From: Ann Brennan

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

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

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

1)  Ohio News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents:  To be named later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) This Week at the Statehouse

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

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

testimony from the following:

- Agudath Israel of America

- Catholic Conference of Ohio

- Ohio Association of Independent Schools - School Choice Ohio

- Buckeye Christian School Association

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

- Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools

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

- Breakthrough Schools

- Buckeye Charter School Boards

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

- Ohio Association for Gifted Children

- Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities 

- Ohio Association for Career and Technical Education

- Ohio Association of Career-Technical Superintendents

- Ohio STEM Learning Network

- Ohio ESC Association

- Ohio Education Computer Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability

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

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

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

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

Finance:  Counting Students

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

Finance:  Facilities

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

Finance:  Reporting

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

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

Governance

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

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

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

-Create incentives for high-performing sponsors.

•Testimony from the Ohio 8:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Thomas Tucker, Superintendent of Worthington School District

•Tom Hosler, Superintendent of Perrysburg Schools

•Jenni Logan, Treasurer of the Lakota Local School 

•Linda N. Reid, Superintendent South Euclid Lyndhurst Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•School districts are relying more on local tax revenue:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•The new way to count students causes instability:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See March 5, 2015 testimony at

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See March 5, 2015 testimony at

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

9)  Bills Introduced

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

HB99 (Curtin) Income Tax-School Funding:  To require that an amount equal to state income tax collections, less amounts contributed to the Ohio political party fund via the income tax checkoff, be distributed for the support of elementary, secondary, vocational, and special education programs.

FYI ARTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

-- Ohio School Psychologists Association (OSPA) Listserv

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

Post Message: ospa@listserv.kent.edu

Help: listserv@ospaonline.org

 

From: Ann Brennan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Declares an emergency.

From: Ann Brennan 

FYI: Important update, note hearings have begun in the House Finance Education Subcommittee, and hearings continue on SB 3/ HB 74 these bills, plus the education budget bill all have several, but different provisions that would impact on future state and local assessments. OSPA will keep you apprised of these bills as they continue through the legislative process. Be sure to keep up to date through the listserv and OSPA web site. The following update provided by OAAE contains important information related to these bills.

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

1) Ohio News

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

•Update on Five of Eight Rule: The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) met on February 26, 2015 to consider Rules 3301-35-01 through 10 Operating Standards for Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade.

One of the rules, 3301-35-05 Faculty and Staff Focus, was pulled from consideration, because of a concern raised by JCARR members, and will be re-filed. This rule includes (A)(3) Educational Service Personnel, also known as the “five of eight rule”. Educational service personnel in current rule mean school nurse, counselor, librarian, school social worker, visiting teacher, and elementary art, music, and physical education teachers. The definition of educational service personnel is broadened considerably in proposed Rule 3301-35-01 (B)(11) Definitions, but this rule was not pulled to be re-filed.

The proposed new rule eliminates the current requirement that school districts employ five out of eight educational service personnel per 1000 students and makes other changes in this section. The amended rule 3301-35-05 states: “(A)(3) The local board of education shall be responsible for the scope and type of educational services in the district. The district shall employ educational service personnel to enhance the learning opportunities of all students. Educational service personnel assigned to elementary fine arts, music and physical education shall hold the special teaching certificate or multi-age license in the subject to which they are assigned.”

The ODE intends to re-file the rule in March. The next JCARR meeting is set for Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:30 PM. The State Board could take a final vote on the new operating standards in April 2015.

•Hold Harmless Bill Reported: The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, reported HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determination on February 25, 2015. The bill 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. The bill was amended to clarify some definitions; ensure that schools would not lose funding if a student does not take an assessment; and changes “score” to “score report.” The bill could be considered by the full Senate this week.

•Charter School Reform: The Editorial Board of the Cleveland Plain Dealer urged lawmakers to find a better way to fund charter schools in a February 20, 2015 editorial. According to the article, Governor Kasich’s budget proposal, HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, “...would continue the cannibalization of Ohio’s public schools” by adding over a billion dollars into the “coffers” of the “private interests behind for-profit charters and the lobbyists who represent them.”

The editorial acknowledges the proposed charter school reforms in HB64, but recommends even more, such as requiring charter schools to pay for their own transportation. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) recently issued a directive requiring the Akron school district to transport charter school students, who live more than a half mile away from school. Students in public schools must live more than two miles away from school to be eligible for transportation. The ODE directive will cost Akron at least $1 million for students who don’t even attend its schools.

The editorial concludes: “The state must stop a school-funding approach that, to benefit deficient charter schools, is hollowing out the ability of public schools to function.”

See “Ohio must stop increasing taxpayer subsidies for ill-regulated charters at expense of Ohio’s public schools,” by Editorial Board, Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 20, 2015.

•State of the State Address: Governor John Kasich presented the “State of the State” Address in Wilmington, Ohio on February 24, 2015. The 78 minute address highlighted the economic recovery of the state, but also stressed that the state must “...act decisively now to seize the greater opportunities that await all of us. We are better today than we were, and we are rising.”

The governor advocated in the speech for proposed initiatives included in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, urging reluctant members of his own party to support his “integrated package” of tax cuts and increases to spur job creation and innovative businesses. The governor also advocated for restraining the growth of government and lowing college and university costs through the higher education task force. He also noted his administration’s initiatives to help individuals with disabilities get job training and help people get off of public assistance.

In his remarks about primary and secondary education, the governor asked for support for his plan to distribute state funding to schools in the “fairest” way possible through a new formula that considers the capacity of a district to raise revenue locally. He told the audience that he is not thrilled about everything in the new formula, but hoped that if lawmakers change it, they keep the basic principle to distribute “....resources as best as we can to be in a position where kids can all have an equal chance.”

Regarding charter schools, the governor said that the state of Ohio needs charter schools, but hasn’t provided enough guidance or oversight. There needs to be a crack-down on sponsors, but if charter schools have inherited a group of struggling students, they should get the help they need.

See http://www.governor.ohio.gov/Portals/0/2015%20Kasich%20SOTS%20Transcript.pdf

•Update on the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission (OCMC): The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission released on February 23, 2015 its quarterly newsletter.

The OCMC was created by the 129th Ohio General Assembly and is charged under R.C. 103.61 with: “studying the Constitution of Ohio; promoting an exchange of experiences and suggestions respecting desired changes in the Constitution; considering the problems pertaining to the amendment of the Constitution; and making recommendations from time to time to the general assembly for the amendment of the Constitution.”

According to the newsletter, OCMC welcomed in February three new legislative members: Representatives Robert R. Cupp, Nathan H. Manning, and Emilia Sykes. The new members replace Representatives William G. Batchelder, Matt Huffman, and Vernon Sykes, who completed their terms in the General Assembly at the end of 2014.

The newsletter also provided a recap about some of the proposed amendments to the Ohio Constitution that the OCMC is considering.

According to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and Conduct, to make a recommendation to amend the constitution the Commission must do the following:
-A committee must receive two readings of any proposed action to amend, repeal, or take no action on a constitutional provision.
-A committee must adopt any action by a majority of the committee.
-The full Commission must adopt an action by a vote of at least 22 out of the 32 members of the Commission.

The Judicial Branch and Administration of Justice Committee agreed in November 2014 to recommend the repeal of Article I Section 19 regarding courts of conciliation and Article I, Section 22 regarding Supreme Court commissions.

In December 2014 the Bill of Rights and Voting Committee received reports about three recommendations regarding the Ohio Bill of Rights in Article I: Section 2 the Right to Alter, Reform or Abolish Government; Article I, Section 3, the Right to Assemble; and Article I, Section 4 the Bearing Arms; Standing Armies; Military Power. The reports recommend no changes in these sections.

See http://www.ocmc.ohio.gov/ocmc/uploads/Uploaded%20Files/OCMC%20Quarterly%20-%20February%202015.pdf

2) This Week at the Statehouse

•The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on March 4, 2015 at 8:00 AM in hearing room 116. The committee will receive testimony from State Auditor Dave Yost and testimony on HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter Schools Sponsorship.

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet on March 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM in hearing room 116. The committee will receive invited testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, from the following organizations: StudentsFirst Ohio, KnowledgeWorks, College Board, and ACT.

•The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet on March 5, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 116. The committee will receive invited testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, from the following organizations: the Education Tax Policy Institute, the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, the Ohio School Boards Association, the Ohio Association of School Business Officials, the Ohio Alliance for High Quality Education, the Ohio Education Association, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio 8, the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, and the Ohio PTA.

3) National News

•Update on the Student Success Act: The U.S. House was expected to vote on H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, on Friday, February 27, 2015, but the House recessed without taking a vote. The bill would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Tweets from Republican Representative Justin Amash from Michigan during the House session implied that there were not enough Republican votes to pass the bill, but the House was also grappling with the debate over extending funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Some conservative Republicans oppose the bill, because they believe that it doesn’t go far enough to curb federal involvement in primary and secondary education, and it doesn’t include a voucher provision that they wanted to add to the bill.

Education Week reported last week that President Obama threatened to veto the Student Success Act if it reached his desk . The administration opposed a similar measure in 2013. According to the article, the administration opposes provisions that relax the requirements to close achievement gaps among groups of students and reform persistently low-performing schools; eliminate maintenance of effort; and allow Title 1 funding for disadvantaged students to follow students who transfer to another school. The administration also wants the bill to include a provision that would identify and remedy inequities in access to the resources and supports that students need to succeed, such as challenging academic courses, excellent teachers and principals, and after school enrichment programs. The administration also believes that there is too much testing, but still supports testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school for math and English language arts. These provisions are still in the bill.

See “White House Issues Veto Threat Against House GOP NCLB Rewrite”, by
Alyson Klein, Education Week, February 25, 2015. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/02/white_house_issues_veto_threat_1.html

According to Politico it’s not clear when the House will consider a vote on H.R. 5. In the mean time, the U.S. Senate seems to be making progress on a bipartisan rewrite of NCLB led by Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and Democratic Senator Patty Murray. Politico reports that Senator Alexander hopes to send a bill to the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee by mid-March.

See “House Republicans put off No Child Left Behind vote” by Maggie Severns, Politico Pro, February 27, 2015 at http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/no-child-left-behind-vote-house-republicans-115594.html#ixzz3T5EFkQCS

4) Opt-Out Movement Growing: Politico reports that more parents are choosing to “opt out” their children from testing as states begin to administer standardized tests aligned to the common core state standards. The Portland Association of Teachers recently passed a resolution opposing the Smarter Balanced test and encouraging members to hold parent information sessions on how to opt children out of testing. In Louisiana, Colorado, and Long Island, N.Y. opt-out proponents are erecting bill boards explaining to parents how to opt-out their children from state tests.

The Education Commission of the States recently published a policy brief about state assessment opt-out laws and policies. According to the brief California and Utah have clear state laws that allow parents to opt their children out of testing; Arkansas and Texas prohibit opt-outs, and even require students to take the assessments; Pennsylvania and Oregon have parent opt-out policies to accommodate religious beliefs; in Minnesota and Michigan opt-out requests are granted by the department of education; many states exempt students from participating in state assessments in cases of a physical disability, medical reasons, or emergencies; and some states leave decisions about how to handle opt-out requests to the school district.

For some states the issue is not specifically addressed in law. States are often required in law to administer standardized assessments, but there is nothing in law that requires students to take the assessment, or to do their best on it.

Making the situation even more complicated are the consequences for students, teachers, and schools when students opt-out of testing. The consequences for students include retention, withholding a diploma, withholding course grades, etc. Teacher evaluations and school/district ratings could also be affected depending on how student participation in testing is factored into a state’s accountability system.

In Colorado, for example, the policy brief reports that the state board of education adopted a resolution that “...relieves districts of any penalty if fewer than 95 percent of students participate in testing because of opt-outs this spring.”

See “Assessment Opt-Out Policies: State responses to parent pushback” by Stephanie Aragon, Julie Rowland and Micah Ann Wixom, Education Commission of the States, at
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/17/68/11768.pdf

Opting-Out in Ohio: There were several articles in the newspapers last week about the growing number of Ohio students whose parents are opting them out of taking the new state assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortia (math and English language arts) and AIR (science and social studies).

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that parents are not the only ones questioning “over-testing”, which is driving the opt-out movement. Some school superintendents in the Greater Cincinnati area are speaking with parents and policy makers about state testing policies and raising concerns. According to the article, Adriene James, Superintendent of the Sycamore City Schools, sent State Superintendent Richard Ross a letter outlining the problems that she has encountered with the new assessments in her district of 5,244 students. She wrote that the public school system is being over-burdened with the number of state mandated tests and the “continued interference with what should be a local decision regarding diagnostic tests”.

Other superintendents who are recommending changes in state testing policies include Greg Power from Little Miami Schools and Gail Kist-Kline from Mason City Schools. The article also notes that the superintendents also believe that the new tests do not provide adequate data for teacher evaluations.

See “New school tests spur anger, absences”, by Michael D. Clark, Cincinnati Enquirer, February 26, 2015
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/02/25/new-school-tests-spur-anger-absences-common-core-parcc-ogt/24016539/

See “Opting Out of State Test Has Costs for Ohio Students,” by Charlie Boss, Columbus Dispatch, February 25, 2015 at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/24/state-testing-funding-losses.html

See “Some Parents Boycott PARCC State Testing” by Andy Chow, State Impact Ohio, February 20, 2015 at
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2015/02/20/some-parents-boycott-parcc-state-testing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+npr%2Fstateimpactoh+%28StateImpact+Ohio%29

See “As Common Core Testing Is Ushered In, Parents and Students Opt Out” by Elizabeth Harris, New York Times, March 1, 2014 at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/nyregion/as-common-core-testing-is-ushered-in-parents-and-students-opt-out.html?_r=0

5) Hearing on SB3 Continues: Representatives of the Alliance for High Quality Education, the Ohio 8, and the Ohio Association for Gifted Children testified on SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School Districts/Exemptions before the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, on February 25, 2015.

The Alliance for High Quality Education (Alliance) is a consortium of 64 high performing school districts. Its director is Anthony Podojil, who testified along with other representatives of Alliance school districts.

The Ohio 8 is an alliance composed of the superintendents and teacher union presidents from Ohio’s eight urban school districts: Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown. Co-chairs of the Ohio 8, Lori Ward and Julie Sellers, also testified on SB3. Julie Sellers is president of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers and Lori Ward is the superintendent of Dayton Public Schools.

The Ohio Association for Gifted Children (OAGC) has been working with families and educators to promote the best interests of gifted children since 1952, and is an affiliate organization of the National Association for Gifted Children. Ann Sheldon, who is the executive director, also provided testimony on SB3.

The witnesses touched-on the range of provisions included in the SB3, but most of the comments were about the limits placed on testing in the bill. The following is a summary of the testimony arranged by topic:

•Definition of High Performing Schools: Some witnesses testified in support of the criteria for high performing schools, but also asked for some changes, and noted that the timing and duration of a “high-performing” designation should be clarified in law.

Anthony Podojil from the Alliance asked the committee to use the broadest definition possible to determine which districts would qualify for high performing status.

Gail Kist-Kline, Superintendent of Mason City Schools, said that she supports the criteria for high performing districts, but suggested that national measures, like student performance on the ACT, SAT, and Advanced Placement exams are other important indicators.

Ann Sheldon recommended a more rigorous criteria that includes measures for value-added, value-added for sub-groups, 3rd grade reading proficiency scores, and college remediation-free rates. Based on the criteria in SB3, 125 districts would be considered high-performing, including 37 districts that have grades of “D” or “F” either for overall or a sub-group value-added measure, and 93 of these districts have ACT college-readiness rates of less than 50 percent.

•Relaxing Licensing Qualifications for Teachers: Anthony Podojil told the committee that the Alliance supports provisions in SB3 that relax teacher qualifications and licensing requirements.

On the other hand, Ann Sheldon told the committee that “...the gifted community is very concerned about the proposal to allow high-performing districts to allow any licensed teacher to teach any subject or grade level.” She asked the committee if elementary art teachers would be allowed to teach high-school Calculus? Recent decisions by superintendents to serve as gifted coordinators have led to inappropriate testing of students and inadequate gifted services. “To expand this practice in other areas without any parameters is deeply troubling.”

•Teacher Residency Mentoring Program: There was general support for relaxing requirements for the Residency Mentoring Program. Brian Poe, Superintendent of the Copley-Fairlawn City School District, said that requiring mentoring teachers in high performing districts to hold a professional educator license is “an unnecessary regulatory requirement”.

•Minimum and Maximum Class Size: The current required ratio of teachers to students is one full time equivalent teacher for each twenty-five students district-wide. The ratio of teachers to students in kindergarten through fourth grade on a school district-wide basis is at least one full-time equivalent classroom teacher per twenty-five students. This requirement is in Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3301-35-05 (A)(3), but is not in law.

Few witnesses testified about the provision in SB3 to relax this requirement. Brian Poe said that many school district contracts have class size parameters that have been negotiated between the school board and the union, but still thought it was a good idea to allow high performing school districts the flexibility to establish class size.

•Testing Limits: Most witnesses were dissatisfied with the proposed limits on testing in the bill, especially limits on diagnostic exams.

Gail Kist-Kline, Superintendent of Mason City Schools, warned the committee that monitoring and tracking the time spent on testing during the school year to comply with state law would create an additional burden on school districts. She suggested that the number of tests should be reduced, but that districts should have flexibility regarding diagnostic assessments. According to her testimony school personnel in her school district spent over 2,000 hours in preparation for state assessments this year.

Scot Prebles, Superintendent of Brecksville-Broadview Heights School District, asked the committee to let decisions regarding the type, frequency of administration, the interventions and accelerations chosen, be made “by those working at the local level directly with students and parents.” He went on to explain that school districts use multiple diagnostic assessments to monitor student progress, and said that, “One assessment does not provide a year’s worth of data to inform teaching...”

He concluded by saying, “Today’s excessive state-mandated assessments that require too much seat time, and incur too much stress (student, parents and educators) discourage the type of lifelong learning that we want to promote.”

Tom Hosler, Superintendent of Perrysburg Schools, explained that school districts use local assessments and diagnostics to get immediate feedback about student progress. He said that school districts should be able to report to the state their scores on local assessments, approved by the ODE, to meet accountability requirements, instead of administering separate state tests that measure the same standards.

Lori Ward and Julie Sellers, from the Ohio 8, wanted to know the research-based rationale behind the proposed time limits on testing in SB3. They suggested that the percentages are arbitrary and loosely tied to the average amount of testing currently administered across the state, because the length of the school year varies across districts. They recommended, on behalf of the Ohio 8, that the testing limits apply only to state-mandated tests, and that districts be allowed to exceed caps based on student needs. Any limits on local testing should be in the form of guidelines and not mandated by the state.

Ann Sheldon from the OAGC Ohio Association, told the committee that few districts are screening for the identification of gifted students, and placing limits on testing could “negatively affect the already inadequate identification of gifted students.” She asked the committee to amend SB3 “to exclude any assessments used to determine individual student learning needs, including the identification of gifted students, from any testing limitation.”

•Purpose of Testing: Some of the witnesses asked the committee to consider the purposes of testing.

Tom Holser of Perrysburg said that assessments should be used to measure student growth to improve learning and hold the district accountable.

Lori Ward and Julie Sellers recommended that a commission or task force be created to develop a statewide policy framework that defines the purpose of testing. They would like to see the state move away from high stakes testing, allow districts to monitor and measure student growth through local assessments, establish consistent testing requirements across the state, and consider the total testing burden.

•Backlash Against Testing: Ann Sheldon from OAGC explained that “...the backlash against excessive testing from both the educator and parent perspective is mostly aimed toward high-stakes state performance assessments – not assessments that give diagnostic information about individual students”.

Gail Kist-Kline from Mason City Schools told the committee that, “Our families are growing increasingly frustrated with state testing, and are expressing their grave concerns by refusing to allow their children to participate in PARCC and AIR. In spite of our efforts to communicate about the implications and consequences of refusing to have their child tested, parents are continuing to opt out. Families, communities, educators and legislators must work together to develop a system that balances the need for accountability with the need to alleviate the pressure on Ohio’s educational system.”

•Student Learning Objectives (SLOs): Julie Sellers, asked the committee to permit school districts to continue to use “student learning objectives” until an alternative policy is developed with input from educators, vetted by practitioners, and implemented over time. They believe that using SLOs should be a local decision.

The testimony is available at http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committee/education# under February 25, 2015.

6) More on HB74: The House Education Committee received sponsor testimony on HB74 Primary and Secondary Assessments from Representative Andy Brenner on February 25, 2015. The bill is based on HB228, which was introduced in the 130th General Assembly, and was approved by the House during the lame duck session last year. The Senate Education Committee did not take action on the bill, however, because Senator Lehner, chair of the committee, wanted to wait for a report on statewide assessments that was being prepared by Superintendent of Public Instruction Richard Ross. That report was submitted to the General Assembly in January 2015.

According to sponsor testimony, the bill makes the following revisions to the state’s assessment system for students and teachers:

General Changes:
•Reduces the administration time for state assessments
•Allows greater local control over decision making regarding assessments used to inform instruction
•Delays online testing and the requirement that the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) evaluate districts’ technology needs for test administration
•Prohibits any unenforceable limitations on local testing
•Requires ODE to identify assessments that can be used for multiple purposes allowing local schools to reduce testing time
•Provides more local control over teach evaluations
•Requires teacher and administrative input in the selection of state assessments
•Requires that the selection of new state assessments for the 2015-16 school year be based on ease of administration and overall quality, as well as performance benchmarks and cost.
•Requires ODE to study the impact of online administration of state assessments and report to the General Assembly and the governor no later than June 30, 2016

Changes that Affect K-8 Assessments:
•Eliminates the writing assessment in grades 1-3.
•Limits the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment to one hour.
•Permits districts to administer the KRA prior to the start of the school year but not prior to August 1, 2015.
•Repeals the requirement that the mathematics diagnostic assessment be administered in first and third grades, and retains only the second grade mathematics diagnostic examination.
•Requires ODE to identify at least two mathematics assessments that can be used for multiple purposes. It also requires ODE to identify at least two reading diagnostic examinations for the third grade that will allow students to meet performance benchmarks to enter fourth grade.
•Reinstates the September 30th deadline to complete the reading diagnostic tests of grades 1-3 as well as the November 1st deadline for kindergartners.
•Reduces by approximately 38 percent the time necessary to administer state assessments for third grade through eighth grades and limits test administration to no more than three hours per assessment per year.

Changes that Affect High School Assessments
•Reduces the number of examinations from the current requirement of seven, as established in House Bill 487 from the prior general assembly, to five end-of-course examinations.
•Limits test administration time for end of course examinations to three hours per exam.
•Adds requirements that ODE identify and benchmark equivalent scores on assessments that are equivalent to current examinations
•Sets proficient scores of Advanced Placement end of course exams as 2 and International Baccalaureate end of course exams as 3.
•Excuses students obtaining industry recognized credentials or state vocational licenses from additional career technical assessments

Changes that Affect Teacher Evaluations
•Allows school districts to determine student progress measures for non-core academic subjects in grades 4-12
•Permits districts to determine student progress measures for kindergarten, as well as allowing districts to determine student progress measures for grades 1-3 except in reading and mathematics
•Clarifies that if a memorandum of understanding is entered into with regard to the use of the value-added progress results from the 2014-15 school year, districts may use a student progress measure other than value-added as part of teacher evaluation
•Requires the State Board of Education to revise the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System in order to reduce the estimated time necessary to complete evaluations
•Sets a deadline of June 30, 2016 for review and revision of academic content standards

Information about the bill is available at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-documents?id=GA131-HB-74

7) Bills Introduced

•SB92 (Schiavoni) School Safety Funds: Requires the State Board of Education to establish criteria and procedures for the awarding of school safety funds to school districts and makes an appropriation.

•SB93 (Schiavoni) Bullying Prevention Funds: Requires the State Board of Education to establish criteria and procedures for the awarding of bullying prevention and education funds to school districts and makes an appropriation.

•SB94 (Bacon/Lehner) Medicaid School Program: Regarding the Medicaid School Program.

•HB89 (Devitis) Medicaid School Program: Regarding the Medicaid School Program.

•SB71 (Tavares) Trio Program Appropriation: Makes an appropriation for the provision of state matching funds for federal TRIO programs at Ohio institutions of higher education for FY16 and FY17.

•SB78 (Williams) GED Grant Program: Creates the GED Grant Program for undergraduate students who have earned high school equivalence diplomas and are enrolled in two-year state institutions of higher education and makes an appropriation.

•SB82 (Williams) GED Test Cost: With regard to the administration and cost of the tests of general educational development required to earn a high school equivalence diploma.

FYI ARTS

•Using Title I Funds to Support Arts Education: KPCC in Los Angeles, California reported last week that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) took action on February 19, 2015 to change its policy and allow principals to use Title I funds to support the arts as an integrated strategy to improve academic achievement.

Although the federal No Child Left Behind Act identified the arts as a core subject, few school districts use Title I funds for disadvantaged students to support arts education programs. According to the report, school districts are careful about how they use Title I funds, because of the federal oversight of the program, and most of the funds are used to support instruction in reading and math. San Diego Unified, Sacramento City Unified and Chula Vista Elementary School District are other California school districts that include the arts in their Title I-funded programs. California law requires schools to provide for the study of all the arts disciplines including dance, drama, music, and visual art in the 2014-15 school year, but only 70 out of 500 schools in Los Angeles have complied. The policy change for Title I funding could increase the availability of the arts for LAUSD students.

See “LAUSD decision ushers in new source of funding for arts education” by Mary Plummer, KPCC, February 20, 2015 at
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2015/02/20/17609/lausd-decision-ushers-in-new-source-of-funding-for/

A copy of the LAUSD memorandum clarifying the use of Title I funds to support arts education programs is included below:

INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
Los Angeles Unified School District
Division of Instruction

TO: Principals
DATE:
February 19, 2015
FROM: Dr. Ruth Perez, Deputy Superintendent Rory Pullens, Executive Director of the Arts Karen Ryback, Executive Director, Federal & State Education Programs
SUBJECT: SUPPORTING TITLE I SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAM (SWP) GOALS THROUGH ARTS INTEGRATION

Title I schools operating a Schoolwide Program (SWP) are encouraged to consider how arts integration might support one or more of their school’s goals as described in the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). A growing body of research demonstrates that integrating the arts with instruction in other academic subjects increases student learning and achievement.

A SWP is a comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the educational program in a Title I school. The primary purpose is to ensure that all students, particularly those who are low-achieving, demonstrate proficient and advanced levels of achievement on state academic achievement standards in English Language Arts, mathematics and science. SWP schools must conduct a comprehensive needs assessment, establish measurable goals, commit to scientifically-based research strategies that address the identified needs and annually evaluate the effectiveness of the SWP.

It is important to note that the California Education Code includes, as a required course of study in grades 1-12, the visual and performing arts, including instruction in the subjects of dance, music, theatre and visual arts, aimed at the development of aesthetic appreciation and the skills of creative expression. Thus, as part of the core program, schools must continue to provide a comprehensive arts program and may not use Title I funds to take the place of (or supplant) this state requirement. While Title I, Part A funds may not be used to fund programs whose primary objective is arts education (as per CDE letter dated January 12, 2012), SWP schools may utilize arts as an integration strategy to improve student academic achievement.
The following are a few examples of arts integration activities a SWP school might consider:
•Provide professional development to teachers on addressing student needs via differentiated instruction that includes arts integration (in this instance, the cost of a professional development contract and/or teacher ‘X’ time would be an appropriate Title I expenditure).
•Invite community members to demonstrate or share their talents with students as a prompt for a writing assignment.
•Have students create models that display mathematical data pertaining to each planet of the solar system: distance from the sun, length of day and night, length of year, and day and night surface temperatures.
•Ask students to create a small piece of dance/movement that models their understanding of geometric concepts.
•Encourage students to explore the science of sound by utilizing rubber bands, oatmeal containers, coffee cans, balloons, etc. to construct one or more of the four families of musical instruments: strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion.
•Have students write and perform a short skit to illustrate a literary character’s point of view.
•Provide a lesson on utilizing a software program to create an animated film that highlights key historical events that occurred during the Civil War (In this instance, the cost of the software program would be an appropriate Title I expenditure).

As SWP schools explore the various ways in which the arts can play an important role when integrated into the instruction program, it is important to remember the following guidelines for the use of Federal Title I funds:
•Be necessary to achieve an established goal in the school plan
•Be reasonable as to the cost; great consideration should be given to the fact that funding is limited and should be used in a manner designed to achieve the purposes of Title I
•Funded activities must be based on research and designed to directly address identified needs based on an analysis of data around student academic achievement and instructional practices
•Not be prohibited under State or Federal law or regulations
•Not supplant services that are required by State law.

Schools are encouraged to contact the following individuals for further information regarding arts integration and the Title I programs:

Rory Pullens, Executive Director of the Arts rory.pullens@lausd.net 213-241-7502
Karen Ryback, Executive Director, Federal & State Education Programs karen.ryback@lausd.net 213-241-6990 c:
Ramon Cortines, Michelle King, Gerardo Loera, ESC Superintendents

 

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