Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
124 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
||||
·
Offsetting
fiscal effects.
·
Approximately
$17.3 million cost over the biennium related to new standards and curricula.
·
Approximately
$17.8 million increase in cost for development and scoring of tests and
assessments over the 2001-2003 biennium as compared to the 1999-2001 biennium.
·
Approximately
$16.7 million to $17.5 million decrease in cost each fiscal year from
elimination of the 12th grade proficiency test scholarship.
·
Approximately
$1 million to fund the Governor’s Commission of Successful Teachers.
·
Indeterminate
future costs.
·
Possible
offsetting fiscal effects on school districts.
·
Potential
costs and savings are mostly indeterminate as they are dependent on variables
that are currently unknown.
|
|
The bill requires the State Board of
Education to adopt statewide academic standards for each of grades kindergarten
through twelfth in reading, writing, and math by December 31, 2001, and in
science and social studies by December 31, 2002. After which the Board is required to adopt standards for each of
grades third through twelfth in computer literacy and for each of grades
kindergarten through twelfth in fine arts and foreign languages. The Board is also required to adopt model
curricula aligned with these standards.
The Department of Education estimates that it will incur a staffing cost
of $2.2 million in fiscal year 2002 and $3 million in fiscal year 2003 related
to this requirement. The actual
development and implementation of the standards is estimated to cost $2.3
million in each fiscal year. The
development of the model curricula is estimated to cost $2.5 million in each
fiscal year. Finally, communication of
the standards and curricula is estimated to cost $1.5 million in fiscal year
2002 and $1 million in fiscal year 2003.
This results in a total approximate cost of $8.5 million in fiscal year
2002 and $8.8 million in fiscal year 2003.
The development of these standards and curricula will continue into future
biennia with similar costs.
In addition, the bill requires the
State Board of Education to adopt statewide diagnostic assessments for each of
grades kindergarten through second in reading, writing, and math and for each
of grades third through eighth in reading, writing, math, science, and social
studies by the end of fiscal year 2006.
The bill also phases in the development of 15 achievement tests for
third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and tenth grades which replace the
current 20 proficiency tests. The
twelfth grade proficiency tests are eliminated. Scoring of the diagnostic assessments will be done by the local
school districts. The State will be
responsible for the scoring of the achievement and proficiency tests, as it is
currently responsible for the scoring of the proficiency tests. The bill changes the current scoring for the
achievement tests as well as the 4th grade proficiency test to
provide four ranges of scores:
advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Currently the proficiency test scores are either proficient or
not proficient. The bill also requires
the Department of Education give preference to Ohio contractors when choosing a
company to score the tests. The
Department of Education estimates that the development of these assessments and
the scoring of the achievement and proficiency tests will cost approximately
$23.7 million in fiscal year 2002 and $26.9 million in fiscal year 2003. This represents an increase of approximately
$17.8 million for the biennium over the costs associated with proficiency
testing in fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
There is a possibility that the Department of Education will receive
federal money for testing so that the State will not have to completely fund
these costs. As with the development of
standards and curricula the costs related to testing will continue into future
biennia.
A significant cost savings is
realized by the elimination of the twelfth grade proficiency test and the $500
accompanying scholarship. Currently,
the Department of Education is funding a $500 scholarship for any Ohio
graduating senior who passes all parts of the 12th grade proficiency
test and enrolls in an Ohio college or university. These scholarships would have cost approximately $16.7 million to
$17.5 million in each fiscal year.
Performance
Indicators, Standards of Improvement and Report Cards
The bill requires the Department of
Education to establish at least 17 new performance indicators, adds “excellent”
as the highest category of performance and requires the State Board to
establish a standard unit of improvement for individual school buildings. A spokesperson for the Department stated
that these requirements present no additional cost, as the Department is
constantly refining performance indicators and standards of improvement
anyway. The bill also requires that
performance ratings be issued annually instead of triennially, that report
cards be issued for each school building as well as each school district, that
data on the report card be disaggregated according to various categories, and
that additional reports and data as outlined in the bill be compiled and
displayed on the Department’s web site.
The disaggregation of data is necessary for Ohio to be in compliance
with Federal Title I programs. Currently,
state law prohibits this disaggregation.
The Department of Education, however, already has access to
disaggregated data so does not estimate increased costs associated with this
provision. Similarly the additional
data compilation and reporting requirements are not estimated to create a new
cost for the Department. The data is
already available as part of the Department’s current redesign of the Education
Management Information System, and the Department is already issuing report
cards for each school building and updating performance ratings annually.
Recommendations,
Studies, and Research
The bill requires the State Board to
recommend an intervention plan to the General Assembly for consistently failing
school districts and school buildings.
This does not present an additional cost, as this is currently part of
the core work of the State Board and the Department. The State Board is also required to recommend a plan for
end-of-course examinations as an alternative graduation requirement to the Ohio
Graduation Test and to appoint a committee to make recommendations to
incorporate end-of –program assessments for career-technical education
programs. The planning of these
examinations will present a minimal cost.
The actual development and implementation of these examinations will
create a potential future cost to the state that is indeterminate at this time
as it is dependent on the plan recommended by the State Board. The bill requires the Department of Education
to identify research on effective use of instructional time and on certain
intervention strategies and to disseminate this information through the Ohio
SchoolNet Commission. Again, this is
part of the current work of the Department and does not represent an additional
cost.
Finally, the bill establishes the
Governor’s Commission on Successful Teachers to recommend policies for the
preparation, recruitment, hiring, and retention of teachers and to recommend
pilot programs to address teacher shortages.
The Commission is to issue a written report to the General Assembly by
December 31, 2002. A Department
spokesperson estimates the cost of the Commission to be approximately $1
million. These funds will come from
non-GRF sources.
Local
costs
Tests
and Assessments
Current law requires that school
districts implement a competency-based education program which includes student
performance objectives, curricula and instructional methods designed to ensure
students attain the performance objectives, periodic assessments to measure
student progress toward achieving the performance objectives, and intervention
services for students in grades first through eleventh who are not making
adequate progress. The State Board is
required to establish model competency-based education programs that include performance
objectives, model curricula, recommended assessment methods and recommended
intervention strategies. Under current
law school districts are not required to implement any part of the model
programs.
The bill eliminates the requirement
that school districts implement competency-based education programs. Partly in place of this requirement, the
bill requires that all school districts that are not “excellent” and all public
community schools administer the state diagnostic assessments at least once
annually. School districts that are
“excellent” are required to administer locally selected assessments. In addition, as previously stated, 15
achievement tests are phased in to replace the 20 proficiency tests currently
administered. The bill also requires
the assessment of special education students according to guidelines
established by the Department. The
state pays the costs of developing and scoring the achievement tests and of
developing the diagnostic assessments.
The school districts and community schools are responsible for
administering the tests and assessments and for scoring the diagnostic
assessments. There is an opportunity
cost associated with administering the tests and assessments since it takes
time away from instruction. However,
given that school districts were already required to do some sort of assessment
under the competency-based program, it is assumed that the savings from the
elimination of the current assessments and tests offsets the costs of
administering the new assessments and tests required by the bill.
A potential cost for some school
districts related to the state diagnostic tests arises if districts need to
adopt a new curriculum to match the content students are expected to learn in
each year. The bill may decrease some
of the flexibility the school districts have in the sequencing and timing of
specific instructional content. A
spokesperson from a suburban school district estimates that designing a new
course of study and adopting a new textbook would cost approximately $69 per
student per subject area.
Intervention
Services
The bill requires school districts
to adopt a policy governing the conduct of intervention and prevention services
throughout the district. School
districts but not community schools are required to provide intervention
services based on students’ performance on the diagnostic assessments. Presumably, this provision replaces the
intervention requirements under the current competency-based education program
and does not represent an additional cost.
The current requirement for intervention for students failing to attain
a proficient score on the 4th grade proficiency test is expanded to
include students failing to attain a proficient score on a 4th, 6th,
or 9th grade proficiency test as well as those failing to attain a
basic score on a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th,
or 8th grade achievement test.
This expansion in required intervention may represent a cost to school
districts. The magnitude of this cost,
however, depends on variables that are unknown at this time. It will depend, for instance, on the
intervention services already provided by each school district. For example, a spokesperson from a large
urban district stated that intervention and remediation are a big part of the
district’s business already. For such a
district the provisions of the bill dealing with intervention services will not
present a significant additional cost.
Presumably, all school districts are already providing intervention and
remediation to students who are achieving below a desired level as a part of
their regular educational programs. It
is reasonable to assume however, that given the perceived need for legislation
mandating these services, some school districts will need to increase their
level of service in order to be in compliance with the provisions of the
bill. Again the costs to these school
districts will depend on variables including the number of students in the
district failing to attain the required scores on the achievement tests, the
current level of intervention already provided by the district, the district’s
salary schedule and the type of intervention the district chooses to employ.
In addition, the state provides some funds for intervention through
student intervention services funds, Disadvantage Pupil Impact Aid, and to the
extent intervention is part of a basic education, through base cost
funding. The most recent version of Am.
Sub. H.B. 94 proposes to appropriate approximately $39.2 million more for the
2001-2003 biennium for intervention services than was appropriated in Am. Sub.
H.B. 282 of the 123rd General Assembly for the 1999-2001 biennium,
$61 million less for DPIA, and $1.45 billion more for base cost funding. The federal government also provides funds
for intervention through Title I funds.
Federal Title I funds for Ohio are projected to increase by $1.8 million
in federal fiscal year 2002 as compared with federal fiscal year 2001.
The bill permits school districts to
follow their own plan for intervention except in the case of students failing
to attain a proficient score on the fourth grade reading proficiency test or a
basic score on the third grade reading achievement test. For these students the bill requires that
intervention include instruction in intensive, systematic phonetics. This provision will present a cost to
schools not currently using phonetics in their intervention program.
Reading
Guarantee
Current law requires a student who
fails to attain a proficient score on the 4th grade proficiency test
to be retained in the fourth grade or to be promoted to the fifth grade if the
student’s principal and reading teacher agree the student is prepared for the
fifth grade. The bill changes this
requirement so that a student who fails to attain a basic score on the 3rd
grade achievement test must be retained in the current grade or promoted if the
student’s principal and reading teacher agree the student is prepared for the
next grade or be promoted with intensive intervention. This provision of the bill should lead to
less retentions and therefore a cost saving for school districts. The basic score has not yet been defined but
since its purpose is to identify students who may be in need of retention it
should be a lower standard than the current proficient score, which was
designed to identify students who need intervention, but not necessarily
retention. Fewer students, therefore,
should be affected by this provision. A
second reason for less retentions is that a third option is added allowing a
student to be promoted with intensive intervention. The potential cost savings of this provision are indeterminate at
this time.
Continuous
Improvement Plans
The bill requires school districts
that are not excellent or effective to develop district-wide continuous
improvement plans and to develop continuous improvement plans for school
buildings within the district that are not excellent or effective. This provision is similar to current law and
should not introduce significant additional costs. The bill does change current law significantly by requiring that
school districts in academic emergency adopt the state model curriculum. The cost of this provision will depend on
the specifics of the new state model curriculum that will be developed pursuant
to this bill. A school district
spokesperson stated that a curriculum can be general, which would not entail
major changes in the district’s instruction, or it may be very detailed, which
would entail more changes for the district.
The major potential cost of adopting a new curriculum is the purchase of
new textbooks and materials, other minor costs include professional development
to orient and train teachers to use the new curriculum, as well as overhaul of
the testing program. A spokesperson for
a large urban district estimates the cost of this provision at approximately
$125 per student per subject area. It
should be noted, however, that the extent that this cost is new would depend on
the coincidence between the adoption of the new curricula and the district’s
current textbook adoption cycle. The
actual cost to the district would also depend on the degree of difference
existing between its current curriculum and the state model curriculum.
The bill also outlines options from
which a school district must choose if it is in academic emergency and has a
building in academic emergency that after two years under a continuous
improvement plan fails to attain the percentage of performance indicators
defined by the State Board as necessary to make progress toward becoming an
excellent building. If the building
still fails to make progress in the next two years the district must choose
another option from the list. This
provision could cause a significant increase in costs for a school district, as
it requires specific actions the school district may not have otherwise
chosen. The cost, however, is
indeterminate. It depends on the number of buildings that do not attain the
required percentage of performance indicators, and the option these buildings
choose as compared to the action the district would have taken without the
provision. These variables are not
predictable given that the standards for improvement have not yet been defined.
Standards and Model Curricula
After December 31, 2002, the State Board is required to adopt standards for each of grades third through twelfth in computer literacy and for each of grades kindergarten through twelfth in fine arts and foreign languages. The Board is also required to adopt model curricula aligned with these standards. Depending on the standards, school districts might incur costs to realign their curricula in those areas in the future. The magnitude of the cost, however, is indeterminate at this time as it depends on variables that are currently unknown.