Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coaltion for Equity and Adequacy explains the origins of choice in Ohio and how it has evolved into a lucrative for-profit industry. If “choice” meant better education, Ohio by now should have the best schools in the nation. It doesn’t. What has happened has been the transfer of $8 billion out of the state’s public schools to satisfy rightwing, evidence-free ideology.
Phillis writes:
“The school choice movement in Ohio: Is it about parents choosing good schools or the school choosing good students?
Open enrollment was a product of SB 140, an education “reform” bill more than a quarter century ago in the 118th General Assembly. The rationale set forth for enacting the concept was that parents should be allowed to choose a better academic option in a neighboring district. Although there has been no extensive research regarding why people choose open enrollment, experience indicates that better academics is the least frequent reason for the choice of another school district.
Open enrollment was the precursor to the Ohio privately-operated choice movement. Then-President George H. W. Bush told a large gathering of people in Columbus on November 25, 1991, you have open enrollment and now you need to go the whole nine yards and give a voucher to every student. Bush’s speech was reported in the November 26, 1991 Cincinnati Enquirer article-Bush: Give private schools money, Ohio audience wary of proposal.
The Cleveland Voucher Plan, a brainchild of Akron Industrialist David Brennen and then-Governor George V. Voinovich, followed the Bush recommendation. Ohio’s education choice programs have removed nearly $8 billion from Ohio school districts since “choice” began.
The education choice gospel is preached in a way that resonates with lots of folks. Who would take issue with such a sacred-sounding verse–choice? But the reality is that choice is more about private and privately-managed education entities choosing students than parents choosing a school. Private schools and charters are not obligated to take students and many of them screen out or counsel out students they don’t want.
The irony is that those parents who choose charter schools are, in a majority of cases, opting for schools with lower academic ratings than the district of residence. But that phenomenon, as long as folks are blinded by the empty promise of choice, will continue to lead to consumer fraud. Massive snake oil salesman-type advertising misleads parents. Most of the solicitations for student enrollment do not match the charters’ educational opportunities and results.
William Phillis
Ohio E & A
Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215
Actually, school choice in Ohio started in various districts such as Cincinnati, which began offering a variety of options, including Montessori and a performing arts school. Here’s some info from the Cincinnati Public Schools about what began as pre-school and elementary options, and gradually grew to become an elementary and secondary Montessori.
http://clark.cps-k12.org/about/history
There also were some terrific district options in Columbus and Cleveland. But these often are overlooked by some who post here.
Joe,
“There also were some terrific district options in Columbus and Cleveland. But these often are overlooked by some who post here.”
If there are district options, then they must be part of the pubic education system and are not private schools (whether charter or otherwise). If that is correct then that might be the reason that those district options are “often overlooked”.
This is the StudentsFirst twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/StudentsFirst
Try to find a single positive mention of a US public school. In fact, the only time public schools are mentioned is when they’re promoting standardized testing.
For people who claim to be about “improving public schools” public schools are oddly absent from the sales pitches with the single exception of stern, scolding lectures on how we have to go along with the testing regime.
The national ed reform orgs promote and advocate for charters and vouchers, not public schools. All one has to do is read what they themselves churn out to see that this is true. Overwhelmingly positive for charters and vouchers, overwhelmingly negative for public schools.
That the Obama Administration signed onto this anti-public school agenda is mind-boggling. The public is paying thousands of people at the state and federal level not to advocate for or support public schools, but to replace public schools.
their viewpoints and their tweets are disgusting and full of falsehoods, rhetoric and attacks…I cannot believe anyone falls for their b.s.
I’d like to see a list of the accomplishments of the ed reform movement in this state, as to PUBLIC schools.
If they’re selling their “movement” as improving public schools shouldn’t they have to show us some public schools they “improved”? It’s been 15 years. Where are the public schools in this state that benefited?
We have less funding and more testing in Ohio public schools. Is that what they accomplished?
When does the positive ed reform agenda for public schools start?
This is the latest Ohio ed budget under ed reform leadership:
“Charter-school funding in Ohio could exceed $1 billion by 2017 under Gov. John Kasich’s proposed two-year budget, which provides increases to every school.
Most of the attention thus far has focused on the charter-school accountability and transparency provisions included in Kasich’s budget. Lawmakers more recently got a look at the breakdown in charter-school funding.
About half of traditional public schools would see funding cuts over the next two years under Kasich’s education funding plan, though it spends $459 million more. The non-partisan Legislative Service Commission calculated that charter-school funding will rise 5.4 percent over two years, with no schools facing a cut.”
Every single charter school gets an increase, and more than half of public schools get cuts. Just business as usual for the reform team in Columbus! If there’s a sector that will take a hit, it’s ALWAYS the public school sector.
All the risk is shoved off to the public system, and all the benefits go the (preferred) charter and voucher “sector”. It’s particularly amazing, considering 90% of Ohio kids attend the unfashionable and much-maligned “public sector” schools.
Where are the public school advocates in government? Our schools just lose and lose and lose. Are ed reformers just lousy and ineffective advocates for public schools or is this deliberate? There is no third possibility. It’s either incompetence or ill will. Pick one.
Cincinnati has had PUBLIC schools of choice for a long time, some few of these legacies from the concept of magnet schools as a tool for desegregation. The choice schools have nothing to do with the Cleveland vouchers case.
Cincinnati public schools have been staffed by Montessori-trained teachers, in part because many have graduate degrees in education from Xavier University one of the earliest and most vigilant keepers of that tradition. Montessori public schools are surviving in spite of the “reign of error.” Clark became one of the first public schools to take Montessori principles into high school.
The School for the Creative and Performing Arts is a public school with some modified administrative arrangements and an endowment. For example, it is permitted to hire an artistic director who may not pass muster on formal certifications in the state. Visiting artists may be hired for part-time positions. This a selective admission public school, and it is intended to capture and mentor talent, especially in the performing arts. Similar schools can be found all over the country.
Cincinnati has other specialized public schools of choice. One is a school for bilingual learning of German and English, a legacy from the early days of the city’s history. Admission is not yet perfected. It is a high-demand school by virtue of proximity to a nearby university, reasonably safe community, and more. A public high school about a mile away offers what should be called a second chance for many students, with some orientation to the world of work and intense mentoring from community volunteers.
Another is a high school for academic achievers with more abundant course offerings than many schools (e.g., Latin, Greek). It is perceived as a path toward upward mobility for students who do not attend the elite private schools.
A recently restored and upgraded elementary school near down town is revitalizing a low-income community and attracting some young professionals who are “gentrifying” a troubled neighborhood. The renovation preserved some of the original gargoyles, and other locally produced decorative ceramic tile. The roof top has been made accessible for stunning views of the city and for a student/parent/teacher garden–or edible foods and lessons galore. Members of this predominantly low-income neighborhood helped to plan this and other features of the restoration.
How could Charters’ purposes be reformed to make them more successful for themselves and for the county where they reside? Is there a way to do such a thing, or are they doomed from the start?