Jake - Do you regret your St. James and St. X educations, or is it animosity toward growing up Catholic? I don't think they make that stuff up about their upbringings. Cranley for example uses that as a source of his pride and who he is. He is more proud about winning the 8th grade CYO basketball championship than about graduating from Harvard Law. When he talks about St. William, he is being authentic. Shouldn't we hope for more authentic moments like that.

 

Are you baiting me or what?  Cranley is a fake Catholic and a fake west sider.  He was a conman from a tender age. 

 

The best teacher at my Catholic grade school was the gifted & talented teacher.  Per Ohio law, the class had to be held in a building near the school that wasn't owned by the school.  She played Frank Zappa records to a dozen 5th graders.  Do I really need to say anything beyond that? 

 

You'd leave that peek into that broader world and upon reentering the school you'd be back to sports, jocks, sports, jocks.  Anti-intellectualism.  Pep talks.  Shibboleths.  Family rivalries. 

 

 

^ Not trying to bait you, just trying to understand your experience better. I was not aware that St. X was primarily about jocks, sports and anti-intellectualism. I know there is that everywhere but a school of 1600 kids is bound to have some of everything.

 

Is there a network in town that St X alums are well connected with, sure. But I think that some of this stuff about Deters in Cranley's pocket or not charging the priest because he was a St. X alum does not add up. I am sure that if you broke the law, Deters is not going easy on you because you went to his high school :)

^ Not trying to bait you, just trying to understand your experience better. I was not aware that St. X was primarily about jocks, sports and anti-intellectualism. I know there is that everywhere but a school of 1600 kids is bound to have some of everything.

 

I was talking about my grade school, which was stunningly provincial.  But maybe if it had been a for-profit enterprise our test scores would have been higher. 

 

 

 

Sometimes I do wish I stayed at the souped-up "brain school" I attended from 2nd-4th grades all the way through high school so that as the grades progressed the attention wouldn't have been all on the jocks and trailer park kids like it was at the public school. But we moved too far away from the intellectual center of gravity of Columbus which is located in the Cool Crescent. Finally I relented and joined the tennis team in 11th grade due to incessant howling from male teachers and administrators that I didn't play a sport. One buddy held out all the way to the end despite relentless hammering from the school and ended up spending his free time learning how to build his own house instead. He sold that house for $275,000.

The Devos family owns 10 "vessels":

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/betsy-devos-family-boat-untied-from-dock-causing-up-to-dollar10k-in-damages-police-say/ar-BBL6eh0?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=LENDHP

Ohio sues ECOT:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/government/state-government/ohio-sues-e-school-founder-leaders-in-bid-to-recoup-funding

Sherrod Brown weighs in:

 

http://www.wvxu.org/post/ohios-democratic-us-senator-proposes-bill-claw-back-federal-funds-awarded-ecot#stream/0

An abrupt closure of a Nashville charter school that was under investigation:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2019/03/12/nashville-schools-mnps-notify-parents-next-time-charter-school-issues/3129179002/

Out in Los Angeles...operators of Charter School rent their own buildings to said school for $800k:

https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-charter-schools-20190327-htmlstory.html

wow, those charter schools are failing kids left and right?

 

https://nypost.com/2019/07/01/entire-bronx-success-academy-class-aces-statewide-math-exam/

 

 

 

 

^I bet that charter school doesn't feed them McDonald's like that one in Columbus did

Impressive.  I just checked the school's Web site to see if it had competitive admissions.  Nope.  Lottery admission.

Three Nashville charter schools shut down right as the school year begins, leaving 750 students without a school:

 

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/3-schools-to-close-after-mnps-board-votes-to-revoke-charter

 

Quote

The Fair School Funding Plan provides a constitutional solution to school funding in Ohio. The plan, contained in House Bill 305 and its companion in the Senate, Senate Bill 376, is a definable, defensible and transparent response to the 1997 DeRolph case, which ruled Ohio’s system of funding schools unconstitutional. After 23 years since that decision, the plan delivers the adequate and equitable level of funding necessary to provide appropriate and meaningful opportunities for all public-school students across the state.

The Columbus Dispatch - Column: Finally, a constitutional school funding plan has arrived

 

Apparently this is supported by the Ohio School Boards Association, Ohio Association of School Business Officials and Buckeye Association of School Administrator.

That sounds promising. Hopefully it works well considering the diverse group endorsing it

On 6/21/2022 at 6:20 PM, Gramarye said:

 

Public schools do not have a natural or constitutional right to a captive market.  A mom-and-pop shop does not get to claim that I have "directly harmed" it if I shop at Wal-Mart instead, even if that ultimately means the mom-and-pop shop is no longer financially viable.  However, even notwithstanding our obvious disagreement on the underlying principle, I question how common this will happen in practice.

The state of Ohio has enshrined in its constitution that the state shall support public education -- the state is required to secure, by taxation, "a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state".  The state constitution has not yet been amended to support Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby.

 

That does not mean that every student is required to go to public schools -- as Ohio's history clearly shows.

 

The current lawsuit that a hundred-plus of Ohio public school districts have filed is not so much about the state funding private education (religious or not) but that the funding for private schools (vouchers) exceeds the funding provided to public schools.  If the state has to provide "a thorough and efficient" system, the argument is that every student should be funded equitably and that is not happening.  (I fully expect the legislature to completely abandon funding for public schools in the future and just give everyone a voucher (while retaining a whole raft of restrictions on public schools that private schools do not have to follow -- like accepting kids with disabilities and preparing special education plans and providing busing, etc. -- in my view private schools should only receive public funding if they are willing to abide by the rules imposed on public schools.  If they do that, I have no objections.))

 

It's not just the LBGTQ+ or religious-minority students who will suffer, it is the physically handicapped and children with learning disabilities or behavioral problems -- the kids whose education is a lot more expensive will be the ones left behind in public schools with insufficient funding.  We've already seen it happen in some of the school districts that were hit hardest by the previous voucher program.  For this reason, equity requires the public schools to receive MORE funding than the private schools, not less.

Moved Foraker's post here because this raises issues that go beyond separation of church and state, since a facial attack on the EdChoice program is religion-neutral (since it would also deny funds to secular private schools if successful).  Also, I found the complaint here ...

 

https://vouchershurtohio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Final-Version-of-Complaint-03990616x9EF3B.pdf

 

... and while it raises some church-state separation issues, its primary argument is based on an alleged funding disparity.

 

I'm skeptical because Ohio per-pupil expenditures total around $13,433 per pupil (https://www.ohiobythenumbers.com/#school-funding) and EdChoice vouchers top out at much less than that.  The argument the schools are advancing is that the only relevant metric for comparison is the level of funding received from the specific state funding source that EdChoice vouchers come from, and that's a little opaque to me until I've had time to dig into it more (the complaint is 166 paragraphs).

 

It also advances an interpretation of "common schools" such that "common schools" means only "public schools."  I'm not sure the Ohio Supreme Court would accept that reading of the Ohio Constitution, and it seems to have been at least somewhat skeptical of that reading in State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn. (2006), upholding the Community Schools Act (which allowed the creation of charter schools) against facial constitutional attack, over the dissent of Justice Resnik and more limited dissents of Justices Pfeifer and O'Donnell.

 

As for the possibility of a universal voucher system and abolishing school district boundaries entirely: I can only pray for that day to come; I've supported it for far longer than I've been a parent.  It would change the life script of "enjoy the city when you're young and childless, then move to the suburbs once you have kids unless you're rich enough to afford both taxes for a failing public school and full tuition at a good private school."  I've been a lonely voice on that score for multiple decades now, since of course the wealthy suburbanites who paid the exclusionary-zoning premium to move into those suburbs for the school system don't want to have to open their schools up to here-comes-everybody.  As for the disparity in restrictions on public schools vs private schools: some of those restrictions are more justifiable than others, but if we're going to bring the list of restrictions applicable to both closer to parity, then the thumb on the scale should be relieving schools (a.k.a. all schools, in this post-universalization world) of restrictions that are expensive and cater to only a tiny number of students, rather than imposing them on currently-private schools as well.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

I'm skeptical because Ohio per-pupil expenditures total around $13,433 per pupil (https://www.ohiobythenumbers.com/#school-funding) and EdChoice vouchers top out at much less than that.  The argument the schools are advancing is that the only relevant metric for comparison is the level of funding received from the specific state funding source that EdChoice vouchers come from, and that's a little opaque to me until I've had time to dig into it more (the complaint is 166 paragraphs).

Vouchers for high schools are around $7,500 and the state is providing around $3,000 per student to some school districts, like Cleveland Heights-University Heights, one of the lead plaintiffs.  Thus, they argue this fails to satisfy the state's obligation to provide "common education."  (If the state were providing $13,433 per pupil to Cleveland Heights and through vouchers, I don't think this suit would have been filed.)  

 

Last year the legislature split the funding allocated to vouchers from the funding provided to public schools -- two separate pots of funding, but the same source -- the state of Ohio.  Previously, vouchers used in a district were deducted from the state funding to the public school, which created huge holes in some district funding (like Cleveland Heights where Orthodox students were entering the district from NYC and going to private schools and heavily using the voucher system leading to large deductions from the public school funding without reducing the public school teacher load or other expenses, as would be the case if students in the district left with a voucher).  The new structure funds vouchers and public schools separately, although the public school pot is not yet fully funded (if it ever will be) and the voucher pot is. Also, the state started with a baseline funding for public schools that was based on the last funding cycle (when voucher dollars were deducted) rather than making a calculation of what to pay a public school independent of past funding under the old deduction system.

 

There have been a series of cases going back to 1997 where the Ohio Supreme Court said that the state school funding programs (which have morphed several times since 1997) relied too heavily on local property taxes.  (Cleveland Heights-University Heights has some of the highest property taxes in the state, a large Orthodox community that uses vouchers and never attended any Cleveland Heights schools, and one of the largest student populations in poverty -- the students need more assistance not less -- additional factors in the desperation that led to the lawsuit).  No matter what the Courts decide in this most recent case, the legislature seems likely to continue to ignore the Court's rulings. 

 

Having lots of parallel options is nice -- but it's more expensive, not less.

7 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Vouchers for high schools are around $7,500 and the state is providing around $3,000 per student to some school districts, like Cleveland Heights-University Heights, one of the lead plaintiffs.  Thus, they argue this fails to satisfy the state's obligation to provide "common education."  (If the state were providing $13,433 per pupil to Cleveland Heights and through vouchers, I don't think this suit would have been filed.)  

 

So the $13,433 number includes expenditures from all sources, not merely the state.  As you can see from the pie chart in that link, overall school funding in Ohio is about 44% local, 42% state, 7% federal, 8% other.  (That adds to 101% so assume rounding.)  Vouchers are 100% state.  So if one looks at state funding alone, more state money may go to vouchers than to public schools on a per-pupil basis.  (I'm not even sure about that but I'll take the complaint at its word.)  What the districts are really arguing here is that they should not have to share any of the local, federal, or other money, and the state piece to any private school should never exceed the state piece to any public school.  Again, I don't think that one's going to fly, but education law is not my specialty, to put it mildly; it's just a patently unfair way to frame the debate and I think the courts will see that and react negatively to that before they ever even get into the weeds of the underlying law.  Total per-pupil spending is still higher at an average public school than at an average private school, though that's not inherently unfair because of the extra mandates on public schools which you noted above.  Nevertheless, to the extent that there's a disparity in per-pupil funding overall in Ohio school systems, it's in favor of the public school system.

^ So the state offering more per student for private schools than public is fair because public schools make up the difference from other sources like property taxes? That's certainly a take.

7 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

So the $13,433 number includes expenditures from all sources, not merely the state.  As you can see from the pie chart in that link, overall school funding in Ohio is about 44% local, 42% state, 7% federal, 8% other.  (That adds to 101% so assume rounding.)  Vouchers are 100% state.  So if one looks at state funding alone, more state money may go to vouchers than to public schools on a per-pupil basis.  (I'm not even sure about that but I'll take the complaint at its word.)  What the districts are really arguing here is that they should not have to share any of the local, federal, or other money, and the state piece to any private school should never exceed the state piece to any public school.  Again, I don't think that one's going to fly, but education law is not my specialty, to put it mildly; it's just a patently unfair way to frame the debate and I think the courts will see that and react negatively to that before they ever even get into the weeds of the underlying law.  Total per-pupil spending is still higher at an average public school than at an average private school, though that's not inherently unfair because of the extra mandates on public schools which you noted above.  Nevertheless, to the extent that there's a disparity in per-pupil funding overall in Ohio school systems, it's in favor of the public school system.

The overall per-pupil funding is not at issue in THIS case.  But you're right, if you look at state funding alone, more state money goes to vouchers than to public schools on a per-pupil basis.  Maybe if the voucher funds were the same as the public school funding, per pupil, this case would never have been filed, but that's as speculative as well.

 

How did we get here?  See the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in DeRolph and its progeny since 1997 -- the Court essentially said that local property taxes may be considered as part of the state funding formula, but the local property taxes cannot be used as the primary source of funding to meet the state's constitutional obligation to provide "a thorough and efficient system of common schools."  (The Courts have interpreted the Constitution's reference to "common schools" as being "public schools" -- but I think if a private school agreed to take any kid who applied they would have a good argument for being a "common" school.)

 

Here's some of the history (the most recent complaint filed is not listed).

https://www.bricker.com/resource-center/derolph/key-resources/resource/chronology-of-the-derolph-v-ohio-school-funding-litigation-412

 

Ultimately, the voucher funding probably shouldn't be any more relevant than the federal funding.  As long as the state provides sufficient funding to each school district so that property taxes aren't the primary source of funding, the state would be meeting the constitutional obligation. 

 

8 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

So the $13,433 number includes expenditures from all sources, not merely the state.  As you can see from the pie chart in that link, overall school funding in Ohio is about 44% local, 42% state, 7% federal, 8% other.  (That adds to 101% so assume rounding.)  Vouchers are 100% state.  So if one looks at state funding alone, more state money may go to vouchers than to public schools on a per-pupil basis.  (I'm not even sure about that but I'll take the complaint at its word.)  What the districts are really arguing here is that they should not have to share any of the local, federal, or other money, and the state piece to any private school should never exceed the state piece to any public school.  Again, I don't think that one's going to fly, but education law is not my specialty, to put it mildly; it's just a patently unfair way to frame the debate and I think the courts will see that and react negatively to that before they ever even get into the weeds of the underlying law.  Total per-pupil spending is still higher at an average public school than at an average private school, though that's not inherently unfair because of the extra mandates on public schools which you noted above.  Nevertheless, to the extent that there's a disparity in per-pupil funding overall in Ohio school systems, it's in favor of the public school system.

The proper funding level for any given school is difficult debate, arguably $13,433/student is too much for rural St. Henry, Ohio but not nearly enough for urban Cleveland Public Schools.

 

Private schools can dismiss any kid that causes problems.  Whether that's fights in the hall or they're just too weird or not the right religion, private schools have the luxury of not educating everyone and can educate a much more uniform group of students.  They also aren't required to do the testing the public schools do, they aren't required to provide busing for students that don't attend their school -- like public schools do, they aren't required to write IEP plans for struggling students -- because the public school district has to do that for the kid.  So even kids who go to private schools add costs to public schools. 

 

On average, public schools need more teachers, more aides, more counselors, more administrators to write IEPs and deal with discipline.  On average, public schools (particularly schools with high levels of poverty) have more students with physical and mental challenges, less parental engagement, more transient students, and generally more kids at danger of costing society a lot more in the future -- prison, out-of-wedlock births, drugs, generational poverty, and welfare. More societal disruptions rather than community benefits -- so we SHOULD be spending a lot more to educate kids in poor districts to minimize those potential future problems.  Even if you don't have kids in a school, you benefit from good schools and your community will suffer if the schools are perceived to not be good.

 

The disparity in per-pupil funding is not nearly large enough when some public schools need so much more.  But some people think the kids don't need anything extra for being born into a poor family, so here we are.

8 hours ago, Foraker said:

The proper funding level for any given school is difficult debate, arguably $13,433/student is too much for rural St. Henry, Ohio but not nearly enough for urban Cleveland Public Schools.

 

Private schools can dismiss any kid that causes problems.  Whether that's fights in the hall or they're just too weird or not the right religion, private schools have the luxury of not educating everyone and can educate a much more uniform group of students.  They also aren't required to do the testing the public schools do, they aren't required to provide busing for students that don't attend their school -- like public schools do, they aren't required to write IEP plans for struggling students -- because the public school district has to do that for the kid.  So even kids who go to private schools add costs to public schools. 

 

On average, public schools need more teachers, more aides, more counselors, more administrators to write IEPs and deal with discipline.  On average, public schools (particularly schools with high levels of poverty) have more students with physical and mental challenges, less parental engagement, more transient students, and generally more kids at danger of costing society a lot more in the future -- prison, out-of-wedlock births, drugs, generational poverty, and welfare. More societal disruptions rather than community benefits -- so we SHOULD be spending a lot more to educate kids in poor districts to minimize those potential future problems.  Even if you don't have kids in a school, you benefit from good schools and your community will suffer if the schools are perceived to not be good.

 

The disparity in per-pupil funding is not nearly large enough when some public schools need so much more.  But some people think the kids don't need anything extra for being born into a poor family, so here we are.

 

8 hours ago, Foraker said:

The overall per-pupil funding is not at issue in THIS case.  But you're right, if you look at state funding alone, more state money goes to vouchers than to public schools on a per-pupil basis.  Maybe if the voucher funds were the same as the public school funding, per pupil, this case would never have been filed, but that's as speculative as well.

 

How did we get here?  See the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in DeRolph and its progeny since 1997 -- the Court essentially said that local property taxes may be considered as part of the state funding formula, but the local property taxes cannot be used as the primary source of funding to meet the state's constitutional obligation to provide "a thorough and efficient system of common schools."  (The Courts have interpreted the Constitution's reference to "common schools" as being "public schools" -- but I think if a private school agreed to take any kid who applied they would have a good argument for being a "common" school.)

 

Here's some of the history (the most recent complaint filed is not listed).

https://www.bricker.com/resource-center/derolph/key-resources/resource/chronology-of-the-derolph-v-ohio-school-funding-litigation-412

 

Ultimately, the voucher funding probably shouldn't be any more relevant than the federal funding.  As long as the state provides sufficient funding to each school district so that property taxes aren't the primary source of funding, the state would be meeting the constitutional obligation. 

 

 

I don't know if the plaintiffs will be able to stop the overall level from becoming an issue, if not the issue, in this case, because it's major context for the numbers and I don't think the courts will be as contemptuously dismissive of that fact as @Mendo was.

 

And as a political matter, I know the $13,433/student is an average, and in fact if you drilled down, you'd find that per-pupil expenditures are higher in our urban areas and lower in rural ones.  Whether the formula should be even more tilted in favor of urban districts is a political argument as well, and not one that I think the courts are going to feel comfortable sorting out.  The Ohio Constitution doesn't give the courts a methodology to arrive at a number for either the overall average or the differences based on specific circumstances of particular districts, which means they can only police the far boundaries, i.e., anything that is so clearly out of line that it fails to satisfy the generic "thorough and efficient" requirement, since that's all the courts have to go on.

 

I finally found the docket and it's quite active, not surprisingly, I guess, including at least four amicus briefs filed (rare for a trial court case), three in support of the school districts and one in support of the voucher program.  Franklin County Common Pleas Case No. 22CV00067.  Dispositive motions due by 8/30 (some already filed), discovery cutoff 9/27, "trial assignment" scheduled for 1/3/23.

ETA: Among other things, the complaint was amended 5/26/22, so anyone following along at home should be aware that my link a few posts ago is now to an older version of the document.

It’s an Ohio Constitutional issue, not a federal.   All one has to do to entirely vacate DeRolph is pass a statewide referendum doing so.    I suspect all the parties involved believe it would have a very good chance of passing. 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

And as a political matter, I know the $13,433/student is an average, and . . . is a political argument as well, and not one that I think the courts are going to feel comfortable sorting out. 

I agree to some extent.  To avoid the political angle, I think the Court will use state data on the average cost and just avoid the political question of whether that number should be higher. 

 

I'd like to see the state completely change how schools and municipalities are funded.  Get rid of local income taxes (bye RITA!) and raise the state of Ohio tax.  That would simplify things so much for interstate and inter-municipality businesses and reduce a lot of red tape in the state.  Democrats and Republicans should both rejoice at that.

 

I would fully fund the current school plan -- keep the voucher bucket full (if you must -- I also think it is a lot more expensive to fund parallel education systems (public-private) and the state shouldn't be doing it, but that's the cost of "choice") and fully fund the public school bucket (if the state thinks that $7,500 per student is sufficient for private school vouchers, that is a good starting point for public schools as well.)  I'd add a kicker for every state mandate on public schools -- busing, IEPs, poverty, special needs, etc.  Remove the busing requirement, and remove the kicker for that item.  Make private schools write IEPs for their students, remove that kicker for public schools.  I'm OK with that.  I would also give local school districts more control and fewer mandates.  Local control used to be a Republican policy. 

 

And I would let municipalities collect property taxes to fund their operations, which seem more connected to land than the schools (roads, utilities, fire and to a lesser extent police, parks -- all seem more connected to the land and property than education).  Just as with the current laws, you can cap the millage and all of that nonsense.  Although I would like municipalities to have the option to vote in a land tax in all or portions of a municipality.  Give them more flexibility.  Again, local control and fewer regulations used to be a Republican goal before power corrupted.

3 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I agree to some extent.  To avoid the political angle, I think the Court will use state data on the average cost and just avoid the political question of whether that number should be higher. 

 

I'd like to see the state completely change how schools and municipalities are funded.  Get rid of local income taxes (bye RITA!) and raise the state of Ohio tax.  That would simplify things so much for interstate and inter-municipality businesses and reduce a lot of red tape in the state.  Democrats and Republicans should both rejoice at that ...

 

And I would let municipalities collect property taxes to fund their operations, which seem more connected to land than the schools (roads, utilities, fire and to a lesser extent police, parks -- all seem more connected to the land and property than education).  Just as with the current laws, you can cap the millage and all of that nonsense.  Although I would like municipalities to have the option to vote in a land tax in all or portions of a municipality.  Give them more flexibility.  Again, local control and fewer regulations used to be a Republican goal before power corrupted.

 

I think the existence of RITA is a necessary compromise because some cities are comfortable with zero income tax and some go as high as 2.75% (Akron is at that level).  That said, I agree a single statewide income tax would certainly be simpler if we could reach political agreement on a number.  I don't even have to file through RITA but filing City of Akron returns is a PITA, and of course I would likely see my taxes go down if there were a single statewide local rate collected at the state level and distributed to localities, since there's no way that Akron's 2.75% would become the uniform state rate.

 

Also agreed that property taxes to pay for roads, utilities, emergency services, and parks make more sense than for schools.  As I noted above, I'd be in favor of a completely universal voucher system, dissolving all public school districts and completely divorcing school funding from property taxes.  But note that true universal state funding by vouchers would also collapse the current funding advantage enjoyed by urban public school districts on account of their perceived greater needs to deal with specialized needs; a universal state voucher would probably give the same amount to kids in Gallia County as in Franklin, though I suppose it could be adjusted county-by-county based on cost of living or some other ascertainable statistic.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

As I noted above, I'd be in favor of a completely universal voucher system, dissolving all public school districts and completely divorcing school funding from property taxes.  But note that true universal state funding by vouchers would also collapse the current funding advantage enjoyed by urban public school districts on account of their perceived greater needs to deal with specialized needs; a universal state voucher would probably give the same amount to kids in Gallia County as in Franklin, though I suppose it could be adjusted county-by-county based on cost of living or some other ascertainable statistic.

I think you'd have to revise the state constitution to move to universal vouchers.  I'm opposed to vouchers and opposed to getting rid of common schools.  I think it is good for society to have elementary schools within walking distance of your home and to have as much diversity (skin color, cultural background, income, religion, sexual identity, sexual preference, etc.) as possible in higher grades.  In general, I believe that exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society.  And if everyone in society has to use the same service I think government provides a better service.  We need the wealthy (the powerful) to push for better schools, not to be pulling their kids out to attend well-funded segregated schools and leaving the public schools to rot, which is what vouchers will do.

 

I also think that a universal voucher will be difficult to design.  Kids living in poverty need more.  Kids with physical disabilities need more.  Immigrant kids for whom English is a second language will need more.   It's cheaper to educate in a district with all same race, same religion, middle-to-upper class kids in two-parent households who are actively involved in their kids' education.   You can quickly end up with multiple tiers of funding and it won't be so simple. 

47 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I think you'd have to revise the state constitution to move to universal vouchers.  I'm opposed to vouchers and opposed to getting rid of common schools.  I think it is good for society to have elementary schools within walking distance of your home and to have as much diversity (skin color, cultural background, income, religion, sexual identity, sexual preference, etc.) as possible in higher grades.  In general, I believe that exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society.  And if everyone in society has to use the same service I think government provides a better service.  We need the wealthy (the powerful) to push for better schools, not to be pulling their kids out to attend well-funded segregated schools and leaving the public schools to rot, which is what vouchers will do.

 

I also think that a universal voucher will be difficult to design.  Kids living in poverty need more.  Kids with physical disabilities need more.  Immigrant kids for whom English is a second language will need more.   It's cheaper to educate in a district with all same race, same religion, middle-to-upper class kids in two-parent households who are actively involved in their kids' education.   You can quickly end up with multiple tiers of funding and it won't be so simple. 

 

I don't think that revising the state constitution would be necessary to move to universal vouchers, but it doesn't matter, because what would be necessary is an even harder lift, as I already said: convincing suburbanites to surrender the district barriers that are among the things that prop up their house prices (since the premium they paid to live in the better district would no longer be necessary, since someone could live in Columbus but attend Upper Arlington).

 

As to whether "exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society," while that sounds intuitive, I'd encourage you to read up more on that.  There's more evidence to the contrary than you might expect.

 

The notion that everyone could have an elementary school within walking distance of their home is a privileged urbanist point of view.  In rural districts, you're probably lucky to get a quarter of the kids within walking distance (if the school can be set up within whatever small crossroads town is the heart of any given swathe of any rural territory).  Even here in Akron Public Schools, if my children attended the local public school, it would be just over a mile walk, doable in older grades but a bit of a stretch for younger ones.  When I was in elementary school myself, I walked about 0.4 miles and that wasn't too bad but I don't know if I'd have been comfortable more than doubling that with a bookbag.

 

On a different note, you say you "need the wealthy (the powerful) to push for better schools), not to be pulling their kids out," but the wealthy have always had the ability to send their children to private schools, so the issue isn't whether the wealthy can pull their kids out of failing schools, it's whether everyone else can.  Striking down the voucher program would not affect whether my children will go to private school; it would affect whether their less affluent classmates can.  Should I assume that your real agenda is to go much further than abolishing the state voucher program but also forcing my children into public school?  Because if not, my children and the rest of their classmates whose parents are doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful business owners, sales account managers, IT managers, and the like will stay.  The people you'll hurt more are the ones with only one moderate income and one stay-at-home parent (or no second parent in the household).

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

I don't think that revising the state constitution would be necessary to move to universal vouchers, but it doesn't matter, because what would be necessary is an even harder lift, as I already said: convincing suburbanites to surrender the district barriers that are among the things that prop up their house prices (since the premium they paid to live in the better district would no longer be necessary, since someone could live in Columbus but attend Upper Arlington).

 

As to whether "exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society," while that sounds intuitive, I'd encourage you to read up more on that.  There's more evidence to the contrary than you might expect.

 

The notion that everyone could have an elementary school within walking distance of their home is a privileged urbanist point of view.  In rural districts, you're probably lucky to get a quarter of the kids within walking distance (if the school can be set up within whatever small crossroads town is the heart of any given swathe of any rural territory).  Even here in Akron Public Schools, if my children attended the local public school, it would be just over a mile walk, doable in older grades but a bit of a stretch for younger ones.  When I was in elementary school myself, I walked about 0.4 miles and that wasn't too bad but I don't know if I'd have been comfortable more than doubling that with a bookbag.

 

On a different note, you say you "need the wealthy (the powerful) to push for better schools), not to be pulling their kids out," but the wealthy have always had the ability to send their children to private schools, so the issue isn't whether the wealthy can pull their kids out of failing schools, it's whether everyone else can.  Striking down the voucher program would not affect whether my children will go to private school; it would affect whether their less affluent classmates can.  Should I assume that your real agenda is to go much further than abolishing the state voucher program but also forcing my children into public school?  Because if not, my children and the rest of their classmates whose parents are doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful business owners, sales account managers, IT managers, and the like will stay.  The people you'll hurt more are the ones with only one moderate income and one stay-at-home parent (or no second parent in the household).

 

I do think that exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society -- generally -- but it's not going to make everyone more tolerant on every issue.  You'll still have people who had a bad experience with a "different" kid that creates a bias against some group in their mind later in life. 

 

If you choose to live in a rural area, you'll need to pay for busing.  I don't think that's going to change.  But I grew up in a small city of about 15,000 and walked a couple of miles to school -- when I was younger a parent or other adult walked to school with me and when I was old enough you can bet that I got on my bike to make that trip!   I can only imagine foreigners' faces when they hear that Americans won't let their kids walk more than 0.4 mile to school -- that might belong in the Decline of the Nation forum. 

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/blog/too-far-walk

 

I encourage you to make that walk better:

https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/safe-routes-srts/safe-routes-to-school-srts#page=1

 

I actually do think that if all the doctors and lawyers and other wealthy women put their kids in public schools their advocacy for the public schools would be more effective at making sure every student had what they needed.  But put away your conspiracy fears, I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't go to another school. 

 

My issue is with the use of state funds not where kids go to school -- I don't like having to pay for others to send their kid to a private club that wouldn't admit my kid.  Or my neighbor's kid.  The price of exclusion should be that you pay for it yourself, without state aid.  But I'm pretty sure I've already lost that battle -- vouchers are a reality -- I'm not out to kill the voucher program even though I don't like it.   I lost that vote, I accept it. 

 

I agree with you that kids should be able to enroll in any school that they want, as long as they do it by a deadline that gives the schools sufficient time to hire additional teachers, etc., to handle the number of enrolled students for the year.  Managing capacity will be an issue -- if everyone in Cleveland wanted to get into Solon schools, it's not possible. 

 

I do want the public schools, the ones that are trying to educate the kids who have no choice, to be fairly funded with state dollars. 

 

I also want charter schools to be properly vetted and audited and the public funds accounted for, just like public schools.  (Ahem, Republicans, where was the oversight of ECOT?  https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/10/06/ecot-loses-latest-court-challenge-must-repay-state/  Are there more ECOTs still operating?)

 

Use public money wisely.  Fairly fund the public schools with state dollars, as required by the Ohio Constitution.  I really don't understand why we can't do those two things.

^Yes my question is if there has been any subsequent legislation to prevent ECOT-like situations or just some penalties for the ECOT ownership structure themselves.

11 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

^Yes my question is if there has been any subsequent legislation to prevent ECOT-like situations or just some penalties for the ECOT ownership structure themselves.

I'm not an education expert, so maybe someone can chime in, but my understanding is that the ECOT problem arose because the state was looking the other way -- there is already legislation in place that should protect us from similar charter-school problems IF the state does its job. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/sep/12/afscme-people/fact-checking-attack-mike-dewine-about-ecot-online/

 

Probably not a huge coincidence that ECOT made some big political contributions.

https://dianeravitch.net/2021/06/29/ohio-feds-investigating-campaign-contributions-to-ecot/

 

 

 

I’m so tired of these religious nuts.

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

So what. That has been allowed in Ohio for a long time. Ohio, being an older state had a strong infrastructure of religious based schools that has gone back to the early 20th century. Allowing these schools access to individual student funds is fine as parents should have choice and options as to their child's education. It is not the state's money, it is not the school district's money, it belongs to the taxpayer and they should be able to educate their children how they feel is best. Teachers Unions should not have a monopoly on taxpayer funds

12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So what. That has been allowed in Ohio for a long time. Ohio, being an older state had a strong infrastructure of religious based schools that has gone back to the early 20th century. Allowing these schools access to individual student funds is fine as parents should have choice and options as to their child's education. It is not the state's money, it is not the school district's money, it belongs to the taxpayer and they should be able to educate their children how they feel is best. Teachers Unions should not have a monopoly on taxpayer funds

Counterpoint: it is the state’s money. 

12 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Counterpoint: it is the state’s money. 

That is a factual fallacy. The state's money IS the people's money. People collectively pool their money to the state for common goods. It is not the State's money, it always belongs to the taxpayers.  

^If people "pool their money" how does it then become theirs again to choose how their children are educated? In reality, an individual family is relying on many people to pool money to educate their children, so the other people in that pool should have a say. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, ink said:

^If people "pool their money" how does it then become theirs again to choose how their children are educated? In reality, an individual family is relying on many people to pool money to educate their children, so the other people in that pool should have a say. 

 

 

everyone has a say about public schools in the community but not about education of the individual child. That is up to the parents. It is been allowed that vouchers have allowed underprivileged children in Ohio the opportunity to attend schools that may better meet their needs. In Ohio you have a large religious, especially Catholic school infrastructure that has been able to help these children now for decades. Furthermore, bussing and other services have been used in Ohio for generations to transport kids to religious schools. This has not been controversial until recently. 

59 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is a factual fallacy. The state's money IS the people's money. People collectively pool their money to the state for common goods. It is not the State's money, it always belongs to the taxpayers.  

Bro I don’t think you know what a government is

On 8/24/2022 at 10:33 AM, KJP said:

 

 

 

What's the difference between this and the existing EdChoice voucher program?

 

And is this 2-page run-on sentence of platitudinous gobbledegook really the entire draft of the bill?  That's the link from the announcement on the CCV homepage.

 

I think this is a nothingburger announcement until there's more meat on these bones.  And I say this as someone (see upthread) who is fully behind universal vouchers in principle.

 

EDIT: So I found the ostensible difference, from the CVV press release:

 

Quote

Currently in Ohio, only students who are at or below 250% of the federal poverty or attend a failing school are eligible for an EdChoice Scholarship. The Backpack Bill will ensure every student can access a scholarship, if so desired. The money will follow the child… like a backpack.

 

So this is for the benefit of all those dual-income-one-child parents out in Hudson for whom Hudson High School isn't good enough and they've just gotta send little Gordon Magnus Leslie Vanderheuven II to Western Reserve Academy.  Well, OK.

49 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

everyone has a say about public schools in the community but not about education of the individual child. That is up to the parents. It is been allowed that vouchers have allowed underprivileged children in Ohio the opportunity to attend schools that may better meet their needs. In Ohio you have a large religious, especially Catholic school infrastructure that has been able to help these children now for decades. Furthermore, bussing and other services have been used in Ohio for generations to transport kids to religious schools. This has not been controversial until recently. 

Except studies show that it is not low income parents that are using vouchers to attend private schools in Ohio.  It's mostly middle-class families who are using vouchers to take their kids out of community schools.  (And Catholic schools are not what they once were -- primarily staffed by the religious at near-poverty wages.  The cost of a Catholic education has risen dramatically with the need to hire lay teachers and staff.)

 

But putting that aside, I think that the public and our government have a "fiduciary" duty to oversee the expenditure of public money, and the state's oversight of charter schools has been demonstrably lacking.  True fiscal conservatives would be concerned -- the "fiscal conservatives" in charge in Ohio are not.  Why?  Has ECOT sufficiently funded their campaign chests?

 

True "local control is best" conservatives should be alarmed at the amount of school regulations imposed by the state on local community schools (and not on private schools that don't have community oversight). 

 

If government shouldn't be tilting the playing field, the same restrictions should follow with the money.  And if there are too many regulations, we should remove the regulations across the board.

 

But more importantly, the Ohio Constitution requires the state to “secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.”  That's "a" system, not plural systems -- public + charter + vouchers-for-private-enterprises. If our leaders were "strict constructionist" conservatives, perhaps they would oppose vouchers until a constitutional amendment could be passed. (Are there any constitutional amendments proposed on this point?) (Plus creating parallel school systems increases cost -- which also should concern our fiscal conservatives.)

 

I suggest that today's Republican Party is no longer fiscally conservative, wants to consolidate power in the state government to the detriment of local control, and wants to intervene in education to favor private schools over public schools -- judging by their actions rather than their words.

5 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Except studies show that it is not low income parents that are using vouchers to attend private schools in Ohio.  It's mostly middle-class families who are using vouchers to take their kids out of community schools.

 

Agreed, but the fact that that is the case today does not mean it needs to remain so.  I would be interested if there is any hard data on why so few lower-income families take advantage of the resources at their disposal, including vouchers in this case first and foremost, but also including surprisingly many more.

 

8 minutes ago, Foraker said:

(And Catholic schools are not what they once were -- primarily staffed by the religious at near-poverty wages.  The cost of a Catholic education has risen dramatically with the need to hire lay teachers and staff.)

 

Catholic schools sadly also don't have the level of financial support from parishes as a collective unit the way they used to.  That said, Catholic primary schools do still tend to be substantially cheaper than their public school counterparts in terms of total per-pupil expenditures (obviously not in terms of direct per-child costs to the attending families, but we're talking total cost here, not cost allocation).  Catholic secondary schools are where you see the parity taking hold; Hoban is about $13,000/yr, which is within striking distance of PPE in Akron Public.

 

13 minutes ago, Foraker said:

But putting that aside, I think that the public and our government have a "fiduciary" duty to oversee the expenditure of public money, and the state's oversight of charter schools has been demonstrably lacking.  True fiscal conservatives would be concerned -- the "fiscal conservatives" in charge in Ohio are not.  Why?  Has ECOT sufficiently funded their campaign chests?

 

I'm not sure exactly what your demand is here.  The state has been aggressively investigating and auditing ECOT: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/06/28/ecot-owes-ohio-117-million-state-money-improperly-received/7756058001/.  I think your real argument is "ECOT should never have existed" or "ECOT is an argument for abandoning all public funding for nonpublic schools in Ohio" (a.k.a. collective punishment/one-bad-apple-ruins-the-bunch for nonpublic schools, but no amount of bad apples will ruin the bunch of public schools), not "ECOT should have been better overseen."  The state is trying to claw back $117M from ECOT; that doesn't seem to me to be allowing them to skate or giving them some kind of amnesty because of their political connections.

 

18 minutes ago, Foraker said:

True "local control is best" conservatives should be alarmed at the amount of school regulations imposed by the state on local community schools (and not on private schools that don't have community oversight). 

 

If government shouldn't be tilting the playing field, the same restrictions should follow with the money.  And if there are too many regulations, we should remove the regulations across the board.

 

Your last point is the real one.  Remove regulations across the board.

 

19 minutes ago, Foraker said:

But more importantly, the Ohio Constitution requires the state to “secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.”  That's "a" system, not plural systems -- public + charter + vouchers-for-private-enterprises. If our leaders were "strict constructionist" conservatives, perhaps they would oppose vouchers until a constitutional amendment could be passed. (Are there any constitutional amendments proposed on this point?) (Plus creating parallel school systems increases cost -- which also should concern our fiscal conservatives.)

 

This is grammatically incoherent.  Even if "common schools" was required to be read as "government owned and operated schools," which certainly doesn't appear to be the case at face value, ensuring a "thorough and efficient system of public schools" does not exclude the possibility of supporting other systems as well.  However, the simpler reading is that "a thorough and efficient system of common schools" is capacious enough to include public, private, and charter schools and even homeschooling, and it's not correct to characterize them as parallel systems even when they compete for students.

 

As for parallel school systems increasing cost: I highly doubt it when compared to competition-protected government-monopoly school systems.  Since when have monopolies or government bureaucracies excelled at saving costs, let alone one with both and a captive, mandated market due to compulsory-attendance laws?  When the government both runs the schools and requires people to attend them, what incentive does it have to be competitive on either price or quality?

46 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Catholic schools sadly also don't have the level of financial support from parishes as a collective unit the way they used to.  That said, Catholic primary schools do still tend to be substantially cheaper than their public school counterparts in terms of total per-pupil expenditures (obviously not in terms of direct per-child costs to the attending families, but we're talking total cost here, not cost allocation).  Catholic secondary schools are where you see the parity taking hold; Hoban is about $13,000/yr, which is within striking distance of PPE in Akron Public.

And very-white gold standard St. Ignatius is over $17,000. I forget what the cost is at University School, but it's way more.  Some schools are less expensive, but private schools are not inherently cheaper than public schools.  "Competition" by itself does not lead to lower costs and higher quality.

 

47 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I'm not sure exactly what your demand is here.  The state has been aggressively investigating and auditing ECOT: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/06/28/ecot-owes-ohio-117-million-state-money-improperly-received/7756058001/.  I think your real argument is "ECOT should never have existed" or "ECOT is an argument for abandoning all public funding for nonpublic schools in Ohio" (a.k.a. collective punishment/one-bad-apple-ruins-the-bunch for nonpublic schools, but no amount of bad apples will ruin the bunch of public schools), not "ECOT should have been better overseen."  The state is trying to claw back $117M from ECOT; that doesn't seem to me to be allowing them to skate or giving them some kind of amnesty because of their political connections.

 

Now they are, that's true.  But ECOT's audit problems were allowed to drag on until $117M (or more) was misspent.  The fact that they are going after ECOT now is not evidence of adequate oversight to prevent the problem from growing so large.

Quote

There were warning signs about the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) from the very start. Some examples: 2000 “Based on its review of the first-year annual reports, LOEO (Legislative Office of Education Oversight) found that community schools did not provide the information necessary for accountability purposes.  Although schools claimed that they met their educational goals, few schools provided supporting evidence or even described how they evaluated student and school performance.’’ 2002 “The biggest threat to the state’s experiment with charter schools is not the teachers’ unions, school boards and related special- interest groups that have launched a lawsuit to kill the program in its infancy,’’ according to the Columbus Dispatch editorial page. “A far worse threat is that the charter- school concept will be discredited because of mismanagement and poor oversight by the state officials in charge of it.’’ 2005 “… generally, when things go wrong with charter schools, they go enormously wrong,” said Ohio Auditor and GOP gubernatorial candidate Betty Montgomery, calling for greater fiscal oversight of charter schools and a separate commission to review new charter schools’ contracts before they’re allowed to open. 2014 “We think a lot of them (charters) need to be closed, because they’re not doing a good job…. We think charters have a role in the education base, but we also think most of the charters in Ohio stink,’’ Greg Harris, director of pro-charter group StudentsFirst Ohio, told the Dispatch. “Ohio has a real quality control problem. Ohio’s more broken than the Wild West,” said Alex Medler of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. 2016 ‘’… more students drop out of the Electronic Classroom or fail to finish high school within four years than at any other school in the country,’’ according to The New York Times.

https://innovationohio.org/education/k12education/ecot-warning-signs/

 

50 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

As for parallel school systems increasing cost: I highly doubt it when compared to competition-protected government-monopoly school systems.  Since when have monopolies or government bureaucracies excelled at saving costs, let alone one with both and a captive, mandated market due to compulsory-attendance laws?  When the government both runs the schools and requires people to attend them, what incentive does it have to be competitive on either price or quality?

 

Competition does not automatically mean we get higher quality (see: manufacturing in China) any more than government organizations are inherently inefficient (no one is arguing that we need a parallel military to make it more efficient; and there isn't always a market to provide competition -- rural mail delivery, for example). People often enter public SERVICE, and teaching in particular, to SERVE -- they generally want to do a good job for their community.  It's their kids, and their friends' kids, and their neighbors' kids -- they want quality for the community and they don't need competition to "incentivize" them to provide it.

 

The lack of competition may mean that we need to be diligent about oversight, however.  And public schools have that with local school board oversight as well as state oversight to ensure that the schools are run well.  Public schools are incentivized to be as good as they can be due to community involvement in the schools. 

 

Private schools lack that local oversight (the priest of our parish is the head of our school and has final say on everything -- he has no education or finance background -- so what kind of oversight is that? Surely that is not the kind of oversight that improves educational quality and fiscal responsibility!  And due to the low salaries, teacher turnover is high, which arguably reduces quality.) 

 

And I don't think the quality of a Catholic education is better or worse because of the existence of other schools -- a large percentage of the people sending their kids to Catholic schools do so for religious rather than educational reasons.  Do you really think that "competition" forces University School to be more efficient with their spending or to hold costs down for families?  Or does the high cost of a US education ensure that primarily only wealthy families apply (and we know that wealth generally means higher test scores)? 

 

Not every aspect of life is improved by competition.  Let's also remember that private and charter schools are not required to educate students with disabilities, or students with behavior problems.  How do you propose that competition is going to improve education for those students? 

 

Even if you have two schools of equal quality, the same number of kids in each classroom and the same number of teachers and classrooms as you would have in a single school, you have to duplicate non-classroom facilities and administrators.  No amount of competition is going to change that.

2 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Competition does not automatically mean we get higher quality (see: manufacturing in China) any more than government organizations are inherently inefficient (no one is arguing that we need a parallel military to make it more efficient; and there isn't always a market to provide competition -- rural mail delivery, for example). People often enter public SERVICE, and teaching in particular, to SERVE -- they generally want to do a good job for their community.  It's their kids, and their friends' kids, and their neighbors' kids -- they want quality for the community and they don't need competition to "incentivize" them to provide it.

 

The military is inefficient.  It has no competition because other virtues are paramount over efficiency in the case of how many different entities in this country are allowed to own nuclear weapons and MLRS's.  There is reason for a monopoly there notwithstanding the inefficiency.

 

As for the ethic of service: Do you really think that teachers, or even other employees, in private schools lack that?  They often get paid less than their public school counterparts.  And from what I--and my sister, who is a public school teacher--have seen in the public schools, the truth is that yes, many public schools and their employees do need more motivation than mere altruistic satisfaction to provide quality work.

 

7 minutes ago, Foraker said:

The lack of competition may mean that we need to be diligent about oversight, however.  And public schools have that with local school board oversight as well as state oversight to ensure that the schools are run well.  Public schools are incentivized to be as good as they can be due to community involvement in the schools.

 

Private schools are incentivized to be as good as they can be because they can go under if they fail to attract students.  And that does indeed happen, including in the Catholic school system; many have closed and/or been consolidated over the last generation.  Board oversight is important, of course, but when there is no competition, the board is as much as part of the competition-free system as any other aspect of that system.

 

As for community involvement in the schools: There are more ways to be involved with a school than in direct, formal authority positions.  I'd stack the level of "community involvement" in my kids' school against that of the parent body of any public school, despite the number of two-income families we have.

 

20 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Private schools lack that local oversight (the priest of our parish is the head of our school and has final say on everything -- he has no education or finance background -- so what kind of oversight is that? Surely that is not the kind of oversight that improves educational quality and fiscal responsibility!  And due to the low salaries, teacher turnover is high, which arguably reduces quality.) 

 

The priest at my parish may have the final say on everything in principle, but he does not have the time to be actively involved in every decision.  In that, he is much like the board of the public school, who all have day jobs of their own, often that are also not in education or finance.  Most decisions, including some very consequential ones, get delegated.  That's where we get the principle that "personnel is policy," because the people/person at the top generally only has the time and attention to put their foot down on a small handful of key decisions.  For the rest, the most important decision the person at the top does is the decision of who gets to make the real day-to-day decisions.

 

As for teacher turnover: Is it so much lower in the public school system?  They may make more than most of their private school counterparts, but they also have to put up with more.

 

28 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Or does the high cost of a US education ensure that primarily only wealthy families apply (and we know that wealth generally means higher test scores)? 

 

So one good way to test that would be to ensure that non-wealthy families can also afford and attend private school.  Ohio seems to be moving in that direction, yet I don't see you applauding that as vocally as I am. 😉

7 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

So one good way to test that would be to ensure that non-wealthy families can also afford and attend private school.  Ohio seems to be moving in that direction, yet I don't see you applauding that as vocally as I am. 😉

I'm all for private schools, having put kids through several myself, clearly.  What I'm against is using public dollars to fund education without public oversight of the use of those public dollars. 

 

[And requiring public schools to do more with less (testing requirements, busing both private school kids and public school kids, preparing IEPs for both private school kids and public school kids, and having to deal with all the "problem" kids that the private schools can just kick to the curb or block from admissions at their whim, whether the school claims to be "christian" or not).]

 

You can opt out if you want, but if you want public dollars you should play by public rules including the same kind of public oversight of expenditures.  (If the public rules are too restrictive, then maybe we shouldn't have them in the first place.)

So, uh, meanwhile, in Columbus...

 

Columbus City Schools Teachers Begin the Year on Strike

 

For many students, the first day of school means walking into their classrooms with full backpacks and excited smiles, eager to see their friends and teachers after the summer break.

 

But if you happen to be one of the 47,000 young learners served by Columbus City Schools, things look much different.

...

The Board and CEA have been in negotiations toward a new contact for CCS teachers since March, but tensions reached a peak in the last month as bargaining sessions proved unproductive. Facility repairs and improvements, class sizes, hiring of more in-school specialists, and teacher compensation and work policies are the primary items over which the associations have been unable to arrive at an agreement.

 

Monjot is among a strong contingent of parents and families who believe CCS holds greater responsibility to resolve the stalemate and deliver better conditions for both students and teachers.

 

“The Board wants to frame this as fight between greedy teachers and tax payers,” he explained. “While the teachers deserve a fair wage, that is not why they strike. Our teachers are tired of the Board’s ‘reasonable effort’ to provide a safe learning environment for every student in the district. We live with COVID now. That means we must provide air filtration, heat, AC, water, and power to every one. There should be consequences if they fail to deliver.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/columbus-city-schools-teachers-begin-the-year-on-strike-gw1/

 

I'm surprised there haven't been more teacher strikes nationally. As things are right now, the public sector can't keep up with rapid wage increases necessitated by inflation like the private sector can due to existing contracts and and rules about how much of a raise workers can see in one year.

Edited August 25, 20222 yr by GCrites80s

11 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

I'm surprised there haven't been more teacher strikes nationally. As things are right now, the public sector can't keep up with rapid wage increases necessitated by inflation like the private sector can due to existing contracts and and rules about how much of a raise workers can see in one year.

Perhaps those strikes are coming, but generally I think teachers are just eager for a "normal" (non-COVID-interrupted) school year. 

The Columbus strike wasn't about pay as much as it was about support staff and building conditions.

Ohio’s Public Vs Private School Funding Set for 2023 Court Battle

 

While the trial of former Ohio House speaker Larry Householder will hold the attention of many this year, the battle over public school funding will also be subject to court drama.

 

Public school districts, some individual students in public schools, and the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, spent the last year fighting to keep a lawsuit on the books in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. That lawsuit aims a direct hit at Ohio’s EdChoice private school voucher program, which plaintiffs say takes away needed funding from the public schools attended by a vast majority of Ohio students.

 

The private school voucher system goes against the Ohio Constitution’s demand for a “thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state,” the schools and their advocates say.

 

Late in 2022, Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page denied attempts by the Ohio Department of Education, the state Board of Education, and a group of “Catholic school family intervenors” and other individuals, hoping to quash the lawsuit.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohios-public-vs-private-school-funding-set-for-2023-court-battle-ocj1/

 

Ohio Education System Overhaul Being Discussed Once Again

 

As promised by Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman last year, an overhaul of the state education system is back on the agenda.

 

The bill, once again led by state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, was reintroduced on Jan. 11, and already has 10 cosponsors signed on.

 

The legislation seeks to rename the Ohio Department of Education as the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, which Reineke previously said makes up the bulk of the legislation’s language.

 

Also a part of the bill are changes to the Ohio State Board of Education, who will see a reduced role if the bill is passed. Many of the roles of the state board would be moved to a cabinet-level position within the governor’s office, called the director of education and workforce.

 

“Senate Bill 1 will put, basically, the governor in charge of education policy in the state through the cabinet-level position,” said State Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, who is the chair of the Senate Education Committee and an ex-officio member of the state board.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-education-system-overhaul-being-discussed-once-again-ocj1/