Gadfly Bites 1/22/20 – Voucher Grouchers 2: Rise of the Have-Nots

1. Columbus City Schools is apparently hanging on to an eyesore/money pit of an empty, derelict school building. Can you believe it? But it’s definitely because they have some sort of “plans” for it “someday”, not because they don’t want to sell it to a charter school operator who’s been trying to buy it for more than a year. Definitely that first thing; not that second thing. Definitely. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/19/20)
    
2. The voucher grouchers were out in force in media outlets across the state while we’ve been gone, regurgitating their anti-EdChoice talking points from previous weeks. I’ll spare you the repetitive details, but here’s a letter to the editor of the Toledo Blade—from the Washington Local Schools supe, from whom we have heard all the same BS numerous times before—reiterating the typical stuff from the typical district- and money-centric perspective. (Toledo Blade, 1/19/20) While some of the grouching is getting boringly repetitive, one tends to take notice when the former head of the Cleveland Transformation Alliance—a bastion of school choice in the original redoubt of vouchers—decides to pen an anti-voucher op-ed for the Plain Dealer. Wonder what’s changed in his life or work recently that might account for what would appear to be a change of heart? Anyone know? Anyone? (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/19/20) But there has been a tiny change for the better in some of the rhetoric around EdChoice in the last few days. The first glimmer? A letter to the editor—also in the Blade (for “balance”, I expect)—from the Catholic Archbishop of Toledo. In support of vouchers. (Toledo Blade, 1/19/20)
   
   

3. Most mainstream media outlets have determined that a legislative “fix” to the EdChoice Scholarship program is “imminent”. The Dayton Daily News repeats this conclusion, saying that the exact nature of the “fix” is still being worked out. (“The devil is in the details”, they say. Clever.) I have mentioned that I believe this rush to get a “fix” in law by February 1 is arbitrary and the deadline artificial. If things are that bad, fix them whenever you can—you can yank awarded vouchers away from families if you have to in order to save the system if it’s really as bad as you say. While I am “the only person in Ohio who believes this”™, the DDN piece went out of its way to talk to a private school leader in the area (thank heavens!), who bolstered my thought process a bit by pointing out that the “deadline” is really already past as far as some folks are concerned. Parents in his school have already made decisions and commitments to the school for next year based on their previously-reported voucher eligibility. Like you are required to do as private school parents. Changing that eligibility at any point now will be a disruption for them and their kids. You know, the people that vouchers are supposed to be for? Good point, boss. I like it. (Dayton Daily News, 1/18/20) Speaking of hearing from the most important voices, a press conference was held at the Statehouse yesterday in which supporters of vouchers, along with a raft of parents and students, got to have their say in front of the media. Sadly, I don’t think the sound of their voices is going to get very far, given the minimal amount of coverage that press conference has thus far received. Here’s a brief look from the public media’s Statehouse bureau, in which the voices of the have-nots are pretty low in the mix. It doesn’t help that the piece focuses on a quick reference to possible legal action to stop voucher changes. (Statehouse News Bureau, 1/21/20) The “l word” is barely noted and the parent/student voice is, happily, a little bit louder in coverage from Gongwer, but the big noise still rules. It still feels to me like the preferred “fix” (remember, EdChoice is not actually “broken”, despite what you may have heard 10 million times in the last few weeks; the “fix” is on behalf of whiny districts—the “haves” in this equation—reacting to a not-unsurprising expansion of voucher eligibility) being discussed in the smoky back rooms of the Statehouse has to do with the powers-that-be agreeing upon an acceptable number/amount of school buildings or eligible students. In whatever way that will be calculated. There is also some rhetoric here that makes it sound as if no one really cares too much about parents’ school commitments based on previously-announced voucher eligibility. Which is…charming. (Gongwer Ohio, 1/21/20) I mean, why would you listen to parents in a chronically low-rated district who want an alternative that rich other fortunate folks can already get without pushback and without breaking a sweat—and who might have already shelled out a couple hundred bucks for registration and uniforms—when that chronically low-rated district gets this kind of coverage without question or clarification? The CFO of Cleveland Heights-University Heights City Schools told the Patch that the expansion of the EdChoice list has created a “pothole” in the district's finances. The state’s annual budget, he said, froze school funding for all districts. (Wish someone would “freeze” my budget at some multi-million-dollar level!) The state budget also gave high school students at nonpublic schools what he termed “improved access” to EdChoice vouchers. (Is that code for something?) Due to that, he said, the Heights Schools would lose an additional $2.1 million in funding, bringing the district’s “total payout” for EdChoice vouchers to $4.6 million. That was the reporter’s summation of the district’s case with no clarification of who might actually use vouchers going forward, when, why, where, and for how much. CFO was directly quoted as saying, “Our district is disproportionately affected by EdChoice because there are so many private school options in and around our schools. If we didn't have EdChoice at all, we wouldn't be on the ballot at all.” This assertion, likely, requires some detailed explanation which was neither asked for nor provided. But even if we accept the premise of “no voucher payments, no levy”, the alternative is also true: if no one wanted to leave your district via a voucher—say, if it was serving all of (or even just a lot more of) its kids really well, you could avoid the voucher deduct, the program could still exist for folks who needed it, and you could still avoid your levy. Ah context. How I love thee. (The Patch, 1/22/20)
    
4. Why should we listen to parents in this situation rather than disingenuous school district money whiners? Maybe because of things like this: “Ohio always lights up like a Christmas tree when you look at the problems created by school district borders.” That’s right, the old chestnut of district-based segregation between the haves and the have-nots has come up again in a most timely fashion. Lots of such nastiness to go around across the country, according to this piece, but “the worst state offender…is Ohio, home to 17 of the country’s most segregated districts.” As one analyst puts it: “There are a few states that might take a hint from the fact that their districts appear repeatedly…” But Ohio is the worst of the worst. Congrats! If only those families’ tax dollars could be used to provide options rather than to reinforce the barriers. (LA School Report, 1/22/20)
   
   

5. So, what alternatives do parents have in a world where EdChoice Scholarships can be threatened thusly? Folks in the Cleveland suburbs could check out Lake Ridge Academy, a nonsectarian private school that has never accepted EdChoice but which is, also in a most timely fashion, currently touting its new in-house tuition assistance program. It takes a bit of clicking on their website to find it (naturally), but non-assisted tuition at Lake Ridge appears to range between $25 and $30K per year at the moment, with a scheduled increase for next school year (naturally; things ain’t getting any cheaper out there amiright?). But if your family income qualifies, and if your student is accepted in the school, you could potentially knock that down to as low as $10K. Sound good? Then call today! (Cleveland.com, 1/20/20) In a bit of actual good news, folks in Toledo can actually check out multiple schools at once during an upcoming school choice fair. It’s a chance to visit with reps and compare district, charter, and private schools (voucher and, one expects, non-voucher privates) all in one place. It even, helpfully, takes place during National School Choice Week. I found out about it via an informational outlet some random PR replication site called Tickertech, surely the go-to for busy working families in northwest Ohio to discover such important events. And I’m sure it will also be announced in the Blade any day now for those irregular Tickertech visitors. Any… day… now… (Tickertech, 1/20/20)
    
6. In Ohio, there is often a gulf between parents having a choice and accessing that choice in a reasonable manner. Case in point: Hope Academy, a small charter school for students on the autism spectrum and with learning disabilities. It is located in Youngstown, but many of its students live in various surrounding cities. Hope Academy families in Warren have been trying to get the district to provide busing for their students (all the other districts of residence provide transportation) for ages, to no avail as yet. And yes, it’s probably #funding. (Vindy.com, 1/19/20)
   
   

7. Speaking of chronically underperforming districts (but performing better last year than it did in previous years via freakin’ miraculous efforts), here’s a piece from Lorain. To whose headline I reply: Nah, I’m pretty sure it’s the teachers union prez who is doing the slamming. The report itself was even-handed and realistic from what I could see. Which is more than can be said about these opportunistic vultures. (Morning Journal, 1/19/20)
    
8. But still, let’s focus on the money shall we? That’s all anyone cares about anyway. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/19/20)
   
   

9. In unrelated-but-still-providentially-timely news, the wealthiest suburban district in central Ohio is pleading poverty. “We are seeking new revenue by selling expanded advertising rights for school assets.” Can you put advertising on white picket fences or Georgian mansions? (ThisWeek News, 1/20/20)
    
10. Coming back down to Earth with a bit of a bump, here is more on the new(ish) Huntington Bank-supported career academy in Akron. This piece does answer a couple of my outstanding questions from last week. First up, the Summa Health academy is still in Buchtel…somewhere. Second, the reporter did note the mismatch in expertise between a banking conglomerate and bricklaying or cosmetology. Sadly, all of this adds up to the lowering—again—of the goals of these academies. They are not, as their names might imply, intended to teach kids anything about a particular job or career path. Instead, the bank spokesman said his “mission” is to “expose students to career opportunities as well as teach them the soft skills they will need no matter what career they choose.” Lucky kids. Can’t wait to see their resumes which say that they were taught the “soft skills” needed for cosmetology by a health care company and also the “soft skills” needed for masonry by a bank. Just like the kids in New Albany, I imagine. (Akron Beacon Journal, 1/21/20) Meanwhile, things are a little bit better in this regard in Dayton City Schools, mainly thanks to partners like Sinclair Community College. Middle schoolers were recently given some hands-on demos and presentations from workers in various fields (construction, dental tech, and yes even cosmetology) and then they got advice on what courses to take in their high schools to get the education needed to reach the careers which interested them. While I do appreciate the drawing power of gee-whizzery like CAD programs, 3D printers, and welding, I wonder if perhaps the best advice for that ambitious youngster interested in “biotechnology and biofuels” is high quality math and science courses…if you have those, that is. (Dayton Daily News, 1/22/20)
    
    

11. Finally today—and thank you all for your forbearance at my lengthy rambles in this edition of Bites—the Dispatch took a look a new report on college remediation rates for Ohio high school graduates going on to higher education. (Hmmm… Seems like I was just reading about that report yesterday. Now where was that?) The overwhelming message, aided by the fact that this annual report has disaggregated its data by income level for the first time ever, seems to be that “poor schools” poorly prepare their graduates for college. But that’s pretty much where it stops. Thumbs up for including charter schools in the analysis, gang, and for talking to a representative of one of those charter schools in depth. Thumbs down for only including the poorest performing charter schools. Surely there are some “poor” charters—and some “poor” districts—bucking that trend that you’ve discovered. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/22/20)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.