Arts on Line Education Update February 23, 2015

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education
Arts on Line Education Update
Joan Platz
February 23, 2015

1)  Ohio News

  • 131st Ohio General Assembly:  The Ohio House and Senate will hold hearings and sessions this week.  For more details see This Week at the Statehouse below.
  • State of the State Address: Governor John Kasich will give the annual “State of the State Address” to a joint session of the Ohio House and Senate on February 24, 2015 at the Roberts Centre in Wilmington, OH, at 7:00 PM.
  • Testing Begins: The Plain Dealer reported on February 18, 2015 that Ohio students began taking assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium and aligned to the common core math and English language arts standards.  Students are also taking other assessments developed by American Institutes of Research (AIR) in science and social studies. Students took about 106,000 math and English exams online and by paper and pencil.  School districts reported some technical problems, such as pages not loading or loading slowly; students having to restart exams; pages freezing; failure to log onto the exams; text-readers not working; etc.

See “About 100,000 Ohio kids have tried the new Common Core exams this week, with mixed reviews,”  by Patrick O’Donnell, The Plain Dealer , February 18, 2015 at http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/02/about_100000_ohio_kids_have_tried_the_new_common_core_exams_this_week_with_mixed_reviews.html

  • Statehouse Celebrates Ohio’s Birthday: The Capital Square Review and Advisory Board (CSRAB) announced last week its plans for celebrating the Buckeye State’s 212th year in the Union on March 1, 2015.  The celebration will begin at the Statehouse in Columbus at noon with a variety of activities for the entire family, including the cutting of the birthday cake at 2:00 PM in the Rotunda.

According to the CSRAB web site, Ohio’s first General Assembly convened on March 1, 1803 in Chillicothe, OH, after President Thomas Jefferson signed the approved version of Ohio’s first constitution on February 19, 1803.   Ohio’s inaugural governor was Edward Tiffin.  The capital moved to Zanesville for two years before returning to Chillicothe from 1812 to 1816, when Columbus was officially established as the permanent seat of state government. The current Statehouse has housed Ohio government since 1857.

See http://www.ohiostatehouse.org/news/a-capital-celebration-happy-birthday-ohio

2)  This Week at the Statehouse

  • The Senate Education Committee, Senator Lehner chair, will meet on Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 1:00 PM in Senate Finance Hearing Room.  The committee will receive testimony on HB7 (Buchy) Assessment Score Determinations and SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing School District Exemptions. The committee will also consider for approval the following appointments by Governor Kasich:  Teresa Elshoff, Joseph Farmer, Cathye Flory and Thomas Gunlock to the State Board of Education  and Thomas Needles to the Higher Education Facility Commission.
  • The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on February 25, 2015 at 3:00 PM in Hearing Room 017.  The Committee will hear sponsor testimony on HB74 (Brenner) Primary and Secondary Education Assessments. (More details about HB74 are included below.)
  • The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet on February 25, 2015 at 4:00 PM in hearing room 116.  The committee will receive invited testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, from several state agencies, including the Ohio State School for the Blind, the Ohio School for the Deaf, and the Ohio School Facilities Commission.
  • The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, will meet on February 26, 2015 at 1:00 PM in hearing room 116.  The committee will receive invited testimony on HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget, from Dr. Richard Ross, Superintendent of Public Instruction; the Office of the Governor/Dr. Angel Rhodes, early education and development officer; Tim Keen, director, Office of Budget and Management; and ODE staff.

3)  National News

  • Update on USDOE College Rating Plan: The deadline for submitting comments about the Obama administration’s draft college ratings plan ended on February 18, 2015.  The draft plan was posted for comment on the U.S. Department of Education’s web site on December 19, 2014, but components of the proposal had been available for several months before the posting.

The administration’s ratings plan seeks to provide an evaluation framework that would “…strengthen the performance of colleges and universities in promoting access, ensuring affordability, and improving student outcomes through the design of the college ratings system. The system aims to: (1) help colleges and universities measure, benchmark, and continue to improve across the shared principles of access, affordability, and outcomes; (2) help students and families make informed choices about searching for and selecting a college; and (3) enable the incentives and accountability structure in the federal student aid program to be properly aligned to these key principles.” The rating plan would also account for the $150 billion in federal funds invested in student aid programs. A description of the rating plan is available at

http://www2.ed.gov/documents/college-affordability/framework-invitation-comment.pdf

According to Inside Higher Education, a review of the comments so far show general support for increasing transparency, affordability, and access to higher education, but there is opposition to rating colleges and universities based on graduation rates, student earnings, student success, and other proposed metrics. Some organizations thought that the plan needed more detail and clarification, while others said that there was too much diversity among colleges and universities to accurately provide a uniform rating. Also expressed was the concern that the plan significantly increased the role of the federal government in higher education.

See “Rating (and Berating) the Ratings” by Doug Lederman, Michael Stratford and Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Education, February 7, 2015 at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/07/colleges-and-analysts-respond-obama-ratings-proposal

  • House to Vote on Student Success Act:  The U.S. House of Representatives might vote as early as February 27, 2015 on H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, which would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as the No Child Left Behind Act.  The House Education and Workforce Committee, chaired by Representative Kline, approved H.R. 5 along a party-line vote (21 to 16) on February 11, 2015. According to a press release from the committee, the Student Success Act would do the following:

-Retains testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school in math and English language arts, and in science at grade band levels, but would remove the requirement that schools meet adequate yearly progress targets, and would allow states to make decisions about improving schools rather than complying with strategies prescribed by the federal government.

-Repeals more than 65 “ineffective, duplicative, and unnecessary programs” and creates a Local Academic Flexible Grant program.  The Arts in Education program at the U.S. DOE would be repealed.

-Prevents the Secretary of Education from interfering with state education policies.

-Provides more school choice options by continuing support for magnet schools and expanding charter schools.

-Allows Title I funds to follow low-income children to the traditional public or charter school of the parent’s choice.

-Strengthens existing efforts to improve student performance among targeted student populations, including English learners and homeless children.

-Restructures Title II, teacher preparation and development, and Title IV, school climate, into transferable block grants.

The Democrats on the committee were unsuccessful in attempts to amend the bill.  One of the amendments (Title V:  Subtitle B Well-Rounded Education) would have restored support for a well-rounded education to students through competitive grants to support American History, Civic Education, and Geography programs; Economic, Entrepreneurship, and Financial Literacy Education; Foreign Languages programs; Arts programs; the Javits Gifted and Talented programs; Ready-to-Learn; and National Writing Project, Ready to Learn, Reach Out and Read, and others.

See Democratic Amendment H.R. 5 at http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/ESEA2013-DemSubtoHR5-Summary.pdf

See Education and the Workforce Committee at http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398329

  • Update on ESEA in the Senate: In response to the passage of the Student Success Act in the House Education and Workforce Committee last week, Senator Lamar Alexander, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, released a statement on February 11, 2015, saying that he and Ranking Member Patty Murray were developing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize ESEA.

See Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee at http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5bd78aa7-e074-4ee0-8967-58110c69edf8&groups=Chair

4)  More on the HB64 Biennial Budget:  The House Finance Subcommittee on Primary & Secondary Education, chaired by Representative Cupp, received a presentation on February 19, 2015 from Melaney Carter, a division director at the bipartisan Legislative Service Commission, about HB 64 (Smith) Biennial Budget. The presentative provided background information about the current formula and expenditures for FY14, and additional details about the proposed formula changes recommended by Governor Kasich.

Operating revenue to support primary and secondary education in FY14 comes from three sources: state sources (47.8 percent); local tax sources (46.2 percent), and federal sources (6.0 percent). State sources include the foundation formula ( 78.5 percent); property tax rollbacks and tangible personal property (TPP) direct reimbursements (18.9 percent); and other sources (2.8 percent). Local revenue includes property taxes (94.4 percent); school district income taxes (4.5 percent); and gross casino revenue tax (1.1 percent). Federal revenue includes funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) Title I (51.7 percent); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (35.5 percent); and other sources (12.8 percent). Total operating revenue for primary and secondary education in FY14, including state, federal, and local, was $17.8 billion. (See School Funding Complete Resource, Legislative Service Commission, February 2015, p. 5.)

According to the presentation, about 42.3 percent of state source General Revenue Fund and lottery profits in FY14 ($9.1 billion) supported primary and secondary education.  Support for K-12 education was higher than the percent of the GRF dedicated to general government, corrections, higher education, and human services.  The percent of the state and federal GRF for primary and secondary education was 28.6 percent in 2014.

Expenditures for the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) totaled $11.23 billion in FY14, and included 70.4 percent of funds from the GRF; 17 percent of funds from the federal government; 7.5 percent from the lottery;  4.5 percent from revenue distribution, and .5 percent from internal services and dedicated purpose.

Most of the ODE budget (98 percent) consists of subsidy payments and .2 percent is spent on purchased services, personal service, supplies, etc. School Foundation Aid (totally $6.56 billion) made-up 59.5 percent of subsidy payments in FY14; 16.6 percent of subsidy payments came from federal sources; 10.4 percent from property tax rollbacks; 8.9 percent from other, and 4.6 percent from property tax replacement payments. The percent of Foundation Aid that comes from Lottery Profits is 11.8 percent, and the remaining 88.2 percent is from the general revenue fund.

The presentation also included information about the changes that have been made in the Foundation Aid formula since 2010.  Prior to FY10 the formula was called Building the Blocks Model, but in FY10-11 lawmakers adopted the Evidence-Based Model (EBM), followed in FY12-13 by the Bridge Formula, and in FY14-15 by the Achievement Everywhere formula.

The current foundation formula includes several components that are generally retained in HB64, including opportunity grants, targeted assistance, categorical programs, and funding adjustments (guarantees and a cap),   but, there are some changes in these components.  The State Share Index (SSI) is renamed the State Share Percentage; the income factor is modified; and the current “wealth index” of the SSI is changed to the “capacity measure” in the State Share Percentage.  According to simulations, 287 districts will have more state funding and 323 school districts will have less than in FY15. More details about the components of the formula follow:

  • Opportunity Grant:  Funding for the opportunity grant equals the formula amount ($5,900 in FY16 and $6,000 in FY17) multiplied by formula ADM multiplied by the State Share Percentage.  Total funding for the Opportunity Grant is $5.173 billion in FY16 and $5.195 in FY17.
  • Targeted Assistance:  Additional state aid is provided to the lowest wealth districts (property wealth and income wealth), and supplemental targeted assistance is again provided to a school district based on its percent of agricultural property. Total funding for Targeted Assistance is $802.9 million in FY16 and $853.0 million in FY17.
  • Categorical Programs:  School districts receive additional state aid for students who are in special education programs, are economically disadvantaged, have limited English proficiency, are gifted, or need additional support for K3 literacy.

-Special Education:  Additional funding for students with special needs is distributed through six categories based on disability. The amounts in each category are proposed to increase each fiscal year in the budget bill. The state average percent of students with disabilities is 14.8 percent.  The maximum percent of students with disabilities in a district is 26.7 percent.  There are 40 districts at or above 20 percent of students with disabilities. Total funding for special education is $773.6 million in FY16 and $781.4 million in FY17.

-Economically Disadvantaged:  Additional state aid per pupil is provided to districts with high concentrations of students in poverty. The per-pupil amount is unchanged at $272 in HB64.  The state average percent of economically disadvantaged students is 43 percent. The maximum percentage of economically disadvantaged students in a school district is greater than 95 percent.  Twenty-three school districts are above 95 percent.  The minimum percent of economically disadvantaged students is 0 percent.  There are six school districts below 5 percent. The formula for economically disadvantaged students takes the concentration of these students into account and targets additional funding through an index.  The index is the district’s percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged divided by the statewide percentage, with the result squared. Funding for economically disadvantaged funding equals economically disadvantaged ADM multiplied by a per pupil amount multiplied by the index. Total funding for economically disadvantaged students is $383 million in FY16 and $383 million in FY17.

-Limited English Proficient (LEP):  Districts receive additional state funding for LEP students across three funding categories.  The state average of students with Limited English Proficiency is 3.1 percent.  The maximum percentage of LEP students in a district is 41.8 percent.  Thirty-six school districts are at or above 5 percent LEP enrollment.  The minimum percentage is 0, and there are 372 school districts at 0. State funding for LEP equals the category amount multiplied by category ADM multiplied by the state share percentage and totaled over the three categories. The total state funding for LEP in FY16 is $26.1 million and $25.8 percent for FY17.

-Gifted Education:  State funding for gifted education includes $5.05 per pupil for identification; support for a gifted coordinator for every 3,300 students, with minimum of .5 and maximum of 8; and support for gifted specialist for every 1,100 students, with minimum of .3.  Support for both coordinators and specialists is $37,370.  The estimated total for gifted education is $80.6 million each year.  There is also about $3.8 million allocated each year to educational service centers for gifted education programs.

-K-3 Literacy:   A certain amount of K3 literacy funding is provided to every district without the state share percentage applied. Additional funding for K-3 literacy equals K-3 ADM multiplied by a base per pupil amount plus additional per pupil amount multiplied by the state share percentage. Total funding for K-3 Literacy will increase to $111.1 million in FY16 and $116.0 million in FY17.

  • Career-Technical Education (CTE):  There are five categories of funding per pupil for Career-Technical Education and an amount per pupil for administration is transferred to the lead district when students transfer to a CTE school.  Funding for career-technical education equals the sum of the category amount multiplied by category ADM multiplied by state share percentage. Total state funding for Career Technical Education will increase slightly in HB64 to $47.4 million in FY16 and $49.2 million in FY17.
  • Temporary Transitional Aid:  School districts are guaranteed that state aid does not decrease in either FY16 or FY17 by more than 1 percent of total state and local resources in the prior fiscal year.  In FY16 there are 226 school districts on the guarantee totaling $153.4 million and in FY17 there are 184 school districts on the guarantee totaling $138.5 million.
  • Cap:   The state aid formula also includes a funding cap that limits increases in state aid to 10 percent of the prior fiscal year.  In FY16 there are 214 schools districts on the cap, totaling $609.0 million; in FY17 there are 131 school districts on the cap, totaling $366.8 million.
  • School Choice:  Funding for school choice programs has increased from $214.6 million in 2003 to $1.076 billion in 2014. Choice programs include community schools and STEM schools, open enrollment, Post Secondary Enrollment Options, and four voucher/scholarship programs:  Educational Choice Scholarship Pilot Program, the Cleveland Scholarship Program, the Autism Scholarship Program, and the Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program.

According to the presentation, the value of real property decreased between TY08-12 for every category of property except rural, which increased 6.2 percent.  For small towns the property value has dropped -2.8 percent; suburban property has dropped -7.4 percent; urban property has dropped -14.0 percent; and statewide property has dropped -6.5 percent.

Based on the new formula in HB64, when school districts are sorted in quartiles based on wealth, average state aid per pupil is highest for districts in the poorest quartile, and average state aid increases the most in FY16 and FY17 for districts in the poorest quartile.  Average state aid per pupil for the poorest school districts in FY16 is $7,173 compared to $2,017 per pupil the wealthiest districts.

5)  Charter Schools Gain More State Aid: Jim Siegel at The Columbus Dispatch reported on February 18, 2015 that charter schools in Ohio will be close to receiving $1 billion in state aid by FY17 ($990.851 million).  The report is based on estimates provided by the Legislative Service Commission (LSC), which issued last week two reports showing the amount of state funding each charter school would receive and the amount of state funding each school district would transfer to charter schools under a new school funding formula proposed by Governor Kasich in HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget.

Charter schools were authorized in Ohio in 1997 as publicly funded but privately operated schools.  The LSC reports include school funding data for 387 charter schools, which enroll 123,517 students.

According to the article, under HB64, the state would increase funding to all charter schools by $43.8 million in FY17, as a result of increases in Opportunity Grants from $5,800 per pupil in FY15 to $5,900 per pupil in FY16 and to $6,000 per pupil in FY17, and the doubling of state funding for charter school facilities, from $7.5 million in FY15 to $16.8 million in FY16 and 17.

Stephen Dyer at Innovation Ohio reports that at the same time that charter schools are gaining state aid, less than half of the 612 traditional school districts would receive a net increase in state funding.  And, after the deduction for charter schools, Innovation Ohio reports that “one in three of those districts will see their proposed funding increases erased.”

He goes on to note, “A little over $2 million of that is going to go to charters that rate above the state average on Performance Index score and almost three times as much is going to go to charters that have a lower Performance Index score than the worst local public school district.”

See “Kasich budget plan increases funding to all charter schools” by Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch, February 18, 2015 at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/18/kasich-budget-plan-increases-funding-to-all-charter-schools.html

See “Budget Briefing: Funding Impacts of Charter Schools” by Stephen Dyer, Innovation Ohio, February 9, 2015 at http://innovationohio.org/2015/02/09/budget-briefing-funding-impacts-of-charter-schools/

6)  Testimony on SB3 (Hite/Faber) High Performing Schools:  The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Lehner, met on February 17, 2015 and received joint testimony on SB3 (Hite/Faber) from Jennifer Hogue, Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA), Thomas Ash, Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA), and Barbara Shaner, Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO).

According to the testimony, the three organizations support the following provisions in SB3 that would provide school districts with relief from mandates and more flexibility:

-Increases the competitive bidding threshold from $25,000 to $50,000.

-Allows schools districts to contract with hospitals for school nursing services

-Exempts high performing school districts from the mentoring component of the Ohio teacher residency program.  The organizations recommend that this provision be extended to all school districts.

-Exempts students with disabilities from the time limits for testing.

-Makes changes in the Third Grade Reading Guarantee.

-Permits school districts to use alternative exams in place of end of course exams.

The organizations also requested that the committee amend the bill to do the following:

-Remove a provision about the 1 percent cap on the amount of time that can be used for locally selected and administered diagnostic assessments

-Provide an exemption for districts with tangible personal property making up at least 18 percent of total property value in tax year 2005, participating in the Expedited Local Partnership (ELP) programs with the Ohio School Facilities Commission.

-Change the provision that counts as dropouts from the school in which they were last enrolled students who opt to take the GED.

-Base funding for preschool children with disabilities on actual FTE and not universally set at 0.5 FTE.

-Clarify that only the values that are being paid on in an appeal by a tax payer, be used by the county auditor in establishing millage tax rates

– Raise the 5 percent limit on commercial paper issuers to 10 or 15 percent of interim funds.

-Amend 5705.212 to allow incremental levies to be used for permanent improvements. Under current law, incremental levies can only be used for current expense (operating) levies.

-Establish a deadline for initiating the purchase of service credit for approved leaves of absences by STRS members.

-Require the State or the court to pay the tuition of a student assigned to a Department of Youth Services or private residential facility.

-Lengthen the number of years for nonteaching employees to achieve tenure to reduce the practice by school districts and educational service centers to non-renew those staff members at the end of each year, and then re-hire them a month or so later in order to avoid giving these employees tenure.

-Permit regional councils of government (RCOGs) to designate themselves as educational energy councils (EECs) if they are composed exclusively of school districts, and have engaged in acquiring energy supplies for school districts.

7)  Bills Introduced

  • HB74 (Brenner) Primary-Secondary Assessments:

-Requires the state board of education to adopt a diagnostic assessment aligned with the academic standards and model curriculum for each of grades kindergarten through three in reading, but not writing, and for grade two in mathematics.  The ODE shall specify two mathematics diagnostic assessments that are approved for identifying students as gifted in superior cognitive ability and specify academic ability fields, and for the student academic growth component of teacher evaluations.

-Limits elementary assessments and high school end of course assessments administered on or after July 1, 2015 to three hours per assessment.

-Exempts time limits on assessments for students with disabilities; the English language arts assessment for third grade reading or related diagnostic assessments; the nationally standardized assessment that measures college and career readiness; or substitute exams.

-Eliminates the fall administration of the English language arts assessment for the 2015-16 school year.

-Requires the ODE to identify and approve at least two assessments that can be used for multiple purposes, including a diagnostic assessment administered to third-grade students; an assessment that permits a student to demonstrate an acceptable level of performance for purposes of the third grade reading guarantee; and an assessment used to identify students as gifted in specific academic ability fields in reading, writing, or both.

-Allows a school or district to charge a student for an advanced placement or international baccalaureate exam.

-Reduces the number of “end of course exams” from seven to five by eliminating exams in English language arts II and geometry.

-Requires the ODE by March 1, 2016 to compile a list of multiple assessments that are equivalent to the end of course exams and allows school districts to use those exams beginning with the 2016-17 school year.

-Sets the score of “two” for meeting the proficient level of skill on the advanced placement and “three” for meeting the proficient level of skill on the international baccalaureate exams.

-Allows a school district to use the end of course exams, substitute exams, or equivalent exams as final exams.

-Requires the administration of the language and reading skills portion of the kindergarten assessment by the thirtieth day of September, but allows other parts to be administered at different times, as long as the assessment is completed by November 1, 2015.

-New Section 3301.132: States that the ODE shall determine which components of the resident educator performance-based assessment, as prescribed by rule of the state board of education for purposes of the Ohio teacher residency program, may be used as part of the teacher evaluations. Requires the ODE to develop a table of assessments that may be used for multiple purposes for which a measure of student performance or aptitude is required in order to reduce the total number of assessments administered by a district or school.

-New Section 3313.903: States that the ODE shall consider an industry-recognized credential or a license issued by a state agency or board for practice in a vocation that requires an examination for issuance of that license as an acceptable measure of technical skill attainment and shall not require a student with such credential or license to take additional technical assessments.

-Section 3319.111 Teacher Evaluation:  States that for teachers who teach English language arts or mathematics in any of grades four through eight for which the value-added progress dimension or an alternative student academic progress measure is applicable, the state board shall use the value-added progress dimension or the alternative student academic progress measure.

For teachers who teach English language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies in any of grades four through twelve for which the value-added progress dimension or alternative student academic progress measure is not applicable, the board shall administer assessments on the list developed under division (B)(2) of section 3319.112 of the Revised Code.

For teachers who teach in a subject area other than English language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies in any of grades four through twelve for which the value-added progress dimension or alternative student academic progress measure is not applicable, the state board shall establish and use a method for determining the student academic growth measure.

For teachers who teach English language arts or mathematics in any of grades one through three, the board shall administer assessments on the list developed under division (B)(2) of Section 3319.112 of the Revised Code.

For teachers who teach kindergarten or teach in a subject area other than English language arts or mathematics in any of grades one through three, the board shall establish and use a method for determining the student academic growth measure.

Section 6. Requires the State Board of Education not later than July 1, 2016 to review and revise the framework for evaluation of teachers prescribed under sections 3319.111, 3319.112, and 3319.114 of the Revised Code to reduce the estimated time necessary to complete teacher evaluations.

Section 7. Requires the ODE to conduct a comprehensive survey of the capacity and readiness of each school district for online administration of the assessments based on recommended specifications for such administration of the assessments. The survey conducted under this section shall include information regarding hardware, software, bandwidth, technical support, security requirements, training for teachers regarding the administration of assessments, and training for students regarding taking the assessments. The ODE will report the results of the survey to the Governor, the chairpersons and ranking members of the education committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the State Board of Education and any issues or problems identified in the survey.

Section 8. Requires the State Board of Education to provide on the web site of the ODE an online opportunity to make comments on specific academic content standards adopted under section 3301.079 of the Revised Code as part of the process established for the academic standards review committees under division (I) of that section.

Requires the State Board of Education not later than June 30, 2016 to review the current academic content standards taking into consideration the input from the academic standards review committees and comments posted on the ODE’s web site and  adopt revised academic content standards for each of grades kindergarten through twelve in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Section 9. Requires the ODE to issue a request for proposals to provide the elementary assessments prescribed by section 3301.0710 of the Revised Code and the end- of-course examinations prescribed by section 3301.0712 of the Revised Code for administration by school districts and schools beginning with the 2015-2016 school year. In reviewing proposals the ODE shall consider, at a minimum, ease of administration, content, format, overall quality, performance benchmarks, and cost. The ODE shall solicit input from teachers and administrators when reviewing proposals. Multi-state consortia shall not be eligible to submit a proposal.

  • HB70 (Driehaus/Brenner) School Restructuring: Authorizes school districts and community schools to initiate a community learning center process to assist and guide school restructuring.
  • SB59 (Skindell) Community Schools-State Approved Funds: Amends Section 3314.074 and creates new Section 3314.025 of the Revised Code:

Section 3314.025 states that any state funds paid to a community school pursuant to this chapter that are used as payment for services rendered by an operator or management company shall maintain their status as public money once transferred to the operator or management company. When an operator or management company expends public money to purchase furniture, computers, software, equipment, or other personal property for use in the operation of a community school under this chapter, such property is property of that school and is not property of the operator or management company. The operator or management company shall retain proceeds gained through such services only after the operator or management company has fully discharged its contractual, statutory, and fiduciary obligations to that community school.

Section 3314.074 Creates new division (C) which states that when a community school permanently closes and ceases its operation as a community school, any furniture, computers, software, equipment, or other personal property that was acquired by the operator or management company of the school shall be redistributed to the school districts in which the students who were enrolled in the school at the time it ceased operation were entitled to attend, to the extent redistribution is possible.

FYI ARTS

  • Contact Needed on ESEA Reauthorization: If you haven’t already done so, please visit Americans for the Arts Advocacy Center to contact your representative in the U.S. House about H.R. 5 Student Success Act.  H.R. 5 would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The House might take-up action on the bill by the end of the month, so now is the time to contact your representative.  Arts education advocates are requesting that the H.R. 5 retain the definition of “core academic subject” (which currently includes the arts) and retain funding for the Arts in Education program at the U.S. Department of Education.

See http://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/legislation-policy/legislative-issue-center/arts-education-policy-and-funding

See The Arts Action Center at http://www.artsactionfund.org/pages/action-center

  • Status Report on Arts Education in New Jersey: The New Jersey Arts Education Partnership reports that data about arts participation in New Jersey public schools for the 2013-14 school year are available through the Interactive School Performance Dashboards for Arts Education at www.artsednj.org.  The information included in the dashboards is based on the certified staff file for all schools in New Jersey and the high school arts participation data from the New Jersey School Performance Reports, just released by the New Jersey State Department of Education.

According to the School Performance Reports,  93.8 percent of schools in New Jersey offered arts education programs, providing access to nearly 1.3 million students (97 percent of all students). Student participation in high school arts programs grew to just 49.3 percent of all students.

See http://www.artsednj.org/slider/arts-education-in-new-jersey-schools-continues-to-grow-97-of-students-have-access-to-arts-education/


This update is written weekly by Joan Platz, Research and Knowledge Director for the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education.  The purpose of the update is to keep arts education advocates informed about issues dealing with the arts, education, policy, research, and opportunities.  The distribution of this information is made possible through the generous support of the Ohio Music Education Association (www.omea-ohio.org), Ohio Art Education Association (www.oaea.org), Ohio Educational Theatre Association (www.ohedta.org); OhioDance (www.ohiodance.org), and the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education (www.oaae.net).

Advertisements

About OAAE

Since our founding in 1974, by Dr. Dick Shoup and Jerry Tollifson, our mission has always been to ensure the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. Working at the local, state, and federal levels through the efforts of a highly qualified and elected Board of Directors, our members, and a professional staff we have four primary areas of focus: building collaborations, professional development, advocacy, and capacity building. The OAAE is funded in part for its day-to-day operation by the Ohio Arts Council. This support makes it possible for the OAAE to operate its office in Columbus and to work statewide to ensure the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. Support for arts education projects comes from the Ohio Arts Council, Ohio Music Education Association, Ohio Art Education Association, Ohio Educational Theatre Association, VSA Ohio, and OhioDance. The Community Arts Education programs of Central Ohio are financially assisted by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners and the Greater Columbus Arts Council. We gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the financial support received from each of these outstanding agencies and organizations.
This entry was posted in Arts On Line and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s