BuckeyeBlog

It seems some government officials can’t take “no” for an answer. Several school districts in the Cincinnati area are seeking voter approval to raise taxes after being rebuffed in the recent past. Two districts’ pleas have been rejected three times, another district’s requests have been voted down twice.

As in the past, school district officials say there will be dire consequences if the levies fail. Of course, these levies failed in the past and it still seems these districts have managed to keep their doors open.

These discricts will certainly have less revenue than school district officials desire. The threat to stop sports programs or shut down clubs if taxes aren’t raised is a reaction to poor planning in the past. As I wrote about here, on the state level much of the budget problem can be attributed to the growth in size of state government employment as well as the increase in pay to state workers. While I haven’t crunched the numbers, I suspect something similar is going on in these school districts.

The fiscal problems being experienced there should serve as an incentive for the districts to look at their hiring practices, how much they pay employees, and how much employees contribute to their pensions and health care. Real savings could be found in these areas, I imagine. A little foresight could prevent a repeat of these troubles during the next recession.

If the stimulus money being dumped into the states was being used for one-time use infrastructure projects or to pay off the massive state debts that some states (like Ohio) seem to be racking up, that’d make a little more sense than the current idea. As of right now, it looks like Governors are going to invest the money into programs they won’t be able to sustain when the money dries up. Governor Strickland was on Face The Nation and outlined part of his “plan” for the stimulus money:

“We will use those resources to make sure that college tuition doesn’t explode, that we are going to invest in elementary and secondary education, to provide quality child care for our kids,” said Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, who said his state will receive about $8.2 billion. “We need these resources. And I’m very happy that the congress and the president is providing this resource to our states.”

How exactly do you invest in education with money that’s a one-time shot? If you expand programs, or make schools dependent upon this money for resources or salaries, aren’t you setting the state up for a future budget shortfall? What happens next year Governor?

There is a lot of talk in liberal circles about instituting universal pre-school. It’s touted as a way to help kids improve their education skills (or, if you’re cynical, it’s a way for government bureaucrats to get their hands on your kids a few years earlier), but it will cost a lot of tax money. As someone who went to pre-school and hated it, I am skeptical about the need to expand it, but perhaps I’m letting my personal preferences get in the way of social engineering.

The Buckeye Institute’s Beth Lear wrote about the push for universal pre-school in Ohio here. Reason magazine recently produced a short video tackling the subject:

Looks like a strike at a school district in Swanton.

This story says the school’s budget is $13 million or so. Around these parts, that’s a pretty small school district. Good for them.

There’s trouble brewing, though. The board has made an offer that isn’t disclosed, except to say that it’s “less than the 2.75 percent raise teachers received last year.”

The first thing to note is a big boo-hiss brickbat for this reporter and editor. There should never be a school salary story that fails to note the step chart. What this really means is that there is a 2.75 percent raise in the works, or in any event something less than that, PLUS the ordinary step chart raise. I’m guessing this means, let’s say, 2 percent base pay, PLUS 2 percent on average step chart. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were more than that.

Is a 4 percent raise really all that bad? I don’t know about you folks, but when I get an ordinary annual raise, it’s usually a matter of additional experience and such-and that’s not even mentioning those times when the raise is only a percent or two, or maybe no raise at all. No business is a perpetual money machine; just ask the newspapers and automakers.

Most of us don’t get to claim our raise twice, but public sector union employees sure do, and no news story about one is complete until it acknowledges the other.

The state is ordering two charter schools closed for being chronic poor-performers. On the surface, that’s well and good. At least one of the schools, though, was a special education school, which raises questions well-rehearsed by the public district schools about what this performance data actually means. When such real consequences hit a public school, do they actually close? Color me skeptical. In fact, let’s pose that question: How many public district schools of similar performance have closed? Or are they all above average?

“Fewer local districts were in trouble because they had failed to make sure no child was being left behind, but some qualified as making adequate yearly progress even though they have yet to show it for all types of students.”

“Because they had failed to make sure no child was being left behind”? Isn’t that a bit of unfortunate phrasing? Intended or not, it’s either snarky or, worse, credulous. I realize the temptation to beat politicians over the head with their own words is a powerful one, but a better way to go about it would be to not use their silly propaganda titles to begin with. The press could avoid this by not using “No Child Left Behind” and instead refer to it as “Public Law 107-110.”

New schools built for security: Visitors must be buzzed in, under staff scrutiny

How nice. Rather than hold people accountable, let’s just require them to log in to a central processing center. I say we run it federally, because then we know it’ll be done right, and everyone will be safe, happy, healthy and wealthy.

A reader doesn’t like Matt Carr’s point that “teaching to the test” is a non-argument. If we can’t test what we’re teaching, what are we teaching?

Carr writes: So long as the state’s standardized exams are designed to capture student knowledge of basic subjects, then teaching to the test and teaching students basic skills are essentially one and the same.

Our reader responds:

But the test also has attendance requirements, and population and subgroup requirements (minimums). These requirements must be met to make AYP, and they are out of the hands of school personell. I have no way, as a teacher, of making sure Johnny comes to school, especially on test day, especially if his parents opted out of the test, which is their right.

So, your quote above is either disingenuous or uninformed. I’m going with disingenuous! (more…)

Ohio University’s Richard Vedder received the Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award from the American Legislative Exchange Council today, and he and Rep. John Adams, R-Celina, speak about ALEC, higher education, the income tax and transparency.

So, when is it ok to admit, on the front page of a major newspaper, that you are a cheater?  The answer, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is when you are the principal of a well regarded public school.  Last week, columnist Regina Brett recounted the lamentations/accusations of a Rocky River middle school principal about the state’s testing and accountability system.  The school he oversees scored well on the state exams, but the principal wants us to know the high cost of that success. 

Rocky River Middle School passed the 2008 Ohio Achievement Tests, earned an Excellent rating from the state and met the requirements for Annual Yearly Progress.

 

For all of those accomplishments, Principal David Root has only one thing to say to the students, staff and citizens of Rocky River: He’s sorry.

  (more…)