President Biden and the Democratic-controlled Congress are poised to continue the federal government’s spending spree, this time through a $2 trillion extravaganza named Build Back Better (BBB). Just before Thanksgiving, the House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of the measure, and the Senate is now mulling possible changes to the package.

The spending plan would pay for an assortment of climate change and social programs, including a massive expansion of childcare and preschool. Should it pass, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that a near-universal childcare subsidy would add about $273 billion to the federal budget over the next decade, while a universal preschool program would escalate spending by $109 billion during that period. Those numbers, however, underestimate the eventual cost of the programs, as BBB doesn’t provide funding for either of them after FY 2027. If both are reauthorized, the Committee for a Responsible Budget calculates an added expense of roughly $800 billion in the ten-year budget window.

Those big numbers reflect only federal outlays. A full accounting requires consideration of the fiscal impact on state budgets, as well. Akin to a promo rate or loss leader, the feds would pick up the entire tab for expanded childcare and preschool in FYs 2022–24. Thereafter, states are on the hook for covering part of those costs—should they choose to participate in these programs. Here’s the fine print:

• Childcare: Starting in 2025, states would cover 5 percent of the “direct services” costs—the bulk of the childcare outlay—with higher rates applying for “quality activities” and administration.[1] Perhaps averaging across those categories, the Senate Republican Policy Committee cites a 10 percent state share for childcare.

• Preschool: Starting in 2025, states would cover an increasing share of the universal preschool cost. States would cover 5 percent of the cost in FY 2025, 20 percent in FY 2026, and 36 percent in FY 2027.

What does this mean in terms of real dollars? To get a ballpark sense, consider the potential impacts on Ohio’s budget once the matching requirements kick in. Table 1 begins with the childcare costs under three scenarios (we’ll tackle pre-k next). The low-cost scenario assumes a conservative estimate of the number of families who would opt into the new program and also assumes average childcare costs that are roughly the same as today. Meanwhile, the high cost scenario assumes higher take-up rates along with escalating childcare costs, something many analysts predict will occur. One could, of course, test a whole range of assumptions, but these simple examples help to illustrate costs. Even with a modest 10 percent state match—an assumed average across the three childcare spending categories—Ohio would be looking at an additional $150 to $350 million per year in childcare spending.[2]

Table 1: Projected annual childcare costs to Ohio under BBB

​

​Notes: BBB’s income eligibility threshold for childcare is 250 percent of the state median income. Approximately 90 percent of Ohio taxpayers report incomes below $132,000—roughly 2.5 times the state’s median for a family of four—so I multiply the number of children age 0–3 (about 413,000) by 0.9.[3] I then subtract the number of children age 0–3 who would likely be covered under existing public childcare programs (roughly 43,500). The participation rate is uncertain, but 75 percent of children participated in Quebec’s universal childcare program five years into implementation. The average center-based childcare cost in Ohio is $9,919 per child. However, BBB requires states to link childcare payments to cost studies that would likely produce higher amounts. To receive subsidies, childcare providers must increase childcare workers’ salaries to match elementary school teachers and participate in the state’s quality system, which awards credit for meeting certain staff-to-child ratios.

But childcare is only half of the story. Turning back to universal preschool, we see a bigger fiscal impact, which reflects the larger state share in comparison to BBB’s childcare proposal. In a low-cost scenario, Ohio would spend an additional $294 million per year in FY 2027 when the 36 percent match applies. In the higher cost scenario, expenses would be nearly two-thirds of a billion per annum.

Table 2: Projected annual preschool costs to Ohio under BBB

​

​Notes: There are no income limits on BBB’s preschool program, so the number of 3–4-year-olds in Ohio (roughly 275,800) is used as the number of eligible children. I then subtract the number of children participating in existing publicly funded preschool programs; about 71,600 children are in the state’s preschool program, Head Start, and preschool special education. Somewhat lower cost assumptions are applied to the preschool program as childcare. Although BBB likewise calls for higher wages and staff-to-pupil requirements for preschools, analysts assume lower pre-K costs than childcare. This table excludes additional expenditures for preschool “state activities” (e.g., administration and data systems); states would pay 47 percent of those costs.

***

Taken together, Ohio should expect to add somewhere between $450 million to $1 billion per year to its budget to pay its share of childcare and preschool costs starting in 2027. That’s not peanuts. It amounts to 5 to 10 percent of the current state budget for primary and secondary education. Think about the opportunity costs this way: A half billion dollars would allow Ohio to double its funding for economically disadvantaged K–12 students. Or it could help the state pay down its new (and more expensive) funding model. Yet tying up millions in childcare and preschool spending will constrain state lawmakers’ ability to fund other important initiatives, or lead to tax increases.

There’s much commentary and analysis about the merits of expanding public childcare and preschool programs. For now, we’ll leave those debates to others. But one thing is clear: There are serious costs to making these programs a universal entitlement, both to the federal government and to states. States can opt-out of these programs at any time, either on the front end or, more perilously, when the state share comes into effect. Should BBB pass, only time will tell whether state policymakers, including those in Ohio, feel the federal “incentives” are worth the squeeze.

Text to follow--check back soon!

A student was arrested after an attempted stabbing at Montgomery Blair High School. That same district has seen forty-eight fights already this year, more than the entirety of the 2018–19 school year. Not an isolated incident, data from the National Association of School Resource Officers suggests that this trend of increased school disorder extends across the country.

Before the pandemic began and critical race theory took center stage, debates over school discipline dominated the discourse. These discussions began after then-President Barack Obama issued non-binding guidance for schools to avoid discipline disparities between Black and White students. In response, many districts curtailed their use. Discussions grew more heated after Trump rescinded the guidance in 2018 and the death of George Floyd pushed racial disparities to the forefront of American discourse. The pandemic put these policy debates on hold. But with students back in buildings—after eighteen months of who knows what—it’s time to begin them again.

The slogan “defund the police” has found its way to the bin, but a similar upheaval is going on in public education. Between 2012 to 2016, suspension rates for students across the nation dropped, and states like California have outright banned suspensions for low-level defiance. In their place, districts and administrations have often put SEL programs and restorative justice practices—an alternative system of consequences to typical punitive practices—to manage misbehavior. The causes of the increased disorder are near impossible to pin down, but removing suspensions as a policy is certainly not the proper response.

The research on the topic is murky. Most arguments against suspensions focus on two issues: their link to lowered academic performance and the disparate rates of punishment between Black and White students. From there, these effects lead to a higher likelihood of incarceration, thus contributing to the “school-to-prison-pipeline”—or so runs the argument.

Regarding the first contention, the bulk of research has only determined a correlational link between these two. In fact, when one working paper from the University of Arkansas attempted to isolate the causal relationship—comparing suspended students to “otherwise similar” students—they found a positive relationship between suspension and grades. Similar behaviors caused both poor grades and suspensions; suspensions did not cause poor grades. Shooting spitballs and whispering to classmates are bad for both grades and behavior records. The researchers still find other reasons to justify the reduction of suspensions but suggest that we “should not expect academic gains to follow.”

Regarding the disparate rates of punishment between Black and White students, it’s necessary to compare the effects of suspensions to the unintended consequences of their removal. If the side-effects are worse than the disease, we need to find another cure.

There are district-wide case studies that provide useful insight. Philadelphia rolled back their use of suspensions in 2012–13, and the findings from one academic review are concerning. Reading and math scores plummeted, truancy increased, and the occurrences of violent crime spiked. Ironically, students ended up spending more time suspended because they received fewer suspensions but for worse infractions, thereby garnering longer punishments. Similar results arose in New York and California.

Another study followed the results of quarterly achievement tests in both math and English and compared them to suspensions in the school. It concluded that suspensions improved math scores for non-suspended students. In a simple pro-con analysis, Amber Northern, senior vice president for research here at the Fordham Institute, summarized the results: “The aggregate positive effects of peer suspension on non-suspended peers could well be greater than the aggregate negative effects on suspended students.”

Perhaps these dismal showings only occur when suspensions are banned without replacement with another system. One randomized-controlled trial from the RAND Corporation stymies that contention. With the implementation of restorative justice practices, disparities in suspension rates did, in fact, drop. Alongside that, however, came an uptick in misbehavior, classroom disruption, and bullying. I’ve taught in such a building. Suspensions rates dropped, but only because teachers stopped reporting behavior. If anything, as the study implies, behavior worsened.

No person of good conscience who is familiar with America’s racial history is likely to be satisfied by observed disparities in suspensions. Even so, the existence of a problem does not itself justify any one solution. Thomas Sowell famously quipped that “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.” In this case, the trade-offs are dire. In seeking to solve one problem, we create a school environment in opposition to learning. In fact, these side-effects often disproportionately affect Black students. Returning to the opening counter-arguments, if lower academic performance and increased suspensions do lead to a “school-to-prison pipeline,” outright suspension bans seem like a policy to worsen that system.

Study after study has found that suspension bans often make the problems they are meant to solve worse, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing to be done. There are things to be learned from restorative practices, even if they are not adopted wholesale. Consider Michaela School in London, which has a reputation for being one of the strictest schools in England. Despite the use of punitive discipline, teachers meet with children after a consequence to have a restorative conversation. They adopt certain elements of restorative justice while also maintaining clear systems of behavioral expectations, consequences, and rewards. This conversation is not simply either-or. Doing both could be better than doing either in isolation.

Order, routine, authority, consequence: These are not dirty words, especially if you’ve experienced the alternatives. When we remove teacher authority from schools, some utopian sharing of power among teachers and students does not result.

Facing disparities, American schools certainly need some sort of disciplinary reform. Suspensions must be used judiciously and paired with instructional reform and student support. There is certainly a litany of alternative options, restorative justice being one. But until any prove effective, suspensions remain a necessary tool.

Editor’s note: This was first published by Newsweek.

Teachers are frequently reminded during their careers to “meet the students where they are.” It’s a common-sense idea: There are things students know and can do today, and other things they should be able to do eventually. In between is the sweet spot for learning and growth. Going too far outside students’ current comfort zone is a recipe for frustration.

What’s true of teaching is also true of politics. Voters have ideas they currently favor, and others they might someday adopt. But as Democrats learned the hard way in Virginia earlier this month, both won’t happen all at once. So long as they continue to misunderstand America’s relationship with its schools, Democrats are unlikely to gain the upper hand on education anytime soon.

Here’s the thing: Education is inherently “progressive.” At least in principle, it’s an engine of social progress, fairness, and upward mobility. It’s closer to Robert F. Kennedy–style progressivism than the radical views of “The Squad,” but education aligns with the outlook and goals of multi-racial, working-class progressivism.

But while education is progressive, school is inherently conservative. Schools are hyperlocal institutions that tend to valorize tradition, order, and norms, which are all “conservative” virtues. This paradox—education is progressive, and schools are conservative—lies at the heart of public education in America, and currently plays to the advantage of Republicans.

It’s a common observation—often a complaint—that the basic structure of school hasn’t changed in centuries. Kids sit at desks, teachers stand in front of the room, and the academic diet leans heavily on the best that has been discovered, thought, and created: our language, literature, history, scientific discoveries, and artistic achievements. This default mode is by definition culturally “conservative.” If this basic playbook hasn’t changed in centuries, it’s because we have resisted disrupting it. It’s an enduring cultural habit that still resonates with a majority of Americans.

Today’s progressives, by sharp contrast, have never met an institution they didn’t want to upend. They do not see or appreciate the role Americans have assigned to schools. As data scientist and Democratic wunderkind David Shor has noted, the party is dominated by elite, ideologically committed young staffers. Their policy preferences do not meet the voters where they are—at least not moderate voters with strong ties to local schools.

This disconnect is not limited to angry White suburban mothers, the group being scapegoated for the Democrats’ poor showing in Virginia and New Jersey. Stephanie Saroki de Garcia—the cofounder and managing director of Seton Education Partners, which operates schools exclusively in low-income Black and Brown neighborhoods—recently revealed, “We have not had a single one of the parents of our 5,000 students that we’re serving saying, ‘We want you to do more of this antiracist work.’” Parents prize safety, academics, and character formation. Privately, the leaders of ostensibly “woke” charter schools echo and amplify Saroki’s observation. But they have the same problem as the Democrats: a need to hold on to the young, ideologically committed “base” who staff their schools.

Americans have long given poor marks to public education at large, but they reliably give “A’s” and “B’s” to their own child’s school. This is not a paradox. Education is an abstraction; school is a familiar place. Parents want to assume that their local public school is safe, reliable, and available—and that it will adequately prepare their children for college, the workplace, or other opportunities. Belief in this progression drives parents’ resistance to anyone trying to tinker too much with the formula.

In the final days of his failed campaign, Terry McAuliffe brought in teachers union president Randi Weingarten to make a final pitch to parents—to the delight of Republicans. The Democrat seemed unaware of Weingarten’s status as the person most blamed, fairly or not, for keeping schools closed. Days earlier, he campaigned with former president Barack Obama, who insisted, “We don’t have time to waste on phony culture wars or fake outrage that the right-wing media is peddling.” Another tone-deaf swing and miss: A school is nothing if not a cultural institution. By their very nature, schools are better suited to reflect and reinforce the existing social contract than to challenge it.

The Virginia results suggest that Democrats have two options on education. The first is to listen to parents, take a cue from teachers, and meet the voters where they are. The second option is simpler: lose more elections.

We are back from last week’s Thanksgiving break and covering news stories from 11/19/21 – 12/3/21.

Supporting “our entire family of schools”

Indianapolis’ Board of School commissioners voted on November 18 to approve a proposal to share referendum funds with the charter schools in their portfolio. While the amount per student is less than a third of what traditional district schools receive from the same source, charter operators in Indy are welcoming both the infusion of funding and the collaborative relationship the vote represents.

A new choice for northeast Ohio students

New Story School is a charter designed to serve students with autism, emotional needs, and various behavior issues from ages 5 to 21. Cleveland.com covered the development and operation of the school, which will open its doors in the Cleveland suburb of Independence in January.

New charter high school in the planning stages in Columbus

If all goes well, Educational Solutions plans to expand their offerings in Columbus to include a charter high school. There are some potential zoning hurdles standing in the way of their proposed location for now, but at least one influential member of the Northland Community Council is vocally supportive.

The right to a good school?

Wall Street Journal columnist Andy Kessler last week covered a non-profit group’s efforts to enshrine families’ right to a high-quality education in the California state constitution. It is likely an uphill battle, and success is anything but a foregone conclusion, but the issues under debate are essential.

Huge news

Earlier this week, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced it was launching a five-year, $750 million effort to support charter schools across the country. While many details are still to be announced—including which other cities will benefit besides founder Michael Bloomberg’s home of New York City—the goal is to add 150,000 new seats for students. Grants will be awarded to new and existing nonprofit, non-virtual charter schools; provide funding to launch new models; support efforts to create more racial diversity among charter teachers and leaders; and to build and upgrade facilities.

*****

Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.