Connect with us

Ohio

Ohio school funding is inadequate and lawmakers may make it worse | Letters

Published

on

Ohio school funding is inadequate and lawmakers may make it worse | Letters


School funding plan hurts public students

As a Columbus resident, I care about my community. 

The Columbus City Schools district serves 45,000 students; 50% are economically disadvantaged. Without amendments, House Bill 96 would cut state basic aid for Columbus public school students by $45 million and more for special education services. Funding is inadequate; the proposed budget makes this worse.

Unfunded state mandates like transportation policies and charter schools make it harder to improve Ohio’s public schools.

Advertisement

In violation of the Ohio Constitution, HB 96 shifts greater burden to local taxpayers.

Legislators should amend HB 96 to achieve the Fair School Funding Plan. The current budget bill cuts foundation-formula-based funding for public schools by $103.4 million and increases state funding for private school vouchers by $265.4 million over the next biennium. As many as 359 districts will lose funding. Prioritizing private schools over public schools harms 1.5 million public-school students and favors unaccountable private schools that currently enroll 181,000 students.

Phase in the Fair School Funding Plan using up-to-date cost estimates. Amend HB 96 to make school funding fair for all students.

Cheryl Roller, President, League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Columbus

Columbus City Council choices underwhelming

The current choices for candidates to the Columbus City Council are beyond disappointing. If this is the look that the Democratic Party is seeking, I’m no longer a willing participant of the party. They seem to be seeking the role to expand their resume, not to be a public servant. Very unfortunate for a state that has evolved to become “red.”

Advertisement

Emily Prieto, Columbus

Broadband, but for who?

The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program is getting an overhaul, and it’s looking like a raw deal — especially for rural residents. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wants to prioritize “lowest cost” internet access. That sounds great on paper, but in reality, it’s a mess. What’s worse, these changes open the door for Elon Musk’s Starlink to swoop in as a government vendor. 

States have already spent time and money crafting plans based on the original BEAD guidelines, which focused on fiber-optic infrastructure — the gold standard for fast, reliable internet. Thanks to President Donald Trump’s executive order, states might have to scrap their plans and start over. That could mean delays of a year or more before anyone even sees a benefit. In the meantime, rural residents will be stuck waiting — again.

And what do they get for their patience? Maybe satellite internet, which is no match for fiber when it comes to speed, reliability and longevity. Critics are calling this move “penny wise, pound foolish,” and they’re not wrong. Satellites have short lifespans, limited capacity and require constant replacements. Fiber, on the other hand, is built to last and creates real jobs in rural communities — good, union jobs that don’t disappear after the system’s installed. 

Advertisement

Sure, satellites might look cheaper upfront, but in the long run, rural residents could end up with worse service and higher costs. Meanwhile, Elon Musk gets a shiny new revenue stream. If this is what “streamlining” looks like, we don’t want it.

Barbara Kaplan, Peninsula



Source link

Ohio

Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)

Published

on

Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)


Advertisement

`
const PAYWALL_HTML2 = `

Subscribe For Unlimited Access

Advertisement

You have exceeded the number of free articles available each month.

Thank you for supporting quality local journalism

Our award-winning coverage would not be possible without you.

Sign in here

Advertisement


if you are already a subscriber for unlimited access to breaking news, sports, photos, videos and our e-edition on your phone, tablet or desktop.

Click here
 for our new subscriber specials.

`.trim();
const PAYWALL_HTML3 = `

Advertisement
To continue reading SUBSCRIBE.
Already a subscriber? LOG IN.

`
const PAYWALL_HTML4 = “
function ensureCss() {
if (!document.head) return;

const existing = document.querySelector(‘link[data-paywall-css=”1″]’);
if (existing) return;

const link = document.createElement(‘link’);
link.rel=”stylesheet”;
link.type=”text/css”;
link.href = CSS_HREF;
link.setAttribute(‘data-paywall-css’, ‘1’);
document.head.appendChild(link);
}

function hasSubInfo(el) {
// Only replace once the widget already contains .subInfo
return !!(el && el.querySelector(‘.subInfo’));
}

function applyTo(el) {
if (!el || el.dataset.paywallReplaced === ‘1’) return;
if (!hasSubInfo(el)) return; //



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ohio

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit $865,000

Published

on

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit 5,000



Real estate transfers in Licking County, Ohio, range from $85,000 to $865,000

The following are property transfers recorded in Licking County from June 1-5, 2026.

Advertisement

First name indicates the seller; second name represents the buyer

Buckeye Lake

  • 502 Providence Lane; Cohagen, Christopher C and Lori A; Adams, Jeffrey L and Boyce-Adams, Jo Anna; 6/1/2026; $511,000
  • 131 Cranberry Lane; Smart, Amy and Kidwell, Kevin K; Sew and Minor, Christian; 6/1/2026; $262,000

Etna Township

  • 116 Cameron Drive SW; Ray, Erica L; Darjee, Sanjay and Laxmi and Dil; 6/2/2026; $412,000  
  • 119 Kraner St. SW; Adkins, Zane and Amy; Culbertson, Brenton Howard; 6/1/2026; $368,500
  • 160 Dusky Willow Drive; Willow Reserve LLC; Martin, Alaina K; 6/2/2026; $290,940

Granville

  • 119 Derwyn Del Way; Lifer, David C and Julia H; Martin, Michael and Lisa; 6/1/2026; $865,000
  • 39 Victoria Drive; Acton, Wendy S and Paul J; Cannon, Matthew Evan and Zywica, Natalie Nicole; 6/2/2026; $835,000

Granville Township

  • 49 Alberry Drive; Halliday, Lucas and Breayne; Howe, Jason and Kathryn; 6/2/2026; $570,000

Harrison Township

  • 102 Whirlaway Loop; Rice, Dawn (Trustee); Bope, Maria and Shane; 6/2/2026; $420,000

Heath

  • 1306 Kacey Court; Fischer Homes Columbus II LLC; Owens, Blake Andrew and Taylor Marie; 6/2/2026; $437,779
  • 805 Fieldson Drive; Flowers, Ingrit; Harder, Noah C; 6/2/2026; $250,000

Hebron

  • 802 Cumberland Meadows Circle; Lines, Marlene S; Gerhart, Jamie A and Ralph W Jr; 6/2/2026; $232,000

Johnstown

  • 101 Bigelow Drive; McGovern, Matthew S and Jennifer L; Sanford, Jessica; 6/2/2026; $442,500

Liberty Township

  • 5844 Nichols Lane Road NW; La Jeunesse, Garth E and Debra; Nesselroad, William Heath and Annie; 6/1/2026; $629,000
  • 7211 Northridge Road NW; Devault, Robert E Jr and Joann; Esbenshade, Travis M and Lowe, Shelby M; 6/1/2026; $495,000

Newark

  • 2110 Overlook Way; D.R. Horton-Indiana LLC; Tarsha, Michele A; 6/1/2026; $433,335
  • 1162 Taylor Ave.; Heath Fluid LLC; Anglada, Gabriel P and Salina T; 6/1/2026; $200,000
  • 32 Postal Ave. W.; Palmisano, Phil; Moore, Dominic Michael and Miksich, Paige Elizabeth; 6/1/2026; $198,900
  • 75 Gay St.; Velez, Marcos A; Camell, Campbell; 6/1/2026; $155,000
  • 655 Evans St.; TNL; McRada Properties LLC; 6/1/2026; $145,000
  • 63 Wallace St.; FDA Peachtree LLC; Burns, Amber L; 6/2/2026; $86,500
  • 404 10th St.; Synergy Group Properties LLC; Busy Boys Restoration LLC; 6/2/2026; $85,000

Reynoldsburg

  • 8447 Rodebaugh Road; Collins, Carol J; Thorpe, Kimberley Lynn and Henry, Steven; 6/2/2026; $340,000



Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored

Published

on

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps must be restored, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The decision comes as a blow to NetChoice, which has won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies said the Ohio decision went against “clear national consensus” and that it intended to keep fighting.

“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected,” said Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

Netchoice brought suit against Ohio’s law in 2024, arguing that it was overly broad, vague and represented an unconstitutional impediment to free speech.

Advertisement

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit’s panel disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, it found that the law was not unconstitutional and sent it back to a lower court to have a block on the law’s enforcement vacated.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, writing that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”

Known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023.

The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, saying at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.

Advertisement

The law requires companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families.”

“The court agreed that parents –- not social media companies –- should get a say in what kids see online,” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending