budget for the ODE to build capacity to deliver a regional system of training, support, coordination, and direct services for secondary transition services for students with disabilities beginning at age 14.

•Credit Flexibility: A new provision in HB64 would extend credit flexibility to seventh and eighth grade students. According to Dr. Ross’ testimony, Governor Kasich also charges the state board and ODE to update the statewide plan, rebrand credit flexibility, and work with schools to reduce barriers to participation for students and businesses. As part of this rebranding, the department will implement a coordinated communications and outreach plan to inform schools of the updated statewide plan and guidelines.

HB 64 also provides $18.5 million dollars over the biennium to support more teachers in disadvantaged high schools to earn the necessary credentials to teach college-level courses, and would reward school districts that have the highest student participation in college credit plus and advanced placement courses.

•Career-Technical Education: The proposed budget bill would allocate $1 million each year to reimburse career-technical education providers for the cost of the credentialing exam.

•HB64 includes funds for up to five additional sites in the next fiscal year for the Adult Diploma Program. The budget also proposes the payment structure for the existing sites, and appropriates $15 million over the biennium to fully fund students once they enter these programs.

•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. Every charter school sponsor, or authorizer, would be subject to a sponsorship agreement with the ODE. That agreement would govern each sponsor’s scope and authority to sponsor community schools, and would be tied to the rating received as part of the sponsor evaluation system. The ratings are: exemplary; effective; ineffective; and poor. A sponsor rated poor would have its authority to sponsor community schools revoked and the existing schools it sponsors would be required to find a new sponsor.

The following are other changes in charter school law included in HB64:
-strengthens in law a community school’s governing board’s autonomy to create more transparency
-prohibits a sponsor from selling services to a community school it sponsors
-eliminates a provision that allowed a community school operator from appealing a school’s decision to terminate its contract to the school’s sponsor
-eliminates current law that provides a way for an operator to replace the community school’s governing board if it disagrees with the board’s decision to terminate services with them
-requires community school governing boards to hire fiscal officers and, if they so choose, attorneys, accountants and audit firms that are independent of a school’s contracted operator
-gives the ODE’s Office of School Sponsorship the ability to strengthen its own sponsor application process
-permits exemplary sponsors to receive locally generated revenue, if approved by local school boards and voters
-provides access to exemplary sponsors to a new $25 million community 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, serve specific unmet student needs through community school education
-allows community schools sponsored by exemplary sponsors to have the opportunity to offer general education preschool and be eligible to receive early childhood education funding.

•Expands Vouchers: HB64 includes a provision to increase in the amount of an EdChoice scholarship for eligible high school students. The maximum amount of a scholarship that may be awarded to a high school student using a voucher would be raised from $5,000 to $5,700. The bill would also appropriate funding in both years of the biennium for the expansion of the EdChoice program to economically disadvantaged students in second and third grades.

Superintendent Ross’ testimony is available at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance

4) Governor’s School Funding Plan Raises More Questions: Several newspapers ran articles last week about reactions to the new school funding formula proposed by Governor Kasich in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget. As testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget continued on February 10, 2015 in the House Finance Committee, chaired by Representative Smith, both Republicans and Democrats questioned the way the proposed formula works.

According to the Plain Dealer (February 10, 2015), legislators noted during the hearing that in some cases school districts with high median income levels would receive more state funds than school districts with low median income levels, and school districts with low enrollments and high concentrations of agricultural land seem wealthier than large urban or suburban districts.

Representative Debbie Phillips is quoted as saying that New Albany, with a median income of $159,000 receives a larger increase in state aid than Federal Hocking and Trimble Local Schools, with median income levels between $30,000-$40,000.

The article goes on to say, “Representatives Jeff McLain, an Upper Sandusky Republican, and Gary Scherer, a Circleville Republican, said they were upset with rural districts seeing losses, presumably because the value of farmland has risen in recent years, making the districts seem rich. Reineke said state law won’t let districts collect more taxes even as those values increase, without a new levy.”

Tim Keen, director of the Office of Budget and Management, responded to lawmakers by describing several factors that could cause a seemingly wealthy or poor district to gain or lose state aid based on the components of the new formula. He assured the committee that the philosophy behind the formula is to ensure that districts that are poorer in “capacity” get more state resources than districts with higher capacity. The major factors that affect the formula and amount of state aid vary for each district, but include median income, property valuation, dependency on tangible personal property tax and kilowatt hour tax reimbursements, changes in enrollment, and increases in the value of agricultural land.

According to another article in the Plain Dealer entitled “How much money should schools get from the state? Democrats and Governor’s office spar over funding plans”, the Legislative Service Commission shows that the percent of the state budget allocated for elementary and secondary education in FY15 is the lowest amount since 1997 at 27.7 percent. This information was shared at the House Finance Committee meeting on February 10, 2015 by Representative Denise Driehaus. The proposed foundation formula does increase state funds from $7 billion in FY15 to $7.4 billion in FY16 and $7.7 percent in FY17 (about $700 million), but as the article points-out, the governor’s plan also reduces state reimbursements to school districts for the loss of the tangible personal property tax and the kilowatt hour tax. The actual statewide increase is closer to $250 million in FY16 and $209 million in FY17.

Constitutional questions have also been raised by Democrats, who, according to the Plain Dealer, believe that state surpluses should be used to increase funding for elementary and secondary education, and reduce reliance on property taxes to fund schools. This was a directive of the Ohio Supreme Court in the DeRolph school funding decisions. The Plain Dealer quotes House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn as saying, ‘We’re not being accountable for what an equal branch of government instructed us to do 17 years ago, and that’s not right.’

Tim Keen has responded by suggesting that cash-strapped school districts can raise local revenue through levies. The Columbus Dispatch reports that Governor Kasich believes that school districts can use their cash reserves to offset losses in state aid.

Stephen Dyer from Innovation Ohio also produced an analysis last week that estimates the amount of state aid that school districts would receive for FY16 and FY17 compared to estimated charter school deductions for each school districts. He found that about 100 school districts will actually lose more state aid to charter schools than they would receive in the new formula.

See Testimony by Tim Keen, House Finance Committee, February 10, 2015 at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance

See “Lower state funding has many school districts upset with Gov. Kasich’s plan” by Patrick O’Donnell, The Plain Dealer, February 4, 2015, at http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/lower_state_funding_has_many_school_districts_upset_with_gov_kasichs_plan.html

See “How much money should schools get from the state? Democrats and Governor’s office spar over funding plans” by Patrick O’Donnell, The Plain Dealer, February 13, 2015 at
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/how_much_money_should_schools_get_from_the_state_democrats_and_governors_office_spar_over_funding_plans.html

See “Kasich budget could mean more local tax issues for rural and suburban schools, legislators complain” by Patrick O’Donnell, The Plain Dealer, February 10, 2015, at
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/kasich_budget_could_mean_more.html

See “Kasich suggests school districts use cash reserves to offset budget cuts,” Charlie Boss, Columbus Dispatch, February 15, 2015 at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/15/too-much-savings.html

See “Budget Briefing: Funding Impacts of Charter Schools” by Stephan Dyer, Innovation Ohio, February 9, 2015 at
http://innovationohio.org/2015/02/09/budget-briefing-funding-impacts-of-charter-schools/

5) Investigative Report Published About Pearson: Politico reporter Stephanie Simon published on February 10, 2015 an investigative report on testing company Pearson, John Fallon CEO. The report is based on “hundreds of pages of contracts, business plans, email exchanges, tax filings, lobbying reports, and marketing materials” from Pearson.

The report provides background information about how the British company Pearson, with a global adjusted operating profit for 2013 of $1 billion, has became a leading textbook and testing company, earning 55 percent of its profit in North America.

It also describes Pearson’s involvement in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium, which is developing assessments aligned to the common core standards being implemented in many states, including Ohio, this school year; its influence on state governments and departments of education; and its involvement in several no-bid contract deals, which are now being questioned.

According to the article, the company started in Yorkshire, England in 1844 as a construction company, but expanded into the publishing business by purchasing Penguin Random House and later American textbook publisher Addison-Wesley in 1988.

Pearson currently employs about 40,000 people world-wide, and focuses on education. The company provides a variety of products and services in the U.S. including the following:

-Holds 39 percent of the market for assessments and has the contracts for standardized assessments in 21 states and Washington D.C., New York City, and Puerto Rico earning $258 million.

-Holds contracts to administer and score exams aligned to the common core in 10 states that are part of the PARCC consortium. The contracts are worth $138 million.

-Provides other K-12 products and services, including textbooks, workbooks, test preparation software, tutoring services, consultants to coach teachers, software to evaluate teachers, professional development, and teacher licensing exams.

-Provides marketing and support for online degree programs for Arizona State University, Rutgers, George Washington University, and Texas A&M,

-Operates a network of three dozen online public schools.

-Co-owns the for-profit company that now administers the GED.

-Maintains student data bases and products that can even track what students are reading.

-Spends $1 million per year lobbying Congress and about $1 million lobbying states.

-Runs English-language schools in China and Brazil.

-Works with the World Bank and the United Nations to encourage investments in education as a member of the board of the Global Partnership for Education.

The article also describes several Pearson projects that have failed to live-up to contract requirements, but notes that the company seldom is penalized, and often is rehired to fix the problems.

According to the article, some of the projects that have failed were the result of no-bid contract deals that Pearson made with states such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Arizona. A lawsuit has been filed in New Mexico regarding Pearson’s involvement in the PARCC assessment contract.

See “No profit left behind: In the high-stakes world of American education, Pearson makes money even when its results don’t” by Stephanie Simon, February 10, 2015 at http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pearson-education-115026.html#ixzz3RkeSTnYZ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pearson-education-115026_Page2.html#ixzz3RMLUZVle

6) More on SB3: The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, received sponsor testimony on February 10, 2015 on SB 3 (Hite/Faber) Testing/High Performing School District Exemption. The bill addresses two issues that are also included in Governor Kasich’s biennial budget, HB64: limits the amount of testing for students, and provides high performing school districts some relief from certain mandates in law and rule. The following is a summary of the bill prepared from the Legislative Service Commission’s analysis, and the bill itself:

•Sections 3301.079 and 3301.0715 Eliminates the current requirement that school districts and schools administer diagnostic assessments to students in grades one through three in writing and mathematics, but retains diagnostic assessments for kindergarten students and reading assessments for students in grades one through three beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.

•Section 3301.0711(B)(1)(a)(b) Removes the requirement that school districts administer the English language arts assessment to students in the third grade twice a year starting in the 2015-16 school year.

•Section 3301.0728 (A) (1) Limits the cumulative amount of time spent on the administration of state assessments to 2 percent of the school year beginning with the 2015-2016 school year. The limit applies to Ohio Achievement Tests in grades 3-8 and end of course exams, and any assessment required by the district or school to be administered district-wide or school-wide to all students in a specific area or grade level.

•Section 3301.0728 (A) (2) Limits the cumulative amount of time used for taking practice or diagnostic assessments used to prepare for state assessments to 1 percent of the school year beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.

•Section 3301.0728 (B) Exempts from the time limitation assessments administered to students with disabilities, diagnostic assessments for students who fail to attain a passing score on the third-grade reading guarantee, and for alternatives to certain end-of-course examinations. These alternative exams include Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Exams.

•Section 3301.028 (C) Allows the board of education of each city, exempted village, and local school district to exceed the limitations by approving a resolution of the district board. However, prior to the adoption of such a resolution, the board is required to conduct at least one public hearing on the proposed resolution.

•Section 3301.0711(B)(1)(a)(b) Requires that school districts and schools administer the English language arts assessment to third graders at least once annually, instead of twice as under current law beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.

•Section 3302.16 (1) Exempts a high performing school district from the following:
(1) The teacher qualification requirements under the third-grade reading guarantee. This exemption does not relieve a teacher from holding a valid Ohio license in a subject area and grade level determined appropriate by the board of education of that district.
(2) The mentoring component of the Ohio teacher residency program, so long as the district utilizes a local approach to train and support new teachers.
(3) Any provision of the Revised Code or rule or standard of the state board of education prescribing a minimum or maximum class size.
(4) Any provision of the Revised Code or rule or standard of the state board requiring teachers to be licensed specifically in the subject area or grade level in which they are teaching, except unless otherwise prescribed by federal law. This exemption does not relieve a teacher from holding a valid Ohio license in at least some subject area or grade level determined appropriate determined appropriate by the district board.

(B)(1) Allows the superintendent of a high-performing school district to employ an individual who is not licensed as required by sections 3319.22 to 3319.30 of the Revised Code, but who is otherwise qualified based on experience, to teach classes in the district, so long as the board of education of the school district approves the individual’s employment and provides mentoring and professional development opportunities to that individual, as determined necessary by the board.
(2) As a condition of employment under this section individuals shall be subject to a criminal records check as prescribed by section 3319.391 of the Revised Code.

(C) States that noncompliance with any of the requirements listed in divisions (A) or (B) of this section does not disqualify a high-performing school district from receiving funds under Chapter 3317. of the Revised Code.

(D) (1) Defines “High-performing school district” as a city, local, or exempted village school district that meets all of the following benchmarks on the most recent report card issued for that district under section 3302.03 of the Revised Code:
(a) The district received at least eighty-five per cent of the total possible points for the performance index score
(b) The district received a grade of an “A” for performance indicators
(c) The district has a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate of at least ninety-three percent and a five-year adjusted cohort graduation rate of at least ninety-five percent.

•Section 3: Requires the School Facilities Commission, by December 15, 2015, to develop and submit to the General Assembly a legislative proposal assisting high-performing school districts to receive funding under the Classroom Facilities Assistance Program.

•Section 3313.72 Permits school districts to contract with hospitals, licensed health care professionals, and educational service centers for the services of a school physician, dentist, or nurse.

•Section 3313.46 (A) Increases the competitive bidding threshold for school building and repair contracts from $25,000 to $50,000.

7) More on HB2: Hearings on HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship, began last week in the House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes.

The bill includes changes in charter school law which are similar to the changes Governor Kasich has proposed in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget. The changes respond to mounting criticism about the academic and operational performance of charter schools in Ohio, and the call from Governor Kasich to raise standards for charter school sponsors. In December 2014 the Thomas B. Fordham Institute released two reports identifying ways to improve the quality of charter schools in Ohio. The first report was based on a study conducted by CREDO (the Center for Research on Education Outcomes) at Stanford University, which analyzed the academic performance of students attending charter school, while the second report, entitled The Road to Redemption, by Bellwether Education Partners, analyzed Ohio’s charter school laws. These reports were followed in January 2015 by an analysis of student enrollment in 30 charter schools by State Auditor David Yost. The report, entitled “Report on Community School Attendance Counts”, includes additional recommendations about how to make charter school law more uniform and accountable.

HB2 includes some of the recommendations identified in the reports. It focuses on strengthening accountability requirements for the sponsors, or authorizers of charter schools, and operators, or management companies. The following is a summary of HB2 prepared from the Legislative Service Commission analysis, and the bill:

•Amends Ohio Revised Code sections 3302.03, 3314.011, 3314.02, 3314.023, 3314.03, 3314.19, and 3314.23.

•Enacts sections 3314.025, 3314.031, 3314.032,
3314.034, and 3314.46, and new Section 3 in session law.

•Repeals section 3314.026 of the Revised Code with regard to sponsorship and management of community 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.

•Section 3314.011 Requires that the fiscal officer of a community school be employed by the governing authority. The auditor may require that the fiscal officer execute a bond.

•Section 3314.02
(E)(5) Governing Authority: Prohibits an employee of a school district or educational service center or the employee of a vendor that is engaged under a contract with a school district or service center to serve on the governing authority of any community school sponsored by that school district or service center.

(6) Requires each member of the governing authority of a community 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 community school, school district, or educational service center that has contracted with that community school, or a vendor that is currently engaged in business or has previously engaged in business with that community school.

•Section 3314.023 Sponsor Monitoring and Technical Assistance: Requires that when a representative of a sponsor meet 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.

•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 to aide each sponsor in complying with division (A) of this section.

•Section 3314.03 Contracts between schools and sponsors:
(A)(4) Requires sponsors to evaluate performance standards by which the success of the school will be evaluated, including but not limited to all applicable report card measures.
(9) Requires that the contract between the community school governing authority and the sponsor include an addendum outlining the facilities to be used and their locations; and include at least the following information:
(a) A detailed description of each facility
(b) The annual costs associated with leasing each facility
(c) The annual mortgage principal and interest payments
(d) The name of the lender

(10) Qualifications of teachers, including a requirement that the school’s classroom teachers be licensed, except that a community school may engage noncertificated persons to teach up to twelve hours per week pursuant to section 3319.301 of the Revised Code.

(11) That the school will comply with the following requirements:
(a) The school will provide learning opportunities to a minimum of twenty-five students for a minimum of nine hundred twenty hours per school year.
(b) The governing authority will purchase liability insurance, or otherwise provide for the potential liability of the school.
(c) The school will be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and will not be operated by a sectarian school or religious institution.
(d) Includes all of the provisions that charter schools must comply with.

(15) Requires that a “financial plan” be developed detailing an estimated school budget for each year of the period of the contract and specifying the total estimated per pupil expenditure amount for each such year. The school’s financial plan is subject to review and approval by the ODE. In the case of an existing school, the contract must include the school’s two most recent financial statements.

(B) Comprehensive plan: The ODE, in consultation with the auditor of state, shall provide guidance to assist each community school in the creation of policies and procedures related to internal financial controls.

•NEW Section 3314.031
(A) Requires beginning December 31, 2015 that the ODE do the following:
(1) 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 community school to manage or operate that school;
(2) Receive from the governing authority of each community school a copy of the contract between a governing authority and its operator.

(B) Requires the ODE not later than July 1, 2016, to develop and publish an annual performance report for all operators of community schools in the state. The report shall be made available on the department’s web site.

(C) For purposes of this section, “operator” has the same meaning as in division (A)(8) of section 3314.02 of the Revised Code.

•NEW Section 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 at least the following:
(A) Criteria to be used for early termination of the operator contract;
(B) Required notification procedures and timeline for early termination or non renewal of the operator contract;
(C) 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.

•NEW Section 3314.034. Requires ODE approval of community school contracts with new sponsors on and after December 31, 2015, if either of the following conditions apply;
(A) The community school has received a grade of “D” or “F” for the performance index score, under division (C)(1)(b) of section 3302.03 of the Revised Code, and an overall grade of “D“ or “F” for the value-added progress dimension or another measure of student academic progress if adopted by the state board, under division (C)(1)(e) of that section, on the most recent report card issued for the school pursuant to that section.
(B) The community 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 issued for the school under section 3314.017 of the Revised Code .

•Section 3314.19 Sponsor assurance to ODE before school opens:
New (N) Requires that, for any school that operates using the blended learning model, as defined in section 3301.079 of the Revised Code, the sponsor has reviewed the following information submitted by the school:
(1) An indication of what blended learning model or models will be used;
(2) A description of how student instructional needs will be determined and documented;
(3) The method to be used for determining competency, granting credit, and promoting students to a higher grade level;
(4) The school’s attendance requirements, including how the school will document participation in learning opportunities.

•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 described in division (A) and (B) of this section and shall report a school’s failure to comply with these standards to the ODE.

•NEW Section 3314.46 As used in this section, “sponsor” includes any officer, director, employee, agent, representative, subsidiary, or independent contractor of the sponsor of a community school.
(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no sponsor of a community school shall sell any goods or services to any community school it sponsors.
(B) 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 division (A) of this section with respect to that school until the expiration of the contract.

•Section 3. Requires the State Board of Education not later than December 31, 2015, to make recommendations to the General Assembly, in accordance with section 101.68 of the Revised Code, and the Governor regarding the following:
(A) Performance standards for community schools in which a majority of the enrolled students are children with disabilities receiving special education and related services in accordance with Chapter 3323. of the Revised Code;
(B) The feasibility of removal of the exemption from permanent closure, prescribed by division (A)(4)(b) of section 3314.35 of the Revised Code, for schools described in division (A) of this section.

8) Bills Introduced

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

HB54 (Anielski) Vocational School Boards-Office Terms: Revises the law regarding terms of office of members of certain joint vocational school district boards of education.

HB55 (Sprague) Third Grade Reading Guarantee: Specifies deadlines for the administration of reading skills assessments for purposes of the Third-Grade Reading Guarantee.

FYI ARTS
1) Focus on Equity: Grantmakers in the Arts (GIA) will present its first session of the 2015 Web Conference Series on February 24, 2015 at 2:00 PM. The program is entitled, Achieving Equity through Arts Education Policy, and it will be presented by Alex Nock, Executive Vice President for the Penn Hill Group. The cost is $35 for nonmembers.

The presentation will focus on some GIA advocacy efforts in Congress and with the Obama Administration to inform lawmakers about the number of low-income students and students of color who lack access to quality arts education programs, and ways to overcome those inequities. “This systemic denial of the arts and instruction through the arts translates into children who are ill-prepared for advanced study in high school and are behind in the skills they need to be successful in the workforce and college.”

See http://www.giarts.org/web-conference/2015/equity-arts-education-policy

 

 

FROM: Ann Brennan

FYI: The school psychology intern program funding is included in the administration's education budget, as a special education enhancement funded at $2.5 million in each year of the biennium, FY 16-17.

Subject: Arts on Line Education Update February 9, 2015
Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
February 9, 2015

Special Report: Governor Kasich Introduces the Executive Budget for FY16-17

Governor John Kasich submitted to the Ohio House on February 2, 2015 a FY16-17 Executive Budget that increases overall funds for primary and secondary education, expands preschool, tweaks charter school laws, reduces some taxes and raises others, and once again changes the state’s school funding formula.

Hearings started on the budget proposal on February 3, 2015, and will continue in the House Finance Committee, chaired by Representative Ryan Smith, and subcommittees through April. After House approval the measure will move to the Senate for deliberations. The FY16-17 budget must be signed into law by the start of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2015.

Tim Keen, director of the Ohio Office of Budget and Management (OBM), and Mark Flanders, executive director of the Legislative Services Commission (LSC), presented the Finance Committee differing views about FY15 state revenue projections and surpluses in testimony on February 3, 2015. According to the testimony Director Keen predicted a state surplus of $970.4 million at the end of the fiscal year, while Director Flanders testified that the surplus could be close to $1 billion.

On the revenue side, Director Keen provided the committee with a number of scenarios regarding General Revenue Fund (GRF) estimates, but identified an OBM baseline estimate of $22.29 billion in FY16 and $23.30 billion in FY17. Proposed tax reforms would reduce state revenues by $367 million in FY16 and $443 million in FY17, but proposed changes to increase the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) and in the disposition of the kilowatt-hour tax (KWH) could raise tax revenues by $485 million in FY16 and $495 million in FY17.

On the spending side, the overall proposed appropriations for the budget (All Funds) is $68.5 billion in FY16, and $70.2 billion in FY17.

All GRF appropriations would total $35.3 billion in FY16 and $37.0 billion in FY17. This includes federal Medicaid reimbursements to the GRF.

State only GRF appropriations would total $22.7 billion in FY16 (4.2 percent increase) and $23.6 billion in FY17 (4 percent increase.)

Tax Changes: A major feature of the Executive Budget is a $500 million reduction in taxes and a reduction in tax rates for the personal income, which would drop by 15 percent in FY16 and 8 percent in FY17. The top marginal income tax rate would decrease from 5.925 percent in 2011 to 4.1 percent by 2017, and the personal exemption would increase for lower and middle income taxpayers. The tax revenue lost through this change would be $2.03 billion in FY16 and $2.6 billion in FY17.

As reported previously, the governor also wants to eliminate income taxes on all small businesses with annual gross receipts under $2 million, which would cost the state $338 million in FY16 and $358 million in FY17.

To pay for the tax changes, the Kasich Administration recommends the following increases in other taxes:

•Increases the sales tax to 6.25 percent, and expands the tax to include services such as lobbying, market research, consulting, debt collection, cable subscriptions, parking and travel. (This increase would raise $1.14 billion in FY16 and $1.48 billion in FY17 in tax revenue)
•Increases the cigarette tax by $1 to $2.25 per pack and raise the tax on other tobacco products. The increase would raise revenues by $528 million in FY16 and $463 million in FY17.
•Increases the severance tax on gas and oil drilling to 6.5 percent when sold at the wellhead and 4.5 percent when sold downstream. This change would raise $76 million in FY16 and $183 million in FY17. There is also a recommendation to earmark $19 million in FY16 and $46 million in FY17 for local governments for infrastructure and long-term economic development purposes.
•Increases the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) from .26 percent to .32 percent to raise $290 million FY16 and $402 million in FY17, but reduces the CAT $800 to $150 for taxpayers between $1 million and $2 million in annual gross receipts.
•Reduces deductions for retired Ohioans who make more than $100,000 raising $167 million.

The shift from raising state revenue from the income tax to the sales tax follows Governor Kasich’s goal to move Ohio away from a tax structure based on income to one based on consumption.

The budget measure also calls for creating a committee to review tax expenditures, which are tax dollars that are foregone through deductions, exemptions, credits, and other provisions in tax laws. Tax expenditures are estimated to cost the state more than $8.5 billion a year.

Budget for the Ohio Arts Council: The Executive Budget increases funding for the Ohio Arts Council. Appropriations from the GRF increase from $11.3 million in FY15 to $11.9 million (5.5 percent) in FY16 and $12.4 million (4.2 percent) in FY17. This includes $10.2 million in FY16 and $10.7 million in FY17 for grant awards (state program subsidies), and $1.72 million in each fiscal year for administration.

The total GRF appropriations for the biennium is $24.44 million, which is a $1.7 million increase over $22.69 million in FY14 and FY15. However, this amount is still well below FY2000-2001, when the budget for the Ohio Arts Council was $30 million for the biennium.

See http://www.oac.state.oh.us/News/NewsArticle.asp?intArticleId=775

Primary and Secondary Education: According to testimony by OBM Director Keen, Governor Kasich’s proposed budget for primary and secondary education retains the basic structure of the current school funding formula, but makes significant changes in three areas: calculating the State Share, transportation, and transitional aid, or the guarantee.

Overall the proposal includes about a $700 million increase for primary and secondary education before adjustments are made for the phase-out of the Tangible Personal Property Tax (TPP) and kilowatt hour tax (KWH) reimbursement.

GRF appropriations for primary and secondary education would increase to $7.7 billion (6.1 percent) in FY16 and $8 billion (4.5 percent) in FY17. Adding lottery profits to the GRF brings funding for primary and secondary education to $8.7 billion in FY16 and $9.1 billion in 2017.

All Funds, including federal funds, would bring the total for the ODE to $10.8 billion (-1.4 percent decrease from FY15) in FY16 and $11.1 billion (a 3.2 percent increase) in FY17.

Appropriations for the Foundation formula would total $7.4 billion in FY16 and $7.7 billion in FY17, which includes $877.7 million from the lottery.

The Core Opportunity Aid base amount increases from $5,800 per pupil in FY15 to $5,900 per pupil in FY16, and $6,000 per pupil in FY17.

The categorical components are also retained with the following changes noted in the testimony by Director Keen:
-Targeted Assistance
-K-3 Literacy Funds. K-3 Literacy Aid amounts are increased 5 percent annually.
-Economically Disadvantaged Aid
-Limited English Proficiency Funding
-Gifted Funding. Retains $3.8 million for gifted education allocated to Educational Service Centers, but the budget documents don’t specify the funding levels for gifted education that are included in the Foundation line item.
-Transportation Aid. Funds are added to the transportation budget so that it is fully funded. The minimum state share of transportation funding is decreased from 60 percent to 50 percent. Supplemental funding for low-density, low mileage districts is eliminated.
-Special Education Aid. Special education weighted amounts are increased 2 percent annually.
-Career Technical Education. Career Tech weighted amounts are increased 4 percent annually.

OBM Director Keen also identified in his testimony the changes in the new school funding formula for determining income wealth and the capacity of school districts to raise local revenue. The current State Share Index (SSI) is renamed the “State Share Percentage”, and the current wealth index of SSI would be called the “capacity measure”. The new formula compares each district’s income wealth to the statewide median income, and makes an adjustment to the State Share Percentage. These are key changes in the proposed budget to direct more state aid to school districts with low property and income wealth, although other factors, such as enrollment, and reliance on the tangible personal property tax, would also affect the total amount of state aid.

According to the testimony, about 321 districts would not receive an adjustment in state aid, because their median income levels are near the state median income level; 176 lower property wealth districts would receive an increase in state aid this year; while 114 wealthier districts would receive a decrease in state aid, phased-in over a five-year period.

Decreases in state aid would be held to no more than 1 percent of the district’s combined state and local resources.

The current gain cap on state funding increases for school districts would be reduced to 10 percent in both FY16 and FY17.

The governor’s plan would also restart the phase-out of reimbursements for the tangible personal property tax (TPP) and KWH tax, saving the state $235 million. These taxes were phased-out through a law enacted in 2005, but school districts and local entities have received reimbursements for lost revenue from the taxes in the past.

The Executive Budget combines the TPP and KWH tax reimbursements into one calculation, and reduces reimbursement payments based on the capacity and reliance of the district on the reimbursement. For this calculation, school districts are sorted into quintiles based on their newly calculated capacity measure. Districts with the lowest capacity in Quintile 1 would receive a 1 percent phase-out; districts in Quintile 2 would receive a 1.25 percent phase-out; districts in Quintile 3 would receive a 1.5 percent phase-out; districts in Quintile 4 would receive a 1.75 percent phase-out; districts with the highest capacity in Quintile 5 would receive a 2 percent phase-out.

According to an analysis by Howard Fleeter, Ohio Education Policy Institute: “Before TPP payment cuts are taken into account 332 districts will receive increases in state aid and 278 districts will receive decreases. After TPP is taken into account, 287 districts will have more funding than in FY15 and 323 will have less.”

(“Initial Summary of FY16-17 Proposed School Funding Changes” by Dr. Howard Fleeter, Ohio Education Policy Institute, February 4, 2015.)

The following are some of the other policy changes that are included in the Executive Budget:
•Reduces the amount of student testing by 18 percent
•Reduces regulations for high performing school districts
•Prevents low rated charter school sponsors from sponsoring schools
•Strengthens counseling to help more students get into college and plan for careers
•Provides $2 million so that economically disadvantaged students can take industry-standard exams to earn credentials.
•Increases funding for early childhood education. The budget plan would add $40 million from the casino operator settlement fund over the biennium bringing the total to $90 million; increases classroom slots by 6,125 students in FY16 and 11,090 in FY17; includes $10 million over the biennium for early childhood mental health counseling; and increases the earnings threshold for when child care assistance eligibility ends.
•Funds ten sites to pilot competency-based education programs that advance students when they master course content.
•Directs additional funds for chartered nonpublic schools to support the purchase of secular services and materials and to reimburse nonpublic schools for mandated administrative and clerical costs. Increases Auxiliary Services from $138.2 million in FY15 to $146.0 million (5.7 percent) in FY16, and to $153.1 million (4.8 percent) in FY17.
Nonpublic Administrative Cost Reimbursement would increase from $62.4 million in FY15 to $65.9 million in FY16 (5.7 percent), and to $69.1 (4.8 percent) in FY17.

The governor also included in the Executive Budget some of the recommendations that limit testing outlined by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Richard Ross in a January 2015 report. Standardized testing would be capped at 2 percent of the school year, and practice tests would be capped at one percent; local districts would be able to make their own decisions about non-reading diagnostic tests in grades 1-3; student learning objectives for teacher evaluations would only be used for core subjects in grades 4-12; and the Third Grade Reading Test would no longer be administered in the fall.

To strengthen counseling so that more students have the help they need to apply to college and plan for careers, the governor proposes $2 million to support statewide efforts to improve access to school counseling services and establish standards for school counselors.

There are also other changes proposed for Ohio’s Teacher Evaluation System. Highly rated teachers could forego additional coursework required for licenses and annual teacher evaluations. Highly rated beginning teachers could be exempted from the annual teacher evaluation in the same year that they are participating in the Resident Educator Summative Assessment.

The executive budget also provides $200 million in lottery profits to support Straight A Fund grants. $13.5 million from the grant would be set aside to train teachers to teach courses for college credit, and $5 million would be used to reward districts that increase participation in Advanced Placement courses or College Credit Plus.

Ohio’s Educational Choice Scholarships Program would be expanded under the budget plan to include second and third-grade students, assigned to under-performing public schools and whose family income is 200 percent or below the poverty level. The budget includes $23.5 million in FY16 and $31.5 million in FY17 for the program. The high school voucher would also increase from $5000 to $5700 per pupil each year.

The proposed budget would also permit charter schools access to local tax revenue if approved by a board of education and voters, and increases the per pupil amount that charter schools receive for facilities from $100 to $200. Highly rated charter school sponsors would have access a $25 million facilities fund for charter schools.

Higher Education: The proposed changes for higher education include the following:
•Renames the Board of Regents the Department of Higher Education. The Chancellor would continue to direct the agency.
•Caps tuition increases at 2 percent this year and freezes tuition in 2016.
•Creates a $120 million fund to help pay college loans for low-income graduates who work in certain in-demand jobs and remain in Ohio for five years after graduation.
•Provides $17.5 million to expand efforts for adults to earn high school diplomas.
•Appropriates $2.4 billion in FY16 and $2.5 billion in FY17 to the Department of Higher Education.
•The State Share of Instruction (SSI) for universities and colleges would be distributed as follows:
-50 percent for degree completions
-approximately 28 percent for course completions
-21.5 percent for support of doctoral and medical education
-0.3 percent for historical set-asides, “that will be phased out this biennium.”
•The SSI for community colleges, the distribution would be
-50 percent for course completions
-25 percent for degree and certificate completions;
-25 percent for “success points.”

See http://obm.ohio.gov/Budget/operating/fy16-17.aspx.

•Information about the Executive Budget: Resources about the Executive Budget for FY16-17 are available on the web sites of the Office of Budget and Management (OBM), Tim Keen director, and the Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC), Mark Flanders, director.

On the OBM web site at http://obm.ohio.gov:
-Blueprint for A New Ohio the “Blue Book”
-Budget Highlights
-Fact Sheets
-Tax Expenditure Report
-FY16-17 Ohio School Foundation Funding Formula Simulation Fact Sheet
-School Estimates with Tangible Personal Property Tax Dereg. FY16-17 (By Capacity)
-School Estimates with Tangible Personal Property Tax Dereg. FY16-17 (By County)
-School Estimates FY16-17 by Capacity
-School Estimates FY16-17 by County
-Testimony of Director Keen (OBM) before the House Finance Committee on February 3, 2015. (A video of the House Finance Committee meeting is available at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance.)

On the LSC web site at http://www.lsc.ohio.gov:
-Testimony of Director Flanders (LSC) in the House Finance Committee on February 3, 2015. (A video of the House Finance Committee meeting is available at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance.)

After the bill is introduced the LSC will also provide the text of the budget bill as introduced and subsequent versions; an analysis of the bill; the “Budget in Detail”; comparison documents as the bill changes through the legislative process; and the “Red Books”, which are detailed analyses of agency budgets.

For overall information about Governor Kasich’s Executive Budget for FY16-17 see Blueprint for A New Ohio from the OBM. This document describes the components of the budget, including revenue by sources and expenditures by categories; the budget process; economic forecasts; and budget recommendations for each agency. This is where you can find line-items for the Department of Education and the Ohio Arts Council.
See http://blueprint.ohio.gov/doc/budget/State_of_Ohio_Budget_Recommendations_FY-16-17.pdf

The OBM web site also provides estimates for each school district based on the proposed funding formula components in Executive Budget, including district capacity, 10 percent gain cap, 99 percent guarantee, reductions in tangible personal property and kilowatt hour tax replacement, foundation funding, and the percent changes for each year.

According to these estimates Youngstown City Schools has the lowest capacity in the state for raising local revenue, followed by Lima City Schools. The districts with the highest capacity for raising local revenue are Put-In-Bay and Danbury Local Schools in Ottawa County.

The “operating budget bill” is expected to be introduced this week. That’s when more details will be available about the proposed changes the governor is recommending in the Ohio Revised Code. The budget bill will receive a number, and will be available on the LSC web site, which has a separate section for the various state budget bills. The operating budget bill, which is usually over 1000 pages, has several sections, including changes in permanent law, and changes in session law, which also includes the line items for each agency.

1) Ohio News

•131st General Assembly: The Ohio House and Senate will hold committee hearings and sessions this week. For further details about the committee hearings, please see “This Week at the Statehouse”.

•ODE Seeking Comments on School Funding Changes: The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is seeking comments about Governor Kasich’s Executive Budget for FY16-17 introduced on February 2, 2015.

The ODE web site also provides links to “School District Funding Preliminary Estimates”, which are simulations of the components of the new school funding formula proposed in the Executive Budget FY16-17 for each district.

See https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/Overview-of-School-Funding-Proposal

•E & A Coalition Responds to Proposed School Funding Changes: The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, Bill Phillis executive director, and Richard Murray, chair, issued a press release on February 6, 2015 in response to Governor Kasich’s school funding plan, which is included in the Executive Budget proposal submitted to the Ohio House on February 2, 2015.

The E & A Coalition successfully argued in the four DeRolph v. State Supreme Court decisions, that the state’s school funding system is unconstitutional, because it relies on local property taxes to fund schools, and did not adequately provide for a thorough and efficient system of education.

In the press release the Coalition suggests that the proposed $100 increase in the per pupil amount each year (from $5,800 in FY15 to $5,900 in FY16 and to $6000 in FY17) is “residual” funding based on a pre-determined appropriation amount, and has no rational connection to the resources needed to provide a high quality education for students in Ohio.

The E & A Coalition recommends that, “A constitutional system of elementary and secondary schools must be premised on a funding system that defines and costs out the components of a high quality system of education. This approach, of course, would cost the state additional revenue. Fortunately, the state is now well-positioned to devote more revenue to the education of Ohio’s children.”

•ODE Guidance on Student Testing: The Ohio Department of Education has prepared information for schools to use in discussions with students, parents, and communities about student participation in state testing.

According to the ODE, “there is no law that allows a parent or student to opt out of state testing and there is no state test opt-out procedures or form”.

Students, teachers, schools, and school districts can face “consequences” when students do not participate in state tests.

For example, a third grade student who does not take the state reading test might not be promoted to the forth grade; a high school student who does not take and pass the Ohio Graduation Tests might not graduate; a high school student who does not take an end of course exam might not be able to pass a course.

The information also identifies some consequences for teachers and schools districts if students do not take state exams. A school district’s report card rating might be lowered, and teacher evaluations would not reflect the growth of all students.

See http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/53dc1f3e-11f1-4093-875c-090e160b187f/Guidance-on-Student-Participation-in-State-Tests.pdf.aspx

•State Board Reorganizes Committees: The State Board of Education has reorganized its standing committees and the membership on them.

The Achievement and Graduation committees have been combined, and will be chaired by C. Todd Jones with Rebecca Vasquez-Skillings as the vice chair. The other members include Pat Bruns, Stephanie Dodd, Joe Farmer, Mark Smith, and Ron Rudduck. The lead ODE staff member is Stephanie Siddens.

The Capacity Committee will be chaired by Melanie Bolender with Sarah Fowler as the vice chair. The other members of the committee are Tess Elshoff, Cathye Flory, Kathleen McGervey, Roslyn Painter-Goffi, and A.J. Wagner. The lead ODE staff member is Julia Simmerer.

The Accountability Committee will be chaired by Mark Smith with Michael Collins as the vice chair. The other members of the committee are Tom Gunlock, C. Todd Jones, Roslyn Painter-Goffi, Ron Rudduck, and Rebecca Vazquez-Skillings.

The Urban and Rural Renewal Committee will be chaired by Mary Rose Oakar and Tess Elshoff will be vice chair. The other members include Pat Bruns, Joe Farmer, Sarah Fowler, Robert Hagan, Ann Jacobs, Kathleen McGervey, and A.J. Wagner.

The Legislative and Budget Committee will be chaired again by Kathleen McGervey and C. Todd Jones will serve as vice chair. The other members of the committee include Melanie Bolender, Mike Collins, Sarah Fowler, Robert Hagan, Mary Rose Oakar, and Mark Smith.

2) This Week at the Statehouse:

•The House Finance Committee, chaired by Representative Smith, will meet on February 10, 2015 at 9:00 AM, in Hearing Room 313. The committee will hear more about the education provisions in the Executive Budget for FY16-17.

The Finance Committee will also meet on February 11, 2015 and February 12, 2015 at 9:00 AM. On February 11, 2015 the committee will receive testimony about the tax provisions in the proposed FY16-17 budget.

•The House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Representative McClain, will meet on February 10, 2015 at 1:30 PM in Hearing Room 121. The committee will receive sponsor testimony on HB9 (Boose) Tax Expenditure Review Committee, which would create a review committee to review existing and proposed tax expenditures. A similar recommendation is included in the governor’s Executive Budget.

•The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, will meet on February 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM in the Senate Finance Hearing Room. The committee will receive sponsor testimony on SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemption from Certain Laws.

•The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on February 11, 2015 at 8:00 AM in hearing room 121. The committee will receive testimony on HB2 (Dovilla) Charter School Sponsorship.

•The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission will meet on February 12, 2015 at 1:30 PM in the Riffe Center. This month the following committees will meet: Bills of Rights and Voting; Revisions and Updating Committee; Coordinating Committee; Legislative Branch and Executive Branch Committee;

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

SBE Meeting on February 9, 2015
The meeting on February 9, 2015 will start at 8:30 AM, when the State Board will hold a Chapter 119 Hearing on the following rules:

-3301-19-01, -02, -03, District Expenditure Reports
-3301-24-10, Alternative Pathway to Professional Principal Licensure for the “New Leaders for Ohio Schools” Pilot Program
-3301-24-23, -24, Alternative Resident Educator License Renewal
-3301-24-25, -26, Professional Educator License Renewal
-3301-27-01, Qualifications to Direct, Supervise or Coach a Pupil Activity Program
-3301-51-20, Admission, Transfer, Suspension, Expulsion Standard for Blind and Deaf Schools
-3301-61-02, -03, -04, -05, -61-16, -68-01, Career-Tech Rules
-3301-91-02, 03, 05, School Lunch/Breakfast Program
-3301-102-08, Sponsor Compliance

The Executive Committee, chaired by Tom Gunlock, will meet following the 119 hearing. The committee will discuss and approve the 2015-2016 Meeting Calendar; discuss participation on NASBE’s Government Affairs Committee; and discuss the OBM Travel Rule.

Following the Executive Committee meeting, the State Board will receive an update from Superintendent Richard Ross regarding Governor Kasich’s Executive Budget proposal for FY16-17.

•The Achievement & Graduation Requirements Committee and Capacity Committee will meet around 10:30 AM.

The Achievement & Graduation Requirements Committee, will take the following actions:
-Discuss and approve proposed amendment to Rule 3301-35-15 Implementation of Positive Behavior Intervention Supports and the Use of Restraint and Seclusion
-Discuss recommendations for AP and IB Biology substitute exams
-Discuss recommendations for AP/IB score crosswalks.
-Receive an update on the Industry Credentials List and Process to Review
-Discuss public comment for the proposed Reading Achievement Improvement Plan Rule
-Discuss Physical Education Standards and Evaluation

•The Capacity Committee will discuss and approve Rules 3301-32-01 to -12, School Child Program, and receive background information and an update on Educator Licensure Rules.

The State Board will receive a presentation at 1:00 from Elizabeth Ranade Janis, Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, Ohio Department of Public Safety, Office of Criminal Justice Services, about Ohio’s efforts to stop human trafficking.

•The Urban & Rural Renewal Committee and the Accountability Committee will meet concurrently following the presentation.

-The Urban & Rural Renewal Committee will discuss the requirements and expectations of the committee, discuss possible organizations/districts to present to the committee, and discuss web site development and content.

-The Accountability Committee will receive an update about Ohio’s ESEA flexibility renewal and discuss Report Card Indicators.

Public participation on agenda and non-agenda items will be received around 3:00 PM.

The State Board will then go into executive session, and recess from executive session.

SBE Meeting on February 10, 2015
On February 10, 2015 the State Board will convene at 8:30 AM and receive committee reports and take action on 10 personnel items; a motion regarding the 2015-16 State Board of Education meeting calendar; and a resolution amending report card timeline for Career Technical Planning Districts, pursuant to R.C. 3302.033. The Board will then consider old business, new business, and adjourn.

4) President Obama Submits FY16 Budget Proposal: President Barack Obama sent Congress a $4 trillion budget package for FY16 on February 2, 2015 with a message to end “mindless across the board cuts” caused by sequestration, and rebuild middle class America. President Obama spoke about the budget at the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C. The annual federal budget must be approved by October 1, 2015, when the federal fiscal year begins.

The Republican led House and Senate will counter with their own budget proposals, which are expected to be introduced soon.

Saying that the nation’s economy has added new jobs, lowered unemployment, and reduced the federal deficit, the President’s budget includes a 6.4 percent increase over spending this year (about $74 billion) and about $1.5 trillion in tax hikes, including tax increases in the capital gains rate, increases for corporations, and increases for high-income families.

To support low income families the budget plan includes tax cuts, increases in the child care credit, and extends the Earned Income Tax Credit to low income workers.

Support for Preschool: To support families and children the budget would expand access to quality, affordable child care to 1.1 million additional children under age four by 2025 by providing $75 billion over ten years for Preschool for All; cut taxes for families paying for child care with a credit of up to $3,000 per child; triple the maximum Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) for families with children under age five; and increase funding to Head Start by $1 billion.

Support for K-12 Education: The proposed federal budget also includes $70.7 billion for the U.S. Department of Education. The budget would increase funding in the following areas:

•Title I funding would increase by $1 billion to $15.4 billion. Title I is the largest K-12 grant program in the U.S. Department of Education to support low-income schools.

•A new program, Teaching for Tomorrow, would receive $5 billion over five years to transform how states recruit and prepare new teachers.

•Investing in Innovation would receive $300 million.

•The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would receive an increase of $175 million to total $11.7 billion to support special education and related services.

•English Language Acquisition grants would increase by $36 million to $773 million.

Support for Higher Education: To support postsecondary education the budget provides tuition free community college through new
federal-state partnerships; ensures that Pell Grants keep pace with inflation; keeps student loans manageable through the Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) plan; simplifies and expands education tax benefits; and invests in evidence-based efforts at colleges and universities to improve educational outcomes for all students through the First in the World Fund.

Support for the Arts: The President’s budget includes some good news for arts advocates. The proposed budget increases funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $2 million to $146 million, and
continues funding for Arts in Education ($25 million) at the U.S. Department of Education. In past budget proposals the administration has eliminated or combined Arts in Education with other programs, which would dilute the effectiveness of the grant program. The budget also supports 21st Century Community Learning Centers and School Improvement Grants.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/02/remarks-president-fy2016-budget

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/02/fact-sheet-middle-class-economics-president-s-fiscal-year-2016-budget

See http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget16/budget-factsheet.pdf

See Americans for the Arts at http://blog.artsusa.org/2015/01/22/the-return-of-elementary-and-secondary-education-act-esea-reauthorization/

5) National News

•Update on ESEA Reauthorization: U.S, Representative John Kline (R-MN), chair of the House Education Committee and the Workforce Committee, re-introduced on February 3, 2015 a bill entitled the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

According to a summary, the bill is very similar to the Senate bill drafted by Senator Lamar Alexander to reauthorize ESEA entitled Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015. The Senate bill differs from the House version, in that the Senate version currently offers states two options about testing. One option would allow states to maintain the current annual testing plan, but also would allow school districts, with state approval, to choose assessments. The other option would let states use any type of testing schedule, including annual tests, portfolio exams, grade-span tests, competency based assessments, and more.

A committee markup of the bill is scheduled at 10:00 AM on February 11, 2015, and a vote in the House could be taken by the end of the month.

The following is a summary of the some of the components in the bill:

•Reduces the federal role in education “by returning authority for measuring student performance and turning around low-performing schools to states and local officials.”
•Increases local flexibility regarding current Title I programs
•Requires states to establish academic standards in reading, math, and science, and align content and achievement standards, but removes the federal requirements mandating basic, proficient, and advanced levels of achievement.
•Retains annual testing in grades 3-8 in math and reading and once in high school and science once in each of the grade spans.
•Retains the requirement about disaggregating student subgroup data, assessing the English proficiency of English learners, and ensuring 95 percent participation rates for all students and each subgroup.
•Eliminates the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) metric and the requirement that all students reach proficiency in reading and math.
•Allows states to develop their own accountability systems that include the following:
-annually measure academic achievement of all public school students against the state’s academic standards (including growth toward the standards) using the statewide assessments in reading and math and other academic indicators;
-annually evaluate and identify the academic performance of each public school in the state based on student academic achievement, including the achievement of all students and achievement gaps between student subgroups;
-provide a school improvement system implemented by school districts that includes interventions in poor performing Title I schools.
•Eliminates School Improvement Grants
•Allows states and school districts to use federal funds for certain special population programs for any activity authorized under those programs.
•Eliminates the 40 percent poverty threshold for schoolwide programs, allowing all Title I schools to operate whole school reform efforts. •Eliminates more than 65 existing elementary and secondary education programs, including Arts in Education.
•Creates a new Local Academic Flexible Grant to provide funds to states and school districts to support initiatives based on their unique priorities.
•Requires states to reserve ten percent of their Local Academic Flexible Grant to support state and local programs that operate outside of traditional public school systems.
•Removes all “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) requirements, allowing states and school districts to set their own funding levels for elementary and secondary education.
•Maintains the existing “supplement, not supplant” requirements, which ensure federal dollars are used on top of state and local resources, protecting the traditional federal role in education.
•Maintains separate funding streams for the Migratory Education, Neglected and Delinquent, English Language Acquisition, and Rural Education programs and strengthens each targeted population program to improve its performance.
•Repeals federal requirements that teachers be highly qualified.
•Allows for the development and implementation of state or locally driven teacher evaluation systems based on five broad parameters that states or school districts may include in any teacher evaluation system.
•Consolidates the remaining teacher quality programs, including the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program authorized under the Higher Education Act, into a new Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant.
•Gives states the option of allowing Title I money to follow low- income students to the traditional public or charter school the student chooses to attend.
•Reauthorizes the Charter School Program
•Limits the authority of the Secretary of Education over decisions in the classroom.
•Reauthorizes the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program within the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

See http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_student_success_act_summary_2015_for_introduction.pdf

•House Dems Hold Own ESEA Forum: Democrats on the U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee held their own forum on February 5, 2015 to protest the lack of hearings on the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), sponsored by Representative John Kline. The forum was organized by the ranking Democratic member on the committee, Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) to gather more feedback about the components of the Republican backed bill, which could get a vote in the House by the end of February.

The Democrats invited representatives of several education organizations to present, including Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools, and Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust.

Concern was expressed about the dismantling of laws that ensure that children who are poor, minority, or disabled have priority to Title I funding; a provision which would allow federal dollars to follow a low income student to a public school of choice; and the elimination of “maintenance of effort”.

See “House Democrats Hold Their Own Session on Rewriting the NCLB Law” by Lauren Camera, Education Week, February 5, 2015 at
See http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/02/house_democrats_hold_their_own.html

•Timeline for ESEA Reauthorization: Maggie Severns reports for Politico that Senator Lamar Alexander expects that the Senate HELP Committee will pass the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by the end of the month. This will enable the Senate to debate the bill before it starts work on the appropriation measures for FY16.

•Tennessee Teachers Challenge Teacher Evaluations: Two teachers in Tennessee, the Tennessee Education Association, and the Metropolitan Nashville and Anderson County Education Associations filed a lawsuit in Nashville on February 5, 2015 challenging the constitutionality of the state’s teacher evaluation system. The defendants include the governor, the commissioner of education, the State Board of Education, the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education, and the Anderson County Board of Education.

According to a press release from the National Education Association, the lawsuit claims that the state’s teacher evaluation system is arbitrary, irrational, and unfair, because more than half of the teachers in Tennessee are being evaluated on the standardized test scores of students who they have not taught, in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Tennessee evaluation system factors-into teacher evaluations overall student results through a statistical framework called the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). Schools receive composite scores that are then used to evaluate teachers in non-tested subjects or grades.

The lawsuit contents that the state’s evaluation system cannot provide meaningful feedback to teachers to improve instruction, because the teachers are not teaching all of the students, whose test scores go into their evaluations. The system hurts teachers, because employment decisions are made as a result of the evaluations, and provides no benefit for students.

Two lawsuits are still pending in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee contesting the precision of TVAAS as a methodology to use to evaluate teachers. TVAAS is also known as EVAAS, which is the methodology used in Ohio to measure student growth.

See http://teateachers.org/sites/default/files/u98351/tea_lawsuit_feb_4_2015.pdf

See “NEA supports teachers challenging constitutionality of evaluations”, NEA, February 5, 2015 at http://www.nea.org/home/61903.htm

See “NEA Lawsuit in Tennessee Challenges Evaluations of ‘Non-Tested’ Teachers” by Anthony Rebora, Education Week, February 5, 2015 at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2015/02/new_nea_suit_in_tenn_challenge.html.

•Fewer Students Taking National Assessments: Catherine Gewertz reports for Education Week that less than half of students in the U.S. will take assessments developed by the testing consortia PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) and Smarter Balanced this year. That is a huge drop from a few years ago, when only a few states were not participating in one or the other consortia’s testing program. About 25 percent of students will be taking the Smarter Balanced Assessments, and 18 percent the PARCC assessments, including students in Ohio.

See “Final Testing Count: More Than Half of Students Will Take Non-Consortium Exams” by Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, February 5, 2015 at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/02/more_than_half_of_students_.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

6) Bills Introduced

-SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemption: Exempts high-performing school districts from certain laws; revises the law regarding the administration of state primary and secondary education assessments; permits school districts to contract with hospitals, health care professionals, and educational service centers for school health services; revises the competitive bidding threshold for school building and repair contracts; and requires the School Facilities Commission to develop a legislative proposal assisting high-performing school districts in purchasing technology, building expansion, and physical alterations to improve school safety or security.

-SB6 (Jones/Eklund) Joint Committee on Ohio College Affordability: Increases the maximum income tax deduction for college savings contributions to $10,000 annually for each beneficiary; creates the Joint Committee on Ohio College Affordability, and declares an emergency.

-SB12 (Hottinger) Income Tax Credit-Science Related Degree: Grants an income tax credit to individuals who earn degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math-based fields of study.

-SB19 (Sawyer) Ohio College Opportunity Grant: Makes changes to the Ohio College Opportunity Grant, to limit state university over load fees, and makes an appropriation.

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

-SB24 (Williams) Ohio College Opportunity Grant Qualifications: Qualifies students in noncredit community college programs for Ohio College Opportunity Grants and requires the awarding of academic credit for community colleges’ career certification programs.

FYI ARTS

•Governor’s Awards Announced: The Ohio Arts Council announced on January 27, 2015 those selected to receive the 2015 Governor’s Awards for the Arts.

The awards will be presented at a noon luncheon ceremony on Arts Day, Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at the Columbus Athenaeum in downtown Columbus. The ceremony is hosted by Ohio Arts Council and the Ohio Citizens for the Arts Foundation. The luncheon honors the recipients and the members of the Ohio Legislature. This year’s recipients will also receive an original work of art by Nicole Schneider, a printmaker and mixed-media artist from Cleveland.

Recipients were selected by the Governors Awards Selection Committee from 68 nominations submitted by individuals and organizations throughout Ohio. The recipients include:

-Individual Artist: James Pate, Dayton
-Community Development and Participation: Mayor Thomas Johnson, Somerset
-Business Support of the Arts: Morris Furniture Company, Fairborn -Arts Patron: Barbara Hunzicker, Lancaster
-Arts Education: Dr. Philip Brady, Youngstown
-Arts Administration: Marie Bollinger Vogt, Sylvania

The Governor’s Awards for the Arts in Ohio & Arts Day Luncheon are held in conjunction with Arts Day, a day long event to foster a greater awareness of the value of the arts in Ohio. Arts Day is sponsored by the Ohio Citizens for the Arts Foundation, which organizes Arts Day activities, including an arts advocacy briefing, legislative visits, Statehouse tours, student exhibitions, and more.

See http://oac.state.oh.us
See http://ohiocitizensforthearts.org

•California Task Force Makes Recommendations for Arts Education: A task force appointed by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson in 2012 released on January 29, 2015 a report about “implementing a robust 21st century model of arts education” to become the “center for creative preK-12 education” in California’s public schools.

The report is entitled “A Blueprint for Creative Schools” and summarizes an earlier report entitled, “The Joint Arts Education Task Force Report: How the Arts and Creative Education Can Transform California’s Classrooms”.

The 100-member task force, Blueprint for Creative Schools Task Force, that prepared the report included representatives from the California Department of Education (CDE), the California Arts Council (CAC), the California Alliance for Arts Education, the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA), the California PTA, and artists, teachers, and arts organizations throughout the state.

The task force identified as an over-arching goal to reinstate the arts at the core of education for all students in California’s public schools through discipline specific arts education programs and learning across the curriculum.

The “Blueprint for Creative Schools” examines and makes recommendations about how to accomplish that goal through several lenses, including arts curriculum, educator quality and preparation, arts assessment, equity and access, collaborative relationships, the role of business and industry, and funding for the arts.

The comprehensive report was funded by the California Arts Council. Previous funding was made available from the National Endowment for the Arts for the California delegation to attend the Arts Education Leaders Institute.

See “A Blueprint for Creative Schools” by Create CA: California’s Statewide Arts Education Coalition, February 2015 at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/bfcsreport.pdf

###

-- 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

Note; Later today Governor Kasich will introduce the biennial state budget, and hearings begin tomorrow morning in the House Finance committee. Once it is available for line item review I will report the status of the school psych. intern program funding.

The House and Senate education committees also meet this week.

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
February 2, 2015

1) Ohio News

•131st Ohio General Assembly: The House and Senate have not scheduled sessions, but there will still be a lot of action at the Statehouse this week.

Governor Kasich will submit to the Ohio House on February 2, 2015 the FY16-17 budget requests for transportation, the Bureau of Workers Compensation/Ohio Industrial Commission, and the state’s biennial budget for general operations.

Under state law, the biennial operating budget is first introduced in the Ohio House, where it is assigned to the House Finance and Appropriations Committee, chaired by Representative Ryan Smith. The Office of Budget and Management, Tim Keen director, and the Legislative Services Commission have been invited to testify on the budget proposal on February 3, 2015, and public hearings are expected to begin on February 9, 2015. A tentative House schedule shows that the House plans to vote on the budget proposal by April 22 or 23, 2015. The measure will then move to the Ohio Senate for consideration. The biennial budget must be approved by July 1, 2015, which is the start of FY16.

The House and Senate education committees have also scheduled hearings this week.

The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, will meet on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM in the Senate Finance Hearing Room. The committee will receive testimony from school superintendents regarding State Superintendent Richard Ross’ report on testing.

The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 8:00 AM, in hearing room 121, and receive testimony on HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determinations, and HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter School Sponsorship.

The House Finance and Appropriations Committee, chaired by Representative Smith, will meet on February 3 and 4, 2015 in hearing room 313 at 9:00 AM.

On February 3, 2015 the committee will receive testimony on the biennial budget bill from Tim Keen, director of the Officer of Budget and Management, and the Legislative Services Commission.

On February 4, 2015 the committee will receive testimony on the transportation budget from Transportation Director Jerry Wray, Public Safety Director John Born and Turnpike Director Randy Cole.

•SOS to be Delivered in Wilmington: Governor Kasich has selected Wilmington to be the site of the next State of the State (SOS) address. The governor requested in a January 10, 2015 letter that the General Assembly hold a joint session in Wilmington, Ohio on February 24, 2015 at 7:00 PM to receive the SOS address. Wilmington is in Clinton County, which is in House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger’s district. The General Assembly is expected to agree to the joint session in Wilmington, although in the past there have been some lawmakers who oppose moving the SOS away from the Statehouse.

•Analysis of Tax Effort Released: Dr. Howard Fleeter, consultant for the Ohio Education Policy Institute (OEPI), formerly known as the Education Tax Policy Institute, recently published an analysis that found a large variation in fiscal capacity across Ohio’s 612 school districts.

The analysis examined the tax effort of school districts using the Tax Effort Index, a measure that is included on the Ohio Department of Education’s annual District Profile Report, and compares the amount of taxes paid by school district residents with their ability to pay taxes as measured by the Adjusted Gross Income (FAGI).

The analysis sets average tax effort at 1.0. Districts with an index greater than 1.0 are considered making “high effort” relative to the income of residents, and those with an index below 1.0 are considered making a “low effort” relative to the income of residents.

According to the analysis, the data show that 283 school districts are making a high Tax Effort (greater than 1.0), and 329 school districts are making a low Tax Effort (less than 1.0). The report notes the following:

“•Wealthy suburban districts – despite having relatively high millage rates – have by far the lowest tax effort.”
"•Suburban and small town districts – despite having noticeably different millage rates – exhibit about the same tax effort. These districts average tax effort slightly below 1.”
"•Rural, poor rural, and poor small town districts have tax effort of roughly 1.10. This indicates that despite their relatively low millage rates, their level of taxation is higher than average relative to their income (which is lower than average).”
"•Urban districts have the highest tax effort. This is the result of a combination of high millage rates and low income levels.”

The analysis concludes that if all school districts had a tax effort of 1.0, $1.2 billion more in local revenue would be generated.

See “Capacity and Effort: Analysis of Tax Effort by Ohio School Districts” by Howard Fleeter, Ohio Education Policy Institute, January 26, 2015 at
http://www.oasbo-ohio.org/Advocacy/ealerts-oasbo-ohio-org/FY14-Tax-Effort-Index-Analysis-By-District.aspx

•School Districts Take Steps to Merge: The News-Herald reported on January 27, 2015 that the Berkshire and Ledgemont boards of education in Geauga County voted on January 26, 2015 to move forward with a territory transfer and a merger of the two districts. Together the school districts will serve about 1,299 students. The merger will also help the Ledgemont District solve its fiscal deficit problem. Two other school districts in the county, Cardinal and Newbury, are expected to join Ledgemont and Berkshire in a plan to build a joint high school on the Geauga campus of Kent State University in Burton Township.

See “Unanimous votes clear path for Berkshire, Ledgemont merger”, by Jean Bonchak, The News-Herald, January 27, 2015, at
http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20150127/unanimous-votes-clear-path-for-berkshire-ledgemont-merger

•ODE Seeks Outstanding Educators: The Ohio Department of Education is seeking recommendations for the state’s “talent pool”. This is a group of distinguished teachers, who would be considered for membership on advisory boards and task forces, or as candidates for special recognition programs.

The ODE is looking specifically for educators who are relatively new to the profession and who demonstrate unusual instructional and leadership skills, and educators in grades K-5 educators.

Candidates should have a minimum of five years teaching experience, and work in a classroom, although principals are sometimes considered.

Recommendations must be submitted by May 16, 2015.

See http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/School-Improvement/Awards-and-Recognition/Talent-Pool-Recommendations-Sought

•Resources for Assessment Literacy: Battelle for Kids recently announced four sets of online assessment literacy resources within the Battelle for Kids Ohio portal. The materials are appropriate for all educators, but are especially helpful for those developing measures of student growth through student learning objectives.

See http://portal.battelleforkids.org/Ohio/education_in_ohio/assessment-literacy

2) Governor Announces Policy Changes for Biennial Budget: In anticipation of the introduction of state’s biennial budget on February 2, 2015, Governor Kasich’s office announced last week proposed policy changes for welfare, higher education, and taxes.

The Governor’s Office released on January 29, 2015 a Blueprint for a New Ohio, A Comprehensive Plan for Helping All Ohioans Share in Our State’s Prosperity.

The one-page outline describes changes in the state’s tax structure and human services division to help Ohioans transition from public assistance to living wage jobs. The governor’s proposed biennial budget will include the following provisions to do that:

-Eliminate the tax on income from all small businesses with annual gross receipts of $2 million or less, which includes sole proprietorships and pass-through entities (PTEs) such as partnerships, Subchapter S corporations (S-carps) and Limited Liability Companies (LLCs).

-Double the personal income tax exemption for low- and middle-income workers. Ohioans earning less than $40,000 a year will see the exemption increase from $2,200 to $4,000 in 2015 and those earning between $40,000 and $80,000 a year will see it increase from $1,950 to $2,850. In 2013, the exemption was $1,700 for all incomes.

-Integrate funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, to serve low-income individuals ages 16 to 24. -Provide intensive support to low-income teens and young adults who require additional help to obtain and maintain employment through a new comprehensive case management and employment program.

-Raise the income limit for initial child care eligibility and allow families to keep subsidized child care longer as their incomes gradually increase to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $4,948 a month for a family of three).

See “Kasich plans tax cuts, more aid to poor in upcoming budget” by Randy Ludlow, Columbus Dispatch, January 30, 2014 at
See http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/29/gov-john-kasich-talks-budget.html

Higher Education: The administration’s changes for higher education were announced in an address made by Lt. Governor Mary Taylor and John Carey, Chancellor of the Board of Regents, at Sinclair Community College in Dayton on January 30, 2015.

According to the Northeast Media Group, the proposed biennial budget will include recommendations to do the following:

-Allow community colleges to award bachelor’s degrees in certain disciplines.
-Increase options for high school students to earn college credit.
-Hold the line on tuition increases.
-Allow students to attend college in the summer using Ohio College Opportunity Grants.
-Use the Ohio College Opportunity Grant to fill in gaps in the federal Pell Grant.
-Convene Ohio college and university presidents to develop a model for students to earn competency-based credit in certain courses, rather than earning credit hours.
-Allocate $500,000 to work with Ohio businesses to develop a competency-based training program for workers who wish to learn the skills necessary to gain employment for certain in-demand jobs.
-Allocate $18.5 million to expand advanced placement courses and reward schools with strong student participation, especially schools with disadvantaged students, and high schools that increase the number of students in the college credit plus program.

See “Bachelor’s degrees at community colleges and credit for competency among education budget proposals” by Karen Farkas, Northeast Ohio Media Group, January 30, 2015 at
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/01/bachelors_degrees_at_community.html

Other Tax Changes: Darrel Rowland reports in the Columbus Dispatch that Governor Kasich is expected to recommend a $500 million income tax cut in the FY16 biennial budget, and will propose raising other state taxes to offset the revenue lost. Some of the state taxes that could be raised include the state sales tax, cigarette tax, commercial activities tax, and severance tax on oil and gas drilling.

The budget recommendations could also expand the current sales tax to items not currently taxed. In 2013 the governor recommended adding the sales tax to movie and concert tickets and services like hair cuts to raise $1.8 billion, but the governor’s package of tax changes were not fully adopted.

See “Kasich’s tax cut depends on raising others” by Darrel Rowland, Columbus Dispatch, February 1, 2015 at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/01/tax-cut-depends-on-raising-others.html

3) Ohio House Republicans Outline Priority Legislation: House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger and the Republican House caucus provided more details about the “Ohio 2020 Initiative”, in a press conference on January 28, 2015.

The Ohio 2020 Initiative is a long-term plan to improve outcomes in the areas of energy, education, competitiveness, health care, tax reform, transportation, infrastructure, water quality, and more.

According to the press release, “Ohio 2020 provides a framework for members of the caucus to work together and to introduce ideas that will make Ohio stronger.”

House Republicans introduced last week two bills that support the education goals of the initiative:

HB1 (Schuring-Manning) would create the Ohio Workforce Grant Program, which would match higher education students with in demand jobs, and provide the students with up to $5000 and three months of training in the work place. Students who graduate with a certificate or degree would be eligible for up to 25 percent tax credit on student loans.

HB2 (Dovilla-Roegner) would change charter school law to increase accountability, transparency, and better define the roles and responsibilities of sponsors, management companies, and charter school boards. The law would do the following:
-Prohibits the charter school sponsor from selling services to client schools.
-Requires sponsors to report how they spend the 3 percent fee charged to charter schools.
-Ends the practice of low performing schools switching sponsors to avoid consequences. Low performing schools would need to have permission from the ODE to switch sponsors.
-Requires sponsors to report expenditures.
-Requires schools to report family members who have business interests in the schools.
-Requires the ODE to report the scores of students in dropout recovery schools sponsored by the school district on the school district report card.
-Requires more detailed contracts, including information about facilities, rent agreements, and loans.
-Requires that the performance of management companies and organizations be reported.
-Prohibits employees of school districts or vendors serving a school district from serving on a governing board of a charter school sponsored by the district.
-Requires that charter school board hire treasurers.
-Requires clear agreements with sponsor and operating companies about ownership of facilities, equipment, supplies, computers, etc.

See http://www.ohiohouse.gov/republicans/press/ohio-house-republicans-lay-out-priorities-for-131st-general-assembly-long-term-visions-for-ohio

4) Senate Republicans Outline Legislative Priorities: Senate President Keith Faber and members of the Senate Republican caucus held a news conference on January 28, 2015 and identified ten top legislative priorities for this session of the 131st General Assembly.

The areas include Jobs and Opportunity, Strengthening Ohio’s Schools, College Affordability, Protecting Ohioans, Investing in a Healthy Ohio, Protecting Natural Resources, Reducing the Tax Burden, Corrections and Rehabilitation, Supporting the Military, and Streamlining Government.

Under Strengthening Ohio’s Schools, the Senate Republicans will introduce legislation to eliminate unnecessary and costly requirements, and give school districts more flexibility; reform testing; reform charter school laws; increase early childhood education opportunities; and make college affordable.

See http://www.ohiosenate.gov/republicans

5) National News

•President to Introduce FY16 Budget: President Obama is scheduled to send his FY16 $4 trillion budget to Congress on February 2, 2015. The proposed budget includes $530 billion in non-defense discretionary spending, which is an increase of $37 billion, and $561 billion for the military, with an increase of $38 billion. The amounts are higher than the sequestration limits set into law in 2011.

The President announced in the State of the Union address that one of the new education initiatives, America’s College Promise, would make two years of community college free for eligible students. The cost of the program is estimated to be over $60 billion, and would be paid for by tax changes. There has also been talk about increases for Title I, migrant children, and early childhood programs. The FY16 budget goes into effect on October 1, 2015.

See “Budget Preview: What Will the President’s Spending Request Look Like?”,
by Lauren Camera, Education Week, January 30, 2015 at
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/01/budget_preview_what_will_the_p.html

See “Obama budget proposes $74 billion increase in spending” by Jennifer Epstein, Politico, January 29, 2015 at
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-2015-budget-proposal-114725.html#ixzz3QLbMc8UZ

•HELP Committee Approves Education Research Act: Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, reported on January 28, 2015 that the committee had approved the Strengthening Education through Research Act (SETRA) (S.227). The bill would reauthorize the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 through 2021(ESRA). This act authorizes funding for the research activities of the U.S. Department of Education, including the Institute for Education Sciences.

According to a press release, the bill would improve the quality of education research and require that research be relevant and accessible; and strengthens the independence of the National Assessment Governing Board and the Institute for Education Sciences.

See http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=94233a83-27c9-47e1-91b5-53fa81322975

•PRE-K Act Reintroduced: House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act or PRE-K Act on January 29, 2015.

The bill is sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Senators Mazie Hirono (HI), Brian Schatz (HI), Dick Durbin (IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tim Kaine (VA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Sherrod Brown (OH), and Ron Wyden (OR).

In the U.S. House the bill is sponsored by Representatives Mark Pocan (WI) and Mike Honda (CA).

According to a press release, “The PRE-K Act creates a new federal-state partnership to improve state preschool programs and expands current programs to serve more children in need. States with small or newer programs could apply for startup funds if they submit a plan to establish a high-quality preschool program within two years. PRE-K Act funds could help states hire and train early educators, expand preschool days and hours, or provide comprehensive services such as health screenings and meals.”

See http://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-introduces-pre-k-act-to-expand-access-to-early-childhood-education

6) HELP Committee Holds Second Hearing on ESEA Reauthorization: U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, held a second hearing on January 27, 2015 about reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002.

The committee held its first hearing on a Senate draft entitled Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015 on January 21, 2015. That hearing focused on testing and accountability requirements.

This time the committee discussed how to better support teachers and school leaders, and received testimony from Dr. Dan Goldhaber, Director, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research at the American Institutes for Research; Dr. Terry Holliday, Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, KY; Mr. Saul Hinojosa, Superintendent of Schools, Somerset Independent School District, Somerset, TX; Ms. Rachelle Moore, 1st Grade Teacher, Madrona K-8 School, Seattle, WA; and Dr. Christine Handy-Collins, Principal, Gaithersburg High School, Gaithersburg, MD.

According to the written testimony, Dr. Goldhaber stressed to the committee that new state evaluation systems for teachers are just starting to show results, and the pressure from the federal government has been a major incentive for states to focus on the effectiveness of individual educators and student growth. He recommended that annual testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school in language arts and math continue.

Kentucky Commissioner of Education, Terry Holliday, recommended a “systemic approach” to provide all classrooms with quality teachers and principals. The systemic approach would address teacher preparation programs, recruitment, professional development, evaluation, and retention and working conditions. He described the initiatives that Kentucky has been implementing to support teachers, and also said that these initiatives came without the approval or assistance of the U.S. Department of Education. He offered that the role of the federal government should be to give states the ability to use ESEA funds, such as Title IIA funds, more effectively to develop and support state initiatives regarding teachers.

Saul Hinojosa, Superintendent, Somerset School District in Texas, spoke in favor of the Teacher Incentive Fund grant (TIF), which is included in the Senate draft of Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015. Using TIF the Somerset School District piloted TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement in middle and high schools, which helped to increase state ratings for district schools.

Rachelle Moore, a National Board Certified first grade teacher from Seattle, told the committee that student growth over the course of an academic year is just part of the story about student success. Policy-makers also need to “consider the unique challenges and circumstances of each student’s life.” To ensure that teachers have the knowledge and skills to work with all students, teachers need to have the right preparation and supports. Investments in a “continuum that includes teacher induction, professional growth, and teacher leadership” will better prepare and retain high quality teachers.

Gaithersberg, Maryland High School Principal Christine Handy-Collins spoke on behalf of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). She requested that, “Congress work to refocus the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to help put in place state and local education systems that will provide robust, meaningful accountability together with sufficient supports for educators and schools.”

ESEA is in “dire” need to be redirected to ensure that students are provided “high quality educational opportunities and improved outcomes for all students.”

The draft bill, Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015, leaves teacher evaluations, compensation based on student growth, and how students are assessed up to the states. The draft also eliminates language about highly qualified teachers, but does keep the Teacher Incentive Fund, and allows fund transfers between Title II teacher quality funds and Title IV safe and healthy schools.

The HELP committee will meet on February 3, 2015 and hold a round-table discussion on innovative education programs at the state and local levels.

See http://www.help.senate.gov

7) Report Released about Spending on Education: The Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics released on January 29, 2015 a report about per pupil revenues and expenditures for K-12 public schools based on FY 2012 data, the most recent data available.

The report is entitled Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2011–12 (Fiscal Year 2012). The report contains national and state totals of revenues and expenditures, including revenues by source and current expenditures per pupil, and instructional expenditures per pupil, reported by State education agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

According to the report, 50 states and the District of Columbia reported $600.5 billion in revenues collected for public elementary and secondary education in FY12. State and local governments provided $539.4 billion (89.8 percent), and the federal government contributed $61 billion (10.2 percent).

Total revenues for public elementary and secondary education decreased by 3.5 percent in FY12 compared to FY11. “Local revenues decreased by 0.6 percent (from $269.6 to $268.0 billion), state revenues decreased by 1.2 percent (from $274.6 to $271.5 billion), and federal revenues decreased by 21.5 percent (from $77.8 to $61.0 billion).”

Current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education across the nation decreased 2.9 percent (from $542.7 to $527.1 billion) for FY 12 compared to FY 11 after adjusting for inflation. Current expenditures include instruction, support services, but exclude expenditures on capital outlays and interest on long-term debt.

Schools spent on average $10,667 per student in FY2012. The states with the highest per pupil spending are the District of Columbia ($19,847); New York ($19,396); and New Jersey ($17,982). The states with the lowest per pupil spending are Utah ($6,441); Idaho ($6,626); and Arizona ($7,382).

The report shows that per pupil spending on K-12 education was increasing until 2008, which was the beginning of the recession. Spending flattened out between 2008-2010 when the federal government’s stimulus funds were available, but spending started to decline in 2011 when the stimulus funds ended. The recession also affected property wealth, which also declined, and the local tax base for schools. States also chose to reduce state funding for many programs to balance budgets. In Ohio, for example, policy makers reduced funding for the Local Government Fund and higher education to balance the state’s budget.

The report shows that per pupil spending declined between 8.7 and 7.3 percent in Wisconsin, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and the District of Columbia, but increased in Vermont, Delaware, New Jersey, and Alaska.

According to the data for Ohio, student membership in Ohio in FY2012 was 1,740,030. The average expenditure per pupil in Ohio in FY12 was $11,323, which is a -3.5 percent decrease from the average expenditures per pupil in FY11 of $11,729. The average student per pupil expenditure for instruction was $6,444 and for support services was $4,493.

See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014301.pdf

8) NEPC Evaluation Gives “A-F” Report Cards an “F”: The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder, released on January 26, 2015 an analysis of statewide school accountability systems that measure school performance on an A-F scale.

According to the analysis, sixteen states, including Ohio, have instituted a state school accountability system which rates schools and districts on a “A” to “F” scale. Ohio is currently implementing its new A-F accountability grading system, and has not issued a single composite grade for schools or districts yet.

The analysis found that the A-F report cards are “invalid, inaccurate, and undemocratic” because, “The report card systems don’t validly measure school quality; they don’t fulfill their stated policy objective; and they don’t contribute to two fundamental goals of public education. These two goals are to educate students for democratic citizenship, and to incorporate parents and community members in the democratic deliberation about their public schools’ policies.”

The authors found that state A-F report cards are not based on research; are imprecise because schools with the same grade could be substantially different; could produce “invalid representations of school quality”; could alienate parents and citizens from participating in decision-making about education; “...ignore the central factors in school performance – resources available to schools, families and communities; and ignore the central goal of public schools to prepare students for citizenship in a democracy.”

According to the analysis, “Credible empirical research continues to show that school effects typically account for less than 30% of student academic performance. 29 Using only student academic performance and other isolated outcome measures to assign A-F school grades is, then, confusing—or even deceptive—because it ignores and obscures many important factors that contribute to school performance. Letter grades ignore, for example, the well-documented correlation between socioeconomic status and attendance and graduation rates,30 and they attribute academic proficiency changes directly to schools that students attended only most recently.31 The ‘primary assumption of the A-F accountability system, that student test scores can be dissected and manipulated into valid indicators of school performance, is simply false.’32”

The analysis includes the following recommendations:

-Eliminate the single grade, which includes “unlike elements” and promotes confusion and misunderstanding.
-Develop “a report card format that uses multiple school indicators that more adequately reflect a school performance profile.”
-Enlist the services of assessment and evaluation experts in designing school accountability systems.
-”Enable democratic deliberation over the many possible purposes of schooling in a democratic society before determining assessment criteria.”
-”Ensure that accountability systems promote, rather than neglect or inhibit, the formation of democratic character—which must be consciously cultivated. While democratic outcomes may not be the only legitimate goal for public schools, they surely should be counted among the most essential.”

The authors of the report are Kenneth R. Howe, who is a professor of education at the University of Colorado Boulder, where the National Education Policy Center is housed, and Kevin Murray, who is a Ph.D. candidate at CU Boulder.

See “Why School Report Cards Merit a Failing Grade” by Kevin Murray and Kenneth R. Howe, National Education Policy Center, January 26, 2015 at http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-statereportcards.pdf

9) U.S. Education System More Competitive than Thought: The Horace Mann League (HML), Gary Marx president, and the National Superintendents Roundtable, James Harvey executive director, released on January 20, 2015 a study entitled “School Performance in Context: The Iceberg Effect”.

The study examined six factors and 24 indicators of student performance in the G-7 nations, and found that the U.S. education system is very competitive in spite of high levels of poverty, inequity, and violence. G-7 nations include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Finland and China,

The results of the study run counter to other international reports (PISA and TIMSS) that show the U.S. trailing other countries in student achievement in K-12 education.

Compared to the other G-7 nations, the study found that the United States has the most educated workforce, based on the number of years of school completed, and the highest proportion of adults with high school diplomas and bachelor’s degrees.

Researchers conducting the study identified several factors in the analysis in addition to student achievement to present a clearer picture of a country’s education status. The factors include equity, social stress, support for families, support for schools, student outcomes, and system outcomes. The following are some of the findings based on these factors:

•Economic Equity: The United States and China demonstrate the greatest gaps between rich and poor. The U.S. also has high rates of income inequality and childhood poverty. The rate of childhood poverty is five times greater in the U.S. than it is in Finland.

•Social Stress: The U.S. reported the highest rates of violent death and teen pregnancy, and came in second for death rates from drug abuse. The rate of violent death is13 times greater in the U.S. than the average for the other nations. The U.S. is also one of the most diverse nations with many immigrant students, who don’t speak English.

•Support for Families: The U.S. performed in the lowest third on public spending for services that benefit children and families, including preschool.

•Support for Schools: The U.S. leads the nine-nation group in spending per student, but the report noted that national estimates may not be truly comparable, because U.S. teachers also spend about 40 percent more time in the classroom than their peers in the comparison countries.

•Student Outcomes: Performance in American elementary schools is better than in middle school. U.S. students excel in 4th grade reading and high school graduation rates, but perform less well in reading at age 15. All nations demonstrate an achievement gap based on students’ family income and socio-economic status.

•System Outcomes: The U.S. leads these the G7 in educational levels of its adult workforce, such as years of schooling completed and the proportion of adults with high-school diplomas and bachelor’s degrees. American students also make up 25 percent of the world’s top students in science at age 15, followed by Japan at 13 percent.

The Horace Mann League (hmleague.org) is an association of educators committed to the principles of public education. Its members believe the U.S. public school system is an indispensable agency for strengthening our democracy and a vital, dynamic influence in American life.

The National Superintendents Roundtable (superintendentsforum.org) is a learning community of school superintendents who learn, discuss and meet regularly with worldwide experts, sharing best practices and leading for the future.

See “School Performance in Context: The Iceberg Effect”, The Horace Mann League (HML) and the National Superintendents Roundtable, January 20, 2015 at
http://www.superintendentsforumtest.org/?page_id=1262

10) Bills Introduced:

•HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Community School Sponsorship: With regard to sponsorship and management of community schools.

•HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determination: 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.

•HB9 (Boose) Tax Expenditure Review Committee: Creates a Tax Expenditure Review Committee for the purpose of periodically reviewing existing and proposed tax expenditures.

•HB15 (Gerberry) State Board of Education Membership: Changes the voting membership of the State Board of Education to consist of a member from each of several electoral districts with boundaries coinciding with the state’s Congressional districts and a president to be appointed by the Governor if there is an even number of such electoral districts.

•HB20 (Gonzales/Koehler) Concealed Carry-School Safety Zone: Expands and clarifies the authority of a concealed handgun licensee to possess a handgun in a school safety zone.

•HB25 (Kunze) Food-Drink School Sales: Requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules regarding the sale of beverages and food during the regular school day in connection with a school- sponsored fund raiser.

FYI ARTS

•Turnaround Arts Final Evaluation Released: The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (PCAH), co-chaired by George Stevens Jr. and Margo Lion, released on January 22, 2015 a two-year evaluation of Turnaround Arts, a public-private partnership formed to implement high-quality and integrated arts education in high-poverty and chronically under-performing schools.

According to the evaluation, Turnaround Arts is “the first federal program to bring arts education to bear on efforts to turnaround schools.”

Overall the evaluation found that “...after two years of implementation in Turnaround Arts schools, there were many promising indicators about the potential of this work to positively influence student engagement, school culture, instructional practice, and school outcomes in the country’s lowest-performing schools.”

The evaluation is based upon data from school surveys, interviews, and focus groups; classroom observations; and analysis of attendance, discipline, and student achievement data. The evaluation was conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton under the direction of the Turnaround Arts National Evaluation Advisory Group. The principal investigator, Sara Ray Stoelinga, is from the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute.

The evaluation summarizes the theory of action and programmatic approach to Turnaround Arts; identifies components of arts eduction that affect school improvement; and evaluates the hypothesis, “...that strategically implementing high-quality and integrated arts education programming in these schools adds significant value to school-wide reform.”

The PCAH launched Turnaround Arts as a pilot program in April of 2012 to determine if implementing high-quality arts education programs would help chronically low performing schools overcome challenges, such as low academic achievement, low student engagement, negative perceptions about the school and students, and low trust.

The project team identified certain “core assets” or “pillars” that could be used as “levers for broader school improvement” to improve school climate and culture, deepen instruction, and increase student and parent engagement to improve academic achievement. The pillars include principal leadership; the strategic use of arts specialists; non-arts classroom teachers integrating arts into core content; the use of teaching artists and community organizations; the engagement of the district, parents, and community; strategic arts planning; professional development; and improvements to the school environment.

The eight schools selected for the pilot program were competitively selected from nominations from state and municipal authorities, and serve diverse populations in urban and rural settings across the country. The schools were also recipients of School Improvement Grants (SIGs) from the U.S. Department of Education. The eights schools are ReNEW Cultural Arts Academy, New Orleans, LA; Findley Elementary School, Des Moines, IA; Lame Deer Middle School, Lame Deer, MT; Martin Luther King, Jr. School, Portland, OR; Noel Community Arts School, Denver, CO; Orchard Gardens K-8 Pilot School, Boston, MA; Roosevelt Elementary School, Bridgeport, CT; and Savory Elementary School, Washington, D.C.

As part of the Turnaround Arts model, all schools received intensive arts education resources and expertise, including professional development, school-wide strategic planning, principal coaching, partnerships with local arts education and cultural organizations, community engagement events, arts supplies, musical instruments, and the involvement of high-profile artists.

The evaluation found that under “Program Operations and Implementation”, all schools had a high prevalence of arts resources; integrated the arts in non arts classrooms; intentionally applied the pillars as a lever for school improvement; and showed evidence of strategic mobilization of the arts toward larger school improvement goals.

The analysis of the “Program Impact” from 2011-2014 is based upon quantitative data, such as standardized test data, attendance, disciplinary action, and teacher perceptions. The following are the findings:

•Math and reading proficiency increased. Seven out of the eight observed schools improved their overall reading proficiency rates; 6 out of the 8 schools improved their math proficiency rates; and every school improved in either reading or math. Three of the schools had double-digit point-gains in math proficiency rates, and two of the schools had similar gains in reading proficiency rates.

•Average academic achievement improved overall. On average Turnaround Arts schools demonstrated a 22.55 percent improvement in math proficiency rates and a 12.62 percent improvement in reading proficiency rates.

•”Higher rates of average improvement than comparable SIG schools. Turnaround Arts schools had significantly higher rates of average improvement in both math and reading than the cohort of analogous SIG schools in their districts and states, improving 6.35% more in math and 7.04% more in reading from 2011 to 2014.”

•”Higher rates of average improvement than school district comparisons. As a group, Turnaround Arts schools also improved proficiency at a faster rate than their school districts’ average.”

•Attendance rate increased. Four out of eight Turnaround Arts schools improved their attendance rates significantly between 2011 and 2014. The average attendance rate at Turnaround Arts Schools was 91.77% in 2014.

•Discipline reductions. Five of the eight Turnaround Arts schools demonstrated dramatic improvements in disciplinary actions, in out-of-school suspensions, in-school suspensions, and/or overall disciplinary actions.

The evaluation also notes that schools rated highly on arts implementation also tended to have “positive trends on broader school improvement indicators, with several exceptions.” Further work is needed to refine the implementation continuum and understand these ratings relative to school improvement indicators.

See “Final Evaluation Report Turnaround Arts Initiative”, by Sara Ray Stoelinga, Urban Education Institute, University of Chicago; Yael Silk, Silk Strategic Arts; Prateek Reddy, Booz Allen Hamilton; and Nadiv Rahman, Booz Allen Hamilton; President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, January 22, 2015 at
http://www.pcah.gov/sites/default/files/Turnaround%20Arts%20Phase%201%20Final%20Evaluation_Full%20Report.pdf

Press release at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/presidents-committee-on-the-arts-and-humanities-turnaround-schools-demonstrate-student-improvement-through-the-arts-300024151.html

From: Ann Brennan 

FYI
Note the State auditors report on charter school reforms, also note the 131st General Assembly House and Senate Committee assignments.
Subject: Arts on Line Education Update January 26, 2015
Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
January 26, 2015

1) Ohio News

•131st Ohio General Assembly: The Ohio House and Senate will hold sessions and committee meetings this week.

The House Finance Committee, chaired by Representative Ryan Smith, will meet on January 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM in hearing room 313, and the House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on January 28, 2015 in hearing room 121. Both committees will hold organizational meetings, but the House Education Committee will also receive a presentation about charter school accountability.

•Charter School Audit: Ohio State Auditor David Yost released on January 22, 2015 the results of an audit of student attendance at 30 site-based charter schools in response to questions about “irregular community school attendance and enrollment practices”. The audit found significant discrepancies in student attendance in half of the schools when compared to the number of students reported to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) as enrolled in the school in July 2014. The audit also found schools in which only half of the students enrolled actually attended the schools.

According to Auditor Yost’s report, state auditors randomly selected 30 charter schools, from a possible 381 charter schools in Ohio, to check student attendance on October 1, 2014. Seven of 30 schools audited, mostly dropout recovery schools, had head counts more than two standard deviations below the number of students enrolled as reported to the Ohio Department of Education; nine schools had head counts at least 10 percent below the number reported to the ODE; 14 schools had head counts that were close to the numbers reported to the state; drop out recovery and prevention (DORP) schools had the highest variances in attendance; and 27 of 30 schools had fewer students at the school than the number reported to the state for funding purposes.

Of the schools with the highest variances in attendance rates compared to reported enrollment, Life Skills Center of Youngstown had an attendance rate of 17 percent of reported enrollment; Life Skills Center of Cincinnati had a rate of 18 percent; Life Skills Center of Hamilton County had a rate of 23 percent; and Dayton Technology Design High School had a rate of 25 percent.

The audit includes the following recommendations:

-The ODE should require the sponsors identified in this report to review and investigate the schools with large or unusual variances between actual and reported head counts.
-The ODE should update its FY2015 Education Management Information System (EMIS) Manual and School Options Enrollment System (SOES) Manual, and include the changes that the ODE made during the EMISRewrite and consolidation of SOES.
-The ODE should clarify that “while state Foundation funding is based upon annualized enrollment, the monthly reporting of student enrollments should be founded upon actual data rather than projections.” Some charter schools might be improperly reporting higher than actual projections of enrollment during the early months of the school year to prevent cash flow problems.
-The ODE should review the errors identified by the SOES flagging system for potential enrollment errors that might have occurred during the months of September through November 2014, due to the lack of monitoring by resident schools, community schools, and ODE during this period.
-The ODE should provide charter school sponsors assistance regarding curriculum policies and documentation requirements for blended learning models. Sponsors should be discouraged from “boilerplate language approval” of blended learning models in the educational plans of charter schools.
-The ODE should institute a guarantee mechanism to ensure that charter schools that close can pay any outstanding obligations to the state.
-Sponsors should actively review the enrollment and student attendance of charter schools, and conduct on site FTE reviews to verify enrollment.
-Sponsors of schools using blended learning should review school records to ensure that students are logging in and documenting completed lessons.
-The State Auditors Office will review the results of this investigation and incorporate any practices that would make more effective or cost-efficient the regular charter school financial audit.

The report also identifies some provisions in policy and law that should be strengthened to increase the accountability of charter schools. For example, beginning in July 2015, the ODE will determine the first Foundation payment for a new charter school based on the sponsor’s rating. High performing sponsors will be able to approve Foundation payments in July for the new charter schools that they sponsor, but charter schools not sponsored by high performing sponsors will not receive payment until September. This policy is based on changes authorized in Am. Sub. 129-HB 555 to ensure that charter schools are not over-paid for students, but the provision only applies to new charter schools. Foundation payments for existing charter schools are based on estimates from the previous school year, which do not take into account students who graduated or other changes in enrollment.

The report also found that the current structure of charter school law “lacks appropriate segregation of duties.” The ODE oversees community school sponsors; acts as a sponsor; collects enrollment and performance data; calculates and provides funding; and develops policies for charter schools. The report states, “Proper segregation increases the State’s ability to have accurate and meaningful financial and performance information and reporting. Separating the authorization and oversight duties and assigning them to different State agencies could increase the integrity of the sponsor and community school oversight process.”

There are also inconsistencies in charter school law that raise questions about conflicts of interest. For example, sponsors can charge charter schools for oversight and monitoring and services, which might cause some sponsors to think twice about closing a charter school. There are no requirements for governing board members or officials employed by charter schools, management companies, or sponsors to disclose personal financial interest in the schools they serve. And, according to the report, “Ohio’s law does not truly require a community school’s governing board to be independent of its management company. This is a significant policy question for the legislature.”

The report also cautions that there is an increased risk that dropout recovery and prevention schools are over-reporting student attendance; there is a lack of clearly defined minimum standards for blended learning schools making it difficult to evaluate charter school compliance with the 920 hours of required instruction; there are no consequences for charter schools or sponsors that don’t follow the education plan outlined in their contracts; and the requirement that charter schools post a payable bond to the state to use to pay the state money owed if the school closes only applies to schools sponsored by the ODE’s Office of Ohio School Sponsorship.

Other “matters for possible reform” identified by the audit include the following:
-To maintain benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) students must be enrolled in school for a minimum number of hours. Some dropout recovery and prevention schools reported that some students come to school to meet the minimum hour requirement in order to retain benefits, but fail to actively participate in learning opportunities.
-ODE’s failure to notify certain state offices and agencies regarding the closure of charter schools has resulted in public monies continuing to flow to the schools, when such funding should have been suspended or terminated.
-There should be a provision in law to pay court appointed “receivers” when assigned to a charter school that is insolvent. “If there isn’t a provision for the receiver to be paid for their services, a receiver may petition the court to vacate their position. This can lead to significant delays in the completion of close out procedures and distribution of assets for a closed community school as well as an inability to obtain records for audit.”
-Minimum legislative standards should be established to guide sponsors as they vet charter school applications, to ensure that the charter school’s educational program, mission, and focus of the curriculum are well defined.

According to Auditor Yost, the findings of the audit cannot be used to “substantiate fraud or findings of recovery”, but warrant further inquiries by the sponsors of the charter schools and the Ohio Department of Education.

See “Report on Community School Attendance Counts”, Auditor of State, January 22, 2015 at
http://www.ohioauditor.gov

•Senate Democrats Present Policy Agenda: The Senate Democratic Caucus hosted a briefing on January 21, 2015 to present their legislative priorities for the 131st General Assembly. The briefing, led by Senate Minority Leader Joe Schiavoni, focused on priorities to support families, communities, and opportunities to build a better future for Ohio.

Senate Democrats expect to introduce legislation over the next weeks to raise the minimum wage, implement a permanent Medicaid expansion system, make the Earned Income Tax Credit refundable, restore the local government fund, invest in infrastructure, improve police and community relations, and protect Ohio’s drinking water.

Regarding education, the Senate Democrats will advocate for making college more affordable, reforming charter school laws, and making investments in job training and support for veterans.

See “Senate Democrats Outline Legislative Priorities For 131st General Assembly” at http://www.ohiosenate.gov/democrats

2) Ohio House and Senate Name Committee Rosters: Ohio House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger and Senate President Keith Faber announced last week the membership of the Controlling Board, the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR), and other House and Senate committees. The committee rosters follow:

-Controlling Board: The Senate members include Senators Bill Coley (R), Chris Widener (R), and Tom Sawyer (D). The House members on the panel include Representatives Ryan Smith (R), Jeff McClain (R), and Kevin Boyce (D). The first meeting of the Controlling Board will be January 26, 2015.

-JCARR: The members of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review include Representatives Mike Duffey (R), chair; Bill Hayes (R); Gary Scherer (R); Cheryl Grossman (R); Debbie Phillips (D); and Greta Johnson (D). The Senate members include Senators Joe Uecker (R), vice chair; Troy Balderson (R); Frank LaRose (R); Charleta Tavares (D); and Kenny Yuko (D).

House Committees

-House Education Committee: The House Education Committee will meet on Wednesdays at 4:00 PM in Room 121. The Republican members of the committee are Representatives Bill Hayes, chair; Andy Brenner, vice chair; Lou Blessing, Robert Cupp, Tim Derickson, Michael Henne, Steve Huffman, Kyle Koehler, Nathan Manning, Kristina Daley Roegner, Marilyn Slaby, and Ryan Smith.

The Democrat members of the committee are Representatives Teresa Fedor, ranking minority member; Janine Boyd, Bill Patmon, John Patterson, Debbie Phillips, Dan Ramos, and Kent Smith.

-House Finance and Appropriations Committee: The Finance and Appropriations Committee will meet in room 313. The Republican members of the committee are Representatives Ryan Smith, chair; Gary Schuring, vice chair; Marlene Anielski, Tony Burkley, Robert Cupp, Timothy Derickson, Michael Dovilla, Mike Duffey, Doug Green, Cheryl Grossman, David Hall, Stephanie Kunze, Ron Maag, Jeff McClain, Rick Perales, Willian Reineke, Mark Romanchuk, Gary Scherer, Barbara Sears, Robert Sprague, and Andrew Thompson.

The Democrat members of the committee are Representatives Denise Driehaus, ranking minority member; Nickie Antonio, Kevin Boyce, Jack Cera, Kathlene Clyde, Michael O’Brien, John Patterson, Debbie Phillips, Dan Ramos, Alicia Reece, and Emilia Strong Sykes.

-House Finance Committee Subcommittee - Primary and Secondary Education
The Republican members are Representatives Robert Cupp, chair; Timothy Derickson, and Stephanie Kunze.
The Democrat members of the committee are Representatives Debbie Phillips, ranking minority member; and John Patterson.

-House Finance Committee Subcommittee - Higher Education
The Republican members are Representatives Kevin Duffey, chair; Marlene Anielski, and Rick Perales.
The Democrat members of the committee are Representatives Dan Ramos, ranking minority member; and Kevin Boyce.

Senate Committees

Senate Education Committee: The Republican members of the Senate Education Committee are Senators Peggy Lehner, chair; Cliff Hite, vice chair; Troy Balderson, Bill Coley, Randy Gardner, Kris Jordan, Gayle L. Manning, Bob Peterson, and Chris Widener.
The Democrat members of the committee are Senators Tom Sawyer, ranking member; Cecil Thomas, Sandra Williams, and Kenny Yuko.

Senate Finance Committee: The Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee are Senators Scott Oelslager, chair; Bill Coley, vice chair; Bill Beagle, Dave Burke, Randy Gardner, Jim Hughes, Frank La Rose, Tom Patton, and Bob Peterson.
The Democrat members of the Senate Finance Committee are Senators Michael Skindell, ranking member; Lou Gentile, Tom Sawyer, and Charleta Tavares.

Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee Education: The Republican members of the committee are Senators Cliff Hite, chair; Troy Balderson, Bill Beagle, Bill Coley, and Peggy Lehner.
The Democrat members of the committee are Senators Tom Sawyer, vice chair; Cecil Thomas, and Kenny Yuko.

Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee Higher Education: The Republican members of the committee are Senators Randy Gardner, chair; Kevin Bacon, Jim Hughes, and Gayle L. Manning.
The Democrat members of the committee are Senators Capri Cafaro, vice chair; and Cecil Thomas.

2) National News

•State of the Union Address: President Barack Obama presented his sixth State of the Union (SOTU) address to a joint session of Congress on January 20, 2015. The speech included few details about initiatives, but focused on a broader message about expanding opportunities to support “middle-class economics”, which the President believes fueled the nation’s economic recovery from the recession. Details about the initiatives were included in several documents released by the White House prior to the SOTU and in presidential visits to several states over the past weeks.

According to the President’s address, the focus on middle-class economics means ensuring that families are secure in a world of constant change, and can afford childcare, college, health care, a home, and retirement.

The President stayed away from the current debate in Congress about reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and controversial education issues like testing and the common core standards. Instead he spoke about his plan for the federal government to pay for community college for responsible students; urged businesses to expand educational benefits and paid apprenticeships; urged support for tougher laws to protect the privacy of student data; proposed expanded internet access to communities and schools; and proposed increased support for preschool and the child-care tax credit.

The President also proposed lowering the taxes of working families, and a variety of changes in the tax code to pay for his new initiatives, including closing loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying taxes on accumulated wealth, and companies to hide profits overseas.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/17/fact-sheet-simpler-fairer-tax-code-responsibly-invests-middle-class-fami
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu for a transcript or video of the State of the Union.

•Congressional Committees Responsible for NEA: The 114th Congress convened on January 6, 2015, and with a new Congress and Republicans obtaining a majority in the U.S. Senate, some changes have been made to the leadership of the committees that oversees the National Endowment for the Arts and other arts and cultural institutions.

Senate Appropriations Committee
The Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee include Senators Thad Cochran (MS), Chairman; Mitch McConnell (KY), Richard Shelby (AL), Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Lindsey Graham (SC), Mark Kirk (IL), Roy Blunt (MO), Jerry Moran (KS), John Hoeven (ND), John Boozman (AR), Shelley Capito (WV), Bill Cassidy (LA), James Lankford (OK), and Steve Daines (MT).

The Democrat members include Senators Barbara Mikulski (MD), Ranking Member; Patrick Leahy (VT), Patty Murray (WA), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Dick Durbin (IL), Jack Reed, (RI), Jon Tester (MT), Tom Udall (NM), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Christopher Coons (DE), Brian Schatz (HI), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Christopher Murphy (CT).

Senate Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will serve as chair, and Tom Udall (D-NM) will serve as ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

House Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) is chair, and Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN) will become the ranking member on the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

See http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittee/interior-environment-and-related-agencies
See http://appropriations.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?IssueID=34778

3) Update on Federal Testing Bills:

•U.S. Senate Hearings on NCLB Focus on Testing and Accountability: Senator Lamar Alexander, chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP), opened the first education committee hearing of this session of Congress with a discussion about testing and accountability, two critical components of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

The Senator introduced on January 13, 2015 a draft entitled Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015 to reauthorize ESEA. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first approved under President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Its purpose then was to ensure educational opportunities for all students. It has been reauthorized several times, including in 2002 when it became known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The act was up for reauthorization in 2007, but the lack of a bipartisan agreement on the components of the act has delayed Congressional action on it these past years.

Six witnesses, including two teachers, were invited to testify at the HELP Committee meeting last week on Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015. The witnesses included Marty West, Associate Professor of Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Tom Boasberg, Superintendent of the Denver School District; Paul Leather, deputy commissioner of education in New Hampshire; Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the Leadership Conference Education Fund; Stephen Lazar, teacher at Harvest Collegiate High School, New York City; and Jia Lee, special education teacher at the Earth School in New York City.

The federal testing requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) have been a highly debated topic at the federal, state, and local levels for several years. Here in Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction Richard Ross released last week recommendations to decrease student testing by 20 percent, and some Ohio lawmakers, including Representative Andy Brenner, have indicated that they will again introduce legislation to limit testing in the 131st Ohio General Assembly. Parents are also opting their children out of standardized testing in many states, including Ohio.
(See http://unitedoptout.com/state-by-state-opt-out-2/ohio/)

According to written testimony presented to the HELP Committee, four of the witnesses recommended that lawmakers keep the current law about annual testing, which requires annual-testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school in reading and math, and testing science at grade level bands. The two teachers on the panel, Jia Lee and Stephen Lazar, supported eliminating “high stakes testing” in ESEA and giving educators more say in decisions about assessing students.

Lauren Camera reports for Education Week that following the hearing Senator Alexander said that he still doesn’t have a solution to the debate over testing and accountability. Senator Alexander offered two testing options in Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015: One option would allow states to maintain the current annual testing plan, but also would allow school districts, with state approval, to choose assessments. The other option would let states use any type of testing schedule, including annual tests, portfolio exams, grade-span tests, competency based assessments, and more

Education Week reports that Senator Alexander expects to complete the mark-up of the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015 by the end of February 2015. On January 27, 2015 there will be another hearing on ESEA about teachers and school leaders. Hearings have also been planned about other education bills, including the Strengthening Education Through Research Act and The Higher Education Act.

See “Full Committee Hearing - Fixing No Child Left Behind: Testing and Accountability”. This site includes witness testimony and a video of the hearing.
http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=1ad5f642-5056-a032-52f2-57297bf23f2b

See “No Resolution to Annual-Testing Debate After First NCLB Reauthorization Hearing, by Lauren Camera, Education Week, January 21, 2015 at
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/01/no_resolution_to_annual_testin.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

•U.S. House Education Committee Will Consider ESEA Reauthorization: Meanwhile, the House Education and Workforce Committee, chaired by Representative John Klein, reported that it will soon take-up action on the Student Success Act, which was also introduced in the 113th Congress to reauthorize ESEA. In a speech before the American Enterprise Institute on January 22, 2015, Representative Klein said that he is optimistic about reauthorizing ESEA this year. The Student Success Act would require states to continue annual testing in math and language arts in grades 3-8 and once in high school, but would remove the requirement that schools meet adequate yearly progress targets, and would allow states to make decisions about improving schools rather than complying with strategies prescribed by the federal government. The bill would also encourage the expansion of charter schools; allow Title 1 funds to follow students within the public education system; combine funding for several education programs; and give states more flexibility about spending. Like the Senate’s Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015, the Student Success Act would eliminate “maintenance of effort” and the requirements for a highly qualified teacher.

See “Klein speaks on education reform at the American Enterprise Institute”, January 22, 2015 at
http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398268

See “House will clear NCLB reauthorization by March, Ed. Leader Says”, by Lauren Camera, Education Week, January 22, 2015 at
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/01/house_on_track_to_clear_nclb_r.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

•Testing and Accountability Bills Introduced in Congress: U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici D-Oregon and Senator Tammy Bladwin, D-Wisconsin, introduced on January 21, 2015 the Support Making Assessments Reliable and Timely (SMART) Act. The bill would allow states to use federal funds to audit their assessment systems through the state assessment grant program, which provides some funding for each state and totals about $380 million a year.

•More on Testing in Ohio: An editorial in The Akron Beacon Journal comments about the recent report from State Superintendent Richard Ross about testing in Ohio’s schools. The report is entitled Ohio Testing Report and Recommendations, January 2015 and is available at http://education.ohio.gov/Media/Media-Releases/Department-of-Education-Recommends-Reduction-in-Te#.VMVwl8ZSWgt.

The editorial notes that some of the recommendations in the report to reduce testing are reasonable, such as eliminating the fall administration of the exam to assess third-grade reading.

But the editorial also asks, what is the basis for Superintendent Ross recommending a 20 percent reduction in testing, and questions the recommendation about scaling back the student learning objective tests used to evaluate some teachers, including those in the arts. Switching to “shared attribution” to evaluate some teachers, the editorial states, “represents a sharp departure from what the state supposedly is trying to do with the tests: Evaluate individual teachers on how well they perform in the classroom.”

The editorial goes on to say, “Plain from the outset is how tricky it can be to assess a teacher’s work based on such test scores. So much is beyond the control of the teacher, from poverty to the quality of the previous learning. If student learning objectives tests are flawed, it hardly seems better to rely on an evaluation that lumps all teachers together.”

What educators really need, the editorial concludes, is some stability. “Districts and teachers would like nothing so much as the state taking care in devising a plan and holding to it. As things stand, changes in the protocol are a persistent and frustrating occurrence.”

See “When Testing Gets in the Way of Learning”, Editorial, Akron Beacon Journal, January 20, 2015 at http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/when-testing-gets-in-the-way-of-learning-1.560031

3) Hard Times for Local Governments in Ohio: Governor John Kasich will introduce in the Ohio House his budget recommendations for FY16-17 in early February 2015. As policy makers begin to focus on state spending and resources to support government for the next two years, Policy Matters Ohio released on January 7, 2015 a timely report about the impact of state tax policies and budget cuts on local governments, including cities, townships, villages, counties, and public services, such as children’s services, transportation authorities, boards of developmental disabilities, and libraries.

The report, entitled “Hard Times at City Halls: Ohio Communities Struggle with Damaged Tax Base and State Cuts” by Wendy Patton and Zach Schiller, notes that many communities in Ohio have not yet recovered from the recession. Local governments employ 41,000 fewer people than in 2007; almost a third of local governments have reserves below recommended levels; state funding for local governments decreased by $418 million between FY 2010 and FY2015; and many local governments have increased local taxes to compensate for state spending cuts and lower tax bases.

A fact sheet from the Office of Budget and Management shows that revenues for local governments and schools between 2011-2015 rose by 1.7 percent after being adjusted for inflation. State support decreased in that time from $14.6 billion in FY 2011 to $12.9 billion in FY2013, and then increased to $14.19 billion in 2015. Local governments saw increases in revenue from new casinos, local sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, but lost over $400 million from the estate tax, which was repealed in January 2013.

According to the report, state policies and budget cuts are responsible for the financial crisis facing local governments in Ohio today.
-Local Government Fund: The state established the Local Government fund in the 1930s and generally supported the fund through the biennial budget. But state funding has decreased by $270 million, dropping from $694 million in 2011 to $370 million in 2015.
-Estate Tax: The Estate Tax was repealed in January 2013. The tax generally raised $231 million a year. Revenue from the new casino tax is expected to replace it.
-Property Value: Property values in Ohio are not expected to return to 2008 levels until 2017. Property values dropped from $241 billion in 2008 to an estimated $232 billion in 2015.
-Property taxes and effective tax rates have increased since 2008 as a result of increases in tax rates rather than in property values.
-Local Income Taxes: Municipal income tax collections between 2007-2013 increased from $4.1 billion to $4.6 billion as a result of rate increases, as the tax base remained flat.
-Sales Tax: The sales tax is the smallest source of revenue for local governments. Counties and transit authorities can levy a sales tax, but schools, townships, and municipalities cannot. Revenue from local sales taxes dropped between 2008 and 2009 during the recession, but recovered in 2010, and has increased to $2.295 billion.
-Municipal Income Taxes: 130-HB5 Municipal Income Tax Reforms changes municipal income tax provisions starting January 1, 2016, which might reduce revenue for municipalities annually.

The report concludes by saying, “Local public services support our quality of life, protect family wealth and underpin opportunity. We all deserve sound, dependable services and stable public finance. Ohio’s communities need more support from the state and a period of stability - without cuts or threats - to recover, rehire and rebuild.”

See “Hard Times at City Halls: Ohio Communities Struggle with Damaged Tax Base and State Cuts” by Wendy Patton and Zach Schiller, Policy Matters Ohio, January 7, 2015 at
http://www.policymattersohio.org/hard-times-jan2015

FYI ARTS

•AIR Recommends that the Wolf Trap AEMDD Project Be Expanded: American Institutes for Research (AIR) released on January 19, 2015 a report about how integrating the arts in prek and kindergarten classroom instruction can increase student achievement in math, especially among students who are shy, those who are learning English, and those who had never before attended school. The report is based on a four-year evaluation conducted by AIR of a program developed by the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, Institute for Early Learning Through the Arts, and supported by a 2010 U.S. Department of Education, Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination grant (AEMDD grant).

The purpose of the Wolf Trap’s AEMDD project was to “....develop, implement, and disseminate a research-based program of professional development that equips teachers to infuse mathematics instruction with performing arts strategies in their prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms.” The Wolf Trap’s AEMDD project team developed a professional development program that included annual summer institutes and in-classroom coaching during the school year. Teachers and teaching artists in the disciplines of dance, music, and drama developed standards-based performing arts and mathematics experiences, and implemented them during the school year using a research-based strategy called “the artist residency model”.

AIR examined the implementation of the Wolf Trap AEMDD program, its impact on teacher use of performing arts strategies, and student knowledge of math concepts through a randomized controlled trial in 22 elementary schools in a Virginia school district. The AIR evaluation includes the following observations:

-Impact on Teacher Practice: Arts integration was observed in 32.3 percent of the lessons taught by teachers in the study compared with just 17.9 percent for control teachers.

-Impact on Student Achievement: “The program had a statistically significant positive impact on students’ mathematics achievement in both the first and the second years of implementation. Students participating in Wolf Trap’s Early Childhood STEM Learning Through the Arts (Early STEM/Arts) demonstrated better math achievement compared to control groups.”

The evaluation also determined that the use of music, movement, and dramatizing concepts was beneficial for all students, but in particular for students who were shy, who had never attended school before, or who were speaking another language; teachers found it easier to teach abstract math concepts through the arts; and the Wolf Trap program increased the attention given to student participation, teacher feedback, and improved classroom structure.

AIR recommends that, “The positive impacts of the Wolf Trap AEMDD program on students found in this study as well as a prior study (Klayman, 2006) provide research-based support for the replication of the Wolf Trap professional development model on a larger scale.”

AIR also makes the following recommendations for further study:

-The Wolf Trap affiliate programs should conduct validation studies of a rubric that measures the practice of arts integration. Once the rubric has been validated, it could be used to inform the “....design of the professional development program for teachers and teaching artists based on a standard of arts-integration classroom practice.”

-This research study focused on measuring the academic knowledge students learned through mathematics instruction integrated with performing arts strategies and activities, and not students’ knowledge and skills in the arts disciplines. The Wolf Trap project teams should also develop ways to assess what children are learning in the arts.

-The Wolf Trap project team should explore ways to improve the outcomes of the summer institutes for teachers, since the artist residencies were more likely to affect teacher practice than the summer institutes.

See “Evaluation of Professional Development in the Use of Arts-Integrated Activities With Mathematics Content: Findings From the Evaluation of the Wolf Trap
Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant: Final Grant Report” by Meredith Ludwig, Ed.D. and Mengli Song, Ph.D., Submitted to Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, January 2015 at
http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Wolf%20Trap%20Report%20Arts%20Integration_Jan15.pdf