On July 18, Speaker of the House, Jo Ann Davidson issued a letter to all House Republican members. The letter summarizes "areas of general consensus" that will be included in SB 55 and HB 412, although "other accountability issues are still being considered."

The following points are related to that letter and must be read in the context of it:

All districts will be required to meet "academic performance standards and reporting" standards. An "improvement plan will be required for those who have "academic deficiencies" and an intervention plan will be developed. These standards refer to Chapter 11 of the Standards for Schools (pp. 91-98) document that was adopted "in principle" by the Ohio State Board of Education. The standards include specific graduation rates, attendance rates, dropout rates, and a passage rate of 75%, districtwide, on the 4, 6, 9 (soon to be 10), and 12^th grade proficiency tests among other things. The proposed rate as it is related to the proficiency tests may be dropped to 60%.

Fourth-Grade Reading Guarantee: "every child must be required to pass the reading portion of the fourth-grade proficiency test to advance to the fifth grade. Mandatory fourth-grade testing will impact chartered, non-public schools as they are currently required to give only the 9^th grade test.

Raising the Bar on High School Proficiency Tests means that students will be required to pass a 10^th grade test in order to graduate. This proposal is totally consistent with the agenda of the National Center on Education and the Economy wherein students earn a "certificate" on or about the 10^th grade. See Standards for School document (pp. 10-12)

The Department of Education will be required to make the proficiency tests available to the public. However, not only must parents have access to the specific test that their child took (there are many, many versions of the 9^th grade test; 27 I believe), but they must also have access to the scoring rubric (the document that tells what the preferred answers to the questions are. All forms of testing which assign value to incorrect answers, and this includes Ohio's proficiency tests, must be rejected.

Alternative school programs, with "special curriculum and services" are being proposed. Such schools are consistent with the agenda of the National Center on Education and the Economy. The special services that are being referred to are consistent with services referred to in the Standards for Ohio Schools document. Those services include: assessment, intervention, diagnosis, guidance, counseling, therapy, and health services. History is replete with examples of how programs and services, originally established to address the perceived needs of a few, have become springboards for a new generation of control, regardless of need.

Work with higher education is already underway. The proposal will empower yet another committee of people who are not elected by the people to have significant input on major decisions. In addition, members of the State Board of Education have expressed concern regarding a report recently completed by the individuals who are doing this work. If time permits this afternoon, I will upload the report in question. My concern in this regard is that the committee will move us toward a restrictive enrollment policy linked to the passage of the 10^th and 12^th grade proficiency tests. This would, of course, impact students not enrolled in non-public, non-tax supported schools as well as students who receive direct instruction.

Additional policies on promotion, retention and truancy by school districts will be required.

Some districts will be required to implement site-based management councils. The councils will play "a significant role" in budget decisions. Council members are not elected by the general population of a given district. In addition, budgetary decisions should remain the responsibility of elected school board members.

Accountability and "productivity" are being transferred to the Office of Budget and Management. Reportedly, OBM will provide the "oversight" for "collection and analysis" of performance data. OBM will require additional funding and personnel to carry out the work. This is an attempt to shift oversight of the Education Management Information System (data collection system from the State Board of Education to an agency that is not overseen by individuals elected by the people.

Rainy day funds: Schools will be required to have such a fund. Expenditures from it could only be used for purposes defined by the State Auditor and the Superintendent of Schools. The question is: Will voters support additional levies if they know their district is sitting on a rainy day fund?

Five Year Budget Plans cannot be developed without a five-year mission plan. This whole section links into the heart and soul the Standards for Ohio Schools document (pp 5-6) section on "Continuous Improvement" a data collection process that will link to the new Office of Budget and Management. This is the critical component of the document and of Total Quality, a philosophy in which the "customer" is king. Unfortunately, in terms of public education, parents are no longer the primary customers. Instead, they are the suppliers of the raw material (the children) for processing by the plant (the school), for the new customers (business, industry, and government).

In the past we had a common understanding concerning instructional materials, supplies, and equipment. However, students now receive some of education at various work-sites. Taxpayers are now on the threshold of being required to equip work-sites with materials, supplies and equipment that the students will be using during their work-based learning time. If a student damages expensive equipment while on the work-site, who will be responsible for its repair or replacement? In light of these questions, the definitions of "school" and "school building" are now of critical importance.

The section on certificate of funds mentions that language in the budget bill needs to be modified to ensure that it is workable. Had sufficient time been spent on working out the details before the budget bill was passed a reworking at this point wouldn't be necessary.

Considerable discussion is taking place regarding the share of education costs business should "share." Regardless of the final figure, whether it's 30% or 50%, the fact remains that it will impact the costs of goods and services.

Gongwers, a premier legislative reporting service, reports: "The Republicans said the cost of the proposals cannot be measured and will be dealt with when the Assembly begins putting together the Fiscal 1999 education budget. The biennial budget act (HB 215) enacted last month appropriates public education revenues as a lump sum for FY 1999 and requires the Assembly to make line item appropriations by January 15.

Original letter by the Speaker of the House