Monthly Archives: June 2012

SCO presents to Ohio House and Senate staff

Leave a reply

SCO’s Jason Warner and Taja Tucker-Cooper recently offered presentations to the staff of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate to provide background on the history of Ohio’s school choice programs. They also discussed several proposed expansions of school choice, including income-based scholarships and tax credit scholarships.

The event, which was to provide legislative staff with a better understanding of the many education options that are available to students and families throughout Ohio, also included presentations from the Ohio Coalition for Quality Education, the American Federation for Children (which provided information on school choice programs across the country) and Ohio ECOT (Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow).

This is just one of the many presentations that we provide each year to educate parents and community leaders about the range of public and private options that are available.

Photos of those who participated in the event are below.

 

 

Parents and students thankful for scholarships

Leave a reply

School Choice Ohio recently gathered with 700 parents, students, school leaders, supporters, and special guests in Cleveland to celebrate the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed the constitutionality of school vouchers. During the celebration, we were thrilled to have a parent or student from each of the state’s four scholarship programs share their stories and talk about how the scholarship programs are changing lives. For those of you who couldn’t make it to the celebration, we wanted to make sure you didn’t miss out. Below are their stories from the event.

Walter Woodard is an EdChoice scholarship recipient from Columbus, Ohio.

 

Tumpa Lewis is the mother of an Autism Scholarship recipient from Youngstown, Ohio.

 

Tera Myers is the mother of a Special Needs Scholarship applicant from Mansfield, Ohio.

 

A’bria Robinson is a Cleveland Scholarship recipient from Cleveland, Ohio.

SCO testifies in support of student-centered funding

Leave a reply

School Choice Ohio’s Legislative Director Jason Warner testified today in front of the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee in support of student-centered funding, which would fund students rather than schools based on their individual learning needs. Excerpts from his testimony are below. Click here for resources and more information about the subcommittee.

Ohio has come a long way in offering students a wide range of options and now needs to develop a funding system that supports and further develops these options. So, we commend you for considering a school funding model that recognizes and builds on this diversity by funding students rather than schools and funding students on the basis of their individual learning needs. In a system of growing variety, providers, and individualization, this student-centered approach seems to be a logical choice.

As you know, this type of student-centered funding is already partially in place in pockets throughout the state. There are already examples of Ohio funding children on the basis of their individual needs, most notably students with special needs. Building on this example, funding weights could be established for students who are socio-economically disadvantaged, urban, English language learners, or gifted so that the schools they attend have the funding to provide the services and learning environment that they need.

Expanding this way of funding individual students to the whole funding system is a key to eliminating the worst funding inequity affecting Ohio students: Intra-district funding inequity. Intra-district funding inequity now far outpaces inter-district inequity. This is because in our current funding system, real per-student costs are driven by the salaries of experienced, well paid teachers. As more experienced, higher-paid teachers opt to move away from schools with higher concentrations of high-needs students, those high-needs students are de facto receiving much lower per-student funding than their better-off peers, even within the large urban districts. This approach does not match our goal and need to provide equal opportunity to students and close the achievement gaps. In order for high-needs students to reach their potential and keep pace, they need a higher relative share of funding and resources, not less. A student-centered funding system would address these inequities.

With funding acting as a key driver of behavior within Ohio’s school systems, a strong funding model can incentivize innovation and student outcomes and empower those who are least likely to be heard. A student-centered funding model with high portability allows parents to vote with their feet and incentivizes results-oriented decisions that leaders know will draw increasingly-savvy parents to their doorstep.

In Ohio, we already have pockets of portability. Individual students are funded as they move to charter schools. Individual students are funded as they move to different school districts through open enrollment. Individual students are funded as they move to private schools through school vouchers. High school students are allowed to spend part of their funding at their local high schools and another part of their funding at their local colleges. In these examples, the state is not funding school buildings as a whole, but funding the education of a student at the public, charter, or private school of their choice. This flexibility is invaluable for students as they seek to prepare themselves to succeed in the future. Many models of student-centered funding support parental school choice by giving families full portability of the funds allocated for their child’s education.

In our organization, we hear from parents everyday who are looking for creative solutions to the educational challenges that their children face. We are encouraged by the options available to Ohio families but we also hear the desperation as families encounter closed doors and limited opportunities.

A more systemic application of the student-centered funding model that already exists in limited cases, will spur innovation, meet more individual student needs, and change the way students in Ohio are educated. Imagine if parents and school leaders are able to mix-and-match learning options from a range of proven online sources, small group tutoring, in-person instruction, internships and apprenticeships, travel-based courses, and project-based courses. These combinations of in-person and online learning can be matched to the learning styles and interests of individual students. This approach represent the ways that education is moving toward leveraging technology and personalizing learning in ways that match how future generations will navigate learning in an “anywhere, anytime” knowledge-drenched world.

This is already happening to an extent with the Autism Scholarship and Special Needs Scholarship. Parents are able to work from the base of an Individual Education Program (IEP) and search for the providers that will help them meet the needs of their child. The providers can be at school or off-site, they can meet during the regular school day or in the evenings, they can be schools or therapists. This flexibility has produced amazing results that parents they say they never dreamed was possible. Can you imagine the possibilities that would come from giving ALL parents options about where to spend the funding allocated for their children?

In addition to funding, we encourage you to design a funding system that addresses some of the more mundane barriers to portable funding, particularly transportation and information. At present, families and the state rely on local school districts to provide families with information about and transportation to their “competition.” Ohio should consider freeing districts from these responsibilities and allowing them to focus on their job of educating the students in their care.

Information about options

The parent-driven accountability built into a student-based funding system is only as good as the information parents have about the quality and range of their options. Without unbiased, easily-accessible information, parents are left to rely on marketing and ad hoc information sources. Important studies done by the World Bank and KidsOhio.org show that when parents can access the information they need, two things happen: parents choose better schools and schools improve.

Even basic knowledge of the choices and funding portability that are already available to families is often limited by a lack of information. For example, we have talked with groups of high school guidance counselors who are explicitly told that they are not allowed to share information about the Post-Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program that allows high school students to earn college credits for free because funding for those courses follows students outside the district. So the entity entrusted to share information has a built-in disincentive to provide families with the information about their other options. We encourage you to think about other ways to actively promote the options that are available to students and remove school districts from this catch-22 situation.

Transportation to the selected school

After parents find a school that is a great fit for their child, often one of the first questions is to determine if they will be able to secure transportation for their child to reliably arrive at school each day. Most low-income families rely on their local school district to provide transportation to their charter school or private school, either because they do not have their own transportation or they are working during the day. Local school districts have a lot of discretion as to which children they will transport and some districts are friendlier than others when it comes to accommodating families’ non-district choices.

This is a huge frustration and barrier for families who want to find something better for their children. And it is heartbreaking for us to see plans and dreams fall apart over something seemingly as simple as busing. Some families even start the year at the school of their choice but then the school district pulls their transportation in the middle of the year and leaves them scrambling. Including transportation funding as a part of the funding that follows students to the school of their choice would help make school choice practical for families and expand access to the full range of educational options.

When parents have a range of options to choose from, the support of a funding system that follows their child to the schools and providers of their choice, and easily accessible quality information from a strong accountability system, the results speak for themselves. Quality increases, parent satisfaction grows, student achievement and engagement skyrocket, and innovation booms.

As you consider how best to design a funding system to support student success, we again applaud you for considering this student-centered approach to student funding.

Zelman decision still impacting thousands of students today

Leave a reply

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program in the landmark Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case ten years ago, it opened the door for thousands of children to attend the school of their choice. The impact of the decision extends beyond the boundaries of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District and even beyond the state of Ohio. It set the precedent for school vouchers cases across the nation.

In the 10 years since the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision, Ohio has created three new school voucher programs – the EdChoice Scholarship Program, the Autism Scholarship Program, and the Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program. At the time of the decision, approximately 4,500 students in the state were using a school voucher. Now, more than 22,000 Ohio students are attending the school of their choice with the help of one of the state’s four school voucher programs, and that number continues to grow each year. Across the nation, more 80,000 students are using state-funded scholarships to attend the private school of their choice.

We recently joined with nearly 700 parents, students, school leaders, supporters and special guests in Cleveland to celebrate the anniversary and the promise of the Cleveland Scholarship & Tutoring Program, a promise that was affirmed by the Supreme Court decision.

During the celebration we shared the video below that shares the stories of students and parents all across the state whose lives are being changed by Ohio’s scholarship programs. Take a look.

 

Judge French shares memories of arguing Zelman case

Leave a reply

Today is the 10-year anniversary of the Zelman v Simmons-Harris landmark case. On June 27, 2002, Judge Judi French argued the Zelman case before the US Supreme Court. Here she shares her memories from the case and the meaning the case still holds for her today.

I don’t think I could adequately convey how much it meant to me (still means to me) to be involved in the Zelman case.  When I first learned that I would be the lead attorney for the State of Ohio, I approached it as a case, that is, an important legal question that needed answering. At that point, the legal challenges had resulted in mixed rulings with no clear winner.  We needed the Supreme Court to step in and clarify the issues, and the Ohio case cued up as the one the court would hear.   But as the case progressed, I began to realize that I was part of much more than just a case.  I was part of a movement that mattered to many, many people, and that could impact many more.

I was surrounded by a terrific team, thanks to the commitment of Attorney General Betty Montgomery.  She made sure we had the resources we needed to be successful, including Ken Starr and Rob Gasaway of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington to act as our co-counsel.  The lawyers who preceded us had made sure that the record was stuffed with evidence about the value of the voucher program and its purposes.  We inherited a great case from them.

I loved the legal question at the core of the case — whether Ohio’s voucher program violated constitutional provisions that prohibit a state from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion.”  Admittedly, I often felt like the eyes of the world (the education world, at least) were on me and the rest of the team, but it was that great legal question that kept us focused. Also important was the ability of Betty, and others, to deflect the pressure the State was under to handle the case just right and win the appeal.  Despite this pressure, Betty gave me nothing but encouragement and confidence.

Here is something that might surprise you…in preparing for the oral argument, I relied on music and visualization to keep centered.  I listened repeatedly to the soundtrack of “Gladiator,” with its Hans Zimmer score, and visualized each step of that important day–getting to the court, going through security, riding the elevator upstairs, waiting for the arguments to begin, beginning my argument, and so on.  The powerful music calmed me and even slowed my heart rate.  I wanted to feel that I had been through each step before, and I even asked my 11-year-old daughter, Julia, to play the part of Chief Justice Rehnquist to call me to the podium and begin my argument.  (She would look serious and say in a deep voice, “Miss French, we’ll hear from you now.”)  It worked.  In those moments (really, just a few seconds) when I stood at the podium waiting for the nod from Chief Justice Rehnquist before I could begin–that moment I knew could cause so much anxiety–I felt that I had been there a thousand times before, at least in my mind.

It was several years before I listened to a recording of the oral argument, and when I did, I cried.  Not because I had performed brilliantly (I thought I spoke too fast and used the word “absolutely” way too much), but because I had been part of something so meaningful and fulfilling.

On June 27, 2012, I will remember what it was like on June 27, 2002, to learn that we had won the case — we had lawyers stationed at the court to receive the opinion, who then relayed the information by phone.   I received so many congratulatory calls that day, but none was more satisfying than the phone call from voucher parents and kids.  Yes, I was proud of what I had done and thrilled with the outcome, but I was even happier for them and what the decision meant for their future.

Guest Blog: The Drama of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Leave a reply

This week marks the 10-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed the constitutionality of school vouchers. The landmark ruling upheld the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program on June 27, 2002. Below is a first-hand account of the court case from Patrick Wolf. He is a professor and 21st Century Endowed Chair in School Choice for the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. He had tickets to the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris oral arguments. Read his memories below.

By: Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D.
University of Arkansas

The Zelman court case provided several indelible memories for me.  At the time I was a public policy professor at Georgetown University who recently had completed a collaborative study of privately-funded K-12 scholarship programs in New York City, Dayton, Ohio, and Washington, DC.  Would the modestly positive test score results we uncovered in our study lead to more experiments with publicly-funded school voucher programs?  Not if the Supreme Court ruled such programs unconstitutional.

I was fortunate to land tickets to attend the oral arguments along with two of my research colleagues, Paul Peterson of Harvard and William Howell then of the University of Wisconsin and now of the University of Chicago.  We sat in the center, about five rows from the back.

Although the seating area filled up quickly, two prime seats about six rows ahead of us, on the cross-aisle, remained unclaimed until the last minute.  As the doors were being closed, former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, then Secretary of Health and Human Services, raced down the aisle, followed (not quite as quickly) by Senator Ted Kennedy.  That set of strange bedfellows claimed those last two seats.  Throughout the proceedings, whenever a Justice made a comment apparently favorable to the Cleveland voucher program, Tommy Thompson perked up in his chair while Ted Kennedy sort of slouched.  Whenever a Justice spoke critically of the program, it was Kennedy who took notice and Thompson who turned away.  Thus, these two political giants served as a rough barometer of how the arguments were going.

Three specific points in the oral arguments left me with vivid memories.  I haven’t verified the quotes below with the actual transcript of the oral arguments, so please consider them to be rough paraphrases of what was actually said.  Robert Chanin, general counsel for the National Education Association, was one of the respondent lawyers on the case.  Chanin got into a heated exchange with Chief Justice Rehnquist, at one point rudely interrupting him.  Rehnquist bellowed, “Are you talking over me, Mr. Chanin?!”  Chanin replied, “No, of course not Mr. Chief Justice.”  I leaned over to William and whispered, “This guy is helping us.”

Towards the end of Chanin’s 30 minutes before the court, we researchers briefly felt a part of the discussion.  Justice Scalia asked Chanin, “Isn’t it relevant that researchers have determined that students learn more when they use school vouchers?”  Chanin replied, “Who claims that?”  Scalia responded, “Oh I know of some social scientists who do.”

Finally, the most amazing point in the arguments was an exchange between Justice Breyer and Ohio Assistant Attorney General Judith French.  Breyer asked, “Isn’t it necessary, under our Constitution, that parents be free from compulsion to send their students to religious schools?”  French responded, “Yes, they cannot be compelled to enroll their students in religious schools.  That must be their choice.”  Breyer then exclaimed, “Well the Catholic schools in Cleveland are undoubtedly much more effective than the public schools there, so any reasonable parent would feel compelled to send their child to a Catholic school.”  I turned to William and whispered, “What the hell?  School vouchers are unconstitutional because the private schools in the program are so much better than the public schools?  That’s his argument?”

Traces of Justice Breyer’s bizarre locution remain in his hysterical dissent in the Zelman case.  Somehow if a specific choice of action is likely to produce a better outcome for the chooser, the choice is thereby coerced and not truly free.  I guess my marriage was coerced, since entering into it clearly made my life better.  According to Justice Breyer, the only free choices we exercise as human beings are the bad ones!  Ah, the brilliant arguments of our great legal minds.

 

The Road to Zelman v Simmons-Harris

Leave a reply

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Zelman v Simmons-Harris case on February 20, 2002, it was the beginning of the end of very long legal journey.

The Pilot Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program was enacted as part of the 1996-97 biennial state budget and was modeled on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Voucher Program, which was the first of its kind in the nation, enacted in 1990. That program, which initially excluded religious private schools from participating due to concerns over First Amendment issues, had already withstood a legal challenge that only went as far as the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, an expansion of the program in 1995 that among other things allowed religious schools to accept voucher students set off another round of legal wrangling in regard to concerns of violating the separation of church and state. This also ended in the Wisconsin Supreme Court when the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998 declined to hear an appeal. When the dust settled, the 1995 expansion was approved in full and religious private schools were allowed to accept students on the program and the state money from their vouchers.

Meanwhile, in Cleveland, 1,500 students began using vouchers to attend the private school of their choice in the 96-97 school year. But before those students even began school, the constitutionality of the program was challenged in court, due to the inclusion of religious schools. Indeed, 77 percent of that first group of students attended a religious-affiliated private school, amounting to millions of dollars going to those religious schools to support the education of scholarship recipients.

The first Ohio challenge ended in May 1999, with victory for opponents of the program, when the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the program due to the way in which the Legislature approved the bill creating the program. But the state legislature reauthorized the program in a different manner the very next month, obviating the concerns of the Ohio Supreme Court and continuing the program uninterrupted.

The second challenge to the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program began less than a month later, on July 20, when a coalition of opponents filed suit in federal court, once again on grounds that the scholarship program violated the Constitution’s First Amendment separation of church and state.

On August 24, a federal judge ruled that the program was unconstitutional and additionally ordered current voucher recipients to return to Cleveland Public Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The resulting negative response led the judge three days later to amend his ruling and allow current scholarship students to remain in their private schools but preventing the most recent awardees from starting in a new private school.

The injunction on the new students was immediately appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was not taken up, and then directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 5, the District Court injunction was stayed and the new students were allowed to take up their scholarships in their chosen private schools.

However, on December 11, 2000, the 6th Circuit Court sustained the original Federal Court ruling that the entire Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program was unconstitutional and later denied the Ohio Attorney General’s request for a full-panel hearing on the matter.

On September 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court took place on February 25, 2002, but that’s another story.

For more info check out:

The Oyez Project

The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

The Institute for Justice

Cleveland is now a portfolio district

Leave a reply

Last month, we told you about a proposal that Cleveland Superintendent Eric Gordon and Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson (Cleveland’s schools are under mayoral control) brought to the state legislature. It was welcomed with open arms as it represented a serious approach to transforming a district that has been struggling mightily for decades.

With support from philanthropists, the Cleveland Teachers’ Union, and parts of the charter school community, and both sides of the aisle, the proposal was tweaked and then finalized last week.

Cleveland follows in the footsteps of portfolio districts across the country – including Boston, Chicago, and others – who see their main role as “school portfolio managers” rather than having to be the only education provider in the city.

The success of the reforms hinge on the passage of a school levy in the district in the fall, so leaders are waiting with bated breath for a vote of confidence from the Cleveland taxpayers.

More doors open for private school students

Leave a reply

There’s no better cost for college than FREE, right?

You’ve heard us talk about how easy Ohio makes it for high school students to earn college credit for free. And those options just got a little broader.

As of last week, private school and homeschooled students are now eligible to take online college courses through the OhioLearns Gateway. Previously, only public school students were able to receive funding. This opens the door to a new pathway to free college credits.

A limited number of private school students were already eligible for funding to take Post-Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) courses at their local colleges and universities.

This is one more step toward the day when families will be able to choose the combination of courses and settings that work best for their children and have the funding follow them to make it feasible.

We commend our legislature for moving in that equitable and efficient direction. And we encourage you to take a look at these programs to see if they could be a good fit for your child – public or private.

Charter school victory in Ohio Supreme Court

Leave a reply

The Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools wrote a great summary of a recent court case that we signed on to as an amicus party in support of charter schools.

On June 6, 2012, Supreme Court of Ohio held 6 to 1 that a deed restriction preventing the use of property for school purposes in the contract for the sale of an unused school building is unenforceable as against public policy.  (CINCINNATI CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. CONNERS ET AL.) What follows is a summary of the decision; you can read the entire opinion on line at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-ohio-2447.pdf.Maurice Thompson was counsel for the party in the case, Dr. Roger Conners.  OAPCS, along with School Choice Ohio, the Ohio Coalition for Quality Education, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, submitted an amici brief in the case on behalf of Dr. Conners. The brief was constructed by the Ohio Alliance’s legal team in consort with Chad Readler (OAPCS Board Chair) who later argued the brief before the Ohio Supreme Court. The coalition filed the brief out of joint concern that finding suitable, affordable facilities has been one of the biggest challenges facing Ohio’s charter schools, and we had seen countless times how school districts tried to block charter schools from obtaining buildings.  This decision is not just a win for Dr. Conners, for but for all of Ohio’s charter schools.

In this case, Dr. Conners had purchased a building formerly used as a school at a public auction in 2009 from the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS).   The purchase agreement contained a deed restriction stating that the buyer (and future buyers) could not use the property for school purposes; the agreement also stated, however, that the restriction would not apply to CPS if it ever decided to repurchase the property.  After purchasing the building, Dr. Conners notified CPS that he intended to open a public charter school the following year.  CPS filed a complaint, seeking to prevent Dr. Conners from opening the school due to the deed restriction.  The issue for the court was whether the deed restriction was void for public policy reasons—or, as the Court explained, “whether the deed restriction accomplishes a result that the state has sought to prevent, or whether it accomplishes something that the state seeks to facilitate.”

The Court began by noting that while the freedom to contract is a deep-seated right given deference, the right is not absolute and can be restrained when contracts are written in a way that is against general public policy.  Thus, the Court explained, “The question [in this case] becomes, when is it appropriate to apply the principle of the public policy exception so as not to infringe on the parties’ rights to make contracts?”
To answer that question, the Court looked to Ohio legislation and found that “[t]he restriction effectively adds barriers to building purchases that the legislature seeks to prevent.”  The Ohio General Assembly had developed an unambiguous public policy in favor of charter schools, and such public policy is enumerated in several statutes including the Community Schools Act and the Community School Classroom Facilities Loan Guarantee Program. Moreover, the legislature had recognized the challenges public charters faced in obtaining suitable facilities and responded by passing legislation requiring school districts to first offer unused school buildings to community schools before putting them up for public auction.   The Court explained that these statutes “indicate a legislative preference for giving charter schools the opportunity to operate out of unused school buildings, a rational choice because charter schools are themselves public schools.”

Furthermore, the fact that the deed restriction would not apply to CPS also troubled the Court, because it worked to thwart competition in favor of CPS.  Additionally, the Court emphasized that the deed restriction was put in place by a public school district, whose authority is derived from and limited to powers expressed by or clearly implied in statute.  A public school district, the Court noted, must enter contracts “with the public in mind.”

For all of these reasons, the Court concluded that, on its face, the deed restriction in question prevented the free use of the property for education purposes. Such a restriction clearly frustrated Ohio public policy that favors making classroom space available to community schools.

Justice Pfeifer concurred in part and dissented in part, explaining that he thought the decision should only apply prospectively. His reasoning was that because the deed restriction likely caused some diminution in the sales price, it was unfair that the buyer could benefit from this diminution but also enjoy full value of the property by disregarding the restriction.  He was concerned that the buyer would receive a windfall. Justice Pfeiffer’s remedy would be to require the buyer to pay CPS the difference between the purchase price and the fair market value of the property.