19 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I'll put the same questions to you:  Should the expenditure of public money be transparent and should there be oversight of how public dollars are spent?  How would you structure oversight over how schools spend public dollars?

 

I don't think the State can afford parallel systems of private schools and public schools, and Gramarye seemed to be advocating for eliminating the public school system entirely.  What do you propose for unruly kids of unruly parents?  What about developmentally and physically disabled kids?  How do we ensure that there are schools near where kids live?

I think the tax money should run with the student. If the state averages $15k per year  per student in high school, then I think it is more than fair to allow the families who have those students to access a voucher for $7500. This way the public school still receives direct benefit in the amount of $7500 for the fact that such student lives in the school district WHILE AT THE SAME time recognizes the fact that such student is NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE of the resources in the system and actually minimizing the burden of the school system having to educate 1 less student but still receiving 1/2 the benefit of that student actually attending.  It is fair to the family who know their child best, and allow them a voice into what they think would be best for their education. 

 

Regarding the oversight, again, the money goes with the child. If the child does not fit in their "private" or "religious" school, they can go back to public school and the public school will receive the full funding for that student again instead of only the partial funding. 

 

Regarding developmentally challenged kids, not all schools are the same and therefore, you need to have options. In some cases that means the local public school with resources to assist that child, in some cases it means a specialty private school for children with disabilities. Mainstreaming is not for everyone and public schools are not for everyone either. We need to quit acting like public schools should be the only option out there.

 

You do not need to set up parallel systems. The systems already exist. You just are funding the other schools by the children that they choose to educate. There are already reporting protocols in place that require private and parochial schools to report based on the funding they receive from voucher students. State money has never been a blank check, so we need to quit pretending otherwise. 

 

I guess, I do not really see where your concern is coming from, plus remember the public school is actually financially benefitting from children going to the private school because they still receive 1/2 the amount of money they would have received for that student and they do not have the burden of having to educate that particular student. It is a win-win for everyone.

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think the tax money should run with the student. If the state averages $15k per year  per student in high school, then I think it is more than fair to allow the families who have those students to access a voucher for $7500. This way the public school still receives direct benefit in the amount of $7500 for the fact that such student lives in the school district WHILE AT THE SAME time recognizes the fact that such student is NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE of the resources in the system and actually minimizing the burden of the school system having to educate 1 less student but still receiving 1/2 the benefit of that student actually attending.  It is fair to the family who know their child best, and allow them a voice into what they think would be best for their education. 

 

Regarding the oversight, again, the money goes with the child. If the child does not fit in their "private" or "religious" school, they can go back to public school and the public school will receive the full funding for that student again instead of only the partial funding. 

 

Regarding developmentally challenged kids, not all schools are the same and therefore, you need to have options. In some cases that means the local public school with resources to assist that child, in some cases it means a specialty private school for children with disabilities. Mainstreaming is not for everyone and public schools are not for everyone either. We need to quit acting like public schools should be the only option out there.

 

You do not need to set up parallel systems. The systems already exist. You just are funding the other schools by the children that they choose to educate. There are already reporting protocols in place that require private and parochial schools to report based on the funding they receive from voucher students. State money has never been a blank check, so we need to quit pretending otherwise. 

 

I guess, I do not really see where your concern is coming from, plus remember the public school is actually financially benefitting from children going to the private school because they still receive 1/2 the amount of money they would have received for that student and they do not have the burden of having to educate that particular student. It is a win-win for everyone.

 

I agree that in the abstract, and from a suburban viewpoint, it might seem that simple.  But it isn't because not every family has the means or interest to help their kid find and get to a different school and the amount of money needed to get a rural kid or a suburban kid or an urban kid a college-ready education isn't the same.  In many rural parts of this state kids with engaged families get a solid basic education for 1/4 of what is needed in some cities, but city kids from poor families with uneducated parents require not just basic education but food, social services, and more education to get up to that basic college-ready status -- all of which is way more expensive but of huge benefit to the state's future taxpaying workforce.

 

That means that a public school in a rural community probably has no competition for vouchers -- there aren't enough students to make a private school possible. 

 

Public schools are not receiving enough funding from the state anyway, and not even the voucher amount per student -- so it's not a matter of the same dollars following the student whether they go public or voucher/private.  The state is financially favoring private schools. 

 

And I disagree with the notion that the state is adequately funding the needs for most developmentally challenged students. 

Moreover, not all voucher recipients are leaving public schools -- the rapidly growing Orthodox jewish community in Cleveland Heights is one example.  Many Catholic students as well.  So the state is now "funding" more students than it did before, while continuing to underfund public schools, particularly schools with poorer student populations.  As a result, "more kids receiving vouchers" is not equalling "fewer kids in public schools."

 

Yes, there are already limited parallel school systems, but until recently the state was only funding the public system.  Now the state is going to split its funding.  If we are going to fund both private and public schools, we still have to pay for the public school buildings, try to guess how many students are going to enroll one year to the next and thus how many teachers you need, try to have enough building space, etc.  Removing 100 kids doesn't automatically mean a district saves money if the kids removed are spread out over 13 grades and 3-10 buildings.  The savings in removing 100 students might be very small, particularly compared to the loss in funding.  Again, more voucher students does not equal more savings for public schools.

 

The scrutiny from the state of how private schools spend their voucher money is not comparable to the scrutiny from the state in how public schools spend their money.

 

Since private schools can choose NOT to enroll a child, they will choose not to enroll the problem children, leading to a concentration of problems in the public schools and encouraging more exodus to private schools.  The "good students," who are infinitely easier to educate to college-ready status will be the ones leaving the public schools -- that's not going to "save" the public schools much in educational effort.  Like emergency-room health care, the most-expensive-to-educate students will be the ones left in public schools.

 

And even if a voucher theoretically can be used anywhere, it would be useless to the inner city kid interested in a ex-urban school like Hawken in the Cleveland area -- there's no public transit to get you there and there is no mandate for private schools to provide busing.  So again, vouchers make it easier for wealthier families, but kids from poor will continue to have many fewer options.

 

I'm not against private schools, and for some kids finding the right school makes a huge difference.  The state constitution does not mandate that the state pay a portion of every student's education, but rather that the state fund a comprehensive system of public schools.  And vouchers do not satisfy that constitutional requirement, but in fact detract from the funding necessary to meet that requirement.

 

6 minutes ago, Foraker said:

That means that a public school in a rural community probably has no competition for vouchers -- there aren't enough students to make a private school possible. 

But you just said that rural kids are being educated appropriately so they really do not have need for private schools. That being said, there are still options for the rural kids, but like anything they involve tradeoffs. There are kids that travel from Painesville to St. Ignatius everyday. In Cincinnati, there are kids that travel from Brown County to attend a private school an hour away. There are even kids who live in my district, which is fairly affluent, who travel to the city of Cincinnati to attend Walnut Hills or School for Creative and Performing Arts, both which are Cincinnati Public Schools.  None of these schools offer a convenient option for parents and kids but they are what the parents choose to do for their child's best interests

 

10 minutes ago, Foraker said:

And I disagree with the notion that the state is adequately funding the needs for most developmentally challenged students. 

 

11 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Since private schools can choose NOT to enroll a child, they will choose not to enroll the problem children, leading to a concentration of problems in the public schools and encouraging more exodus to private schools.  The "good students," who are infinitely easier to educate to college-ready status will be the ones leaving the public schools -- that's not going to "save" the public schools much in educational effort.  Like emergency-room health care, the most-expensive-to-educate students will be the ones left in public schools.

There is an assumption that public schools are a dumping ground for bad children and that if given a choice, people will always choose private schools for their children. Furthermore, it also assumes that public schools are the lone choice for disabled children, which is also false. 

Certainly, without vouchers, public schools become the only option for many severely disabled children. However, there are a number of private specialty schools that cater to the needs of these children. Imagine if they were able to be better funded and open up opportunities to other children in the public schools who may not be able to afford these services. This would surely relieve some of the burdens and challenges faced by the public schools and actually make their jobs a bit easier.

21 minutes ago, Foraker said:

And even if a voucher theoretically can be used anywhere, it would be useless to the inner city kid interested in a ex-urban school like Hawken in the Cleveland area -- there's no public transit to get you there and there is no mandate for private schools to provide busing.  So again, vouchers make it easier for wealthier families, but kids from poor will continue to have many fewer options.

That may be true, but the idea of sending a kid who lives down on E. St. Clair to Hawken should not be the goal. Chances are, you set that kid up to fail if you do so. Yes, there may be fewer options but there are still options, and the goal should not be to get that kid into Harvard, but to get them to a place where they can be a successful member of society as an adult and to the place where (with a voucher) their kids can attend Hawken, because they will now be in a position to allow their kids to succeed. It is about multiple generational thinking. 

 

29 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Moreover, not all voucher recipients are leaving public schools -- the rapidly growing Orthodox jewish community in Cleveland Heights is one example.  Many Catholic students as well.  So the state is now "funding" more students than it did before, while continuing to underfund public schools, particularly schools with poorer student populations.  As a result, "more kids receiving vouchers" is not equalling "fewer kids in public schools."

Vouchers can be used for both public and private schools. I know people who use their voucher to go to a public school out of their district because they like the programs or that school offers other intangible benefits for the child and their family that they cannot get at their local school. In this case, that public school district can certainly say no to accepting that child but where it is mutually beneficial, they make it happen. That is good for everyone.

On 7/4/2023 at 3:03 PM, Foraker said:

 

I have several objections to vouchers, but one thing that maybe we could agree on is that the expenditure of public money should be transparent and there should be oversight of how public dollars are spent.  How would you structure oversight over how schools spend public dollars?

 

I don't think the State can afford parallel systems of private schools and public schools, and you seem to be advocating for eliminating the public school system entirely.  What do you propose for unruly kids of unruly parents?  What about developmentally and physically disabled kids?  How do we ensure that there are schools near where kids live?

 

On the former point: There's already more oversight than I think you're implying.  Of course, much of the oversight now is compliance with the location and income requirements of the program, which will now only be income requirements.  And there are already compliance systems in place with respect to, for example, accounting for restricted and unrestricted funds (like just about any nonprofit), so, e.g., public funds cannot be spent on religious materials or religion instructors.  I mean, what kind of oversight are you generally concerned about, particularly vis-a-vis nonprofit schools (whether religious or secular)?  I get that you want to prevent another ECOT scandal and of course there ought to be sufficient oversight to prevent that, particularly vis-a-vis making claims for public money for students that never attended the school and/or left the school.  I haven't heard of a similar scandal with respect to private schools that accept EdChoice, and of course, most private schools in this state are not fly-by-night operations, particularly the larger and more well-known ones.  While of course any school should be able to be asked to "show their work," to borrow an academic cliche, I'm not losing sleep wondering if Hoban or St. Vincent-St. Mary are lying about their headcounts in order to defraud the state.  To be honest, I'm not even too worried about that with smaller schools like Faith Islamic Academy or Redeemer Lutheran.  After all, the changes in this budget do not create a new program with hitherto-unknown requirements; they expand eligibility for an already-existing program.  Whatever compliance requirements already exist will apply to any new students and any new money.

 

On the latter point (unruly kids of unruly parents), I think we had this discussion at length in March, and I doubt either of us have changed our positions since then: 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

On the former point: There's already more oversight than I think you're implying.  Of course, much of the oversight now is compliance with the location and income requirements of the program, which will now only be income requirements.  And there are already compliance systems in place with respect to, for example, accounting for restricted and unrestricted funds (like just about any nonprofit), so, e.g., public funds cannot be spent on religious materials or religion instructors.  I mean, what kind of oversight are you generally concerned about, particularly vis-a-vis nonprofit schools (whether religious or secular)? 

 

Maybe my concerns about "oversight" are misinformed, but hopefully we are past the kind of scandals you cited.  The state can and does audit the finances of public schools and requires public schools to prepare lots of financial reports that are forward-looking to ensure that the school is going to remain in the black for years -- and that is not required of private schools that are going to receive public money via vouchers.  Requirements like this cost money and are not applied to all "schools" -- the public schools have more "unfunded mandates" than voucher schools and public schools aren't receiving enough funding (and not even as much per-pupil funding as is provided by vouchers).  That is my objection. (The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the state is shirking its funding obligations by relying too heavily on local property taxes, so I'm just talking about state funding and state regulations, not local share or local oversight.) 

 

I also question whether all "schools" licensed by the state should have the same requirements?  If it's too burdensome to require it of a Catholic school receiving a voucher, why is it not too burdensome a rule for a public school?  Or if it isn't efficient to provide a service in every school (like preparing IEPs), the state should fully fund that service rather than requiring public schools to fund it out of their per-pupil allocation.  Maybe you would agree that we also should be looking reducing some of the state regulations if we don't want them applied to private schools that are receiving public money via vouchers.

 

We also can agree that public schools are not going to become "all the bad kids and only the bad kids," but private schools can choose not to accept a kid (or to kick out a problem kid), and public schools cannot.  That means that public schools must educate the students that the private schools refuse to accept.  We should also be able to agree that getting those kids sufficient education will not be cheaper than the cost to educate the "average" kid.

 

Society is better off -- we are all better off -- if we can get all kids to a point where they can be productive members of society -- have a job, pay taxes, and preferably have some sense of history and how our society works so that they can be civically involved.   (Not that poor kids should be universally prepared for Harvard -- although that would be a huge economic advantage for Ohio if it could be achieved! -- we're talking "capable of community college or a trade shool" -- the starting point for most middle class jobs.)

 

If the state thinks that the "average" kid costs $15,000 to educate, what does it actually takes to get poor kids up to the community college/tech school level?  This is probably a question for professional educators.  Pre-K seems to make a difference.  As do smaller class sizes (more teachers and more classrooms, higher costs).  What about after-school care, free meals (and better meals with more fresh fruit and vegetables),shorter summer breaks, or mental and physical health services on campus?  What works and what does it cost?  I don't know.  But that should be the starting point for what the state should be providing to schools with large populations from poor families. A good education and addressing problems of poverty for the young will pay dividends down the line. 

 

We probably will disagree, but I think we should be spending more money to educate those kids. I'm ok with the state funding vouchers, as part of or all of its spending on education, if the state is achieving that goal.  So far the results indicate that the state is not adequately funding education, and only increasing funding for vouchers isn't going to be the full solution. 

47 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Maybe my concerns about "oversight" are misinformed, but hopefully we are past the kind of scandals you cited.  The state can and does audit the finances of public schools and requires public schools to prepare lots of financial reports that are forward-looking to ensure that the school is going to remain in the black for years -- and that is not required of private schools that are going to receive public money via vouchers.  Requirements like this cost money and are not applied to all "schools" -- the public schools have more "unfunded mandates" than voucher schools and public schools aren't receiving enough funding (and not even as much per-pupil funding as is provided by vouchers).  That is my objection. (The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the state is shirking its funding obligations by relying too heavily on local property taxes, so I'm just talking about state funding and state regulations, not local share or local oversight.)

 

I also question whether all "schools" licensed by the state should have the same requirements?  If it's too burdensome to require it of a Catholic school receiving a voucher, why is it not too burdensome a rule for a public school?  Or if it isn't efficient to provide a service in every school (like preparing IEPs), the state should fully fund that service rather than requiring public schools to fund it out of their per-pupil allocation.  Maybe you would agree that we also should be looking reducing some of the state regulations if we don't want them applied to private schools that are receiving public money via vouchers.

 

So, I admit you're drilling down here into more specifics than I know.  In general, of course it's easy to oppose unfunded mandates for both public and private entities (and not just schools).  And we'd probably agree at the very highest level, before getting into specifics, that some of those unfunded mandates should be funded and some should simply not be mandates.  We'd probably disagree about which ones go into which category as we drilled deeper down.

 

I know that my kids' school has to have a state certification as a "school."  I don't know everything that's involved in that process, but I assume that that's part of what makes us eligible for legal rights like having a school speed limit zone on the streets outside.  What is involved with getting and maintaining that, I admit I don't know.  In terms of finances, our balance sheet and operating statements are published in the parish bulletin once a year, at the very least.  That's not the same thing as having the audit of those financial statements published, of course, and I recognize that.  And I've not seen projections; I don't know if we do things like that.  (And of course any projections from past years that we might have done will need to be reassessed given this new budget.)

 

But again, I'm not sure where you're going with this or what you're trying to prevent.  I don't think you really just mean "these audits are burdensome and you should have to do them, too, on principle, just to know our pain."  You're not that petty.  But you also know that there won't be some scandalous revelation that Catholic school teachers are getting fat off public money; Catholic school teachers generally make less than their public school counterparts, as do Catholic school principals and other administrators (of which there are also fewer, which is a primary benefit of the system).  At our parish, the parish generally subsidizes the school to the tune of about $1,900 per Catholic pupil (which is why the effective baseline tuition for Catholics and non-Catholics is different--equal face value less parish subsidy for the Catholic kids), not the other way around, so there's nothing to show in terms of excess profits being siphoned off by higher levels of the organization.  (Though I can see why this would be structurally different and riskier in a for-profit private school.)

 

I guess tl;dr I'm generally satisfied with the level of financial transparency I already get from my kids' school.  Assuming other religious schools handle their finances and disclosures similarly, I'm not sure what more is needed at the systemic level to defend against what risks.

 

47 minutes ago, Foraker said:

We also can agree that public schools are not going to become "all the bad kids and only the bad kids," but private schools can choose not to accept a kid (or to kick out a problem kid), and public schools cannot.  That means that public schools must educate the students that the private schools refuse to accept.  We should also be able to agree that getting those kids sufficient education will not be cheaper than the cost to educate the "average" kid.

 

Society is better off -- we are all better off -- if we can get all kids to a point where they can be productive members of society -- have a job, pay taxes, and preferably have some sense of history and how our society works so that they can be civically involved.   (Not that poor kids should be universally prepared for Harvard -- although that would be a huge economic advantage for Ohio if it could be achieved! -- we're talking "capable of community college or a trade shool" -- the starting point for most middle class jobs.)

 

If the state thinks that the "average" kid costs $15,000 to educate, what does it actually takes to get poor kids up to the community college/tech school level?  This is probably a question for professional educators.  Pre-K seems to make a difference.  As do smaller class sizes (more teachers and more classrooms, higher costs).  What about after-school care, free meals (and better meals with more fresh fruit and vegetables),shorter summer breaks, or mental and physical health services on campus?  What works and what does it cost?  I don't know.  But that should be the starting point for what the state should be providing to schools with large populations from poor families. A good education and addressing problems of poverty for the young will pay dividends down the line. 

 

We probably will disagree, but I think we should be spending more money to educate those kids. I'm ok with the state funding vouchers, as part of or all of its spending on education, if the state is achieving that goal.  So far the results indicate that the state is not adequately funding education, and only increasing funding for vouchers isn't going to be the full solution. 

 

As you're aware, we've had this discussion before.  And while we agree that it is not fair that private schools get to expel problem children and public schools do not, our fundamental disagreement is that I argue that public schools absolutely should gain that ability, and use it extensively and without apology.  In fact--and this is separate from our March conversation, but referenced above--yes, in principle, I support the full privatization of the public school system and a backpack-bill-for-all or vouchers-for-all system, which of course would include with it the ability of every school to do what private schools can do now in terms of not allowing problem students to return the following year (or expelling them midyear if circumstances warrant).

 

To be clear, I'm specifically referring here to children who are disciplinary problems, not those with learning problems.  One of my oldest son's best friends at our Catholic school is in the 2nd percentile for reading and has dyslexia.  Not a problem.  But as I noted in March, Akron Public Schools narrowly averted a teachers' strike earlier this year, and forced the resignation of the district superintendent, in large part because of safety issues.  Teachers are getting attacked, even in schools that have police officers stationed in the schools themselves.

 

You want to reach more of the borderline academic students at those schools who might slip through the cracks?  Expel every one of their classmates about whom you can say "you're the reason we need an on-duty cop here every day."  There is absolutely no level of funding, not a million dollars per student, that can create a learning environment for those who fall into the "slow learners but good kids" category that you're referring to that also keeps the far worse problems housed in the same building on the misguided hope that you'll find the right behavioral intervention to turn them around.  Without major structural reform--one that I hope that the recent bill is only an intermediate step towards--any increase in funding will simply fund more of the same dysfunction that's already there.

 

===============

 

In general, I consider this a major urbanist blind spot.  One of the major drivers of flight to the suburbs as people reach their prime working years are school districts.  Universal vouchers can counter a lot of that centrifugal force.  Urbanists tend towards utopian social-engineering fantasies that they're all too often not personally invested in--"just stay in the city and send your kids to Akron Public Schools!" I hear from far too many usually-childless urbanists.  Though I know that doesn't apply to you, but structurally, this is a major urbanist win.  We don't need to wait for a tomorrow that never comes in order to counteract that major pro-sprawl impetus today.

I don't look at "bad schools" so much as disruptive kids making it where the other kids "can't learn" since kids that can learn will actually learn regardless on their own. To me "bad schools" are more like ones where your kid's personal network fills up with people who won't be able to help them be in an environment that leads to the kind of career they actually want. College and even grad school can't "fix" things like they used to. They need to know people. So this definition of "bad schools" is actually far more broad than just ones in "the 'hood" and too far out in the boonies as was the traditional definition. It also includes schools that might put up good numbers but everyone has the same job that your kid may or may not want.

42 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

As you're aware, we've had this discussion before.  And while we agree that it is not fair that private schools get to expel problem children and public schools do not, our fundamental disagreement is that I argue that public schools absolutely should gain that ability, and use it extensively and without apology.  In fact--and this is separate from our March conversation, but referenced above--yes, in principle, I support the full privatization of the public school system and a backpack-bill-for-all or vouchers-for-all system, which of course would include with it the ability of every school to do what private schools can do now in terms of not allowing problem students to return the following year (or expelling them midyear if circumstances warrant).

 

To be clear, I'm specifically referring here to children who are disciplinary problems, not those with learning problems.  One of my oldest son's best friends at our Catholic school is in the 2nd percentile for reading and has dyslexia.  Not a problem.  But as I noted in March, Akron Public Schools narrowly averted a teachers' strike earlier this year, and forced the resignation of the district superintendent, in large part because of safety issues.  Teachers are getting attacked, even in schools that have police officers stationed in the schools themselves.

 

You want to reach more of the borderline academic students at those schools who might slip through the cracks?  Expel every one of their classmates about whom you can say "you're the reason we need an on-duty cop here every day."  There is absolutely no level of funding, not a million dollars per student, that can create a learning environment for those who fall into the "slow learners but good kids" category that you're referring to that also keeps the far worse problems housed in the same building on the misguided hope that you'll find the right behavioral intervention to turn them around.  Without major structural reform--one that I hope that the recent bill is only an intermediate step towards--any increase in funding will simply fund more of the same dysfunction that's already there.

 

"Catholic-school advocate says we should just expel behaviorly-problematic kids from schools (and from society?)!"

Really?  -- WWJD?!?  It's "someone else's" problem now?

 

 

I disagree.  I wouldn't argue that disciplinary problems should be ignored or that there shouldn't be consequences for bad behavior or that disruptive kids should be allowed to remain in the classroom and continue to disrupt the class.  But I also wouldn't just toss the kid out on the street to become a problem in society.  I don't know what the answer is, but I'm sure there are child psychologists and professional educators and social workers who could work together with the parents (if possible).  But throwing up our hands and walking away -- FROM A KID -- should not be an option. 

 

I'm also in favor of structural reform.  Really looking at what society's needs are and whether our current education system (created in an agriculture economy) is meeting those needs. That should be very informed by professional educators and peer-reviewed research, including reviews of what is done that works well in other countries to see what works here.  To that end, I'm ok with more diversity in schools (*edit* diversity in the sense of different kinds of schools with different curricula and different teaching or organizational styles) and fewer top-down educational mandates.

Edited July 6, 20231 yr by Foraker

The consequences would indeed be dire if problem kids are told to just go home and get a job instead. The old-school solution was military school but it seems there's a lot fewer of those now.

21 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But you just said that rural kids are being educated appropriately so they really do not have need for private schools. That being said, there are still options for the rural kids, but like anything they involve tradeoffs. There are kids that travel from Painesville to St. Ignatius everyday. In Cincinnati, there are kids that travel from Brown County to attend a private school an hour away. There are even kids who live in my district, which is fairly affluent, who travel to the city of Cincinnati to attend Walnut Hills or School for Creative and Performing Arts, both which are Cincinnati Public Schools.  None of these schools offer a convenient option for parents and kids but they are what the parents choose to do for their child's best interests

 

 

 

okay, I haven't been reading every bit of this discussion, but for the record, and contrary to popular belief, Painesville is not "rural" 😠. Furthermore, while the Painesville City Schools admittedly are well toward the bottom of the list in statewide rankings, this does not mean a student does not have access to higher level courses which provide a quality education. This year's graduates include a young man (of Mexican descent) who will be attending Columbia University, and a young woman to Colby College, among the most elite in the nation. 

42 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

okay, I haven't been reading every bit of this discussion, but for the record, and contrary to popular belief, Painesville is not "rural" 😠. Furthermore, while the Painesville City Schools admittedly are well toward the bottom of the list in statewide rankings, this does not mean a student does not have access to higher level courses which provide a quality education. This year's graduates include a young man (of Mexican descent) who will be attending Columbia University, and a young woman to Colby College, among the most elite in the nation. 

FWIW - I was less implying that Painesville was rural but more trying to state that there are kids in Painesville that will travel 30+ minutes to go to St. Ignatius because that is a choice that they feel is best for them. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

FWIW - I was less implying that Painesville was rural but more trying to state that there are kids in Painesville that will travel 30+ minutes to go to St. Ignatius because that is a choice that they feel is best for them. 

okay, just kidding. sort of. When I was in high school half a century ago (really!) I knew a couple of sisters who commuted every day to Villa Angela Academy. They had finally had enough and transferred to our public school (a 10 minute walk). Your post reminded me of them. Then again those two were more than a little on the rebellious side. 

I'm really torn about this.

First and foremost, I'm a strong supporter of public schools, and hate to see anything that might harm or deny resources (or even "the better" students) from them. We have precedent for skepticism in Ohio with the mostly-failed charter school program. Given everything else out state legislature has been up to lately, I think there is about a 1% chance this is being done in the interest of what is best for this kids. It's mostly to make it more affordable for religious (conservative) parents to send their kids to religion-based schools, send public money to said schools, and maybe do a little damage to the ("liberal") public schools in the process.

On the other hand, I went to school 12 miles from home at a tiny, low-quality rural district in the exurbs of Cincinnati. With the silly way the districts were drawn, we were two miles from a much larger, much better suburban district as well as a few decent Catholic schools. My parents couldn't really afford the full cost of Catholic schools, and open enrollment wasn't a thing back then. It would have been nice to have some options. 

I also think about - going back to what @Gramaryesaid - what this could *potentially* do for urbanism. Even though we are largely-happy with the micro-urbanism of Granville and the excellent school system our son is attending, we've been tempted many times to make the move to Columbus proper (for multiple reasons). One of the biggest challenges is to live somewhere much more urban than where we are now generally means Columbus City Schools, and they seem to be of mixed quality at best. Often decent elementarys, but so-so middle schools, and terrible high schools unless you get into a good magnet school.
 

While we could afford private school if he didn't get picked in the magnet school lottery down the road, the unknown quantity of tuition isn't especially appealing. Knowing we wouldn't necessarily be paying the full cost might make a difference. Realistically though, we have practically zero interest in sending our kid to any sort of religious school, and there aren't very many private options beyond those - which brings us back to what the bill is actually trying to accomplish.

Edited July 6, 20231 yr by mrCharlie

24 minutes ago, mrCharlie said:

I'm really torn about this.

First and foremost, I'm a strong supporter of public schools, and hate to see anything that might harm or deny resources (or even "the better" students) from them. We have precedent for skepticism in Ohio with the mostly-failed charter school program. Given everything else out state legislature has been up to lately, I think there is about a 1% chance this is being done in the interest of what is best for this kids. It's mostly to make it more affordable for religious (conservative) parents to send their kids to religion-based schools, send public money to said schools, and maybe do a little damage to the ("liberal") public schools in the process.

On the other hand, I went to school 12 miles from home at a tiny, low-quality rural district in the exurbs of Cincinnati. With the silly way the districts were drawn, we were two miles from a much larger, much better suburban district as well as a few decent Catholic schools. My parents couldn't really afford the full cost of Catholic schools, and open enrollment wasn't a thing back then. It would have been nice to have some options. 

I also think about - going back to what @Gramaryesaid - what this could *potentially* do for urbanism. Even though we are largely-happy with the micro-urbanism of Granville and the excellent school system our son is attending, we've been tempted many times to make the move to Columbus proper (for multiple reasons). One of the biggest challenges is to live somewhere much more urban than where we are now generally means Columbus City Schools, and they seem to be of mixed quality at best. Often decent elementarys, but so-so middle schools, and terrible high schools unless you get into a good magnet school.
 

While we could afford private school if he didn't get picked in the magnet school lottery down the road, the unknown quantity of tuition isn't especially appealing. Knowing we wouldn't necessarily be paying the full cost might make a difference. Realistically though, we have practically zero interest in sending our kid to any sort of religious school, and there aren't very many private options beyond those - which brings us back to what the bill is actually trying to accomplish.

 

Taking your second point first: So one major unknown here is how much universal vouchers might change the landscape of schools over the long term, particularly vis-a-vis secular private schools.  Under the status quo, you're certainly correct: the nonsectarian private school option for you in Columbus is basically just Columbus Academy, and even if you qualify for the full $7500 voucher (and the school accepted EdChoice), it won't put much of a dent in the $30,000+ tuition there just for one child, let alone if you have multiple.  But universally available vouchers might create a new market for secular private schools, too.  I personally don't think so, simply because any secular private school that isn't a premium product like Columbus Academy is likely not differentiated enough from public schools to carve out a niche for itself.  But I've been wrong before.

 

The major point of full privatization is that it would completely eliminate geographical-based school districts (and, concomitantly, the property taxes on which they rely too much).  The state would need to raise the money in other ways.  The "secular private school" that you're looking for, that would allow you to live in, say, Victorian Village or Harrison West but still send your kids to a top-tier school, could easily be the buildings that are currently known as Upper Arlington HS or Grandview Heights HS.  (Or, for that matter, any of the farther-out suburban schools.)  You just wouldn't need to live in those municipalities to go to those schools.  But obviously we're not talking about that, and there is no more serious movement for that today than there was in 2010 when I first started posting on these boards about universal vouchers.

 

As for your first point: You have basically no confidence that "this is being done in the interest of what is best for kids," but instead is to just "make it more affordable for religious ... parents to send their kids to religion-based schools."  That begs the question of whether those are mutually exclusive, or in fact in any sort of tension at all.  Needless to say, those of us who send our kids to religious schools do believe that we're doing what's best for our children--and I include in that parents who aren't themselves Catholic or even religious at all (of which there are more at most mainstream Catholic schools than you think).  Obviously this wouldn't apply to more stridently sectarian institutions like the Lyceum, but the whole market niche for the Lyceum was for people who think that most Catholic schools aren't Catholic enough (and generally those who think the Pope isn't Catholic enough).  At the very least, they consider it doing the best for their children vis-a-vis the other options, particularly those who live in Akron Public.  But we have a number who drive in from Fairlawn and Richfield, and even one that comes all the way in from Tallmadge.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 In fact--and this is separate from our March conversation, but referenced above--yes, in principle, I support the full privatization of the public school system and a backpack-bill-for-all or vouchers-for-all system, . . . Without major structural reform--one that I hope that the recent bill is only an intermediate step towards--any increase in funding will simply fund more of the same dysfunction that's already there.

I just discovered another interesting fact that you will like -- there is no limit on the number of vouchers (other than that there are only about 1.8m total students in Ohio).  If every eligible kid in Ohio wanted a voucher, they can get it (in decreasing amounts above a $135k family income, but guaranteed to be at least 10% of the voucher amount for everyone regardless of income).  Public school funding for this coming biennium, however,  is capped at around $19.5B. (Out of a state budget of $190.7B.)  Ohio has about 1.6m public school students (and so the state is spending $12,200 per student, on average, over two years -- the bulk of the public school funding comes from local property taxes).

 

About 13% of Ohio's 1.8m students are in private schools now (only about 240,000 students).  The new vouchers are $6,165 for K to 8 students and $8,407 for high schoolers.  If 1/4 are in high school, that's 60,000 high school students and 180,000 K8 students; and 1/4 of $8407 + 3/4 of $6,165 would give us an average cost of $6,725.50 per student per year -- or an average of $13,450 per student for the biennium.  What percentage of students will be eligible for the full amount? That's a big unknown.  The state has committed to spending at least 10% for each of those students (around $300m).  If every kid were eligible for the full amount, $13,450 x 240,000 = ~$3.2B

 

We'll have to wait and see what the voucher rate is like, but it seems likely that the voucher cost will be more than $300m and less than $3B -- but that's a big range. I think it is ironic that our fiscally-conservative state cannot "afford" to fully fund public schools under the Fair Funding Plan, but have to "ease" into it over six years (this budget brings us up to year four of the six-year phase-in) -- yet they authorized vouchers without a cap on the cost.

2 hours ago, mrCharlie said:

I'm really torn about this.

First and foremost, I'm a strong supporter of public schools, and hate to see anything that might harm or deny resources (or even "the better" students) from them. We have precedent for skepticism in Ohio with the mostly-failed charter school program. Given everything else out state legislature has been up to lately, I think there is about a 1% chance this is being done in the interest of what is best for this kids. It's mostly to make it more affordable for religious (conservative) parents to send their kids to religion-based schools, send public money to said schools, and maybe do a little damage to the ("liberal") public schools in the process.

On the other hand, I went to school 12 miles from home at a tiny, low-quality rural district in the exurbs of Cincinnati. With the silly way the districts were drawn, we were two miles from a much larger, much better suburban district as well as a few decent Catholic schools. My parents couldn't really afford the full cost of Catholic schools, and open enrollment wasn't a thing back then. It would have been nice to have some options. 

I also think about - going back to what @Gramaryesaid - what this could *potentially* do for urbanism. Even though we are largely-happy with the micro-urbanism of Granville and the excellent school system our son is attending, we've been tempted many times to make the move to Columbus proper (for multiple reasons). One of the biggest challenges is to live somewhere much more urban than where we are now generally means Columbus City Schools, and they seem to be of mixed quality at best. Often decent elementarys, but so-so middle schools, and terrible high schools unless you get into a good magnet school.
 

While we could afford private school if he didn't get picked in the magnet school lottery down the road, the unknown quantity of tuition isn't especially appealing. Knowing we wouldn't necessarily be paying the full cost might make a difference. Realistically though, we have practically zero interest in sending our kid to any sort of religious school, and there aren't very many private options beyond those - which brings us back to what the bill is actually trying to accomplish.

 

I think there's a lot of little, say, sub-100 enrollment schools around but they can be tough to find. I went to one for a while. 

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Taking your second point first: So one major unknown here is how much universal vouchers might change the landscape of schools over the long term, particularly vis-a-vis secular private schools.  Under the status quo, you're certainly correct: the nonsectarian private school option for you in Columbus is basically just Columbus Academy, and even if you qualify for the full $7500 voucher (and the school accepted EdChoice), it won't put much of a dent in the $30,000+ tuition there just for one child, let alone if you have multiple.  But universally available vouchers might create a new market for secular private schools, too.  I personally don't think so, simply because any secular private school that isn't a premium product like Columbus Academy is likely not differentiated enough from public schools to carve out a niche for itself.  But I've been wrong before.

 

The major point of full privatization is that it would completely eliminate geographical-based school districts (and, concomitantly, the property taxes on which they rely too much).  The state would need to raise the money in other ways.  The "secular private school" that you're looking for, that would allow you to live in, say, Victorian Village or Harrison West but still send your kids to a top-tier school, could easily be the buildings that are currently known as Upper Arlington HS or Grandview Heights HS.  (Or, for that matter, any of the farther-out suburban schools.)  You just wouldn't need to live in those municipalities to go to those schools.  But obviously we're not talking about that, and there is no more serious movement for that today than there was in 2010 when I first started posting on these boards about universal vouchers.

 

As for your first point: You have basically no confidence that "this is being done in the interest of what is best for kids," but instead is to just "make it more affordable for religious ... parents to send their kids to religion-based schools."  That begs the question of whether those are mutually exclusive, or in fact in any sort of tension at all.  Needless to say, those of us who send our kids to religious schools do believe that we're doing what's best for our children--and I include in that parents who aren't themselves Catholic or even religious at all (of which there are more at most mainstream Catholic schools than you think).  Obviously this wouldn't apply to more stridently sectarian institutions like the Lyceum, but the whole market niche for the Lyceum was for people who think that most Catholic schools aren't Catholic enough (and generally those who think the Pope isn't Catholic enough).  At the very least, they consider it doing the best for their children vis-a-vis the other options, particularly those who live in Akron Public.  But we have a number who drive in from Fairlawn and Richfield, and even one that comes all the way in from Tallmadge.

 

Funny you mention Columbus Academy. My wife and I looked at an absolutely incredible, high quality, architect-designed time capsule house from the 1970's in the woods just north of Pataskala five or so years ago. Though the opposite of urban, the house itself was pretty much everything we could ever want. It was right at the top of our budget at the time, and per our realtor would have been double in Granville...because it was in Licking Heights Schools. Conspicuously on the coffee table was then-current-Guide to Private Schools book, despite the owners being retirees. We asked our realtor if we could include 13 years of Columbus Academy tuition as a contingency.

Interesting thought about the chicken and egg problem for future secular schools - if this takes hold, maybe those will start to appear where demand is sufficient. Though I haven't come across any high-quality charter high schools, so maybe they are more aiming to just be a bit better than CCS, rather than drawing people back from the suburbs.  I'm not sure if this would somehow led to different results. Our kid starts first grade in the fall, while it's a possible for a decent private city high school established and prove themselves to be of quality before we would need them - but I doubt it. Still, I consistently support programs that aim to solve  problems we have personally experienced (ie single payer insurance) even if we will no longer benefit.

 

To clarify, I do agree that most parents sending their kids to religious schools are doing what they sincerely feel is best for their children (that said, my friend whose parents sent hime to Catholic schools for K-12 doesn't entire agree). I was cynically getting more at the likely motivations of our state legislature, who have shown more interest in sucking up to conservative voters and sticking it to the libs than doing anything that might benefit Ohio's children.

 

One more thought - if our state is now providing money for parents to send their children to private religious schools, perhaps we stop trying to inject religious morality into our public schools. Parents who don't want their kids learning that LGBTQ people exist and should be treated, but do think all kids should pray at school and learn the ten commandments now have a state-sponsored choice.

I'm late to this discussion, but I haven't seen shipping kids all over a region being discussed. Where's the sense of stability and neighborhood? It reminds me a bit of bussing in the 80s and 90s - kids shipped all over the district to different schools. What was lost was the sense of community which I think is just as important. I didn't have many friends in my neighborhood because everyone went to different schools - I feel I missed out on something. Until I was able to drive, my parents had to chauffer me about.

 

As a parent, I am lucky enough to live in the Clintonville neighborhood of Columbus. My kids walked to school, have connections to the neighborhood and have folks of all ages wave to them since they are part of the community. Was CCS great? It was OK you took advantage of certain classes. My youngest was in HS during Covid and CCS handled that badly - a lot of kids didn't have laptops or internet access at home which exasperated the situation. Lots of kids were lost during this time. This was an issue suburban schools didn't have to deal with. Overall, though, my now adult kids have deep connections to the community that will be with them their whole lives.

 

Rather than abandoning public schools entirely to a voucher system, wouldn't it just be more prudent to fix them? Poverty has a direct influence on how a kid does in school. I don't know what the answer is but it would be better for society if we try to lift up everyone and not abandon those kids who are on the fringes? It's about more than test scores and expansive athletic facilities.

59 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I'm late to this discussion, but I haven't seen shipping kids all over a region being discussed. Where's the sense of stability and neighborhood? It reminds me a bit of bussing in the 80s and 90s - kids shipped all over the district to different schools. What was lost was the sense of community which I think is just as important. I didn't have many friends in my neighborhood because everyone went to different schools - I feel I missed out on something. Until I was able to drive, my parents had to chauffer me about.

 

So, this conversation has kind of separated into two tracks, and that's largely my fault--one talking about the school funding budget that just passed, and one talking about a possible distant future.

 

Under the budget that just passed, school district boundaries stay in place.  It expands eligibility for an already-existing program but does not address the more structural issues of exclusionary jurisdictional boundaries.  So the only increase in "shipping kids all over the region" that you would expect to see will be those who don't already use EdChoice but will choose to do so now.  Since most of those will be those are in non-failing public schools (since families in failing public school districts were already eligible), I don't think you'll see as much of that as you might think.

 

Also, though the concern about "shipping kids all over the region" is, ironically, somewhat regional.  When I was in law school at UVA, a lot of the class came from Northern Virginia (they capitalize it the same way we capitalize Northeast Ohio), where it is completely routine for kids to go to school all over the place regardless of which schools are geographically closest--even which good schools are geographically closest.

 

Also, you mentioned the experience of having to be chauffeured about until you learn to drive, but that's  basically every kid until they learn to drive, unless and until their parents are comfortable turning them loose on local public transit systems or trust their kid with a phone and ridesharing services.  And commuting times matter for most of us who are the chauffeurs.  While I love my kids' school and I can understand why we have at least one family that comes from Tallmadge to West Akron for it, I personally wouldn't drive here every day from Tallmadge.  So my kids do form connections to the community beyond the school--and the school is heavily entrenched in the community, too.  But our Cub Scout troop draws in kids from many surrounding schools (public and private), the local rec soccer league that is sponsored and organized by our school does likewise (and in fact my oldest's best friends don't go to our school, they're soccer team friends), and the local rec swim team has a fair number of kids from our school as well as others nearby.

 

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

Rather than abandoning public schools entirely to a voucher system, wouldn't it just be more prudent to fix them? Poverty has a direct influence on how a kid does in school. I don't know what the answer is but it would be better for society if we try to lift up everyone and not abandon those kids who are on the fringes? It's about more than test scores and expansive athletic facilities.

 

So there are certainly some ways in which poverty directly affects both academic performance and socialization.  It does mess with the brain directly.  I saw that firsthand in some ad hoc volunteer work I did with Bridges Out of Poverty back in the day.  However, other things associated with poverty are not necessarily directly causal, but are correlates, e.g., flowing from things like family breakdown and dysfunction that are themselves both causes of poverty and causes of poor academic performance and socialization.  But also, regardless of which category of phenomenon you're talking about: What are you asking schools to do about it?  Teachers are not social workers, and even if they were, teachers can't give families better jobs nor can they give children better families.

 

You talk about "abandoning public schools entirely to a voucher system," but that misses the dynamic involved.  A voucher system allows individual families to abandon the schools that are not serving their children well.  Right now, the government-monopoly model relies on a captive market, save for those with the privilege necessary to escape.  Vouchers break that monopoly and give everyone a choice, not just families like mine.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

You talk about "abandoning public schools entirely to a voucher system," but that misses the dynamic involved.  A voucher system allows individual families to abandon the schools that are not serving their children well.  Right now, the government-monopoly model relies on a captive market, save for those with the privilege necessary to escape.  Vouchers break that monopoly and give everyone a choice, not just families like mine.

This highlights the liberal-conservative divide.  INDIVIDUAL freedom and INDIVIDUAL responsibility for conservatives, and COMMUNITY freedom and COMMUNITY responsibilities for liberals.  The conservative view that the individual should be free to abandon schools they don't like (and well, the other kids in that school could make the same decision, amiright?).  In contrast, the liberal view is that the school is a community asset and the community should work together to make schools better -- and in a way that benefits everyone in the community, not just "me, personally." 

 

Vouchers allow individuals to escape having to put in work to make their community schools better, they can just "abandon" the public school for a "better" school. 

 

The government-monopoly model is the most efficient way to spend the community (state) money to educate all of the kids in the community (state). And the state constitution (which I am shocked that the state's Republican's haven't amended since the DeRolph decisions) requires a system of public schools.  Vouchers will require more school buildings, more administrators, and less local oversight (as in if you want to opine about whether the school cafeteria really needed a makeover more than the kids needed new laptops, the parish priest can just say no; he's the king and he decides what is best for the school, not the parents).

33 minutes ago, Foraker said:

This highlights the liberal-conservative divide.  INDIVIDUAL freedom and INDIVIDUAL responsibility for conservatives, and COMMUNITY freedom and COMMUNITY responsibilities for liberals.  The conservative view that the individual should be free to abandon schools they don't like (and well, the other kids in that school could make the same decision, amiright?).  In contrast, the liberal view is that the school is a community asset and the community should work together to make schools better -- and in a way that benefits everyone in the community, not just "me, personally." 

I think your interpretation of the conservative viewpoint misses the mark. The conservative side is not that the individual should be free to abandon schools they do not like. That is not what is happening here. After all, a child on a voucher only receives 1/2 the amount that would be paid to the private school for their education and the remaining amount the state will pay stays with the public school. I would not consider that abandonment. If it were abandonment, you would have people picking up and leaving the public system altogether and seeking to completely defund the schools. In fact, if you look at the best school districts in the state, they tend to come from areas of the state that have a lot of Republican voters or at least a strong mix of Republican or Democrat voters. The worst districts tend to be in heavily Democratic areas. To say that Republicans want to abandon the schools because they in general favor vouchers is not really a valid assessment. 

 

What I do think the key difference at least with the conservative viewpoint is that conservatives look at the child and what is best for the child individually. The problem with the public school system is that is designed as a homogenous way to serve all. This is not a bad thing, but the problem is it essentially turns people into numbers. On a macro level, when you boil people down to a statistic, the numbers work and there is a strong argument of the benefits of a collective education system. The problem, and where it fails is that when you boil it down to an individual level, you have close to half the kids who will not be as successful in a traditional public school environment and those students would be better off in a different setting. Is it fair to tell those kids that they are not able to live up to their potential simply because the numbers indicate that on the macro level, the public school is better for the majority? Especially if that individual child could succeed in an alternative setting where they would struggle and fail in their traditional public school setting? In that case, I think it is less about the "conservative" family "abandoning" the public school system and it is more about how the public school system "abandoned" that family's child and stunted their ability to achieve.

43 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The problem with the public school system is that is designed as a homogenous way to serve all. This is not a bad thing, but the problem is it essentially turns people into numbers. On a macro level, when you boil people down to a statistic, the numbers work and there is a strong argument of the benefits of a collective education system.

 

Public schools may be a standard solution to serve all, but it by no means gives everyone the same services. In fact, public schools provide more services than private schools that are not required to deal with students that may have special needs. My son has much greater access to counseling and support services in our local public elementary school than any of the surrounding Catholic or otherwise private schools. His school has several dozen staff members devoted to meeting the needs of kids with special needs, IEPs, speech, home-life challenges, trauma, etc. etc. The public school is required to provide these things while the private schools do not have to serve these kids. It is not just a homogenous solution. 

16 minutes ago, Foraker said:

This highlights the liberal-conservative divide.  INDIVIDUAL freedom and INDIVIDUAL responsibility for conservatives, and COMMUNITY freedom and COMMUNITY responsibilities for liberals.  The conservative view that the individual should be free to abandon schools they don't like (and well, the other kids in that school could make the same decision, amiright?).  In contrast, the liberal view is that the school is a community asset and the community should work together to make schools better -- and in a way that benefits everyone in the community, not just "me, personally." 

 

Vouchers allow individuals to escape having to put in work to make their community schools better, they can just "abandon" the public school for a "better" school. 

 

In practice "community freedom and community responsibilities" means freedom for the elites that manage to wrangle their way into positions of decisionmaking power for the community, and responsibility for everyone else.  And "work together" is a similarly loaded cliche--in general the person saying it means "you do the work and I'll tell you if you're doing it the way I want it done."  For instance, it's clear you don't mean work together get disruptive and dangerous students permanently out of the system, just as when you say "the school is a community asset," you mean the failing public school down the road but not my school that is far more likely to be producing the skilled professionals of the next generation that my community will need.  If a private school were producing the exact same results as some of the urban public elementary schools that our school's families would otherwise be in, you'd inevitably not be calling it a community asset; you'd call it a liability.  It drives families out of the district and dissuades others from moving in.  What is so magical about government ownership in your mind that it trumps all rational weighting of costs and benefits?  Or if it doesn't, then what is your breaking point?

 

Also, my view here really isn't as hyper-individualistic as you're making it out to be.  It is better for the community to maximize the number of students, including from less affluent families, who graduate from the best schools in the district--and those schools are not, and never will be, public.  It is better for the community to have people able to live in denser, walkable urban neighborhoods and not feel pressured to bail for the suburbs when their children reach school age.

 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

The government-monopoly model is the most efficient way to spend the community (state) money to educate all of the kids in the community (state). And the state constitution (which I am shocked that the state's Republican's haven't amended since the DeRolph decisions) requires a system of public schools.  Vouchers will require more school buildings, more administrators, and less local oversight (as in if you want to opine about whether the school cafeteria really needed a makeover more than the kids needed new laptops, the parish priest can just say no; he's the king and he decides what is best for the school, not the parents).

 

No matter how many times you repeat any of these things, it won't make them true.

 

The notion that the government monopoly--any government monopoly--is "efficient" is risible on its face.

 

The word in the Ohio Constitution is "common."  Not "public."

 

Vouchers do not require more school buildings or more administrators.  As I've noted before, my school's administrative layer is tiny.  And the need for buildings flows generally from enrollment; it's not like if you sent 1,000 kids from our school and the others nearby back into the local public school system, that they wouldn't need new buildings.  Unless you're OK with crowding even more than is already the case there.

 

As for local oversight: You say that the priest could just decide that the school cafeteria needs a new makeover more than the kids need new laptops.  Well, technically, maybe--but at what public school do parents really have material input on day-to-day budgetary priorities at an individual school like that?  At best, you have the inchoate and diffuse influence of voting out the school board, which you're not like to be able to do over one principal making decisions you disagree with at one school among thirty in the district.  Again, you seem to be making magical, hagiographic assumptions about public ownership that don't describe how a public school district actually functions.

 

Meanwhile, the fact that the priest is the last word on school matters is a structural reality but not a practical, everyday one.  In most respects, it's just an accountability measure--those who make the real everyday decisions know not to go off the reservation and do anything that would actually attract his involvement.  The man simply doesn't have time to get involved in everything--or much of anything outside of the religious education aspect of the school, honestly.

4 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Public schools may be a standard solution to serve all, but it by no means gives everyone the same services. In fact, public schools provide more services than private schools that are not required to deal with students that may have special needs. My son has much greater access to counseling and support services in our local public elementary school than any of the surrounding Catholic or otherwise private schools. His school has several dozen staff members devoted to meeting the needs of kids with special needs, IEPs, speech, home-life challenges, trauma, etc. etc. The public school is required to provide these things while the private schools do not have to serve these kids. It is not just a homogenous solution. 

This is a fair point, and maybe it may not be homogenous, but that does not mean that they are best set up to serve everyone. My sister is a product of public schools because she needed many of their special needs programs. I would argue that she would have been better served in a private school that could have catered better and more efficiently to her particular needs. That does not mean that they did not try, but after a while some kids get written off and even with the right IEP, it does not mean the public school may be the best fit for that individual student needs.  

 

Yes, public schools may have to provide services to serve all. On the surface, that is not a bad thing, but at the same time, that does not mean they can serve each individual child in the best manner and provide the best outcome. Isn't reasonable that the parents should be able to determine what is best for their individual child whom they know best vs the state who only sees raw numbers. 

I can respect and appreciate all of the views being shared here but I keep coming back to one question. If we go to a vouchers and Catholic school for all, does that increase our education performance? Probably not if you look at states like Florida. If everyone gets to self segregate into their own private schools, and what happens to those left behind? Is it the screw them mentality? Or what how do we create an education system that includes and advances students that some of you described as “behavioral distractions”? The biggest problem is the way Ohio public schools are funded, giving the least to those that need the most. But those craving religious/charter schools I doubt care about (would love to be wrong here and could be). 
 

I’m truly interested to hear if vouchers for all and erase all public schools is really the better option here?

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

After all, a child on a voucher only receives 1/2 the amount that would be paid to the private school for their education and the remaining amount the state will pay stays with the public school.

I don't think that's true any more -- I think that may have been the case under an old funding model.  Now the state is funding both vouchers and public schools but they are essentially separately pots of money.  Of course, my local school system is funded almost 70% by local property taxes, not the state -- and that includes taxes paid by neighbors who use vouchers to send their kids to private schools.  So the state is funding $8k for the local high school student to use a voucher, and that entire amount follows that student to her private school and there is zero impact on the local public high school's funding (other than that they now have fewer students and that will impact the funding formula the state uses). 

 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

It is better for the community to maximize the number of students, including from less affluent families, who graduate from the best schools in the district--and those schools are not, and never will be, public.

LOL.  My public school education included the International Baccalaureate curriculum, tons of AP classes, college credit classes, and a long list of successful graduates.   I would say it was by far the best public or private school district in that area. 

 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

The word in the Ohio Constitution is "common."  Not "public."

I suggest that the sense of "must take all applicants" applies to both terms, and not to most private schools (not to any that I know of).   So yes, the state could create a system of "common" schools that include a mix of public and private schools that are all run under the same rules, including fiscal reporting and take-all-comers requirements.  I highly doubt a private school could be run successfully under the state's requirements for public schools.

 

10 minutes ago, Clefan14 said:

If everyone gets to self segregate into their own private schools, and what happens to those left behind? Is it the screw them mentality? Or what how do we create an education system that includes and advances students that some of you described as “behavioral distractions”?

One conservative approach mentioned above was to allow public schools to expel them.   That is the only "solution" I've seen from the conservative side of the aisle. 

 

That and defunding the schools trying to educate those "behavioral distractions" for their low success rate (test scores).

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Clefan14 said:

I can respect and appreciate all of the views being shared here but I keep coming back to one question. If we go to a vouchers and Catholic school for all, does that increase our education performance? Probably not if you look at states like Florida. If everyone gets to self segregate into their own private schools, and what happens to those left behind? Is it the screw them mentality? Or what how do we create an education system that includes and advances students that some of you described as “behavioral distractions”? The biggest problem is the way Ohio public schools are funded, giving the least to those that need the most. But those craving religious/charter schools I doubt care about (would love to be wrong here and could be). 
 

I’m truly interested to hear if vouchers for all and erase all public schools is really the better option here?

you do not erase public schools. Even with a voucher system the majority of people will still choose their public school over a private or charter one. At the elementary level, one big draw for schools is their neighborhood. If the Catholic or charter is closer to where the kids live, then certainly that may be a draw. If the public school is closer then it is likely the preferred model.

If you get to the high school level, the voucher will not cover all the tuition. For example, St. Ignatius is around $17k per year give or take and the voucher will only cover around 40% of that . Many people will still find the financial burden too much even with a voucher and will be inclined to stay with their public school. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

you do not erase public schools. Even with a voucher system the majority of people will still choose their public school over a private or charter one. At the elementary level, one big draw for schools is their neighborhood. If the Catholic or charter is closer to where the kids live, then certainly that may be a draw. If the public school is closer then it is likely the preferred model.

If you get to the high school level, the voucher will not cover all the tuition. For example, St. Ignatius is around $17k per year give or take and the voucher will only cover around 40% of that . Many people will still find the financial burden too much even with a voucher and will be inclined to stay with their public school. 

 

 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful response. And in this case it’s my understanding you support our tax dollars supporting that 40% regardless? Very interesting perspective to socialize the cost for these students. I guess conservatives are okay with socialism when it directly benefits them and their specific religion?

16 hours ago, Clefan14 said:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. And in this case it’s my understanding you support our tax dollars supporting that 40% regardless? Very interesting perspective to socialize the cost for these students. I guess conservatives are okay with socialism when it directly benefits them and their specific religion?

I support our tax dollars supporting that 40% because they are taxpayers too and they should at least get to benefit from the taxes that they are paying into the system. 

I feel that you have a bit of a warped impression on how a conservative or libertarian would think. Outside of a very few fringe people, the accepted view from many conservative/libertarian scholars is not that "all government is bad" and there is "no place for taxes" etc. Most conservative and libertarian viewpoints recognize that there is a place for government and taxes. The debate is not whether we should pay taxes but rather how those taxes should be spent and what is the true purpose of "public good." Part of the problem is that many of the progressives on the left have often turned the debate into a caricature by taking the most far off radical viewpoint that some chuklehead might say (like MTG or Boebert) and acting as if that is the mainstream argument of Republicans. To be fair, conservatives do the same with the far left morons like AOC, but I get it, that is what drives the vote today vs a true intellectual debate.  

As discussed above, under the voucher system in Ohio we are giving $6,165 for K to 8 students and $8,407 for high schoolers who use vouchers.  Total cost:  unknown.

The state budget for public (non-charter) schools is $7.4B for Ohio's 1.6m public school students, or an average of $4,625 per student. 

Ohio spent another $1.01B on charter schools.

https://www.the74million.org/article/new-ohio-school-budget-law-makes-historic-strides-in-k-12-education/

 

Meanwhile, Michigan just passed a budget that spends $24.3B on education, an average of $9,608 per student, double Ohio's expenditure. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4109056-whitmer-signs-24-3-billion-michigan-education-budget-bill/

 

One year won't make a difference.  But if this pattern continues, Ohio will fall behind.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

As discussed above, under the voucher system in Ohio we are giving $6,165 for K to 8 students and $8,407 for high schoolers who use vouchers.  Total cost:  unknown.

The state budget for public (non-charter) schools is $7.4B for Ohio's 1.6m public school students, or an average of $4,625 per student. 

Ohio spent another $1.01B on charter schools.

https://www.the74million.org/article/new-ohio-school-budget-law-makes-historic-strides-in-k-12-education/

 

Meanwhile, Michigan just passed a budget that spends $24.3B on education, an average of $9,608 per student, double Ohio's expenditure. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4109056-whitmer-signs-24-3-billion-michigan-education-budget-bill/

 

One year won't make a difference.  But if this pattern continues, Ohio will fall behind.

Michigan is in tax and spend mode now with the legislature and governorship operating in tandem. There are no checks to their crazy spending. For a state that is losing population, I would not worry too much about what Michigan is doing. 

9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Michigan is in tax and spend mode now with the legislature and governorship operating in tandem. There are no checks to their crazy spending. For a state that is losing population, I would not worry too much about what Michigan is doing. 

Such an on brand reaction for the privatize everything and my religion is the only religion caucus. Anecdotal, but I’ve had multiple friends with remote jobs move to MI in recent months due to the chaos and Florida trend lines here. Both have young children about to be school age. I would argue that states like Michigan are increasing their broader appeal to wider swaths of the population instead of cutting taxes for the top 1%.

12 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There are no checks to their crazy spending.

 

No one can tell us the total dollar amount that Ohio budgeted for vouchers because there is none -- "crazy spending" is not Michigan's problem.  At least they actually have a budgeted amount.

 

 

At this rate, Michigan is going to be a massive climate haven in 20-30 years. By American standards, they are making a lot of great moves to get prepared for that massive influx. This is also going to happen to Ohio but there's not a lot of action to improve QoL here so it's going to be a bigger struggle to absorb all those people.

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

No one can tell us the total dollar amount that Ohio budgeted for vouchers because there is none -- "crazy spending" is not Michigan's problem.  At least they actually have a budgeted amount.

 

 

Ohio's educational spend is already set. What is undetermined is the amount of money that some districts will get per student. For the most part, this can be figured with reasonable certainty in many of the urban districts as they are already used to vouchers and the amount of voucher money will not considerably grow in those districts (it is pretty much been baked in for 15 years now).

 

The districts that may see a surprise are the suburban districts that have a great rating. They have never had to deal with a voucher before as 1) Most people send their kids to public school because it is a good school and well run system (and at this point will likely not change) but 2) Those who do live there and send their kids private, have the means to subsidize the public schools while at the same time affording private school. Now those families will likely get $650-$1000 per student (depending on year in school or more depending on income) and the school system will have to factor this relatively unknown factor. They can figure their exposure but you also have to answer the question as to how many of the parents who live in top districts but still send their kids to private school will find the hassle factor to get the $650-$1000 worth the effort on the paperwork side. 

8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Ohio's educational spend is already set.

If 10% of the 1.6m public school students take vouchers, that's a reduction of ($4,625*160000=$740m) from the $7.4B public school budget, bringing it down to $6.7B.  But if half take elementary vouchers ($6,165*80000) and half take high school vouchers ($8,407*80000) that's nearly $1.2B -- a lot more than the $740m in savings.

 

So what is the total spend that the state has allocated to education?  How many students can get vouchers for the first time in this next cycle before the budget is met?

I have not yet seen any evidence that there is any limit.  And I have not seen any evidence of a dollar amount allocated for voucher payments -- the state seems to have written a blank check and are just hoping that it won't be too many too soon.  I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 . . . the school system will have to factor this relatively unknown factor. They can figure their exposure but you also have to answer the question as to how many of the parents who live in top districts but still send their kids to private school will find the hassle factor to get the $650-$1000 worth the effort on the paperwork side. 

Fortunately the public school districts are not impacted by the vouchers in the same way they used to be.  If the public system loses students, it will be at an average of $4,625 per student lost* -- the public school is not "charged" the voucher amount ($6k or $8k -- much more than they were receiving from the state) which was what happened under the old system.  (*The state has a more complex calculation of how much each school will receive based on multiple factors, including poverty and real estate values in the district, so most districts will get more or less than that, but it's still a calculation that does not take into account voucher awards in that district.)

22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Those who do live there and send their kids private, have the means to subsidize the public schools while at the same time affording private school. Now those families will likely get $650-$1000 per student (depending on year in school or more depending on income) and the school system will have to factor this relatively unknown factor.

 

Part of living in a society is paying taxes for your municipality's school district. Whether or not your kids go to those schools is a non-issue. You live there, you gain property value because of it, you pay the taxes. Instead of "public good" policies our public school hating legislature is going in the opposite direction. Good for us.

1 minute ago, Foraker said:

If 10% of the 1.6m public school students take vouchers, that's a reduction of ($4,625*160000=$740m) from the $7.4B public school budget, bringing it down to $6.7B.  But if half take elementary vouchers ($6,165*80000) and half take high school vouchers ($8,407*80000) that's nearly $1.2B -- a lot more than the $740m in savings.

 

So what is the total spend that the state has allocated to education?  How many students can get vouchers for the first time in this next cycle before the budget is met?

I have not yet seen any evidence that there is any limit.  And I have not seen any evidence of a dollar amount allocated for voucher payments -- the state seems to have written a blank check and are just hoping that it won't be too many too soon.  I hope I'm wrong about that.

For the current year, it will be about the same. You are not going to see a rush of public school kids to private schools in the current year because those classes are baked in for the most part by April/May, which is before the voucher program passed. The students that qualify for need based vouchers in the past were also pretty much baked in. For the current year, I think school districts will be able to predict with around 95-99% accuracy where their funding will be.

 

For 2024/25, it may be a little more murky as more families find out about this however, again, in the districts that were troubled, vouchers have been around for much of the last 15-20 years so these districts have been used to budgeting for vouchers. For the wealthy districts, most people will stay in their public school anyway OR the kids going to private schools will get a small discount (because their families incomes are so high they only qualify for the smallest amount). The people that win are the families that have been sending their kids to private schools over the last 20 years yet not receiving any subsidy for their educational choice.  From a budget perspective, it should be fairly reasonable for a finance director to predict since the amount should be predictable. 

32 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Part of living in a society is paying taxes for your municipality's school district. Whether or not your kids go to those schools is a non-issue. You live there, you gain property value because of it, you pay the taxes. Instead of "public good" policies our public school hating legislature is going in the opposite direction. Good for us.

You have no disagreement here and I do not think you have any disagreement from the politicians. Remember, people who send their kids to private schools still pay their property taxes just as you do. Furthermore, the state still supports the public school for the "potential" need that their private school educated child may have if ever. The only difference is that a portion of the funds that would have been allocated to that child to be educated in a public school that they are not using are able to be repurposed to the private school This way, the funds that your taxes pay to educate the child are actually used for that child.  So your civics lesson that you try and present here really does not hold water. 

Incidentally, my kids' school just sent this around, and I had trouble finding it on the Ohio EdChoice Web site, so this might be helpful to some folks:

 

It looks like the lion's share of the dropoff in funding received happens between 500% of poverty and 600%, for families that are not otherwise eligible for traditional EdChoice, i.e., those would otherwise attend a school on the designated list.  And it looks like the categories really are blocks, not calculated on the margin, so a family of four making $164,999 with two children in HS really doesn't want a $1 raise, or they lose $4,100 in scholarships: 2(7050-5000).

 

  

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

Part of living in a society is paying taxes for your municipality's school district. Whether or not your kids go to those schools is a non-issue. You live there, you gain property value because of it, you pay the taxes. Instead of "public good" policies our public school hating legislature is going in the opposite direction. Good for us.

 

You do realize that this value-added dynamic is exactly the opposite for those who live in failing school districts, right?

 

Not only do my children now get at least a token amount to cover tuition (though I admit $650 per kid isn't exactly life-changing for my family), my property value just went up because now a middle-class family can buy my house and their kids are not trapped in Akron Public.

 

  

20 hours ago, Foraker said:

As discussed above, under the voucher system in Ohio we are giving $6,165 for K to 8 students and $8,407 for high schoolers who use vouchers.  Total cost:  unknown.

The state budget for public (non-charter) schools is $7.4B for Ohio's 1.6m public school students, or an average of $4,625 per student. 

Ohio spent another $1.01B on charter schools.

https://www.the74million.org/article/new-ohio-school-budget-law-makes-historic-strides-in-k-12-education/

 

Meanwhile, Michigan just passed a budget that spends $24.3B on education, an average of $9,608 per student, double Ohio's expenditure. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4109056-whitmer-signs-24-3-billion-michigan-education-budget-bill/

 

One year won't make a difference.  But if this pattern continues, Ohio will fall behind.

 

I don't have time to audit this now to find what's being left out.  But there is literally no way that Michigan's overall per-pupil K-12 expenditures are actually double Ohio's.  Maybe there is less reliance on local property taxes there, so the state budget is correspondingly higher.  Either way, from the link you shared, this was a 5% increase, not some seismic shift.

Imagine thinking that private schools and self segregating policies are beneficial for society. Look at the leading states in these areas (mostly the southern states) and their student results. The best states for public schools (NJ, etc) are the best states for students and teachers. 
 

I miss the separation of church and state when I we didn’t have to pay. For “theology” and classes that teach creationism. Lol Ohio

7 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

Part of living in a society is paying taxes for your municipality's school district. Whether or not your kids go to those schools is a non-issue. You live there, you gain property value because of it, you pay the taxes. Instead of "public good" policies our public school hating legislature is going in the opposite direction. Good for us.

Agree! And I have zero kids and pay for other peoples kids public education. My property taxes are high, but I don't feel entitled to a payout.

3 hours ago, Clefan14 said:

Imagine thinking that private schools and self segregating policies are beneficial for society.

 

Education is beneficial for society.  Whether the entity providing it is owned and operated by the government is a tertiary concern.  As for "self segregating," well, some private schools are heavily segregated ("self-segregated" or otherwise), but so are many public schools.

 

4 hours ago, Clefan14 said:

I miss the separation of church and state when I we didn’t have to pay. For “theology” and classes that teach creationism. Lol Ohio

 

The money in the EdChoice program follows the student, not the school.  Convince me and everyone like me that you we shouldn't send our children to religious schools, and there won't be a dime of EdChoice money that goes to a religious school.

 

Why do you put theology in scare quotes and creationism not?  Yale offers a degree in theology, not in creationism.

 

Would you care to place a bet that the median or average graduate of Hoban or SVSM knows more about evolutionary theory than the median or average graduate of Buchtel or Akron North?

Traditional denominations such as seen at Yale are now called the Liberal Denominations because the intellectual leadership actually is liberal much to the chagrin of conservatives and unfortunately also to the closed-minded. 

On 7/22/2023 at 12:13 AM, Gramarye said:

Would you care to place a bet that the median or average graduate of Hoban or SVSM knows more about evolutionary theory than the median or average graduate of Buchtel or Akron North?

 

This is like saying that the median graduate of Harvard -- one of if not the most selective college in the country -- is smarter than the median graduate of (name any school that admits 70% or more of its applicants -- 90% of all US colleges).  We have no idea how big of a difference a voucher school's "educators" are when they get to cherry pick the best students. 

 

I continue to believe that the "schools of last resort" -- the schools that must take all applicants, should be given more resources.  That they need more resources to educate the hardest-to-educate, and that society is ultimately better for that investment over the long term.  Taking money out of the already-deficient education budget to spend on vouchers is going to continue rather than reverse Ohio's downward slide.

^perfectly said. I think the others (like the account you quoted) only worry about themselves and are content if they get out just fine.

On 7/21/2023 at 5:30 PM, Gramarye said:

You do realize that this value-added dynamic is exactly the opposite for those who live in failing school districts, right?

Education research has repeatedly shown that test scores are correlated with family wealth more than school district or success in life.  How are you defining "failing"?

 

Ohio says that they cannot fully fund public schools even up to the Fair Funding Formula, but Ohio can afford vouchers so that kids from families with the resources to get their kid to a private school can "escape" the "trap." Congratulations on your expectation of increased property values, that is probably what will eventually raise Akron's test scores.

 

On 7/21/2023 at 5:30 PM, Gramarye said:

But there is literally no way that Michigan's overall per-pupil K-12 expenditures are actually double Ohio's.  Maybe there is less reliance on local property taxes there, so the state budget is correspondingly higher. 

Maybe you're right -- but I cited the source that prompted my comment. 

 

Ohio's reliance on property taxes to fund schools has repeatedly been found to be excessive and unconstitutional.  I am surprised that the Republican supermajority has not simply amended the state constitution on this point. 

 

Ooooh, now you've got me thinking about how property taxes affect how much the schools pay the teachers since in many districts over 50% of the budget goes to salaries and benefits. The district where I attended high school is located in an area where the vast majority of the land is taxed at the much lower CAUV agricultural rate with some residential and very little commercial. The district is also notorious for "grade deflation" as I call it, which is making the school so hard that kids are more likely to quit, divert to the vocational, join work programs where they only do half days at school and flunk out. This school district has a very low college graduation rate, a one of the lowest high school graduation rates among comparable schools and scores poorly in the at-risk student category. In order to make up for the smaller budget (in a very Republican but middle-income area that makes it very hard to pass levies) they can pay the teachers less since they don't make them deal with difficult students for very long.

 

Meanwhile, while the big city schools are working with problem kids at least in Columbus and Cincinnati there is so much high-yield commercial and denser multifamily with high property values the property taxes are enough to pay for the more expensive teachers. And it's why 20-30 years ago in Columbus it was harder to meet the budget because property in the city was worth much less. It was probably around 2008 when Columbus real estate within the city limits bottomed out in value.

 

It's also why my local vocational system pays so well. People think "Oh, well the vocational has to pay well since an automotive service manager makes $150K a year now and the teachers can go do that instead" but they also pay among the best in the state for English and Math. A lot of these kids' grades go through the roof once they reach the vocational.

 

I've actually heard of this "get rid of them" practice in other states as well.

Edited July 23, 20231 yr by GCrites

On 7/21/2023 at 3:22 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

The only difference is that a portion of the funds that would have been allocated to that child to be educated in a public school that they are not using are able to be repurposed to the private school This way, the funds that your taxes pay to educate the child are actually used for that child.

 

On 7/21/2023 at 2:52 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

 The people that win are the families that have been sending their kids to private schools over the last 20 years yet not receiving any subsidy for their educational choice. 

 

I think we disagree with what public money is for.  Your first quote suggests that vouchers are good because the money comes back to the individual family that paid the taxes. 

 

I see taxes as part of my obligation as a member of society, and taxes should be spent to benefit society -- all of us, and perhaps more so -- the least of us.  

 

Ironically the party that wears their Christianity on their sleeve agrees that tax money should follow the individual, tax breaks are more important than needs of the poor, and funding for the public education community can wait.

 

And I agree -- almost all of the vouchers will be used by families who already have the means to send their kids to private schools and would have done so anyway.  

That still doesn't tell us how much the state budgeted for vouchers.

 

On 7/21/2023 at 7:55 PM, Clefan14 said:

Imagine thinking that private schools and self segregating policies are beneficial for society.

 

Japan and Korea are monocultural societies. Their students typically wildly outperform students in our "diverse" schools.