Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > April > 12
Monday, April 12, 2010
Guest column: 3 things Ohio needs to do to win money for schools
This commentary is written by Terry Ryan, vice president for Ohio programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Ohio’s first-round loss in the Race to the Top federal education sweepstakes has resulted in angst and finger-pointing.
Some blame the teachers’ unions and school districts that didn’t endorse the state’s application. (Only 51 percent of Ohio’s 614 districts signed on.) Others point to the lack of legislative action showing bipartisan support for reform.
Yet, others note that the state’s application wasn’t all that reform-minded to begin with, especially when it came to supporting innovations in measuring teacher effectiveness, using charter schools and placing great educators in the state’s neediest schools.
There is truth in all these criticisms and, taken together, they explain why Ohio lost out. The question now becomes, what can Ohio do better in round two?
Here are three issues to tackle:
Get more buy-in from districts and the teachers’ unions
Gov. Ted Strickland has focused on this weakness of Ohio’s application, using a mixture of cajoling and warning. He told the Columbus Dispatch, “I think there needs to be an explanation from the systems that choose not to do it. … I think they owe their tax-paying constituents in those districts an explanation as to why they wouldn’t choose to participate, quite frankly.”
The governor may not like what he hears back. In January, the president of the Dayton Education Association explained the union’s refusal to participate thusly, “…Now, we see the teachers as being attacked for questioning a federal program that is very vague, offers little that is new and simply provides more high-stakes testing.” Such resistance will not be easily overcome, but it must be.
Show bipartisan support for the state’s application
This will certainly boost Ohio’s odds. Tennessee, which, along with Delaware, won Race to the Top funding in the first round, included in its application a letter of support from all seven Democratic and Republican candidates for governor. Based on recent polls, Strickland is an even bet for re-election in November, and similar odds apply to which party will control the Ohio House of Representatives. To make credible promises about the direction of Ohio’s education reform efforts demands bipartisan support.
The one area in Ohio’s first application that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans — the state’s commitment to embracing the “common core” academic standards — was by far the state’s highest-rated portion of its proposal. This is not a coincidence.
Improve the overall quality of Ohio’s proposal This is the most important thing to get right. Too much of the conversation around Race to the Top has been about getting the money, when the real issue is launching sustainable reforms that can make a difference in the lives of children.
The reviewers of Ohio’s application acknowledged the state’s educational gains during the last decade, but they singled out our persistent achievement gaps between rich and poor, whites and minorities. One reviewer wrote, “While the state is making overall gains showing progress, those within subgroups are not indicating the same. The application states that these achievement gaps are ‘unacceptable,’ but doesn’t sufficiently explain the connections between the data and actions that have contributed to those outcomes.”
The states that did better than Ohio on this front offered a new definition of “highly effective” teacher. No longer will seniority and credentials be the prime measure of teacher quality. Tennessee committed itself to having at least half of teacher evaluations based on student achievement measures.
Further, dealing with persistently failing schools — Ohio has identified 69 of these — means committing to closing some schools and forcing serious changes in others. President Barack Obama made clear by his strong support for the Rhode Island school board that fired all of the teachers in a long-suffering high school that he expects states to remove educators who aren’t getting the job done.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told a gathering of school reformers in Washington that Race to the Top represents “a once in a lifetime opportunity” to move education reform in America. This is true. But for Ohio to take advantage of this opportunity requires new ways of doing things.
Tennessee and Delaware have risen to the challenge. Can the Buckeye State?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Editorial: Anderson is better Greene County pick
2010 ELECTION
Virgil Vaduva has some ideas that are beyond the fringe. As pertinent, he’s running for the wrong office.
He’s challenging Alan Anderson in the Republican primary for Greene County commissioner.
However, his complaints, he said, are not with Mr. Anderson, but with Commissioners Marilyn Reid and Rick Perales. He suggests they have a special relationship with the Dayton Development Coalition that results in their campaigns benefitting, but he can’t explain what he means.
Mr. Vaduva’s views, which he characterizes as more Libertarian than Republican, are most intense about national and state politics. He says taxes are a “violent means” of taking people’s property.
The immigrant from Romania says he has been involved with some Tea Party activists and that he helped start the Xenia Liberty Group.
Specifically, he complains that property taxes in Greene County are too high, though the county commission gets little in the way of property tax proceeds; most of that tax money goes to schools. In an interview with the Dayton Daily News, it wasn’t clear whether Mr. Vaduva understands that.
Considering the issues he’s hottest about, you’d think a legislative office or even a school board seat would fit the Xenia resident who works in information technology better.
He also criticizes the Greene County Children’s Services Board as an example of a government agency that spends too much employing people as opposed to providing direct services. That characterization is bewildering because, of course, the bulk of that agency’s budget is going to go toward people — those who investigate abuse complaints, those who monitor children in foster care, those who screen and recruit foster parents.
Though he’s pleasant, Mr. Vaduva is the wrong person for this important job.
Mr. Anderson is completing his first four-year term. He is earnest, but unlikely to ever grow into the most knowledgeable commissioner. Nonetheless, he has carved out some interests.
For instance, he’s especially focused on the fact that much of Greene County — he says half of the county’s land mass — doesn’t have fast, reliable Internet service and is instead dependent on dial-up.
That’s horribly frustrating for those trying to work at home, for children trying to do school work and for anyone who wants to be part of the 21st century.
Whether Mr. Anderson is bringing together the right people or has found the solution isn’t clear. But he is paying attention to a vexing problem.
Mr. Anderson came into office after he knocked off Marilyn Reid in the primary four years ago. Ms. Reid had long been involved in the Greene County Republican Party and also represented the area in the legislature, though not without controversy. She has a long line of critics for her style and on substance; Mr. Anderson was seen as a more go-along-get-along kind of person.
With a term under his belt, no one would suggest he is going to be the person who leads any bold transformation of Greene County’s ways of doing business, and he isn’t politically courageous.
(Though he should have been defending the Dayton Development Coalition and what it does for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and especially for Greene County, Mr. Anderson was on the side of whacking the money the coalition gets to advocate for the region.)
Mr. Vaduva, who has never attended a county commission meeting, isn’t interested in the work of county government. Sticking with Mr. Anderson is the better choice.
To read two other views on this race, click here.
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Miami Valley Politics
Editorial: Columbus needs ‘yes’ on casino issue
2010 ELECTION
Do you get the feeling that our grandchildren’s grandchildren are going to be voting about gambling? Yet again, there’s a casino question on the ballot.
This time the issue is not whether to allow slot machines and blackjack, but precisely where games will be permitted in Columbus.
Issue 2 on the May 4 primary would allow a casino to be built on the West Side, near where I-270 and I-70 cross. If voters defeat Issue 2, Penn National Gaming instead will build a casino in the Arena District on the north side of downtown, not far from Nationwide Insurance’s headquarters.
How did we get to this place?
Last year voters approved one casino in each of four cities: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Columbus. They did so via a constitutional amendment that specified precisely at what address the casinos would be built. Business interests in Columbus campaigned vigorously against the measure.
But voters statewide OK’d the idea, though Franklin County voters — all of central Ohio, actually — rejected the amendment.
The result meant Columbus was going to get a casino downtown whether it wanted it or not. People in Dayton and everywhere else in the state were picking the location for that city in addition to signing off on casinos generally.
Since the election, Columbus big-wigs and Penn National have buried the hatchet and identified a different site. But the casino can’t be built there unless there’s another vote and the people of the state agree that the casino can move.
(Yes, this is absolutely a ludicrous process.)
The new site is a former Delphi Corp. auto parts plant. It’s in a deteriorating neighborhood and the local businesses and residents are welcoming the project, which will likely cost well over the $400 million that was promised for the much smaller plot in downtown.
Columbus is set to annex the 123-acre site, and Franklin Twp., where the parcel is now, would share $8 million in estimated tax revenue with Columbus.
Penn says that it’s in a hurry, and if this amendment doesn’t pass, it will be back at the Arena District location and open for business in 2012.
There is no organized opposition to Issue 2, though the Ohio Roundtable, a conservative group that is adamantly opposed to gambling, is objecting to the site change. Among its criticisms, it says business groups are getting preferential treatment through what amounts to a do-over.
It’s a fair point. But here’s the better one: If the people of Columbus have come together and decided they’ll suck it up and take a casino they didn’t want in the first place — but at another spot — then the people of Dayton and Cambridge and Sandusky shouldn’t really have veto over that.
This newspaper opposed allowing casinos, but the voters disagreed. If Columbus is going to have to accept a casino, at least let it be in a neighborhood that wants the project.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Guest column: Constitution not a chew toy for casinos
2010 ELECTION
This commentary was written by David Zanotti is CEO of the Ohio Roundtable, a conservative think tank.
It took casino consultants 22 years of defeats, and more than $100 million in wasted campaign spending, to figure out that the way to win in Ohio was to cut the number of players at the ballot box.
Casino gambling passed in Ohio because the amendment making it legal was placed on the ballot in 2009, an election off-year, where voter turnout was fractional.
Now the casino owners, with the help of the General Assembly, are placing a constitutional amendment on the May primary election ballot where turnout will be even smaller.
The casino “big dogs” got themselves into a jam in Central Ohio. The people there don’t want a casino. A handful of well-connected people there don’t want the casino near their business development — the Arena District in downtown Columbus — either. So, Penn National agreed to move the casino to “the other side of town” and a much larger facility.
Only problem is that the constitutional amendment Penn National wrote in 2009 prohibits the move. So now, Penn National is using a primary election vote to erase their mess-up and move their bigger casino into somebody else’s neighborhood.
The state constitution and the ballot box are now part of Penn National’s business plan. Even sadder, Penn has figured out that to expand its empire, all it has to do is place an amendment in a primary election when the majority of Ohio voters does not vote because they have no reason to vote.
Primary elections determine candidates for Ohio’s two anemic “major” political parties. The majority of Ohio voters are not Democrats or Republicans, but registered as “nonaligned” or independent voters. They can vote for issues on a primary election day, but if they don’t know an issue is on the ballot, there is no reason for them to go to the polls.
This is why you haven’t heard a word about Ohio Issue 2 this spring — even though early voting on the measure has already begun. The casino industry is happy to leave the majority of Ohio’s independent voters out of the decision-making process — even on their constitution.
What makes this really sad is we are not talking about a vote to change the zoning on the local corner property. This is the constitution being used like a chew toy by the biggest dog at the Statehouse. This document was supposed to be the covenant of “we the people,” creating the highest law in the state.
Now it is the convenient toy of a monopoly industry that always sets the odds in its favor.
The casino owners have painted Ohio into a dangerous corner. The General Assembly should forward a simple proposal to the voters to fix this mess.
Any amendments to the state constitution should only appear on the November ballot in a major election (even numbered) year. This is the best way to insure true majorities of Ohioans are included in the debate about constitutional changes.
If this change does not happen quickly, the casino industry will keep using the Ohio Constitution like an erasable white board. They will be back on the ballot over and over again to change the rules on casino gambling to their liking.
Legalizing casinos in Ohio will eventually prove to be a disappointment. Casinos never match their economic promise and leave a host of ruined lives in their wake.
Letting the casino industry use the constitutional amendment process on the cheap is an embarrassing insult to the rule of law.
A “no” vote on Issue 2 on May 4 will send a message to the Ohio General Assembly to re-think its role as an easy facilitator to the casino owners. We encourage all voters, especially those independents not aligned with either political party, to go to the polls and vote “no” on Issue 2.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Guest Columns, Ohio government, Ohio politics
