"Parental Rights"

Endnotes

  1. Doug Oplinger and Dennis J. Willard, "Voucher system falls short of goals," The Akron Beacon Journal, December 14, 1999.
  2. Randy Ludlow, "Parents who benefit hail school vouchers," Washington Times, September 30, 1996.
  3. "Cleveland School Vouchers: Where the Students Come From," Cleveland OH: Policy Matters Ohio, September 2001.
  4. Jim Petro, "Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Special Audit Report, July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998," Auditor of State, State of Ohio, Supplement to the Special Audit Report, pp. 4, 13; Auditor of State Press Release "Petro Issues Special Audit of Cleveland Voucher Program."
  5. Kim Metcalf, "Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, 1998-2000: Technical Report." Bloomington IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana University, September 2001, p. 11.
  6. "The Cleveland Voucher Program: Who Chooses? Who Gets Chosen? Who Pays?" A Report by the American Federation of Teachers, 1997.
  7. ibid; Ohio Department of Education.
  8. In FY 1998, $5,953,254 was expended on Cleveland vouchers from a line item in the state budget. The remainder of the $35.1 million in Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program (CSTP) expenditures has come from the DPIA. Ohio Department of Education, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, Final Expenditures for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.
  9. CSTP provides vouchers for private-school students and tutoring grants for public school students. Since 1996, the cost to CSTP for vouchers has been $28.1 million. This figure includes costs for transportation from 1996-98 only (since 1998, transportation costs have been borne by the Cleveland City Public School district). The amount of $28.1 million does not include any of the administrative costs of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, which totaled $5.6 million for the period. Assuming that the voucher and tutoring components' respective share of administrative costs are proportionate to their programmatic costs, the total CSTP costs for the voucher program would be $33.4 million. Cleveland Municipal School District costs for transporting voucher students are not less than $500 per student per year. With 4,266 voucher students in 2001-2002, transportation costs will exceed $2 million. Ohio Department of Education, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, Final Expenditures for Fiscal Years 1996-2000; phone conversation with the Transportation Division of the Cleveland Municipal School District, September 20, 2001.
  10. Doug Oplinger and Dennis J. Willard, "Vouchers Costing Ohio," Akron Beacon Journal, March 27, 1998. Part of the Akron Beacon Journal investigative series "Whose Choice?" culminating five years of investigative reporting by the two authors.
  11. Michael Hawthorne, "State Aid to Private Schools Up: Public Districts Feel Slighted," Cincinnati Enquirer, March 29, 1998.
  12. "Enrollment Booms, But Buildings Implode," The Blade, September 1, 2001.
  13. "Voucher System Falls Far Short of Goals," Akron Beacon Journal, December 14, 1999; Michael Hawthorne, "State Aid to Private Schools Up: Public Districts Feel Slighted," Cincinnati Enquirer, March 29, 1998.
  14. "Charter Schools Seek Boost," Akron Beacon Journal, April 5, 2001.
  15. Greg F. Orlofsky and Lynn Olson, "State of the States," Education Week, January 11, 2001, pp. 104, 166.
  16. Doug Oplinger, "Court to State: Spend More, Legislators Balk at Cost; Showdown is Possible," Akron Beacon Journal, September 7, 2001.
  17. "Voucher System Falls Far Short of Goals," Akron Beacon Journal, December 14, 1999.
  18. Analysis of data from the Ohio Department of Education, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, Final Expenditures for Fiscal Years 1996-2000; "State Aid to Private Schools Up: Public Districts Feel Slighted," Cincinnati Enquirer, March 29, 1998, pp. 3-4.
  19. "Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Final Management Study," Prepared by KPMG LLP, September 9, 1999, p. 9-5.
  20. Ohio Stat. §3317.029.
  21. Data includes prorated share of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program's administrative costs. Total costs of the program from 1996-01 were $35.1million. Of that amount, approximately $6 million came from direct state funding in FY 1998. Of the remaining $29.1 million, approximately $27.6 million paid for the voucher program, while $1.5 million paid for the tutoring portion of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. Thus, we can make the assumption that the $5.5 million in program administrative costs was proportionally attributable to the voucher and tutoring components based on their relative program costs. Analysis of data from the Ohio Department of Education, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, Final Expenditures for Fiscal Years 1996-2000; "The Cleveland Voucher Program: Who Chooses? Who Gets Chosen? Who Pays?" A Report by the American Federation of Teachers, 1997, p. iii-iv.
  22. “The Cleveland Voucher Program: Who Chooses? Who Gets Chosen? Who Pays?” A Report by the American Federation of Teachers, 1997, p. ii.
  23. It costs the city schools about $500 per student for transportation. The costs for the city to transport voucher students exceed that amount for the reasons mentioned. No specific cost estimates are available. Telephone conversation with the Transportation Division of the Cleveland Municipal School District, September 20, 2001.
  24. ibid.
  25. "The Cleveland Voucher Program: Who Chooses? Who Gets Chosen? Who Pays?" A Report by the American Federation of Teachers, 1997, pp. i-iii.
  26. "Cleveland School Vouchers: Where the Students Come From," Cleveland OH: Policy Matters Ohio, September 2001.
  27. Doris Simmons-Harris v. Dr. Susan Tave Zelman. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case #99-4037.
  28. Jim Petro, "Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Special Audit Report, July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998," Auditor of State, State of Ohio, Supplement to the Special Audit Report, pp. 4, 13; Auditor of State Press Release "Petro Issues Special Audit of Cleveland Voucher Program."
  29. "More Schools Cash in on Vouchers: State Legislation Would Expand Disputed Program," Akron Beacon Journal, April 4, 2001; "Charter Schools Seek Boost," Akron Beacon Journal, April 5, 2001.
  30. "In Education, Money Talks: David Brennan's White Hat Management Changes the Way Business, Politics and School Vouchers Mix," Akron Beacon Journal, December 13, 1999; David Brennan, a voucher advocate has helped shaped the Cleveland legislature for adopting vouchers. Brennan's Education Management Organization runs 16 of Ohio's 48 charter school, enrolling more than 3,200 students and controlling 45 percent of state and local funds.
  31. "Voucher Plan Leaves Long List of Broken Vows: Program Costs Public Schools, Doesn't Raise Private Enrollment and Leaves Handicapped Students Behind," Akron Beacon Journal, December 14, 1999.
  32. "Statistical Analysis Report: Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-1994." National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, OERI, July 1997, p. 74.
  33. "Barriers, Benefits and Costs of Using Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools, Final Report." U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, 1998, pp. xi, 51.
  34. ibid.
  35. "Choice School Accountability: A Consensus of Views in Ohio & Wisconsin," Public Policy Forum, February 1998, p. 14.
  36. John McCarthy, "Sponsor Wants to Keep Gun Bill's Focus Narrow," Associated Press State and Local Wire, January 11, 2000; Ohio state legislative status hotline, August 30, 2001.
  37. ibid; Scott Stephens and Mark Vosburgh, "Murderer on Staff of State-Funded Private School," Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 1, 1999.
  38. Scott Stephens and Mark Vosburgh, "Murderer on Staff of State-Funded Private School," Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 1, 1999.
  39. ibid.
  40. Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program Islamic Academy School of Arts and Sciences Special Audit Report," State of Ohio, Office of the Auditor, July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999, executive summary, pp. 7, 11-12.
  41. "Ohio Department of Education Will Use Audit Report of Islamic Academic to Pursue Restitution of Voucher Monies," Press Release, Ohio Department of Education, January 6, 2000.
  42. Mark Vosburgh, "Voucher Backers Repay Funds: State Says School Got Tuition For No-Shows," Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 14, 2000.
  43. Scott Stephens and Mark Vosburgh, "Voucher School Relies on Videos as Teachers," Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 10, 1999; "Ohio Department of Education Revokes Voucher Privileges," Press Release, Ohio Department of Education, September 29, 1999.
  44. Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, Audit conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, September 1997, pp. 13, 10 (for estimates of transportation costs).
  45. Jim Petro, "Petro Issues Special Audit of Cleveland Voucher Program," Press Release, Auditor of State, State of Ohio, January 5, 1999.
  46. Kim K. Metcalf, "Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program 1996-1999," Bloomington, IN: The Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana University, 1999.
  47. ibid, pp. 14-16. Metcalf's study uses two types of analysis. The first one takes into account students' background characteristics and academic achievement prior to entering the voucher program. Voucher students in established private schools demonstrated no improvement in reading, math or social studies. However, measurable gains by these students were made in language arts and science. The second analysis takes into account classroom characteristics such as class size, teacher experience and education level. There were no statistically significant differences in reading, math, social studies, language or the overall scores. Voucher students scored better in science, by 2.2 percentile points (38.3 versus 36.1). In contrast, voucher students attending newly established private schools had lower scores in all five subjects and overall in both analyses (with and without classroom characteristics).
  48. ibid.
  49. Legislative Office of Education Oversight, "Memo to the members of the Legislative Committee on Education Oversight, RE: Evaluation of Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, July 23, 1998.
  50. Kim Metcalf, "Advocacy in the Guise of Science," Education Week, September 23, 1998.
  51. ibid.
  52. Legislative Office of Education Oversight, "Memo to the members of the Legislative Committee on Education Oversight, RE: Evaluation of Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, July 23, 1998.
  53. Kim Metcalf, "Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, 1998-2000: Technical Report." Bloomington IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana University, September 2001.
  54. ibid.
  55. The Center for Education Reform, Newswire: September 19, 2001; accessed via the Web: www.edreform.com/update/index
  56. Kim Metcalf, “Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, 1998-2000: Technical Report.” Bloomington IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana University, September 2001, p. 58.
  57. Scott Stephens, “District Works to Register Students; Cleveland Schools to Have Full-Day Kindergartens,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (April 30, 1997), p. 1B.
  58. Kim Metcalf, “Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, 1998-2000: Technical Report.” Bloomington IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana University, September 2001.
  59. “Ohio Takes a National Lead in Choice Study,” Ohio Department of Education, September 4, 2001, accessed via: www.ode.state.oh.us.
  60. ibid.
  61. The court-ordered desegregation guideline determines that schools should be within 15 percent of the citywide average demographic, which is 70.4 percent African American. Schools with a student body between 55-85 percent African-American students would be in compliance. Using the data from the study and seeking to prove greater integration (“Choice and Community: The Racial, Economic and Religious Context of Parental Choice in Cleveland,” by Jay P. Greene, for the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions: Columbus, OH, November 1999), approximately 43 percent of public school students attend schools that fit this category, compared to only 11 percent of the voucher students. For a complete analysis of the claims of increased racial integration in voucher schools, see “Apples vs. Oranges: A Critique of Two Flawed Studies of Vouchers & Integration,” by Elliot M. Mincberg and Dwight R. Holmes, People For The American Way Foundation, December 23, 1999, pp. 2-3.
  62. Alex Molnar, “Educational Vouchers: A Review of the Research,” report by Center for Education Research, Analysis and Innovation, October 1999, p. 16.
  63. Darcia Harris Bowman, “Appeals Court Rejects Cleveland Voucher Program,” Teacher Magazine, December 13, 2000; Research conducted by Michael Charney, Cleveland Teachers Union, August 2001.
  64. “Voucher System Falls Far Short of Goals,” Akron Beacon Journal December 14, 1999.
  65. Research conducted by Michael Charney, Cleveland Teachers Union, August 2001.
  66. Doris Simmons-Harris v. Dr. Susan Tave Zelman. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case #99-4037.
  67. ibid.
  68. Mark Walsh, “Cleveland Voucher Decision Appealed to Supreme Court,” Education Week, May 30, 2001.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious