LEGISLATIVE Updates by Barbara Shaner, OAESA Advocacy Specialist
W
ith the focus in this issue on excellence in equity, it’s a good time to take a look at what’s happening at the statehouse. As you know, the decisions made by lawmakers on a regular basis have an impact on public schools. In fact, OAESA members are among the most affected individuals in Ohio by the education policies adopted by state policy makers. However, even when intentions are good, changes in law are not necessarily equitable for school districts and students. For instance, in recent years, Ohio has changed its criteria for school district report cards, amped up the educational rigor for students and increased the state’s focus on teacher performance. While these changes may stem from a desire to help all students be successful in a competitive global economy, simply passing laws with new requirements and standards does not make it so. Beefing up Ohio’s accountability standards, while laudable in some regards, does not mean students will benefit equally. In fact, one could argue that we have not yet addressed the underlying reasons for why some students and districts struggle while others achieve excellence. OAESA has recently been engaged in a number of discussions on legislative proposals and initiatives aimed at changing expectations on student behavior and academic performance. Yet in every instance, we learn more about the link between the emotional stability of students and their ability to learn, and between poverty, emotional health, and achievement. We often see legislative proposals aimed at eliminating the symptoms of these problems, rather than treating the underlying cause.
EXAMPLE
There is currently a legislative proposal (not yet introduced as a bill) that will restrict an administrator’s discretion in student discipline options, such as out-of-school suspension for grades K–3. As it currently stands, the proposal does not include provisions for covering the cost of alternatives to the use of suspensions—things like additional staffing to oversee in-school suspension rooms; the one-on-one time with students involved with a comprehensive Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) program;
50
and the necessary counselors, social workers, and mental health professionals to support students’ emotional needs. Based on overwhelming feedback from OAESA members, it appears many districts lack the capacity to effectively implement the proposal’s alternatives to suspensions. Without providing adequate additional resources, simply removing suspensions as a disciplinary tool for school administrators is premature. Students are presenting signs of stress and behavioral issues with increased regularity because of insecurity at home, mental illness, hunger, etc., many of which reflect larger societal problems. We believe that until these issues are addressed, those same students will continue to experience challenges as adults even without having ever been suspended from school. Again, this is just one example where equity among students and schools is at stake when legislative proposals, while well-intended, need our expertise and input. We urge OAESA members to engage their own House and Senate members in dialogue regarding excellence in equity. The following is a short list of pending legislation affecting OAESA members.
HB 200—VOUCHER EXPANSION
Dubbed the “Opportunity Scholarship Program,” the bill proposes to combine the Cleveland voucher, EdChoice voucher, and EdChoice expansion voucher into one program, and it extends voucher eligibility to families based on household income, rather than the performance of the resident public school. The bill was recently amended to reduce the eligibility level from the “as-introduced” 400 percent of poverty, to an income threshold for families at, or below, 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Voucher amounts would be $5,000 for students in K–8 and $7,500 for high school (prorated based on income). Recent amendments removed the bill’s Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) that would have set aside any unused portion of the voucher amount to be applied towards private school tuition for future K–12 tuition. The bill proposes to fund the voucher directly from the state (rather than being deducted from school district payments), but of course the voucher expansion would put a much bigger strain on the state budget and the dollars available for public school districts. There is a companion bill in the Senate (SB 85); however, more hearings have been held on HB 200. The cost of the proposal has
