Testimony on SB 1 — Economic and Workforce Development Committee (April 25, 2023)

Summary

This is testimony on SB 1, dated April 25, 2023, addressed to the Economic and Workforce Development Committee, with the name Russell Harris at the end. The testimony says SB 1 is not about educational improvement but about political control of educational policy. It recounts that on Nov. 3, 1953, State Issue 2 appeared on ballots as a proposed constitutional amendment creating a State Board of Education, and cites Ballotpedia for 913,134 voters, or nearly 57% of Ohioans voting on the issue, approving it. It argues that under SB 1 the Board would have the power to approve territory transfers and oversee education related license discipline, and urges a vote against SB 1.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Testimony on SB 1, April 25, 2023


Chairman Swearingen, Vice Chair Santucci, Ranking Member Upchurch and the member of the
Economic and Workforce Development Committee.
Over the years as I was testifying as an advocate for the teachers, I used to focus on the merits of
educational provisions to improve student achievement in Ohio. SB 1 has no such provisions, ideas,
or proposals. SB 1 is not about educational improvement – instead, it is about political control of
educational policy aside from the legislature.
In 1953, Ohioans were of a mind to set some important things straight.
The 8th US Congress (1803–1805) missed a critical part of the statehood process for Ohio:
congressional ratification of the state constitution. One hundred and fifty years later, in the 83rd US
Congress (1953–1955), Representative George H. Bender of Ohio introduced the legislation on
January 13, 1953, to retroactively grant statehood.
On May 19, 1953, the US House of Representatives voted to approve legislation retroactively ratifying
the state constitution and admitting Ohio to the Union as of March 1, 1803.
Later in that year, on Nov. 3, 1953, State Issue 2 appeared on ballots throughout Ohio as a
proposed constitutional amendment creating a State Board of Education. According to
Ballotpedia, 913,134 voters, or nearly 57% of Ohioans voting on the issue, approved the
amendment.
DeRoplh v. State is a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Supreme Court of
Ohio ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional.[1] On March 24,
1997, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in a 4–3 decision that the state funding system "fails to
provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools," as required by the Ohio Constitution,
and directed the state to find a remedy.[2] The court would look at the case several times over the next
5 years before it relinquished jurisdiction, but the underlying problems with the school funding system
remain to this day.[1]

Perry County Judge, Linton Lewis handed down the first DeRoplh decision on July 1, 1994. Just
months after that, the Ohio State Board of Education voted not to appeal the DeRoplh decision.
Before the year was over, the Governor and legislature acted to put eight appointed members on the
State Board of Education.
Oliver Ocasek, who had been the President of the Ohio Senate in the 1970’s and 1980’s, later served
as the President of the State Board of Education.
Ocasek was a professor at the University of Akron, he taught about public school finance. He testified
in the DeRoplh case. As President of the State Board, he oversaw the Board vote to NOT appeal the
DeRoplh decision. Governor Voinovich’s reaction was immediate. He wanted the Governor’s Office to
water down the power and authority of the State Board. He championed legislation to place eight
appointed (unelected) members on the State Board.
The question is simple, does anyone believe that there would be appointed members on the
State Board today if President Ocasek had caved into political pressure and voted to appeal
the decision? Ocasek not only believed that the school funding system was unconstitutional, but he
also wanted to protect the independence and integrity of the State Board. DeRoplh was about
protecting the constitutional rights of Ohio’s children and the decision represented the proper role of
the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of legislation.
The question is simple, does anyone believe that the voters of Ohio who voted to create a
State Board of Education wanted the Board to have the powers and duties of a license clerk in
the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles? License clerks at the BMV have the powers and duties to
issue and transfer vehicle titles. Under SB 1, the State Board of Education would have the “power” to
approve territory transfers and oversee education related license discipline issues.
Recently, a spokesperson for the administration spoke to the issue of the “will of the people,” how
is it possible to deduce such a thing all these years later, especially when the motivations of
voters can be so varied.” I am quite sure that we can safely deduce that the motivation of the
voters in 1953 was not to create a state level policy board and then assign them the task of
handling territory transfers between school districts.
SB 1 proposes exactly what the voters wanted to eliminate in the their approval of the amendment,
Article VI, Section 4, to create the State Board as part of the Ohio Constitution. The voters and
the educational community wanted to remove educational policy from the whims of politics and
elect people to serve on the Board in non-partisan elections like judges are elected. The
amendment has been in place for the last 70 years.
Such an approach hews -- nominally -- to the language of the 1953 amendment, but it clearly runs
contrary to what motivated that amendment in the first place: a desire to take from the governor
and give to the people and lawmakers more direct control over education policy.
In the last election, voters in three of the four contested State Board of Education races “ousted
two GOP incumbents in favor of Democrats and elected another Democrat in a contested district
previously held by a Republican.” That was shortly before the first bill to rewrite education policy
began to move in the legislature.
Just like the State Board refusing to appeal the DeRoplh decision in 1994, this was too much for
the administration to accept. Thus, the introduction of SB 1 to deny the will of the voters and
capture educational policy firmly under the control of the administration.
Lastly, if the powers and duties which were surgically removed from the State Board were given to a
new Director of the Department of Education and Workforce, who would that single person be?
Would the person look more like a credentialed educator or a political, at-will employee of the
Governor? Would it be a person with a history and track record of supporting public education or
should it be a political person that is an outspoken advocate for charter schools and vouchers which
are now in the process of destroying public education?
The sixty-seven-year history of the Ohio State Board of Education speaks for itself. The progress of
the educational system has been remarkable considering the need for achieving a balance between
the need for state level educational policy and resources and the tradition of local control in
education.
I urge you to vote against SB 1 and instead seek ways to isolate the State Board of Education from
undue political influence.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I would gladly entertain any questions the members might
have.
Russell Harris


File and source

File

2023-04-25_econ-workforce-dev_testimony_testimony-3311.pdf

Size

150,592 bytes

SHA-256

0c76682f061555616e1aaced097e13ab233fc7568c22f9c69c802686235addc6

Our copy

2023-04-25_econ-workforce-dev_testimony_testimony-3311.pdf

Original

No public link identified.