Innovation Ohio highlight Issue 2 Pay, Perks and Hypocrisy

Innovation today released documents showing the hypocrisy demonstrated by those supporting SB5.

• Gov. Kasich, whose annual salary is $148,165 (over $10,000 more than his predecessor received), is exempt from the “performance pay” provisions of SB 5, and is still eligible to receive automatic annual 3% “step increases” that SB 5 would terminate for other public workers;
• Gov. Kasich, while repeatedly calling for cuts in the pay and benefits of state and local government workers, pays his own senior staff an average salary of over $110,000. And he has repeatedly fudged the numbers on what he pays all workers in his office. In April, he told the General Assembly that the Governor’s Office payroll was just over $4.8 million. But as of May 7, the actual figure was just over $5.4 million —12% more than what the Governor claimed;
• Gov. Kasich’s 27 Cabinet members earn an average base pay of more than $131, 000 and at least 22 of them each receive an additional $6,600 per year in “car allowances.” At least 7 Cabinet members are also ‘double dippers” who receive state pensions in addition to their government salaries;
• All Members of the Ohio General Assembly earn a base salary of $60,584 for working a part-time job (the average annual salary for all Ohio workers is just over $40,000). But among the 70 Representatives and Senators who voted for SB 5, just 8 earn that “minimum.” The other 62 receive “leadership bonuses” ranging from nearly $34,000 per year to $5,000 annually, with the average bonus being over $8,600. Sen. Bill Seitz of Cincinnati —the only current member of the Senate who does not receive a bonus and was in the Senate when the SB 5 vote took place —had his bonus taken away when he refused to support the legislation;
• Though fiercely critical of “double dipping” by other public workers, 12 House and Senate members who support SB 5 are themselves double-dippers (one is a triple-dipper), and collect legislative salaries in addition to state pensions. Perhaps the biggest single double-dipper in Ohio is House Speaker Bill Batchelder, who receives over $100,000 in a PERS pension, on top of his $94,500 annual legislative salary;
• Unlike regular Ohioans, who are prohibited by law from claiming “mileage reimbursements” for car travel to and from their principal places of work, Ohio House and Senate members voting for SB 5 collect an average of $3,361 per year for driving to the State House to do their jobs;
• Under SB 5, paid sick leave and vacation days would be reduced for average public workers. But General Assembly members enjoy unlimited paid leave for any reason whatsoever, subject only to the “approval” of the House and Senate leadership, whose approval is rarely, if ever, denied;
• Other perks for legislators abound, including thousands of dollars worth of free tickets to athletic events like football, basketball and baseball games, free meals, and other gifts.

The full litanty of hypocrisy can be found over at IO, here.

Courtesy of Ohio Capital Blog, here's video fo the press conference

Pictures & Canvassing 101

Canvassing 101

Door to door canvassing is the single most effective campaign tactic for persuading voters to support your cause and for motivating voters to turn out to vote. This is because the quick, face-to-face interactions are more memorable than impersonal communication like advertising or recorded phone calls.

Door to door canvassing is easy. At your canvass launch, you’ll meet a We Are Ohio organizer or other field staffer. They will have a sample script, which you can use to help guide your brief conversations, as well as some literature to give to voters and leave at the doors of those who are not home. You will also receive a list of voters and their addresses, a map of your walking area and directions from the launch location to your walking area. You’ll have the opportunity to ask any questions you have and get the cell phone number of your organizer in case questions come up while you are out in the neighborhood. Canvassing normally takes about 2 to 2.5 hours.

Door to door canvassing is something that just about anyone can do. You don’t need to be a policy expert or veteran campaign volunteer, because many of the very best canvass volunteers are folks who don’t get lost in arcane policy details. New canvassers can start out with experienced canvassers, going to the first doors together until you get the hang of it. Then, you can divide the neighborhood and each knock on doors on one side of the road or split up the streets and meet at the end.

Door to door canvassing is rewarding. There is nothing like walking away from a home and knowing that you’ve picked up a vote we would have never otherwise earned. Some voters don’t yet know that Issue 2 is Senate Bill 5, and many voters don’t know the basics of how Issue 2 is unsafe, unfair and hurts us all. You’ll probably even run into a few voters who don’t know that the election is this November.

Door to door canvassing is highly effective. Studies and scientifically rigorous research experiments show that canvassing is many times more effective than phone-banking or recorded calls and that volunteer, door-to-door canvassing can increase turnout by as much as 8%. In close elections, canvassing makes the difference. Asking family and friends to join you at a canvass is the best way to grow your door-to-door canvass team and make a significant difference in this campaign. There are 4 keys to building your team:

• Call other members, personally, when you expect them to be home. Sending emails and leaving voicemail messages doesn’t hurt, but they rarely result in members agreeing to join you. You have to call them or speak to them in person.
• Start by telling them about why you canvass and how you feel knowing that your efforts are making a difference. The level of enthusiasm that you convey is really important. This conversation is more about inspiring someone to take action on the core values they hold and less about simply conveying information.
• Assure them that they don’t need any special training or skills; they just need to care about defeating Issue 2 and protecting students and our communities.
• Ask them to try it once and join you. You must ask them to join you, not simply mention it and leave an open-ended invitation. If they can’t make the specific time and date that you are volunteering, ask them about another time or date that weekend and assure them that the We Are Ohio staff will take care of them. Experience shows us that nearly 90% of volunteers who canvass once will want to do it again during that election.

See how much fun folks at a recent canvas were having

[flickr set=72157627773128142]

The League of Women Voters of Ohio oppose HB136

In another blow to those seeking to privatize public education in Ohio, the non-partisan League of Women Voters of Ohio have come out in opposition to HB136

-The League believes that public money should be spent only on public schools that are accountable and responsive to tax payers and comply with standards that ensure a high quality education. Nonpublic schools are not accountable to the taxpayers through elected boards of education; are not required to “open their books” to ensure that the schools are fiscally responsible and that public funds are being spent to serve a public purpose; are not required to serve all students; and are not required to comply with the same operating, teacher licensure, performance, and accountability standards as public schools.

-In addition, Am. Sub. HB136 would divert public funds to private schools (and increase Ohio’s obligation to educate students in private schools) when state funding for public schools will decrease by $1.8 billion over the biennium (HB 153 – Amstutz), and many school districts are cutting programs, laying-off teachers, and preparing to ask voters to increase local taxes to support schools.

The League believes that public education is the cornerstone of our democratic government and prepares students to be active and informed citizens in our society. That is why securing and financing a high quality public education system based on meeting standards, accountable to the public, and available for all students, is so important.

The League also issued these other important points

• Am. Sub. HB 136 would divert limited state funds to participating private schools at a time when school districts are struggling to balance budgets and save education programs after losing $1.8 billion in state funds as a result of HB153 the biennial budget.
• Private schools are not responsive or accountable to elected boards of education. They are not required to "open their books" to ensure that the private schools are fiscally responsible and that public funds are being spent to serve a public purpose.
• Eligible students currently enrolled in eligible private schools could opt to be phased-into PACT, thus expanding the state's obligation to educate students who never attended public schools, at a time when overall state funding for school districts has decreased, and school districts are struggling to maintain the quality of their education programs.
• Am. Sub. HB 136 does not require private schools that accept public funds to participate in Ohio's accountability system for schools and be ranked along with other schools, or comply with all state education standards including academic, performance, and operating standards, or meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3323 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Education of Children with Disabilities.

Worthington School Board passes resolution opposing HB 136

The Worthington School Board passed a resolution opposing HB 136 earlier this week. Four of the five board members voted in favor of the following resultion

WHEREAS, the Ohio House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would significantly expand the availability of vouchers for students to attend private or parochial schools; and

WHEREAS, this legislation would entitle any public school student in Ohio to request and to be granted, as a matter of right, a voucher, subject only to a family adjusted gross income of $102,800 or less; and

WHEREAS, the bill provides that students already enrolled in private or parochial schools would be eligible for such vouchers; and

WHEREAS, students receiving vouchers would be able to retain any excess funds when the cost of tuition is less than the value of the voucher for use in any private school or college in Ohio; and

WHEREAS, the operation of the proposed program would take dollars directly from the already financially-beleaguered local public school districts resulting in fewer resources for the education of the remaining students;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Worthington Board of Education does hereby express its opposition to this legislation, HB 136 School Choice; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Treasurer be directed to spread this Resolution upon the minutes of the Board of Education and that copies of the resolution be forwarded to members of the Ohio House of Representatives.

The Flipped Classroom Infographic

What’s a flipped classroom — and why now?

Created by Knewton and Column Five Media

Poll finds large opposition to voucher plan

There is a large and growing level of opposition to the plan to effectively privatize public education in Ohio via HB136.

A new poll (see below) just released finds the public overwhelmingly does not support more vouchers. The BASA, OASBO and OSBA poll found Sixty percent of voters polled said they do not think Ohio tax dollars should be used for private school tuition subsidies. The poll also found

Another topic of the survey addressed the accountability of private schools receiving tax subsidies. The survey asked whether private schools accepting voucher students should be required to maintain the same standards of testing and assessment of overall student performance as their public school counterparts. More than 85% of respondents strongly favor common assessment practices for students in all schools — whether public, private or parochial.

Following on from that, the Time-Reporter has an article titled "Superintendents blast voucher bill"

Some superintendents in the Tuscarawas Valley think a proposal to expand Ohio’s school voucher program would have a negative impact on public education in the state.

Ryan Delaney, superintendent of Claymont City Schools in Uhrichsville, termed the bill a “disaster.”

“I hope it fails,” he said.
[...]
“I’ve been watching this bill because it will have an impact — directly or indirectly — on this area and public education,” said Jeff Staggs, superintendent of Newcomerstown Exempted Village Schools.
[...]
Vouchers were originally put in place to help students coming from failing school districts, said Bob Alsept, superintendent of New Philadelphia City Schools.

“I understand that,” he said. “Now they’re looking at extending that. I don’t see how that’s not taking money away from public education.”

It isn't just Superintendents, who some might argue would naturally oppose this plan, it is also organizations that might be expected to strongly support it

While the Catholic Conference of Ohio testified in favor of HB 136, it has reservations about the legislation that was approved by the House Education Committee.

Keough said the Catholic Conference hopes the bill can be amended so it can be fair to public schools and public school students while also benefiting scholarship students.

“We want to champion school choice that can benefit the working poor and lower middle-income families without undermining the public school system,” he said.

Coupled with the initial massive expansion, over time, students whose parents would have normally paid for their children's private education will be able to take advantage of this scheme, and the money sucked from the public education system will have disasterous effects. Greg Mild at Plunderbund crunched some numbers and the results are shocking. You should check out the full analysis, but here's some snippets

• 538 out of 612 (88%) school districts have a voucher ratio greater than 1.0, meaning that the voucher amount deducted from the district and given to the private school is greater than the per pupil amount allocated to the public school district.
• 185 school districts have a voucher ratio of 2.0 or higher, resulting in a voucher payment of more than double the public funding amount.
• Of the 185 school districts with a voucher ratio of higher than 2.0, 142 achieved a rating of Excellent or Excellent with Distinction from the Ohio Department of Education for the 2010-2011 school year.
• School districts with an Excellent with Distinction, the highest rating obtainable in Ohio and a demonstration of sustained excellence, have an average voucher ratio of 2.35. This means that HB136 would make the statement that private school students in these districts should receive 2.35 times as much funding as these high-performing public schools
• The Upper Arlington City SD is reported as having a negative state school funding dollar amount, resulting in a situation where no student would have access to the voucher funding proposed in HB136
• Some of the highest performing districts will have to pay over 10x the amount they receive from the state in private school tuition

1. Rocky River City SD – 12.88 x per pupil funding
2. Olentangy Local SD – 10.47 x per pupil funding
3. Sycamore Community SD – 11.20 x per pupil funding

Ohio Survey shows voters donʼt support government subsidies for private schools

HB 136 presents a grave and present danger to the contiuned viability of public education in Ohio. You should contact your legislator immediately and strongly urge them to oppose this radical legislation.