Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
Revised
125 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
||||
|
STATE FUND |
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
FUTURE YEARS |
||
|
General Revenue Fund |
|||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Significant increase in
the millions of dollars |
Significant increase in
the millions of dollars |
Significant increase in
the millions of dollars |
||
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2004 is July 1, 2003 – June 30, 2004.
·
The
bill changes the spring administration of the proficiency and achievement tests
from the week containing March 8 to the week containing May 1. The scores of these tests must be reported
to districts by June 15. The Ohio Department
of Education (ODE) will need to renegotiate its contracts to have the tests
scored more quickly. This would
substantially increase the costs associated with the tests.
·
The
bill creates the State Office of Educator Standards within the Ohio Department
of Education (ODE) to provide administrative support to the Educator Standards
Board, also created by the bill. The
ODE estimates a cost of $175,000 per year for this new office.
·
The
bill requires the creation of professional development standards to be used by
Local Professional Development Committees with the assistance of the ODE. The ODE estimates a one-time cost of
$100,000 for developing the standards, producing and disseminating the
standards, and providing training.
·
The
bill requires that the State Board of Education develop guidelines for the
evaluation of teachers and principals.
Although school districts are not required to use these guidelines, the
ODE must include a review of a district’s evaluation system when it conducts a
site evaluation of a district. The ODE
anticipates that developing the guidelines, providing materials, and conducting
informational meetings and training sessions will cost approximately $100,000.
·
Disadvantaged
pupil impact aid (DPIA) expenditures could increase by approximately $10,000 in
FY 2004 and $113,000 in FY 2005.
·
Am.
Sub. H.B. 95 of the 125th General Assembly appropriates $1,650,000 in FY 2004
and in FY 2005 to implement recommendations of the Teaching Success
Commission. These funds are presumably
available to meet the requirements of this bill.
|
Local Government |
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
School Districts |
|||
|
Revenues |
Increase of $10,000 for
two districts. Loss for other
districts. |
Increase of $113,000 for
ten districts. Loss for other
districts. |
- 0 - |
|
Expenditures |
-0- |
-0- |
-0- |
Note:
The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30. For example, FY 2004 is July 1, 2003 – June
30, 2004.
·
Approximately
two districts in FY 2004 and ten districts in FY 2005 could receive combined
DPIA funds totaling $10,000 in FY 2004 and $113,000 in FY 2005.
·
Some
districts would have more of their DPIA allotment deducted for community
schools in FY 2004 and FY 2005.
·
School
districts may incur costs associated with the federal highly qualified teacher
requirement. These costs however, are
not directly caused by the bill.
|
|
Am. Sub. H.B. 95 of the
125th General Assembly appropriates $1,650,000 in FY 2004 and in FY 2005 in
General Revenue Fund (GRF) appropriation item 200-452, Teaching Success
Commission Initiatives. It requires
that these funds be spent to support initiatives recommended by the Governor’s
Commission on Teaching Success. It is
therefore assumed that these funds are available to be used by the ODE to meet
the requirements of the bill.
The
bill creates an Educator Standards Board comprised of 20 individuals. These individuals are to receive no
compensation. Eventually, the Educator
Standards Board is to take over the duties of the Ohio Teacher Education and
Licensure Advisory Commission, which has an appropriation of $24,374 per year
in the current biennium. A more
significant cost arises from the creation of the Office of Educator Standards
in the ODE. This office is to provide
administrative assistance to the Board.
The ODE is authorized to employ a director for the office and any other
staff. The ODE estimates approximately
$175,000 per year in administrative costs for this new office.
Professional Development Standards
One of the duties of the Educator Standards Board is to recommend professional development standards to the State Board of Education. After the State Board adopts standards, school districts are required to use them for a variety of purposes. If a district is in continuous improvement, academic watch, or academic emergency, its three-year continuous improvement plan must include an analysis of how the district is using the professional development standards and what the district is doing to improve the cultural competency of its educators. Districts will likely need to spend time and effort in learning the new standards and adapting their own professional development programs to meet the standards. These activities may replace other activities the district would have chosen, but will not likely cause any direct costs. Assuming that providers of professional development will work to meet the standards in order to remain competitive, districts and teachers will have appropriate professional development options.
Local
professional development committees (LPDCs) will need to be well versed in the
new professional development standards in order to incorporate them into their
determination of whether or not coursework satisfies the criteria for license
renewal. The bill requires the ODE to
provide technical assistance to the committees in incorporating the standards
in their work. The ODE will likely
incorporate training on the new standards into the annual regional training
sessions it currently provides to LPDCs.
The ODE estimates a one-time cost of $100,000 for developing the
standards, producing and disseminating the standards, and providing training.
Guidelines for the evaluation of teachers and
principals
The
bill requires that the State Board of Education, in consultation with the Ohio
Board of Regents, develop guidelines for the evaluation of teachers and
principals, and to inform districts of the guidelines. Districts may use these guidelines to create
or modify their own evaluation systems.
Although the bill does not contain a specific mandate requiring
districts to use these guidelines, districts in academic watch or academic
emergency that receive a site evaluation from the ODE will be examined as to
whether the teacher and principal evaluation systems in place reflect the State
Board’s guidelines. The ODE does not
currently include a review of the district’s evaluation system in the site
evaluation. According to an ODE
spokesperson, however, this review could probably be done with existing
resources. An additional cost could be
incurred if the review indicates more training on the guidelines is needed.
In addition to requiring
that the ODE include this examination in its site evaluations, the bill also
requires the ODE to serve as a clearinghouse of promising evaluation procedures
and models and to provide technical assistance to districts that request
it. The ODE anticipates that developing
the guidelines, providing materials, and conducting informational meetings and
training sessions will cost approximately $100,000.
Highly qualified teachers
The
federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that teachers of core academic
subjects be “highly qualified” by the 2005-2006 school year and that “Title I
teachers” be highly qualified this school year. The bill defines the term “highly qualified” as it applies to
teachers in Ohio. A “highly qualified”
teacher must hold a baccalaureate degree, be fully licensed or be participating
in an alternative licensure route, and meet one other requirement such as
passing a subject matter test or receiving a graduate degree. Although this provision does not have a
direct cost for school districts, it may make it more difficult for districts
to find teachers who are qualified to teach the district’s core courses. Current Ohio law permits licensed teachers
to teach outside of the scope of their licenses for up to two years. This will no longer be permitted for
teachers required to be highly qualified.
Districts may incur costs if they provide professional development or
other assistance to teachers to help them become highly qualified. These costs, however, will be incurred
regardless of the bill's enactment. In
addition, schools receiving Title I funds may lose these funds if they do not
comply with the NCLB requirements.
Development of proposals, definitions, and
rules
The
bill requires the ODE to develop a number of definitions, proposals, and rules
related to other recommendations of the Governor’s Commission on Teaching
Success. The ODE has already addressed
some of these; others will require further work. For example, the bill requires that the ODE develop a definition
of “hard to staff schools.” According
to a spokesperson at the ODE, this definition is nearly complete and these
schools will soon be identified.
Likewise, the bill requires the ODE to develop a proposal to encourage
college faculty to spend time in school buildings. The ODE proposed the creation of professional development schools
and requested $500,000 per year for this purpose in its biennial budget
request. These schools would have been
partnerships between teacher colleges and school districts and would have been
one way of encouraging college faculty to spend time in school buildings. The ODE, jointly with the Educator Standards
Board, must also develop a proposal for a career ladder pilot program,
including an estimate of the cost of implementing the proposal. According to a spokesperson at the ODE,
developing these proposals can be accomplished with existing resources,
although implementation of these proposals could be very costly. Based on experiences of other states, a
statewide career ladder program could result in costs in the hundreds of
millions of dollars. The bill does not
require that any proposal be implemented.
If the pilot programs are implemented, the ODE must study their
effectiveness and report its findings to the General Assembly. The bill also requires that the ODE
catalogue promising practices for using national board certified teachers. This process will involve surveying other
states as well as Ohio schools for their current practices. These will be made available on the ODE or
SchoolNet web sites. The bill
established a pupil-activity program permit and requires the ODE to adopt rules
establishing standards and requirements for obtaining the permits. These permits would allow non-licensed
personnel to direct, supervise, and coach pupil-activity programs.
Innovative grant program/pilot program
The
bill establishes a grant program for “hard to staff” schools that implement one
of several innovations. The amount and
number of grants is to be determined by the ODE based on any appropriations for
the program made in future acts. The innovations
may cost $50,000 to $100,000 per school.
These costs would be shared by the state and district based on the
districts’ state share percentage. The
bill also directs the ODE to develop a pilot program in at least one urban and
one rural district in which one or more of the same innovations included in the
grant program are implemented.
Apparently, the pilot program does not require a local financial
contribution. As with the grant
program, however, the pilot program is contingent on the availability of
funds. The bill does not make an
appropriation. If the pilot program is
implemented, the ODE must study its effectiveness and report its findings to
the General Assembly.
Revisions to teacher and administrator
licensing statutes
The bill makes some
revisions to teacher licensing statutes.
These changes do not create any direct costs for either the state or
school districts. In the case of
intervention specialists, the bill removes the requirement that applicants pass
the assessment of professional knowledge required for a provisional educator
license before receiving an alternative educator license. This may make obtaining these licenses
easier, and, therefore, may increase the supply of intervention specialists in
Ohio. The bill also requires the ODE to
adopt rules establishing an alternative principal license and an alternative
administrator license.
Credential Review Board
The bill requires that the
State Board establish a Credential Review Board to assess individuals pursuing
alternative entries into the teaching profession as well as teachers from other
states wishing to teach in Ohio. The
ODE is currently performing these activities, so it is not expected that the
creation of the Board will result in significant costs. The bill also requires that the State Board
adopt rules to establish an alternative principal license. This would allow individuals with classroom
teaching experience to pursue an alternative pathway into school
administration.
Am.
Sub. H.B. 95 of the 125th General Assembly appropriates funds in FYs 2004
and 2005 for districts in academic emergency to provide intervention services
to students and professional development to teachers to assist the students
enrolled in these districts in passing the Ohio graduation tests (OGT) in tenth
grade. H.B. 95 also requires these
districts and districts in academic watch to assess students’ readiness for the
OGT by administering and scoring a practice OGT to ninth grade students. The bill modifies these provisions by
clarifying that districts that are in academic emergency any time in 2003 are
eligible for the funding in FY 2004 and districts with a graduation rate of not
more that 75% are eligible for funding in FY 2005. On the 2003 local report card, 33 districts had graduation rates
of 75% or below, but only 18 districts were in academic emergency. This change will, therefore, likely have the
effect of spreading the funding out among more districts. In particular,
Cleveland Municipal School District and Columbus City School District are two
large districts that moved from academic emergency to academic watch in
2003. This change would ensure that
they remain eligible for this funding.
There is no additional cost to the state.
The bill changes the date of
the spring administration of the proficiency and achievement tests from the
week of March 8 to the week of May 1.
The ODE must report the scores of these tests to districts by June
15. The current contracts the ODE has
to score the tests have a provision allowing the scoring company 45 days to
return the scores to the ODE. The
scores then go through a quality control process at the ODE, which takes
approximately 15 days. In order to
comply with the bill, these contracts will need to be renegotiated so that the
ODE receives the scores in 15 days instead of 45 days. It is not known at this time what the
additional costs will be of this renegotiation. According to ODE, scoring currently costs approximately $226,000
per test. In FY 2004, 16 tests will be
scored, costing approximately $3.6 million under current contracts. The number of tests will increase to 23 once
all the achievement tests are phased-in, costing approximately $5.2 million per
year under current contracts. The ODE
estimates that scoring costs could triple under the shorter time frame. If this were to happen, the costs would
increase by $7.2 million in FY 2004 and by up to $10.4 million per year in the
future. However, these costs could
perhaps be lowered if the ODE could shorten the time needed for its quality
control process and thus allow the contractors more time to score the
tests. In addition to scoring costs,
the ODE estimates a one-time cost of $3.6 million to reconfigure the scoring of
the tests to reflect the additional two months of instructional time.
Pilot Project Special Education Scholarship
Program
Am.
Sub. H.B. 95 of the 125th General Assembly establishes the pilot project
special education scholarship program for autistic children. This program allows parents with autistic
children to receive scholarships of up to $15,000 to pay their child's tuition
at a special education provider other than the school district in which the
child is entitled to attend school.
Currently, the program would allow a child receiving a scholarship to
attend an outside program instead of or in addition to the program
offered by the school district. The
bill would limit the program to those children who choose to attend an outside
program instead of that offered by the district. The child will continue to be counted in the
district's special education ADM; the amount of the scholarship will be
deducted from the district's state aid.
This program will be operational by January 1, 2004. The change made by the bill will reduce the
potential obligation of school districts with children opting to use the
scholarship, so that the district will not be responsible for providing special
education services after the amount of the scholarship is deducted from the
district's state aid.
Head Start Plus/Head Start
The
bill changes the earmarks for GRF appropriation item 200-663, Head Start
Plus/Head Start in FY 2005. It
increases the earmark for Head Start Plus from $83,457,126 to $86,600,000. This earmark is to be used to fund up to
10,000 slots of full-day, full-year programming for low-income preschool
children. The bill decreases the earmark
for Head Start from $22,763,177 to $19,584,000. This earmark is to be used to fund up to 4,000 slots of
traditional half-day programming for low-income preschool children. The bill also increases the earmark for the
ODE to provide program support and technical assistance from $1,963,697 to
$2,000,000.
Community School Sponsorship
The
bill removes the requirement that certain federal tax-exempt entities receive
the approval of the ODE to sponsor community schools in certain
circumstances. In the future, this may
increase the number of community schools.
When a student in a district attends a community school the base cost as
well as any applicable weights, disadvantaged pupil impact aid, and parity aid
is subtracted from the district's state aid and transferred to the community
school. The district is no longer
responsible for educating the student.
Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid
Am.
Sub. H.B. 95 of the 125th General Assembly notwithstands the formulas used to
determine the amount of disadvantaged pupil impact aid (DPIA) received by
districts and requires that districts receiving DPIA in FY 2003 receive annual
increases of 2% in FY 2004 and FY 2005, unless the districts are on the DPIA
guarantee in which case they receive the same amount they received in FY
2003. H.B. 95 stipulates that districts
and community schools not receiving DPIA in FY 2003 do not receive DPIA in FY
2004 and FY 2005. The bill modifies
this provision by allowing districts with DPIA indices above 0.35, according to
the DPIA index based only on participation in Ohio Works First (OWF), to
receive DPIA even if they did not receive it in FY 2003. According to estimates of the ODE, this
change would result in an increase in state aid to districts of approximately
$10,000 in FY 2004 and $113,000 in FY 2005.
This increase in state DPIA would go to approximately two districts in
FY 2004 and to ten districts in FY 2005.
The bill also stipulates that community schools with students residing
in districts receiving DPIA shall, for each of the three DPIA programs,
receive, per pupil, an amount equal to the product of dividing the district's
DPIA allotment for that program by the total number of students in the district
eligible for that program. Under the
bill, community schools receive this payment even if they did not receive DPIA
in FY 2003. Some districts, therefore,
would have a greater portion of their DPIA deducted and sent to community
schools.
The Legislative Office of Education Oversight
The bill makes some
modifications to currently mandated LOEO studies and mandates a new study. The new study involves analyzing minimum
teacher starting salaries in other states.
These changes are not expected to have a large impact on the work of the
LOEO.
The Ohio SchoolNet Commission
The bill repeals the
requirement that the Ohio SchoolNet Commission maintain a clearinghouse for
classroom teachers to obtain lesson plans, materials, and other resources. The clearinghouse includes information on
the use of instructional time and research on academic intervention and prevention
practices provided by the ODE.
The Ohio School Facilities Commission
The bill requires that the
Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) consider a number of new factors when
reviewing design standards for new facilities.
The bill, however, does not require the OSFC to make any changes in the
standards, so will presumably not result in significant cost increases.
Articulation Agreement
The
bill requires that the Ohio Board of Regents (BOR) adopt rules for the
development of a statewide system for articulation agreements between two-year colleges
and state universities for transfer students pursing a teaching degree. Ohio has an Articulation and Transfer Policy
previously developed by the BOR. This
requirement, therefore, will likely not require additional resources.
Kent State University Ohio Internship Program
The
bill permits the chancellor of the BOR to allocate up to $70,000 in each fiscal
year for the Columbus Program in Intergovernmental Issues, an Ohio internship
program at Kent State University. These
funds are to provide scholarships of up to $2,000 for each student enrolled in
the program. The bill does not make an
appropriation for this purpose, but permits the chancellor to use any funds
appropriated to the BOR that the chancellor determines to be available for this
program.
LSC fiscal staff: Melaney A. Carter, Economist