Testimony in Opposition — William L. Phillis, Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding

Summary

William L. Phillis, Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, gave testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 1 to the Economic and Workforce Development committee. The testimony states that the reasons given for transferring State Board of Education functions to the Governor's office are not germane to the change in governance structure. It argues that SB1 reverses the process Article VI, section 4 of the Constitution was adopted to accomplish, and that the policy should be subjected to a statewide vote. It also says the General Assembly could require that all State Board members be elected.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

The Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding

                                        50 South Young Street, Suite M-102, Columbus, Ohio 43215
                        Phone: 614.228.6540 | Fax: 614.228.6542 | Email: ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net
                                               William L. Phillis, Executive Director | 614.332.2886


TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 1

Chairman Swearingen, Vice-Chair Santucci, Ranking Member Upchurch and members of the Economic
and Workforce Development committee, I am William L. Phillis, Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition
for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding. I began a career in public education in 1958 as a teacher. (I
was a student teacher in Frankfort, Ohio the year the State Board of Education commenced operation.)
My administrative jobs have included high school principal, local superintendent, county superintendent
(forerunner of ESC superintendency), joint vocational school superintendent, assistant superintendent
of public instruction and executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School
Funding.

One of my tasks during my tenure with ODE (1976-1992) was the ODE liaison with the legislature.
Another assignment was to help manage ODE’s responsibilities in career/technical education.

My testimony is, unequivocally, in opposition to SB1. The reasons given in support of the transfer of
State Board functions to the Governor’s office, such as the dysfunctionality of the State Board of
Education, infighting among members, sluggish response time to issues and tasks, low performance of
some school districts, and neglect of career/technical education are not germane to the proposed
change in the governance structure. Some citizens might conclude that some other public legislative
bodies are dysfunctional; bogged down by infighting, slow to respond to needs, etc. and thus seem
somewhat ineffective. (Congress has a 20% approval rating)

Regarding the transfer of the core functions of the State Board of Education to the Governor’s office,
there is no compelling evidence that such transfer would by force of circumstance result in any
improvements in either general education or career/technical education. To make such a consequential
change without any assurance of positive results is risk that should not be taken.

I am not here to defend the past or current membership of the State Board of Education or some of the
Board’s recent antics; I am here to defend an all-elected State Board of Education as the appropriate
governance structure for the state education agency.

Historically, public education governance has been a 4th branch of government at the local level and at
the state level, except for the period of 1914-1953. Local boards of education are not attached to the
office of Mayor, councils, county commissions or township trustees. Since 1956 Ohio’s state education
agency operation has been independent, except for the distortion of the board member selection
process enacted in the mid-1990’s when the legislature required gubernatorial appointees be added to
the existing elected members.

This General Assembly could immediately resolve a major flaw in the state education governance
structure by requiring that all members of the State Board of Education be elected. The current hybrid
structure has been a major obstacle to the Board’s effectiveness and image.
The 1953 amendment to establish a State Board of Education required the Board to appoint the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. At that time the Superintendent of Public Instruction and state
education agency staff were attached to the Governor’s office. SB1 reverses the very process that Article
VI, section 4 of the Constitution was adopted to accomplish. The fact that SB1 does not discontinue the
State Board of Education is not relevant to this debate. The citizens of Ohio didn’t vote to transfer some
state education duties and responsibilities from the Governor’s office to the State Board of Education. It
was the whole state education agency operation that was to be transferred. To transfer the core duties
of the State Board of Education to the Governor’s office, leaving some minutiae to the State Board and
Superintendent of Public Instruction, is a ruse. It is an affront—a slap in the face to the 1953
amendment, and thus to the process by which the Constitution is amended.

This policy is of such monumental importance that it should be subjected to a statewide vote. To thwart
the will of the people, to violate the constitutional provision is wrong-headed. Article I, section 2 states
in part, “all political power is inherent in the people.” SB1 tramples underfoot the constitutional process
laid out to amend this supreme governing document; thus a proposal to reverse the state education
agency transfer from the Governor’s office to the State Board should be decided by the body-politic—
the citizens of Ohio.

The enabling legislation that implemented the 1953 amendment is a testament to the fact that SB1 is
wrongheaded. Legislators who served during, and immediately after, the adoption of the amendment
understood the language of the amendment and the intent thereof. They transferred the whole state
education agency to the newly-minted State Board of Education.

Much discussion surrounding SB1 has been about the need to heighten the focus on career/technical
education. That objective can and should be accomplished by additional state resources being allocated
for that purpose—not changing the governance structure.

Beginning in the late 1960’s the State Department of Education began to put an emphasis on vocational
education—what is now labeled career/technical education. The elected State Board of Education
assumed the role of developing a statewide system that guaranteed every high school student an
opportunity to attend a program that offered a minimum of 20 classes of at least 12 different vocational
education offerings. The State Board of Education, in spite of major resistance from pockets of local
school communities, accomplished the goal resulting in the finest career/technical program in the
nation at that time. It became a national model.

In 1975—nearly 4 decades ago— the State Board of Education developed Ohio’s Career Continuum
Program Director’s Handbook. (attached) This document identifies the Career Developmental Program
in terms of components as follows:

        1.   Career Motivation Programming K-6
        2.   Career Orientation Programming 7-8
        3.   Career Exploration Programming 9-10
        4.   Career Preparation Programming 11-12

This is a document that is relevant to this discussion.




                                                      2
Today’s discussion is more about who is in charge, rather than improvement of educational
opportunities for the youth of Ohio. It would be helpful for everyone involved to take time to grasp the
history of the governance structure of the state education agency. Contemplation of that history is a
more important consideration than a knee-jerk response to some actual and some perceived issues in
state level governance of public education.

SB1 needs to be put on hold in light of the history of state governance of public education in Ohio.

Horace Mann, the “father” of the American common school, was appointed Secretary of the
Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837; the same year the Ohio legislature created the position of
Superintendent of Common Schools and employed Samuel Lewis as Superintendent. The absence of a
state agency for education in the years prior to 1837 left the state rudderless in state education policy
and practice. In fact, the state legislature squandered much, if not most, of the land that was set aside
for support of education via the 16th section of each township because no state agency was established
to manage the program.

Samuel Lewis, in his first annual report, lamented the travesty of how the state allowed this significant
“public asset to be looted”.

In 1840 Samuel Lewis resigned from the position of Superintendent and the legislature eliminated the
state position and assigned the state education agency duties to the Secretary of State.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1850/1851 were appalled at the legislature’s neglect of
education and assigned the legislature the duty to secure a thorough and efficient system of common
schools throughout the state.

Convention Delegates debated a provision to establish in the Constitution a chief state school officer
position, but did not include such in the final version of the Constitution; however, in the 1853
legislation enabling the common school provision, the legislature created the office of State
Commissioner of Common Schools to be elected on a three-year cycle (a separate branch of
government). With this action the state initiated an enduring concept of a state agency to provide
leadership for public education.

State Commissioners of Common Schools, by way of annual reports and interactions with the various
legislatures through the years, spurred state officials to expand education opportunities. Previous to
1853, with the exception of Samuel Lewis’ 1837-1840 stint as Superintendent of Common Schools, there
was not a state agency with the sole responsibility for public education; hence, local education leaders
and personnel formed associations to influence state officials to expand educational opportunities. The
presence of local education associations continued to influence state education policy and practices
even after the State Commissioner’s office was established and in operation.

Delegates to the 1912 Constitutional Convention included two education provisions that were approved
by voters in September 1912. One of the amendments, Article VI, Section 3 was: “make provision by
law for the organization, administration and control of the public school system, supported by public
funds.” The other said provision was the establishment of the office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction, which replaced the office of State Commissioner of Common Schools. The Superintendent’s
office and thus the state education agency were merged by legislation into the Governor’s office.



                                                     3
Governor James Cox acted upon the constitutional amendments with a significant sense of urgency. He
challenged the legislature to act. He appointed a School Survey Commission, called upon local school
officials and personnel to hold discussions at their school buildings to make recommendations, and
called together a statewide education congress. All of these actions were taken to inform the legislature
on the need to enact appropriate legislation. Four major education bills were enacted as a result of the
input of a multitude of Ohioans. The newly created office of Superintendent of Public Instruction was,
as stated earlier, assigned to the Governor’s office.

A constitutional amendment was proposed in 1939 to establish a State Board of Education, but voters at
that time rejected it; however, in 1953 Ohio voters approved an amendment to establish a State Board
of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction to be appointed by the Board. Article VI, Section
4: “There shall be a state board of education which shall be selected in such manner and for such terms
as shall be provided by law. There shall be a superintendent of public instruction, who shall be
appointed by the state board of education. The respective powers and duties of the board and of the
superintendent shall be prescribed by law.”

It is noteworthy that Governor Frank Lausche publicly opposed the 1953 amendment. It is fair to say
that no governor since the establishment of the State Board in January 1956 has been completely
comfortable with having an “independent” State Board of Education. Some governors have actively
worked to get rid of it. Governor Voinovich worked extremely hard to secure an all-appointed Board,
but had to settle, first, for a reduced number of elected members, and later, for 8 appointed members
added to the 11 elected members.

Past legislatures have been reluctant to thwart the intent of, and thus the will of the people, which was
to separate the State agency from the office of the Governor.

Local Boards of Education historically have been non-partisan, elected bodies independent of other
political subdivisions. They have operated as a fourth branch of government. At the state level,
education agencies have been governed under various models. In 1953 Ohioans chose the independent
Board of Education model. It should be treated as a fourth branch of government. Hence to transfer
the powers and duties of the State Board of Education to the Governor’s office by the legislature is
counter to Article VI, section 4 of the Ohio Constitution. Ohioans decided by a majority vote to transfer
the state education agency from the Governor’s office as an independent State Board of Education. The
legislature should respect that decision and let the people decide whether the state agency should be
transferred back to the Governor’s office.




                                                    4


File and source

File

2023-04-25_econ-workforce-dev_testimony_sb1opposingtestimonywilliamlphillis4-25-23.pdf

Size

479,038 bytes

SHA-256

937d41d1bd0a80e0f1b7972a94e0a093b059d3d27e2d059ac3a6dcb601b33d7a

Our copy

2023-04-25_econ-workforce-dev_testimony_sb1opposingtestimonywilliamlphillis4-25-23.pdf

Original

No public link identified.