Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > July > 21 > Entry
Dixie Allen, vouchers and politics
Over at Eduwonk, Andy has noticed that Dayton Democratic legislator Dixie Allen is switching parties. And he’s wondering why I’m not telling him how much her decision has to do with her support, and Ohio Democrats’ disdain, for vouchers.
Well, Andy, there’s not that much to tell. Dixie Allen has been a Republican for a long time when it comes to voting and her embrace of vouchers is a recent phenomenon. I think it played little, or probably no, part in her decision to switch parties so she could run for Montgomery County Commission.
I have to say, however, that I was really surprised to see Allen seek office again, no matter what flag she is flying. I distinctly remember Allen pledging never to run again for any office, and how that decision played a role in her move to push for vouchers.
Back in February, Allen was the featured guest of a local group called Parents Advancing Choice in Education, which backs vouchers. In a room full of fired up parents, mostly with kids already in private schools, Allen told the story of how she came to be the sponsor of the bill that ultimately led to the expansion of the voucher program statewide.
She said she had been thinking about vouchers for some time and decided they were a good idea. From my notes during that meeting:
“I went to (Ohio House Speaker) Jon Husted and said, ‘I want to sponsor a voucher bill,’” Allen said. “He said, ‘you know that is political suicide for you.’ I said, ‘I ran for office the last time and I am not going for public office ever again, so what can somebody do to me?’”
I suppose we’ll see if her voucher support comes into play.
One other interesting thing about Allen’s switch and her impending resignation from the Ohio House. It appears likely then that the Democrats will get to name a replacement and that it will be Dayton school board member Clayton Luckie, who is seeking the seat. (BTW, Luckie is strongly opposed to vouchers.)
If that comes to pass, Luckie, the longest serving school board member, will resign the Dayton school board in the middle of his third term. This means the board will name another new board member this year. They already added Joe Lacey, who defeated Doniece Gatliff last November, in January and Stacy Thompson, who replaced Tracy Rusch at the beginning of the summer.
When this change occurs, the board suddenly will have a majority of members who have served a year or less — Lacey, Thompson, Lee Massoud (who replaced Tony Hill last summer) and Luckie’s replacement.
The remaining board members include President Gail Littlejohn and one ally from her original reform team — Yvonne Isaacs — plus Mario Gallin, the last holdover from the pre-Littlejohn era.
In effect, big changes are unlikely. Littlejohn did a masterful job of uniting the board under her reform plan after she was elected in 2001 and new board members since then have largely been selected by the board in appointments and shared Littlejohn’s vision. (The notable exception being Lacey, who at times is outspoken and will oppose Littlejohn publicly.)
Still, having one iron-clad ally is much different than having three on a seven-member board. It will be interesting to see if the politics get more complicated when disagreements arise.
This also shows one of the few areas that the board has fallen short on — building a farm team for itself for the future. Littlejohn and company probably should be recruiting good community people for key volunteer posts who could step up to the board when future openings occur. As it has been, Massoud and Thompson were largely unknown to the board before they applied for appointment to open seats and Lacey ran an outsider campaign in last November’s board race.
Still, the quality of candidates interested in serving on the board, even when it comes to open seats for which anyone can apply, has clearly improved during the Littlejohn era, which is a good sign for the board.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, Dayton Public Schools, Schools and Politics
Comments
By Joe Lacey
July 22, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
For the record, I had asked to serve in a volunteer capacity on a School Board committee (preferably finance related) years before I won my election and I was rejected by the board. So I volunteered for Dayton Public Schools as a tutor and in the 2002 levy campaign. Any school board or other board would be grateful to have the volunteer services of a certified public accountant to help them meet their fiscal responsibilities, so I never understood why my offer to volunteer was rejected so. I think there are a lot of people in our community with the time and ability to be a great service to our board in its work for our school system. The board needs bring these people in.By Mary
July 22, 2006 4:13 AM | Link to this
But how is efficient and adequate defined? Everyone seems to have their own defintion and wish list. The state still subsidizes per student spending. I believe the state’s established annual minimum per student spending is around $5000 from state and local taxes, and a lot is left up to local districts on how to spend that money and raise more. Some major chunks, including local levies, are sucked up into teacher pay, benefits, extracurricular. I do think the state should establish what is adequate and efficient and that a child in poor districts should receive at least as much as a child in richer districts. But local districts also like to do their own thing (without allowing parents and students to do their own thing). I think the basic political problem is not at the state level so much as greed at the local level and concern on how other districts will spend or waste the pooled money.By Oldprof
July 21, 2006 8:08 PM | Link to this
Mary, the state is 100% responsible for the inadequate funding of our public schools for the past 50 years. The legislature is the body responsible for limiting school districts to property taxes (inherently unfair to the poor, the elderly, and the agriculturists), and then passing a dimwit constitutional amendment that prevented those taxes from keeping up with inflation. The average Ohioan sees schools going back to the polls for a “levy increase” every few years and fails to realize that the levy isn’t in fact an increase when compared to inflation. Let’s keep the blame where it belongs—on ethically challenged legislators who pledge to uphold the constitution of the state of Ohio—and then later they casually break that pledge and spit on the “efficient and adequate public education” section.By Mary
July 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Link to this
I do not blame state legislators as much as I do the local “controllers” and community. Every local district seems to want the state to be in a sugar daddy role when it comes to money, but simultaneously lower taxes. That approach seems a little arrogant and uneducated to me. Local people also need to be accountable for priorities and how schools are managed. It seems an awful lot of local people expect an awful lot of schools that are beyond the core educational mission.By Dave
July 21, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Mary, I have no problem with parents who want vouchers — they want the best for their kids. But the Legislature and Governor have a constitutional requirement to provide adequate public schools. Too often, vouchers are a lame way for them to dodge their responsibility. If they are not willing or able to do whatever it takes to insure all schools are adequate, they should stop defrauding the public and resign from office. It’s a tough task, but they made a CHOICE to go into politics.By Oldprof
July 21, 2006 9:38 AM | Link to this
Nobody seems to note that Dixie Allen, not only as champion of vouchers, has come out in favor of expensive programs that don’t work while diminishing public capacity. Is this really a good sign for the county?By Mary
July 21, 2006 8:08 AM | Link to this
I guess the point I am missing in all the debate about vouchers, but made by Tierney’s commentary discussed in your earlier blog, is why is school choice, and empowering students and parents, against the public interest. As Tierney pointed out - kids happier, parents happier,lower costs. The goal of compulsory education I thought was to have kids educated. Somehow this concept has been mutated over our history by some special interests to only be acceptable through a publicly managed system. Let’s face it, a publicly managed system is not always as diverse and effective as it could or should be. The people managing the public system have the power to establish their own priorities and values on the unwitting public. Meanwhile, they want to beat on their chests about the happy public melting pot as the only deserving recipient of the education tax dollars - surprise! As a parent who has been around the block a few times, also educated through mostly public, but also private education,how dare the public school system say they know better for my child than I do. Many parents and students who highly value education are simply turned off to the traditionally managed public schools and do not want to be subjected to that environment for 13 years. Get over it! I simply do not share all the same values and approaches as the people who manage public education, and it is not because of religous beliefs. I disagree that public education as practiced is always healthy for the public. Parents and students who share those opinions should not be coerced into the public system because they cannot afford otherwise. Choice is the American way supported by the constitutional pursuit of happiness and other basic freedoms. Unfortunately, I think both public and private education are unfocussed and in shambles and it is hard for any parent to secure a good and affordable education for their child. Allow us to pick the lesser of many evils.