I was first elected to the Euclid School Board in 2001.  I have served as the Legislative Liaison for six of those eight years.  In that role I have attempted to monitor education policy at the State and Federal level.  Often times, I have been asked by Ohio Education organizations (such as the Ohio Fair Schools Campaign and the Ohio School Boards Association) to deliver testimony.  During the State budget deliberations, I testified before the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate.   Copied below are my remarks before the Ohio House Finance Committee which I presented on April 17, 2007.  The next blog posting will be my Ohio Senate testimony. – Kent 8/16/2009  

 

Public Testimony by Kent Smith

Euclid City School Board President

Ohio House Finance Committee Hearing – April 17, 2007

 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the education portion of HB 119.  I am Kent Smith.  I am in my second term on the Euclid City School Board and I currently serve as that Board’s President.   I am myself a Euclid High School graduate who has gone on to receive two degrees from state supported universities.  I am also a student.  I am in the PhD program at Cleveland State where I am pursing a doctorate in Economic Development.  So some of my general remarks in support of this budget will be coming from an Economic Development perspective. 

This budget is a step in the right direction for K-12 education and from that perspective; it should be seen as an investment in Ohio’s economy.  One of the most critical components to economic development is the cost and quality of labor.  Public school funding should be viewed as a research and development investment in Ohio’s future industry.  Every dollar allocated for public education today increases long-term productivity and spurs new innovations. 

Education is a renewable good.  “Ideas” do not wear out or expire.  From that perspective education should be viewed as an economic driver in an economy where process and product innovation hold the key to our future economic viability.   The investment that the state of Ohio makes today will reap benefits in future markets and will lead to a brighter economic outlook for this state.

This budget increases the overall state investment in education so that the burden for funding K-12 education increases from the current state share of 48% to 54% by 2011.  By increasing Poverty Aid and Parity Aid this budget targets more resources to the states more needy children and the districts that serve those children.   The securitization of the tobacco settlement money will allow for a tax cut to seniors and the disabled so that one in four Ohioans will receive some property tax relief.   This budget is positive step forward for Ohio’s present and future.  It increase support for K-12 education while reducing the local weight of that funding.  It increases dollars while providing a tax cut for 1 in 4 Ohioans.

Now let me shift the focus of my remarks from a statewide perspective to the district that I am elected to represent.  Let me provide a little history about that school district that I graduated from – the Euclid City Schools.  Before I begin that brief history lesson, let me start with an acknowledgment of thanks for the system of accountability that has been created by the Ohio General Assembly.  

When the proficiency testing and state report card were first introduced in our school system – my Euclid school system was in academic emergency.  This created great anger in the community where I grew up – a community that had believed that their school system was an asset not a liability.  Instead of instituting major change the district’s school board and superintendent made incidental changes at the fringes and kept telling the community that our schools were “not as bad as we thought they were.”

The subtlety in that spin was the defeatist rhetoric that “these kids can’t learn”.  The demographics of the Euclid School district had changed.  More than 55% of the kids that attend the Euclid Public School are at or below federal poverty guidelines and qualify for free or reduced meals.  1 in 6 of my kids have some sort of Special Education designation. 

But after doing a fairly simple analysis using the test score data and enrollment numbers, I determined that the district was overcrowded K-8 and that we were actually doing fairly well at the high school level.  Our district had seen an increase of over 1,000 students in the 1990’s yet we had not re-opened any buildings that we had shuttered when our enrollment dropped after the baby boom. 

I ran for the Euclid School Board in 2001 believing that if we could reduce overcrowding our student achievement scores would increase.  If elected I vowed to work to restored all-day, every day kindergarten; which was impossible in 2001 due to overcrowding.  The Euclid School system did not have enough classroom space to accommodate the increase in Kindergarten classes.  We needed to reopen buildings – if we did that, I believed, our districts scores would increase.

I was elected in November 2001 and we hired a new superintendent that next year.  Another new Board member was elected in 2003.  Euclid voters – despite our District being in Academic Watch – passed a Permanent Improvement Levy in March 2004, which allowed us to re-opened buildings and reconfigured the district for the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year.   In November of 2005, voters passed an operating levy so that the district would not have to lay-off teachers and two new Board members were elected.  In August of 2006, our district paid back the support of the residents of my hometown by achieving “Continuous Improvement” status for the first time ever.

 In the 2004 / 2005 school year we had 5 of our buildings in Academic Emergency; 2 were in Academic Watch and 3 were in Continuous Improvement.  After the latest test scores came out in the summer of 2006 our district had improved everywhere.  None of our buildings remained in Academic Emergency.  4 were in Academic Watch, 5 were in Continuous Improvement and 1 had reached Effective status (and our high school just missed being designated as Effective).  The Euclid School System had turned the corner.

The accountability that this body demanded were the seeds of change that led new a new superintendent, a new school board, a reduction in overcrowding and a better education for the children of Euclid, Ohio.  However, the Ed Choice voucher program that we were subjected to because of our past proficiency failures now threatens the very academic progress that the new Euclid School leadership team has attained.   When the Ed Choice voucher program was first introduced students at two of our buildings were able to qualify for these vouchers.  The Euclid Public School system lost $512,900 this year as a result of 108 students making use of those vouchers. 

And yet, in spite of our school district making gains in every building and achieving a status of Continuous Improvement, the criteria of the Ed Choice program was expanded so that now half of Euclid City School buildings will lose students due to this change in Ed Choice eligibility.  If our projections hold, our district will see a loss a more that one million dollars due to the Ed Choice voucher expansion. 

This is my main point – the Euclid City School District is being retroactively punished for insufficient academic progress in the past.  Why would you want to punish a district that in spite of a high percentage of student poverty has managed to dramatically improve student performance?  It is not good fiscal policy, it is not good education policy and it is not good economic development policy.

I know that dollars are scarce in this budget.  I know that this body would like to spend its K-12 dollars in the most efficient manner possible so as to create the best opportunity for today’s Ohio students to be turned into tomorrow’s leaders in business innovation.  I believe that public dollars should remain earmarked for public schools – especially when those public schools are improving. 

These voucher schools do not serve special education children.  By increasing the amount of vouchers being made available to Euclid Public School children will not magically reduce the special education burden on my district.  It just means that you will expect me to continue to instruct my kids with fewer resources.

If you are committed to building the future economy and supporting Ohio’s children, I would ask that you support this education budget and eliminate the Ed Choice voucher program.