State moves to remove powers from Department of Education, gives rulemaking and curriculum power directly to governor-appointed position

[essentialsaltes]

Ohio board of education loses powers after judge declines to block law​

A Franklin County magistrate on Friday declined to issue a preliminary injunction against a planned overhaul of the state education agency, determining plaintiffs’ claims that the overhaul violates the state constitution are unlikely to succeed on the merits.

A slew of changes to the Department of Education were scheduled to take effect in early October, but state school board members – and later, parents on the board and a local school board – sued to halt the transition to a Department of Education and Workforce. As part of the changes included in the state budget, the board’s most significant powers, including rulemaking and curriculum evaluation, would return to the purview of the governor’s office.

--

While a lot of these changes keep coming with a label of "parents rights", what we see is that the authority is actually being centralized into authoritarian governors (and their chosen toadies).

 

[HTacianas]

Ohio board of education loses powers after judge declines to block law​

A Franklin County magistrate on Friday declined to issue a preliminary injunction against a planned overhaul of the state education agency, determining plaintiffs’ claims that the overhaul violates the state constitution are unlikely to succeed on the merits.

A slew of changes to the Department of Education were scheduled to take effect in early October, but state school board members – and later, parents on the board and a local school board – sued to halt the transition to a Department of Education and Workforce. As part of the changes included in the state budget, the board’s most significant powers, including rulemaking and curriculum evaluation, would return to the purview of the governor’s office.

--

While a lot of these changes keep coming with a label of "parents rights", what we see is that the authority is actually being centralized into authoritarian governors (and their chosen toadies).

And the "authoritarian governors" can be voted out of office.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And the "authoritarian governors" can be voted out of office.

So when a Democrat is voted in, everything will be fine when they appoint their own toady?

[Probably it would be. The GOP supermajority in the legislature would act swiftly to remove this power from the new governor and override any veto.]

 

[Vambram]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

 

[JustOneWay]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

Obviously, it depends on which parents rights we are discussing. A parent has a right to have their children taught by whomever they wish, unless it is a Drag Queen telling a story, then it is governments rights over parents rights.

This isn't about just parent's rights, but the power to teach your children now belongs in the power of the governor in power. Parents will not receive any more rights under this as they did with their board of education. Time for Ohio to go blue again!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As someone who lives in Ohio, I don't think Mike DeWine can be labelled as "authoritarian governor" as I saw another post making reference to.

I disagree with him more than I agree with him on the various issues...but in terms of "threatening", he's about as threatening as plain white toast with margarine. (I've actually met the guy twice)

The legislature passed this provision with a veto-proof majority...not sure what anyone would expect DeWine to do in this situation. Veto it just so it can be overridden? Seems like delaying the inevitable.

As far as the the department of education being put under the purview of the governor's office and having a "state cabinet level" position (or one that's explicitly appointed by the governor), that's not all that unique either.

K-12 Governance: Executive-Level Secretary - Education Commission of the States

reports.ecs.org

If it works for New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire...why not Ohio?

Some jurisdictions have an even less "expertise relevant" policy, like DC where a Deputy Mayor gets to dictate education policy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

Because it's being used as shorthand for authoritarian changes coming from the top of bureaucracy, not from parents.

Removing books on queer themes or the American civil rights struggle makes some parents happy, but not all parents happy. Some parents want those books available.

Using only birth-certificate names makes some parents happy, but not all parent happy. Some parents are complaining about the unnecessary bureaucracy that is resulting.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Obviously, it depends on which parents rights we are discussing. A parent has a right to have their children taught by whomever they wish, unless it is a Drag Queen telling a story, then it is governments rights over parents rights.

This isn't about just parent's rights, but the power to teach your children now belongs in the power of the governor in power. Parents will not receive any more rights under this as they did with their board of education. Time for Ohio to go blue again!

While you're accurate about the bit about the double standard staunch conservatives want with regards to "parental rights in education"

To say that parents won't receive more rights is inaccurate...some of them will. Since all parents vote for a governor (but in school board vote-centric systems, only school board members vote for their leader) more parents will have a say. The reason why Oregon passed a very similar law some time ago was specifically because they wanted their more progressive governor to be able to appoint someone to set education policy instead of having various red-county district school boards "do their own thing".

As far as "Ohio going Blue again"...it could happen, but some there'd have to be major shifts.

Mike DeWine's strong point was that he was one of the few republican governors who was pro-vaccine, and more importantly, didn't kiss Trump's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. That helped him when pro-Trump republicans were trying to primary him (and failed miserably).

Ohio is one the rust belt states where people can lean a tad progressive on economic issues, but more conservative on some social issues. Ohio will go blue when the Democrats pick a moderate candidate who reflects those positions.

 

[Mayzoo]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

Because many parents either don't feel the need to or won't educate their children. They think it is perfectly acceptable to teach their kids that a penis is a "willy" and a vagina is a "muff" etc... They see no need to educate their children on basic bodily functions ie noctural emissions are evil and menstruation can be scheduled at will (this is likely due to no education rather than intentional education). Many will not provide a lick of sex ed other than do not do it until you are married with no education on what "it" is. If they want to "educate" their children in these manners, then all 50 states allow for homeschooling as is their parental right. If they will not/do not homeschool, then they should expect that the curriculum will be set to teach the masses based on current beliefs and knowledge. They have some say in the process, but the mass's education will not bow down to a fringe ideology.

We disagreed with the local school's education methods not for their curriculum, but their policies and procedures. We home-schooled our child as is our parental right. So far as I am aware, very few are against a parent's choice to homeschool as they fit. If they truly want to disadvantage/handicap their child, educate them to excellence or anything in between through homeschooling, it is their right.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

Because "parents' rights" is pretty much always used as justification for conservative policy decisions regardless of and sometimes even in opposition of the desire of the parents involved.

 

[Green Sun]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

When I hear parent's rights when it comes to things such as education, what that usually is a cover for is funneling taxpayer money into Private/Charter/Homeschooling, where educational norms end up falling short of public school.

For some anecdote from my life, I remember my (private) school really rallying up parents and students into law proposals over plans that would create a school voucher program to get taxpayer money to pay for part of tuition.

When I got to high school, it became very clear to me, very quickly, that I was behind many of my fellow students in terms of what I should have been learning and where I should have been in terms of my education for some subjects, in particular, math.

This made "catching up" particularly hard, and something that eventually spilled over to my college coursework as well - I was stuck "correcting" my math progression within college, since I hadn't entered with several prerequisites, which were prerequisites to other classes, which were... etc.

In public school, I probably would have been better off with the way my education would have went. And at the very least, it would have been far more financially wise for my parents to send me and my sister to public school, rather than burning a tuition hole in their wallet.

In general though, my experiences have shown me that "private = better" usually doesn't hold up.

 

[JustOneWay]

When I hear parent's rights when it comes to things such as education, what that usually is a cover for is funneling taxpayer money into Private/Charter/Homeschooling, where educational norms end up falling short of public school.

For some anecdote from my life, I remember my (private) school really rallying up parents and students into law proposals over plans that would create a school voucher program to get taxpayer money to pay for part of tuition.

When I got to high school, it became very clear to me, very quickly, that I was behind many of my fellow students in terms of what I should have been learning and where I should have been in terms of my education for some subjects, in particular, math.

This made "catching up" particularly hard, and something that eventually spilled over to my college coursework as well - I was stuck "correcting" my math progression within college, since I hadn't entered with several prerequisites, which were prerequisites to other classes, which were... etc.

In public school, I probably would have been better off with the way my education would have went. And at the very least, it would have been far more financially wise for my parents to send me and my sister to public school, rather than burning a tuition hole in their wallet.

In general though, my experiences have shown me that "private = better" usually doesn't hold up.

We understand that this is all about getting the liberal teacher and liberal thought process out of schools and substituting it with more religious studies. They don't fool anybody. They have gone 'woke'! (their version of woke which they won't admit to)

 

[Larniavc]

I don't understand why there appears to be so much objections, on these forums, to "parents' rights."

Speaking as a parent myself I can say without fear of contradiction that some parents are morons or just bad people who cannot be trusted to look after their kids.

 

[Vambram]

Speaking as a parent myself I can say without fear of contradiction that some parents are morons or just bad people who cannot be trusted to look after their kids.

Do you believe that is true for the majority of parents?

 

[Vambram]

When I hear parent's rights when it comes to things such as education, what that usually is a cover for is funneling taxpayer money into Private/Charter/Homeschooling, where educational norms end up falling short of public school.

For some anecdote from my life, I remember my (private) school really rallying up parents and students into law proposals over plans that would create a school voucher program to get taxpayer money to pay for part of tuition.

When I got to high school, it became very clear to me, very quickly, that I was behind many of my fellow students in terms of what I should have been learning and where I should have been in terms of my education for some subjects, in particular, math.

This made "catching up" particularly hard, and something that eventually spilled over to my college coursework as well - I was stuck "correcting" my math progression within college, since I hadn't entered with several prerequisites, which were prerequisites to other classes, which were... etc.

In public school, I probably would have been better off with the way my education would have went. And at the very least, it would have been far more financially wise for my parents to send me and my sister to public school, rather than burning a tuition hole in their wallet.

In general though, my experiences have shown me that "private = better" usually doesn't hold up.

Thank you for sharing.
I went to a private Christian school for my sophomore and junior years when I was living in West Germany. After my family moved to Abilene, Texas I finished my high school years as a senior. I was ahead of the vast majority of my classmates at that high school in Texas finishing in the top 5% of my class when I graduated. Therefore, my private school was a big benefit for myself.

 

[JustOneWay]

Thank you for sharing.
I went to a private Christian school for my sophomore and junior years when I was living in West Germany. After my family moved to Abilene, Texas I finished my high school years as a senior. I was ahead of the vast majority of my classmates at that high school in Texas finishing in the top 5% of my class when I graduated. Therefore, my private school was a big benefit for myself.

That is a false dilemma.

Most likely your success came from a school in Germany, not necessarily because of a private school. Then you moved to Texas.

 

[Vambram]

That is a false dilemma.

Most likely your success came from a school in Germany, not necessarily because of a private school. Then you moved to Texas.

I strongly and whole heartedly disagree with your statement.
It was an American private Christian school that I attended in West Germany. It was a school started the American Baptist church where I was born again by God's grace and mercy.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you believe that is true for the majority of parents?

Nope.

 

[Larniavc]

I strongly and whole heartedly disagree with your statement.
It was an American private Christian school that I attended in West Germany. It was a school started the American Baptist church where I was born again by God's grace and mercy.

I think the important part is moving to Texas.

 

[Vambram]

I think the important part is moving to Texas.

The important part of what you quoted is exactly NOT moving to Texas, but the rest of that post.

Although, I am very satisfied of my experience in Texas and the fact that many of the members of my family still live in the great state of Texas.