Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Jan
6
Educate Ohio amendment text, ca. 2005; forming an alliance for a 2007 amendment
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
First, as a treat, and evidence of my aging memory, here’s what I thought about Educate Ohio in December 2005, after reading the Meet the Bloggers transcript of a session with then Gov. candidate, Bryan Flannery. Interesting to read myself – laugh factor: high. But the post includes a helpful comment from Scott Piepho, so if I were you, I’d read for that alone. Note: I’m just as skeptical then as I am now.
Now, in this pdf, which I found on the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding website, I found more or less what I’ve been looking for: some explanation of what is and/or will be in the 11/07 amendment. Now, I’m not so tech savvy, and it’s in a pdf, and I don’t want to re-type it. So I’m just linking to it now until I take the time to print it out, scan it as an OCR and then insert the text (or find a free pdf to doc program, or figure out if I can do that myself).
Read about “Educate Ohio” on pages 5 & 6. I’m going to see if I can dig up the language for the newest incarnation (the language of the 2005 is just a couple of paragraphs down in this post), due to the inclusion of more stakeholders, to improve the chance it will pass, but I’ve yet to hear from anyone I’ve contacted to get it.
FYI, here’s video, for purchase it looks like, of Bryan Flannery discussing the amendment. And here’s an excellent Q & A pdf about the amendment from when Flannery was running for gov (Bryan – what do you think, what must he be thinking, right now about all this??)
Now, here’s an op-ed by Ohio legislator (R, term limited from Senate, now in House, 71st District, though that picture seems to be…not him?), Jay Hottinger, from 8/05 (same month we learn about the demise of the education oversight office), ripping into the amendment idea and saying it will set education back. “Back even more” is what I imagine he should have said. Here’s Hottinger less than a year ago on school funding. Not very clear, to be honest.
It appears the the EducateOhio.com website was taken down at some point, but this Hughes for America discusses it at length and provides the entire text of the amendment:
Here’s the full text of the Educate Ohio Amendment:
Be it resolved by the people of the State of Ohio:
Article VI, Section 7
Every school-age child in Ohio has a fundamental right, enforceable in the courts of Ohio, to a high quality public education. In order to protect this right and enforce state compliance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Article VI of this constitution, there is hereby established the Ohio educational opportunities commission (“commission”). The commission shall be composed of nineteen members, appointed by the governor, representing the diverse geographic regions and educational needs of Ohio, eleven of whom shall be employed as educators in school districts with publicly elected boards of education. The terms of commission members shall not be more than four years.
The commission shall biennially identify the educational components for high quality educational opportunities, predicated on high academic standards and research-based best practices, for all public school students at each instructional level and by type, meaning regular, special, and vocational/technical education and gifted, disadvantaged and other special needs students. The components shall include those learning opportunities, services, educational resources, transportation services, facilities, and interscholastic and co-curricular activities necessary to prepare students to function at the highest level of their abilities in post-high school educational programs and to successfully earn a suitable livelihood and shall, together with such additional requirements as imposed by law, represent the minimum levels of educational opportunities to which all students have a fundamental right. The first such determination of educational components for high quality educational opportunities shall be made within six months after the effective date of this amendment.
The state board of education shall biennially conduct expert studies and establish the total actual costs of the educational components for high quality educational opportunities identified by the commission together with the cost of all other requirements imposed by law and shall certify such costs to the general assembly. An inferential method shall not be used to establish such costs. The first determination of the total actual costs shall be made within fifteen months after the effective date of this amendment. The general assembly shall biennially provide funds to each school district equal to one hundred percent of the total actual costs as certified minus the proceeds from fifteen mills of local property taxes allowed by Section 8 of this Article.
Article VI, Section 8
All real property tax millage for school district current expenses exceeding fifteen mills of valuation as determined under current assessment and valuation laws as of January 1, 2005 shall be discontinued effective with the appropriations required by Article VI, Section 7 of this amendment. No school district shall receive a per pupil level of funding in any fiscal year less than that received in combined state revenue and local school district property taxes for current expenses during the most recent fiscal year prior to the first appropriation made pursuant to this amendment.
Inserting my typical skepticism: what will have to be swapped in and out to make the amendment successful? Wouldn’t it be supercool to have access to and see and review and give input on whatever the Coalition and the Alliance are planning to proffer instead of this 2005 version??
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:51 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Ohio Daily Blog: Doing the dance! Pictures from D.C.
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Thanks, Jeff! And happy new year! Can’t wait to hear the narration to the photos.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:17 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Alliance v. Coaltion – what’s the difference when it comes to Ohio school funding?
Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments
I hate having to work so hard for information I believe should be much more obvious. Then again, maybe I just didn’t look hard enough before, but, I am, now.
So – what’s the difference between Jim Betts’ Alliance for Adequate School Funding and Bill Phillis’ Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding? I’m not really sure except that the former has no website that I could find, though I did find this audit okayed by Betty Montgomery. I viewed the HTML version because it was faster. It includes a description of the entity on page 9.
The latter filed the original DeRolph suit, has a website, daily email updates and other information.
I haven’t yet figured out how together or opposite they are from one another, but I did come across information (could be very stale – there’s no year on it) that indicated that both would be present at a conference and give presentations on their positions. I might conclude from that information that their positions aren’t the same, but there’s just not enough to go on.
Phee Phi Pho Phum…or even Jason?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:55 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Jan
6
Release the proposed amendment language. Now.
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
This site, operated by Columbia University’s National Access Network at the Teachers College, contains page after page and link after link of information on all state, and therefore, of course, on Ohio. For exmaple:
This page provides links and some information that reflects numerous aspects of Ohio’s schools’ condition.
This page discusses the process of “costing out” and this page discusses the process in Ohio for NCLB.
This page explains the historical background of school funding in Ohio.
And the last item on this page mentions the recent efforts to float a constitutional amendment. That item says that the “official” amendment language is to be released this month.
Hmm – I’m an Ohioan with kids in Ohio’s public schools who follows or thought she followed Ohio education closely. Why am I learning about the amendment’s progress, process and near-end condition through blogs and websites, including one maintained by an Ivy League college 500 miles away?
Release the language. Now. Please.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:06 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Educate Ohio amendment text, ca. 2005; forming an alliance for a 2007 amendment
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
First, as a treat, and evidence of my aging memory, here’s what I thought about Educate Ohio in December 2005, after reading the Meet the Bloggers transcript of a session with then Gov. candidate, Bryan Flannery. Interesting to read myself – laugh factor: high. But the post includes a helpful comment from Scott Piepho, so if I were you, I’d read for that alone. Note: I’m just as skeptical then as I am now.
Now, in this pdf, which I found on the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding website, I found more or less what I’ve been looking for: some explanation of what is and/or will be in the 11/07 amendment. Now, I’m not so tech savvy, and it’s in a pdf, and I don’t want to re-type it. So I’m just linking to it now until I take the time to print it out, scan it as an OCR and then insert the text (or find a free pdf to doc program, or figure out if I can do that myself).
Read about “Educate Ohio” on pages 5 & 6. I’m going to see if I can dig up the language for the newest incarnation (the language of the 2005 is just a couple of paragraphs down in this post), due to the inclusion of more stakeholders, to improve the chance it will pass, but I’ve yet to hear from anyone I’ve contacted to get it.
FYI, here’s video, for purchase it looks like, of Bryan Flannery discussing the amendment. And here’s an excellent Q & A pdf about the amendment from when Flannery was running for gov (Bryan – what do you think, what must he be thinking, right now about all this??)
Now, here’s an op-ed by Ohio legislator (R, term limited from Senate, now in House, 71st District, though that picture seems to be…not him?), Jay Hottinger, from 8/05 (same month we learn about the demise of the education oversight office), ripping into the amendment idea and saying it will set education back. “Back even more” is what I imagine he should have said. Here’s Hottinger less than a year ago on school funding. Not very clear, to be honest.
It appears the the EducateOhio.com website was taken down at some point, but this Hughes for America discusses it at length and provides the entire text of the amendment:
Here’s the full text of the Educate Ohio Amendment:
Be it resolved by the people of the State of Ohio:
Article VI, Section 7
Every school-age child in Ohio has a fundamental right, enforceable in the courts of Ohio, to a high quality public education. In order to protect this right and enforce state compliance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Article VI of this constitution, there is hereby established the Ohio educational opportunities commission (“commission”). The commission shall be composed of nineteen members, appointed by the governor, representing the diverse geographic regions and educational needs of Ohio, eleven of whom shall be employed as educators in school districts with publicly elected boards of education. The terms of commission members shall not be more than four years.
The commission shall biennially identify the educational components for high quality educational opportunities, predicated on high academic standards and research-based best practices, for all public school students at each instructional level and by type, meaning regular, special, and vocational/technical education and gifted, disadvantaged and other special needs students. The components shall include those learning opportunities, services, educational resources, transportation services, facilities, and interscholastic and co-curricular activities necessary to prepare students to function at the highest level of their abilities in post-high school educational programs and to successfully earn a suitable livelihood and shall, together with such additional requirements as imposed by law, represent the minimum levels of educational opportunities to which all students have a fundamental right. The first such determination of educational components for high quality educational opportunities shall be made within six months after the effective date of this amendment.
The state board of education shall biennially conduct expert studies and establish the total actual costs of the educational components for high quality educational opportunities identified by the commission together with the cost of all other requirements imposed by law and shall certify such costs to the general assembly. An inferential method shall not be used to establish such costs. The first determination of the total actual costs shall be made within fifteen months after the effective date of this amendment. The general assembly shall biennially provide funds to each school district equal to one hundred percent of the total actual costs as certified minus the proceeds from fifteen mills of local property taxes allowed by Section 8 of this Article.
Article VI, Section 8
All real property tax millage for school district current expenses exceeding fifteen mills of valuation as determined under current assessment and valuation laws as of January 1, 2005 shall be discontinued effective with the appropriations required by Article VI, Section 7 of this amendment. No school district shall receive a per pupil level of funding in any fiscal year less than that received in combined state revenue and local school district property taxes for current expenses during the most recent fiscal year prior to the first appropriation made pursuant to this amendment.
Inserting my typical skepticism: what will have to be swapped in and out to make the amendment successful? Wouldn’t it be supercool to have access to and see and review and give input on whatever the Coalition and the Alliance are planning to proffer instead of this 2005 version??
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:51 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Vigorous discussion and news at Buckeye State Blog re: what’s going to happen with the school funding issue. I left this comment which indicates my concern about all the connections and names popping up re: pursuing a constitutional amendment to alter the formula.
What I didn’t get to write about last night was the topic of how, during the 126th legislative session in 2005, the Legislative Office of Education Oversight was eliminated and to what extent was that all in the plan, at least, the Republicans plan and the charter and voucher school proponents’ plan.
Now, the BSB post implies that the constitutional amendment approach began to be considered “all the way back” in 2005. Hmm, say, August ’05 when news of the oversight office’s elimination was coming out? Anyone think that the elimination of the oversight committee was coincidental with everything else going on re: school funding efforts and how different sides paint the others and with what available data?
Number one – let’s kill all the lawyers redux: number one? Let’s make sure there’s no data.
I don’t know – I really don’t actually know. I wasn’t following things so closely then. Who was and what can you tell us about that move and its connection to these current efforts re: revamping school funding formulas?
According to this 8/05 Akron Beacon Journal op-ed, by none other than Scott Piepho, the oversight office was the closest to keeping tabs on…charter schools. Don’t want to see what’s really going on with them in the big picture? Just get rid of the entity that oversees them. Read Scott’s entire piece – it’s excellent.
Should we check and see which lobbyists and which legislators were most involved in getting rid of the nonpartisan oversight entity? Anyone want to put money that White Hat and/or David Brennan shows up somehow? I don’t actually know, I’m just pointing this out.
What am I saying? Let’s not be fools and let’s all keep our eyes open, please. Jerid posits that lobbyist Betts – the repository for contract bids to help the organize and push the constitutional amendment for school funding – seems to be a “good guy” when it comes to solving the school funding issue.
Jerid also mentions that Eric Fingerhut’s name appears to be associated with the constitutional amendment efforts at some point or points. That interests me, I’m a big fan of Eric’s. However, Eric also supported OLE/Issue 3 and I disagreed with him on that, even though his position on it impacted me very much. Additionally, Eric is listed as one of the state senators who, in 9/05, sought to re-instate the LOEO (along with Fedor, Dann, Zurz, Roberts and Hagan) through SB 161 (it went no where). So any clarification from him directly or anyone else familiar with Eric’s efforts on behalf of school funding (I should look back at his MTB sessions) would be welcome (and not sneered at, promise).
As for Betts? Absolutely not yet would I consider him a “good guy.” Still, maybe, yes. But right now? No way. Not me. I need more – and I wouldn’t sneer at that either.
Pho – maybe you can help?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:09 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | 1 Comment
Print This Post
Jan
6
Alliance v. Coaltion – what’s the difference when it comes to Ohio school funding?
Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments
I hate having to work so hard for information I believe should be much more obvious. Then again, maybe I just didn’t look hard enough before, but, I am, now.
So – what’s the difference between Jim Betts’ Alliance for Adequate School Funding and Bill Phillis’ Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding? I’m not really sure except that the former has no website that I could find, though I did find this audit okayed by Betty Montgomery. I viewed the HTML version because it was faster. It includes a description of the entity on page 9.
The latter filed the original DeRolph suit, has a website, daily email updates and other information.
I haven’t yet figured out how together or opposite they are from one another, but I did come across information (could be very stale – there’s no year on it) that indicated that both would be present at a conference and give presentations on their positions. I might conclude from that information that their positions aren’t the same, but there’s just not enough to go on.
Phee Phi Pho Phum…or even Jason?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:55 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Jan
6
Release the proposed amendment language. Now.
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
This site, operated by Columbia University’s National Access Network at the Teachers College, contains page after page and link after link of information on all state, and therefore, of course, on Ohio. For exmaple:
This page provides links and some information that reflects numerous aspects of Ohio’s schools’ condition.
This page discusses the process of “costing out” and this page discusses the process in Ohio for NCLB.
This page explains the historical background of school funding in Ohio.
And the last item on this page mentions the recent efforts to float a constitutional amendment. That item says that the “official” amendment language is to be released this month.
Hmm – I’m an Ohioan with kids in Ohio’s public schools who follows or thought she followed Ohio education closely. Why am I learning about the amendment’s progress, process and near-end condition through blogs and websites, including one maintained by an Ivy League college 500 miles away?
Release the language. Now. Please.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:06 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Educate Ohio amendment text, ca. 2005; forming an alliance for a 2007 amendment
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
First, as a treat, and evidence of my aging memory, here’s what I thought about Educate Ohio in December 2005, after reading the Meet the Bloggers transcript of a session with then Gov. candidate, Bryan Flannery. Interesting to read myself – laugh factor: high. But the post includes a helpful comment from Scott Piepho, so if I were you, I’d read for that alone. Note: I’m just as skeptical then as I am now.
Now, in this pdf, which I found on the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding website, I found more or less what I’ve been looking for: some explanation of what is and/or will be in the 11/07 amendment. Now, I’m not so tech savvy, and it’s in a pdf, and I don’t want to re-type it. So I’m just linking to it now until I take the time to print it out, scan it as an OCR and then insert the text (or find a free pdf to doc program, or figure out if I can do that myself).
Read about “Educate Ohio” on pages 5 & 6. I’m going to see if I can dig up the language for the newest incarnation (the language of the 2005 is just a couple of paragraphs down in this post), due to the inclusion of more stakeholders, to improve the chance it will pass, but I’ve yet to hear from anyone I’ve contacted to get it.
FYI, here’s video, for purchase it looks like, of Bryan Flannery discussing the amendment. And here’s an excellent Q & A pdf about the amendment from when Flannery was running for gov (Bryan – what do you think, what must he be thinking, right now about all this??)
Now, here’s an op-ed by Ohio legislator (R, term limited from Senate, now in House, 71st District, though that picture seems to be…not him?), Jay Hottinger, from 8/05 (same month we learn about the demise of the education oversight office), ripping into the amendment idea and saying it will set education back. “Back even more” is what I imagine he should have said. Here’s Hottinger less than a year ago on school funding. Not very clear, to be honest.
It appears the the EducateOhio.com website was taken down at some point, but this Hughes for America discusses it at length and provides the entire text of the amendment:
Here’s the full text of the Educate Ohio Amendment:
Be it resolved by the people of the State of Ohio:
Article VI, Section 7
Every school-age child in Ohio has a fundamental right, enforceable in the courts of Ohio, to a high quality public education. In order to protect this right and enforce state compliance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Article VI of this constitution, there is hereby established the Ohio educational opportunities commission (“commission”). The commission shall be composed of nineteen members, appointed by the governor, representing the diverse geographic regions and educational needs of Ohio, eleven of whom shall be employed as educators in school districts with publicly elected boards of education. The terms of commission members shall not be more than four years.
The commission shall biennially identify the educational components for high quality educational opportunities, predicated on high academic standards and research-based best practices, for all public school students at each instructional level and by type, meaning regular, special, and vocational/technical education and gifted, disadvantaged and other special needs students. The components shall include those learning opportunities, services, educational resources, transportation services, facilities, and interscholastic and co-curricular activities necessary to prepare students to function at the highest level of their abilities in post-high school educational programs and to successfully earn a suitable livelihood and shall, together with such additional requirements as imposed by law, represent the minimum levels of educational opportunities to which all students have a fundamental right. The first such determination of educational components for high quality educational opportunities shall be made within six months after the effective date of this amendment.
The state board of education shall biennially conduct expert studies and establish the total actual costs of the educational components for high quality educational opportunities identified by the commission together with the cost of all other requirements imposed by law and shall certify such costs to the general assembly. An inferential method shall not be used to establish such costs. The first determination of the total actual costs shall be made within fifteen months after the effective date of this amendment. The general assembly shall biennially provide funds to each school district equal to one hundred percent of the total actual costs as certified minus the proceeds from fifteen mills of local property taxes allowed by Section 8 of this Article.
Article VI, Section 8
All real property tax millage for school district current expenses exceeding fifteen mills of valuation as determined under current assessment and valuation laws as of January 1, 2005 shall be discontinued effective with the appropriations required by Article VI, Section 7 of this amendment. No school district shall receive a per pupil level of funding in any fiscal year less than that received in combined state revenue and local school district property taxes for current expenses during the most recent fiscal year prior to the first appropriation made pursuant to this amendment.
Inserting my typical skepticism: what will have to be swapped in and out to make the amendment successful? Wouldn’t it be supercool to have access to and see and review and give input on whatever the Coalition and the Alliance are planning to proffer instead of this 2005 version??
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:51 pm January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Ohio legislature eliminated education oversight just as school funding amendment effort gearing up?
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Vigorous discussion and news at Buckeye State Blog re: what’s going to happen with the school funding issue. I left this comment which indicates my concern about all the connections and names popping up re: pursuing a constitutional amendment to alter the formula.
What I didn’t get to write about last night was the topic of how, during the 126th legislative session in 2005, the Legislative Office of Education Oversight was eliminated and to what extent was that all in the plan, at least, the Republicans plan and the charter and voucher school proponents’ plan.
Now, the BSB post implies that the constitutional amendment approach began to be considered “all the way back” in 2005. Hmm, say, August ’05 when news of the oversight office’s elimination was coming out? Anyone think that the elimination of the oversight committee was coincidental with everything else going on re: school funding efforts and how different sides paint the others and with what available data?
Number one – let’s kill all the lawyers redux: number one? Let’s make sure there’s no data.
I don’t know – I really don’t actually know. I wasn’t following things so closely then. Who was and what can you tell us about that move and its connection to these current efforts re: revamping school funding formulas?
According to this 8/05 Akron Beacon Journal op-ed, by none other than Scott Piepho, the oversight office was the closest to keeping tabs on…charter schools. Don’t want to see what’s really going on with them in the big picture? Just get rid of the entity that oversees them. Read Scott’s entire piece – it’s excellent.
Should we check and see which lobbyists and which legislators were most involved in getting rid of the nonpartisan oversight entity? Anyone want to put money that White Hat and/or David Brennan shows up somehow? I don’t actually know, I’m just pointing this out.
What am I saying? Let’s not be fools and let’s all keep our eyes open, please. Jerid posits that lobbyist Betts – the repository for contract bids to help the organize and push the constitutional amendment for school funding – seems to be a “good guy” when it comes to solving the school funding issue.
Jerid also mentions that Eric Fingerhut’s name appears to be associated with the constitutional amendment efforts at some point or points. That interests me, I’m a big fan of Eric’s. However, Eric also supported OLE/Issue 3 and I disagreed with him on that, even though his position on it impacted me very much. Additionally, Eric is listed as one of the state senators who, in 9/05, sought to re-instate the LOEO (along with Fedor, Dann, Zurz, Roberts and Hagan) through SB 161 (it went no where). So any clarification from him directly or anyone else familiar with Eric’s efforts on behalf of school funding (I should look back at his MTB sessions) would be welcome (and not sneered at, promise).
As for Betts? Absolutely not yet would I consider him a “good guy.” Still, maybe, yes. But right now? No way. Not me. I need more – and I wouldn’t sneer at that either.
Pho – maybe you can help?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:09 am January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Alliance v. Coaltion – what’s the difference when it comes to Ohio school funding?
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
I hate having to work so hard for information I believe should be much more obvious. Then again, maybe I just didn’t look hard enough before, but, I am, now.
So – what’s the difference between Jim Betts’ Alliance for Adequate School Funding and Bill Phillis’ Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding? I’m not really sure except that the former has no website that I could find, though I did find this audit okayed by Betty Montgomery. I viewed the HTML version because it was faster. It includes a description of the entity on page 9.
The latter filed the original DeRolph suit, has a website, daily email updates and other information.
I haven’t yet figured out how together or opposite they are from one another, but I did come across information (could be very stale – there’s no year on it) that indicated that both would be present at a conference and give presentations on their positions. I might conclude from that information that their positions aren’t the same, but there’s just not enough to go on.
Phee Phi Pho Phum…or even Jason?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:55 am January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Release the proposed amendment language. Now.
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
This site, operated by Columbia University’s National Access Network at the Teachers College, contains page after page and link after link of information on all state, and therefore, of course, on Ohio. For exmaple:
This page provides links and some information that reflects numerous aspects of Ohio’s schools’ condition.
This page discusses the process of “costing out” and this page discusses the process in Ohio for NCLB.
This page explains the historical background of school funding in Ohio.
And the last item on this page mentions the recent efforts to float a constitutional amendment. That item says that the “official” amendment language is to be released this month.
Hmm – I’m an Ohioan with kids in Ohio’s public schools who follows or thought she followed Ohio education closely. Why am I learning about the amendment’s progress, process and near-end condition through blogs and websites, including one maintained by an Ivy League college 500 miles away?
Release the language. Now. Please.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:06 am January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Ohio legislature eliminated education oversight just as school funding amendment effort gearing up?
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Vigorous discussion and news at Buckeye State Blog re: what’s going to happen with the school funding issue. I left this comment which indicates my concern about all the connections and names popping up re: pursuing a constitutional amendment to alter the formula.
What I didn’t get to write about last night was the topic of how, during the 126th legislative session in 2005, the Legislative Office of Education Oversight was eliminated and to what extent was that all in the plan, at least, the Republicans plan and the charter and voucher school proponents’ plan.
Now, the BSB post implies that the constitutional amendment approach began to be considered “all the way back” in 2005. Hmm, say, August ’05 when news of the oversight office’s elimination was coming out? Anyone think that the elimination of the oversight committee was coincidental with everything else going on re: school funding efforts and how different sides paint the others and with what available data?
Number one – let’s kill all the lawyers redux: number one? Let’s make sure there’s no data.
I don’t know – I really don’t actually know. I wasn’t following things so closely then. Who was and what can you tell us about that move and its connection to these current efforts re: revamping school funding formulas?
According to this 8/05 Akron Beacon Journal op-ed, by none other than Scott Piepho, the oversight office was the closest to keeping tabs on…charter schools. Don’t want to see what’s really going on with them in the big picture? Just get rid of the entity that oversees them. Read Scott’s entire piece – it’s excellent.
Should we check and see which lobbyists and which legislators were most involved in getting rid of the nonpartisan oversight entity? Anyone want to put money that White Hat and/or David Brennan shows up somehow? I don’t actually know, I’m just pointing this out.
What am I saying? Let’s not be fools and let’s all keep our eyes open, please. Jerid posits that lobbyist Betts – the repository for contract bids to help the organize and push the constitutional amendment for school funding – seems to be a “good guy” when it comes to solving the school funding issue.
Jerid also mentions that Eric Fingerhut’s name appears to be associated with the constitutional amendment efforts at some point or points. That interests me, I’m a big fan of Eric’s. However, Eric also supported OLE/Issue 3 and I disagreed with him on that, even though his position on it impacted me very much. Additionally, Eric is listed as one of the state senators who, in 9/05, sought to re-instate the LOEO (along with Fedor, Dann, Zurz, Roberts and Hagan) through SB 161 (it went no where). So any clarification from him directly or anyone else familiar with Eric’s efforts on behalf of school funding (I should look back at his MTB sessions) would be welcome (and not sneered at, promise).
As for Betts? Absolutely not yet would I consider him a “good guy.” Still, maybe, yes. But right now? No way. Not me. I need more – and I wouldn’t sneer at that either.
Pho – maybe you can help?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:09 am January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
Peek into school funding amendment language
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
State Board of Education Meets: The State Board of Education, Sue
Westendorf president, met on November 12- 14, 2006 in Columbus, OH.
On Sunday afternoon the Territory Transfer Committee chaired by Michael
Cochran met to hear presentations regarding the Groveport Madison School
District and the Switzerland of Ohio Local School District. There was not a
quorum, and so no votes were taken.
On Sunday evening the School Funding Subcommittee met and was chaired by
Jennifer Stewart and facilitated by Paolo De Maria, Associate Superintendent
– Center for School Finance. Jim Betts from the Ohio Alliance for Adequate
School Funding was invited to the meeting to inform the Subcommittee about
the work of several groups proposing a constitutional amendment on funding
schools. The supporters include the major education organizations, such as
OSBA, BASA, Ohio PTA, the Coalition for Equity and Adequacy, OEA, and OFT,
and also a group of mayors called the Mayor’s Roundtable. Although some
components of the proposed amendment are still being debated, proponents of
the constitutional amendment expect to submit the proposal to the Ohio
Attorney General as early as January 2007. Once the language is certified,
the petitions can be printed and distributed for the signature collection
process to begin. Proponents anticipate that the amendment will be on the
November 2007 ballot.
The School Funding Subcommittee also reviewed comments from the field
regarding a document called “Interim Statement of Principles and
Recommendation Concepts”. This document is part of a report that the
Subcommittee is preparing on school funding, and combines the discussions of
the Subcommittee with research and the responses from regional meetings on
school funding that were hosted by members of the State Board of Education
last year. The draft document currently includes the Introduction,
Principles, and Recommendation Concepts, but a summary of research on school
finance and the results of the regional meetings on school funding, will
also be added.Discussion about the document focused on the comments and feedback from the
field that had been received regarding the draft principles and
recommendations. The feedback included many questions about who would
define the terms and the best practices mentioned in the document, and
whether or not there would be changes made to the state’s accountability
system. There were also questions raised about the definition of
“underperforming students”, and how to focus resources to meet the needs of
all students, not just those who do poorly on tests. Questions about
implementation of the recommendations and the timeline were also included in
the field responses, and some questioned why the document did not address
tax policies.
Overall the comments from the field were supportive of the work in general,
but there was also much confusion expressed regarding certain terms,
responsibilities, and implementation of the recommendations. Subcommittee
members agreed that there must be better communication about the document
and its purpose. This is a concepts document and its recommendations must
reflect the views of stakeholders. There needs to be a section with the
next steps and a timeline outlined. Certain concepts and definitions need
to be defined more carefully, and stakeholders need to be involved in the
entire process. There was also a discussion about how the principles
outlined in the document could be used by the State Board of Education to
assess the proposed constitutional amendment on school funding, which was
discussed earlier that evening. The next draft will be ready for the
Subcommittee to review in December. In the mean time comments about the
draft are still being accepted.
Those notes and questions arose from a mid-NOVEMBER meeting. Less than two months ago. They have all that worked out for a nice, airtight solution via constitutional amendment, already?
I’m feeling very OLE about this.
Btw, why, you may wonder, is Mr. Betts’ name highlighted? Because the document to which RAB links indicates that Betts is the point person for whomever or whichever entity decides to manage the amendment’s petition drive. Hmm, let me think now…what was the name of that company that did it for OLE….Friday night forgetfulness, I actually can’t remember though it’s on the tip of my frontal lobe, or something.
PS – Anyone know if this is the same Jim Betts?
In 1980, Glenn won re-election to the seat, defeating Republican challenger Jim Betts.
PPS Check this out from Hired Guns.
I’m waiting for the obligatory “You don’t have a clue” comment since really, I’m just doing things the old way, i.e., putting two and two together via research. But I only made it to calculus so my math skills? Not so great.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:35 am January 6th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jan
6
I knew from previous years that Ohio and NEO in particular maintain superb libraries (I love the staff, personally), but now Norm Roulet posts a batch of good news about Cleveland. There are some not so good items in there too that reinforce what we know we need to fix, but overall, nice news. Thanks, Norm.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:43 am January 6th, 2007 in Politics | 7 Comments
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
