Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > March > 13
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Editorial: Huber court video cheats defendants
Ohio’s 2nd District Court of Appeals is sending a loud message to Judge James A. Hensley Jr.: the Constitution applies in his Huber Heights courtroom.
Safeguarding the rights of people in court is a judge’s prime responsibility. Judge Hensley’s failure to do so led the appeals court to overturn convictions in six of his cases. The appeals court said he failed to ensure that those defendants were informed enough to know what they were doing when they gave up their right to consult with an attorney.
Instead of questioning defendants about whether they wanted a lawyer, Judge Hensley had them watch a generic video tutorial about their right to one. The cases in question were minor crimes, such as driving without a valid license, possession of drug paraphernalia and theft. But the charges were still serious enough that the accused could be sent to jail. Any defendant who could end up in jail needs legal advice, or the judge needs to be personally convinced that the person understands what he’s giving up.
In fact, judges routinely refuse to accept guilty pleas from those facing jail, no matter how insistent they are, until they have spoken with an attorney.
The problem in Judge Hensley’s court came to light when one confused defendant called the Montgomery County Public Defender’s office to complain that no attorney from the office had shown up for her case. Nobody came because no lawyer was assigned.
The public defender found five other similar cases of judgments rendered by Judge Hensley and sentences set with no defense attorney present. In some cases, the appeals court noted there was no indication that a prosecutor was even present.
Judges face many temptations to move cases along quickly. Dockets in a court for misdemeanors like Judge Hensley’s are long. Quick guilty pleas can hasten the pace. But defendants often are unfamiliar with court procedures and what can happen to them. Sometimes they unwisely just want their case to be over with. It is a judge’s job not to let them make uninformed decisions.
Lawyers make sure their clients understand their rights and options. They can level the playing field, sometimes negotiating plea bargains that are good for both sides. The deals can ensure the defendant accepts some punishment, while reducing sometimes steep penalties to more appropriate levels.
Lawyers can accomplish all these things because the court has to take them seriously. If a prosecutor or judge is unreasonable, a lawyer can always insist on a trial. Most minor offenses don’t result in jail time. But defendants may not understand that. They might not realize that even a short stint could cost them their jobs, or prevent them from getting a job in the future.
Judge Hensley knows the rules that all defendants are entitled to a lawyer. His shortcut was convenient for him, but not for people who had much to lose. Part of getting your day in court is having an advocate looking out for you. Before a defendant can give up that right, a judge needs to have a conversation with the individual and it needs to be more than, “Here, hit play while I deal with these other people.”
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Law Enforcement and Public Safety, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Scott Elliott: State’s school report cards should list poverty rates
Researchers have told us for decades that wealth and school performance are strongly connected, but it’s still pretty amazing when you look at the numbers.
For all the pressure on teachers and schools to raise test scores, the fact is the impact of formal education is strongly overshadowed by factors outside of school.
For this reason, Ohio ought to acknowledge poverty rates on state report cards, which are intended to represent how well schools did educating kids. As reported now, test scores alone do not give a complete picture.
Poverty is one of the easiest outside factors to measure and a useful stand-in for a variety of other non-school impacts on learning. Among the many disadvantages for kids from low-income families are problems like weaker health care and less enriching interactions from parents who are, themselves, not well-educated. Many poor kids grow up in broken homes headed by one overburdened parent, adding to the challenge of making time for learning at home.
The statistics, in this case, are based on averages. Certainly not all poor families are unhealthy or uneducated. Not all fail to provide enriching home lives for their kids. But across a large population, like a school district, the impact of the many disadvantages of living in poverty will push average test scores down.
The most commonly discussed poverty measure for schools is the percentage of kids in the district who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. To be eligible, a family of four can earn no more than $41,000 a year.
The Ohio Department of Education also tracks the percentage of students in each district who come from families receiving public assistance, which also would seem to be a fair indicator of how much poverty there is in the schools. Another good measure is the median income of tax returns filed for residents who live in each district, which is tracked by the state treasurer’s office.
Last month the Education Writers Association’s held a statistics training seminar where journalists are paired with experts in data analysis to study a problem. I took a look at these poverty measures and how strongly they correlated to test performance.
All were strong predictors of test scores. But the percentage of kids eligible for free and reduced-price lunch was the strongest. The connection was so strong, that the percent of kids receiving lunch assistance could fairly be said to explain about two-thirds of the variation in test scores.
Studies have repeatedly shown between 60 and 70 percent of a school’s or school district’s standardized test score is connected to its poverty rate.
Good teaching and good schools do move the needle in the right direction. But consider the instructional challenge where there is more poverty — it’s just tougher. When comparing test results of districts, the poverty level must be taken into account to get the full picture.
Consider two high-performing local school districts that this year achieved the state’s highest report card rating of “excellent with distinction.” Centerville earned that rating with an impressive “performance index score” of 105.4. (With a top possible score of 120, this index is a measure of test performance across all tests taken.) Right next door, Miamisburg’s index score was 99.
But Miamisburg achieved its high rating even though about 30 percent of its kids are poor enough to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. For Centerville, that figure is just 5 percent. Shouldn’t Miamisburg be recognized in some way for the greater “degree of difficulty” its teachers face?
Adding a poverty measure to the state report card wouldn’t be making an excuse for low performance. High expectations for all kids to score well shouldn’t be diminished. But right now, tremendous performance by high-poverty schools that get kids to score is obscured.
Showing the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch would make the data more meaningful.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Education, Scott Elliott
