Mayor Berger of Lima speaks out re: SB 5
SB5 and the Ohio budget proposal....
A forum for Ohio educators interested in bringing needed reform to our pension system (STRS Ohio). John Curry (strswatchdog@yahoo.com) researches many issues related to STRS Ohio and contributes them to this blog. Contributions from others are welcome, and may be sent to Kathie Bracy (kbb47@aol.com).
These five local districts would save the most under the pension changes included in Gov. John Kasich's proposed biennium budget.
...Cincinnati: $5 million
...Lakota: $2.2 million
...Mason: $1.3 million
...Hamilton: 1.1 million
...Northwest: $1.1 million
Source: Ohio's Office of Budget and Management
Gov. John Kasich's office said this week that pension changes included in his biennium budget proposal will save Ohio school districts $229 million annually.
However, that's not a lot of comfort to districts getting slammed by cuts elsewhere in Kasich's education budget.
The pension changes, which shift more costs onto employees, also are not sitting well with the unions. The changes will force teachers to shell out more toward their pensions in order to save their district some money.
• Data Center: Pension changes in your district
"The proposal represents a 2 percent pay cut to all of our public employees and will hurt the pension solvency," said Michele Prater, spokeswoman for the Ohio Education Association, which represents 128,000 teachers, faculty members and support staff at Ohio's public schools, colleges and universities.
"We support a balanced approach to the pension plan. We believe everyone should be part of the solution. But the active employees shouldn't have to have their contributions increased in order for the employer to pay less. This doesn't do anything to solve the problem."
Kasich's budget, which will be finalized by June 30, proposes that government employees contribute an additional 2 percent of their salaries toward their pensions. It simultaneously calls for government employers to contribute 2 percent less.
Ohio law currently calls for 24 percent of government employees' salaries to go into their pension fund. Employers pay 14 percent and employees pay 10 percent -although some union contracts specify higher employer payments.
Kasich's proposal would increase the employee's contribution and reduce the employer's contribution so both parties are paying 12 percent.
Kasich's office released estimates Thursday of how much school districts would save based on 2009-10 school-year data from the State Teachers Retirement System and the School Employees Retirement System.
As a group, Southwest Ohio school districts could save $31 million annually from the pension change.
But that doesn't make up for other state losses.
Districts in Southwest Ohio will lose a collective $90 million in other state revenue next fiscal year and another $14 million in the 2013 fiscal year.
Most of the losses stem from federal stimulus dollars drying up and from Kasich speeding up the phase-out of a tax on businesses' commercial equipment.
While the pension change will help, districts are still impacted.
"It will probably help mitigate the damage, but we've already built that into our budget picture next year," said Jeff Weir, superintendent of Williamsburg schools in Clermont County. His roughly 1,000-student district's plans to cut its budget by 12 to 13 percent next year.
The state education cuts contributed to already mounting financial woes for many districts. Princeton City Schools, which is being hit hard by the tax phase-out, laid off 110 workers this week - about 13 percent of its workforce. Those layoffs included 70 teachers.
"Gov. Kasich's approach in balancing the budget through the reductions in funding to schools like Princeton is just simply devastating," said Alan Bates, president of the district's 394-member teachers' union. "It's not an issue that Princeton created it's an issue that the governor created and I don't think he has a sense of the impact he's having on education."
Princeton could save about $1 million through the pension changes.
The pension changes wouldn't take effect until after current union contracts expire. So Cincinnati Public Schools, which would save $5 million annually under the change - $3.5 million of which would go toward operations - won't start seeing that savings until after its contract expires in three years. Princeton just passed a three-year contract with its non-certified employees and is at an impasse in negotiations with its teachers union, which is where the bulk of the potential pension savings would come from.
From John Curry, April 7, 2011
"Included in Ohio Gov. John Kasich's two-year budget is a provision that calls for state and local government employees to pick up 2 additional percentage points toward their pensions (from 10 to 12 percent of their salaries for non safety forces) and for government agencies to pay 2 percentage points less (from 14 percent to 12 percent)."
Note from John...actives and retirees.....this additional 2% cut in employer contribution WAS NOT FACTORED INTO THE PENSION REFORM PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE OHIO RETIREMENT STUDY COUNCIL BY OHIO STRS. NOW, NEW ACTUARIAL TABLES WILL HAVE TO BE MADE AND MORE SEVERE CUTS TO BOTH ACTIVE TEACHERS AND RETIREES WILL HAVE TO BE MADE! WE CAN THANK KING KASICH FOR THIS ONE! WE HAVE BEEN THROWN UNDER THE BUS ONCE AGAIN!
WHAT MORE CUTS WILL BOTH ACTIVES AND RETIREES SEE THANKS TO THIS SWEETHEART GIFT TO OHIO'S SCHOOLS BY KING KASICH? NOT INCREASING EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTION RATES IS ONE THING....REDUCING THEM IS UNACCEPTABLE!
Of course that also means that school employees will pick up $229 million more each year of their pension costs.
Included in Ohio Gov. John Kasich's two-year budget is a provision that calls for state and local government employees to pick up 2 additional percentage points toward their pensions (from 10 to 12 percent of their salaries for non safety forces) and for government agencies to pay 2 percentage points less (from 14 percent to 12 percent).
According to numbers released today by the Kasich administration, schools each year would save $175.5 million on teachers' pension costs and about $54 million from other school employees, once the changes were implemented.
Franklin County schools would save more than $25 million. Columbus City Schools would save $9 million through the pension shift. Southwestern City Schools would save $2.6 million and Hilliard City Schools would save $2.2 million.
Schools are set to lose $852 million in Kasich's two-year budget through dried-up stimulus funds and tax reimbursements. The pension changes would ease that blow by $458 million, leaving a net loss of $394 million.
"Seriously, just when you think these people can’t be more underhanded and devious, they invent whole new ways to surprise you!"
HB 153, Kasich’s biennium budget bill, already contains in it a number of provisions regarding teacher pay that seems similar, if not identical, provisions to the “merit pay” provisions in SB 5 for teachers. Presently, HB 153 would:
Currently law creates such salary schedules, but to set minimum standards of what a teacher can be paid based on their years of experience and training. Kasich’s budget turns what was intended to be a minimum standard mandate into a more rigid “merit-based” system that ignores experience altogether.
However, Kasich is not content that his budget contains enough provisions of SB 5 in it. According to Gongwer, Governor Kasich thinks the State budget should be amended to include SB 5’s provisions on “merit pay” for teachers, and perhaps other SB 5 provisions.
Speaker Batchelder admits that they are seriously considering incorporating SB 5 into the budget to “back up” SB 5 in the face of a referendum. Although Ohio’s Constitution exempts appropriations as being subject to referendum, the Ohio Supreme Court has a strong line of cases (such as the LetOhioVote.org VLT case during the Strickland Administration) that substantive changes in statutory law can still be subjected to referendum, even when they are burrowed into a budget or appropriation bill.
So the GOP knows, or should know, that merely putting SB 5 into the budget doesn’t make it immune from referendum? So why the duplicity? Because so far all the referendum can do is repeal SB 5 as signed by Kasich. If its provisions are redundantly incorporated into other legislation, such as the budget bill, then those provisions survive any referendum, unless they are also repealed via referendum. In addition, the GOP could legally challenge the right to referendum under the budget bill despite the legal precedent cited the Ohio Supreme Court in LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner I.
By forcing anti-SB 5 forces to gather signatures for multiple referenda, the hope is that they either fail to put ever SB 5-invested legislation to the voters, or the voters will get confused and perhaps vote to repeal SB 5, but not the teacher merit-pay budget provisions. Think of it as cloning SB 5 in the hopes that one of the lil’ buggers will survive the onslaught of referenda.
It’s a highly provocative act that spits in the face of the voters because there is no rational explanation to even consider doing it other than frustrating voters ability to repeal legislation through referendum. It also is a rather telling example of just how confident they aren’t that SB 5 can survive a clean referendum fight.
Seriously, just when you think these people can’t be more underhanded and devious, they invent whole new ways to surprise you!
As members of the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, Reps. Phillips and Lundy requested this information in committee, but have yet to receive any answers from the Governor's office.
Today's public records request follows weeks of testimony on the budget by staff in the Governor's office. Some staff members appeared before the committee without written testimony and were unable to answer committee member's questions.
Frustrated by this lack of information and unwillingness to provide the requested data, Reps. Phillips and Lundy sent the following letter.
.....Robert Sommers, Director of the Office of 21st Century Education
.....The Office of Ohio Gov. John Kasich
.....77 S. High Street
.....Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Director Sommers:We write to you today on behalf of school officials, parents, children, and taxpayers who reside in the 92nd and 57th House Districts, who are growing increasingly concerned about the impacts of the proposed state funding cuts, as well as the lack of data necessary to attain a clear understanding of potential impacts.
As you know, in addition to coping with an extraordinary loss of revenue, school administrators must also communicate clearly and effectively with the students, parents, teachers and taxpayers who will be affected by these cuts. However, the lack of access to information regarding the budget proposal makes this difficult.
As members of the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the House Finance Committee, we are requesting a clear outline of the total financial losses school districts will face under Gov. Kasich's proposed budget. ORC Sections 149.43 to 149.44 provide that any citizen may request access to public information, and that it is to be provided timely in the format requested. We hereby request the provision of the following information at your earliest convenience, preferably prior to the conclusion of public testimony in subcommittee:
· One spreadsheet with school district breakdowns that includes the following information, so that one can see the actual anticipated financial change for each school district:
o All line items that are zeroed out and redistributed--reduction based on the distribution in this biennium to individual districts.
o All TPPT and KWH tax reimbursement reductions
o Estimated number of mils needed to replace these lost revenues
· Information regarding the bridge formula: definitions of the terms, a copy of the proposed form that will be used to calculate distributions (with calculation formulas and any supporting worksheets), and school district breakdowns of the per pupil property value index, the charge-off valuation index, and the threshold amount.
· Projected cost savings from the administrations' understanding of "flexibility" on a district-by-district basis.
· Projected cost savings under the removal of "last in--first out" provisions, and a clear definition of metrics and standards by which reductions in force are to be carried out under the new rules.
· Estimated cost of litigation from EEOC lawsuits if districts engage in a widespread practice of terminating older teachers, as Ms. Mattei-Smith indicated would provide the bulk of savings for school districts.
· Line 200909 (fixed rate levy reimbursements) by school district
· Projected losses for future charter and voucher payments under new rules, by school district
· A list of all existing mandates on local school districts, and any newly created mandates, along with an indication of which mandates will be removed.
· Also, specifically denote which mandates remain that are associated with zeroed out lines (EMIS data, gifted ID, etc.)
· Actuarial projections of the anticipated impact of reducing the employer share of pension payments on the funds' compliance with statutory funding requirements
· Projected cost of developing new measures and assessments in order to implement performance-based or merit pay, given the fact that value-added data only exist for grades 4-8 in English and Math.
· A list of charter schools in academic emergency and academic watch.
· A list of charters in the pipeline for potential closure due to poor academic performance under the current rules, and additionally those that would be subject to potential closure under the proposed rules.
· A list of charter schools that have closed, and which have reconstituted themselves to re-open (i.e. Paul Laurence Dunbar). Also, specific comparison of what remains the same from PLD and what has changed (management company, sponsor, board members, administrators, teachers).
· A bibliography of research which indicates that executive reform proposals will improve student achievement
· Copies of all e-mail and correspondence involving Dr. Sommers and/or the Governor and his staff sent to or received from the Fordham foundation and/or its staff and board.
· Copies of any correspondence or materials related to education policy which were produced or provided by anyone associated with Americans for Prosperity, or the American Legislative Exchange Council.
As you know, Freedom of Information Requests require a reasonable response time. Given that the Executive Budget is currently under deliberation in the House, we would request that you provide this information as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Phillips
State Representative 92nd District
Matt Lundy
State Representative 57th District
The state teachers retirement board shall be the trustee of certain funds hereby created as follows:
(A) The “teachers’ savings fund” is the fund in which shall be accumulated the contributions deducted from the compensation of teachers participating in the plan described in sections 3307.50 to 3307.79 of the Revised Code, as provided by section 3307.26 of the Revised Code, together with the interest credited thereon. Such accumulated contributions refunded upon withdrawal, or payable to an estate or beneficiary as provided in this chapter, shall be paid from this fund. Any accumulated contributions forfeited by the failure of a contributor, an estate, or a beneficiary to claim the same shall be transferred from this fund to the guarantee fund. The accumulated contributions of a member or of a teacher who qualifies for a benefit under section 3307.35 of the Revised Code shall be transferred at the member’s or teacher’s retirement from the teachers’ savings fund to the annuity and pension reserve fund. The accumulated contributions of a member who dies prior to superannuation retirement that are forfeited by the qualified beneficiary in exchange for monthly survivor benefits, as provided by section 3307.66 of the Revised Code, shall be transferred to the survivors’ benefit fund. The accumulated contributions of a superannuate or other system retirant as defined in section 3307.35 of the Revised Code shall be transferred to the survivors’ benefit fund for payment of a lump-sum benefit to a beneficiary as provided in that section. As used in this division, “accumulated contributions” has the same meaning as in section 3307.50 of the Revised Code.
(B) The “employers’ trust fund” is the fund to which the employer contribution made on behalf of a teacher participating in the plan described in sections 3307.50 to 3307.79 of the Revised Code shall be credited and in which shall be accumulated the reserves held in trust for the payment of all pensions or other benefits provided by sections 3307.35, 3307.58, 3307.59, 3307.60, 3307.63, 3307.631, 3307.66, 3307.6912, and 3307.98 of the Revised Code, to teachers retiring or receiving disability benefits in the future or to their qualified beneficiaries, and from which the reserves for such pensions and other benefits shall be transferred to the annuity and pension reserve fund and to the survivors’ benefit fund. The balances as of August 31, 1957, in the employers accumulation fund shall be transferred to this fund. As of September 1, 1957, an additional amount shall be transferred from the employers’ trust fund to the annuity and pension reserve fund in the amount required to complete the funding of the prior service, as defined in section 3307.50 of the Revised Code, and military service pensions then payable.
(C) The “annuity and pension reserve fund” is the fund from which shall be paid all annuities, pensions, and disability benefits under the plan described in section 3307.50 to 3307.79 of the Revised Code for which reserves have been transferred from the teachers’ savings fund and the employers’ trust fund.
(D) The “survivors’ benefit fund” is the fund from which shall be paid the survivors’ benefits provided by section 3307.66 of the Revised Code and the lump sum payment to beneficiaries as provided in section 3307.35 of the Revised Code, and to which shall be transferred from the employers’ trust fund the amount required to fund all liabilities as of the end of each year.
(E) The “guarantee fund” is the fund from which interest is transferred and credited on the amounts in the funds described in divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, and is a contingent fund from which the special requirements of said funds may be paid by transfer from this fund. All income derived from the investment of funds by the state teachers retirement board as trustee under section 3307.15 of the Revised Code, together with all gifts and bequests, or the income therefrom, shall be paid into this fund. Any deficit occurring in any other fund that will not be covered by payments to that fund, as otherwise provided in this chapter, shall be paid by transfers of amounts from the guarantee fund to such fund or funds. Should the amount in the guarantee fund be insufficient at any time to meet the amounts payable therefrom, the amount of such deficiency, with regular interest, shall be paid by an additional employer rate of contribution as determined by the actuary and shall be approved by the board, and the amount of such additional employer contribution shall be credited to the guarantee fund. The board may accept gifts and bequests. Any funds that may come into the possession of the board in this manner or that may be transferred from the teachers’ savings fund by reason of lack of a claimant, or any surplus in any fund created in divisions (A) to (F) of this section, or any other funds whose disposition is not otherwise provided for, shall be credited to the guarantee fund.
(F) The expense fund is the fund from which shall be paid the expenses for the administration and management of the state teachers retirement system as provided by this chapter.
(G) The “defined contribution fund” is the fund in which shall be accumulated the contributions deducted from the compensation of teachers participating in a plan established under section 3307.81 of the Revised Code, as provided in section 3307.26 of the Revised Code, together with any earnings and employer contributions credited thereon.
Effective Date: 07-13-2000
The problem with OHVA and other for-profit charter schools is that their primary goal is to make money, not to educate students, and the effects of that profit-oriented approach to education are obvious in the numbers. Extremely high staff-to-management rates, extremely high student-to-teacher ratios and very low teacher pay may result in cheaper operating costs for the school and lots of extra revenue for the management company, but the students are ultimately the ones who pay the price.
It’s exactly this kind of school that Kasich’s budget rewards with extra funding and that decision seems to fit in perfectly with his world view: decreasing pay for teachers while funneling tons of state cash to corporations. Kasich promised to help improve our schools and put more money in the classroom but his budget does exactly the opposite: it takes money out of the classroom and sends it to big education companies like K12 all while supporting schools that cost more and fail more students.
Kasich will tell you he wants to spend “more dollars in the classroom” and that he wants to “improve our schools”, but charter schools in Ohio have a bad track record in both areas. Not only do charter schools perform MUCH worse than public schools, they also cost much more per-pupil. And in the case of schools managed by for-profit companies, a huge percentage of the money they receive from the state goes directly to the corporations that manage the schools instead of into the classroom.
As we pointed out last week Ohio’s charter schools actually receive 2.5 times MORE in per-pupil funding than public schools. And a study by Innovation Ohio, charter schools are way less effective at educating students than public schools:
“only 21 percent of charter schools rate effective or better … Meanwhile … 72 percent of traditional school buildings and 88 percent of traditional school districts rate effective or better on the state report card. In fact, 46 percent of public school buildings rate Excellent (A) or Excellent with Distinction (A+), while 45 percent of charter schools rate in Academic Watch (D) or Academic Emergency (F) – success rates that are almost exactly opposite one another”
FOR-PROFIT CHARTERS MAKE GREAT BUSINESSES, CRAPPY SCHOOLS
While there certainly are some charter schools out there doing good work, the majority are poorly serving the students they have been entrusted to teach while costing the taxpayers tons of extra cash. For-profit schools run by companies like White Hat and K12 take it a step further. Not only are many of these schools under performing, but all of them take much needed money away from public schools and out of the pockets of taxpayers and turn it into profit for the management company at the expense of their students.
The techniques these for-profit charters use to squeeze revenue out of their schools make a great deal of sense in the world of business: increased class size, lower labor costs, aggressive growth through advertising and marketing. But in the world of education, they can be absolutely disastrous for the students.
One of the most egregious offenders of putting profits before students is the Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA), a high-growth, for-profit, online charter school that performs amazingly well as a business – but very poorly as an educator.
OHVA is managed by K12, a publicly traded company whose stock hit a 52-week high last week. Operations at OHVA are structured like a business instead of an educational institution and this is no accident. OHVA is setup to make money.
Ohio Virtual Academy is currently the 28th largest school district in Ohio. It is larger than Springfield and Youngstown school districts and it has grown 243% over the last five years, from 3,161 to 7,687 students. That growth is intentional. In the business world, growth = profits.
Even OHVA’s 7-member board is composed almost entirely of business and marketing professionals, and has only one individual with an education background. Three of the members have degrees in marketing and two have business degrees. And one is a beauty pageant coach with a degree in musical theater.
The problem here is not that OHVA has created a successfully operating business – which they absolutely have. The problem is that they have created this business when they were SUPPOSED to be creating a school. This isn’t private sector money funding a private sector operation. It’s public money. 100% public money. Money that was supposed to be spent “in the classroom” on educating students.
And we’re not talking about chump change here. OHVA received almost 45 MILLION dollars in state money last year, and $9.4 million in federal grants. That’s $55 MILLION in public money. And a good hunk of it went right into the pockets of K12.
According to K12′s 2010 annual report, money from OHVA accounts for 10% of the company’s total revenue, which works out to be about 38.5 MILLION DOLLARS. That’s 85% of the money OHVA received from the state flowing directly back to K12.
The bulk of that money is spent in the form of “Purchased Services” i.e. services provided by K12. The average spent on purchased services statewide for all districts is 16.41%. ECOT (Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow), the largest online charter school in Ohio only spends 23% on Purchased Services. But OHVA spends 60% of their total funding on purchased services.
It really makes you wonder where the money ISN’T going.
While there is certainly some savings to be had by not having a physical school building to maintain, the bulk of OHVA’s ‘savings’ (read: revenue) is gained through staffing. When it comes to human resources the school is organized more like fast food restaurant than a place of learning.
The high school has a single principal responsible for managing a very large staff of 233 and the staff to student ratio is also extremely high: 33:1. A typical public school will be around 16:1 and a private school around 12:1, meaning each OVA teacher has twice as many students as a typical public school teacher.
You’d think, because of the large class sizes, OHVA staff would be compensated accordingly, but they aren’t. They actually earn much less than their public school counterparts: $33,064/year on average vs. $55,958 for a public school.
And these number really help the bottom line. Statewide the average school’s salaries make up about 58% of operating expenditures. But by doubling class sizes and cutting salaries nearly in half, OHVA has been able to get it’s salary expenditures down to 18.6%!
All of these numbers are great news to the stock holders of K12. But if you are one of the poorly-paid teachers responsible for three times the number of students as a private school teacher, or one of the poorly-performing students fighting for your teacher’s attention, these numbers kind of suck.
Want a take a guess how this type of cost cutting affects student performance?
It really makes you wonder about K12′s advertising for the school. To whom are they comparing themselves? Higher test scores? More personalized attention? Really?
The problem with OHVA and other for-profit charter schools is that their primary goal is to make money, not to educate students, and the affects of that profit-oriented approach to education are obvious in the numbers. Extremely high staff-to-management rates, extremely high student-to-teacher ratios and very low teacher pay may result in cheaper operating costs for the school and lots of extra revenue for the management company, but the students are ultimately the ones who pay the price.
It’s exactly this kind of school that Kasich’s budget rewards with extra funding and that decision seems to fit in perfectly with his world view: decreasing pay for teachers while funneling tons of state cash to corporations. Kasich promised to help improve our schools and put more money in the classroom but his budget does exactly the opposite: it takes money out of the classroom and sends it to big education companies like K12 all while supporting schools that cost more and fail more students.
(special thanks again to Greg Mild for helping me locate all of the statistics used in this post)
Larry Kehres | Mount Union Collge Division III |