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 2007 State budget deliberations, I testified before the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate. Copied below are my remarks before the Ohio Senate Finance Committee which I presented on June 6, 2007. The previous blog posting was my Ohio House testimony. – Kent 8/16/2009
Public Testimony by Kent Smith
Euclid City School Board President
Ohio Senate Finance Committee Hearing – June 6, 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.
Overview Comments
The initial budget as introduced by the Governor was 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.
Again, the proposed budget was positive. It increased the overall state investment in education so that the burden for funding K-12 education grew from the current state share of 48% to 54% by 2011. By increasing Poverty Aid and Parity Aid the 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 increased support for K-12 education while reducing the local weight of that funding. It increased dollars while providing a tax cut for 1 in 4 Ohioans.
How The Current Budget Effects The Euclid School System
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. In plainest language, I would ask you to consider the long-standing bit of wisdom, “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.”
Accountability Worked in Euclid
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 a 5.9 mil operating levy so that the district would not have to lay-off teachers and two new Board members were elected. That levy brought in $5.3 million dollars a year in new revenue. 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.
Building by Building Progress in Euclid
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 Ed Choice Impact in Euclid
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. Remember that line I asked you to remember – “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.” Well in this case, the Euclid Public School System did fix it, but the loss of revenue from charter schools and the Ed Choice program threaten to break it.
Financial Consequences for the Euclid Schools as a Result of Ed Choice & Charter Schools
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.
The impact of the expansion of the Ed Choice voucher program and charter schools would remove virtually all new revenue that the district was able to raise from our last school levy which passed in November 2005. The 5.9 mils levy brought in approximately $5.3 million dollars a year. (One property mil in Euclid is worth approximately $900,000). The charter school impact is estimated to be $3.2 million in FY 2007 based upon 463 students. The expansion of the Ed Choice voucher program will remove 380 students and $1.9 million dollars.
When the Ed Choice voucher program was first introduced last year, students at two of our buildings were able to qualify for these vouchers. The Euclid Public School system lost $512,900 this past year as a result of 108 students making use of those vouchers. This increase is due to the expansion of the voucher program into six of our public schools; an increase of four from the previous year.
The amount of dollars lost from charters schools and Ed Choice equals $5.1 million dollars – virtually eliminating the $5.3 million in new revenue which were raised through the passage of a 5.9 mil levy by Euclid residents in November 2005.
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 more than half of Euclid City School buildings will lose students due to this change in Ed Choice eligibility.
The Euclid City School District is being retroactively punished for insufficient academic progress in the past. Again, this is not “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” – this is “If it has been fixed – don’t break it”.
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.
Which Euclid Students Are Using the Ed Choice Voucher?
The demographics of the Euclid School district are challenging. 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. Yet an analysis of the Euclid School students who are accepting the Ed Choice Voucher will lead to my district being poorer, less diverse, more segregated and with a higher percentage of Special-Ed students.
Consider these numbers:
The Euclid City District is currently 21% White. The children using the Vouchers from our district are 33% White. The Ed Choice voucher program is reducing the diversity in our district and increasing racial segregation among Euclid’s children.
The socio-economic numbers are also troubling. The percentage of Euclid school kids that qualify for the free and reduced lunch program is 56%. The number of Ed Choice Euclid students who qualify for free and reduced lunch is 31%. To put that another way, over 55% of the Euclid public school students are at or below the federal poverty guidelines. But 70% of the kids who are leaving the district through the Ed Choice Voucher Program are not from poor families. Ed Choice makes the Euclid City Schools more segregated and more impoverished.
Now consider our Special Education student population. The schools that are being accessed with the Ed Choice Voucher do not offer the breadth of Special Education services that are offered by the Euclid City Schools. Plus the voucher eligible private schools can select which students they will educate. This will increase the percentage of special education students in our district. The result is that my district will be asked to serve a needy student population with fewer resources.
Again, this is a district that has made considerable progress and is in Continuous Improvement for the first time. This is a district that has turned the corner. Every building in our district has improved its student achievement. How can it be good public policy to remove financial resources from an improving district especially in the face of high levels of poverty?
As I have said before the Euclid City School District is being retroactivity 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? Ed Choice, in this case, is not a way out of a failing district. It is a state mandated millstone which will threaten a fragile yet improving district. 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.
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.
Public Policy Options Regarding Ed Choice
The elimination of the Ed Choice Voucher system is sound education and fiscal policy. However, I understand that some in the state legislature may be slow to embraces that option so let me make four other suggestions which are good for kids, school districts and taxpayers – all while not eliminating “choice” from the education debate.
- Do not expand Ed Choice in districts or buildings that are improving.
2. Base any possible expansion of the Ed Choice program on current test scores – not the scores from years past.
3. The elimination of the Ed Choice option for districts in Continuous Improvement (aside from those students receiving vouchers before the district achieved Continuous Improvement status).
4. Replace all dollars lost through the Ed Choice program and charter schools for school districts in Continuous Improvement. Why punish success?
Adoption of any or all of these four public policy recommendations does not eliminate “choice” for students trapped in a failing school district. Nor does it retroactively punish improving school districts. These public policy options would eliminate the possibility that improving districts will be punished for their success.
In Conclusion
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.
Please consider the financial impact of the Ed Choice program and Charter Schools on the improving, now-fixed, Euclid Public School district. For the good of the future workforce that lives within our borders, please do not allow this budget bill to do more damage than good.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify and their time.
