Innovation Ohio

What you need to know about Ohio Politics and Policy

  • 2022 Ohio Election Hub
  • About Us
    • Our Mission & Role
    • Our Team
    • Job Opportunities
  • Our Work
    • 2022 Ohio Election Hub
  • The Latest
    • Updates
    • IO in the News
    • 2022 Ohio Election Hub
    • 2022 Legislative Scorecard: House Representatives
  • Take Action
  • Donate

Nov 15 2022

Ohio Lame Duck 2022

This week, the Ohio legislature begins its Lame Duck session.

In Ohio, Lame Duck occurs every two years between Election Day and December 31st, before the newly elected legislators are sworn in.

Any bill that hasn’t yet passed must be signed into law by the end of the year. Otherwise, the bill dies and must be reintroduced next term.

Ohio’s Republican Statehouse supermajority often tries to quietly pass their most controversial bills during Lame Duck.

Throughout this chaotic period, we’ll be tracking some of the most important legislation and sending out regular calls to action.

Make sure you’re following Innovation Ohio on social media as well:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • TikTok

We’ll need your help to fight for and against life-altering bills over the next several weeks.

Your calls, emails, tweets, and testimony matter. Your voice matters.

Written by Rachel Coyle · Categorized: Abortion Rights, Children & Families, Criminal Justice Reform, Democracy, Economic Development and Jobs, Education, Fair and Open Elections, Featured Items, Gun Safety, Healthcare and Human Services, Higher Education, K-12 Education, Legislative Updates, Statehouse Update, Take Action, Women's Watch

Jul 27 2022

Innovation Ohio Adds Several New Team Members as Organization’s Work Expands

Today, Desiree Tims, President and CEO of Innovation Ohio, proudly announced several new additions to the organization’s staff. Innovation Ohio continues to expand and grow in order to meet the demands of this crucial moment in Ohio politics.

“We have reached a pivotal juncture for our state and our nation. Will we allow ourselves to be thrown backward by a vocal minority intent upon unraveling decades of progress, or will we stand up, fight back, and continue to move forward toward a future that’s better for everyone? Innovation Ohio is stepping up and staffing up to provide the research, messaging, and resources necessary for Ohio’s progressive champions to succeed,” said Desiree Tims.

New Innovation Ohio staff members include:

Kayla Lewis
Chief of Staff
She/Her

Kayla Lewis brings an abundance of state and local campaign experience to IO, as well as five years of state legislative experience and four years in direct service nonprofit work. She has held various positions on political campaigns ranging from field and volunteer organization to communications and strategy.

Kayla is a proud HBCU graduate of Kentucky State University, where she holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. She has also earned a diploma from The Campaign School at Yale University and currently attends Capital University Law School.

Ambur Smith
Democracy and Civil Rights Director
She/Her

Ambur C. Smith, Esq. is an Ohio attorney, political strategist and entrepreneur. Prior to joining IO, Ambur gained experience in progressive politics as a field organizer and strategist for Democratic campaigns; most recently as the Deputy Director of Voter Protection for the Ohio Democratic Party in 2020. Simultaneously, Ambur has dedicated her legal career to empowering women and marginalized communities in both the public and private sector while exploring the intersections between identity, law and politics.

Ambur is a proud graduate of Hampton University, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, and the Georgetown University Law Center, where she received her Juris Doctor. Ambur is licensed to practice law in Ohio and the District of Columbia.

Nick Tuell
Senior Communications Strategist and Paid Media Buyer
He/Him

Nick Tuell is a political professional with experience in government and political campaigns. He worked for President Obama’s reelection campaign as a field organizer in southeast Ohio, and worked four election cycles for the Ohio House Democratic Caucus, where he eventually ran the statewide field, digital, and communications programs.

Nick has several years of government experience as well. He first served as Legislative Aide to State Representative Stephen Slesnick, then Senior Legislative Aide to Ohio House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn. Most recently, Nick served as Chief Spokesperson for the Franklin County Clerk of Courts, Maryellen O’Shaughnessy. Nick holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science with certificates in Political Communications and Gender Studies from the Ohio University.

Sha’Tisha Young
Senior Digital Communications Associate
They/Them

Sha’Tisha Young was born in Colorado Springs, CO, but grew up primarily in Dayton and Xenia, OH. They attended Wright State University for a bachelor’s degree in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies with dual minors in Classical Humanities and Youth and Community Engagement.

Working in public libraries small and large for over 6 years, Sha’Tisha saw first hand how the lack of resources in any given community directly impacted its residents. Coupled with their work with organizations like Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice Ohio, MoveOn and URGE, Sha’Tisha has developed a sense of organizing that is rooted in empowering and activating voters on a local level.

Emma Speyer
Research and Communication Associate
She/Her

Emma Speyer is from Cleveland, Ohio, and a recent graduate of the University of Dayton. During her time at UD, she studied Public Relations and Political Science, finding passion in state politics and engaging her local community.

Emma spent over three years in community organizing by leading her school’s voting rights organization, registering students to vote, and educating students on local and federal issues. She also spent time working for the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, directly working for voters and assisting with community engagement for her hometown. Emma is most excited about the opportunity to continue her passion of helping educate voters and providing fair and equal opportunities for civic engagement.

To learn more about Innovation Ohio (IO), visit InnovationOhio.org and follow IO on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

To receive regular updates and/or news clips from IO, sign up here.

To support IO’s important work, contribute here.

Written by Rachel Coyle · Categorized: Democracy, Featured Items, Front Page, Press Releases, Winning Agenda

Jan 13 2021

Desiree Tims Named New President and CEO of Innovation Ohio

Today, Innovation Ohio announced that Desiree Tims will be the organization’s new President and CEO. She takes over from Janetta King, who founded the organization in 2011. 

“I am elated to take the helm of Innovation Ohio, one of our state’s premier policy and advocacy organizations,” said Desiree Tims. “Through research, coalition building, and advocacy coordination, Innovation Ohio has long been on the forefront of fighting for innovative policies that help working families and create economic opportunity from the bottom up. I am committed to continuing and strengthening this vital work as we face some of our state’s and nation’s biggest challenges.” 

Tims was born and raised in Dayton and is a proud product of Dayton Public Schools. After graduating from Xavier University, she worked in the Obama White House, and Capitol Hill for Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and a number of advocacy organizations. She is also a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center. 

“Innovation Ohio has long led efforts to champion Ohio workers and honor the Dignity of Work, and I can think of no one better to lead the next chapter of the organization than Desiree Tims. Growing up in a working-class household in Dayton, Desiree has spent her career working for Ohioans like her, including through her work in my Senate office,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown. “I look forward to partnering with Desiree and Innovation Ohio in our continued efforts to create an economy in Ohio that works for working families.”  

In 2020, Tims gained national attention for her campaign against Congressman Mike Turner. Her energetic campaign drew in new activists and set fundraising records against the entrenched incumbent. 

“I am so excited to have this daughter of Dayton at the helm of one of the most important progressive organizations in Ohio,” said Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley. “Innovation Ohio has long been a resource and partner for myself and other progressives, and I can’t wait to see what’s next.” 

Innovation Ohio was founded as a progressive policy and advocacy hub. It has become an integral part of the progressive ecosystem, connecting activists and everyday Ohioans with statehouse advocacy. 

“Over the last decade, Innovation Ohio has become the go to resource for advocates and activists in Ohio,” said former Gov. Ted Strickland. “New, innovative leadership from Desiree Tims offers a great opportunity for this dynamic organization.” 

###

Written by Katherine Liming · Categorized: Featured Items, Front Page, Press Releases, Uncategorized

Aug 25 2020

2020 Legislative Scorecard: Ohio House of Representatives

Beginning in January of every odd-numbered year, lawmakers come to Columbus to convene the Ohio General Assembly. In the two year session that follows, hundreds of bills are introduced, many of which are signed into law. During the 133rd General Assembly, which began in January of 2019, legislators have grappled with issues ranging from responding to the COVID-19 pandemic to abortion rights, local control of public schools, gun safety to the confederate flag.

With Statehouse activity mostly wrapped up for the term, we’ve compiled the voting record of all 99 State representatives on the most significant proposals they faced for consideration by voters before they head to the polls on November 3.

Check out our Ohio House Scorecard, which lists how all 99 members of the Ohio House of Representatives voted on important proposals in the 133rd General Assembly.

View the Innovation Ohio 2020 House of Representatives Scorecard

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: 2020 Election, Featured Items, Front Page, Legislative Updates, Statehouse Update · Tagged: 2020 election, Candidates, Ohio General Assembly, ohio house, ohio legislature, Scorecard

Jun 15 2020

Ohio Legislation Watch: Gun Reform Bills

Below is information on pro-reform bills introduced in the 133rd General Assembly with information about their current status and what you can do to support them. HB 240 (Kelly, Miranda) – Child Access Protection Act
  • Summary: to ensure firearms are stored safely and securely out of the reach of minors.
  • Status: Assigned to House Criminal Justice Committee on 5/14/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Representatives Miranda and Kelly
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Lang to schedule additional hearings on HB 240
HB 315 (Liston) – Suicide Prevention 
  • Summary: Require gun dealers give suicide prevention information
  • Status: Assigned to House Health Committee on 9/24/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available.
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Lipps to schedule a first hearing on HB 315.
HB 316 (Russo, Sweeney) – Extreme Risk Protection Orders (Red Flag Law)
  • Summary: To enact the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act to allow family members, household members, and law enforcement officers to obtain a court order that temporarily restricts a person’s access to firearms if that person poses a danger to themselves or others. 
  • Status: Assigned to House Health Committee on 9/24/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Lipps to schedule a first hearing on HB 316.
HB 317 (Russo, Sweeney) – Universal Background Checks
  • Summary: To enact the Protect Law Enforcement Act to require a firearm transfer to be made through a dealer, through a law enforcement agency, or pursuant to a specified exception, and to require a background check when a firearm is transferred.
  • Status: Assigned to House State and Local Government Committee on 9/24/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Wiggam to schedule a first hearing on HB 317.
HB 319 (West, A. Miller) – Local Control
  • Summary: To restore local authority to generally regulate firearms related conduct.
  • Status: Assigned to House State and Local Government Committee on 9/24/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Wiggam to schedule a first hearing on HB 319.
HB 320 (West) – Firearm Transfers
  • Summary: To prohibit a federally licensed firearms dealer from transferring a firearm while a background check is pending unless 30 days have elapsed.
  • Status: Assigned to House State and Local Government Committee on 9/24/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Wiggam to schedule a first hearing on HB 320.
HB 335 (Lepore-Hagan, Boyd) – Domestic Violence
  • Summary: To require a person who is subject to a civil or criminal domestic violence temporary protection order to surrender the person’s firearms.
  • Status: Assigned to House Criminal Justice Committee on 9/24/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available.
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Lang to schedule a first hearing on HB 335.
HB 348 (A. Miller) – Protection Orders
  • Summary: To prohibit a person subject to a protection order from purchasing or receiving a firearm for the duration of the order.
  • Status: Assigned to House Civil Justice Committee on 10/01/19
  • Testimony: Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available.
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Speaker Householder to schedule a first hearing on HB 348.
HB 349 (Weinstein) – Firearm Magazines
  • Summary: To generally prohibit a person from possessing a large capacity magazine and to establish a large capacity magazine registry.
  • Status: Assigned to House Criminal Justice Committee on 10/2/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available.
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Lang to schedule a first hearing on HB 349.
HB 354 (Plummer, Swearingen) – Firearms
  • Summary: To require the juvenile court to expunge all records sealed pursuant to the juvenile sealing law upon the person’s twenty-eighth birthday, to expand the circumstances under which a person has a weapon under disability, to specify that moderate or severe substance use disorder is a mental illness for purposes of the law governing civil commitments, to require the Director of Public Safety to create and maintain the weapons disability data portal, to impose certain consequences on specified entities that fail to comply with data submission requirements, and to make an appropriation.
  • Status: Fifth hearing held in House Finance Committee on 10/16/19.
  • Proponent Testimony of Representatives Plummer and Swearingen; Proponent Testimony of Micaela Deming; Interested Party Testimony of Ahmad Mostafavifar; Interested Party Testimony of Paul Pfeifer; Opponent Testimony of Niki Clum; Interested Party Testimony of Terry Russell; Interested Party Testimony of Stephen Levorchick; Proponent Testimony of Nate Kehlmeier- Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Oelslager to schedule additional hearings on HB 354 and attend future hearings.
HB 646 (Howse) – Pilot Therapy 
  • Summary: To require Director of Health to establish a pilot therapy program for Cleveland youth and young adults who are at high risk for gun violence
  • Status: Assigned to House Health Committee on 5/27/20.
  • Testimony: Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available.
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Lipps to schedule a first hearing on HB 646.
HB 647 (Strahorn) – High Capacity Magazines 
  • Summary: Prohibits manufacture/sale of high capacity magazines
  • Status: Assigned to House Federalism Committee on 5/27/20.
  • Testimony: Not yet available.
  • Bill Analysis: Not yet available.
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Becker to schedule a first hearing on HB 647.
SB 19 (Williams) – Extreme Risk Protection Order Act
  • Summary: To enact the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act to allow household members, family, and law enforcement officials to obtain a court order to temporarily restrict an individual’s access to firearms if that person poses a harmful risk to either themselves or others.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/10/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senator Williams
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 19.
SB 43 (Antonio, Kunze) – Domestic Violence Firearm Restrictions
  • Summary: To address domestic violence by the means of firearms restrictions, penalty enhancements, and enact a prohibition against strangulation.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 4/2/19.
  • Testimony: Proponent Testimony of Senators Kunze and Antonio
  • Bill analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 43.
SB 62 (Thomas) – Semi-Automatic Rate of Fire Restrictions
  • Summary: To prohibit certain conduct regarding a multitude of items (i.e. parts, components, attachments, devices, and accessories) that increase the rate of fire (but that do not convert such weapons into automatic firearms) for semi-automatic weapons.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/17/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senator Thomas
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 62.
SB 63 (Thomas) – Firearms Transfers
  • Summary: To require private firearm transfers to be made through a dealer, a law enforcement agency, or pursuant to a special exemption, and to require a background check for such transfers.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/17/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 63.
SB 64 (Thomas) – Minimum Purchasing Age for Firearms
  • Summary: To raise the minimum purchasing age for firearms to 21 years of age, and to increase the penalties for improperly furnishing firearms to minors.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/17/19.
  • Testimony: Not yet available
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 64.
SB 65 (Thomas) – Gun Show Regulations
  • Summary: To regulate the transfer of firearms at gun shows.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/17/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senator Thomas; Sponsor Testimony of Fox 8 News
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 65.
SB 182 (Thomas, Lehner) – Minimum Purchase Age
  • Summary: To raise minimum age to purchase firearm to 21.
  • Status: second hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 1/21/20.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senators Thomas and Lehner, Proponent Testimony of Tara Talgar
  • Bill Analysis, 
  • Fiscal Analysis
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 182.
SB 183 (Thomas, Lehner) – Universal Background Checks
  • Summary: To require a firearm transfer to be made through a dealer, through a law enforcement agency, or pursuant to a specified exception, and to require a background check when a firearm is transferred.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/17/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senators Thomas and Lehner
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 183.
SB 184 (Williams, Lehner) – Extreme Risk Protection Order (Red Flag)
  • Summary: To allow family members, household members, and law enforcement officers to obtain a court order that temporarily restricts a person’s access to firearms if that person poses a danger to themselves or others.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 9/17/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senator Williams
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 184.
SB 202 (Thomas, Craig) – Local Authority
  • Summary: To restore local authority to regulate firearms-relate conduct. 
  • Status: One hearing held in General Government and Agency Review Committee on 10/23/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senators Craig and Thomas
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Schuring to schedule additional hearings on SB 202.
SB 203 (Thomas, Lehner) – Firearm Transfers
  • Summary: To regulate the transfer of firearms at a gun show.
  • Status: One hearing held in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 11/5/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senators Thomas and Lehner
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 203.
SB 221 (Dolan) – Firearms Laws
  • Summary: Regards firearm protection orders/seller protection certificates.
  • Status: Third hearing in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 13/03/19.
  • Testimony: Proponent Testimony of Rebecca Gaytko, Proponent Testimony of Walt Davis, Proponent Testimony of Pastor Norman Scearce, Proponent Testimony of Pastor Uhleric Reynolds, Proponent Testimony of Prosecutor Jane Hanlin, Proponent Testimony of Chief Bruce Pijanawski, Proponent Testimony of Sheriff Michael Simpson, Proponent Testimony Mayor Christina Muryn, Proponent Testimony of Bill Cotton, MD, FAAP , Proponent Testimony of Chris Kershner, Proponent Testimony of Ohio Mayors Alliance, Proponent Testimony of Jim Tobin, Proponent Testimony of Chief Robin Lees, Proponent Testimony of Chief Adam Pillar, Proponent Testimony of Whitney Austin, Proponent Testimony of Pastor John T. Coats, Proponent Testimony of Howie Beigelman, Sponsor Testimony of Senator Dolan
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 221.
SB 223 (Thomas, Lehner) – Firearms 
  • Summary: To generally prohibit a person from possessing trigger cranks, bump-fire devices, or other items that accelerate a semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire but do not convert it into an automatic firearm and large capacity magazines.
  • Status: First hearing in Government Oversight and Reform Committee on 11/05/19.
  • Testimony: Sponsor Testimony of Senator Thomas and Lehner
  • Bill Analysis
  • Fiscal Analysis: Not yet available.
  • What activists can do: Ask Chairman Coley to schedule additional hearings on SB 223.
For a real-time status report on all gun legislation (including pro-gun legislation) pending in the Ohio legislature, check our custom tracker, courtesy of Gongwer News Service. To be updated about weekly and breaking news about important legislation, sign up for our legislative email alerts.

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Featured Items, Front Page, Gun Safety, Legislative Updates, Statehouse Update

Sep 23 2019

Ohio’s State Budget Bill – Exploding Vouchers, Lax Charter School Oversight

Exploding Vouchers. Returning to Pre-ECOT Oversight of Charter Schools.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The July passage of House Bill 166, the state’s two-year operating budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, signaled a disturbing return to the lax oversight of Ohio’s charter school system that led to a massive taxpayer scandal, as well as a continued expansion of the transfer of taxpayer funds from public to mostly-religious private schools.

When Governor Mike DeWine signed HB166 into law, he approved a budget that lawmakers had packed full of little-noticed gifts to those who seek to erode support for traditional public schools through a proliferation of charter and private school options funded at taxpayer expense.

The budget bill included four major gifts to the school choice crowd, namely: 

1. Weakening Ohio’s Automatic Charter School Closure Law

2. Weakening Standards for Dropout Recovery Schools

3. Weakening Oversight of Charter School Sponsors

4. Increasing the Transfer of Taxpayer Dollars To Private Schools Via Vouchers

The voucher expansion alone, if fully adopted, could cost Ohio districts at least another $73 million over the biennium1, on top of an already ballooning $389 million per year private school voucher program. 

Innovation Ohio’s latest analysis looks at how the state budget expands the state’s already exploding voucher program while reversing progress to bring accountability to charter schools.


Ohio’s State Budget Bill

Exploding Vouchers / Returning to Pre-ECOT Oversight of Charter Schools

House Bill 166, the state’s two-year operating budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, heralded a return to the lax oversight of Ohio’s charter school system that led to a massive taxpayer scandal, and a continued expansion of the transfer of taxpayer funds from public to mostly-religious private schools. Innovation Ohio is concerned that with this return to weaker oversight of and greater investment in education privatization options, scandals like the one that brought down the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) will become the norm, and more and more taxpayer dollars will continue to flow to unaccountable, mostly-religious private schools.

Charter Schools: Less oversight of a scandal-ridden sector

In early 2018, ECOT, at the time, the state’s largest online charter school, was forced to close after 18 years in operation after the state sought to recover $124 million the school charged taxpayers for kids they couldn’t prove were actually participating in online learning. Since the school’s first year of operation in 2000-2001, Ohio officials knew that ECOT’s ability to track students was suspecti. But little to nothing was done, in large part because the school’s founder and for-profit operator, William Lager, contributed huge amounts of cash to the campaign accounts of Ohio politicians, primarily Republicansii.

Despite the passage of House Bill 2 in 2015 – a landmark charter school oversight bill that in many ways brought Ohio back closer into the national mainstream on charter school oversight  – the law did not go far enoughiii to rein in the sector once dubbed the “Wild, Wild West of Charter Schools” by national pro-charter advocatesiv.

Rather than building on that effort at accountability, the FY2020-21 Budget Bill signed into law by Gov. DeWine actually weakened oversight of Ohio’s charter school sector and helped some of the worst-performing schools in the nation remain open. Here’s how:

• Changes current rules for automatically closing failing charter schools

• Makes it easier for failing Dropout Recovery Schools to remain open

• Allows charter school sponsors to have a do-over on their state evaluations

Weakening Ohio’s Automatic Closure Law 

When the state’s automatic closure law was first adopted in 2005, it required three consecutive years of failure as a standard (for non-high schools)v. However, in 2009, then-Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio House successfully updated that to a more stringent 2 out of 3 yearsvi.

To be clear, even with the tougher standard, the state’s automatic closure law has had a very small impact on closing bad charter schools, primarily because the state kept exempting charters from the requirements by changing the report card and testing regime multiple times over the last 10 years. According to state datavii, of 305 charter schools that have closed in Ohio, only 24 did so because of the closure law. By comparison, 172 closed voluntarily. Another 80 were ordered closed for primarily financial reasons. Prior to the closure law, six charters closed for failing to meet basic legal requirements. 

All told, Ohio’s closure law (which charter school proponents have called the toughest in the nationviii) is now being loosened because as many as 52 charters would other be subject to closure under the current standardix. To which we would argue: “exactly”. When more than half of all students going to charters attend schools that perform the same or worse than the district schools they would otherwise attend,x one would think that losing 52 of the worst performers would be a good thing, and it would make more funding available for higher performers.

Interestingly, of the 52 charters2 that were scheduled to be closed under the old standard, 34 are run by for-profit charter school operators, including almost 20 percent of the former White Hat schools now being operated by Ron Packard – the founder of K-12, Inc. – the nation’s largest (and most notoriousxi) online charter school operator. Another big operator set to take a hit was J.C. Huizenga’s 10 Ohio-based National Heritage Academies. Six of those were on the chopping block before the legislature offered a legislative reprieve. Huizenga is an acolyte of Betsy DeVos – the controversial U.S. Secretary of Education – and his political connections have kept his schools afloat for years, despite complaints from the schools they ran about performancexii. 

National Heritage has been a darling of pro-charter school advocates over the years, with the Fordham Institute declaring them last year a “notable example of a high-performing for-profit charter chain.”xiii It would seem to burst the charter-school myth that if the poster child for “high performing, for-profit charter schools” had to close 60 percent of its Ohio schools for poor performance.

Instead, Ohio lawmakers have once again moved the goalposts on charter school accountability, helping for-profit charter school operators, and continuing to allow the worst performing charter schools to remain open and fail students for another year. We struggle to understand the public policy reasons for allowing this to continue, especially in light of the ECOT scandal, in which that school (thanks to its deep political ties) was allowed to fail students for two decades.

Weakening Dropout Recovery School Standards

Ohio’s dropout recovery schools – charter schools designed specifically to return dropouts to the state’s school system – are, simply put, among the worst-performing schools in the entire nation. Some graduate less than two percent of their students in four years and less than 10 percent in eight years. The state’s already lax standards only requires that a dropout recovery school graduate eight percent of their students in four years. 

In order to remain open, students in these schools must pass a test to ensure academic standards are met. The FY2020-21 state budget allowed dropout schools to adopt another, easier test, and reduced the passing score, which the non-partisan Legislative Service Commission predicted “may increase the number of dropout prevention and recovery community schools rated as ‘exceeds standards’ or ‘meets standards’” and “may reduce the number of dropout prevention and recovery community schools subject to closure.”xiv

Last year, of the 6,887 students in dropout recovery schools eligible to have graduated within four years, only 1,808 actually did. Meanwhile, in Ohio’s major urban districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown), more than 75 percent of students graduate within 4 years.

Weakening Charter School Sponsor Oversight

The result of having fewer poor performing charter schools is that charter school sponsors – which can collect as much as 3 percent of a charter school’s state funding to oversee the school – will see their evaluations weakened. To make matters worse, the Budget Bill orders the Ohio Department of Education to re-evaluate sponsors’ previous accountability ratings to take into account these new, weaker dropout recovery standards. As a result, these sponsors will get a do-over on their previously-failing oversight grades.

The main accountability provision in House Bill 2, enacted in 2015,3 was to make life more difficult for sponsors – many of whom are not education entities – and create more incentives for them to provide oversight of an out-of-control charter school sector. Allowing sponsors to re-do their past evaluations greatly weakens the oversight the state can exert over the overseers, allowing for the possibility of more ECOT-like scandals to proliferate and rob Ohio taxpayers of resources that could be better spent in traditional public school buildings or higher-performing charter schools.

Voucher Explosion

Ten years from now, it’s not impossible to imagine that we’ll look back at HB166 as the “Voucher Bill,” thanks to the massive expansion of vouchers the budget bill will infuse into the system. This is thanks primarily to the bill’s $73.3 million annual expansion of the EdChoice Expansion program – an income-based voucher that any child who meets an income requirement can take to have taxpayers subsidize their private (and in most cases religious) education. In terms of scale, 10 years ago, all voucher deductions put together was only $56 millionxv. 

While it may seem like a sympathetic idea to provide low-income children an opportunity to access private school education, the issue is that under the expansion, families of four earning up to $103,000 now qualify for a nearly $3,000, taxpayer funded, public subsidy to offset their private-school tuitionxvi. It is estimated that nearly 80 percent of Ohio households would qualify for at least half of the full voucher amountxvii. 

This is just the latest in a series of expansions of vouchers in Ohio law. The state has been on the front lines of the private school voucher fight for two decades. 

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court case ruled the Cleveland voucher program—at the time, the only private school voucher program offered in the state—constitutional, despite the fact that it sent public tax dollars to private, mostly religious schools. This was because, as stated in the opinion written by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “[a]ny objective observer familiar with the full history and context of the Ohio program would reasonably view it as one aspect of a broader undertaking to assist poor children in failed schools.”xviii The ruling found the program was limited in scope and costs; therefore, it wasn’t an overly burdensome infringement on the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Times have changed. What was once a single program in one city that cost taxpayers $2.9 million has become a more than $333.8 million annual venture, with 581 of the state’s 610 school districts losing at least one student to vouchers over the last 5 years. The growth of these programs will likely accelerate under HB 166. Private school vouchers are now impacting 95 percent of Ohio school districts—certainly not all of which are failing.

Originally created to help students in poor-performing Cleveland schools, the number of voucher programs has steadily grown to include 5 different voucher programs, making even more students around the state eligible. By the 2006-2007 school year, nearly a third of Ohio’s 613 school districts saw some students opting to attend private schools using taxpayer-funded vouchers. Today, vouchers impact 95 percent of school districts.

In addition, the amount of state money given per voucher has exploded since the Supreme Court ruled that its small amount compared with public schools meant it didn’t violate the Establishment Clause. Between 2002 and today, the average per pupil voucher has grown from just over $1,300 to $6,512 per student, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, the state’s per pupil public school investment has seriously lagged that of its private school counterparts going up from $4,100 to $4,782 in inflation adjusted dollars during the same period.

The state investment in private, mostly religious schools now far surpasses, on average, the state’s average per pupil investment in the 1.7 million Ohio students who attend Ohio’s public school districts. This reversal calls into question whether today’s voucher system in Ohio would survive the same legal analysis that justified the program in 2002.

It is also troubling that the state has chosen to increase its investment of taxpayer money in private, mostly religious schools by 428% since 2002, while at the same time only delivering a 12% increase in state per pupil investment in public school districts. It probably isn’t a coincidence that 2002 also saw the Ohio Supreme Court end its examination of Ohio’s school funding system. Those two decisions – one from the U.S. Supreme Court allowing for vouchers to be done and one from the Ohio Supreme Court giving up its oversight of Ohio’s school funding system, which it had ruled four different times to be unconstitutional – led to the state deciding to increase funding to vouchers by 400 percent and essentially freeze school district funding.

As can be seen in the following table showing funding for the state’s five voucher programs for the four years beginning in 2013-2014 and ending with 2017-2018 school year, millions of dollars have been sent to private, mostly religious schools from every type of school district in the state, not only from the major urban districts. In fact, just under half of the money sent out to voucher programs did not come from major urban districts.

District Type EdChoice Expansion  Autism Voucher Special Ed Voucher EdChoice Voucher Original Cleveland Voucher
Poor Rural  $ 4,673,702   $12,220,320   $ 6,059,308   $ 78,060   $    –   
Rural  $ 2,515,709   $ 8,305,086   $ 4,532,842   $ 33,143   $    –   
Small Town  $ 7,535,697   $ 24,120,479   $ 15,117,235   $ 190,250   $    –   
Poor Small Town  $ 17,069,071   $ 28,652,804   $ 19,851,275   $ 5,844,387   $ 3,740 
Suburban  $ 20,200,635   $ 78,416,765   $ 52,421,563   $ 8,410,821   $ 121,540 
Wealthy Suburban  $ 4,389,589   $ 66,196,920   $ 33,634,223   $ 201,652   $ 54,103 
Urban  $ 27,263,416   $ 61,046,676   $ 24,136,553   $ 93,178,052   $ 847,472 
Major Urban  $ 25,402,368   $ 65,205,127   $ 40,433,321   $ 346,571,689   $ 166,142,550 
Grand Total  $ 109,050,188   $ 344,164,177   $ 196,186,321   $ 454,508,052   $ 167,169,405 

Based on earlier expansions, the $73.3 million additional funding set aside in House Bill 166 for income-based vouchers will result in funding losses across all sectors of Ohio’s school system. This becomes a problem because as students depart public schools using vouchers, the school districts they leave behind see their state resources decline accordingly, forcing them to dig into local resources (or cut programming) to make up the difference. This impacts some of the highest-performing school districts in the state – a far cry from the 2002 claim that vouchers are meant to help poor kids escape failed schools.

District Name County Local Subsidy (2014-2018)
Columbus City School District Franklin  $    28,015,593 
Cincinnati City School District Hamilton  $    20,314,389 
Cleveland Hts-Univ Hts City School District Cuyahoga  $      8,859,655 
Olentangy Local School District Delaware  $       7,955,472 
Worthington City School District Franklin  $       7,413,205 
Hilliard City School District Franklin  $        7,110,616 
South-Western City School District Franklin  $       6,751,052 
Westerville City School District Franklin  $       6,135,993 
Dublin City School District Franklin  $      6,056,282 
Northwest Local School District Hamilton  $       5,928,916 
Parma City School District Cuyahoga  $      5,240,310 
Lakota Local School District Butler  $      4,983,578 
Boardman Local School District Mahoning  $       4,817,835 
Oak Hills Local School District Hamilton  $      4,493,305 
Fairfield City School District Butler  $      3,508,264 
Gahanna-Jefferson City School District Franklin  $      3,174,098 
Mayfield City School District Cuyahoga  $       2,915,948 
South Euclid-Lyndhurst City School District Cuyahoga  $      2,863,618 
Sycamore Community City School District Hamilton  $      2,700,666 
Newark City School District Licking  $       2,632,417 

It would be one thing if vouchers provided clearly better opportunities for students. However, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute – a pro-school choice advocacy research outfit – recently examined Ohio’s largest voucher program and found that voucher students didn’t do better or the same as their public school counterparts. They did worse.xix 

As the report put it, “The students who used vouchers to attend private schools fared worse on state exams compared to their closely matched peers remaining in public schools.” Even in Cleveland — an often ridiculed district by school choice advocates — vouchers were found to not substantially improve the performance of the students who utilized them.xx

This supports other research indicating that controlling for demographics, public schools overall do better than their private school competitors.xxi 

Overall, this budget would seem to expand the state’s investment in taxpayer investment in privately run educational options. And that’s on top of an estimate record $1.2 billion spent on them last school year4, according to Ohio Department of Education data.

What is interesting is that while charter funding dropped slightly after ECOT and a few other charter schools closed, voucher funding has increased at a greater rate. Given the state’s wholesale infusion of voucher money this budget cycle, it’s not impossible to envision a time when voucher funding may approach or even overtake charter school funding totals.

Conclusion

In short, the state budget made it easier for schools like ECOT to continue to scam the Ohio taxpayer, all while public investment grows in private, mostly religious schools with almost zero accountability for those tax dollars and who have been demonstrated to harm student performance.


Endnotes

i         https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180121/ecot-endured-despite-years-of-warning-signs
ii        https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180511/with-notable-exceptions-politicians-scurry-to-give-up-ecot-contributions
iii       http://innovationohio.org/2015/10/14/hb-2-passes-now-to-the-details/
iv       https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/07/ohio_is_the_wild_wild_west_of.html
v        http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Community-Schools/Annual-Reports-on-Ohio-Community-Schools/Community-School-LegisHistory.pdf.aspx
vi       https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/documents/budget/128/MainOperating/FI/CompareDoc/EDU.pdf
vii      http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Community-Schools/Sections/Public-Documents-and-Reports/List-of-closed-schools-and-the-reason-for-closure.xlsx.aspx?lang=en-US
viii     https://www.ohio.com/article/20130906/NEWS/309068868
ix       https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/three-and-out-ohio-should-rework-its-automatic-charter-closure-policy
x        https://knowyourcharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CharterReport_Oct2017.pdf
xi       https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/online-schools-score-better-on-wall-street-than-in-classrooms.html
xii      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-is-this-charter-schoo_b_5397059
xiii     https://fordhami
xiv     https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/documents/budget/133/MainOperating/FI/CompareDoc/EDU.pdf
xv      http://odevax.ode.state.oh.us/htbin/WWW-SF3-HEADER-F2009.COM?act=Final+%233%28Paid+07-May-2010%29&irn=045187+Ada+Ex+Vill+SD+%28Hardin%29&county=01+Adams&DISTRICT=TOTAL&edch=y
xvi     https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program/ExpansionIncomeChart.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
xvii    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
xviii   Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
xix     https://edexcellence.net/publications/evaluation-of-ohio%E2%80%99s-edchoice-scholarship-program-selection-competition-and-performance
xx      http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program/EdChoice-Cleveland-Assessment-Data
xxi     http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/are-private-schools-worth-it/280693/

Written by Stephen Dyer · Categorized: Featured Items, Front Page, K-12 Education, Ohio State Budget, Reports

Aug 08 2019

Here’s What Gun Safety Advocates In Ohio Are Up Against

Earlier this week, Mike DeWine announced a package of gun safety reforms he would like to see the Ohio General Assembly enact into law. If history is a guide, he’s running into some stiff headwinds. Just ask Dayton. In late 2018, Ohio lawmakers enacted a bill (House Bill 228), overriding a veto by Gov. John Kasich, that blocked Ohio cities from enacting local gun ordinances and subjected local communities to civil liability for passing gun laws stricter than the state’s. The bill states that “any local firearm regulation that interferes with an individual’s right to bear arms, inhibits individuals from protecting themselves, their families, or others from intruders and attackers, or otherwise inhibits the legitimate use of firearms is preempted by the state of Ohio.” Ohio cities and their leaders have their hands tied. Here’s what Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley had to say at the time: As DeWine, Whaley and gun safety advocates attempt to reform our gun laws, it’s worth revisiting the recent past to see what they are up against. HB228 was just one of several recent measures to expand the rights of gun owners in Ohio, demonstrating just how powerful the momentum is within the GOP-controlled General Assembly to move in the opposite direction. In recent years, Ohio lawmakers have passed bills to: Allow guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol (SB17 in 2011)

Sitting lawmakers who voted yes:

Representatives Butler, Jordan, G. Manning, Oelslager, Patton and Seitz.

Senators Brenner, Hottinger, M. Huffman, Lehner, O’Brien, Obhof, Peterson, Roegner, Schaffer and Uecker.

Eliminate requirement to store guns unloaded in motor vehicles and allow guns to be stored in the Statehouse parking garage (HB495 in 2012)

Sitting lawmakers who voted yes:

Representatives Butler, Cera, DeVitis, Jordan, G. Manning, Oelslager, Patton, Schaffer, Scherer, Seitz and R. Smith.

Senators Brenner, Burke, Coley, Eklund, Hackett, Hottinger, M. Huffman, Lehner, O’Brien, Obhof, Peterson, Roegner, Schuring, Terhar and Uecker

Allow concealed carry by residents of other states without licensing or training, and lifted the ban on high capacity magazines (HB234 in 2014) 

Sitting lawmakers who voted yes:

Representatives Becker, Blessing, Butler, Cera, DeVitis, Fedor, Hood, Jordan, Oelslager, Patterson, Perales, Rogers, Seitz, Sheehy, R. Smith and Strahorn.

Senators Brenner, Burke, Coley, Eklund, Hackett, Hottinger, M. Huffman, Kunze, Lehner, O’Brien, Obhof, Patton, Peterson, Roegner, Schaffer, Schuring, Terhar, Uecker and Williams

Allow guns in daycares and on college campuses and prohibit employers from banning firearms from employee vehicles parked on their property  (SB199 in 2016)

Sitting lawmakers who voted yes:

Representatives Becker, Blessing, Brinkman, Butler, Cera, Cupp, Dean, Fedor, Green, Hambley, Hood, Jordan, Keller, Koehler, G. Manning, Merrin, O’Brien, Oelslager, Patterson, Patton, Perales, Reineke, Rogers, Scherer, Seitz, R. Smith, Vitale and Zeltwanger.

Senators Brenner, Burke, Coley, Gavarone, Hackett, Hottinger, S. Huffman, Kunze, N. Manning, McColley, O’Brien, Peterson, Roegner, Schaffer, Schuring, Terhar and Uecker.

Prohibit cities from enacting local gun ordinances (HB228 in 2018)

Sitting lawmakers who voted yes:

Representatives Antani, Becker, Blessing, Brinkman, Butler, Carfagna, Cera, Cupp, DeVitis, Dean, Edwards, Ginter, Green, Greenspan, Hambley, Hood, Hoops, Householder, Jordan, Keller, Kick, Koehler, Lanese, Lang, Lipps, G. Manning, McClain, Merrin, Oelslager, Patterson, Patton, Perales, Reineke, Riedel, Rogers, Romanchuk, S. Ryan, Seitz, R. Smith, T. Smith, Stein, Vitale, Wiggam, WIlkin, Zeltwanger

Brenner, Burke, Coley, Dolan, Gavarone, Hackett, Hoagland, Hottinger, M. Huffman, S. Huffman, McColley, Obhof, Peterson, Roegner, Schaffer, Terhar, Uecker, Wilson.

With this crew still controlling the statehouse, it will take a lot of work and convincing for DeWine’s proposals to get passed.

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Featured Items, Gun Safety, Legislative Updates, Statehouse Update

May 08 2019

Statehouse Preview: House Budget Plan Includes Big Tax Changes

Last week, the House revealed its changes to the state budget (HB166) and, for the most part, we like them. Many of the highlights worth noting are changes to eliminate or scale back various tax loopholes. By closing or scaling back tax breaks and loopholes, the House generates some new revenue to pay for most of the Governor’s priorities while adding some of its own, even while scaling back on DeWine’s two-year revenue estimate to better conform with projections from legislative budget analysts.

Among the highlights of the House plan:

  • Shrinks the so-called “LLC Loophole,” under which owners of certain pass-through businesses collect their first $250K in income tax-free and get a preferential rate for revenue beyond that.
  • Applies the sales tax to ride-sharing trips from Lyft and Uber.
  • Requires out of state online retailers to collect Ohio’s sales tax.
  • Eliminates various breaks for owners of private jet time-shares, motor racing teams, purchases of flight simulators and motion picture productions.
  • Eliminates state income taxes on the bottom income brackets and lowers rates on middle earners.
  • Requires graduating high school seniors to complete the FAFSA – a policy shown to substantially improve college financial aid awards
  • Increases funding for the enforcement wage and hour laws
  • Doubles funding for rape crisis centers
  • No school funding plan, but backers continue to work on tweaks that could address concerns from low-income rural and urban districts. Stay tuned.
Pro-tip: see all proposed House changes to the Governor’s proposed budget by reviewing the comparison document and appropriations spreadsheet.

Next Up

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House Finance committee will hear more public testimony (read all submitted testimony, listed by hearing date) on the plan, and is expected to vote on amendments and to pass the bill at its Wednesday meeting (agenda). After that, the bill heads to the full House for a vote on Thursday afternoon or, if needed, Friday morning. We’ll send more details about what’s in the House amendments later this week to our budget list – sign up if you’re not already a subscriber.

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Featured Items, Legislative Updates, Ohio State Budget, Statehouse Update

Mar 19 2019

Governor DeWine Outlines His First State Operating Budget

Last Friday we saw the first outlines of Gov. DeWine’s proposed two-year operating budget, which contains over $70 billion in annual spending authority for all of state government (except Transportation, which is handled in a separate budget. At first glance, it appears to offer small, but needed spending increases while failing to make significant investments in the things that suffered the most during the Kasich years; K-12 education, Higher Education and support for Ohio counties, cities, townships and villages through the Local Government Fund. The lack of meaningful investment is not surprising given that it is funded in the DeWine proposal exclusively through growth in the larger economy, and not with any new sources of revenue. No effort was made to close the unproven $1 billion LLC loophole, to apply a reasonable tax to oil and gas drilling or to restore the top tax rates on Ohio’s highest-earning individuals. The DeWine budget does make commitments to spend more in certain, targeted areas, including children’s services, opioid treatment and enforcement, restoration efforts for Lake Erie, in-school services for at-risk youth, kinship care programs and home visits for new moms and babies. In the absence of new revenue, the Medicaid program is tapped to pay for many of these priorities, raising questions about its impact on the traditional Medicaid population. Of the budget priorities we outlined last week, we are pleased to see the proposal includes wraparound services for school children, a small increase in child care, the preservation of the Medicaid expansion (paired with federal approval of Ohio’s proposed work requirements make this one bittersweet), a slight increase in funding for Ohio College Opportunity Grants . But, overall, the budget fell short of our expectations because it, unlike the Governor’s proposal for dealing with the state’s transportation funding shortfall, failed to fully solve the state’s problems created by years of tax cutting and underinvestment.

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Featured Items, Front Page, Ohio State Budget · Tagged: Budget, Funding, Mike DeWine, OHbudget, Ohio Budget, State Budget, state funding

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 26
  • Next Page »

Stay informed about key issues and bills.

Sign Up

We monitor Ohio politicians to help you hold them accountable.

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Our Work
  • The Latest
  • IO in the News
  • Take Action
  • Donate
Innovation Ohio

360 S. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
614-220-0150
info@innovationohio.org

© Innovation Ohio 2020