Ohio should adopt education savings accounts

Photo Credit: Independent Institute

Let's face it, the demographics are not on our side.

Based upon 2030 census projections, there will be a large increase in the number of K-12 students in the United States.  The under-18 population is projected to increase 11.3 million by 2030, while Ohio's youth population is projected to decrease by about 100,000.

But that doesn't mean Ohio won't have issues with education because the over-65 population is going to continue it's current trend in the state and increase.

And what happens when the Baby Boomers (born between 1944 and 1964) reach 65? They become eligible for property tax breaks, homestead exemptions and, because they are on "fixed" incomes, less likely to support increased school funding via levies.

The bottom line is that school districts will have less funding while many in the state see an increase in the number of students.

The same old - same old, won't work ... which is why Ohio should follow Arizona and Florida in establishing an educational savings account (ESA) for all K-12 children.

Ohio is already known for the number of school choice options it has available, but an ESA could replace them all and give all parents (not just certain ones) a choice for their child's education.

ESAs work very much like a 529 college savings account, except it's the state, not the parent, adding funds to the account.

It works like this:

The state sets an amount of funding for each school-aged child.  Sometimes it's the exact amount the state would give a local school on a per-pupil basis; sometimes it's a little bit less.

The money is deposited into an ESA account and the parent can draw upon those funds for certain approved items - everything from private school tuition to tutoring to transportation to special enrichment classes that aren't offered at the local school. They can even use it for college classes while still in high school.

Anything not spent in a year rolls over and accumulates in the child's name.

The states already operate a similar system with food stamps, giving out debit-like cards to be used only for approved purchases, so this concept shouldn't be too hard to implement.

Yes, there are a lot of stories about waste, fraud and abuse in the food stamp EBT card system, but the lessons states have learned about preventing those should help them devise a similar robust system for ESAs.

Plus, having Arizona and Florida to turn to, there will be even more good advice on how to design and implement such a system in Ohio.

The future educational options should be more than just government-funded coupons that allow parents to choose between public and private schools.

We need to think about education as more than just an assembly line that we run kids through based upon their physical age.  ESAs would work well to allow parents to tailor the education to the needs of the child.

Of course there will be a lot of opposition to such a massive change - primarily from public school districts who have had a monopoly on education for so long.

But if those public school districts - teachers and administrators - really want what's best "for the children," they should allow every child to have a choice and then compete with the other options for the students.

It's certainly doable and it would allow children to have the education that best suits them - but it would take considerable political will and personal strength to make such a massive change in the structure of K-12 education.

Does Ohio have such a champion?  Probably not now. But, as the demographics show, we're going to have to do something soon or the children will be the ones who suffer the most.

If Pickett were a charter school, it'd be closed by now

"Whenever people talk glibly of a need to achieve educational "excellence," I think of what an improvement it would be if our public schools could just achieve mediocrity."  ~  Thomas Sowell

Toledo Public School's Pickett Academy has been in
academic emergency or failing for more than a decade.

I recently came across this quote and thought it was perfect to explain what is going on at Pickett Academy, formerly known as Pickett Elementary, in Toledo, Ohio.

But it's also a good quote to explain what's going on in Ohio in general as the legislature considers new rules for charter schools.

Let's start with Pickett.

Pickett used to be kindergarten through sixth grade, but was recently changed, as part of an overall restructuring of the Toledo Public Schools. It now goes to eighth grade.

For more than 12 years, Pickett has been failing. It was in academic emergency under the old state grading system and has had a failing grade since the new school report cards have been issued.

In 2011-12, the school met none of the performance indicators and did not meet the "adequate yearly progress" indicator.

In 2012-13, under the new letter grades, the school received a D on its Performance Index (which measures the test results of every student) and an F on Indicators Met (which tells how many students passed the state tests at a minimum level).

In order to "meet" an indicator, at least 75% of students must pass the test.

The school met zero - none - of the 14 indicators during the 2012-13 school year.

It also scored an F for Gap Closing, which tells if every student is succeeding regardless of income, race, culture or disability. The state set an Annual Measurable Objective of 83.4% in math and 78.5% in reading. Pickett's overall score in reading was 53.3% and was 36.4% in math.

So what happened in the 2013-14 school year?  More of the same.

Another D on the Performance Index. Another F on Indicators Met with, again, none of the 14 indicators achieved. And another F in Gap Closing.

You would think, with scores and grades like these over more than a decade, that students who would attend Pickett would be taking advantage of the Ohio EdChoice Scholarship.

The EdChoice Scholarships give options to kids who are, or would be attending, an underperforming school.  Parents can use the scholarship to send their child to participating private schools.

So how many students who would have been stuck in this particular failing school have opted for a better education?

That's a good question. According to a spokesman at the Ohio Department of Education, data on the number of EdChoice Scholarships issued by underperforming school is available. As soon as they email the information, it will be included in this blog post.

Regardless of the number of students leaving, it is certain that not all students at Pickett are doing poorly, just that a vast majority of them are.

Which brings us back to the quote - and the Ohio General Assembly.

There are a lot of people up in arms about the performance of charter schools - which are also public schools - especially after a pretty negative report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Fordham was the first non-profit agency to be approved by the Ohio Department of Education as a sponsor of community schools. Fordham's report, released in December, said that "too often Ohio's charters have produced mediocre results" and that, on average, charter school students "make less academic progress than their district counterparts."

Fordham made several recommendations for improvement and some are included in House Bill 2 and as part of Gov. John Kasich's budget recommendations.

Certainly, poorly performing schools should not be allowed to continue to crank out poorly educated students. And an examination of public charter schools is not only valid, but necessary.  Parents need this information - and information on traditional public schools - so they can make good decisions for their children and find a school that best fits them.

But among all the angst and hand-wringing over charter schools that don't do well after three years, a lot of politicians, teachers unions, special interest groups and lobbyists are ignoring schools like Pickett that have been failing students for more than a decade.

In fact, if Pickett had been held to the same standard as existing charter schools, it would have closed quite some time ago.

For instance, in the 2013-14 school year, charter schools serving up to third grade would automatically be closed if, for two of the last three years, the school had been in Academic Emergency. While Pickett now serves up to eighth grade, it's been in Academic Emergency for over a decade.

The problem isn't that so many kids are stuck in failing schools without options, or that charter schools aren't doing as well as other public schools, or that parents cannot afford a private school education - though all these are, indeed, problems parents and communities face.

The bigger problem is that the various school options are not held to similar, much less the same, standards.

According to a December 2011 report from the Center for Education Reform, between 1997 and 2011, nearly 100 (99 to be exact) charters were closed for failing to meet their obligations. A January 12 Columbus Dispatch article noted that closings are now over 150.

There are 233 schools on the current List of Designated Public Schools, the schools that are underperforming and have been failing for at least two of the last three years.  Students who attend, or would be slated to attend, those schools are the ones eligible for EdChoice Scholarships.

Interestingly, the List has a "Closing" column, which identifies schools that are in the process of being closed.

Guess how many of those 233 failing schools are closing.

None.

THAT is the problem. Traditional public schools which are failing students are allowed to remain open while the other public education option - charter schools - must close when they fail.

Now, if the traditional public schools weren't failing overall, or just failing to meet the needs of specific students, there wouldn't been a "need" for other options, though there would still exist a "want."

No school can be all things for all students, which is why school choice is so important to parents and students.

But if we're not going to open the doors so wide that ALL students can have a choice, then the least we can do is ensure that traditional public schools are treated the same as charter public schools and close down the ones that are continually failing to meet even the most basic of standards - like Pickett.

After all - it's "for the children."

Smoking bans - coming soon to a park near you

I always hesitate to write about this topic for fear that some local nanny state government will decide to copy the idea. But if we don't educate ourselves about such efforts, they will continue unabated.

My husband's been doing some work in Pennsylvania and has brought me several newspapers from the area. In a recent Lancaster, PA, paper, I read an article about a plan to ban smoking in parks.

An effort to stamp out smoking in public places was introduced in Mountville Borough on Monday, but officials took no action.

Angela Trout, communications coordinator for the Lancaster YWCA, and Mary LeVasseur, manager of community health and wellness for Lancaster General Health, presented details of the Young Lungs at Play initiative to borough council members.

"One of our initiatives is to have smoke-free, tobacco free outdoor areas," LeVasseur said.

The program seeks to ban smoking in all municipal-owned open areas and parks in the county.

From what I could find on line, the Young Lungs At Play program is primarily in Pennsylvania and New York - so far. Soon, however, I'm sure it will be coming to a town near you.

When smoking bans first started, they were only going to be in airplanes - an enclosed area where people couldn't get away from the smoke. Then they extended to restaurants and other eateries, and to public buildings and then to entrances to public buildings. Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine and Oregon, and also Puerto Rico - have banned smoking in cars when children are present.

And now, under the convenient 'for the children' excuse, towns are banning smoking outside.

You can see that those who warned of a slippery slope were, indeed, correct.

Don't get me wrong - I don't smoke and don't like inhaling it, second-hand or otherwise. I find it to be a vile practice and hate that too many smokers believe the entire world is their ashtray so they leave their butts everywhere. I've known polite smokers (whom I appreciate) and rude ones. I believe much of the problems with smoking and the desire for smoking bans relates more to a lack of manners than anything else.

I don't have a problem with a private business - even one open to public accommodation - making their business smoke-free. And I don't have a problem with a local government deciding that their office buildings and work environment will be smoke-free.

What I do have a problem with is the imposition, through the force of government, of someone else's choice on me and others, even when it is one I agree with.

Because I didn't like the smell of smoke and the way it lingered on my clothes and in my hair, I didn't go to bars. I made a choice based upon my own wants to not subject myself to such an environment. There were plenty of others who chose differently, as is their option in a free society.

But along came the busybodies - people who decided they knew better than the rest of us - who pushed to have their non-smoking preference mandated and enforced by government through threat of criminal sanctions.

And, not surprisingly, there were plenty of politicians and newspaper editorial boards (who also hand out endorsements to the politicians) ready to jump on the bandwagon to exercise control over what should have been handled by a free market and a private property owner's business decision-making.

Yes - I do believe that a free-market solution existed. I do believe that increasing amounts of non-smokers would have influenced the decisions of business owners to make their establishments smoke-free. And while it might have resulting in some places being completely smoke-free while others were not, this is the path I would have chosen. People could then patronize only those places that served their interests - as it should be in a free market.

But just when others were beginning to think along the same lines, "for the children' comes along - and no one wants to be (gasp!) against children!

So now we have more busybodies pushing towns to outlaw smoking outside to "protect children from the effects of secondhand smoke" and preserve "green spaces as a model for a healthy lifestyle." See? They obviously know better than you do.

But do they?

Supporters of outdoor smoking bans will point to studies that say any exposure to smoke is harmful, especially to people with certain conditions like asthma or other breathing issues.

But one of the studies referenced by many groups, has details that aren't always shared by smoking ban supporters.

"We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns," said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. "For example, if you're at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke."

Unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, the researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly when a cigarette is extinguished. "Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower," Klepeis added.

"...outdoor smoke disappears rapidly..."
"...if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker..."
These are the two points rarely mentioned by outdoor smoking ban supporters.

So if you're outside at a park and there is a smoker there, just move away from him. Or, if the smoker is upwind of the playground equipment, politely ask if they wouldn't mind moving to a downwind position.

As I've found most smokers respond well to being asked politely to accommodate others, common courtesy - from both the smoker and the requesster - could easily address outdoor smoking and (gasp!) without the involvement of government. See how easy that is?

There are costs associated with making a law to ban smoking in public parks. Legal fees and advertising costs to adopt and publicize a new law could be a challenge for some towns, especially smaller ones or those that have budget problems.

Never fear, though. In the time-proven approach, the Mountville supporters of the smoking ban are perfectly willing to accept incrementalism:

At the very least, she (Trout) said municipalities could look at establishing designated smoking areas that are not near areas where children play.

Just like with restaurants, they'll start with designated smoking areas and then keep moving the ball down the field. And after they get this law, they will find that further protection of the children is necessary. 'We've done so much to protect children in public, but the real problem is what they're exposed to in private,' they'll say.

Think about it - who brings children to the park? Their parents. And if the child's parents don't smoke, it's likely that they'll be exposed to smoke from the parents of their friends and neighbors.

So what is a nanny state supposed to do? Well, ban smoking at home, of course. It's already being supported and suggested by individuals in the U.S, as well as by publications from the National Institutes of Health. After all, it's "for the children."

Let's not forget Obamacare, either. When the government controls your health care, they'll control your health habits, as well.

To a nanny state, and increasingly to people within the nanny state, this makes perfect sense. If the government (taxpayer) is going to cover the costs of your medical treatments, they have every 'right' to tell you how to live and what things you are allowed to do to reduce the costs of your care - costs that everyone (well, taxpayers) are covering.

And since government is all about a one-size-fits-all approach, banning unhealthy behavior is clearly the best way to go about regulating medical costs.

Yes, this is a slippery slope.

My solution would be easier and wouldn't result in an erosion of liberty for everyone: don't cover the health costs of anyone and they'll be more likely to be responsible in their health choices and/or be willing to suffer the consequences of bad decisions. See how easy that is? And it's so much better and cheaper than creating a law to ban anything and everything that might cause one (or some) people harm while not impacting others.

But the goal in these efforts is NOT freedom.

Sadly, too many Americans just don't understand the slope they're on.

Friday Roundup: smoking in cars, child labor, and racists

* Democratic Sen. Charleta Tavares of Columbus has introduced a bill to ban smoking in cars where children younger than six are present. She believes the smoke in the cars is more harmful because it's concentrated in a small area. Of course, that only applies if the windows are closed.

Introduced on Feb. 1, S.B. 27:

The bill prohibits any person from smoking in any motor vehicle in which a child under six years of age is a passenger. For purposes of the bill, "smoke" means "to inhale, exhale, burn, or carry any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted smoking device for burning tobacco or any other plant."

Whoever smokes in a motor vehicle when a child under six years of age is a passenger is subject to a $500 fine on a first offense; on each subsequent offense, the offender is subject to a fine of $500 plus $250 for each subsequent violation.

Law enforcement would have a hard time determining the age of child as a car with a smoker goes by, so how, exactly, they see enforcement of this is beyond me. Does Sen. Tavares think the police should just stop every car in order to find out how old a child might be?

And what about profiling? Will more women get tickets because they're more likely to be driving with a child in the car? What about minorities? I found this government report that shows Blacks and Asians smoke more than whites - will this bill target such ethnic groups because they are more likely to be smokers?

Remember when we were told that they were just going to ban smoking on planes? Then they started requiring smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, then they banned smoking in public buildings and areas, then they banned smoking in restaurants and now they want to ban smoking in cars with kids. Do you think they'll next ban smoking in homes with kids?

This is a slippery slope - and no matter how much you like or dislike smoking, or smoke-free areas, the goals can be accomplished without government mandates. But too often, people turn to government first to force their biases and preferences on others.

It is a slippery slope, with government creeping into your life in various ways until one day you wake up and your liberties are gone - all in the name of safety and 'you're own good.'

* The Department of Labor wants to ban children under the age of 16 from from operating tractors and other machinery and working with livestock. As CNSNews reports:

“This is what happens when big city bureaucrats try to craft policies for rural America,” Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said of the proposals.

Rehberg, who has become of the proposal’s most ardent opponents, criticized the Labor Department for drafting regulations that he says are unnecessary.

“(The) most effective way to become a safe and effective operator of farm implements is to learn at a young age under the guidance of a knowledgeable and careful instructor,” he said.

Farm groups like the South Dakota Farmers Union have also joined in the protest.

“Our children are our greatest resource for continuing family agricultural operations. Without being allowed to learn the day-to-day operation of the farm or ranch, the future of rural America would be in jeopardy.” said in official comments on Dec. 1.

See? It's for the children... And if it saves just one life... And it's for your own good... and if the government doesn't act, someone could get hurt...

Also from the article:

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 gives the Labor Secretary power to determine both what is “suitable” and “hazardous or detrimental” labor for children.

So we put a bureaucrat in charge of determining what is "suitable" for our kids. No wonder we get laws like the proposed one from Tavares above.

* We're all racists, so get used to it. Duane Lester who writes at All American Blogger, has recently become one of my favorites for well-written sarcasm when it comes to the left. His recent column, Can We Just Resign Ourselves to the Fact That Until November, Everything is Racist?, was eye-opening as well as entertaining to read as he talks about 'code words' for racism.

When you can’t mention the Founding Fathers without it being a racist dog whistle, you know what I am saying is true. You need to accept that as fact. This isn’t going to be a campaign about the positives and negatives of a particular candidate’s economic philosophy, or their particular belief in the role of government. It is going to be a campaign designed to divide the nation by class and race.

And they have a head start. (That’s probably racist.)

I hope you'll read the entire column - and add Duane to your blogger list.

'For the children' - your tax dollars hard at work

I got the following press release from the City of Toledo:

Mayor Finkbeiner and City leaders will be discussing the Youth Commission's Summer Jobs and Internship Programs for Summer 2008, in a press conference Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mayor's Office of One Government Center.

The City of Toledo is partnering with the University of Toledo to provide 12 interns the opportunity to work with City of Toledo staff in 12 different departments. In addition to internships, The City of Toledo is also employing 40 youth for five-weeks this summer, with some donations making this program possible. These experiences will allow young Toledoans gain work experience, as well as mentorship.

You don't need those dollars for yourself or your family. You don't need those dollars so you can hire someone to do work around your house or for any home expense. You don't need those dollars to help cover the increased costs of gasoline, food or utilities - or even the trash tax. And you certainly don't need those tax dollars spent on roads or other essential city services.

Nope - the government needs those tax dollars so they can hire kids to work in city departments, even if some of the costs are covered by donations. And it's absolutely the role of local municipal government to provide children with work experiences. But let's not forget about the mentorships - after all, it's not like there are any other programs that provide mentors to kids...

But despite all these logical issues, don't you just feel sooo good about our elected officials for doing this magnanimous act on behalf of our children?

Steyn on SCHIP: Ponzi scheme?

I've long been a fan of Mark Steyn, a Canadian columnist and author, and his unique perspective on American politics. It was my husband who, after reading several of his columns online, introduced me to Steyn's witty and informative commentary.

As a Canadian, he often comments about the good things in America, especially compared to the more socialistic tendencies of European nations. His most recent analysis of SCHIP is no exception, making light of the 'for the children' catch phrase in contrast to what he describes as the real 'war on children.'

Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase "the children" like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourette's syndrome: "This is a discussion about America's children … We could establish ourselves as the children's Congress … Come forward on behalf of the children ... I tried to do that when I was sworn in as speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children."

Etc. So what is the best thing America could do "for the children"? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme.

Steyn is always a thought-provoking read - but this column goes a step further and asks us to think not just about the short-term impact of a SCHIP expansion, but the cumulative effect it - and other entitlement programs - have ... especially on 'the children.'

UPDATED: Turns out Taxmanblog, Porkopolis and Wizbang blogs have posts on this article as well...