The right is just so unbelievably soft and scared of ideas they disagree with.

 

We can finally have professors reported for teaching accurately about climate change, the civil rights movement, and foreign policy.

 

The brain drain from the US is going to be astounding.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Hey, it was "Wine in Western Culture" -- and it definitely helped my later networking efforts!  🍷

 

Hey, I took it too.  It was 1 credit hour (I believe?) but worth it!

DeWine Supports Banning Smartphones in Schools

 

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is throwing his support behind a new bill that would require schools to create a policy banning students from using cellphones during the school day. 

 

State Sen. Jane Timken, R-Jackson Township, recently introduced Ohio Senate Bill 158, which would ban cellphones in schools. The bill had sponsor testimony Tuesday in the Ohio Senate Education Committee. 

 

“We need to be sure that our classrooms, frankly, are now cellphone free,” DeWine said. “We all know that screen time is very, very addictive. Just having a phone nearby means students are receiving constant notifications all day long.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/dewine-supports-banning-smartphones-in-schools-ocj1/

Ohio GOP Kill “Fair School Funding Plan”, Further Defunding Public Education

 

Advocates for Ohio public education have been fighting for the so-called Fair School Funding Plan to be continued in the next state budget. But Ohio House Republicans have nixed it in their version of the state budget passed last week.

 

Republican state Rep. Brian Stewart, the Ohio House Finance Committee chairman, said the House’s budget proposal passed Wednesday includes a $226 million increase from 2025 public education funding amounts.

 

Democratic legislators and education researchers say that still leaves public school funding underfunded by billions over the next two years, with more than 300 districts only receiving increases of $50 per student.

 

Gov. Mike DeWine’s budget proposal funded public education through the Fair School Funding Plan model, but his budget didn’t account for inflation, leaving advocates (and the plan’s co-creator) pressing for money to cover those costs.

 

The Ohio House went another way, forgoing the funding model that’s been in place for the last two budget cycles and was set to see its third and final phase-in this budget cycle.

 

The House draft included a provision that Republican leaders said provide property tax relief.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-kill-fair-school-funding-plan-further-defunding-public-education-ocj1/

We knew this was coming...

Ohio Republicans Want Ten Commandments in Public Classrooms

 

A measure moving through the Ohio Senate would direct public schools to display historical documents like the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. It also includes the Ten Commandments, a religious document. The measure is one example in a wave of state legislation attempting to roll back a bright line separating religious displays from public school classrooms.

 

The proposals take their cue from a bill in Louisiana requiring the display of the Ten Commandments. Five school districts challenged that law. A district court judge blocked it from taking effect, but only in those districts. The case is currently before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Ten Commandments law in Kentucky. But following a 2022 decision in favor of a high school football coach who regularly prayed with players at games, religious organizations sense an opening.

 

A Stateline report earlier this year found legislation modeled on Louisiana’s bill in 15 states. That list doesn’t include Ohio’s measure.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-republicans-want-ten-commandments-in-public-classrooms-ocj1/

Students Look Outside Ohio for Higher Ed Opportunities Following SB1 Passage

 

A new higher education law set to take effect this summer is causing high school students across the state to think twice about applying to Ohio colleges and universities. 

 

Ohio State University used to be high on Nakshatra Mohan’s list of potential colleges, but not since Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 1 into law at the end of last month.

 

Mohan, a junior at Brecksville–Broadview Heights High School in Cuyahoga County, wants to be a doctor and no longer has any interest in going to medical school in Ohio. 

 

“DEI and medical education has always been really important to having equitable doctors and equitable healthcare,” she said. “If that’s not the environment that I’m going to be in when I get to medical school, I don’t want to be here at all in Ohio.”

 

The new law will ban diversity efforts, regulate classroom discussion, prohibit faculty strikes, and regulate classroom discussion of “controversial” topics, among other things. The law applies to public universities and community colleges and is set to take effect in June. 

 

Mohan is now looking into applying to Northwestern University and schools in Chicago and New York “ because they do have more liberal policies, especially with DEI,” she said. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/students-look-outside-ohio-for-higher-ed-opportunities-following-sb1-passage-ocj1/

Report: Universal Pre-K Would Yield Economic Benefits for Ohioans

A paper issued last month by Scioto Analysis concluded that every dollar spent on universal pre-K in Ohio would produce $3.80 in benefits.

Unsurprisingly, most of that benefit comes in the form of greater future earnings of kids who attend pre-K and then show up to kindergarten prepared to learn, the analysis said.

“Seven dollars of every $10 of benefits generated by a universal prekindergarten program come from future labor market earnings of children,” Scioto Analysis Principal Rob Moore said in a written statement accompanying the report. “According to the evidence we have, universal prekindergarten could be a strong long-term economic development investment for Ohio.”

The Ohio state government doesn’t fund universal pre-K. Some cities, including Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, have funded pre-K programs that are less than universal. 

Head Start is a federal pre-K program, but in Ohio and most other states, eligibility is generally restricted to families living at or below federal poverty guidelines. For a family of four, that’s less than $42,000 a year.

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/report-universal-pre-k-would-yield-economic-benefits-for-ohioans-ocj1/

Copied from the SCOTUS forum

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

I'm a bit torn on this one as well, because the saving Constitutional grace of voucher schools is that the money follows the parents' choice, so the government isn't directly funding the schools. Same with education savings accounts or tax credits like Ohio's SGO tax credit. It's the individual choosing the ultimate destination of the money, and the government simply butts out and doesn't forbid the choice to go to a religious school. Charter schools implicate state and local governments more directly in terms of both oversight and flow of funds. There still might be enough independence there, or potentially there, to pass Constitutional muster, but I admit this is a closer call.

That said, on the substance, I think that major organized religions would probably do a better job educating students than some major for-profit charter school operators, and at the very least, it's high time those operators faced real competition from the private nonprofit sector (which, in practice, is dominated by religious organizations when it comes to running schools) rather than just hapless public schools.

"Competition" is not always the most cost-effective. Competition in health insurance has not stopped rates from rising faster than inflation. We can't effectively improve policing by having multiple private police departments in the city. It makes no sense to have private competition in firefighting, military, and other government functions that benefit the COMMUNITY. I would argue that it is not cost-effective to have multiple school systems, with multiple school buildings, etc. We don't send our kids to private schools for cost reasons, and different schools are not better or worse for the cost to run the school -- better schools are ones with wealthier parents.

Putting aside whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says about Oklahoma funding for charter schools, there is an aspect of Ohio law that makes a big difference -- the Ohio Constitution.

Ohio Constitution, Article VI, Section 2:

The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.

Arguably, "common schools" means schools receiving public funds must be subject to the same rules and regulations. Charter schools, public schools, and schools receiving voucher funds are each subject to different rules and regulations, and thus are not "common" schools. The Ohio Supreme Court has struck down the current school funding system multiple times since 1999. Ohio Executive and Legislative branches have disregarded the Judiciary on that point, and a majority of Ohio's citizens don't appear to mind. Even though it takes more than a majority to change the constitution, a simple majority can ignore it. (If we don't have to follow parts of the constitution that we don't agree with, why follow any of it? Should we be able to moot any provision of the state Constitution in this way?)

I can appreciate the feeling that we should allow parents to decide where a student goes to school. If we have a system of "common schools," all of which are subject to the same rules and regulations, and we pay for those schools by letting every student have a voucher and decide where they want to go to school, that would seem to meet the constitutional requirements. We can have a common fund to support school buildings and buses. "Common schools" that receive public funding should not be able to decline to admit any student who applies, every student must take the same state tests, meet the same state graduation requirements, and schools cannot dismiss a student for any reason other than what any other school could dismiss a student for.

But if we want some of that funding to go to religious schools we need to change that second part of this constitutional provision to allow religious schools to participate.

(Vouchers form "a part" of state funding, the schools can use those government funds however they want after accepting a student's voucher -- so there is an argument that current vouchers paid to religious schools also are in violation of the state constitution.)

Look at what competition did in the utilities. It made a competition break out to lock people into the crappiest contracts possible.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Copied from the SCOTUS forum

"Competition" is not always the most cost-effective. Competition in health insurance has not stopped rates from rising faster than inflation. We can't effectively improve policing by having multiple private police departments in the city. It makes no sense to have private competition in firefighting, military, and other government functions that benefit the COMMUNITY. I would argue that it is not cost-effective to have multiple school systems, with multiple school buildings, etc. We don't send our kids to private schools for cost reasons, and different schools are not better or worse for the cost to run the school -- better schools are ones with wealthier parents.

Putting aside whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says about Oklahoma funding for charter schools, there is an aspect of Ohio law that makes a big difference -- the Ohio Constitution.

Ohio Constitution, Article VI, Section 2:

Arguably, "common schools" means schools receiving public funds must be subject to the same rules and regulations. Charter schools, public schools, and schools receiving voucher funds are each subject to different rules and regulations, and thus are not "common" schools. The Ohio Supreme Court has struck down the current school funding system multiple times since 1999. Ohio Executive and Legislative branches have disregarded the Judiciary on that point, and a majority of Ohio's citizens don't appear to mind. Even though it takes more than a majority to change the constitution, a simple majority can ignore it. (If we don't have to follow parts of the constitution that we don't agree with, why follow any of it? Should we be able to moot any provision of the state Constitution in this way?)

I can appreciate the feeling that we should allow parents to decide where a student goes to school. If we have a system of "common schools," all of which are subject to the same rules and regulations, and we pay for those schools by letting every student have a voucher and decide where they want to go to school, that would seem to meet the constitutional requirements. We can have a common fund to support school buildings and buses. "Common schools" that receive public funding should not be able to decline to admit any student who applies, every student must take the same state tests, meet the same state graduation requirements, and schools cannot dismiss a student for any reason other than what any other school could dismiss a student for.

But if we want some of that funding to go to religious schools we need to change that second part of this constitutional provision to allow religious schools to participate.

(Vouchers form "a part" of state funding, the schools can use those government funds however they want after accepting a student's voucher -- so there is an argument that current vouchers paid to religious schools also are in violation of the state constitution.)

Agreed that competition is not always the most cost-effective. But schools don't analogize well to police or fire departments. Nor is the word "community" sufficient--it is necessary but not sufficient--to make the case for a government monopoly, particularly one as destructive and inefficient as far too many public schools have become in this day and age. Readily available, high-quality healthcare benefits the community, too, but that doesn't mean that the VA should be the only health provider in the country (and we should all shudder at that thought).

And if your definition of common schools prevailed, I don't see how the 2006 Ohio Supreme Court case on charter schools, State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents and Teachers v. Bd. of Edn., could have came out the way it did. Charter schools would have been declared unconstitutional then. They were held constitutional, with only one dissent. And school choice has become far more mainstream and successful in the years since 2006; it would likely be 7-0 now. I know there is litigation trying to overturn the EdChoice program in Ohio, but I think that effort is not only doomed in court to a similarly lopsided loss, but I think a constitutional amendment to overturn any adverse result would rapidly follow. EdChoice scholarships are too important to too many people now. And, of course, the umbrella group name, Vouchers Hurt Ohio, is truly ironically named; the result of overturning the voucher program would be to force many low-income students who have escaped dysfunctional, violent, sclerotic public school systems back into those systems, leaving only students from privileged families able to get a quality education. Public schools still get far more dollars per pupil, inflation-adjusted, than they did when the first voucher programs were piloted in Ohio; cost growth has not translated into improved results, to put it mildly.

Private schools don't have to pay all those buses to drive all over the county to pick kids up one-by-one and they often pay the teachers less than they would make working in a warehouse.

33 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Private schools don't have to pay all those buses to drive all over the county to pick kids up one-by-one

Not all public schools do, either. Legally, somehow Lakewood gets out of it. And Cleveland school kids take RTA, walk, bike or get rides to school. I realize they do have some school buses, but very few considering the size of the enrollment.

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

Not all public schools do, either. Legally, somehow Lakewood gets out of it. And Cleveland school kids take RTA, walk, bike or get rides to school. I realize they do have some school buses, but very few considering the size of the enrollment.

I believe the state only requires transportation for K-8 students living more than two miles from their assigned school.

Thanks to the way district consolidation went in the 1950's, I went to a large, low enrollment, very red rural school district in SW Ohio. After a few failed attempts to pass a operating levy, the district pulled high school bussing right as I started high school (along with eliminating any classes that weren't state requirements). School was 10 miles from my house via curvy, 55mph US 50. Walking wasn't an option, neither was biking - so freshman year my second-shift working mom had to interrupt her sleep in the morning to drive me, then pick me up right before going to work. Sophomore year was a bit less awful since we carpooled with a friend in the morning. We finally passed an income tax before I entered junior year. Busses were restored, but not much else.

I was pretty excited about the DeRolph ruling my senior year, hoping to prevent future generation from repeating my experience. Glad the state got that all figured out in the years since...

On 5/2/2025 at 3:09 PM, Gramarye said:

Agreed that competition is not always the most cost-effective. But schools don't analogize well to police or fire departments. Nor is the word "community" sufficient--it is necessary but not sufficient--to make the case for a government monopoly, particularly one as destructive and inefficient as far too many public schools have become in this day and age. Readily available, high-quality healthcare benefits the community, too, but that doesn't mean that the VA should be the only health provider in the country (and we should all shudder at that thought).

We have never had a monopoly -- only public schools -- in Ohio. (Although there are many rural places that only have a public school, but since COVID probably now have some access to an online school.)

In 2024, Ohio had 1.6m students. Of that, there are 117k charter school students, and 160k students receive vouchers. The state of Ohio spends about $11.6B for 1.3m public school students (about $8,923 per student) and $970M for 160k voucher students ($6,062) (K-8 students can receive a $6,165 voucher and secondary students can receive a $8,407). So yes, it looks voucher students are getting less than public school students on average.

Overall test score averages have generally been falling over the last twenty years, while education spending has increased. So I'm sympathetic to the view that "spending more money doesn't make all of our kids successful, so why are we spending more money?!"

https://www.ohiobythenumbers.com/#lead

As that report from Fordham shows, however, success on just about any metric is correlated with income, not education spending. In other words, on average, kids from well-off families do better in school than kids from poor families, even though more money is spent on school districts with higher poverty.

And vouchers are mostly going to students who are not in poverty.

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/politics/ohio-voucher-program-data-shows-nearly-90-of-participants-are-not-low-income/

If traditional measures of success, test scores, graduation rates, etc., are correlated with family income, the question is not "are state averages going up as the state overall spends more money" but "does more money for education make more of a difference for the poor"? Not "does more money make poor students AP stars" but does more money increase their rate of success? And success might be a combination of high school graduation, vocational training, and college completion rates rather than test scores alone.

(It costs more to educate kids from poor families -- they need free meals, basic healthcare, smaller class sizes, start off behind their wealthier peers, etc. -- but the state benefits in the long run from investing in their education.)

My primary position is not that we should not have vouchers but that if we're going to attach strings to public education dollars, those same strings should be attached to the dollars whether for public schools (or charter schools) or vouchers. One way to do that would be to eliminate all the state requirements on public schools that don't apply to voucher recipients -- I would think that conservatives would be sympathetic to that idea, reducing regulation.

15 minutes ago, Foraker said:

(It costs more to educate kids from poor families -- they need free meals, basic healthcare, smaller class sizes, start off behind their wealthier peers, etc. -- but the state benefits in the long run from investing in their education.)

My primary position is not that we should not have vouchers but that if we're going to attach strings to public education dollars, those same strings should be attached to the dollars whether for public schools (or charter schools) or vouchers. One way to do that would be to eliminate all the state requirements on public schools that don't apply to voucher recipients -- I would think that conservatives would be sympathetic to that idea, reducing regulation.

On your second point first: I certainly would be in favor, and of course administrative overhead (necessary for compliance with all those strings) is one obvious reason why increased per-pupil spending is diluted in terms of impact in the classroom. The Catholic school where I send my kids has a full-time administrative staff of three (for a school of 330+ kids), with another 1-2 on loan part time from the associated parish, as needed.

But I'm still surprised to hear you say that, and I even think that's a bit of a change in your previous position from years ago (maybe I'll go back on this thread when I have more time to refresh my memory). Because in particular, there is one category of rules that bind public schools that is considered foundational by public school advocates, that private schools are exempt from and it is by far their biggest structural advantage--the ability to expel and/or refuse students. Not curriculum, not religion, not low overhead, though those are all advantages. Public schools maintain dreams of rehabilitation of lost causes long past the point where the rational move is to cut out toxic elements for the benefit of everyone else--when the theoretical case for public investment in universal schooling meets the hard reality that some kids not only are not going to be lifted up, they're going to drag fellow students (and teachers) down with them because of violence and other antisocial behavior. The Akron Beacon Journal ran multiple articles last school year about the amount of police encounters with students for violent offenses on school grounds (I think I linked those in this thread, too, or maybe it was a related one). The only new family at our school that I've really gotten to talk with about why they left (I see them a lot more because their daughter is in my daughter's Girl Scouts troop now) didn't come here for curricular or even religious reasons (they're Methodist); they came for safety reasons. As the local public schools stand now, teachers don't just have class sizes that are too large, they have learning environments in which no rational outside observer could expect even the most conscientious and dedicated teachers to do their jobs.

On your first point: I think private schools also have access to either the subsidized government programs for school lunches or something very similar; school lunch is clearly offered at well below market price. (Though I don't know if we have a further program that makes it truly free to low-income students, come to think of it.) But when it comes to smaller class sizes, I don't think that there's such a huge difference in what poorer and wealthier kids need, it's more of a difference in what they get. Our largest classes are around 21 students and median is around 17. A close relative of mine is a public schoolteacher (in a comparatively well-off Columbus suburb, not a poor area) who routinely has to handle 25 at the high school level.

One way costs have gone up for schools is having to maintain all that IT infrastructure.

53 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

But I'm still surprised to hear you say that, and I even think that's a bit of a change in your previous position from years ago (maybe I'll go back on this thread when I have more time to refresh my memory). Because in particular, there is one category of rules that bind public schools that is considered foundational by public school advocates, that private schools are exempt from and it is by far their biggest structural advantage--the ability to expel and/or refuse students. Not curriculum, not religion, not low overhead, though those are all advantages. Public schools maintain dreams of rehabilitation of lost causes long past the point where the rational move is to cut out toxic elements for the benefit of everyone else--when the theoretical case for public investment in universal schooling meets the hard reality that some kids not only are not going to be lifted up, they're going to drag fellow students (and teachers) down with them because of violence and other antisocial behavior.

Look, I'm not fan of vouchers. If you want to send your kids to private school, go for it -- but I don't like that the government will give you money to do so. But I'm trying to find compromise. If you truly think that competition is what is going to make schools better, take the shackles off the public schools that make it harder for them to compete with private schools -- eliminate some of those regulations.

No doubt, a small number of kids can totally disrupt a classroom, and violent kids (particularly as they get older and bigger and stronger) are a huge problem and need to be out of the classroom and get some special help, absolutely. And both real and over-hyped fear of violent kids in public schools drives parents to move their kids to private schools. Absolutely.

Your implication that Christian schools are better because they can kick the problem kids to the curb is hard for me to wrap my head around. The lack of empathy is striking. I realize that some of the absolute hardest teachings of Christianity are to love your enemy, love the leper, love the worst of society. But you're mocking "dreams of rehabilitation of lost causes" and celebrating Christian schools for not doing so -- when it seems like Christian schools ought to be the ones serving those very kids that they're dismissing as un-saveable. That's the Christian message, that a kid is a "lost cause"? A kid. Wow.

Does that mean that every school must have the resources to help the problem kids? No. That would be cost-prohibitive as well. Public schools are the "schools of last resort" -- and that means that public schools need more counselors, more psychologists, more alternative programs -- more resources. They need more funding.

But don't be deluded into thinking that vouchers solve these problems -- they just let a small number of students run away from the problem (and only a small number, since most vouchers are not used by students in poverty who truly cannot otherwise afford it).

I don't expect that that will change, even if voucher dollars and public school dollars otherwise are treated equally. I am glad that there are still public schools that will continue to try to save the "lost" causes, because working to find better ways to help these kids while they are still kids is cheaper and better for our society in the long run than building more prisons.

1 hour ago, GCrites said:

One way costs have gone up for schools is having to maintain all that IT infrastructure.

I'm admittedly a troglodyte on this. Run fewer wires, kill more trees, and make some real books.

Next school year, my oldest child reaches the age in his school where a substantial amount more of the work moves to Chromebooks. I have unfortunately not yet reached the level of affluence and influence necessary to completely reorient the school's priorities and have them ditch the screens for communicating lessons in favor of paper. Or carved stone tablets. Or interpretive dance. Anything.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Look, I'm not fan of vouchers. If you want to send your kids to private school, go for it -- but I don't like that the government will give you money to do so. But I'm trying to find compromise. If you truly think that competition is what is going to make schools better, take the shackles off the public schools that make it harder for them to compete with private schools -- eliminate some of those regulations.

No doubt, a small number of kids can totally disrupt a classroom, and violent kids (particularly as they get older and bigger and stronger) are a huge problem and need to be out of the classroom and get some special help, absolutely. And both real and over-hyped fear of violent kids in public schools drives parents to move their kids to private schools. Absolutely.

Your implication that Christian schools are better because they can kick the problem kids to the curb is hard for me to wrap my head around. The lack of empathy is striking. I realize that some of the absolute hardest teachings of Christianity are to love your enemy, love the leper, love the worst of society. But you're mocking "dreams of rehabilitation of lost causes" and celebrating Christian schools for not doing so -- when it seems like Christian schools ought to be the ones serving those very kids that they're dismissing as un-saveable. That's the Christian message, that a kid is a "lost cause"? A kid. Wow.

Does that mean that every school must have the resources to help the problem kids? No. That would be cost-prohibitive as well. Public schools are the "schools of last resort" -- and that means that public schools need more counselors, more psychologists, more alternative programs -- more resources. They need more funding.

But don't be deluded into thinking that vouchers solve these problems -- they just let a small number of students run away from the problem (and only a small number, since most vouchers are not used by students in poverty who truly cannot otherwise afford it).

I don't expect that that will change, even if voucher dollars and public school dollars otherwise are treated equally. I am glad that there are still public schools that will continue to try to save the "lost" causes, because working to find better ways to help these kids while they are still kids is cheaper and better for our society in the long run than building more prisons.

You say I have lack of empathy for the troublemakers, but I think current public schools and their defenders have lack of empathy for the victims, particularly those on the margins where they haven't become one of the troublemakers themselves yet but could slide in that direction, and the existing troublemakers exert gravitational pull in that direction. But also for those who really do want to learn and can't because toxic presences are allowed to persist.

Christ commanded us to love our neighbors and our enemies (whether or not those two were the same), but He also didn't pull His punches when He spoke of separating the wheat from the chaff. There are plenty of other Biblical images one could invoke. The Church of Nice fallacy is persistent but not particularly Biblically grounded--nor, of course, does that have to directly influence how public schools respond to competition from religious alternatives.

But you are absolutely correct when you say that vouchers only let a small (or maybe medium-sized) number of students escape the problems rather than solving the problems. The issue is that I don't think any therapeutic options (you mentioned psychologists, counselors, and alternative options) are going to solve them at all, let alone cost-effectively. The concept of opportunity cost looms large here. I'm at the point now where I can no longer agree with the notion that "working to find better ways to help these kids while they are still kids is cheaper and better for our society in the long run than building more prisons." Keeping them in with other students--a vulnerable population--likely produces more criminals than it prevents, by dragging others from potentially better but harder paths into lower-denominator antisocial orbits, and even when it doesn't have that effect, how many future academic and career opportunities is it costing the innocent kids in the same classrooms? How many public school kids who could have been middle-class white-collar professionals are functionally losing that chance every year that we allow this dysfunction in their schools to continue? If we're going to treat education as a large-scale social investment--and at the level of taxpayer funding, that's exactly what it is--then sometimes toxic assets need to be shed in order to maximize the performance of the entire portfolio.

Like I've said before, it's not "bad schools" as much as it's bad networking. Schools can put up good numbers but if the only jobs their graduates wind up with are easy-to-get ones that you can get being from anywhere (such as frontline positions) it's not really a good school.

Edited May 5May 5 by GCrites

5 hours ago, Gramarye said:

But you are absolutely correct when you say that vouchers only let a small (or maybe medium-sized) number of students escape the problems rather than solving the problems. The issue is that I don't think any therapeutic options (you mentioned psychologists, counselors, and alternative options) are going to solve them at all, let alone cost-effectively. The concept of opportunity cost looms large here. I'm at the point now where I can no longer agree with the notion that "working to find better ways to help these kids while they are still kids is cheaper and better for our society in the long run than building more prisons." Keeping them in with other students--a vulnerable population--likely produces more criminals than it prevents, by dragging others from potentially better but harder paths into lower-denominator antisocial orbits, and even when it doesn't have that effect, how many future academic and career opportunities is it costing the innocent kids in the same classrooms?

First of all I agreed with you that problem kids need to be removed from the classrooms. I agree that disrupters disrupt and create problems for the majority. I said that they need help to not be a problem -- that does not require keeping them in the classroom. But that doesn't mean you just push them out of the system entirely, a la your Christian "those childs are chaff to be thrown to the wind." "I wipe my hands of them, let them find their way to prison."

How widespread is this problem of the Problem Child? You seem to think it is ubiquitous -- perhaps a couple of kids in every public school classroom? Entire classrooms in the inner city? I think it is rather rare -- perhaps one kid in 200, or fewer. We can "believe" whatever we want and never come to a true solution if we can't agree on what the facts are.

You suggest that therapeutic options are not a cost-effective solution. Based on what? How much do we spend and what is the "success" rate?

Mass incarceration is unsustainable too. $80B and counting.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/mass-incarceration-trends/

Ohio is just under 4% of US population -- perhaps we could spend 3.5% ($2.8B) on therapeutic options --- assistance for troubled youth -- and see if they would actually make a difference.

50 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Mass incarceration is unsustainable too. $80B and counting.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/mass-incarceration-trends/

Ohio is just under 4% of US population -- perhaps we could spend 3.5% ($2.8B) on therapeutic options --- assistance for troubled youth -- and see if they would actually make a difference.

This is just terrible use of statistics.

13 hours ago, Gramarye said:

This is just terrible use of statistics.

Deflecting from any consideration of the substance of the suggestion -- using a small percentage of the funds spent on incarceration to test whether "therapeutic options" for disruptive students makes a difference in future outcomes for those kids struggling with behavior issues in school would be a good use of state funds.

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

Deflecting from any consideration of the substance of the suggestion -- using a small percentage of the funds spent on incarceration to test whether "therapeutic options" for disruptive students makes a difference in future outcomes for those kids struggling with behavior issues in school would be a good use of state funds.

We were talking about the state education budget (which is around $12B), i.e., the topic of this thread, and you switched to talking about the national prison budget. That's problematic enough. If I were going to follow further down this rabbit hole, I'd have to note that the entire Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections budget for FY2024-2025 was $4.7B, so $2.8B is in no way a "small part" of that budget. There is no way that we're going to redirect $2.8B from either the education budget or the corrections budget to that kind of massive social experiment--even if we had people far more optimistic about the success of such endeavor than me in government.

I think all of us have had at least a little trouble with the switch to "if it's not a billion dollars it's not that important" that happened with everything involving the government and corporations during COVID

35 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

We were talking about the state education budget (which is around $12B), i.e., the topic of this thread, and you switched to talking about the national prison budget. That's problematic enough. If I were going to follow further down this rabbit hole, I'd have to note that the entire Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections budget for FY2024-2025 was $4.7B, so $2.8B is in no way a "small part" of that budget. There is no way that we're going to redirect $2.8B from either the education budget or the corrections budget to that kind of massive social experiment--even if we had people far more optimistic about the success of such endeavor than me in government.

That's fine, you can dismiss the amount at issue and the statistics and address the substance then.

You implied that voucher money is important to allow kids to escape schools with disruptive students that impair their education.

I suggested that those students should be removed from the classroom and given special assistance to get them back on track.

You said that that was not economically feasible, but provided no alternative other than an implication that public schools should let those kids blow in the wind, "like chaff."

I suggested that we spend more money on that special assistance in a trial to find out whether that special assistance is effective. If it is, I would argue for more funding in that direction, and if not, then I would argue that we should be trying something else. Kids behaving badly are still kids. Not trash to be thrown away.

Edited May 6May 6 by Foraker

Signatures Being Collected This Summer To Protect Education in Ohio

The first major hurdle to get a referendum on the November ballot to repeal Ohio’s massive higher education law has been cleared.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost certified the title and summary language for a referendum that would repeal Senate Bill 1, set to take effect at the end of June.

S.B. 1 bans diversity efforts, regulates classroom discussion, prohibits faculty strikes, creates post-tenure reviews, puts diversity scholarships at risk, and creates a retrenchment provision that blocks unions from negotiating on tenure, among other things. The law affects Ohio’s public universities and community colleges. 

“My certification of the title and summary… should not be construed as an affirmation of the enforceability and constitutionality of the referendum petition,” Attorney General Dave Yost said in a letter certifying the petition.

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/signatures-being-collected-this-summer-to-protect-education-in-ohio-ocj1/

Of course they do...

Ohio GOP Wants Diversity Ban in Grade Schools

Ohio House Republicans are trying to ban diversity and inclusion in K-12 schools. 

House Reps. Beth Lear, R-Galena, and Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Township, recently introduced House Bill 155. This is a companion bill to Ohio Senate Bill 113, which has had two hearings so far in the Senate Education Committee.

Both bills would require every local board of education in the state to adopt a policy that would end any current diversity and inclusion offices or departments and ban any diversity, equity, and inclusion orientation or training. It would also prevent the creation of any new such offices or departments and using DEI in job descriptions. 

Lear and Williams recently gave sponsor testimony on their bill to the Ohio House Education Committee. 

“The increasing incorporation of DEI programs has shifted the focus from educational fundamentals to ideological indoctrination,” Lear said. “These initiatives prioritize identity over ability, promote racial preferences over fairness, and undermine the principle of equal opportunity for all students.”

The pair of Republican lawmakers argued banning DEI would cause less division among students. 

“Through legislation like this, we hope to cultivate an educational environment that promotes unity and harmony among students, focusing on our commonalities rather than differences,” Williams said. “By treating all of our students and staff the same, we can allow our educators to focus on core academic subjects and ensure high-quality outcomes for every student in Ohio.”

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-gop-wants-diversity-ban-in-grade-schools-ocj1/

Ohio Lawmakers Want Phones Banned in Schools

Ohio students are one step closer to being banned from using cellphones during the school day.

The Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 158 by a vote of 30-2 during Wednesday’s Senate session. The bill would require schools to create a policy banning students from using cellphones during the school day. Ohio state Sens. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, and Beth Liston, D-Dublin, voted against the bill, which now goes to the Ohio House for consideration.

Ohio Sen. Jane Timken, R-Jackson Township, introduced the bill about a month ago. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine was quick to voice his support for it, saying last month that “we need to be sure that our classrooms, frankly, are now cellphone free.”

“This legislation is a common sense approach to unplug our children from the constant flow of distractions during the vital school time in which they are in the classroom,” Timken said during Wednesday’s Senate session. “It will boost in-person relationships and reduce distractions.” 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ohio-lawmakers-want-phones-banned-in-schools-ocj1/

Study: Free and Reduced Meals Reduces Food Insecurity Issues in Ohio

A recent study showed increases in free and reduced-price meals for students, including in Ohio, as some lawmakers attempt to get more of the meals paid for by the state.

The Food Research & Action Center’s study on the reach of school breakfast and lunch programs during the 2023-2024 school year showed participation in free and reduced-price school breakfast and lunch went up 9% in Ohio compared to the year before.

Participation went up nationwide as well, with nearly 12.2 million children participating in free or reduced-price school breakfasts and about 21.1 million children participating in school lunch programs.

“Ensuring that students are well-fed is part of safeguarding the health and well-being of our country’s children and supporting working families in every state,” the study stated.

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/study-free-and-reduced-meals-reduces-food-insecurity-issues-in-ohio-ocj1/

Hunger Free Campus Act Would Address Food Insecurity Problems at Ohio Colleges

A proposed bipartisan bill would help Ohio college students struggling with food insecurity. 

Ohio House Reps. Sean Patrick Brennan, D-Parma, and Jim Hoops, R-Napoleon, introduced Enact the Hunger Free Campus Act earlier this year and it had sponsor testimony Tuesday in the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee meeting. 

Ohio House Bill 157 would require the Chancellor of Higher Education to create the Hunger-Free Campus Grant Program and award hunger-free campus grants which could, for example, create an on-campus food pantry or a partnership with a local bank, provide students information about SNAP, have an emergency assistance grant available to students, or have a student meal plan credit donation program.

“A Hunger Free Campus program addresses these challenges directly by providing accessible resources and support systems tailored to meet students’ nutritional needs free from stigma,” Brennan said. “Such initiatives ensure that no student has to choose between paying the electric bill or buying textbooks or groceries, allowing them to concentrate fully on their education.”

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/hunger-free-campus-act-would-address-food-insecurity-problems-at-ohio-colleges-ocj1/

Thoughts & Prayers: Mandatory Moment of Silence Proposed for Public Schools

A proposed bill would require Ohio school districts to have a moment of silence every day. 

Ohio state Reps. Gary Click, R-Vickery, and Eric Synenberg, D-Beachwood, gave sponsor testimony on House Bill 187 Tuesday during the House Education Committee. 

State law currently allows teachers to have a moment of silence in the classroom, so this bill would change one word in the law — from may to shall, creating a new mandate. The bill leaves the implementation up to the teacher.

“This bill does not ask for much and is extremely non-prescriptive,” Click said in his sponsor testimony. “It does not say where, when, or how long. It just says simply a moment. … Mindfulness is becoming a lost art in the hustle and bustle of modern society and is a discipline worth teaching.”

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/thoughts-amp-prayers-mandatory-moment-of-silence-proposed-for-public-schools-ocj1/

Why do schools have to have so many rituals? Are they trying to turn it into church? Wait I think I answered my own question.