Too Big to Fix: Let’s break up the education monopoly in Columbus

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce recently released their annual Ohio School Report Cards, now using “stars” instead of letter grades.
Columbus City School District was awarded 2 out of 5 stars. In 2019 CCSD got an overall D.
This has been the long term pattern, only interrupted by spurts of grade inflation and scoring fraud.
(Even changing from letters to stars cannot hide the many challenges the district faces.)

Columbus City Schools District 2 star ranking
Columbus City Schools District 2 star ranking

Despite being fully funded from a fresh levy and an annual budget of approximately $1.35 billion dollars, Columbus City School District struggles with low academic achievement, resource imbalances between schools, and ineffective administration. Even after spending over $17,500 per student CCSD has high student absenteeism, significant teacher turnover, and uneven implementation of educational programs that exacerbate these challenges. Bureaucratic inefficiencies prevent necessary reforms, hindering efforts to address the district’s diverse student needs. Furthermore, inequitable distribution of resources and outdated facilities continue to impact the learning environment, despite the financial resources available.

Columbus City School District 1965
Columbus City School District 1965

Breaking up Columbus City Schools District into four or five smaller districts presents several benefits, particularly in terms of governance, accountability, equity, and student outcomes. It can make schools better, improve how students learn, and help communities feel more connected to their local schools.

First of all, smaller districts are easier to manage. Right now, Columbus City Schools is very big, with over 46,000 students. When a district is so large, it can be difficult for the leaders to give attention to each school. By breaking the district into smaller parts, school boards can focus on the specific needs of each area. This means schools can get more help to solve their own problems quickly. Parents and teachers can also work more closely with local school leaders because they are more accessible. Allowing more localized governance ensures that decision-making is better aligned with the specific needs and priorities of individual communities.

With fewer schools to manage smaller districts can be more fair. In a big district like Columbus City Schools, some schools might have more resources, like newer facilities or better materials, while others don’t. *cough* Columbus Alternative High School *cough* When the district is split into smaller parts, each district will have its own budget. This allows leaders to make sure every school gets what it needs. This can also help students who are struggling with challenges like poverty or language barriers. Smaller districts can pay closer attention to these issues and provide better support.

Smaller districts can have an easier time encouraging excellence and competition. Without even realizing it, many times hard working teachers and staff can become discouraged when seemingly distant schools or teachers are rewarded or acknowledged for performing well. This is compounded when problems outside of their control contribute to a sense of futility. Smaller districts allow problems to be seen in local context, and success to be celebrated by the people who made it happen, not some central office distant from the effort.

While the city of Columbus can be intimidating with sprawl, our urban roadways allow swift travel from one side to the other. Rural school districts easily handle long bus rides to schools many miles from home, while urban students are bussed to the closest schools without any choice. With 4 or 5 smaller districts in the same area, families would be able to choose where to send their children, even across district lines. This would encourage smaller districts to do better to attract students and families. This means they will try to improve their programs, test scores, and school environment. When one district tries something new and it works, other districts might copy the idea, leading to more improvements for everyone. For example, one district might focus on science and technology, while another focuses on career and technical education. This variety helps meet the different needs of students.

Students, teachers, and administrators in smaller districts can also build closer relationships. In big districts, students and teachers often feel disconnected from the people making decisions. Smaller districts can make it easier for teachers and students to know each other and for students to get the support they need. This sense of community can make students feel more motivated and engaged in their schoolwork. It can also help reduce dropout rates because students feel more connected to their schools.

Teachers and staff will also benefit from working in smaller districts. Teachers can feel overwhelmed in a big district, especially if they don’t feel heard by the administration. Smaller districts can provide more opportunities for teachers to participate in professional development, collaborate with other teachers, and get the help they need to succeed in their classrooms. This can make teaching more enjoyable and improve the quality of education students receive.

Breaking up the district can also improve student performance. Smaller districts can focus more closely on improving test scores, graduation rates, and attendance. Students may get more personalized attention, and schools can try different approaches to help students succeed. 

Another advantage is that smaller districts can operate more efficiently. Large school districts often have layers of bureaucracy that slow down decision-making. Smaller districts can respond faster to problems, such as fixing buildings or adjusting curriculum, because they have fewer people involved in the process. This can save money and allow more funds to go directly into the classroom rather than administrative costs.

Finally, breaking up the district can strengthen community ties. When schools serve smaller areas, parents and community members feel more connected to them. This can lead to more people getting involved in school activities, such as parent-teacher organizations, volunteer opportunities, and even school board meetings. A strong sense of community makes schools better places for students to learn and grow.

Although there are challenges to breaking up Columbus City Schools, such as figuring out how to fairly divide funding, and how parents would choose which school to send their children, the potential benefits make it an idea worth considering. We can give our hard working teachers and staff the breathing room they need to live up to the high expectations they place on themselves. By creating smaller districts, school leaders can focus on the unique needs of their communities, improve resources for all students, and help create schools where students, teachers, and parents feel more connected and engaged.

As long as Columbus City Schools are all lumped together the accomplishments of individual schools and teachers will be overshadowed by the challenges of the whole.

Resource: Ohio School Report Cards https://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/district/043802

Source: CCS faces backlash over school consolidation despite recent levy win
https://www.myfox28columbus.com/news/local/columbus-city-schools-ohio-ccs-faces-backlash-over-building-consolidation-despite-november-2023-election-levy-win-school-funding-money-property-taxes-revenue

Govt schools in Ohio create a harmful monopoly by limiting educational choices and controlling funding, restricting competition and innovation. This reduces parents’ options for better alternatives, leading to inefficiency, unequal resource distribution, and lower overall educational quality.

Breaking up this monopoly is crucial to maximizing Ohio education and innovation.

Franklin County Libertarians’ statement on arrest and charges against Telegram CEO Pavel Durov

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Franklin County Libertarians’ statement on arrest and charges against Telegram CEO Pavel Durov

Columbus, Ohio – August 28, 2024

The Franklin County Libertarian Party of Ohio is outraged by the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov by French authorities and the charges brought against him. This act is seen as a direct threat to free speech and digital privacy, targeting a leader committed to protecting user rights. The move sets a dangerous precedent, signaling increased governmental overreach into private communication. The Party stands in solidarity with Durov and all advocates of civil liberties, emphasizing the urgent need to defend the fundamental right to communicate freely without interference. This incident underscores the importance of protecting individual freedoms in the digital age.

For more information or media inquiries, please contact:

Ken Holpp
Communications Director
Franklin County Libertarian Party
info@fclpo.org
fclpo.org

About Franklin County Libertarian Party

The Franklin County Libertarian Party is committed to defending individual liberties, advocating for limited government, and promoting policies that empower individuals and communities throughout Ohio.


Contact:

Ken Holpp
Communications Director
Franklin County Libertarian Party
info@fclpo.org
fclpo.org


This press release reflects the Franklin County Libertarian Party’s call to protect freedom of speech in all formats and forums, emphasizing the individual’s right to expression free of government harassment and interference.

Franklin County Libertarian Party Urges End to Fluoride in Drinking Water Citing Safety Concerns: “Fluoride Neurotoxic at ANY Level”

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Franklin County Libertarian Party Urges End to Fluoride in Drinking Water Citing Safety Concerns: “Fluoride Neurotoxic at ANY Level”

Columbus, Ohio – August 14, 2024

The Franklin County Libertarian Party of Ohio is taking a firm stance against the continued addition of fluoride to municipal drinking water supplies, citing significant safety concerns. The party asserts that fluoride is neurotoxic at any level and calls upon state agencies and local municipalities to immediately halt its inclusion in public water systems.

Fluoride has historically been added to drinking water with the intention of improving dental health. However, a diverse community of scientific studies show neurotoxic effects even at low levels of exposure. Studies conducted in Canada, Mexico and the United States, as well as studies funded by the federal NIH, consistently found lowering of IQ or increased risk of behavioral problems like ADHD associated with early life exposure to fluoridated water. The Franklin County Libertarian Party argues that these risks outweigh any purported benefits, especially considering the widespread availability of fluoride in dental products.

“It is unacceptable to expose our population, especially vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women, to a known neurotoxin,” said Michael Sweeney, At Large Member of the Franklin County Libertarian Party. “Fluoride should not be administered through public water supplies when safer alternatives exist, and individuals have the right to make their own choices regarding their health.”

The party emphasizes that the decision to ingest fluoride should be a matter of personal choice and informed consent, not a mandate imposed by government agencies. They advocate for policies that respect individual rights and prioritize public health based on transparent, independent scientific research.

“We call upon state agencies and local municipalities to heed the growing body of evidence and prioritize public health by voluntarily ending water fluoridation,” added Sweeney. “It is time to protect our citizens’ health and uphold their right to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies.”

The Franklin County Libertarian Party encourages public discourse and urges policymakers to reconsider water fluoridation policies in light of emerging scientific findings and the principle of individual liberty.

For more information or media inquiries, please contact:

Ken Holpp
Communications Director
Franklin County Libertarian Party
info@fclpo.org
fclpo.org

About Franklin County Libertarian Party

The Franklin County Libertarian Party is committed to defending individual liberties, advocating for limited government, and promoting policies that empower individuals and communities throughout Ohio.


Contact:

Ken Holpp
Communications Director
Franklin County Libertarian Party
info@fclpo.org
fclpo.org


This press release reflects the Franklin County Libertarian Party’s call to end fluoride use in drinking water due to safety concerns, emphasizing the need for informed choice and public health protection.

Resources and references:

News media source: https://www.wjbf.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/713217866/first-us-study-of-fluoride-neurotoxicity-finds-significant-risk-to-developing-brain/

Reference: Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858

Reference: NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review 

Franklin County Republicans in death spiral, abandoned local and county elections

Over the past 10 years it has become obvious that the Republican Party has abandoned the dense urban centers of most Ohio cities and suburbs.

Retreating to the safety of their easy wins at the state level, and the occasional local family dynasty, the red team has abdicated all interest and effort in even token attempts to run candidates in Franklin County. (Of course, the red team is still happy to take your money! It just won’t find it’s way into helping any candidate or issue in your neighborhood.)

After spending the same decade working tirelessly to eliminate any possible competition in the form of alternative political parties, (through lawfare, intimidation and fraud), this has left voters in our area with a large and growing slate of unopposed elections, where blue team candidates file paperwork and walk into elected office without winning an election.

This has left the Franklin County red team with a dwindling, defeatist and disenfranchised volunteer and voter base, thoroughly convinced in their permanent loss of representation at the local level. This is also leading to a loss of county and local political influence.

In contrast, the Franklin County Libertarian Party of Ohio has spent the last 10 years working to recruit and train candidates, fundraise and support issues, and generally work to support orphaned candidates and voters, (helping independents, and even blue and red team candidates when it made sense).

We did that work while fighting off constant attacks on our political credibility while only benefiting from ballot access half the time, and pushing through odious and burdensome petitioning requirements the other half. 

How did Franklin County get to this point, with a dominating and lazy blue team, and an equally lazy, but vanishingly relevant red team?

Franklin County is an economic hub, home to Columbus, numerous smaller cities, boasting a diverse economy in finance, education, healthcare, and tech. Its central location, strong infrastructure, and vibrant workforce drive growth, attracting talent and investment, making it vital to Ohio’s prosperity.

With all this going for it, you’d think a major political party would be fighting for every precinct tooth and nail.

You would be wrong, and it wouldn’t be just the last ten years that that impression would be incorrect. 

In the distant past, when smoke filled rooms were legal, and the common way to manage politics, the red and blue teams in Franklin County struck a deal, a détente, if you will, to stay out of each other’s way. At the state level the red and blue teams took cyclical turns running the state-wide offices of governor, secretary of state and rarely commanded more than slim margins in the state house or senate.

This made such an agreement more palatable for both sides, and elected roles in Franklin County were divided up based on who most often won, leading to many unopposed elections for both teams, and candidates with very little real support when some did go “rouge”. Elected roles like Mayor of Columbus, Columbus City Council, County Commissioners and urban State Representatives were firmly blue team, while County Prosecutor, County Engineer, County Treasurer and more rural State Senators were firmly red team.

Over time the district lines shifted, but the agreement was held for the most part and political power in central Ohio leaned blue or red without much real variance.

Then something unexpected happened.

A Green Party member filed to run for County Prosecutor, a race the county blue team had largely ignored, and rarely fielded a candidate to oppose. This candidate was brash and full of energy, a real firebrand and was talking about real reform and actual political action.

Of course, the blue team could not allow any such challenge to the status quo. (Let alone a Green!)

So, they found a paper candidate on short notice to file, and with all the influence and endorsement of the blue county machine, the paper candidate sailed through the primary unopposed and found some enthusiasm among their voters.

And then the unthinkable happened.

The blue team candidate almost won the general election.

When the dust settled, the blue team tallied their numbers and realized something profound.

The demographics for central Ohio had shifted. There was no longer a reliable swing back and forth between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” voters. Columbus voters in particular seemed to have shifted firmly “liberal”.

This new understanding led the county blue team machine to ramp up recruiting, fundraising and undertake the effort of running a candidate for every race they could.

Meanwhile, the red team slumbered, even as several of their choice elected roles were competed right out from under them several times in a row. However, instead of fighting back with grass roots ground game and pouring effort and energy into revitalizing their sleepy base, they continued to demand the blue team honor the now defunct back-room agreements, and shifted strategy to controlling state level district lines.

The ”redistricting strategy” has kept the red team with a healthy margin of control of the State House and Senate, and the wide-spread, and numerous, rural voter base continues to fall for the faux conservative act for state-wide red candidates. 

However, while the population of the State of Ohio is not growing (in fact, shrinking), urban and suburban central Ohio is gaining residents, both from other cities and from rural areas. 

Red team’s control of the state-level government may be short-lived as local and county-level influence wanes. As demographic shifts and urbanization increase, their traditional rural base diminishes. This disconnect from local issues will erode voter support, leading to significant challenges in maintaining statewide power in future elections.

While at the highest level it looks like the Republican Party of Ohio is in control politically, the reality we are seeing is local and county GOP death spiral.

Ohio is moving more and more purple, and the fake “conservatives” that made their bread and butter over pretending to care about small govt, low taxes and individual liberties days are numbered.

Franklin County Libertarians offer choice on the ballot, not a fake choice between voting and not voting, but real choice with candidates who listen, live and work in our communities, shop in the same stores and experience the same concerns and share values with neighbors. 

We are not asleep, we are not going away, we are putting in the work, and we will represent all residents in Franklin County.

We are not red or blue.

We are not “liberal” or “conservative”. 

We are Libertarians.

We stand for individual freedom, limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility.

Volunteer, donate and get involved.

Easing ballot access is superior to fighting over district lines.

Easing ballot access restrictions for competing political parties provides a more equitable and representative democratic process compared to redrawing or redistricting election district lines around current political party affiliations.

1. Promotes Fair Competition:

  • Eliminating ballot access restrictions allows more parties and candidates to participate in elections, offering voters a broader range of choices. This diversity can lead to more competitive elections, as candidates and parties must better represent constituents’ interests to win votes.
  • Unlike redistricting, which can be manipulated to favor certain parties (gerrymandering), removing ballot restrictions levels the playing field, ensuring that all parties have an equal opportunity to compete.

2. Enhances Voter Representation:

  • When more political parties have access to the ballot, it better reflects the varied political opinions within the electorate. This inclusivity ensures that minority views are represented, leading to more comprehensive and balanced policy discussions.
  • Redistricting based on current political affiliations can entrench existing power structures, often marginalizing minority viewpoints and reducing the overall representativeness of elected bodies.

3. Reduces Partisan Manipulation:

  • Ballot access reform focuses on the procedural fairness of elections, minimizing the influence of partisan interests. It addresses structural barriers such as high signature requirements or restrictive filing deadlines that often keep new or smaller parties off the ballot.
  • Redistricting, particularly when controlled by partisan legislatures, can result in gerrymandering, where district lines are drawn to ensure a particular party’s dominance, undermining the principle of fair representation.

4. Encourages Political Innovation:

  • With easier access to the ballot, new political parties can introduce fresh ideas and perspectives, fostering political innovation. This can lead to more dynamic and responsive governance, as established parties must adapt to new challenges and perspectives.
  • Redistricting does not inherently encourage new ideas; instead, it can reinforce the status quo by protecting incumbents and established parties from significant competition.

5. Strengthens Democratic Legitimacy:

  • A democracy that allows multiple parties to participate freely in elections enhances its legitimacy. Voters are more likely to feel that the electoral process is fair and that their voices can be heard.
  • Redistricting based on current political affiliations can lead to cynicism and distrust in the democratic process, as it often appears to serve the interests of those in power rather than the electorate.

By reducing ballot access restrictions, the democratic process becomes more inclusive, competitive, and representative, ensuring that all voices can participate and be heard, thereby strengthening the overall health and legitimacy of the representative democracy.

We are ordering more copies of Judge Grey’s magnificent book for local candidates, and there is a kindle version if you need it sooner.

https://a.co/d/0H3T3rT

FTA/ More of a “must-do” book than a “how-to” book, How to Win a Local Election guides readers through the campaign process detailing what they need to accomplish along the way in order to be victorious. Here you will find information on planning and organizing a campaign; how to run as an independent candidate; the various roles of people in your compaign; campaign procedures and techniques; and how to use computers, the internet, and emails to both manipulate and disseminate data. The book also offers useful advice on issues from financial reporting to developing a campaign theme and strategy, how to win “one precinct at a time,” and even offers tips on such fundamental tasks as the creation and placement of yardsigns and billboards. /

Libertarians on Safeguarding the Environment

Private Property Rights: We advocate for strong property rights, enabling individuals to protect and manage natural resources responsibly, fostering environmental stewardship through ownership and accountability.

Market-Based Solutions: We support market mechanisms such as pollution pricing and tradable permits, encouraging innovation and efficiency in environmental conservation without government mandates.

Decentralization: We prefer decentralized approaches to environmental issues, empowering local communities and private initiatives to address conservation and sustainability based on local needs and preferences.

Voluntary Conservation: We promote voluntary efforts and initiatives to protect the environment, encouraging individuals, businesses, and communities to engage in conservation practices without government coercion.

Technological Innovation: We believe in the power of technological innovation to address environmental challenges, supporting research and development in clean technologies and sustainable practices.

Property Rights Enforcement: We advocate for strict enforcement of property rights against polluters and environmental offenders, ensuring that those who harm others’ property or natural resources are held accountable.

Education and Awareness: We emphasize education and public awareness on environmental issues, fostering a culture of responsibility and informed decision-making among individuals and businesses regarding their environmental impact.

Libertarians on Securing Liberty

Individual Rights: We prioritize protecting individual rights and freedoms, including free speech, privacy, and due process, ensuring government respects these fundamental liberties.

Civil Liberties: We defend civil liberties against government overreach, advocating for limits on surveillance, police powers, and infringements on personal autonomy.

Criminal Justice Reform: We promote reforms that emphasize rehabilitation, reduce incarceration rates, and uphold fair trials and equal treatment under the law.

Privacy Rights: We oppose unwarranted surveillance and data collection, advocating for strong privacy protections in the digital age to safeguard personal information.

Self Defense: We view the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights against aggression. We affirm the right to bear arms as a fundamental individual right, opposing unnecessary restrictions or prosecution for exercising right of self-defense.

Free Speech: We defend freedom of expression, opposing censorship and advocating for robust protections that allow diverse viewpoints to flourish without government interference.

Equality Before the Law: We advocate for equal treatment under the law regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, ensuring fairness and justice for all.

Libertarian Party on Economic Freedom

Individual Freedom: We believe in the right to engage in economic activities without excessive government interference, ensuring individuals can pursue work, business, and keep the rewards of their labor.

Limited Government Intervention: We advocate against regulations that stifle entrepreneurship and competition, preferring market mechanisms to allocate resources efficiently.

Free Market Principles: We support voluntary exchange and prices set by supply and demand, viewing free markets as superior to central planning for fostering prosperity and innovation.

Property Rights: We prioritize secure property rights, essential for investment, innovation, and responsible resource management, opposing government actions that undermine these rights.

Opposition to Crony Capitalism: We reject government favoritism towards specific industries or companies, advocating for a level playing field where success is based on merit, not political connections.

Taxation and Fiscal Policy: We advocate minimal taxation to fund essential government functions only, believing in simplifying tax systems and reducing the overall burden on individuals and businesses.

Personal Responsibility: We stress individual accountability in economic decisions, supporting voluntary charity and mutual aid over government welfare, encouraging self-reliance and community support.

Libertarian Party on Immigration

The Libertarian Party platform on immigration is deeply rooted in principles of individual freedom, limited government, and the belief in the benefits of open markets and societies.

  1. Decentralization and Local Control: We advocate decentralization of immigration policy. States, local communities, and private organizations better understand their own needs and preferences, leading to more responsive and effective immigration policies.
  2. Individual Freedom: We uphold the right of individuals to move freely and live where we choose, within national borders or across them. We view immigration as an extension of individual liberty, the right to seek better opportunities for ourselves and our families.
  3. Free Markets and Economic Benefits: We recognize that immigration brings economic benefits, filling labor shortages and starting businesses. Open immigration allow businesses to hire the talent globally and consumers benefit from increased competition and innovation.
  4. Limited Government Intervention: We oppose govt intervention that restricts immigration, such as quotas, excessive border controls, or prohibitive bureaucratic hurdles. We advocate for minimal govt involvement in regulating who can enter or reside in a country.
  5. Pathways to Legal Status: We support clear and efficient pathways to legal residency and citizenship. We believe in the importance of rule of law and orderly processes, favoring reforms that facilitate legal immigration and the status of those already in the country.
  6. Humanitarian Considerations: We support compassionate treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, recognizing the right to seek safety and protection from persecution or violence. We advocate for fair and efficient assessment of asylum claims to provide assistance to those in need.

In essence, the Libertarian approach to immigration prioritizes individual liberty, economic freedom, and humanitarian considerations while advocating for limited government interference and decentralized decision-making. We seek to create a system that respects individual rights, maximizes economic opportunities, and upholds the principles of a free and open society.