Participants in a panel discussion titled “EdChoice, Vouchers and Ohio School Funding: Issues and Impact” agreed on three basic principles: Ohio’s school funding formula needs revamping, parents have the right to seek the best education for their children and that should not create friction pitting schools, districts and parents or students against each other.
The Feb. 25 program was part of the Ohio Public Policy Series presented by Case Western Reserve University’s Laura and Alvin Siegal Lifelong Learning Program and the League of Women Voters of Greater Cleveland. Co-sponsor was The Plain Dealer, with PD education reporter Patrick O’Donnell serving as moderator.
Panelists were Frank O’Linn, superintendent of schools for the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland; Chad Aldis, vice president for Ohio policy and advocacy for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute; Steve Dyer, an Innovation Ohio blogger, former state legislator, former Akron Beacon Journal reporter and attorney; and Barbara Shaner, an advocacy specialist with the Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators and the Ohio Association of Secondary School Administrators.
Among the topics discussed by the panelists were inequities in school funding, concerns about the EdChoice and voucher programs that provide scholarship money for students to attend non-public schools and pending legislation in Columbus that would impact education and the funding for education.
“The Catholic schools are the largest non-public provider (of education) in Ohio,” O’Linn said. Nearly 40,000 students are enrolled in Catholic elementary and high schools across the eight-county diocese of Cleveland.
Many students in Catholic schools take advantage of the state’s voucher system, including EdChoice, which allows students who meet certain family income levels or live within the boundaries of designated school districts – generally urban or inner-ring cities – to receive scholarship money for their tuition. The funds go directly to the school.
O’Linn was among those who testified earlier this year in Columbus in support of EdChoice and asking the state legislature to end the logjam that is creating headaches for school officials trying to plan for the 2020-2021 school year. A proposal is pending that would increase the number of students eligible for the scholarships, if approved by the legislature. However, the measure has been stalled.
Shaner said public school treasurers across the state are concerned about the loss of income to their districts that is diverted to pay for the vouchers. She said the proposed expansion of the voucher programs motivated some school districts to speak with their legislators, which resulted in many hours of testimony on both sides of the issue. One of the criteria that can be used to grant a voucher is if a student is from what is considered to be a “failing” (underachieving) school district. Shaner said districts want a definition of what constitutes a “failing” district. Test-based criteria that have been used to make that determination for the school district “report cards” have been controversial.
Dyer said there are two categories for students to be eligible to receive vouchers: performance-based – which relies on the “report cards” and is causing angst for some districts -- and income-based, which relies on family income. One of the concerns is that districts could have to increase local revenue to make up for the loss of funds due to vouchers, which is prohibitive for some school districts.
There are two solutions for the lost revenue problem, Dyer said: cut costs or find additional revenue.
“Our biggest problem is that schools have not been properly funded for more than 30 years,” he said, pointing to an overreliance on taxes to support Ohio’s public schools. He said the result is that parents can be pitted against other parents, especially in cases where their children may use vouchers.
“All parents should be able to put their children in a good school,” said Aldis, a longtime supporter of school choice. “I am agnostic about the choice,” he added, noting that he does not prefer a faith-based school over a charter or other specialized school. “What makes sense is to have options if the student is not being served at a zone school (within the assigned public school system).”
There was discussion on the income requirements for vouchers, including whether it should it be increased and how much. Aldis said he likes the fact that one proposal to increase family income for vouchers would allow more middle-class families to participate in the program.
A bipartisan bill -- H.B. 305 -- also known as the Cupp-Patterson Bill, remains in committee as legislators try to sort out the nuances. If adopted as it stands, the legislation would appropriate an increased amount of lottery profits to support implementation of a new school funding formula that computes unique per-pupil base cost and local capacity amounts for each school district. The formula would replace the current method for determining student population in a district in which they live for funding purposes even if students attend a school outside of their district.
The bill also would directly fund community and STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) schools, the EdChoice, autism and Jon Peterson Special Needs scholarship programs rather than deducting those funds from a student’s resident school district and transferring the funds to the educating school.
When asked about accountability, O’Linn said he supports transparency and the diocesan schools are accountable, noting they comply with state licensing, testing and operating standards.
“Our accountability is in real time. Every child re-enrolls every year,” he added.
“We need to find a way to fix education without raising property taxes. We’ve been trying to fix the broken school funding with a Band-Aid,” one parent in the audience said.
Click HERE to read a column on school choice and vouchers written earlier this month by O'Linn.