Flower Delivery
 
Saturday, February 04, 2012
  Search
 
Login
 

TO LOGIN USE THE BACK OF YOUR MEMBERSHIP CARD Click "Login"

With the information on the back of your membership card you will get additional information, forms, and member benefits to name a few.
____________________________________________

custom paper and write my essay for me and pdf search engine
Home

Events

Programs

Awards

Membership

Advocacy

IRS 

ADVOCACY DAY EVENT

 

ADVOCACY DAY EVENT

MARCH 16, 2012

OHIO STATEHOUSE

CLICK HERE FOR FORM
HB 136
House Bill 136 Background
HB 136 Voucher Bill
Talking Points
Written letter

 

House Bill 136
Statewide Voucher Proposal Legislation
Background

House Bill (HB) 136 creates the Parental Choice and Taxpayer Savings Scholarship (voucher) Program (PACT), a new statewide program allowing K-12 students to use a voucher to attend private schools.

 The bill:

·        Expands vouchers to students in all school districts, regardless of the academic report card rating of the school building or school district. The only qualifier for eligibility is household income. Students whose family income is less than $95,000 would qualify.

·        Allows students currently enrolled in private schools to be eligible for the voucher (phases in over four years).

·         If the private school tuition is less than the voucher amount, it allows parents to bank the excess dollars for college tuition and textbooks at any private school or college in Ohio.

·         Deducts funding for the voucher from the resident school district’s funding (aggregate amount deducted from district cannot exceed a district’s state aid funding.)

 

HB 136-Voucher Bill — we need your support with additional legislator contacts!

 House Bill (HB) 136 continues to be a hot issue at the Statehouse. Even though legislators are not currently in session, it is our understanding that Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder (R-Medina) is conducting a straw poll to see where House members stand with votes. This will influence whether the bill goes to the full House for a vote. This means your voice can make a big difference now!

 Even if you have already communicated with your own legislators, we urge you to make another contact! We have articulated our concerns in previous communications. See below for a series of links to materials that may be beneficial as you ask lawmakers to vote "NO" on HB 136. You should also encourage others in your unit/neighborhood to call or e-mail House members.

 We challenged you to make legislative contacts on this issue and you responded! But we are being encouraged by key legislators in both parties to keep the pressure on the members of the General Assembly. That is why we're asking you to reach out again to the House.

 Another concern is that there will be amendments added to HB 136 in an attempt to secure votes and split the education community. It is important to note this is not about academic issues, but about subsidies for private tuition in the name of “choice.” We must be clear that this is an attack on public education and that the supporters will not stop until private tuition for families is supported without regard to the academic program in their district. HB 136 is not an isolated issue — it represents a bigger movement toward the privatization of public education.

Talking points on HB 136

·        HB 136 strikes at the very heart of Ohio’s obligation to maintain a “system” that provides a free public education to all students.

·        Should state and local tax dollars be utilized to subsidize private school tuition even when excellent public options are available?

·        Should public money be used to decrease the cost of private school for a few (those who are accepted, can afford tuition, are already attending private school) regardless of the costs to the majority of students still served by the public schools?

·        Given the lack of evidence for academic achievement, the cloud of uncertainty facing school budgets and the potential negative impacts of HB 136, the statewide expansion of vouchers is unwise and unwarranted.

·        HB 136 turns the state’s obligation to provide a thorough and efficient “system” of  public education into a private benefit, resulting in an unprecedented level of voucher expansion that could impact every school district in the state!

·        Vouchers waste taxpayer money. Vouchers force taxpayers to support two

school systems: one public and one private. Existing private school       students usually are eligible to receive vouchers, creating a new cost to taxpayers.

·        HB 136 would make students currently enrolled in private schools eligible over the next four years, adding additional costs to school districts and the state of Ohio that was not considered during the state budget deliberations.

·        We believe that privatization in the name of choice jeopardizes the good of the whole. By diverting dollars for a few, the ability of public school districts to meet federal and state standards is compromised and students’ educational experiences will suffer.

 

Talking points on vouchers generally

  • Vouchers abandon public schools and drain away critical dollars. Vouchers divert attention, commitment and dollars from public schools to pay private school tuition for a few students, including many who already are in private schools. Public money should be invested in strengthening the schools that educate the vast majority of our students — our public schools.
  • Vouchers eliminate public accountability. In stark contrast to the strong

requirements faced by public schools, private voucher schools do not have to meet certain state and federal requirements, including Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) standards of hiring “highly qualified” teachers, testing requirements and adequate yearly progress (AYP), nor do they have to accept all students. Existing voucher programs in Ohio and other states have suffered from scandal and fraud due to the lack of public accountability inherent in these programs.

  • Vouchers in no way raise student achievement for all. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on the Cleveland and Milwaukee voucher programs noted that the most credible research found “little or no difference in voucher and public school students’ performance.”
  • Vouchers leave behind many students, including those with the greatest needs.  Vouchers leave behind many disadvantaged students because private schools may not accept them or do not offer special services they need.
  • Vouchers give choices to private schools, not parents. Private schools decide if they want to accept vouchers, and then how many students they want to admit.  And even if a voucher student does gain acceptance into a private school, the school can later reject him or her for numerous reasons, as the evaluator in Milwaukee’s program documented. The lawmaker who founded the Milwaukee voucher program later questioned the dismissal of students by private schools, and criticized the ability of private schools to select parents and students instead of parents selecting schools as proponents typically claim wi

Written letter for your Representative

             I would like to encourage you to vote against HB 136.  By voting for this bill, you would be sending a message to your constituents, saying that you support the taxpayers having to pay the bills not only for public education, but now you also want them to pay the bill for private education, as well.  Vouchers waste taxpayer money. Existing private school students usually are eligible to receive vouchers, creating a new cost to taxpayers.  HB 136 turns the state’s obligation to provide a thorough and efficient “system” of public education into a private benefit, resulting in an unprecedented level of voucher expansion that could impact every school district in the state!  Please listen to your constituents.  Should state and local tax dollars be utilized to subsidize private school tuition even when excellent public options are available?  No!  Should public money be used to decrease the cost of private school for a few, regardless of the costs to the majority of students still served by the public schools?  Again, no!  I believe that privatization in the name of choice jeopardizes the good of the whole. By diverting dollars for a few, the ability of public school districts to meet federal and state standards is compromised and students’ educational experiences will suffer.

            Why are vouchers a poor choice?  Vouchers eliminate public accountability.  In stark contrast to the strong requirements faced by public schools, private voucher schools do not have to meet certain state and federal requirements, including Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) standards of hiring “highly qualified” teachers, testing requirements and adequate yearly progress (AYP), nor do they have to accept all students.  Existing voucher programs in Ohio and other states have suffered from scandal and fraud due to the lack of public accountability inherent in these programs.  Credible research that has been done shows that “little or no difference in voucher and public school students’ performance.”   Vouchers leave behind many students, including those with the greatest needs.  They leave behind many disadvantaged students because private schools may not accept them or do not offer special services they need.  Vouchers give choices to private schools, not parents. Private schools decide if they want to accept vouchers, and then how many students they want to admit.  And even if a voucher student does gain acceptance into a private school, the school can later reject him or her for numerous reasons.  Vouchers will undoubtedly waste the tax money that we are paying and they will make our current system of funding education even less desirable than it is now.  We are already in a situation that has been labeled as an economic crisis.  Please don't ask us to further that situation by creating less monies for our public schools, because of a choice to offer private education at the expense of the general public. 


STATE ADVOCACY UPDATES
MORE STATE ADVOCACY UPDATES
RACE TO THE TOP
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT ACT
Famllt Engagement Act Information

 Ohio PTA is asking for your help to officially endorse the Family Engagement in Education Act of 2011.

On Tuesday, May 3, The Family Engagement in Education Act of 2011 will be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Sen. Chris Coons (R-DE).

The Family Engagement in Education Act strengthens family engagement in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which congressional leaders have stated they want to reauthorize this year. Read on to find out how you can support this bill.

The bill:
o  Provides guidance and incentives to schools, districts, and states on how to use research-based strategies to engage families; and
o  Strengthens and safeguards the sole federal parent engagement program, the Parental Information and Resource Centers (PIRCs).

This bill is PTA’s top policy priority and we are thrilled that after months of advocacy work from state PTA leaders and National PTA, a sound legislative proposal will finally be introduced in both chambers. While an action alert will be sent following introduction, we need your help to ensure that this bill makes an impact with House and Senate committees as they consider ESEA reauthorization. Following the intense 2011 budget battle, it is important that we show massive grassroots support for family engagement at all levels of reform, including the PIRC program.

We are asking all local, council, regional, and district PTAs to consider endorsing this legislation by clicking the link below.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8HBNF3B

ENDORSE the Family Engagement in Education Act

For more information, please contact Jacque Minow, National PTA’s Senior Education Policy Analyst, at jminow@pta.org.

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION ACT
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION ACT
CAPWIZ
CCSSI

 

Learn More About Common Core Standards

www.ptacommoncore.org
ADVOCACY AWARD
OHIO PTA POSTIONS & RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTIONS
POSITION STATEMENTS

 

WHERE OHIO PTA STANDS

RESOURCE GUIDE TO OHIO LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

If you want further information, please contact the

Ohio PTA office for a copy of the resolution.

 

EDUCATION RESOLUTIONS

CURRICULUM

Adult Education – 1977

Evaluating Vocational Education Programs - 1983

Foreign Language Programs in Elementary Schools - 1990

Character Education – 1991

Special Education of Children with Disabilities PTA/SERRC

     Representatives – 1996

Core Curriculum - 2007

 

DISCIPLINE

Discipline – 1980

Alternative to Corporal Punishment - 1995

 

EDUCATION

Teacher Tenure – 1971

Control of Public Education – 1973

Parent Teachers Conference – 1977

Gifted and Talented – 1979

Absenteeism – 1980

Promoting a Positive Image of Public Education - 1980

Local School Districts Annual Report - 1983

Middle School Staff Certification – 1984

Protecting School Employee Retirement Programs - 1985

Testing – 1986

Testing of Children prior to Entrance into Kindergarten - 1986

Teacher Education and Licensure Standards - 1996

Student Retention and Intervention – 1999

Full-day Kindergarten – 2001

A Recovery – Not a Retention Plan - 2001

Professional Misconduct for Educators – 2008

 

FACILITIES

Community Education – 1982

School Facilities – 1999

 

FUNDING

Diversified Educational Opportunities – 1972

School Funding – 1978

Funding Ohio Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - 1982

Establishing Criteria for Equitable Transportation Costs - 1983

School Districts Financing Equalization Factor - 1987

State Relief from the Impact of HB 920 (Property Tax Rollback) - 1987

Clarification of Ballot Language for School Levy or Bond Issues - 1988

Revision of Ohio’s School Foundation Formula to Reflect the Impact of 

     House Bill 920 on a School District’s Actual Ability to Generate Local

     Revenue – 1989

Improving Funding for Children with Mental Health Diagnoses - 1990

Tax Abatement Considerations – 1991

Elimination/Reduction of Local School District Tax Collection Fees - 1992

Opposition to Passage of Ballot Issues Unrelated to School Funding - 1996

Equitable and Adequate Funding for Ohio Public Schools  - 2004

Supporting School Funding Reform - 2006 

 

INVOLVEMENT

Senior Citizens and the PTA – 1979

Partnership with Community/Business Building Excellence in Education –

     1985

Parent/Citizen Involvement in Education - 1986

 

NON –PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Ohio Chartered Schools: Equal Mandates of Public Funds - 1978

Federal Assistance to Nonpublic Schools - 1978

Ohio Educational Institutions Receiving Public Funds be Regulated by the

     Same Mandates – 1980

Opposition to Tuition Tax Credits and Vouchers - 1980

Local Districts Cost of Nonpublic Transportation - 1981

Collection of Date on Nonpublic Non-chartered Schools - 1981

Public Record of Nonpublic Transportation - 1982

Limiting Expenditures for Transporting Students - 1984

White Paper Resolution Public Funds for Nonpublic Schools - 1986

Ohio PTA Opposition to New Voucher Proposals for Nonpublic Moneys for       

     Nonpublic Schools – 1993

Opposition to any New System of Charter Schools - 1994

Charter/Community Schools – 2003

 

SCHOOL BOARDS

State Board of Education Candidate Information - 1974

Boards of Education Members – 1994

 

TECHNOLOGY

Parental Control of On-Line Computer Services - 1995

Technology Education – 1996

 

HEALTH RESOLUTIONS

HEALTH

Sickle Cell Disease – 1972

First Aid Training for Teachers – 1975

Immunization of Preschool Children – 1975

Pediculosis Capitis (Lice) – 1978

Sexual Abuse of Children – 1984

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Staff Education - 1987

AIDS - Information and Dissemination Affirmation - 1987

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Affirmation - 1987

Teen Pregnancy Awareness – 1987

Awareness of Eating Disorders among Adolescents - 1988

Recognition of Behaviors Associated with Adolescent Suicide - 1989

Improving School Meal Nutrition – 1990

Health Care Insurance – 1992

Gift of Life – 1996

Abstinence Education – 1997

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation – 1997

School Nurse Awareness – 1997

Beverage Choices in School Vending Machines – 2006

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Marijuana – 1972

Substance Abuse: Prevention, Intervention, and Support Group - 1982

Alcoholic Beverage Commercials – 1983

Resolution Opposing the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages from Places that Sell

     Gasoline -1986

Stopping Teenage Drinking and Driving - 1988

Youth and Alcohol Education – 1992

Adult Liability in Serving Alcohol to Minors - 1993

Resolution Supporting Legislation to Reduce Alcoholic Related Crime - 1994

Sale of Tobacco Products in Vending Machines - 1995

In Support of the Tobacco Settlement Comprehensive Plan - 1998

 

SAFETY RESOLUTIONS

SAFETY

Handgun Legislation – 1972

Home Fire Safety – 1981

Hitch Hiking – 1982

Labeling of Clothing for Children of Elementary Age - 1983

Increased Playground Safety – 1989

Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases – 1990

Multi-Way Stop Installations in School Zone – 1991

Handgun Safety Awareness – 1992

Newspaper Carrier Safety – 1994

Graduated Licensing for Drivers Under the Age of 18 – 1995

Bicycle Helmets – 1996

Railroad Safety Education – 1998

Firearms Legislation – 2000

Firearms Safety Awareness- 2000

Phones for Life – 2001

School Buildings as Polling Locations – 2003

 

SCHOOL BUS

School Bus Safety – 1982

Retirement of the Pre-1977 Type 1 School Buses – 1989

Encourages Adoption of Improved Mirror Standards for Buses - 1989

Two Way FM Radios on All School Buses – 1991

Stop-Arm Signals on all School Buses – 1992

An Aid for Providing Safer School Bus Operation - 1993

WELFARE RESOLUTIONS

AT RISK

At Risk Students – 1986

Providing Alternative Programs for Assaultive Students - 1989

 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Guidelines to Identify Sexual Harassment in Schools - 1994

Student to Student Sexual Harassment - 1995

 

WELFARE

Voluntary Fingerprinting – 1983

Working Student – 1985

Raising Community Awareness and Enforcement of Obscenity Laws Where

     Children are Directly Affected – 1988

Socially Disadvantaged African-American Males – 1991

Violence Prevention – 1993

MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTIONS

MEDIA

Reaffirmation of National PTA Resolution “Objectionable use of Children in

     TV Commercials” – 1981

Effects of TV Watching on Children’s Schooling -1981

A Parent-Supportive Rating System for All Recording Mediums - 1998

 

MISCELLANEOUS

School Age Child Care and the Changing Family - 1984

Improving Juvenile Rehabilitation in Ohio Correctional Institutions - 1985

How to Handle Solicitations of Charities Using Professional Fundraisers –

     1988

Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance – 1989

PTA Involvement in Nuclear Education - 1990

Commercialization in Our Schools – 1997

Public Library Policies: Protecting Children - 1998

Privacy of Student Records – Military Recruiters – 2006

 

RECYCLING

Waste Reduction Education – 1990

PTAs Support of Recycled Products – 1992

 

VOTING

Local Voter Information – 1976

Resolution of Democratic Principles – 1981

Single Issue Legislation – 1983

 

Ohio PTA Position Statement Charter Schools

      
Charter/Community Schools must:

  •   Be open to all students
  •   Abide by all federal and state laws which protect the health and safety of children, prohibit discrimination, and comply with the Freedom of  Information and Open Meetings Acts and Americans With Disabilities Act
  • Comply with federal and state laws governing public schools which require fiscal responsibility and accountability
  •  Comply with federal and state laws governing public schools regarding student assessment and reporting the resulting data
  •  Be accountable to the school boards in their local school districts; those with no location (Internet/electronic schools) should be accountable to the state school board
  •  Ensure that professional faculty and staff are highly qualified as defined by No Child Left Behind Act, 2002, for the positions they hold and receive ongoing education throughout their employment
  •  Involve parents or guardians in meaningful ways including: decision making, communication, volunteering and collaborating
  •  Have a mechanism for independent evaluation to determine if they are providing students with an education at least comparable to the public schools in their area Routinely evaluate their mission and monitor the progress of fulfilling their specific mission of innovation as stated in their contract

 

Charter/Community Schools must not:

  • Be sponsored or operated by for-profit organizations, nor be affiliated with a non-public sectarian or religious school
  • Divert money from public schools
  • Charge tuition or fees not charged by public schools

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors Position Statement on Criminal Background Checks for Volunteers

 

The Ohio PTA Board of Directors recognizes the importance of safety for children when working with volunteers and therefore has the following position on criminal background checks for volunteers: (Adopted by the Board of Directors at the 7.29.00 Special Meeting)

 
  • Criminal background checks on volunteers are one method of obtaining information about a record that may exist on an individual that could effect the safety of children.
 
  • Volunteers that represent PTA or PTA programs and work directly with children are encouraged to work within a supervised environment.
  • The method of submitting to a background check should be in place in each community and be readily accessible.
  • The Ohio PTA will provide its members with information regarding current legislation addressing criminal background checks but will not assume liability for individual volunteers’ legal responsibilities.
 
  • The financial responsibility for administering any background check should not negatively impact the volunteer organization or the volunteer activity. 
  • Confidentiality of all volunteers’ personal information must be protected.
  • Criminal record checks should be valid for a minimum of one year.
  • The state of Ohio should further develop technology that allows the sharing of criminal background information between counties within the state of Ohio and between all states nationally.

Ohio Core Resolution

 

Whereas, Ohioans are being challenged to compete in our global economy for advanced manufacturing, healthcare and technology jobs. More than two-thirds of new jobs require some type of post secondary education; and

 

Whereas, research supports that students who complete a rigorous high school curriculum will earn an average of 13% more than peers, are more likely to earn a college degree and currently only 24% of Ohio’s students complete a rigorous curriculum which has been proposed by Governor Taft, and


Whereas, eight states have moved to implement a rigorous curriculum between 2008 and 2012 and an additional 11 states are considering such action, and

 

Whereas, the Ohio Core will require four years of math, three years of lab based sciences, two years of foreign language, four years of English, three years of social studies, one half unit of health and physical education and three elective units, including least one unit or two half units chosen from among the areas of business/technology and fine arts, and

 

Whereas, the Ohio Core will also focus remedial and developmental education on Ohio’s two year college campus, be a requirement to admission to public aided four year colleges and require students to take a college and work ready assessment; and be it

 

RESOLVED THAT, the Ohio PTA Board of Directors support the concept of challenging our students to be successful through completing a rigorous curriculum, and be it

 

Resolved that Ohio’s school districts need to have the resources to provide such a curriculum through qualified teachers in the areas of math and science, adequate classroom physical space and supplies which do not exist and be it

 

Resolved that access for remediation and developmental education will be universal throughout the state, not just at two year community colleges which are located in select areas of our state and be it

 

Resolved our PTAs through its units and councils will advocate to our decision makers to provide our school districts the resources to prepare our students for the challenges ahead to meet these expectations.

 

Adopted by the Ohio PTA Board of Directors on May 20, 2006

 

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT for EDUCATORS

2008

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors support the belief that educators serve as positive role models to students and their families. As a result they are responsible for preserving the dignity and integrity of the teaching profession according to the highest ethical standards. This includes devoting themselves to providing a safe and nurturing environment in which all students can learn, free from harassment or intimidation.

 

Educators in Ohio strive for excellence through high expectations that they hold for themselves and their students in alignment with the Standards for Ohio Educators and the Ohio Academic Content Standards for Students.

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors support and promotes the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators.

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors opposes any educator engaging in criminal activity (including the use of alcohol on school property or illegal drugs) as evidenced by a criminal conviction, guilty plea, finding of guilt, or participation in a court-ordered diversion or treatment in lieu of conviction program. Educators shall accurately report any criminal activity to the local board of education or governing board, superintendent/designee, state education agency, federal agency

or state or federal law.

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors recognizes that educators are entrusted with public funds and school property in the course of performing job duties and must maintain a high level of honesty, accuracy and accountability to ensure that privileges are not used for personal gain.

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors support educators making decisions that are not based on bias or prejudice regarding students or families, influenced by socioeconomic status of families or gifts given by families or businesses.

 

Ohio PTA Board of Directors support discipline at both the state and local level be imposed on educators who violate one or more of the principals of the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators and set forth by the State Board of Education. Discipline imposed must follow all local contractual provisions, including but not limited to due process, progressive discipline and just cause. This discipline may include the authority to suspend, limit, revoke

or deny licenses; or issue a letter of admonishment.

 

 

 
NATIONAL PTA INFORMATION
Ohio PTA
40 Northwoods Blvd.
Columbus, OH  43235
(614) 781-6344
 
 
Copyright OHIO PTA 2010 Privacy Statement    Terms Of Use