update on schools in ohio lecture 15 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Update on Schools in Ohio Lecture 15 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Update on Schools in Ohio Lecture 15

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Update on Schools in Ohio Lecture 15 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Update on Schools in Ohio Lecture 15. Supplement to Bill Moyer’s, Children in America’s Schools. Ohio School Enrollment, 2004. About 2 million children were enrolled in elementary and secondary schools 1.8 million in public schools 0.22 million in private schools

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Update on Schools in Ohio Lecture 15

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
update on schools in ohio lecture 15

Update on Schools in OhioLecture 15

Supplement to Bill Moyer’s, Children in America’s Schools

ohio school enrollment 2004
Ohio School Enrollment, 2004
  • About 2 million children were enrolled in elementary and secondary schools
    • 1.8 million in public schools
    • 0.22 million in private schools
  • No significant change in the total number of students since the mid 1980s.
  • Private schools enrollment has declined by about 20,000 in the last five years.
  • Source: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/accountability/condition_of_edu/ConditionofEducation_1.pdf
ohio school enrollment 2004 cont
Ohio School Enrollment, 2004, cont.
  • Ethnic/racial composition of Ohio’s students
    • 79 percent White
    • 17 percent Black
    • 2 Hispanic
    • 2 percent multiracial
    • 1 Asian or Pacific Islander
ohio school enrollment 2004 cont1
Ohio School Enrollment, 2004, cont.
  • Economically Disadvantaged Students
    • Percentage increased from 13% in 1999-2000 to 30% in 2003-04
    • 30 districts had no economically disadvantaged students
ohio school enrollment 2004 cont2
Ohio School Enrollment, 2004, cont.
  • Among the 582 districts with some economically disadvantaged students:
    • 25 % reported less than 13%
    • 25 % reported more than 31%
    • 7% (42) reported 50% or more
      • 40% were rural
      • 38% were urban
  • In each of the 8 largest urban districts, at least 56% of students were economically disadvantaged.
how are schools funded in ohio
Foundation formula
Method of funding schools through a combination of state and local aid. Based on the ability of school districts to raise tax revenues as well as the state-determined minimum amount necessary per student to provide an adequate education.

http://www.ohiofairschools.org/learn/study/OFSC%202.pdf and http://www.osba-ohio.org/terms.htm

How are Schools Funded in Ohio?
how are schools funded in ohio cont1
How are Schools Funded in Ohio?, cont.
  • Base formula amount
Dollar figure assigned by the General Assembly that represents what the state believes it costs to adequately educate one child with no special needs for one year. For FY 2005 the base formula amount is $5,169.
  • Cost-of-doing-business factor (CODBF)
Multiplier determined by the state that increases the formula for districts that are in an area with a high cost of living. Maximum is 7.5%.
how are schools funded in ohio cont2
How are Schools Funded in Ohio?, cont.
  • Average daily membership (ADM)
Number of students enrolled in a school district who are either in attendance or have an excused absence the first full week in October.
  • Chargeoff
Millage rate established by the General Assembly that, when multiplied times a districtユs recognized valuation, provides the local contribution to the foundation formula. It is currently set at 23 mills. The term is sometimes used interchangeably to describe both the millage set by the legislature and the entire local contribution.
how are schools funded in ohio cont3
How are Schools Funded in Ohio?, cont.
  • Total Recognized Valuation Taxable value of all Class I and Class II real property, general tangible personal property and public utility personal property in a district.
legal challenges rulings
Legal Challenges/Rulings
  • DeRolph vs.. State of Ohio, March 1997 (filed in 1991)
    • Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio’s public school financing system violates the Ohio Constitution, which mandates a “Thorough and efficient system of common school throughout the state.”
    • Property tax may no longer be used as the primary source of funding
    • General Assembly’s budget insufficient for building and maintenance of buildings
legal challenges rulings cont
Legal Challenges/Rulings, cont.
  • Ohio’s response
    • Senate Bill 102, 1997--created the Ohio School Facilities Commission with initial budget of $300 million
    • Senate Bill 55, 1997--established school district performance standards
    • House Bill 412, 1997--provided for fiscal accountability at district level
    • HB 650, 1999--authorized general obligation bonds to pay for school facilities and $170 million for school construction, and outlined the methodology for determining the base cost of an education.
legal challenges rulings cont1
Legal Challenges/Rulings, cont.
  • House Bill 1, 1999--implemented the OhioReads initiative through reading grants
  • House Bill 282, 1999--created a separate state education budget.
  • Senate Bill 192, 2000--committed $2.5 billion over 12 years to school construction and repair (Tobacco Master Settlement).
legal challenges rulings cont2
Legal Challenges/Rulings, cont.
  • DeRolph II: Second Supreme Court Ruling, May 2000
    • Ohio’s response did not meet the “thorough and efficient” standard
    • Remaining problems
      • Continued reliance on property taxes
      • Cost of an adequate education formula contained structural deficiencies
      • Continued use of decaying buildings
legal challenges rulings cont3
Legal Challenges/Rulings, cont.
  • DeRolph III: Third Ohio Supreme Court ruling, September, 2001
    • Funding method still unconstitutional
    • Orders Ohio to alter the methodology for determining per pupil base support and accelerate the phase in of parity aid.
  • Court ordered mediation fails, 2002
legal challenges rulings cont4
Legal Challenges/Rulings, cont.
  • DeRolph IV: On Dec. 11, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, found Ohio’s school-funding system once again unconstitutional and restated its decisions in DeRolph I and II, which required the state legislature to fix the school- funding system.
  • The court also relinquished jurisdiction over the case and essentially ended the suit.
statistics for schools in ohio s appalachian districts
Statistics for Schools in Ohio’s Appalachian Districts
  • Approximately fifteen percent of Ohio’s public school students attend a school in Appalachia.
  • Twenty-four of the 29 counties have poverty levels higher than the Ohio average. The state median income per taxpayer is about $5,000 below State median.
  • Per Pupil Property Tax Valuation is more than $32,000 below state average.
  • Expenditures per pupil average nearly $500 per year below state average.
  • Average teacher salaries are $4,200 below the state average. http://www.coras.org/character.html
the status of school facilities
The Status of School Facilities
  • $4.3 billion appropriated for new construction and repair since 1997.
  • $12 billion in projects have been approved
  • Over 290 new or renovated buildings have been opened since November 2000.
  • 92 districts, serving 137,000 children (7% of all K-12 students) have had their entire facilities needs fully addressed.

Source: http://www.osfc.state.oh.us/

statewide report card 2004 05
Statewide Report Card2004-05
  • Ohio claims to be making progress
    • Composite scores on Ohio’s achievement tests increased by 17 points over the past six years
    • School districts move up into higher designations each year.
  • Sources:



statewide report card cont2
Statewide Report Card, cont.
  • Problems remain
    • Significant numbers of children of all races fail to pass the State’s achievement tests
    • Minority and poor children lag behind in achievement
achievement gaps
Achievement Gaps
  • “In the American educational system, racial discrimination has resulted in a pattern of segregated and inferior schools for blacks and other minorities. . . . The consequences of this discrimination are manifest in the low educational attainments of minority youth.” Schiller, p. 188..
achievement gaps cont
Achievement Gaps, cont.
  • At the sixth grade level, only one out of four African-American students in Ohio demonstrated proficiency in reading compared to two out of three white students.
  • In Ohio’s elementary school, for every 10 percentage point increase in the poverty level, achievement in reading decreases by 5.6 percentage points.
  • In the class of 2007 (the first class required to pass the rigorous Ohio Graduation Test, only 11 percent of African Americans passed all sections of the Ohio Proficiency Test in 2000-2001.
achievement gaps cont1
Achievement Gaps, cont.
  • There are 50 schools in Ohio in which 75 percent or more of each racial/ethnic group of students demonstrate proficiency in either reading or mathematics on the Ohio Proficiency Tests. These schools prove that achievement gaps are not ability gaps.
  • http://www.ode.state.oh.us/achievement_gaps/Closing_Achievement_Gaps_Task_Force/Achievement_Gaps_Task_Force_Home.asp
final thoughts
Final Thoughts
  • What factors influence the learning opportunities?
  • Does money matter?
  • Are increasing per pupil expenditure and building better school facilities the solutions to improving the quality of education?
  • Would spending the same amount of money on national standardize testing and promotion requirements produce greater improvements?