Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Educational Service Centers: A National & State Perspective Ohio School Boards Association & Ohio ESC Association Annual Joint Workshop March 27, 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Educational Service Centers: A National & State Perspective Ohio School Boards Association & Ohio ESC Association Annual Joint Workshop March 27, 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 Educational Service Centers: A National & State Perspective Ohio School Boards Association & Ohio ESC Association Annual Joint Workshop March 27, 2009 Craig Burford, Executive Director Ohio ESC Association

2 Overview  National Perspective of Educational Service Agencies (ESAs)  State ESC Trends and Perspectives  FY State Operating Budget Setting the Stage: Challenges Facing Ohio Strickland Administration’s Executive Budget Proposal Revenue and Spending Education Policy Proposals  Education Reform  School Funding Reform  Other Politics of State Budgeting  Opportunities for ESCs

3 Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) A National Perspective

4 Educational Service Agencies 4 Regions 45 States 553 Agencies

5 ESA Nomenclature AEAArea Education Agency BOCESBoard of Cooperative Educational Services CESACooperative Education Service Agency COECounty Office of Education ECEducational Cooperative ESAEducation Service Agency ESCEducation Service Center / Cooperative / Commission ESDEducational Service District ESUEducation Service Unit ISCIntermediate Service Center ISDIntermediate School District IUIntermediate Unit RECRegional Education(al) Cooperative RESARegional Education Service Agency RESCRegional Education Service Center ROERegional Office of Education RRCRegional Resource Center SCService Cooperative

6 ESA Board Member Selection Process (5)Elected by the general public - *California, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon (16) Elected/Appointed by LEA Board Members - Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, West Virginia (22) States where LEA Superintendents make up the boards - Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Utah (1) State without Boards – Arizona (1) Board made up of Chief State School Officers - Hawaii Governance

7 Category ESA BoardsStates Members Term 1. States where ESA Boards are the Superintendents Indefinite 2. States where LEA Boards elect the ESA Boards States where ESA Boards are elected by the public States without Boards ESAs with Chief State School 1 10 Indefinite Total Number of States 45 Governance (cont.)

8 Educational Service Agency Services 316 Adult Education 308 Media/Instructional Libraries 297 Vocational Education 253 Gifted Education 251 Incarcerated Students 239 Student Testing/Evaluation Computer and Audio-Visual Repair

9 ESA Services (cont.) 228 Personnel 186 Recruitment/Screening 186 Printing Center 164 Insurance Services 159 Safety/Risk Management 147 Teacher Training Centers Telecommunications/Distance Learning 128 Energy Management

10 What State Level Policies Contribute to the Effectiveness of Regional Delivery Systems? -ESAs will assist SDOE and SBE in carrying out their duties. -ESAs will help insure equity and equal access for all students. -ESAs will develop cost effective cooperatives that meet LEA needs. -Where a basic level of funding is established for core services -Where ESAs have permissive rather than specific authority -Where coordination of agency services is supported by the State -Where ESAs can leverage effectiveness of scale (cost effectiveness)

11 What State Level Policies are Barriers to Effective Services? Where ESAs are required to provide assistance and also act as the regulatory arm (professional development – vs – certification requirements). Where services are a patchwork (i.e. professional development, special education and technology). When ESAs have traditional geographic and/or arbitrary boundaries. When ESAs do not have the ability to execute inter-local agreements. When ESAs lack performance and/or accountability standards.

12 AESA Research  ESA Accountability & Accreditation Systems  Alternative Certification  Profile of State Associations  Compilation of State Network Annual Reports  Great Lakes ESAs Study  How Superintendents/CEO’s View the Frequency of Common Network Leadership and Management Challenges Facing Their Agencies  Entrepreneurial ESAs

13 Pressing Federal Issues  Funding/Appropriations  ESEA – Reauthorization  IDEA – Funding & Fixing Regulations  Medicaid  Higher Ed  E-Rate

14 The usage of ESA services will grow and expand Accountability policies that identify “failing” schools pose an urgent policy challenge for state governments. Public identification of schools where performance falls below acceptable standards implies an obligation to turn these schools around, but our knowledge about how to make ineffective schools effective remains limited. In this paper we ask which institutions— school districts, state governments, mayors’ offices, universities, for-profit education management organizations, or regional education service agencies— are best suited to turn around “failing” schools, on the basis of three criteria: capacity, scale, and trust. Our analysis suggests that regional education service agencies are especially strong candidates to meet this challenge. (Arsen, Bell and Plank, 2004)

15 Educational Service Centers A State Perspective

16 Ohio’s ESCs StateYear Established Original # of Units Common ESA Title in the Great Lakes Region Illinois Regional Offices of Education (ROEs) Indiana Educational Service Centers (ESCs) Michigan Intermediate School Districts (ISDs) Ohio Educational Service Centers (ESCs) Wisconsin Cooperative Educational Service Agencies (CESAs)

17 Governor’s Education Reform Process  9 Policy Areas of Focus  State Accountability  District School Board & Governing Authority Leadership  Charter School Accountability  Quality Teaching  Professional Learning Communities  Creative, Innovative and Safe Learning Environments  Closing the Achievement Gap & Graduation Gap  Standards & Testing  Adequate Funding  Education Reform vs. School Funding Reform  Transformational Dialogue, Institute for Creativity and Innovation in Education, Stakeholder Working Groups, Regional Meetings – how does this all align and inform the work?

18 Governor’s Ed Reform Process (cont.) 9 Policy Areas: Education Reform Process Summary  State Accountability  District School Board & Governing Authority Leadership  Charter School Accountability  Quality Teaching  Professional Learning Communities  Creative, Innovative, and Safe Learning Environments  Closing the Achievement Gap and Graduation Gap  Standards and Testing  Adequate Funding 6 Key Principles: State of the State Address  Strengthen our Commitment to Public Education  A Modern Education Must be Directly Linked to Economic Prosperity  We Need to Identify the Great Strengths of our Schools  Our Best Teachers Can Show Us What Works Best in the Classroom  We Must Strive to Develop a Specific, Personalized education Program that Identifies how Each Individual Student Learns and Use the Teaching Methods Appropriate to that Student’s Needs and Abilities  Testing and Assessment will Continue to Answer Accountability Questions. But their most important role will be to Guide Personalized and Individualized Education Governor’s 7 Policy Priorities: OBM Budget Guidance Documents  Provide High Quality Early Child Care and Education  Create Schools that Work for Every Child  Increase the Number of Students in Ohio’s Colleges and Universities  Build on Ohio’s regional economics and globally competitive industries  Provide all Ohioans the opportunities to attin skills for high-quality jobs  Stabilize health costs for government and businesses and advance the health of our citizens  Retain, create and attract jobs for Ohio workers. Where do ESCs fit?

19 State Budgeting Process  April – Budget Development Begins 9 Months Prior to Budget Release.  January - State of the State Address Identifies Executive Priorities and Sets State Budget Policy Direction  February - Executive Budget Released Within Four Weeks of the Organization of the General Assembly  February/March - House Deliberates  April/May - Senate Deliberates  June - Conference Committee Reconciles Differences  June 30 - Balanced Budget Signed

20 Ohio’s Economic and Educational Challenges: Setting the Context How Ohio Ranks  47 th in Economic Momentum  Ohio is 38 th in higher education attainment rates with only 23 percent of the population (25 years+) having a bachelor’s degree or higher.  Ohio lost 3.7 percent of non-farm jobs from (Worst seven year loss since Great Depression).  During same time period, Ohio lost 23.3 percent of manufacturing jobs, 27 percent of management jobs, and 13 percent of high tech jobs.

21 Ohio’s Economic and Educational Challenges: Setting the Context How Ohio Ranks  Ohio was the largest net exporter of talent in the 1990s (adults 20-54).  The trend continued into the new millenium Net migration numbers show approximately 31,600 residents leaving Ohio each year from 2000 to  By 2030, the Census Bureau projects that Ohio will drop from being the 7 th most populous state to the 9 th. Michigan will fall out of the top 10.

22 Executive Budget Proposal State of the State Address Sets Policy Direction: Strickland’s Priorities 1. Education a) Primary and Secondary & Higher Education 2. Healthcare 3. Jobs 4. Economic Development 5. Government Efficiency Key Budget Call(s) – Retaining Republican Enacted Tax Reforms, Not Raising Taxes, Maintaining Most State Services

23 Executive Budget Proposal Academic Reforms  21 st Century Skills and Core Knowledge  21 st Century Learning Environments  Academic Supports and Additional Learning Opportunities  Community and Family Engagement  Focus on Creativity and Innovation  Quality Teaching  Life and Career Readiness Courses for Middle School Students  Universal All-Day Kindergarten  Expansion of the School Year by 20 days Over 10 years

24 Executive Budget Proposal: Academic Reforms (cont.)  Dedicated Resources to Instructional Materials and Enrichment Activities  One RN in Each district and Nurse Wellness Coordinator (LPN) in Each Building  Family and Community Engagement Team in Each District  Family and Community Coordinator in Each Building  4-Year Residency and Career Ladder for Teachers  Create “Teach Ohio” Program  Provide Additional Time for Teacher Collaboration  Strengthen Licensing Standards of Principals, Business Managers, Treasurers and Superintendents  Other

25 Executive Budget Proposal Funding Reforms  Ohio’s Evidence-Based Model for Funding a 21 st Century Education  Eliminate Charge off “Phantom Revenue”  Reduce Reappraisal “Phantom Revenue” by Providing Local Communities with a Tool to Let Resources Grow at the 20 Mill Floor

26 Executive Budget Proposal (cont) OEBM Funding Components Many of these reflect services ESCs already provide to member districts. OESCA believes nothing should prohibit districts from continuing to utilize ESCs in the provision of these and other services. School Size Class Size Full-Day Kindergarten Limited English Proficient (LEP) Core Teachers Ohio Instructional Quality Index Specialist Teachers Career-Technical Teachers Lead Teachers Tutors Summer School Students with Disabilities Gifted Students Student Enrichment Supervisory Aides Media Services Technology and Equipment Instructional Materials Principals Clerical/Building Manager Counselor Nurse Wellness Coordinator Registered Nurse Support Staff for Low Income Students Professional Development Operations and Maintenance District Level Administration

27 Accountability Reforms  Demands fiscal, operational and academic accountability and transparency.  Seeks to ensure taxpayers know exactly how their dollars are being spent, right down to an individual school building’s budget.  Building Site Visits and District Performance Audits.  In Addition, Includes Performance Audits of ESCs and Recommendations for Accountability/Performance Benchmarks. Executive Budget Proposal: Accountability Reform

28 Executive Budget Proposal: JVS/Career Technical & MR/DD JVS  1.9% funding increase  Creates Joint Vocation School District Funding Committee to recommend revisions to the program and funding model  New Model implemented in FY MR/DD  1.9% funding increase in set-aside under special education enhancements for school-aged special education funding purposes.

29 ESC Per Pupil Funding Subsidy ($37/$40.52) ESCs  Funded at 90% FY 2009 Cut Level (9.65% cut)  Cut additional 10% ($4.75 M) in FY 2010 to fund performance audits.  Flat-funded in FY 2011 (as compared to FY 2010) FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011 $52 M$48 M $42.3 M

30 ESC Study Committee  ESCs to undergo performance audits.  Creates ESC Study Committee to study the extent to which the current system supports academic achievement, teacher quality, shared educational services, purchasing services and commodities.  Recommendations regarding Regional Service Delivery, ESC Governance, Accountability Metrics are to be made by October 1, 2010.

31 Gifted Funding  Eliminates the current unit funding and provides funding at $25 per ADM in each district and community school.  The Summer Honors Institutes and Martin Essex program funding have been eliminated.  The full effect of the proposal reduces dedicated gifted funding from the current level of $48,000,000 to $23,000,000.  Currently, approximately $33 million in unit funding (coordinators and intervention specialists) flows directly to districts and is included on the SF-3.  Currently, approximately $9 million (300 units) flows to ESCs to hire units that in turn serve districts that contract with the ESC.  Transitional Aid Guarantee only contemplate those funds that flow through the SF-3 to districts.

32 Special Education Funding  Updated Funding of Special Education Weights. 90% of OCECD 2006 weights - but are they the right Weights?  Over $100 million in “new” funding. May be over-reliant on 1-time funding via federal stimulus dollars. The FY 2010 formula is as follows: ((ADM count x weights) x 0.9)) / 20 x $51,407 x IQ Index

33 Special Education Funding (cont.)  The bill excludes related service providers that are mandated in the Operating Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities (OAC – ).  Professionals such as school psychologists, speech and language pathologists, and physical therapists do not appear to be included in the bill, nor are they cited in Sec or Sec , the instructional services support funding factors.

34 School Improvement & Related Funding  ALI – is funded at $9,349,007 in FY 2010 (31.8% decrease) and flat funded in FY ($3.3 M in Foundation Eliminated)  In other words, $9.3 Million each year.  Down from $13.7 Million  School Improvement Grants (ALI )  No less than $50 K to schools in school improvement status to implement school improvement strategies (over 3 year period). Up to 4% of Title 1 Funding may also be used for this purpose.

35 Federal Stimulus Package Update The executive budget proposal assumed federal stimulus funds based on the U.S. House-passed version. However, the final stimulus package, despite generating less funding overall to the states, did not adversely impact the Governor’s proposal as it relates to education funding. To follow is a breakdown of the federal stimulus package funding for education for Ohio:  Title I Grants to LEAs$373,250,296  IDEA Part B Grants to States$437,736,052  IDEA Part B Preschool Grants$ 13,359,358  IDEA Part C Grants for Infants$ 14,409,609 and Families

36 Executive Budget Proposal Early Analysis of Long-term View of Education Funding Raises Significant Questions. This will be at the heart of “budget politics” $925 Million increase is not all “new money”. Preliminary analysis suggests new funding is approximately $12.9 Million in FY 2010 and $261.6 Million in FY 2011 including anticipated federal stimulus funds. Relies heavily on federal stimulus package. Proper use of these funds currently in question and under review. The Executive Proposal relies on $5-$7 Billion in one- time money to balance the budget including Federal Stimulus, Rainy Day Funds, & a combination of increased fees, cash transfers and other money management strategies. Revenue Estimates anticipate GRF will grow by $6.9 Billion by FY Budget. New School Funding Formula will require an additional $6.08 Billion over same period.

37 Budget Politics February 12, 2009 Congress Reach Deal on Stimulus Plan “…Despite intense lobbying by governors, the final deal slashed $35 billion from a proposed state fiscal stabilization fund, eliminated $16 billion in aid for school construction and sharply curtailed health care subsidies for the unemployed. In driving down the total cost of the stimulus bill from $838 billion approved by the Senate and $820 billion by the House legislators also sharply reduced proposed tax incentives for buyers of homes and cars that held huge public appeal.”

38 More Budget Politics Divided State Government  First Term Democrat Governor – in 3 rd year First Democrat Governor in 20 years High Approval Rating  House Democratic Majority (53-46) Likely to support Governor’s proposals with limited changes beyond those supported by the Administration.  Significant Senate Republican Majority (21-12) Likely where most of the debate will take place and most changes advanced. Other External Factors  Business Support of Education Reforms (BRT)  KnowledgeWorks Foundation  Ohio Business Roundtable  Higher Education

39 Focus on Districts Flat Funding Budget Reductions Facility Costs Choice of ESCs Choice of ERSS Region Supplemental Services Other choice options ESC Mergers Financial Forecast Quality Delivery Standards Funding tied to accountability for results Accreditation  Revenue Down  Expenditures Up  Medicaid Growth  1-time Federal $  University System of Ohio;  Dual Credit  Potential of Increased K-12 Competition  12 Regional Meetings  Education Reform not School Funding Reform  Creativity & Innovation  Quality Teaching  Education of “Whole Child”  21 st Century Skills  Individualized Learning  Mastery Learning  Definition of School Day/School Year  Technology  Majority of Districts Flat funded in 1 st year  1/3 flat funded in both  Historically low levy passage rates “Map” of Trends Impacting ESCs & Shaping the Future of Educational Service Delivery in Ohio  Elimination of Outdated Mandates  No newly defined requirements

40 Opportunities for ESCs: Assisting Districts to Address Pressures and Build District Capacity  Becoming a Provider of Choice Value proposition has to be about more than cost, it has to be about the depth, breadth and quality of services. What is Your Value Added? What is the Impact of Your Services?  School Improvement Services  Recruitment and Retention of Administrators and Teachers  Alternative Teacher Licensure  Professional Learning Communities  Supplemental Services  Data Driven Decision Making  P-16, Dual Credit and other Collaboratives with Higher Education & Community Organizations  Facilitator of “Wrap Around Services” – Mental Health, Health, Department of Jobs and Family Services, Juvenile Courts, others  Embedded Professional Development Opportunities  Shared Services  Workforce Development

41 ESCs Hundreds of Integrated Programs and Services Other ESCs Charter Schools Private Schools Family & Children First Business (BACs) Congress ODE Other State & Federal Agencies LEAs General Assembly Alternative Education Programs Hospitals & Health Clinics Communities Higher Education County & Regional Detention Centers Foundations Educational Service Centers: Ohio’s Educational “Connectors” Higher Ed MR/DD DYS

42 Web Links of Interest Governor Strickland’s 2009 State of the State Address: 4/Default.aspx Office of Budget and Management: Office of Budget and Management Budget Documents: Regional Conversations on Education & Partnership for 21 st Century Skills: ODE Center for Budget and Planning: D=690&ContentID=7099&Content=56410 ODE Education Reform Information: D=1599&Content=63410 Ohio General Assembly & Legislative Service Commission:

43 Questions & Answers Notes: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Contact Information Craig Burford, Executive Director Ohio Educational Service Center Association 8050 North High Street, Suite 150 Columbus, OH Phone: (614) Fax: (614) Web:


Download ppt "Educational Service Centers: A National & State Perspective Ohio School Boards Association & Ohio ESC Association Annual Joint Workshop March 27, 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google