provision

Final budget analysis

July 09, 2013 in Article

Our Friends at OEA have put togerher a great analysis of all the education related elements contained in the budget that the Governor signed.

House Bill 59 (State Budget) As Signed by the Governor – June 30, 2013 The final budget does not contain numerous provisions proposed by the Governor and/or passed by the House that would have had a negative impact on education:

Salary Schedules: No provision eliminating the statutory minimum teacher salary schedule and single salary schedule.
Five Day School Week: No provision eliminating the five-day school week.
Operating Standards Review: No provision requiring the State Board of Education to review and revise school operating standards by the end of the year. These operating standards include issues of great importance, such as requirements on class size, professional development and planning time.
School District Takeover: No provision on the School District Takeover Amendment (Am. 1622) that would have authorized the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to hand control of a local school district over to an appointed commission if the Auditor of State determined that the district knowingly manipulated student data with evidence of intent to deceive.
Parent Trigger: No provision expanding the untested pilot Parent Trigger statewide to schools that have been ranked in the lowest 5% of all public schools by their performance index score for three or more consecutive years.

K-12 School Funding

Establishes a per-pupil base of $5,745 in FY 2014 and $5,800 in FY 2015. The current level is $5,732.
Sets the gain cap on growth at 6.25% in FY 2014 and 10.5% in FY 2015.
o 342 districts are subject to the gain cap in FY 2014 and 242 districts in FY 2015
o The gain cap underfunds the school funding foundation formula by approximately $1.3 billion over the biennium.
Fails to restore over $515 million of the $1.8 billion in state reductions in direct support to schools from last budget cycle.
Places 191 school districts on the guarantee in FY 2014 and 177 districts in FY 2015
Fails to create an ongoing legislative process to determine the components of a high quality education, costing these provisions out and making recommendations to the legislature for changes to the funding formula.
Provides funding for various subgroups of students: 1) students with disabilities; 2) economically disadvantaged students; 3) limited English proficient students; and 4) gifted students.
Specifies that if a school or district fails to show “satisfactory achievement and progress” as determined by the state board of education (not later than 12/31/14) for any subgroup of students, the school or district shall submit an improvement plan to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).
Permits ODE to require that such a plan include an agreement to partner with another school, district or education provider that has demonstrated the ability to improve the education outcome for that subgroup of students.
Shifts money away from the K-3 literacy component and increases the funding for the Economic Disadvantaged Funding component to provide resources for students living in poverty.
Requires that schools use funding that is received for economically disadvantaged students for any of the following: 1) extended school day and school year; 2) reading improvement and intervention; 3) instructional technology or blended learning; 4) professional development in reading instruction for teachers of students in Kindergarten through third grade; 5) dropout prevention; 6) school safety and security measures; 7) academic interventions for students in any of grades 6 through 12; and 8) community learning centers that address barriers to learning.
Includes transportation and career technical funding in the formula.
Restores current law regarding Average Daily Membership (ADM) counts for the 2013-2014 school year (October only). Beginning July 1, 2014, requires that school districts report rather than certify the enrollment (rather than ADM) of students receiving services as of the last day of October, March and June of each year.
Restores current law regarding the Payment in Lieu of Transportation for students a district deems that it can’t transport and changes the minimum amount to $250.
Clarifies that only districts offering all-day Kindergarten for the first time, and those districts already charging tuition for all-day Kindergarten, may charge tuition.
Funds the six special education weights at 90% and applies the state share index instead of a dollar amount as proposed in the Executive Budget proposal.
Changes the funding methodology for the catastrophic special education cost fund from self-funded by school districts to an outside the formula amount that provides $40 million in each year.
Provides gifted identification funding at $5.00 in FY 2014 and $5.05 in FY 2015 per Average Daily Membership (ADM). Also funds gifted unit funding at a cost of $37,000 in FY 2014 and $37,370 in FY 2015.

Teacher Evaluation and Value Added

Restores current law requiring the student growth factor to comprise 50% of teacher evaluations. The Senate change that set the student growth factor at 35% of teacher evaluations, with a local option to increase the growth factor up to an additional 15%, was not retained.
Maintains the current framework regarding the portion of the 50% student growth factor comprised of value-added data (VA).
o The current framework sets the value-added (VA) component of the student growth factor in proportion to the part of a teacher’s schedule of courses/subjects that are VA applicable (grades 4-8, math and reading). If a teacher’s schedule is comprised only of courses/subjects for which VA is applicable, the following applies: Beginning March 22, 2013 until June 30, 2014, the majority of the student growth factor shall be based on VA; on or after July 1, 2014, 100% of the 50% student growth factor shall be based on VA.
Changes the number of student absences allowed before a student is no longer included in the student growth calculation used on a teacher’s evaluation from 60 or more unexcused absences to 45 or more excused or unexcused absences.
Changes the teacher and principal evaluation rating currently labeled “Proficient” to “Skilled.” Therefore, the four levels of evaluation ratings are as follows, from highest to lowest: Accomplished, Skilled, Developing, Ineffective.

Voucher Programs The bill contains a provision to create a statewide expansion of vouchers for students based solely on household income. Additionally, the bill expands eligibility for the existing Ed Choice program for schools based on progress on the K-3 literacy component of the report card.

Income-Based Voucher

Provides vouchers to students entering Kindergarten in the 2013-2014 school year and Kindergarten and first grade the following year. This proposal would expand vouchers statewide, even in the highest-performing school districts.
Bases eligibility solely on household income. The income threshold would be set at 200% of the federal poverty rate ($46,100 for a family of four).
Funds the program directly out of lottery funds, rather than the “pass-through” funding of other existing voucher programs. The appropriation in the budget is estimated to provide for 2,000 vouchers in the first year and 4,000 in the second year.
States that once a student receives a voucher, they have priority for a renewal each year until they graduate from high school. However, a student’s voucher amount will be reduced if household income rises above 200% of the poverty level in subsequent years. If household income exceeds 400% of the poverty level, the student will no longer qualify for renewal.

Ed Choice Eligibility

Expands eligibility for the Ed Choice voucher based on a school’s progress in improving literacy in grades K-3. Beginning in the 2016-2017 school year, students would be eligible if they are assigned to schools that receive a “D” or “F” on this component of the report card for two out of three years.
Specifies that out-of-state students and home-schooled children who would be assigned to a qualifying school are eligible to receive a voucher.

Other Voucher Provisions

Requires private schools to administer achievement tests to all students if at least 65% of the school’s total enrollment is participating in state voucher programs. There is a parental opt-out provision for non-voucher students at the school.
Requires the Ohio Department of Education to conduct an evaluation of the Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program by December 31, 2015.

Days to Hours

Changes Ohio’s standards for a minimum school year in the 2014-2015 school year to be based on hours rather than a minimum number of days and hours. The hour requirements would be 910 hours for all-day Kindergarten-6th grade and 1,001 hours for grades 7-12 (same as current law). The changes to the minimum school year would not apply to any collective bargaining agreement executed prior to July 1, 2014 but would require that any collective bargaining agreement or renewal executed after that date comply with those provisions.
Retains current law defining a school week as 5 days.
Eliminates the 5 statutory calamity days and allows school districts to count the time over the minimum hour requirements toward time missed due to calamity.
Requires school district boards to hold a public hearing on the school calendar 30 days prior to adopting the school calendar.
Prohibits a school district from reducing the total number of hours of instruction from the previous years, unless the reduction is approved by the district board.
Permits chartered non-public schools to have school on the weekends.
Exempts school districts from transporting students to and from chartered non-public and community schools on Saturday and Sunday, unless an agreement to do so has been made prior to July 1, 2014.

Early Childhood Education

Provides $78.6 million over the biennium to fund early childhood education programs for children at least three years old but not yet eligible for Kindergarten with household income below 200% of the federal poverty level.
Funds programs at school districts, joint vocational school districts, educational service centers, community schools, chartered non-public schools and childcare providers who are highly-rated in the state’s quality rating and improvement system (Step Up to Quality).
Requires the Early Childhood Advisory Council to issue recommendations regarding an early childhood voucher program by October 1, 2013, but specifies that decisions regarding the implementation of such a program must be made by the Governor’s Office of 21st Century Education.

Charter Schools

Appropriates approximately $57 million more to charter schools than they received in the 2011-2012 school year. It is estimated that low-performing charter schools will receive, on average, an additional $479 per pupil, while charters rated “Excellent” or higher will receive an average bump of $83.
Removes a provision in current law that requires any classroom teacher initially hired by a community school after July 1, 2013, to provide physical education instruction, to hold a valid license from the State Board of Education for teaching physical education.
Removes a funding guarantee for charter schools rated “excellent” for three consecutive years.
Permits the Ohio Department of Education to require the sponsor of a charter school found not to be compliant with applicable laws and administrative rules to remedy the reasons why it is non-compliant and to place temporary limits on the breadth and scope of the sponsor’s authority, including suspension of its authority to sponsor new schools, until the sponsor remedies its noncompliance, in lieu of revoking a sponsor’s authority to sponsor.
Specifies that a charter school contract that has been suspended is void if the school’s governing authority fails to provide a proposal to remedy issues for which the school’s contract was suspended by September 30.
Requires the State Board of Education to review the performance levels and benchmarks for report cards issued for dropout-recovery charter schools by December 31, 2014.
Changes the closure trigger for charter schools that offer any grades 4-8, but no grades higher than grade 9 by requiring that, in addition to being in academic emergency for 2 of the 3 most recent school years, the school must also have shown less than one standard year of academic growth in either reading or mathematics, as determined by ODE.
Specifically authorizes charter schools, including e-schools, to provide career-technical education in the same manner as school districts.
Allows a new charter school, beginning in the 2014-2015 school year, to accept responsibility for providing or arranging for the transportation of students who are residents of the district before it is open for its first year of operation.
Limits the percentage by which an e-school may increase its enrollment beginning with the 2014-2015 school year: an e-school that has 3,000 or more students may increase their enrollment by 15%; an e-school with an enrollment limit of less than 3,000 students may increase their enrollment by 25%. The bill also limits first-year enrollment at a new e-school that opens after September 28, 2013 to 1,000 students.

Straight A Fund

Creates a new program, appropriating $250 million over the biennium, to provide one-time grants to education entities for projects that meet at least one of the following goals: 1) increase student achievement; 2) reduce spending in the five-year fiscal forecast; or 3) utilize a greater share of resources in the classroom to “increase their operational efficiency.” The Straight A Fund would be allocated to fund projects (not on-going programs) aimed at reducing costs. This program is funded through lottery profits.
Creates a nine-member governing board to award the grants. Board members must have fiscal and education expertise but does not explicitly require a teacher to be selected.
Establishes an 11-member advisory committee to review the program annually and provide strategic advice to the governing board.
Caps award amount at $5 million for a single entity and $15 million for a consortium, while allowing the State Controlling Board to approve higher amounts.
Earmarks $10 million over the biennium to provide low-wealth, low-density school districts with funds for improving the efficiency of pupil transportation. Specifies that the funds must be distributed based on each district's qualifying ridership.
Earmarks $6 million of the Straight A Fund for the Cleveland Municipal School District for implementation of HB 525, the “Cleveland Plan,” passed during the last general assembly.

Post-Secondary Enrollment Options

Requires the Chancellor of the Board of Regents to report recommendations to establish the College Credit-Plus Program by December 31, 2013.
Considers students qualified to participate based on the college’s placement standards for credit-bearing, college level courses, rather than the college’s admission standards.
Requires the Ohio Department of Education to annually compile a list of all institutions of higher education that currently participate in Post-Secondary Enrollment Options or in other dual enrollment programs, and to send that list to school districts. Further requires school districts to provide this list to interested parents and students.
Allows the Ohio Department of Education to accept late application for participation in the 2013-2014 school year from home-schooled students who wish to participate during that time frame.
Specifies that a school district, community school or STEM school may not charge an enrolled student an additional fee or tuition for participation in a dual enrollment program.

Other Education Policy

Requires that human trafficking content be included in a school's in-service staff training program for school safety and violence prevention.
Permits a STEM school to contract for any services necessary for the operation of the school and specifies that the governing body of each STEM school must “engage the services of” instead of “employ and fix the compensation” of administrative officers, teachers and nonteaching employees. (Please Note: OEA is exploring the impact of this provision.)
Exempts students enrolled in Internet or computer-based schools from the physical education requirement for high school graduation.
Revises the composition of a Joint Vocational School District (JVSD) board by requiring that each school district or Education Service Center (ESC) in the JVSD each appoint one member representing a regional employer who is qualified to consider workforce needs with an understanding of the skills, training and education needed for current and future employment.
Permits students enrolled in chartered or non-chartered non-public schools and students receiving home instruction to participate in an extracurricular activity at the school of the student's resident school district to which the student would otherwise be assigned.
Authorizes a school district board of education to require students enrolled in chartered or non-chartered, non-public schools, students attending a STEM school and students receiving home instruction who are participating in an extracurricular activity in that district to enroll and participate in not more than one academic course at the school district as a condition of participating in the activity.
Requires the district board, if it chooses to implement the course requirement described above, to admit students seeking to enroll in an academic course to fulfill that requirement as space allows after first enrolling students assigned to that school.
Subject to a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), exempts a child with a disability from all of the following: 1) the physical education requirement for graduation from high school; 2) the physical activity pilot project; and 3) school body mass index screenings.
Allows for chiropractors to assess and clear concussed athletes.

Taxation

Limits the application of the 12.5% property tax rollback by specifying that the rollback may not be applied to reduce the taxes due on new or replacement levies that become effective in or after tax year 2014. Property tax levies effective in tax year 2013 and renewals of these levies remain subject to the rollback. As a result of this elimination, property owners will be responsible for paying their entire tax bill. This provision impacts all local entities, including school districts and County Boards of Developmental Disabilities.
Changes the eligibility requirements for the Homestead Exemption for elderly or disabled owners who apply for the exemption for the first time in tax year 2014, or tax year 2015 if a manufactured home, to only those owners who have a total income of less than $30,000. Individuals who currently receive the exemption (prior to 2014) will continue to receive it under this plan.
Phases in a 10% income tax reduction for all brackets over three years by reducing current rates by 8.5% for taxable year 2013, 9% for taxable year 2014, and 10% for taxable years beginning in 2015 and thereafter. The top 1 percent ($335,000 and over) on average would get tax cuts of more than $6,000 a year, and the bottom fifth of Ohioans ($18,000 and below) pay $12 more a year.
Provides a 50% small business income tax deduction on net income up to $250,000.
Increases the state sales tax rate from 5.5% to 5.75% beginning January 1, 2014.
Subjects the sale or use of electronically transferred digital audio, audiovisual or digital books to sales and use tax. This provision does not subject cable service of video programming to this taxation as a form of a “digital good.”
Eliminates the sales and use tax exemption for sales of magazine subscriptions beginning January 1, 2014.

SB316 analysis

June 15, 2012 in Article

The education portion of the mid biennium review (MBR), SB316, has now been completed. Below is the synopsis document produced by Ohio's legislative services commission (LSC).

Some of the highlights and lowlights:

Third-grade reading guarantee – retention

Requires the State Board of Education to determine the "cut" score, progressively adjusting it upwards until the retention requirements apply to students who do not receive at least a "proficient" score. Prohibits the State Board from designating a level lower than "limited." Not later than December 31, 2013, requires the State Board to submit to the General Assembly recommended changes to the scoring ranges of the state achievement assessments necessary for the successful implementation of the common core curriculum and assessments in the 2014-2015 school year.

It's a huge unfunded mandated (only a paltry $13 million was attached to this effort), with only a few exceptions for students carved out. We suspect this provision will be revisited in the very near future once legislators start hearing from angry parents.

Also included int he law is a section that, not later than February 28, 2013, the State Board of Education and the Early Childhood Advisory Council jointly to develop legislative recommendations on the state's policies on literacy education of children from birth to third grade. From birth!

District and building academic performance ratings

This didn't make the bill. The legislature received a lot of push back from a broad range of interests that didn't like the idea of downgraded schools in short order, right before tougher common core standards were also to be introduced.

Performance indicators for dropout prevention and recovery programs

These are some of the worse charter schools in the country, not just the state. They have avoided accountability for poor performance for a long time. Initially SB316 contained provisions to hold them accountable, however those provisions were also stripped and replaced with provisions requiring the adoption of performance indicators for dropout prevention and recovery programs operated by school districts and community schools with provisions for a separate rating system specifically for community schools that operate dropout prevention and recovery programs, to be used beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. No rush there, then.

Reports of district and school spending

This provision initially passed in the original budget has been delayed 12 months.

Teacher evaluations

This section of SB316 fixed a lot of the ridiculous provisions contained in HB153. You now have to actually be in a classroom at least 50% of the time to be covered, test scores of students who are absent more than 60 days (!) won't be counted, nor those defined as habitually truant. the new law makes quite a few structural changes and some nuanced changes. We urge educators to take a little time to read this entire section (page 19, thru 21)

Teacher retesting

Remember the provision that would have required all teachers in the bottom 10% of schools to retake the PRAXIS test? That's gone, replaced with a different retesting provision. It now applies, beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, to teachers employed by school districts when the teacher has been rated "ineffective" on evaluations for two of the three most recent years. (Retains the law applying the requirement to teachers employed by community schools and STEM schools when the teacher's building is ranked by performance index score in the lowest 10% of all public schools.) The law also adds that if a teacher employed by a school district passes the required exams, the teacher, at the teacher's own expense, must complete professional development targeted at the deficiencies identified in the teacher's evaluations. The district may terminate the teacher if the teacher (a) does not complete the professional development or (b) receives an "ineffective" rating on the teacher's next evaluation after the professional development.

Nonrenewal of teacher and administrator contracts

Extends the deadlines for a school district or educational service center (ESC) to notify a teacher that the person's contract will not be renewed for the following school year, from April 30 to June 1.

Charter schools

There is a host of provisions affecting charter schools starting on page 38 that we are still digesting.

SB316 bill analysis

Analysis of Education MBR bill SB316

April 03, 2012 in Article

As part of the Governor's Mid Biennium Review (MBR) he has proposed a number of education policies. SB316 is the vehicle that these policies are being carried in. Note that there is no school funding plan introduced, nor is the "Cleveland plan" part of this bill.

the Ohio Legislative Services Commission has just published their analysis of the bill (i.e. they turned it into humanly readable language), and we've posted it below for you to review.

There are a number of items that should interest educators and public education advocates.

Third Grade Reading Guarantee

The governor proposed to hold back those students who cannot meet 3rd grade reading proficiency levels, though he fails to supply any funds with which to meet this new, and costly mandate.

New District and school rating system

We've discussed the proposed new rating system at length here, and here.

Reports of district and school spending

The poorly conceived plan to implement a ranking system for schools based on spending has been delayed 1 year, and also undergoing some technical changes.

Teacher evaluations

This modifies a number of provisions introduced in the budget bill (HB153), it narrows the number of teachers to only those who spend more than 50% of their time in the classroom, it makes changes to who can perform evaluations, including added the ability to hire outside contractors to perform the task. The law will prevail over collective bargaining agreements with regard to district evaluation policies. A provision for teachers who are employed by the state is also added (think department of corrections, etc)

Teacher testing

The provision in the budget for forcing teachers to be retested if they teach in a school rated in the bottom 10% has undergone major changes. Changes to teacher retesting do not eliminate the requirement, but will delay implementation for at lease another three years as it is now dependent on results of the new teacher evaluation system. Under this model it is applied to individual teacher performance instead of school/district performance. Meanwhile, teachers in charter schools are still linked to the school being in the bottom 10% of rankings. Instead of taking the tests required for licensure, the state department is tasked with identifying an appropriate content test for educators to pass. Still no empirical evidence to support this law as a method to improve instruction.

The full analysis can be read below, and we encourage you to do so.

SB316

Final Budget Analysis

July 01, 2011 in Article

Below is an analysis, provided by OEA, of the education provisions contained within the budget bill (HB153) as signed by the Governor on June 30th, 2011.

K-12 School Funding

The following chart is based on “ALL FUNDS” dollars, not just state foundation aid:

Category	Current FY 2011	FY 2012	% from FY 2011	FY 2013	% from FY 2012	Total 2 Yr. Change
K-12 Education	$11.5 bill	$10.3 bill	(11.5%)	$9.8 bill	(4.9%)	($2.9 bill)
Higher Education	$2.57 bill	$2.3 bill	(10.5%)	$2.4 bill	3.7%	($440 mill)
DD Board Subsidies	$67 mill	$41 mill	(38.7%)	$44 mill	8.7%	($49 mill)

Decrease overall education funding by approximately $2.9 billion over FY12-13 from FY 11 amounts ($1.2 billion cut in FY 12 and $1.7 billion cut in FY 13). $200 billion of K-12 education funding was added by the House and Senate during the legislative process.
“All funds” reductions are result of, in part, cuts to Tangible Personal Property tax “hold harmless” payments, elimination of state fiscal stabilization funds, reduction in federal stimulus funding for IDEA, reduction in the Kilowatt Hour tax reimbursement and other education line item cuts.
Repeals Evidence-Based Model for school funding and eliminates the School Funding Advisory Council.
Restores gifted funding to 2009 appropriation levels.
Allocates funding to each joint vocational school district (JVSD) in FY 2012 and FY 2013 equal to the JVSD's total state funding allocation for the previous fiscal year. Funding for JVSDs totals approximately $263 million in each fiscal year.
Specifies that the amount of state funding allocated in each fiscal year for special education and related services and for career-technical education for each district be equal to the amounts allocated for those purposes in FY 2011.
Diverts more funding from local school districts by expanding charter schools and vouchers.

Budget Includes Language on Teacher Evaluations, Compensation and Layoffs

The teacher evaluation and compensation provisions agreed to in conference committee require the following:

State Board of Education to Develop Teacher Evaluation Framework:

The State Board is required to develop a standards-based framework for the evaluation of teachers by December 31, 2011. The framework would be required to

(1) Provide for multiple evaluation factors, including student academic growth as 50% of each evaluation,

(2) Be aligned with the Educator Standards Board's standards for teachers,

(3) Require classroom walkthroughs and observation of the teacher on at least two occasions for 30 minutes each,

(4) Require the teacher to be provided with a written report of the evaluation results,

(5) Develop a list of assessments to measure student academic growth for grade levels and subjects for which value-added data is not available,

(6) Implement a classroom-level, value-added program, and

(7) Provide for professional development and the allocation of financial resources to support it. Further, the State Board would be required to develop standards and criteria for teacher and principal evaluations that distinguish between four levels of performance: "accomplished," "proficient," "developing," and "ineffective."

School District Adoption of Evaluation Framework:

All school districts and Educational Service Centers (ESC) are required to adopt a teacher evaluation policy that conforms with the State Board framework by July 1, 2013. However, the bill specifies that the policy takes effect at the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement in effect on the provision's effective date (90 days after the filing HB 153 with Secretary of State) and shall be included in any renewal or extension of such an agreement. Local associations can still bargain provisions related to evaluations and implementation not specified in the State Board framework.

Each teacher is required to be evaluated annually, except that an employer may elect to evaluate all teachers who were rated as "accomplished" on their most recent evaluations every two years. The bill requires student academic growth to be measured by value-added data derived from the state achievement assessments when applicable and by other assessments selected from the State Board's list when not applicable. Further, the bill requires each employer's policy to include procedures for using evaluation results for retention and promotion decisions and for removal of poorly performing teachers.

Teacher Compensation:

Districts receiving Race to the Top funds: Requires school districts, community schools, and STEM schools receiving Race to the Top funds (1) to pay teachers according to a performance-based schedule based on a teacher's level of license, whether the teacher is "highly qualified" under federal law, and evaluation ratings (50% student growth), and (2) to provide for annual adjustments based on evaluations. The bill permits payment of additional compensation to teachers who agree to perform duties that the employer determines warrant additional compensation. RTTT districts shall comply with this section in accordance with the timeline contained in the board’s scope of work. PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION ON RTTT DISTRICTS.

Districts NOT receiving Race to the Top funds: Requires school districts not receiving Race to the Top funds and ESCs to comply either with the bill’s requirements for a performance-based salary schedule or with current law. (Current law requires a district's or ESC's salary schedule for teachers to be based on years of service and educational training, and to comply with minimum salary requirements.)

Teacher Layoffs and Seniority:

The bill prohibits giving preference based on seniority in determining the order of layoffs or in rehiring teachers when positions become available again, except when choosing between teachers with comparable evaluations. This provision prevails over any conflicting provisions of agreements between employee organizations and public employers entered into on or after the effective date. Current law is retained that gives preference in retention to teachers with continuing contracts (tenure).

Many Negative Teacher Employment Provisions Kept Out of the Budget

The final budget did not contain numerous provisions proposed by the Governor and/or passed by the House that would have a negative impact on the employment status of teachers:

Continuing Contract (Tenure): No provision prohibiting awarding a continuing contract (tenure) to a teacher who was initially licensed after January 1, 2011.
Teacher Assignment: No provision prohibiting a school district superintendent from assigning a teacher to a school without the mutual consent of the teacher and the school teacher, if the teacher received a rating of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.”
Termination: No provision prohibiting an employee from both appealing the board’s termination decision to the common pleas court and invoking the grievance procedure in a CBA.
Termination: No provision allowing a school district or ESC to terminate a teacher without “good and just cause” in first year of employment.
Termination: No provision requiring school districts or ESCs to lay off teachers based on “quality of performance.”
Compensation: No provision providing for teacher bonuses based on student test scores.
Retirement: No provision requiring 12%/12% employer/employee pension contribution split.

Charter Schools

The budget does not include language expanding for-profit charter school entities and stronger school closure provisions were put in place:

Automatic closure of charter schools strengthened: Beginning July 1, 2011, revises the performance criteria that trigger automatic closure of a charter school by requiring schools that do not offer a grade higher than 3, and schools that offer any of grades 10 to 12, to close after being in academic emergency for two of the three most recent school years (rather than three of the four most recent school years, as in current law).
No expansion of for-profit charters or new types of charter schools: The budget does not include language passed by the House that would have permitted a charter school to be established as a for-profit corporation or limited liability corporation; does not include language permitting a start-up charter school in a non-“challenged” school district if the school has 75% enrollment of students with disabilities or identified as gifted.
Eliminates e-school moratorium but requires standards: Eliminates the e-school moratorium after January 1, 2013, but requires e-schools to comply with standards enacted by the General Assembly (if enacted) or (2) the International Association for K-12 Online Learning’s standards.
Drop-out prevention school accountability: Requires the State Board, by July 1, 2012, to review its March 2008 legislative recommendations for performance standards for charter schools that operate dropout prevention and recovery programs and to issue new recommendations.
Collective bargaining at Cleveland conversion charter schools: Prohibits the employees of a conversion charter school from collectively bargaining if the Mayor of Cleveland submits a statement to the district board and the State Employment Relations Board requesting that the employees be removed from their collective bargaining units. The House passed language prohibiting collective bargaining at all charter schools was not included in the final version of the bill.
Location of start-up charter schools - “challenged district”: Adds to the definition of “challenged school districts” where start up charter schools may be located, any district that is in the lowest 5% of all school districts.
No exemption from state laws: No provision specifying that charter schools cannot be required to comply with any law or rule that is not specified in Chapter 3314 (charter school law) of the Revised Code or in its contract or that does not otherwise apply to chartered nonpublic schools.

Voucher Expansion

Raises cap on the number of EdChoice vouchers from 14,000 to 60,000 over the next two years and expands eligibility to students from schools in the lowest 10% based on performance index scores.
Creates a new voucher program for special education students. The number of vouchers is capped at 5% of students statewide with an IEP (approximately 13,000 students). Voucher amounts can be up to $20,000.
Increases the eligibility and the voucher amount for the Cleveland voucher program.

Employee Benefits

Requires the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to study the feasibility of providing health care plans to school district employees through mandatory or voluntary pooling. Specifies that no action can be taken without enactment by the General Assembly.
Eliminates the School Employees Health Care Board and transfers its duties to DAS. Requires school employee health plans to comply with best practice standards adopted by the Board or DAS.
Retains current law on pension contribution rates. Proposed 2% shift from employer to employee contributions is not a part of the bill.
Exempts substitutes, seasonal and intermittent employees from requirement of 15 days of sick leave.

Privatization of School District Transportation Services

Permits non-Civil Service school districts (local, exempted and some city) to terminate transportation employees for reasons of economy and efficiency and contract with an independent agent if various conditions are satisfied, including that any CBA covering employees to be terminated has expired or will expire within 60 days. The independent agent is required to consider hiring terminated employees for similar positions. In addition, the independent agent is required to recognize any employee organization, for the purposes of collective bargaining, that represented employees at the time of termination.

Education Policy

Requires teachers in core subjects at schools that rank in the lowest 10% based on performance index to retake licensure tests in their subject. Teachers shall not be responsible for the cost of the test and if the teacher passes the exam they do not have to retake for three years.
Creates a pilot project in the Columbus City Schools for a parent-initiated takeover of a school that has been ranked in the lowest 5% of statewide performance index scores for three or more consecutive years.
Allows any school, with support of administration teachers and staff assigned to the school, to be deemed an innovation school and waive requirements under law or a collective bargaining agreement.
Emphasizes distance learning through a clearinghouse of interactive courses for students.
Removes requirements that academic standards specify the development of 21^st Century skills and removes senior project from graduation requirements.
Allows a principal or other employee to serve as a district’s gifted education coordinator.
Specifies that the achievement assessments administered in grades 3-8 in the 2011-12 school year and later are not public records.
Authorizes districts to make up a maximum of three calamity days through lessons posted online or distributed to students. Requires the written consent of the teacher’s union.
Prohibits rules regarding career-technical teaching licensure from requiring the completion of a degree.
Requires the individualized education program (IEP) developed for disabled students to specify the manner in which the student will participate in the state achievement assessments.
Removes the senior project from the high school graduation requirements as a component of the college and work ready assessments.

State Council of Professional Educators (SCOPE)

The following chart is based on “ALL FUNDS” dollars, not just General Revenue Fund dollars, for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013:

Category	Current FY 2011	FY 2012	% from FY 2011	FY 2013	% from FY 2012	Total Change
DRC	$1.75 bill	$1.58 bill	(9.9%)	$1.57 bill	(.7%)	($350 mill)
DYS	$287.1 mill	$242.3 mill	(15.6%)	$251.9 mill	4%	($80 mill)
School For Blind	$10.1 mill	$12.4 mill	22.1%	$12.4 mill	0%	$2.3 mill
School For Deaf	$12 mill	$11.9 mill	(1.2%)	$11.9 mill	0%	($100 k)
State Library Board	$22 mill	$21.6 mill	(2.1%)	$21.6 mill	0%	($400 k)

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

Decrease overall funding from $1.75 billion in FY 11 to $1.58 billion in FY 12 and $1.57 billion in FY 13.
General revenue funding decreased from $1.58 million in FY 11 to $1.49 million in FY 12 and $1.48 million in FY 13
The Institution Education Services line-item (primary subsidy for education programs) is decreased from $23.18 million in FY 11 to $20.2 million in FY 12, and $18 million in FY 13
Education Services line-item (subsidy for education programs) decreased from $2.83 million in FY 11 to $2.37 million in FY 12 and $2.35 million in FY 13
Selling prisons by competitive bid to private operators: Lake Erie Correctional Institution (currently privately operated); North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (currently privately operated); Grafton Correctional Institution; North Central Correctional Institution (Marion). State law requires privately operated prisons to realize five % savings. Provides state right of first refusal to repurchase facilities; requires operators to pay all taxes.
Removes sentencing reform and earned credit expansion language in order to be hard as separate legislation. SCOPE supports separate legislation containing these proposals.
No provision providing that employees of community-based correctional facilities and district community-based correctional facilities can collectively bargain only if the public employer elects to do so.
Sentencing reform and earned credit removed from budget to be heard as separate legislation.

Department of Youth Services

Decrease overall funding for FY 12 by 15.6% to $242.3 million, increase of 4% to $251.9 million in FY 13
GRF decreased in FY 12 by 13.1% to $218.7 million, increased by 4.6% to $228.7 mill in in FY 13
Education Reimbursement line-item (funding for high school coursework and special education) reduced from $11 million in FY 11 to approx. $8.1 million in FY 12 and $8.1 million in FY 13.
Education line-item (subsidy for education programs at DYS facilities) reduced from $5.4 million in FY 11 to $1.7 million in FY 12 and $1.5 million in FY 13.
Vocational Education line-item reduced from $2.7 million in FY 11 to $762,000 in FY 12 and $758,000 in FY 13.
Selling prisons by competitive bid to private operators: Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility (currently closed) and Ohio River Valley Juvenile Correction Facility. Provides state right of first refusal to repurchase facilities; requires operators to pay all taxes.

Ohio School for the Blind

Ohio School for the Blind receives no increase in general revenue dollars for both fiscal years ($7.3 million). In overall funds, there is a $2.2 million increase (22%) in FY 12 to $12.4 million and no change in FY 13.
Personal Services line-item (subsidy for programs and staff) is flat funded from FY 11 levels at $6.5 million.

Ohio School for the Deaf

Ohio School for the Deaf receives no increase in general revenue dollars for both FY 12 & 13 ($8.7 million). In total funds, there is slight decrease (1.2%) in FY 12 to $11.9 million and no change in FY 13.
Personal Services line-item (subsidy for programs and staff) is increased 12.2% in FY 12 to $4.1 million and flat funded in FY 13 at $4.1 million.

State Library Board

Decrease overall funding by 2.1% to $21.6 million in both FY 12 and FY 13.
General revenue funding is decreased by 6.9% to $5.8 million in both FY 12 and FY 13.

A Radical Assault on Public Education

June 28, 2011 in Article

A state budget that will become infamous for its assault on public education passed out of conference committee last night, 4-2, along party lines. The bill will now move to the Senate and then the House for a final vote, before being signed by the most anti-education Governor in the history of Ohio.

Students up and down the state will begin to feel the effects of the almost $3 billion in cuts to public education over the next 2 years. Communities will see local tax increases as they try to replace the hundreds of millions of dollars raided from their local budgets due to the elimination of TPP replacement money.

Further erosion of public education will occur as the General Assembly sought to reward its largest donor by allowing massive charter school expansion in the state, and having ODE act as the sponsor - a task they spectacularly failed at doing just over a decade ago.

Finally, the General Assemby sought to override the will of the voters and insert SB5 like language in the bill, curtailing collective bargaining rights and installing ill-conceived teacher evaluations based on student test scores.

Under changes yesterday, every district by the start of the 2013-14 school year must adopt a new teacher-evaluation system that conforms to a framework the state Department of Education is to develop this year. That framework will require that 50 percent of an evaluation must be tied to student academic performance, a provision that follows a key element of the federal Race to the Top program. More than half of Ohio districts are participating in that program, sharing in about $400 million in funding.

However, only schools participating in the Race to the Top program would be required to pay teachers according to a performance-based system, based on the evaluation ratings, level of license and whether the teacher is "highly qualified" under federal law.

For schools not in Race to the Top, merit pay would be optional. They could continue to pay teachers based on experience and educational training.

The budget bill also would prohibit all districts from using seniority as the preference when determining the order of layoffs.

Sen. Michael Skindell, D-Lakewood, a member of the committee, objected to the evaluation provision, arguing that it did not get sufficient debate and was too similar to merit-pay language that was part of Senate Bill 5, which weakens collective-bargaining power for public workers and is likely to be challenged on the November ballot.

We will now have a bifurcated education system in Ohio, where teachers will be treated differently depending upon whether their school was a RttT participant or not. We will also have to wait and see if this radical legislation puts Ohio's RttT grant money at risk.

The effects of this budget will be felt by Ohioans for a very long time, as the very fabric of our public education system has been picked apart.

SB5 vs The Budget

April 29, 2011 in Article

The Ohio House has just released their Substitute House Bill 153. It's contains many of the provisions found in SB5, and in some cases, provisions that are even worse. Here are some of the items that now appear in the budget bill.

Teacher Pay

Budget:

Replaces the Executive provision with a provision that requires school districts, community schools, STEM schools, ESCs, and county DD boards, beginning in the 2013-2014 school year, to pay teachers according to a performance-based schedule,

Replaces the Executive provision with a provision that requires the schedule be based on a teacher's level of license, whether the teacher is "highly qualified" under federal law, and evaluation ratings.

Requires the schedule provide for annual adjustments based on evaluations.

SB5:

The bill eliminates the salary schedules and steps in place for teachers and nonteaching employees and instead requires teachers to receive performance based pay.

The bill requires a board to measure a teacher’s performance by considering all of the following:

(1) The level of license (a resident educator license, professional educator license, senior professional educator license, or lead professional educator license) that the teacher holds;

(2) Whether the teacher is a ʺhighly qualified teacherʺ as defined in continuing law;

(3) The value‐added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacherʹs classroom;

(4) The results of the teacherʹs performance evaluations or any peer review program created by an agreement entered into by a board of education and representatives of teachers employed by that board;

Budget:

Permits payment of additional compensation to teachers who agree to perform duties that the employer determines warrant additional compensation.

SB5:

Teacher pay can be decided by any other criteria established by the board.

Both Budget and SB5:

Specifies that provisions on teacher pay prevail over collective bargaining agreements entered into on or after the provisions' (immediate) effective date.

Continuing Contracts for Teachers (Tenure)

Budget:

Prohibits awarding a continuing contract (tenure) to a teacher who was initially licensed after January 1, 2011.Limits an employment contract with a classroom teacher entered into by a school district, community school, STEM school, or ESC on or after the provision's (90-day) effective date to a maximum of three years, and specifies that any subsequent contracts must be for terms of two to five years.

SB5:

The bill abolishes continuing contracts for teachers, except for those continuing contracts entered into prior to the effective date of the bill. The bill instead requires classroom teachers to receive limited contracts.

A limited contract for a classroom teacher has a term of five years if the contract was entered into prior to the effective date of the bill.

The term of an initial contract cannot exceed three years if the contract is entered into on or after the effective date of the bill and for subsequent contracts the term is not less than two years or more than five years.

Teacher Evaluation

Budget:

Repeals the requirement for the State Board, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Board of Regents, to establish guidelines for the evaluation of teachers and principals for optional use by school districts, and instead requires the state Superintendent, by December 31, 2011, to develop a framework for the evaluation of teachers.

Requires the Superintendent (1) to develop standards and criteria for teacher and principal evaluations that distinguish between four levels of performance: "highly effective," "effective," "needs improvement," and "unsatisfactory" and (2) to designate a standard of student academic growth that must be met to achieve each of the ratings.

Specifies that the framework require each evaluation to consider: (1) quality of instructional practice, (2) communication and professionalism, and (3) parent and student satisfaction.

Directs each school district, community school, STEM school, and ESC, by July 1, 2012, to adopt a teacher evaluation policy that utilizes the framework and that specifies the relative weight of each factor in (1) to (3) above and how each of those factors will be assessed.

Requires the policy be approved by the Superintendent.

Requires at least 50% of each teacher evaluation be based on student academic growth for students assigned to the teacher during the three most recent school years, except that if less than three years of data is available, permits the portion of the evaluation based on student performance to be reduced to 40%.

Requires student academic growth to be measured by value-added data derived from the state achievement assessments when applicable and by other assessments selected by the employer when not applicable

Requires the employer's teacher evaluation system to (1) use multiple measures of teacher's skills and students' progress, (2) be aligned with the Educator Standards Board's standards for teachers, (3) provide statements of expectation for professional performance, (4) require observation of the teacher on at least two occasions for at least 30 minutes each time, (5) assign ratings in accordance with the state Superintendent's standards and criteria, and (6) require the teacher to be given a written report of the evaluation results, including specific recommendations for improvements

Requires employers to evaluate each teacher annually.

Requires employers to use teacher evaluations to inform decisions about compensation, nonrenewal, termination, reductions in force, and professional development.

Specifies that if a teacher receives a rating of "unsatisfactory" for two consecutive years or two of three consecutive years, a rating of "needs improvement" for three consecutive years, or a combination of ratings of "needs improvement" and "unsatisfactory" for three consecutive years, the teacher loses a continuing contract if the teacher has one.

Requires employers to submit aggregate teacher and principal evaluation results to ODE. Grants civil immunity to the board of education (or other governing body), its members, and evaluators for conducting evaluations in accordance with the adopted policy

SB5:

The evaluation on which a teacherʹs pay must be based is a new evaluation under the bill. No later than April 30, 2012, the Superintendent of Public Instruction must develop and submit recommendations for a framework for teacher evaluations to the State Board of Education.

The recommended framework must require all of the following:(1) At least 50% of each evaluation must be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the Department of Education.

When applicable to a teacher, those measures must include student performance on the assessments prescribed under continuing law and the value‐added progress dimension prescribed under continuing law.(2) Each evaluation must consider the following additional factors, but the recommendations cannot designate the weight of any factor or prescribe a specific method of assessing any factor:(a) Quality of instructional practice, which can be determined by announced and unannounced classroom observations and examinations of samples of work, such as lesson plans or assessments designed by the teacher;(b) Communication and professionalism, including how well the teacher interacts with students, parents, other school employees, and members of the community;(c) Parent and student satisfaction, which may be measured by surveys, questionnaires, or other forms of soliciting feedback.

Also, no later than April 30, 2012, the Superintendent must develop and submit to the State Board recommendations for a framework for the evaluation of principals. The framework must require at least 50% of each evaluation to be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the Department. When applicable to the grade levels served by a principalʹs building, those measures must include student performance on specified assessments and value‐added progress dimension. The framework for the evaluation of principals must be based on principles comparable to the framework for the evaluation of teachers but must be tailored to the duties and responsibilities of principals and the environment in which principals work.

Reduction In Force

These are less identical than the other provisions but have considerable overlap and pertain to the same sections of ORC.

Budget:

Includes a provision that requires school districts, community schools, STEM schools, and ESCs to lay off teachers in order of their evaluation ratings, starting with teachers who receive "unsatisfactory" ratings first.

Includes a provision that prohibits giving preference in retention based on seniority.

Specifies that these provisions prevail over conflicting provisions of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the provision's effective date.

Eliminates the requirement that, in rehiring tenured teachers when positions become available, the order of rehiring be based on seniority

SB5:

With regard to teaching and non-teaching employees, the bill removes the authority of school districts and school district financial planning and supervision commissions to give preference to those employees who have greater seniority.

Teachers and non-teachers with continuing contracts receive preference under continuing law.

The bill states that after giving preference to continuing contracts, the board of a city, exempted village, local, or joint vocational school district is required to consider the relative quality of performance the principal factor in determining the order of reductions.

With respect to teachers, the board is required to measure the quality of performance by considering the level of license that the teacher holds, whether the teacher is considered a ʺhighly qualified teacher,ʺ the value‐added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacher’s classroom, the results of the teacher’s performance evaluation, and any other criteria established by the board.

Teachers and non-teaching employees whose continuing contracts are suspended by a city, exempted village, local, or joint vocational school district, however, have the right under continuing law to be brought back in the order of seniority.

Forbids school district decisions on reduction in force to be inhibited by a collective bargaining agreement.