The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
A recent back-and-forth in a lawsuit against Ohio’s voucher system spotlights the main arguments: who benefits from the private school voucher program, whether it takes away from public school funding and if school re-segregation is a factor.
Public school advocacy groups and state school districts are suing to eliminate the private voucher program in the state, arguing the program unconstitutionally hurts the public school system. The state has asked for a summary judgment dismissing the case in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. A summary judgment request argues a trial is unnecessary, leaving the judge to decide the case.
Attorneys for parents who participate in the voucher program fought against the argument that private schools are the main beneficiaries of the program, saying instead that students receive the benefits. They also argue the program is “plainly a scholarship program — not a school funding program.”
“If plaintiffs believe the public schools need more money, they can lobby their legislators or file an adequacy lawsuit,” attorneys for the voucher parents said.
Ohio’s Republican supermajority lawmakers stand behind the voucher program and were the supporters of direct funding and expansion to the program from the state in the 2023 budget to near-universal eligibility levels.
Pro-voucher parents’ attorneys pushed back on the argument that public schools are suffering due to a redirection of funds to private schools, saying instead that while the program only receives funding from the state, “school districts receive multiple sources of revenue from the state, local and federal government.”
Voucher supporters in opposition to the lawsuit say while the public school system is required in the Ohio Constitution, educational alternatives are also allowed, and a public school mandate does not equal a prohibition of other sources of education.
“As parents pointed out in their opening brief, that program recipients spend their scholarships at private schools no more establishes a ‘system of schools’ than food stamp recipients spending their benefits establishes a system of grocery stores,” attorneys wrote.
Challengers of the voucher program acknowledged that private schools are an education option, but cut off the argument about grocery stores.
“The state has no constitutional obligation to secure public systems of grocery stores,” attorneys for public school districts and anti-voucher groups wrote.
The lawsuit argues that not only is the support of private school vouchers in the state inappropriate, but also takes funding away from public schools, which violates the state’s constitutional obligation to fund a “thorough and efficient” system of public education.
They also argue there is no difference between the private schools included in the voucher program and the public schools, except of course state oversight of the funding and operations.
The public school advocates said in their court filing that private schools are “exempt from laws related to transparency, fiscal accountability, student performance, teacher qualifications and anti-discrimination.”
“In short, the sole significant difference between the state’s securing of its common and uncommon school systems is that taxpayer funds come with no strings attached for private schools,” court documents stated.
Voucher supporters took issue with claims by challengers that the program is essentially re-segregating schools by creating an environment in which vouchers go disproportionately to white students. Attorneys for the parents called arguments of racial discrimination “baseless innuendo built entirely on their own documented mistreatment of minority students,” which does not meet requirements to qualify as a legal argument, they said.
Even if the claim of increased usage by white students in the most recent school year is accurate, the attorneys said, “it is constitutionally irrelevant.”
“Whether, in a given year, one demographic of students is slightly overrepresented and another slightly underrepresented is a function of the private choices of families – not of the program itself,” court documents stated.
Voucher expansion data from the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce showed that white students have made up more than 60% of the voucher expansion participants for the last three years.
Public school districts and anti-voucher groups attorneys said they did not seek “racial balance” as argued by the pro-voucher parties, but instead, what they seek “is an end to state-sponsored discrimination.”
If the court decides against a summary judgment, a trial is scheduled for November.
Most Popular
Comments / 0