student

Final budget analysis

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

    The tax reforms contained in HB 59 will provide nearly a $2.7 billion tax cut over the next three years predominately for the benefit of higher income Ohioans. OEA advocated that this money should be spent restoring the devastating education reductions resulting from the last budget. Further, the elimination of the state property tax rollback for new levies and the replacement of existing levies will make it even more challenging for school districts to pass new or replacement levies. The provision will shift the burden of the rollback from the state to local homeowners and will exacerbate the problem of over-reliance on property taxes to support public education.
  • 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.

OEA Response to PD and NPR Teacher shaming

Here's the statement from the Ohio Education Association, which represents over 121,000 educators

Responding to a series of newspaper, web and radio stories on value-added scroes of individual Ohio teachers, Patricia Frost-Brooks, President of the Ohio Education Association criticized the fairness of the stories and the wisdom of using value-added scores as such a prominent index of teacher success:

"The Ohio Education Association was not contacted for comment on the Plain Dealer/StateImpact Ohio stories, despite our expertise, which would have provided desperately needed context and perspective. Reporters and editors admitted this value-added data was 'flawed,' but they chose surprise and impact over fairness, balance and accuracy," Frost-Brooks said.

"We are all accountable for student success – teachers, support professionals, parents, students and elected officials. And the Ohio Education Association is committed to fair teacher evaluation systems that include student performance, among other multiple measures. But listing teachers as effective or ineffective based on narrow tests not designed to be used for this purpose is a disservice to everyone.

"Value-added ratings can never paint a complete or objective picture of an individual teacher’s work or performance. Trained educators can use a student’s value-added data, along with other student data, to improve student instruction. But the stories promote a simplistic and inaccurate view of value-added as a valid basis for high-stakes decisions on schools, teachers and students."

Very questionable that reporters would not contact the largest teachers assoication in crafting their story.

Absurdity of Ohio VAM

The criticism of the Plain Dealer and NPRs Value-added series is beginning to pile up. Via Diane Ravitch's site

Fifty years ago Johns Hopkins sociologist James S. Coleman documented the most powerful factors affecting student achievement: the socio-economic background of children’s families and the concentration of poverty in particular communities.

Two years ago Duke economist Helen Ladd wrote: “Study after study has demonstrated that children from disadvantaged households perform less well in school on average than those from more advantaged households. This empirical relationship shows up in studies using observations at the levels of the individual student, the school, the district, the state, the country.”

A year and a half ago Stanford educational sociologist Sean Reardon documented that while in 1970, only 15 percent of families lived in neighborhoods classified as affluent or poor, by 2007, 31 percent of families lived in such neighborhoods. Reardon documents a simultaneous jump in an income-inequality achievement gap between very wealthy and very poor children, a gap that is 30-40 percent wider among children born in 2001 than those born in 1975.

Surely we can agree that poverty should not be an excuse. But blaming school teachers for gaps in scores on standardized tests, as the Plain Dealer does in “Grading the Teachers,” is not only cruel to the teachers singled out when scores are published—for example, Euclid’s Maria Plecnik, a previously highly rated teacher who will leave the profession this year— but foolish as public policy. Who will want to teach in our poorest communities with the system of Value-Added Measures that the Plain Dealer acknowledges, “do not account for the socioeconomic backgrounds of students as they do in some other states.”

Massachusetts Secretary of Education Paul Reville critiques the logic of those who would blame school teachers: “Some want to make the absurd argument that the reason low-income youngsters do poorly is that, mysteriously, all the incompetency in our education systems has coincidentally aggregated around low income students. In this view, all we need to do is scrub the system of incompetency and all will be well.”

Blaming teachers certainly gets the rest of us off the hook. If we can just fire teachers, we won’t have to fund schools equitably or adequately. We won’t have to address the impact of economic and racial segregation or the shocking 22 percent child poverty rate in America, the highest in the industrialized world.

Ms. Jan Resseger
Minister for Public Education and Witness
Justice and Witness Ministries
700 Prospect, Cleveland, Ohio 44115
216-736-3711

21 tough questions about school reform

Via the Washington Post, civil rights activist James Meredith, asks 21 tough questions about school reform

1.) Children’s Rights: Do you believe that every child in the United States has the right to an excellent public education delivered by the most qualified professional teachers; an education aggressively supported by the family and the community, and an education based on the best research and evidence?

2.) Parent Responsibilities: Would you support the idea of public schools strongly encouraging and helping parents to: be directly involved in their children’s education; support their children with healthy eating and daily physical activity; disconnect their children from TV and video games; and read books to and with them on a daily basis from birth through childhood?

3.) Educational Equity: Do you believe that America should strive to deliver educational equity of resources to all students of all backgrounds and income groups?

4.) Testing Reforms: Much of current education reform policy is built on the idea that the U.S. must catch up to nations that achieve high scores in the international PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) tests, like Finland, South Korea and Singapore. But since these nations rely on few if any of the reform strategies being promoted in the United States, like cyber-charters, frequent high-stakes standardized tests linked to teacher evaluation, teacher bonus pay, vouchers, and hiring teachers with no experience and no advanced degrees in education – - why would the U.S. implement these strategies without first field-testing them thoroughly?

5.) Teacher Qualifications: If a critical factor in the success of the highest-performing education nations like Finland, South Korea and Singapore, and of high-performing American private and parochial schools, is a highly professionalized, highly experienced and highly respected teacher force, why is the United States pursuing policies to de-professionalize the public school teacher force, including sending recent college graduates into our highest-needs, highest-poverty schools with five weeks of training, no education degree and no experience? What is the hard evidence that such policies improve student outcomes, versus teachers with at least 2 to 5 years of experience and advanced degrees in education?

6.) Evidence for Classroom Products: What rigorous, independent evidence supports the use of computer products to deliver academic benefit to K-8 students as support to, or replacements for, flesh-and-blood teachers? Specifically, what computer products have such evidence of improving student outcomes, when fully tested versus classrooms without such products, and versus classrooms without such products but with more experienced teachers?

7.) Taxpayer Spending on Products: Would you support requiring computer software and hardware companies to fund rigorous independent research to validate the delivery of academic benefit to K-8 students by their products, before billions of dollars of taxpayer money is spent on buying such products?

8.) Taxpayer Spending on Testing: According to one estimate, American taxpayers spend about $20,000,000,000 annually on standardized tests like multiple-choice “bubble tests” but many teachers and students are saying they are hijacking huge amounts of school time that should be used for authentic learning, and thereby seriously damaging our children’s education. What evidence is there that the money and time being spent on high-stakes standardized tests is improving student outcomes and delivering academic benefit to students?

9.) Dangers of Linking Standardized Testing to Teacher Evaluation: A number of experts assert that students standardized test data should not be linked to teacher pay or evaluation because the data can be highly unstable, volatile, misleading or invalid for such purposes and will incorrectly penalize teachers of both high-achieving and high-needs students; arguments presented, for example, on this fact sheet from the Center for Fair & Open Testing, or FairTest.

What is your point of view on this – are these experts correct or incorrect?

10.) Advantages for Students: If the children and grandchildren of people like President Obama and American politicians and business leaders enjoy the benefits of private schools with highly experienced teachers, small class sizes, frequent diagnostic testing and assessments designed by their teachers, rich and full curricula including the arts and physical activity, regular recess, and a minimum of standardized “bubble” tests, should we strive to give the same advantages to all public school students? If not, why not?

[readon2 url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/12/james-meredith-asks-21-tough-questions-about-school-reform/"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

The Arbitrary Albatross: Standardized Testing and Teacher Evaluation

On Chicago's streets and Hollywood's silver screens, education reform has been cast as a false dilemma between students and teachers. Reputable actresses and liberal mayors have both fallen prey. At the center of this drama lie teacher evaluations. A linchpin of the debate, they weigh especially heavily around the necks of educators like me.

Think: Shaky Foundation

With the arrival of spring, testing season is now upon us: America's new national pastime. I believe student results from standardized tests should not be used to evaluate teachers because the data are imprecise and the effects are pernicious. Including such inaccurate measures is both unfair to teachers and detrimental to student learning.

As a large body of research suggests, standardized test data are imprecise for two main reasons. First, they do not account for individual and environmental factors affecting student performance, factors over which teachers have no control. (Think: commitment, social class, family.) Second, high-stakes, one-time tests increase the likelihood of random variation so that scores fluctuate in arbitrary ways not linked to teacher efficacy. (Think: sleep, allergies, the heartache of a recent breakup.)

High-stakes assessments are also ruinous to student learning. They encourage, at least, teaching to the test and, at most, outright cheating. This phenomenon is supported by Campbell's law, which states statistics are more likely to be corrupted when used in making decisions, which in turn corrupts the decision making process itself. (Think: presidential campaigns.)

As a teacher, if my livelihood is based on test results, then I will do everything possible to ensure high marks, including narrowing the curriculum and prepping fiercely for the test. The choice between an interesting project and a paycheck is no choice at all. These are amazing disincentives to student learning. Tying teachers' careers to standardized tests does not foster creative, passionate, skillful young adults. It does exactly the opposite.

[readon2 url="http://www.edutopia.org/blog/standardized-testing-and-teacher-evaluation-aaron-pribble"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Senate budget - good, bad, ugly

The much anticipated Senate budget, when it comes to education policy, could be titled "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". We've already discussed the ugly, let's take a look at the good and the bad.

The Good

The statewide parent trigger, proposed by the governor and eliminated by the house, is not proposed by the Senate either and appears dead, for now.

The Senate also includes a fix to HB555 and the onerous teacher evaluation provisions it contained. Here's what the fix proposes

Prescribes that the student academic growth factor must account for 35% (rather than 50% as under current law) of each evaluation under the standards-based state framework for evaluation of teachers developed by the State Board of Education and permits a school district to attribute an additional percentage to the student academic growth factor, not to exceed 15% of each evaluation.

Specifies that, when calculating student academic growth for a teacher evaluation, students who have had 30 or more excused or unexcused absences for the school year must be excluded (rather than excluding students with 60 or more unexcused absences as under current law).

Ohio Revised Code labels a student as a chronic truant if they are absent 14 days, so 30 days is still a high number of absences to allow, but it is certainly better than the ridiculous 60 days in current law. The reduction in the use of VAM to 35% from 50% is a welcome improvement.

The Governor proposed eliminating the single salary schedule, and the House concurred. The Senate however strikes this proposal from their budget. We suspect there will be pressure applied to put this back in. Educators and support professional should continue to apply their own pressure on legislators to keep it out.

The Senate also eliminated the home-school freeloading provision the House added that would have allowed home schoolers to participate in district extra-curricular activities at no expense.

The Bad

The Governor proposed a massive statewide voucher expansion effort, the House concurred, and the Senate has left the proposal in too. With massive opposition to this proposal we were a little surprised the Senate left this unnecessary proposal in their budget.

Charter schools get a number of additional free passes from the Senate, including an e-school exemption for phys ed., an additional qualifying condition for vouchers, and a provision that would make charter school closures more difficult as LSC notes it "May be more difficult to close community schools after July 1, 2013 (compared with current law after that date).". The Senate also eliminates a charter school teacher quality provision for charters populated primarily with students with disabilities. A number of other smaller provisions setting charter schools on a longer path to failure are also propsed by the Senate, such as:

Exempts students of chartered nonpublic schools accredited through the Independent School Association of the Central States from passing the end-of-course examinations as a prerequisite for graduation from high school.

The Charter school business doesn't contribute millions of dollars a year to Republican politicians for nothing.

The challenging

The Senate adds a new levy type aimed at school safety

Authorizes school districts to levy a property tax exclusively for school safety and security purposes. Requires the levy to comply with the same requirements that apply to general school district levies in excess of the 10-mill limitation.

A good intentioned proposal aimed at lowering violence in schools, but there should be concern that a safety levy might reduce local taxpayers appetites for funding levies for normal school operations, the core purpose of schools themselves. School districts will have to be mindful in how they approach this issue.

Here's the full comparative document of the education section of the budget

Senate Sub HB59