Senate Education Committee: House Bill 154 substitute looks to change, not eliminate state control

Districts under state takeover may not see a full repeal of the current model with a substitute bill accepted for House Bill 154. The Ohio Senate Education Committee voted 7-4 on Tuesday to accept a proposal introduced during the biennial budget process, which would replace academic distress commissions with School Improvement Commissions, or SICs, and establish a state-level board to monitor struggling districts. This is a sharp change from the House-passed version of the bill, originally introduced by Reps. Joe Miller, D-Amherst, and Don Jones, R-Freeport. That language would have repealed and replaced House Bill 70 — the 2015 law outlining the state takeover process — with state-provided supports and wraparound services for struggling districts, while returning complete local control. Sen. Nathan Manning, R-North Ridgeville, along with Sens. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, Vernon Sykes, D-Akron and Tina Maharath D-Canal Winchester, voted against accepting the measure. Acknowledging the positives such as early intervention for struggling districts, Manning said he could not support the bill because it does not help Lorain. "All the benefits of this new sub bill over House Bill 70 can be nonexistent for Lorain under how it's currently written," he said Tuesday after the meeting. "So while I certainly appreciate all the hard work and benefits that this has over House Bill 70, if it doesn't benefit Lorain then I certainly won't be supportive and that's where it's kind of a question mark. It's not guaranteed that it will help Lorain and that's my goal is to get to that guarantee." During the meeting, Committee Chairperson Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, said there already are amendments to it submitted but not included in Tuesday's text. The sub bill would give districts not currently under state takeover six years to improve state report card scores before being subject to a SIC. After the second overall F, a district could receive a root cause analysis from the Ohio Department of Education to determine the community and district-based causes for its low performance. The covered cost of the analysis is prorated — the sooner a district takes advantage of it, the more the state will cover, up to 100 percent if done after the second failing grade. During those six years, districts would get help from outside expert school reform companies vetted by the Ohio Department of Education, to help districts establish building-level improvement plans and submit them to the state-level School Transformation Board. That School Transformation Board would be composed of three governor appointees — one not from the governor's party — along with the state superintendent and chancellor of higher education. Benchmarks would be developed with the district and its ODE-approved vendor, and would be measured along with the state report card scores. During all this, local school boards remain in control, but if after six years a district does not improve or meet those benchmarks, the district will be turned over to a School Improvement Commission. The SIC will be composed of six members living in the county of the school district or adjacent to it. Those members would be: three state superintendent appointees; a teacher appointed by the local union that is a non-voting member; a member of the business community appointed by the mayor and the president of the local school board. The districts already under state control — Lorain, Youngstown and East Cleveland — would move directly to the SIC model. Those districts could petition the School Transformation Board for an alternative option, but if that is not approved, the SIC would move forward. There is no outlined appeal process. Much like the current academic distress commission, the SIC would appoint a director with complete operation and managerial control, paid by the state. That director would identify a districtwide stakeholder group and smaller groups in each school building. Building-centered improvement plans would be created. It revises exit criteria, requiring a D or higher grade overall and a C on value-added criteria of the state report card for two consecutive years. Currently, a district must receive an overall C or better and value-added and performance-index scores of a C or higher for two consecutive years. Tuesday's committee hearing included invited testimony from several educational organizations and institutions, noting positives and negatives in the new bill. Lisa Gray, of Ohio Excels, supported the new bill, noting her organization was not in favor of the original House Bill 154 as it weakened the school improvement model. Chad Aldis, Thomas B. Fordham Institute's vice president for Ohio policy and advocacy, also voiced support of the change, though he suggested allowing the director or SIC the ability to place levies on the ballot — the only power the local school board holds. On the other hand, Jennifer Hogue, director of legislative services for the Ohio School Boards Association, was more critical. Her testimony noted the state-level board is unnecessary and the sub bill keeps House Bill 70 intact, despite the name changes. Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, said his organization opposes the sub bill, suggesting a return of local control and collective bargaining rights removed by both House Bill 70 and the sub bill. The next hearing is slated for 10:15 a.m. Tuesday. Contact Carissa Woytach at 329-7245 or cwoytach@chroniclet.com.