Because they don't have sports, instruments, gym class and their home language is easy to learn for them. They definitely do not have to take their own language sophomore year of college like Americans do. Americans think Asians are good at instruments but that is Asian-Americans. Asian students, like European ones don't take 9 subjects a day. They get diverted to their best ones at a young age and don't bother with the well-rounded education Americans insist on. Absolutely no wood shop.

5 hours ago, GCrites said:

Because they don't have sports, instruments, gym class and their home language is easy to learn for them. They definitely do not have to take their own language sophomore year of college like Americans do. Americans think Asians are good at instruments but that is Asian-Americans. Asian students, like European ones don't take 9 subjects a day. They get diverted to their best ones at a young age and don't bother with the well-rounded education Americans insist on. Absolutely no wood shop.

 

This, along with our non-hierarchical culture, has traditionally given Americans a much greater degree of mental flexibility than our Asian and European counterparts.   This has letter to a greater degree of creativity, which has manifested itself in many diverse ways.

14 hours ago, Foraker said:

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.  

I do too. Which again, under the voucher program, the vast majority of the benefit will go to those who can least afford it. You clearly check the box about benefitting society because providing a quality education for children is a good thing. We both agree on that. the big difference is that I think parents, especially parents who do not have the means to offer their children an education that may be better suited to them can now have options to allow them to meet their potential instead of being held back. 

 

14 hours ago, Foraker said:

Your first quote suggests that vouchers are good because the money comes back to the individual family that paid the taxes. 

and that quote may be a bit simplistic. Not always the case in many cases as the value of the vouchers goes to families with students whether they are paying property taxes or not. Otherwise, the value would solely be a giveback to rich parents who are homeowners whereas the majority of the students who benefit from this tend to be lower income students who are often renters and do not pay property taxes. 

 

I think we both share the same vision of using the collective means of society to provide a benefit to educating our children, especially the least advantaged children. We just disagree on the best and most fair means to accomplish the goal.  

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

This, along with our non-hierarchical culture, has traditionally given Americans a much greater degree of mental flexibility than our Asian and European counterparts.   This has letter to a greater degree of creativity, which has manifested itself in many diverse ways.

 

 

I also think that the traditional summer break, if kids spend it doing something other than sitting inside playing video games, makes a huge difference, since in Asia the seasonal breaks are very short. 

 

People need to be in different situations as kids.  Even if you simply spend the summer being watched by a relative at their house, you're in a much different system than the one in your house and at school. 

 

My grandfather and his siblings rode a Greyhound bus by themselves each summer from Ohio to Kansas, where they worked on their uncle's farm.  This was back in the 1930s and early 1940s.  Imagine someone sending their kids, with the oldest daughter in charge, on a cross-country Greyhound bus trip today, then spending the whole summer doing physical work with no air conditioning.

 

Today we have the whiners on NPR advocating for air conditioning in "underperforming" schools, where it might be hot for one week in September and one week in May. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Today we have the whiners on NPR advocating for air conditioning in "underperforming" schools, where it might be hot for one week in September and one week in May. 

 

Spoken like someone who lists “school of hard knocks” under the “education” section on his Facebook profile. 

School starts August 16th at my local schools.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think we both share the same vision of using the collective means of society to provide a benefit to educating our children, especially the least advantaged children. We just disagree on the best and most fair means to accomplish the goal.  

Vouchers don't reach very far.  Few inner-city school kids or rural county school kids have options because there aren't any voucher schools nearby or they lack the means to get to them.  Particularly in our designed-for-car-owners culture, it's the suburban middle class who is best positioned to take advantage of alternatives.  It's helping families who really don't need the help.  As you observed, most families using vouchers were already going to private schools, vouchers just makes it easier for them.  We'll see how it works out over the next few years but I'd be extremely surprised if Ohio's education rankings changes much from our current middle-of-the-pack status.

2 minutes ago, Foraker said:

As you observed, most families using vouchers were already going to private schools, vouchers just makes it easier for them. 

What I was implying is that most of the families who will use the expanded voucher are going to private schools already. However, it levels the playing field for them. Also, in a matter of fairness, many of these parents have sacrificed a lot for their children to go to a private or parochial school and they are not rich. The biggest voucher benefit has been to more of the inner city or poorer suburban areas of town who have ample options for vouchers.  There are a number of Catholic schools in the area that provide a very good education and most of the children are on vouchers. These schools would not be able to exist without this revenue stream and they are able to serve a portion of the community who truly needs the option but cannot afford it on their own.  I was just reading the other day about a new Catholic school opening in the inner city that will primary service non-catholic voucher students. Clearly, there are options for those in the city to go to Catholic or private schools. In addition, there is school bus service to take people there. 

 

To your point, if anything, the areas that will use the vouchers the least are more of the rural schools in the country where there are not as many options. However, in the inner city, which typically has the most troubled schools, there will be numerous options for families. 

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

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. 

 

Agreed.  I was not positing this against an argument that those better schools don't have the advantage of having both more control over their student body and more intact, highly-educated families that want to send their children to those schools.  I was responding to a much shallower and more specious boogeyman about teaching creationism.

 

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

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.

 

And I continue to believe that we have hit the wall in terms of problems that can be solved by mere budget increases to those schools.  How much failure, how expensive of failure, would be enough to convince you that this is not the way?  $40,000 per pupil with no measurable durable increases in academic performance or antisocial behavior?  $100,000?  Education spending has already vastly outpaced inflation across the entire country for generations.

 

Also, before I make assumptions and maybe put words in your mouth: What "downward slide?"

 

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

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"?

 

If that's the case, why fund schools at all?  Of course, I ask that tongue-in-cheek, because you and I both know that schools can make a difference.  But if the dominant determinative influence is family wealth, what is the point of all this in the first place?

 

As for my definition of failing: I'm sure that you could tease me with some edge cases.  But while some cases are hard, some aren't.  A school district in which nearly every building requires a constant police presence, still has many external police calls on top of that, and narrowly averted a teachers' strike and forced the resignation of a superintendent over widespread helplessness (real or perceived) in the face of endemic violence in the school environment meets whatever the definition is. 

 

P.S. Also, what is the definition of "success in life" for this purpose?  You say "test scores are correlated with family wealth more than school district or success in life."  That could mean a lot of things, but it sounds a little off to me as something counterbalanced against family wealth (I mean, I don't think family wealth equals success in life, but I'm materialistic enough to say that it's at least part of it ...).  Are you talking about those who have high-degree but low-income careers, for example?  Because I'd hazard that the children of, e.g., librarians and teachers probably do well enough academically.  But again, trying not to put words in your mouth before I know what you actually meant.

 

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

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.  

 

I agree with this as well.  This is easy to agree with, honestly.  The devil is in the not-particularly-minor detail of what benefits society, including the least of us.

 

As I've noted many times on this thread, the dividing line here isn't whether my children will have the advantage of private schools.  They will.  It's whether those you call "the least of us" will have that same advantage, or at least access to it.

 

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

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.

 

There's a great deal to unpack on both sides there, much of it off-topic for this thread.  But as far as it goes, there's nothing inherently un-Christian about tax money following the individual (particularly, of course, to Christian schools that must be funded by money that follows the individual, that cannot be funded directly by the state), and of course nothing un-Christian about funding education, public and private (and homeschooled) alike.  Christianity goes back 2,000 years and public education doesn't even go back 200; it's more than a little tail-wagging-dog to suggest that Christians have some kind of religious obligation to support Caesar's schools to the exclusion of their own.

3 hours ago, GCrites said:

School starts August 16th at my local schools.

 

Yeah, move it back to the first Tuesday after Labor Day, like it was for 100+ years. 

 

Moving up the start date is being pushed by administrators who want a bullet point they can put on their resume.  They can claim that moving up the start date is responsible for academic gains, not them fudging test scores (https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/local/suspect-test-scores-found-across-ohio-schools/dGlVF5gmupPRiovyhVE61O/).

 

Plus, inventing a "need" for air conditioning also invents the need to construct all-new schools, since the old schools can't possible be retrofitted with window units.  There is nothing an administrator wants more than to build all-new buildings.  Renovations don't pop on a resume like new-build. 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

 

Spoken like someone who lists “school of hard knocks” under the “education” section on his Facebook profile. 

 

 

We used to have WWII vets come in and speak to our classes.  In second grade we opened and ate decades-old WWII MRE's.  The teacher took away the cigarettes. 

 

Now, apparently, they're inviting men dressed in women's clothing to read to kids. 

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

And I continue to believe that we have hit the wall in terms of problems that can be solved by mere budget increases to those schools.  How much failure, how expensive of failure, would be enough to convince you that this is not the way?  $40,000 per pupil with no measurable durable increases in academic performance or antisocial behavior?  $100,000?  Education spending has already vastly outpaced inflation across the entire country for generations.

With apologies, I'm not going to respond to most of your post to stay focused on education funding.  And I'll take part of the blame for distracting you with extraneous commentary. 

 

I completely agree that disciplinary problems in some schools is a big problem that needs more attention. Violence in schools can't be tolerated.  But I don't know how that can be 100% prevented -- facetiously, I would hope that you would agree that more guns would not decrease the violence in violent schools.  Do violent schools fail to provide the safe environment that we expect -- yes. Do all kids fail to learn in those schools?  No, some do despite that.  Most schools have bullies, despite efforts to address that problem.  Are those schools failures -- to at least some of the bullied kids they are.

"Failure" depends on the goal.  What is the educational goal?  Graduation?  High school test scores?  Post-secondary placement?  If a poor student in a failing school learns to read and do basic math but doesn't graduate, did the school fail?  The answer might be yes, but it depends on how you define failure. 

 

Point 1:  I think people have different definitions of what defines a "failing" school and we should try to find common ground on that definition as a starting point.

 

From that conclusion, what do we do to overcome the problems of a failing school?  Do vouchers solve the problem?  Do voucher students succeed where their public school failed?

 

Point 2: You suggested that we are spending too much on failing schools, are you suggesting that we should cut our losses, close "failing" schools and just give the kids vouchers? 

 

You asked how much is "enough" -- I think we ask the education experts.  What do they need and what makes a difference -- do small class sizes, highly paid teachers, extra security staff, extra counselors, wraparound services to provide support to the families to make sure they have adequate food and housing and jobs -- make a difference in our measurable goals?  

 

If it is a "school" problem, then why don't charter schools outperform public schools? 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/ohio/article_1fa93d24-06d0-11ee-9f30-730750397ef8.html

 

And if it's a poverty problem, shouldn't the state do more to address the poverty problems of families with kids in school?

 

New Jersey has some of the best schools in the country and spends about $18,000 per student.  Ohio is spending $4,625 per student.  Neither is anywhere near $40,000.  So that gives us a range.  Maybe the state could start with providing $18,000 per student in the big inner city schools that are currently "failing" and find the best way to spend that money. 

 

Point 3: If our experience with charter schools is any indication, letting a small number of kids "escape" via vouchers without addressing the poverty-related problems will not reduce the number of students in "failing" schools.

41 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

We used to have WWII vets come in and speak to our classes.  In second grade we opened and ate decades-old WWII MRE's.  The teacher took away the cigarettes. 

 

Now, apparently, they're inviting men dressed in women's clothing to read to kids. 

 

What was it like walking uphill in the snow... BOTH ...ways?

41 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

We used to have WWII vets come in and speak to our classes.  In second grade we opened and ate decades-old WWII MRE's.  The teacher took away the cigarettes. 

 

Now, apparently, they're inviting men dressed in women's clothing to read to kids. 

Cool story. Both are either equally important or equally unimportant. Neither have anything to do school funding.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

New Jersey has some of the best schools in the country and spends about $18,000 per student.  Ohio is spending $4,625 per student.

 

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Ohio spends about $13,387 per pupil by the same metric, with the highest spending in urban districts at $15,021.  You're comparing direct state spending in Ohio only vs. total per-pupil expenditure in NJ.  And Ohio is above both most neighboring states and above the national average:

 

 

I know it's not NJ, but NJ is also a higher cost-of-living state.

 

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

If it is a "school" problem, then why don't charter schools outperform public schools? 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/ohio/article_1fa93d24-06d0-11ee-9f30-730750397ef8.html

But again, that does not mean that public schools, which is a one size fits all model, it best for that individual child.  If you walked by a child struggling and drowning in a pool and you could save them would you? Natural answer is of course, you do whatever you can for them. Now, if there is a certain protocol to save the child  (aka the public school model) in which that protocol has proven statistically acceptable, that is the path you would probably try first, but what happens when it is seen that the accepted model is not going to work in this instance? Do you let the child just drown and just chalk it up to a numbers game or do you possibly break with protocol to try something different to save the child? That is what the advocates for school choice argue. They are not saying get rid of public schools, what they are saying is give people a choice for what could be better for their child.  The end goal is the same here, it is about educating the child. Unfortunately, that gets lost amongst people trying to protect their turf too many times. 

7 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Ohio spends about $13,387 per pupil by the same metric, with the highest spending in urban districts at $15,021.  You're comparing direct state spending in Ohio only vs. total per-pupil expenditure in NJ.  And Ohio is above both most neighboring states and above the national average:

 

 

I know it's not NJ, but NJ is also a higher cost-of-living state.

 

"Ohio" does not spend $13,387 per student -- if they did we probably would not have 130 school districts suing the state, again, for more funding. From that same report:

I maintain that the state of Ohio is not providing sufficient financial support to "failing" schools -- and I do not know what amount is enough, but the burden should be on the state not the local community to provide the baseline of what is needed.  If we are arguing for better schools, NJ is ranked #1 in the country, so that is a good reason to look at NJ. 

 

I'm sure that the part of the state near NYC is some of the most expensive places to live in the country, but there are rural areas in NJ as well. 

NJ also is still struggling with their funding formula.  Check out this report.  NJ appears to feel like they are competing with Massachusetts in education.

https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-jersey-school-funding-the-higher-the-goals-the-higher-the-costs/

6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But again, that does not mean that public schools, which is a one size fits all model, it best for that individual child.  If you walked by a child struggling and drowning in a pool and you could save them would you? Natural answer is of course, you do whatever you can for them. Now, if there is a certain protocol to save the child  (aka the public school model) in which that protocol has proven statistically acceptable, that is the path you would probably try first, but what happens when it is seen that the accepted model is not going to work in this instance? Do you let the child just drown and just chalk it up to a numbers game or do you possibly break with protocol to try something different to save the child? That is what the advocates for school choice argue. They are not saying get rid of public schools, what they are saying is give people a choice for what could be better for their child.  The end goal is the same here, it is about educating the child. Unfortunately, that gets lost amongst people trying to protect their turf too many times. 

Choice is excellent -- it's just more expensive.  I'm not opposed to choice, and I might even be willing to pay taxes to support it, but I'm opposed to the state choosing not to spend enough on public schools.

 

If the state fully funds the public schools and has money left over, go ahead and give out vouchers instead of tax breaks.  But the state has decided instead to cut taxes, claim "insufficient funds" and delay fully funding public schools while increasing expenditures on vouchers.  The burden of making up the difference is falling on local property owners. That is why more than 20% of the school districts in Ohio are suing the state.  The bipartisan Fair Funding Plan should have been fully funded before expanding vouchers or enacting more tax cuts.

12 hours ago, Foraker said:

"Ohio" does not spend $13,387 per student -- if they did we probably would not have 130 school districts suing the state, again, for more funding. From that same report:

 

It's still an apples-to-oranges comparison because "New Jersey" does not spent ~$18,208 per student by that same measure, then.  In fact, property taxes in New Jersey are astronomical to support those school budgets.  New Jersey does have a different formula for allocating state aid to schools that favors those with lower property tax bases--but that simply means that property taxes are even higher in districts that whatever formula they use calculates can handle that burden.

 

https://policylab.rutgers.edu/property-tax-rates-and-quality-of-k-12-education-in-new-jersey-communities/

 

Quote

New Jersey is consistent in featuring at the top of the ranks for two different variables: effective real estate property tax rates and quality of K-12 education services.  These, unsurprisingly to most who reside here, are not unrelated in the slightest. Each of New Jersey’s whopping 599 school districts is funded to a significant degree by local property taxes.

 

You're doubling down on comparing Ohio's number excluding property taxes to New Jersey's number including it--and they have among the highest local property taxes in the country.  Apples to oranges.  And no, the fact that they have an Equalization Aid formula that directs proportionately more state aid to struggling districts with low property tax bases does not cancel out that fact.  The absolute and relative property tax numbers still exist, and New Jersey overall is heavily reliant on them, particularly in its wealthier districts that really support their national public school rankings.

Conservative Safe Spaces Coming to Five Ohio Colleges This Fall

 

New “intellectual diversity” centers will be created at Ohio State University, the University of Toledo, Miami University, Cleveland State University and the University of Cincinnati. 

 

These five centers were included in the state’s two-year, $191 billion budget that Gov. Mike DeWine signed earlier this month. But some faculty at those universities don’t like the looks of it. 

 

“It strikes me as state overreach,” said Christopher Nichols, a history professor at Ohio State. 

 

Senate Bill 117 

 

The Ohio Senate added Senate Bill 117, which created the centers at the various universities, to the state budget and DeWine kept it in. DeWine issued 44 vetoes to the budget, including a student’s right to decline vaccines required for enrollment or residence in a dorm at a public or private university and another provision that would have removed OSU student trustees from having voting power. 

 

SB 117 originally created the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at Ohio State University John Glenn College of Public Affairs and the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership at the University of Toledo’s College of Law. State Sens. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, and Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, introduced the bill in May. 

 

An amendment to SB 117 — added on the Senate floor days before the budget was signed into law — tacked on Miami, Cleveland State and Cincinnati to the list of universities to get centers for civics, culture and society. Democratic senators said those universities didn’t receive a heads up about being added to the bill. 

 

Cleveland State and Cincinnati said they are now in the early stages of planning for their centers. Miami did not respond to questions sent by the OCJ. 

 

“We are just now working with the state, working with the State Senate to think about what that means for us, how it will be structured, what their expectations are, so it will be a while before we have any more information on what that will look like for us,” said Jack Miner, vice provost for enrollment management at the University of Cincinnati.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/conservative-safe-spaces-coming-to-five-ohio-colleges-this-fall-ocj1/

 

Well, at least they'll have somewhere to discuss how blacks benefited from the slavery, Jews the Holocaust, children Sandy Hook, etc.

 

 

Edited July 25, 20231 yr by TBideon

A place for Hillsdale College to recruit people for graduate programs focused on joining Right-Wing think tanks.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

It's still an apples-to-oranges comparison because "New Jersey" does not spent ~$18,208 per student by that same measure, then.  In fact, property taxes in New Jersey are astronomical to support those school budgets.  New Jersey does have a different formula for allocating state aid to schools that favors those with lower property tax bases--but that simply means that property taxes are even higher in districts that whatever formula they use calculates can handle that burden.

 

https://policylab.rutgers.edu/property-tax-rates-and-quality-of-k-12-education-in-new-jersey-communities/

 

 

You're doubling down on comparing Ohio's number excluding property taxes to New Jersey's number including it--and they have among the highest local property taxes in the country.  Apples to oranges.  And no, the fact that they have an Equalization Aid formula that directs proportionately more state aid to struggling districts with low property tax bases does not cancel out that fact.  The absolute and relative property tax numbers still exist, and New Jersey overall is heavily reliant on them, particularly in its wealthier districts that really support their national public school rankings.

Let's take a step back.  New Jersey was not cited for the way it raises money, it was cited as a starting point for how much money should be spent overall that leads to what is generally perceived to be a quality education. (Someone above threw out numbers like $40,000 and $100,000 per student and asked how much would be enough/too much -- that's where the reference to NJ's $18,000 spend arose.)  Again, that's a starting point.

 

In Ohio, that number should be different than in NJ.  The average spend per student in Ohio probably should be less than $18,208; I agree that Ohio currently spends less than that from all sources, local, state, and federal, combined. 

 

How the funding for public schools should be allocated between local taxes (property taxes seem to be the preference) and state funding is going to vary by state.  And Ohio's Supreme Court has not said that local property taxes can't be part of the mix, they've just said that the state is asking local communities to contribute too much -- that it is the state's obligation to meet basic needs for public education under the Ohio Constitution.  It isn't relevant to that discussion what the mix is between local and state funding in New Jersey, or whether New Jersey's funding mix would pass Ohio's constitutional requirement.

 

The state of Ohio should be funding more of public school budgets than it is (under $5,000 per student on average), particularly in high poverty schools, but I would expect that the state will never be willing to match NJ' s $18,000+ per student average while also meeting the Court's order not to "excessively" rely on local contributions.  The Court has become more conservative, so what is excessive today is likely to be different than what was excessive under the original DeRolph ruling. 

 

I'd like to see the state increase its share significantly -- fully funding the bipartisan Fair Funding Plan seems like a good starting point.  What is your argument against that plan?  (The state says that they can't afford it, but that is shown to be a lie as shown by the increased funding for vouchers and yet more tax cuts.)  How can the state afford to fund the Fair Funding Plan and fund vouchers?

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I'd like to see the state increase its share significantly -- fully funding the bipartisan Fair Funding Plan seems like a good starting point.  What is your argument against that plan?

 

You've mentioned it four times in this thread already without linking to so much as an executive summary of it, and when I spent five minutes "doing my own research" (always a dicey proposition), I come up with focus-group-buzzword-heavy and substance-light sites like this one linked from Olentangy Local Schools' site.  Another link very high in the Google search results was literally a talking points list for supporters.  Also, you say that the current message from the state is that they can't afford it, but I saw something else say it's currently being phased in over six years, so that's another signal we may be talking about different things and/or my "doing my own research" came up with something different than what you meant.

35 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

You've mentioned it four times in this thread already without linking to so much as an executive summary of it, and when I spent five minutes "doing my own research" (always a dicey proposition), I come up with focus-group-buzzword-heavy and substance-light sites like this one linked from Olentangy Local Schools' site.  Another link very high in the Google search results was literally a talking points list for supporters.  Also, you say that the current message from the state is that they can't afford it, but I saw something else say it's currently being phased in over six years, so that's another signal we may be talking about different things and/or my "doing my own research" came up with something different than what you meant.

Sorry, I thought it was well known.  After years of debate and compromise, it is a new formula for funding public schools that was passed in 2021.  One of the compromises was the phasing in of the funding.  Here's an article about the passage of the bill, nonpartisan report.

https://apnews.com/article/business-government-and-politics-education-ohio-5520e5cfd8048bd65e7670649caf7d62

 

The plan is being phased in in three steps (hopefully) and this next biennium will increase the funding, but the third step isn't guaranteed.  A proposal to fully fund the plan in this bienneum was voted down by the Republican majority. https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2023/02/26/legislators-push-for-full-dollars-needed-in-fair-school-funding-plan-

 

Senate Finance Committee Chair Matt Dolan has explicitly said that the Fair Funding Plan is too expensive, but choice via vouchers is not.

Quote

Senator Dolan, during a recent panel discussion on Impact Ohio Akron-Canton Regional Virtual Conference, signaled that the Cupp/Patterson Fair Funding plan is too expensive and that a big difference between the House and Senate is the involvement of private and charter schools. Dolan stated that there will be a lot more discussion on school choice.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/SENATE-FINANCE-COMMITTEE-CHAIR-MATT-DOLAN---WHERE-A-CHILD-GETS-EDUCATED-IS-NOT-AS-IMPORTANT-TO-US-AS-THE-CHILD-GETS-EDUCATED-.html

 

I don't think it's at all surprising that the Republicans say that spending more money on public schools is "too expensive" -- and you probably agree with Dolan's interest in pursuing choice over increasing funding for public schools. 

 

Why can't it be fully funded but the legislature can increase voucher amounts and access this year? 

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

Here's an article about the passage of the bill, nonpartisan report.

https://apnews.com/article/business-government-and-politics-education-ohio-5520e5cfd8048bd65e7670649caf7d62

 

A proposal to fully fund the plan in this bienneum was voted down by the Republican majority. https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2023/02/26/legislators-push-for-full-dollars-needed-in-fair-school-funding-plan-

 

Senate Finance Committee Chair Matt Dolan has explicitly said that the Fair Funding Plan is too expensive, but choice via vouchers is not.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/SENATE-FINANCE-COMMITTEE-CHAIR-MATT-DOLAN---WHERE-A-CHILD-GETS-EDUCATED-IS-NOT-AS-IMPORTANT-TO-US-AS-THE-CHILD-GETS-EDUCATED-.html

 

So, thanks for the links, and I hate to sound this dense, but even after reading that, I still don't have a picture of what this plan changes/changed that would have been different if it had never passed at all, assuming that the agreed-upon phase-in proceeds according to the bargain that apparently got bipartisan support.  I mean, whatever it is, you're talking about something that did get through the Republican-controlled Ohio legislature (both chambers) and was signed by a Republican governor, just with the gradual phase-in (which is about halfway through at this point) instead of immediate.  So whatever changes were proposed can't have been that dramatic.

 

And while I'm not sure about the context, in a vacuum, Matt Dolan is obviously 100% correct that where a child gets educated is not as important as the quality of the education the child receives.  I don't know why that's even controversial.  I can even see why there are aspects of universal school choice that would be controversial (i.e., why subsidize the school choices of families like mine when our existing choices make it clear that we're already willing to pay for both the public schools we don't attend and the private schools that we do).  But Dolan's point shouldn't be among them.

12 hours ago, Gramarye said:

So, thanks for the links, and I hate to sound this dense, but even after reading that, I still don't have a picture of what this plan changes/changed that would have been different if it had never passed at all, . . . .

If it had never passed at all, education dollars would still be in one pot and money taken for vouchers would have been subtracted from the public school district that the vouchers "came from" -- even if the students had never attended the public school in the first place.  And it would have continued the practice of far more state dollars for vouchers than for public school students, meaning vouchers were a real drain on public school finances.  Particularly in districts with very high attendance at religious schools. That is a dramatic change. The plan also changes the calculations used to determine how much state funding goes to each school district, and does so in a way that public schools think is more favorable (it's still complex and I have not yet been able to find the full calculation).  At any rate, the Fair Funding Plan does a lot that is good from the point of view of a public school supporter.

 

The downside is that while the plan phases in over time, vouchers continue to be worth more than the per-student amount of state aid to public schools.  And my understanding is that the Plan itself as voted on does not actually include the phase in.  The Fair Funding Plan is kind of like an agreed-upon PLAN, but actual implementation requires continued biennial funding support.  In other words, the funding for the plan comes from separate legislation.  And while so far the first two steps have been funded, powerful Republican legislators continue to say things about the plan being too expensive and continue to increase both the amount offered through vouchers and the reach of who can apply for vouchers.  So the long term result remains in doubt.

 

12 hours ago, Gramarye said:

And while I'm not sure about the context, in a vacuum, Matt Dolan is obviously 100% correct that where a child gets educated is not as important as the quality of the education the child receives.  I don't know why that's even controversial. 

That by itself is not controversial at all.  I'd say 90% of people would agree. Those who disagree are (1) worried about the impact on society if larger percentages of the population are segregated in schools where they are not exposed to people who are very different from them (but most districts in Ohio are rural and uniformly bland, so that concern is probably overblown), (2) worried about the cost to maintain separate public and private school systems, and (3) worried about public money being used to support private schools who teach things that they don't like (whether it's a madrassa or opus dei or whatever).  I'm in the camp of #2, and while I would like to be proven wrong the Republican mantra of smaller government, lower spending, that program is too expensive -- all seems to forebode future declines in funding for public schools.

On 7/24/2023 at 1:26 PM, Lazarus said:

 

Yeah, move it back to the first Tuesday after Labor Day, like it was for 100+ years. 

 

Moving up the start date is being pushed by administrators who want a bullet point they can put on their resume.  They can claim that moving up the start date is responsible for academic gains, not them fudging test scores (https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/local/suspect-test-scores-found-across-ohio-schools/dGlVF5gmupPRiovyhVE61O/).

 

Plus, inventing a "need" for air conditioning also invents the need to construct all-new schools, since the old schools can't possible be retrofitted with window units.  There is nothing an administrator wants more than to build all-new buildings.  Renovations don't pop on a resume like new-build. 

 

 

 

 

 

Just saw on the Columbus local news that they now can put mini-splits in each room to cover the HVAC needs of older schools. That's what's going to be done at Columbus Alternative, the last CCS school with no A/C.

16 hours ago, GCrites said:

 

Just saw on the Columbus local news that they now can put mini-splits in each room to cover the HVAC needs of older schools. That's what's going to be done at Columbus Alternative, the last CCS school with no A/C.

 

I didn't sit in an air conditioned classroom even once K-12, and look how I turned out.  The dorm I lived in IN THE SOUTH didn't have air conditioning.  It was hot for like 4 days, then it cooled off and nobody talked about it anymore. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

I didn't sit in an air conditioned classroom even once K-12, and look how I turned out.  The dorm I lived in IN THE SOUTH didn't have air conditioning.  It was hot for like 4 days, then it cooled off and nobody talked about it anymore. 

 

 

 

I take that as a strong recommendation for installing air conditioning in classrooms?

3 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

I take that as a strong recommendation for installing air conditioning in classrooms?

 

Air conditioning contributes wildly to global warming.  No doubt many students have been shown Al Gore's movie in air conditioned comfort. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Air conditioning contributes wildly to global warming.  No doubt many students have been shown Al Gore's movie in air conditioned comfort. 

That’s a much stronger argument than the previous one. 

^Most kids used to work on farms during the summer.  There is no air conditioning in hay fields.  They walked everywhere all summer long (and during the winter).  

 

Today, most kids sit around playing video games or screwing around on their phone all summer.  In air conditioning. 

23 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

^Most kids used to work on farms during the summer.  There is no air conditioning in hay fields.  They walked everywhere all summer long (and during the winter).  

 

Today, most kids sit around playing video games or screwing around on their phone all summer.  In air conditioning. 

 

"Most kids used to ..." is an argument that the institutions were designed properly for their own time, not that the institutions to serve kids should stay the same now that most kids don't do what most kids used to do.  There are many things most kids used to do that we should be glad that they either don't need to do or just don't do anymore.  (And sure, a few things going the other direction, but on the whole, I'd much rather be my kids than myself as a kid again, let alone my great-grandparents as kids.)

 

Kids these days are more likely to work on a server farm than a hay farm.

Fun X fact- bailing hay was my first summer job, starting when I was about 12 or 13. Got paid $5/hour, I was able to buy sooo many TurboGraphx-16 games.

On 8/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Lazarus said:

 

I didn't sit in an air conditioned classroom even once K-12, and look how I turned out.  The dorm I lived in IN THE SOUTH didn't have air conditioning.  It was hot for like 4 days, then it cooled off and nobody talked about it anymore. 

 

 

Yeah these older buildings were perfectly serviceable for their purposes with no need for AC about 98% of the time. Prior to AC, school buildings were designed to store thermal energy in thick brick walls to effectively "delay" heat transfer. The exterior walls would cool off at night, and stay cool throughout the day into the early afternoon. Even on a hot, 90F degree day the air inside those old schools wouldn't heat up until 3:00 or 4:00 At night the walls would quickly cool off because between September and May in Ohio nighttime lows are rarely above 60F.  

 

It was beautifully logical and efficient for a building type that is only/primarily occupied during the fall/winter/summer months from morning to early afternoon. Natural ventilation and mass walls can cool a school in Ohio but between energy code requirements and parents demands it will never happen. 

On 8/11/2023 at 9:57 PM, X said:

Fun X fact- bailing hay was my first summer job, starting when I was about 12 or 13. Got paid $5/hour, I was able to buy sooo many TurboGraphx-16 games.

TubroGraphx 16 - my that is a blast from the past. I remember playing it a couple of times, I cant seem to remember what games they were known for. I think the Genesis won out that battle fairly quickly but I always was fond of the Turbographx. I had a friend at the time who was a video game nut who had the Turbographx and Genesis and played them both. As for me, I never graduated off my NES. 

Edited August 15, 20231 yr by Brutus_buckeye

1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

 

Yeah these older buildings were perfectly serviceable for their purposes with no need for AC about 98% of the time. Prior to AC, school buildings were designed to store thermal energy in thick brick walls to effectively "delay" heat transfer. The exterior walls would cool off at night, and stay cool throughout the day into the early afternoon. Even on a hot, 90F degree day the air inside those old schools wouldn't heat up until 3:00 or 4:00 At night the walls would quickly cool off because between September and May in Ohio nighttime lows are rarely above 60F.  

 

It was beautifully logical and efficient for a building type that is only/primarily occupied during the fall/winter/summer months from morning to early afternoon. Natural ventilation and mass walls can cool a school in Ohio but between energy code requirements and parents demands it will never happen. 

 

 

Also, I remember teachers keeping the classroom doors propped open as well as any exterior doors at the ends of hallways.  In high school I remember a stray dog trotting into the building and the teacher told me to get it out of the building since I was sitting closest to our room door, which was also close to the exterior door. 

 

Unfortunately, from what I've heard, schools aren't allowed to keep any doors propped open anymore because of the fear of crazed gunmen, although there is nothing stopping such a person from simply shooting through a glass door or window to get into the building, as happened earlier this year in Nashville, TN.  

 

 

 

On 8/11/2023 at 4:42 PM, Gramarye said:

 

"Most kids used to ..." is an argument that the institutions were designed properly for their own time, not that the institutions to serve kids should stay the same now that most kids don't do what most kids used to do.  There are many things most kids used to do that we should be glad that they either don't need to do or just don't do anymore.  (And sure, a few things going the other direction, but on the whole, I'd much rather be my kids than myself as a kid again, let alone my great-grandparents as kids.)

 

Kids these days are more likely to work on a server farm than a hay farm.

 

Or maybe people today are total wimps.  They've never been threatened by a wild animal, never been truly exposed to extreme weather, never gone without food for days, and almost always quickly and perfectly recover from injuries and illnesses that menaced mankind until very recently.   All you need to do today is pretty much just sit there and nothing bad ever happens. 

 

Here are the all-time hottest temperatures in the month of May in Cincinnati:

 

In September, we actually see some heat:

 

...however it's unlikely that three days above 95F occur in a row. 

 

And we have many years in Cincinnati where the highest high doesn't even reach 95F.  For example, in the current year, the highest recorded temp was 93F.  Today, it's mid-Aug, and the high is going to be in the low 70s.  But hey, let's tear down all of the old schools:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 20231 yr by Lazarus

On 8/11/2023 at 9:57 PM, X said:

Fun X fact- bailing hay was my first summer job, starting when I was about 12 or 13. Got paid $5/hour, I was able to buy sooo many TurboGraphx-16 games.

 

I did not like that job. Or blowing my nose afterward. After a while I got put on jerking corn cobs from stalks that had been knocked over by cars running off the road and wind.

Between wireless internet and mini-splits that if those old schools could have just made it through the 2000s they wouldn't have had to be torn down. But apparently the open floor plans of 1970s schools are "a school shooter's dream" so those have to come down too.

21 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Or maybe people today are total wimps.  They've never been threatened by a wild animal, never been truly exposed to extreme weather, never gone without food for days, and almost always quickly and perfectly recover from injuries and illnesses that menaced mankind until very recently.   All you need to do today is pretty much just sit there and nothing bad ever happens. 

 

I thought I could "kids these days" with the best of them, but it seems I have been thoroughly outclassed.

 

Since when has being threatened by a wild animal, being "truly exposed" to extreme weather, and going without food for days been some kind of necessity of childhood?  I mean, I can't necessarily protect my kids from the ubiquitous geese on the Towpath Trail forever (though if a food truck came through downtown selling freshly butchered grilled gooseburgers, I'd definitely be in line for one, both for the heartwarming bloodthirsty Schadenfreude of devouring one of those menaces and for the pluck of the food truck operator openly defying Akron's asinine prohibition on food trucks downtown).  But I don't think it's something that needs to happen to raise non-wimps.

 

As for perfect recovery from injuries: I can only wish.  If anything, we've improved much more at preventing childhood injuries than curing them in the last generation.  Preventing an injury is still much more effective than treating it.  That's of course not an endorsement of extreme risk-aversion; I get that that is bad for mental health, and possibly even physical health if you're so scared of sports-related injuries that you keep your kid out of sports entirely.  But kids do still get injured, and their impressive biological recovery abilities are basically the same now as they were 50,000 years ago--as is the biological fact that we've lost a lot of that recovery ability by age 40, sadly.  (It's a dream of regenerative medicine to be able to let older adults recover from physical stress and injury like children do, but we're a long way from that yet.)  This really isn't something that has changed as much as we might wish or dream.

 

I get that kids these days need resilience, but I don't think the sources of it are exactly what you're thinking.  Or, to bring this back around to school choice and school funding: I'm well aware that I'm sheltering my kids from certain ugly realities of the real world by sending them to a Catholic school during their formative years.  And if I could give ten or a hundred times as many Akron kids that protective bubble during those critical years, I would.  There are far better ways to teach resilience than bludgeoning them over the head with the ugliest parts of reality at early ages.

Yeah, this take is in the Lazarus hall of fame. That's all that needs to be said.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Since when has being threatened by a wild animal, being "truly exposed" to extreme weather, and going without food for days been some kind of necessity of childhood?

 

Constant physical discomfort was ubiquitous until about 100 years ago.  Famine, death from childbirth, infant mortality, smallpox, polio, living around animals, walking dozens of miles each week, etc. 

 

Nobody experienced air conditioning in a school building until maybe 1970, so roughly 50 years ago.  Now it's a...necessity?  Something that was an exotic luxury just recently? 

 

It's not like we're talking about interior plumbing, where there is a legitimate concern over disease (see my first comment).  I went to the same grade school (like, the actual building) as my parents and grandparents, and I recall my grandfather telling me that they had outhouses his first year there, which would have been sometime between 1931 and 1933.  They installed a bathroom when he was in second grade.  That first bathroom was rebuilt in the 1950s or 1960s and so wasn't in its original form when I went to school. 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Nobody experienced air conditioning in a school building until maybe 1970, so roughly 50 years ago.  Now it's a...necessity?  Something that was an exotic luxury just recently? 

 

Acclimation is a factor. 94% of households in Ohio have some form of air conditioning, it's a bit of a shock for teachers and students alike to go sit in a warm and stuffy building for half the day when you just aren't used to it. Say what you will about the environmental impacts of that, but not too many people (beyond the Amish) are particularly interested in going back to days before A/C.

 

I'll also second what others have said about building design and construction being a factor. The primary school I went to was built in the 1920's, I don't recall it being particularly bad on hot days. Intermediate through high school were 1950's-1960's buildings complete with lower ceilings and windowless interior rooms. The floor fans didn't help, and those were the days before refillable  water bottles - hydration to cool down was a few seconds at the water fountain. Those were just miserable places to be on warm days, let alone be expected to concentrate. 

23 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Constant physical discomfort was ubiquitous until about 100 years ago.  Famine, death from childbirth, infant mortality, smallpox, polio, living around animals, walking dozens of miles each week, etc. 

 

Nobody experienced air conditioning in a school building until maybe 1970, so roughly 50 years ago.  Now it's a...necessity?  Something that was an exotic luxury just recently? 

 

It's not like we're talking about interior plumbing, where there is a legitimate concern over disease (see my first comment).  I went to the same grade school (like, the actual building) as my parents and grandparents, and I recall my grandfather telling me that they had outhouses his first year there, which would have been sometime between 1931 and 1933.  They installed a bathroom when he was in second grade.  That first bathroom was rebuilt in the 1950s or 1960s and so wasn't in its original form when I went to school. 

 

And 70,000 people died in a heatwave in Europe in 2003 that might have been prevented with more widespread availability of air conditioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave.  

 

The whole point of educating our workforce of the future, and of our parents doing the same for us, is so that each succeeding generation doesn't have to deal with at least a few of the discomforts ("discomforts" being broad enough here to include "vexing irritants" and "potentially lethal hazards") of the previous one.  How many potential paradigm-shifting innovators were lost to "childbirth, infant mortality, smallpox, polio?"

 

Like I said, it's really rare that I'm on this side of the issue.  As in, enough to be jarring.  I'm very much a free-range parent.  I've had a lot more "you let your eight-year-old do what?!?!" conversations than the reverse.  Knives.  Open flame.  Unsupervised outdoor play.  I'm all about letting a kid take an occasional risk of getting hurt for the sake of both a fun childhood and a resilient future adult.  But that's a far cry from wild animal attacks and going without food for days.

The point is to educate, and education is less effective when students are uncomfortable and distracted with that discomfort.  This is the same reason that free school breakfast and lunch is important.  Students can't learn as effectively if they're sweaty and hungry.

23 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

The point is to educate, and education is less effective when students are uncomfortable and distracted with that discomfort.  This is the same reason that free school breakfast and lunch is important.  Students can't learn as effectively if they're sweaty and hungry.

School also starts much earlier now and goes later into the summer. My nephew is already in school (Aug 14) and doesn't finish until early June. Used to be the school year would start after Labor Day, and would finish in late May. That's at least 3-4 additional weeks of school during the hottest season. 

I now spend my weekdays at a farm where everything is the old hard way. My productivity is terrible due to the enormous complexity of having to do things the old hard way. I have to help someone who never learned use the internet. There is no internet there and my cell phone barely works. Everything is snail mail, house phones and newspapers. I am not allowed to speak during weather reports. Only the main house has AC and downstairs only. It is impossible to stay properly hydrated 5 months a year. I owned another business for years and this place turned into a total dump in the meantime. Food is a major hassle. 

 

Have I become smarter because of this?

Republicans Want Chaplains in Ohio’s Public Schools

 

State Rep. Reggie Stoltzfus, R-Paris Township, has filed legislation proposing to allow Ohio’s public school districts to employ chaplains. The proposal comes after Texas lawmakers approved a similar measure over the objections of civil rights groups, academics and even some chaplains themselves.

 

Can they do that?

 

Stoltzfus’ measure would allow districts to hire chaplains or accept volunteers. Regardless of their status, however, potential chaplains must go through a background check. The bill insists chaplains, “may be offered in addition to, but not in lieu of, school counselor services.”

 

The proposal also states chaplains aren’t subject to state licensing or certification.

 

It’s unclear whether the Stoltzfus’ idea would withstand a court challenge. But in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has been proven more receptive to religion in schools.

 

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is the basis of the separation of church and state doctrine. While some evangelicals and conservatives reject that idea because the phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the Constitution verbatim, a string of court cases have reinforced the division.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/republicans-want-chaplains-in-ohios-public-schools-ocj1/