Opposite sides of Ohio Private School Voucher Lawsuit Trade Arguments About Public School Impact

August 5, 2024

0 2 minutes read

A lawsuit in Ohio over the state’s private school voucher system highlights key issues: the benefits of the voucher program, its impact on public school funding, and concerns about school re-segregation. Public school advocacy groups and state school districts are suing to end the program, claiming it unconstitutionally harms public schools. The state is seeking a summary judgment in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, which would dismiss the case without a trial.

Key Highlight:

Attorneys representing parents who use the voucher program counter the claim that private schools benefit most, arguing that it is the students who gain from the program. They assert that the program is a scholarship initiative, not a public school funding scheme. They also suggest that if opponents believe public schools need more funding, they should advocate through legislation or file an adequacy lawsuit.
Ohio’s Republican supermajority lawmakers support and have expanded the voucher program in the 2023 budget, increasing its eligibility. Attorneys for pro-voucher parents argue against claims that public schools suffer from reduced funding due to the voucher program, noting that public schools have multiple revenue sources from state, local, and federal governments, while the voucher program is solely funded by the state.
Voucher supporters argue that while the Ohio Constitution mandates public schools, it also allows for alternative educational options, and having a public school requirement does not ban other forms of education. They compare the voucher program to food stamps, suggesting that using vouchers at private schools is no different from using food stamps at grocery stores. Opponents of the voucher program agree that private schools are an option but reject the grocery store analogy.
The lawsuit contends that supporting private school vouchers is inappropriate and detracts from public school funding, violating the state’s constitutional duty to provide a “thorough and efficient” public education system. The plaintiffs argue that private schools in the voucher program are similar to public schools except for the lack of state oversight. They also assert that private schools are exempt from laws on transparency, accountability, student performance, teacher qualifications, and anti-discrimination, making the use of taxpayer funds for these schools problematic.
Voucher supporters dispute claims that the program is re-segregating schools by favoring white students, labeling such arguments as “baseless innuendo” that do not constitute a valid legal challenge. They argue that even if white students are more represented in the program, it is not a constitutional issue, as any demographic disparities result from family choices rather than the program itself. Data from the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce indicates that over the past three years, more than 60% of voucher participants have been white students.
Attorneys for public school districts and anti-voucher groups clarify that their goal is not racial balance but to end what they see as state-sponsored discrimination. If the court does not grant a summary judgment, a trial is set to begin in November.