Innovation Ohio

What you need to know about Ohio Statehouse Policy

  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Job Opportunities
  • Policy Areas
  • The Latest
    • IO in the News
  • Take Action
  • Donate

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

Oct 14 2019

October Poll Finds Trump Underwater in Ohio, Trailing Generic Democrat

Columbus, OH – A new poll from Public Policy Polling and Innovation Ohio shows that Ohio is set to return to its traditional status as a battleground state in 2020.
A memo on the results and the cross tabs can be found on Innovation Ohio’s website.
  • Link to Ohio Poll Memo
  • Link to Ohio poll cross-tabs
After winning the state by 8 points in 2016, the PPP survey finds President Trump trailing a generic Democratic 47-48% and an underwater 47-51% favorable/unfavorable rating. Given that state’s swing from 2012 to 2016, it is especially notable that President Trump trails a generic Democrat 37-51% with independent voters.
“As Democrats gather to debate in Ohio, these results show that Ohio will once again be a battleground in 2020, and any Democrat would be foolish to write off our state,” said Innovation Ohio President Janetta King. “Given his unpopularity with Ohio voters, it is clear that President Trump’s failures and broken promises are catching up with him in the state.”
“Ohio is a must-win state for President Trump. His poor numbers in this poll help to explain his early spending on TV and digital ads here,” King continued.
The poll also tested President Trump against five Democratic candidates; he failed to top 47% against any of them. This survey comes on the heels of similar results from Emerson Polling.
Founded in 2011, Innovation Ohio is a nonpartisan, nonprofit thank tank that blends policy research and advocacy to fight for working families in Ohio.
PPP surveyed 776 Ohio voters on October 10th and 11th on behalf of Innovation Ohio. 60% of surveys were completed by telephone and 40% were completed by text message. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.5%.

Written by Michael McGovern · Categorized: Front Page, Press Releases · Tagged: 2020, 2020 election, bernie sanders, cory booker, democrat, donald trump, election, election 2020, elizabeth warren, generic democrat, joe biden, kamala harris, Ohio, ohio debate, pete buttigieg, poll, ppp, president, presidential, presidential election, Public Policy Polling, Trump, Voting, westerville

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

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

Feb 14 2019

Points to Consider In the Gas Tax Debate

The DeWine administration has raised the alarm about a looming structural deficit in Ohio’s transportation budget. By March 31, lawmakers must enact a two-year transportation budget, which could include new revenue to address the budget gap.

Many are calling for a gas tax increase to make up for some or all of the shortfall. Before any solutions are enacted, it’s important for advocates to understand how Ohio currently pays for its transportation infrastructure at the state level so we may seek a solution that balances the needs of the system, its users and taxpayers.

What Progressives Should Know

  • Ohio’s Gas tax – a flat 28-cents per gallon – is low compared to our neighboring states, has not increased since 2005, and is not indexed for inflation.
  • While the miles Ohio drivers travel each year steadily increases, gas tax revenues are flat thanks to lower fuel consumption.
  • Ohio’s gas tax is shared with local governments according to a formula. A 1 cent increase in the state gas tax would generate around $43 million in additional revenue for ODOT, and $24 million to be divided up among counties, townships, cities and villages. 
  • Ohio is 11th in mass transit usage but 45th in state support, spending just $.67 per capita compared to $9 in Michigan and $86 in Pennsylvania. ODOT has estimated the state needs to be spending about $150 million per year on transit. The last state budget spent just $39.5 million on transit, $80 million below what the state itself says is needed.
  • Article XII of the Ohio Constitution limits the expenditure of gas tax revenue to the state’s highway and bridges – pedestrian, bike and transit infrastructure are unlikely to directly benefit from any increase that is passed.
  • The gas tax is regressive, meaning that low income people pay more taxes as a share of their income than people who earn more.

What Progressives should demand

  • A balanced solution that looks at a range of revenue sources to fix our immediate needs, and a commitment to look longer-term at the state’s transportation future with an eye toward a future less dependent on gas taxes
  • Incentives that decrease, not increase, the consumption of polluting fossil fuels
  • A multi-modal approach to moving people and goods that recognizes that transit, rail, air, bike and pedestrian infrastructure can all work to reduce congestion on our roadways
  • A less regressive tax system in which the system is funded by users according to both their system use and ability to pay
  • A commitment by state leaders to aggressively lobby the federal government to address the shortfall in the federal highway trust fund.

To keep up with the debate on Ohio’s transportation budget, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly legislative newsletter.

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Featured Items, Front Page, Legislative Updates, Ohio State Budget, Statehouse Update, Taxation · Tagged: gas tax, transit, Transportation

Feb 05 2019

New Push To Change Ohio’s Ballot Amendment Process

This week, Ohio Representative Kyle Koehler sent a letter to fellow lawmakers seeking cosponsors for a bill he’s introducing to change how constitutional amendments go to the ballot. And like the proposal that was considered during this winter’s lame duck session, it certainly looks as though it will primarily work by making it harder for grassroots citizens groups to put measures on the ballot.

According to Koehler, his bill has several key distinctions from HJR19, namely:

In sum, the Koehler plan would require signatures from more parts of the state, requiring signature gatherers to fan out into 60 of Ohio’s 99 House districts, compared to today’s requirement that signatures be collected in 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Additionally, the proposal reduces the number of signatures that could be gathered in Ohio’s biggest population centers by increasing the percentage of the electorate needed in each district, further spreading the work out across the state.

Proposal Makes Citizen Initiatives Harder, Does Nothing to Block Big Money

The full text of the Koehler proposal has not been made public yet, so we don’t yet know whether signature gathering could be carried out over several years as needed to reach the 10 percent requirement, or if signatures would expire after six months as HJR19 required. That distinction could make or break citizen initiatives.

Like HJR19, the Koehler proposal would not stop deep-pocketed special interests from hiring all the signature gatherers they need to meet the 60-district requirement. So, while getting big money out of the game of amending Ohio’s constitution was the rationale behind the lame duck attack on ballot measures, this proposal seems to abandon that argument completely. It simply makes it harder for grassroots groups to succeed.

And while committee members hearing HJR19 seemed to recognize that the best way to keep people from attempting to amend Ohio’s constitution was to make the process of a citizen-initiated statutory change more appealing, this proposal does nothing on that front either.

What Next?

Koehler is currently seeking House consponsors with a deadline of Wednesday, February 6. If you are concerned about the outlines of this proposal, consider reaching out to your State Representative today before they add their name as a cosponsor.

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Fair and Open Elections, Featured Items, Front Page, Legislative Updates, Statehouse Update · Tagged: ballot measures, constitutional amendments, Kyle Koehler, Ohio

Dec 02 2018

Ohio Facing New Threat to Citizen Initiatives

Last week, the Ohio House followed through on a threat to propose changes to the Ohio Constitution that would make it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution via citizen initiative.

House Joint Resolution 19 (HJR19) would change the amendment process by shortening the time during which signatures could be collected to 180 days ending on April 1, and would need to get 60 percent of the vote to pass. The measure would also increase the up-front signature requirement for initiated statutes and add a one-year moratorium on legislative changes to any laws enacted as the result of a citizen initiative.

Overview of the Changes

Initiated Constitutional Amendments

  • Signatures must be submitted by April 1 and are only valid for 180 days, meaning all signatures must be collected in the winter
  • Must get 60 percent of the vote to pass

Initiated Statutes

  • Initial signature requirement increases from 3 to 5 percent of the vote for Governor in the prior midterm election
  • Secondary signature-gathering requirement (if the legislature fails to act in 4 months) is eliminated
  • Cannot be modified by lawmakers for 12 months after passage

How easy is it to amend the constitution anyway?

Even without these changes, constitutional amendments are already set to become much harder to enact in Ohio. Thanks to low turnout in the 2014 midterms, the signature threshhold for constitutional amendments (10 percent of those who voted for Governor in the last election) was just 305,000. Thanks to increased turnout in the 2018 election, it will now take valid 438,000 signatures. Because up to half of signatures can be found to be invalid, it’s standard to collect as many as twice the legal requirement. That means, with no changes to the initiative process, those wishing to amend Ohio’s constition will already need to collect nearly 1 million signatures to get a proposal to the ballot.

And while it is true that Ohio may have seen a higher than usual number of constitutional amendments on the ballot in recent years, that’s largely been thanks to the relatively low number of signatures required thanks to that low 2014 midterm turnout. Adding new barriers such as limiting the time to gather signatures to six of the coldest months of the year is unnecessary and will make it all but impossible for grassroots initiative without millions for paid signature-collectors. It’s ironic that those calling for reform suggested monied special interests had too much influence over our Constitutional amendment process, as this proposal will mean that only those with deep pockets have a chance to get on the ballot.

Voters are already highly discriminating when it comes to passing ballot measures. The vast majority of them fail.

And moving the goalpost to require 60 percent of the vote — rathern than a majority of voters — would mean millions more will need to be spent on education campaigns to overcome voters’ natural and understandable reluctance to vote for amendments they don’t fully understand. Voter education and outreach will become more essential and, as a result, more costly.

HJR19 Also Changes The Process For Initiated Statutes

HRJ19 would also modify the process to change Ohio law via the citizen initiative process by increasing the number of signatures from 3 to 5 percent of the votes for Governor in the prior midterm, while eliminating a requirement to gather additional signatures to get the measure to the ballot if the legislature fails to act.

Currently, just under 92,000 signatures are required to put a change to Ohio law before the Ohio General Assembly for their consideration and approval. (Another 92,000 are required to put the proposal on the ballot if lawmakers fail to act). Thanks to 2018 election turnout, the up front signature requirement will now grow to over 131,000 signatures. And if the legislature fails to act within four months, signature-gatherers are required to collect another 131,000 signatures to put it before voters. The changes proposed in HJR19 would increase the up-front number of valid signatures to be submitted to 219,000 – over twice what it is today.

What’s Next

HRJ19 is itself a resolution that needs to be approved by 3/5 of the legislature to then go before voters on the November, 2019 ballot. Ironically, it would need to be approved by a majority (50 percent) of voters to take effect.

The bill was introduced last Wednesday and was scheduled for a rare same-day hearing. This week, three more hearings are scheduled with the potential for amendments and a committee vote as early as Wednesday. That would put the proposal on the House floor as soon as Thursday.

Hearing schedule:

  • Tuesday, 1 pm, Statehouse Room 122 – opponent testimony
  • Wednesday, 9:30 am, Statehouse Room 114 – all testimony, possible amendments, possible vote
  • Thursday, 9:30 am (if needed), Statehouse Room 114 – all testimony, possible amendments, possible vote

If passed by the committee, HJR19 could be on the House floor for a vote as early as Thursday at the 1:30 pm session.

To testify in committee, contact the office of Chairman Blessing to submit your written testimony 24 hours in advance.

More Information

Read the text of HJR19

Read the analysis of HJR19 from the Legislative Services Commission

View the hearing schedule and contact information for members of the House Government Accountability committee

TAKE ACTION: Sign a petition to House and Senate leaders asking them to oppose HJR19

 

 

Written by Terra Goodnight · Categorized: Fair and Open Elections, Featured Items, Front Page, Legislative Updates, Statehouse Update

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 12
  • Next Page »

Stay informed about key issues and bills.

Sign Up

We watch the Statehouse so you can hold your lawmakers accountable.

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Policy Areas
  • 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