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.

National School Choice Week 2015

It's National School Choice Week - a week dedicated to celebrating options students have for an education.

Lest you think this is all about charters, private schools or home-schooling, please remember that charter schools in Ohio are public schools and that choosing to send a child to a traditional public school is still a choice that many parents make.

There's nothing wrong with any of the choice options available to parents these days and since it's supposed to be "for the children," what would make more sense than to allow each child to have the education that best suits them?

That's what school choice is all about:  finding the best fit for a child, regardless of what that fit might be.

Maybe some day we can let actually let the public dollars spent on a child for their education follow the child.

Imagine if K-12 school funding worked more like public funding of higher education - where a grant amount was determined based on a family's financial information and then the children could use that designated amount at any college or university that accepted them.

Under such a scenario, elementary and high schools would compete for students, offering a variety of tracks mirroring the interest of the kids while still ensuring that state minimum requirements were achieved.

Arizona did something like this with their Education Empowerment Scholarship Accounts and it's working well enough that other states could easily learn from them how to duplicate their success.

The state deposits educational funds directly into an account controlled by the parent. The parents can choose how to spend the funds using a type of debit card that is coded to allow its usage only for pre-approved expenses.

Parents can use it for tuition at any school, to pay for college or university courses while their child is still in high school, for online education, certified tutors, testing preparation like for SATs, or even a la carte public school courses (foreign languages, for example). They also have the choice to not spend it and put it toward a future college education. Anything not used in a year is allowed to accumulate.

Think about how food stamp EBT cards work and you'll have a good understanding about how the Arizona system works, except it's education items that are being purchased rather than food.

This is just one example of the many innovative ways parents, politicians and policy-makers are looking at providing a variety of educational opportunities for children today.

So celebrate your school choice options and special congrats to our state of Ohio which leads the nation in education scholarship options!

Grading state voucher programs - how does your state rank?

By Maggie Thurber | Franklin Center School Choice Fellow

Want to know how state voucher programs stack up? The Center for Education Reform has the answer.

In their new report, School Choice Today:  Voucher Laws Across the States Ranking and Scorecard 2014, CER takes a look at the 15 voucher programs currently in existence and gives them a grade. 

There are three As, three Bs, seven Cs and two Ds.

It’s the first analysis of its kind, providing a state-to-state comparison of the various voucher laws and builds on the work CER has done to rank charter school laws and tax credit-funded scholarship programs.

“Having a voucher law on the books is a good start, but not enough to make sure students are actually benefitting from school choice programs,” Kara Kerwin, CER president said in a press release. 

“Policy design is critical, but the true strength of school choice voucher programs depends heavily on implementation.”

The state voucher programs were evaluated in four areas:

• Student eligibility requirements
• Program Design
• Preservation of private school autonomy
• Student participation

“From the types of students eligible to the number of regulations imposed on private schools, each element of a voucher program’s design impacts how effectively the voucher truly empowers parents with the ability to choose the best school for their child,” Brian Backstrom, CER senior policy advisor and author of the report, said.

Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin earned an A grade for their programs.

With 31 out of 50 total points, Indiana offers a universal voucher program available to all students and imposes no limits on the number of vouchers awarded. But it ranked second worst in the nation when it comes to infringing upon the private schools’ autonomy because it mandates course content and allows government observation of classes.

Ohio earned 30 points for what the report called a “piecemeal” approach to vouchers with five different programs. But its top ranking for student participation was praised as a “worthy achievement.”

Wisconsin, home of the oldest voucher program in the county, also earned 30 points, with its strong Milwaukee/Racine programs offering choice to 12 percent of the state’s school-aged population.

Washington, D.C., Arizona and North Carolina tied for fourth place with 27 points, earning them a B grade.

The D.C. program has a high percentage of children receiving vouchers, but its strict income eligibility threshold is the lowest in the country which limits the program’s reach, the report said.

For the 2014-15 school year, North Carolina’s program got twice as many applications as there were vouchers available. The state is currently defending a lawsuit against the voucher program which is on hold due to an injunction halting the distribution of the funds.

Arizona’s personal education accounts worked so well it was expanded in 2013. The state deposits educational funds directly into an account controlled by the parents who can choose how to spend the funds using a type of debit card that is coded to allow its usage only for pre-approved expenses. The accounts can be used for tuition at any school, to pay for college or university courses while their child is still in high school, for online education, certified tutors, testing preparation like for SATs, or even a la carte public school courses (foreign languages, for example). They also have the choice to not spend it and put it toward a future college education. Anything not used in a year is allowed to accumulate.

It’s a popular idea. Florida just implemented a similar one and Delaware just proposed their own program based on the concept.

Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah and Mississippi all earned a C grade with scores of between 19 and 23 points.

Louisiana imposes “such significant regulatory intrusion” that it ends up with a C. Their regulations are such that new private schools are prohibited from participating.

The ranking for Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah and Mississippi are due primarily to the fact that their programs are only for special needs students.

Colorado’s program is tied up in legal wrangling, but even if it were implemented, it only offers 500 vouchers for the more than 62,000 eligible children.

Vermont and Maine both earned D grades because they don’t offer a modern-day voucher program, but merely a method by which students in areas and towns without any district school systems can get an education.

The report states that legislators considering vouchers or modifying their existing programs “would be well-served by examining the design elements that have led to the success of several state 

programs, and the components of state voucher program laws that are holding some states back.”

With “reliable policy blueprints and visible implementation of strong voucher programs, more state leaders need to step up to the plate in order to grow and expand school choice opportunities across the U.S. so more children have access to options that best meet their individual learning needs,” Kerwin said.

What comes after AZ immigration law for Toledo City Council?

Well, they did it. Toledo City Council decided that taking a position against Arizona's immigration law was more important than a host of other issues, including our city's high unemployment rate, looming deficits, over-spending, trash tax lawsuit, loss of population, loss of businesses, 'not-business-friendly' reputation, etc..., etc..., etc...

Thankfully, there are two sane people on council, Tom Waniewski and Rob Ludeman, who realize this is completely outside their purview as members of that body and voted no. One can only wonder what happened to the other Republican, George Sarantou, who switched his vote to yes for this particular non-binding, non-enforceable resolution.

What Arizona does on behalf of their own citizens is their own business. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that I'm a strong proponent of states' rights, including their ability to protect their residents and their residents' property. I'm also a strong proponent of the limited Constitutional authority for the federal government. I recognize and appreciate that the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration but in Arizona's case, their law complements - not contradicts - federal law (despite what others may say - read the law yourself and you'll see) and the federal government has failed to perform its duty to secure our borders. Furthermore, the federal government wants to sue Arizona when it believes their state law is contradicting a federal law, but when other cities and states contradict federal law (sanctuary cities, for instance), the federal government turns a blind eye. Hypocrisy and double standards are always a target on this blog.

But when it comes to Toledo City Council, they've opened a very wide door and I believe they will regret it.

First, let's look at council itself. Our council members are elected to represent our wishes. There is no way that they can know the wishes of the majority of Toledoans when it comes to Arizona's law. They might be able to infer our wishes based upon national polls. But if that was the case, they'd be supporting Arizona's law - not opposing it.

They might claim that, by virtue of being elected, they can substitute their own personal opinions for the opinions of the city as a whole. I might go so far as to support such a position if - and this is a big if - any one of them had run on a platform that even remotely included the issue of immigration or illegal aliens. None of them did.

So they are, in reality, substituting their own personal opinion for the will of the people since they did not take the time to survey the residents they are supposed to represent and they were not elected on a platform that included this issue.

So if they believe this type of opinionated legislation is right and proper, what else might they include? Aye, there's the rub!

These 10 members of Toledo City Council, in voting yes on the resolution, have failed to confine their actions to issues relevant only to their duties as a member of our council. As a result, they are now subject to being held accountable for positions/opinions on a host of issues.

After all, if they are going to weigh in on an Arizona law and do so under the color of their office, I want to know where they stand on all kinds of things, because it's obvious they might decide to address just about anything under the sun.

And they cannot ignore, brush aside or refuse to provide their stance on everything else by saying it's not relevant to their job. While I agree it shouldn't be relevant, they have made it so.

So here are the questions these 10 members of Toledo City Council should be required to answer:

* What is your position on Elena Kagan and do you believe someone with her activist attitude should be confirmed to the Supreme Court?
* What is your position on 'don't ask, don't tell' and do you believe it is a good policy or a bad one - and should the federal government continue it or abolish it?
* What is your position on holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay?
* What is your position on federal funding of abortion?
* What is your position on the war in Iraq?
* What is your position on the war in Afghanistan?
* What is your position on foreign aid and do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to give it out?
* What is your position on the 17th Amendment? Would you support its repeal?
* What is your position on the 10th Amendment and what actions are you willing to take to support it?
* What is your position on 'cap-and-trade' which, as most proponents agree, will raise our energy prices?
* What is your position on regulation of the Internet?
* What is your position on federal regulation of salt and other products/ingredients that bureaucrats and politicians think are bad for us?
* What is your position on drilling for oil - in the Gulf and in Alaska - and what is your position on Pres. Obama's moratorium which was declared unconstitutional?
* What is your position on Minnesota's law banning sleeping in the nude?
* What is your position on Virgina's law that makes it illegal to tickle women?

And you may come up with some questions of your own, but the point is that we have every right - in fact, a responsibility - to determine the position of our council members on all these issues since they have proven they will pass legislation supporting or opposing anything they want.

In catering to a small group of individuals - perhaps contrary to what the majority of Toledoans want - they have subjected themselves to such scrutiny. And we ought to give it to them.

So the next time you see a member of Toledo City Council - hold them accountable!

Things I don't want to think about on a summer Saturday

My postings have been a bit light lately, due to a number of things. I have work (yes, that thing that earns me money to help pay the bills) - and that's a good thing.

But I also have disgust at what I see going on in the political realm - and that's a bad thing.

I know exactly how so many people feel when they see what counts for 'action' by our governments at all levels and it is eerily reminiscent of the feelings I felt while in office .... that efforts are for naught.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very encouraged by a lot of things: good candidates with firm philosophies and not various 'positions' on issues; a growing awareness of the impact political decisions being made have on individual freedom; the enthusiastic embrace of limited government/low spending approaches by many individuals regardless of political party, etc...

But sometimes, the idiocy or 'stuck on stupid' things just really get to me.

We've seen Toledo City Council and the Lucas County Commissioners spending time on non-binding 'statements' opposing a state for a law greatly supported not only by their own residents but by a majority of Americans as well.

Considering all the polls on the issue, I can't help but think these elected officials are violating the wishes of their own constituents, but that's nothing new. They were catering to a specific small-but-vocal group of interests that they believe they need to placate.

We've seen the news that Ohio is facing huge budget deficits for the next year and that our governor is again hoping one-time money from the feds (actually from all of us) will get him by. State Auditor Mary Taylor warned everyone in the last budget go-round that relying upon one-time 'stimulus' funds was a recipe for bigger problems in the future - and she was absolutely right. Why the idiots in Columbus cannot see that, I don't know.

And then I heard on the news yesterday that Gov. Strickland has asked his departments and agencies to let him know the negative impacts a 10% budget cut would have. That's the most WRONG question to ask! You ask them how they can cut their budget, not how bad things could be if they are forced to do so.

I don't know why it is that politicians never want to ask the questions that will actually give them the answers they need. They always ask 'what don't you want cut,' knowing full well that every little group that benefits from the spending will show up to say 'don't cut my program.' We see that in Toledo and Lucas County, too.

Instead, they should be asking 'what can you live without'? With that type of question, you'll at least get a listing of programs, projects, etc...that people can do without as opposed to the ones they don't want to give up, regardless of priority.

So what will Strickland get as a response to his request? He'll get a bunch of doom-and-gloom scenarios as bureaucrats list the most dire consequences of a cut in funds. He'll then end up in a no-win situation if he and the state legislature make the cuts that we all know need to be made.

We've seen President Barack Obama give 'stimulus' funds to a foreign company that is setting up shop in Michigan. Where is the outrage from all the 'buy America' people?

I despise the idea of any 'stimulus' coming from the government in terms of handouts to companies while that same government simultaneously increases taxes and regulatory compliances. Talk about contradictory! We're supposed to be ever so grateful for the meager government largess while ignoring that they're making us less profitable by requirements/fees/rules/taxes/etc... that add much, much more to the cost of doing business. That's not the way to 'stimulate' the economy.

And while that is a huge thing, it's nowhere near the double standard so evident in the action. If providing subsidies to foreign companies is a bad thing, then it's a bad thing even when Democrats or Pres. Obama do it. If groups are pushing a 'buy American' approach, they need to be vocal when American tax dollars are going to a foreign company in Michigan. And if they're not going to object to this particular expenditure, they cannot object to others.

Most people can live with either position - or at least agree to disagree. But when the criteria for comments or outrage is not the principle, but whichever political party is engaged in the act, the American people see it for what it is and reject the hypocrisy. (I hope.)

We've also seen the slippery slope in full effect. Many people have rightly complained that when government pays for things, it insists upon making decisions relating to those monies. We see it with the states: impose certain laws or forgo the money we're planning to give you.

As the federal government moved into the realm of health care, they made promises about us still being in control, but many of us knew it was only a matter of time. If government is paying for your medical care, it won't be long until they're dictating your eating and exercise habits under the guise of 'containing costs' for your care.

The White House chef is now a 'senior policy advisor' to the White House so he can advise us on an 'epidemic' of obesity. I always thought an epidemic was some sort of infectious disease that spreads among the populace. Who knew that your own actions (or lack thereof) could qualify?!? So now obesity is a matter of 'national security' and legislatures are trying to figure out how to control things you eat like salt and trans-fats and junk food.

Oh - let me clarify. They're not yet trying to make YOU stop eating things that are bad for you (though they are requiring a reporting of your Body Mass Index to them by 2014). They realize that if they tell you that you can no longer eat too much salt (even though 'too much' is a large range that varies from person to person), you'll rebel. So they're telling food manufacturers that THEY can't include salt in their products - and they're doing so through force of law.

It is a slippery slope and we are gliding down it at a very fast pace, approaching an even steeper incline.

So with all these things going on it's easy to just bury oneself in work, family and things like mowing the lawn. But, as Wendell Phillips once said:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.

Commenting on AZ immigration law is NOT county business

I don't know why it is that so many politicians think they have to take a public stand on issues that don't impact them or their constituents. Perhaps it's because so many 'special interest groups' insist upon it? But whatever the reason, it doesn't surprise me that the Lucas County Commissioners decided to pass a resolution condemning Arizona's new immigration law.

As a commissioner, I vigorously opposed such actions. I repeatedly told my fellow commissioners that if they wanted to express their opinion on such matters, they were certainly welcome to hold a press conference and share with the public their personal views on anything, including actions by other jurisdictions.

I insisted that the role of the Commissioners was the governing of the county and passing such resolutions was not something the 'Board' should be concerned with - especially when you considered all the other statutory obligations we had.

I also pointed out that, absent a poll or some other survey of all residents in the county, it would be highly presumptuous of us to *assume* that our opinions were the same as the rest of the county. And even if we found general agreement on certain issues, it was a given that there would be significant portions of our constituents who objected either in whole or in part, so we could not properly 'represent' all of them by taking a position. Besides, it still all came back to the fact that a formal action by the board on such matters was completely outside our role as Commissioners.

These were pretty successful arguments as the number of these types of resolutions certainly declined during my term on the board.

But with three politicians, who all happen to be Democrats, too eager to cater to small special interests, these types of resolutions seem to permeate our county and Toledo governments.

And that's something else, we need to pay attention to. How many other cities, villages, and townships in Lucas County decided to stick their noses into the business of other jurisdictions? This type of action is rarely seen in the other jurisdictions in the county, so we should ask ourselves 'why?'

Is it because those other jurisdictions are focused on their statutory responsibilities? Is it because they realize that it's a pointless act, other than to cater to a very small special interest? Is it because they're too busy with taking care of their roads and keeping their governmental costs down?

These are all good questions, I know.

On Monday, Comm. Ben Konop addressed a Rotary Club to promote his idea of changing to a county charter government. (You can review my prior articles on this subject here, here, here, and here.)

In his speech, he highlighted the problems of Lucas County - problems that have existed here for a number of years:

Mr. Konop's presentation showed Lucas County ranks high in rates of unemployment, poverty, bankruptcy, and migration out of the state and has lower median income than the state overall.

"There is really no shortage of disturbing economic trends to report on for Lucas County," Mr. Konop said.

Lucas County's jobless rate was the highest of Ohio's six largest counties for each of the 12 months ending in April, the most recent period available, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Now, he didn't explain how changing the form of government will give us different decisions about how to address these things, but that's beside the point.

With these types of concerns, issues, problems, etc... why in the world are the commissioners spending any time whatsoever addressing something in a city over 1,600 miles away???

They shouldn't. But they did. And this is just another reason why switching our form of government won't change anything in this county. We'll just get more of the same type of philosophy exhibited by these three commissioners: that taking a position on an Arizona law is something the county government should do, instead of what it's mandated to do.

But won't all those small special interests be happy and keep electing them to office?

In the meantime, the problems in the county will continue ... 'fiddling while Rome burns' comes to mind.