Vouchers Hurt Ohio

For decades, conservatives across America have been focused on opening up taxpayer dollars for use in private, often religious, education. In Ohio, such a program already exists. Called EdChoice, this state program represents the national frontier of educational vouchers, which are essentially government funds allocated to families for use at a school of their choosing. What was originally pitched as a benevolent civil rights causeway to get low-income families into private schools has since turned into a 9-figure drain on public education funding, as money is siphoned into the pockets of private-school administrations. Because of this, Ohioans are to challenge the system in the State Supreme Court within the year. This lawsuit– aptly named Vouchers Hurt Ohio– will pit over 200 school districts against the state, arguing that the EdChoice Scholarship Program is unconstitutional. 

The Ohio voucher system is closely tied to religion. In the 1990s, the Ohian bishops began a crusade against struggling enrollment numbers in Catholic schools. Their enemy was tuition– many families were opting to move away from religious schools in favor of their pocketbooks– but their saving grace was a man named George Voinovich. Voinovich was a devout Catholic, and as a state legislator he increased funding for religious private schools by over one hundred million, directly contradicting his budget-cutting tendencies. His belief in religion was powerful, and once Voinovich was elected governor, he began to work directly with the Bishops to institute a more consistent form of funding: educational vouchers. Thus, after a church-lobbied, cowboy-led, and teacher-opposed commision moved through the dirty work, a 1995 budget implemented both a religious school funding increase and a pilot voucher program in the city of Cleveland, directly designed to benefit Catholic schools. Over the years, the program, still backed by conservatives and the Bishops, flexed its muscles and won a 2002 Supreme Court Case, moved to cover all of Ohio in 2005, expanded to include children from double the poverty line in 2013, and again to 4.5 times the poverty line in 2022. This astronomical increase in the influence of EdChoice was achieved through gerrymandering the state legislature, savvy political tactics, and the invisible hand of the Catholic Church. Many school districts, bewildered and frustrated, formed a coalition to challenge the legislation. 

Vouchers Hurt Ohio’s lawsuit against EdChoice revolves around a potential violation of the Ohio State Constitution, specifically section VI, article 2, stating that “The General Assembly shall…secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious sect...shall ever have…any part of the school funds…” There is precedent to support that EdChoice is indeed in violation of this clause. The 1997 Ohio Case DeRolfs Vs. State declared that because funding schools from property tax created inequality and left many districts underfunded, the legislature must establish a statewide formula with higher wealth distribution. This decision was reached by referring to definitions from Miller Vs. Korns (1923) and fiscal data which suggested that some schools were underfunded because of property tax disparity. The Vouchers group could make a similar argument in their case, being that EdChoice creates underfunded districts. And, they would have the data to back it up. 74% of families using EdChoice make an income above 200% of the poverty line, suggesting that the program does little to assist underprivileged students. Moreover, $970 million were taken away from public school funding to support private school tuitions, potentially a catalyst for 36.5% of students being stuck in “below adequate districts” and supporting the argument that the current system is inefficient.  Vouchers could also play the religious card, citing that because a shocking 97% of EdChoice funding ends up at religious schools, the program violates the “no religious sect... shall ever have…any part of the school funds…” clause. However, there is direct supreme court precedent which stands against such a claim. Zelman Vs. Simmons-Harris (2002) fielded the question of religious bias in the Ohio case, and answered that because aid recipients could choose where their children attend school, educational vouchers are entirely legal. Despite this, Vouchers Hurt Ohio could have EdChoice modified or disbanded for violation of the State Constitution.  

This case is by no means a clear and obvious choice– there are opportunities to refute Vouchers’s argument, if they were to make the aforementioned claims. EdChoice exists separately from public school funding. Ohio can still adequately fund public schools while having the benefit of school choice which EdChoice brings. Therefore, the issue is not how the dollars are being spent, it is how many dollars are being spent. Another option would be to simply state that EdChoice has actually benefited the Ohio system. By allowing parents and children to customize their education, and bringing more options to students in urban areas, EdChoice has created opportunity and inspired learning. At that point, the dispute is ideological. Regardless, EdChoice has the gerrymandered legislative backing, and would most likely survive in a new form even if ruled unconstitutional. 

The facts of the case represent a clear cut and classic battle between progress and equality. Does the court allow young minds to continue seeking opportunities at a lower cost, or does it sacrifice such potential in exchange for equality? That is the question which will determine if EdChoice is unconstitutional in the hearts and minds of the judges. However, the mere existence of EdChoice, more specifically the religious aspect, is no doubt cause for concern. 97% of EdChoice funding ends up at religious schools. Its founding was deeply ingrained in Catholic Church politics. EdChoice serves to increase the influence of Christianity, and it is not alone in this effort. On January 24th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which could legalize the use of state funds for a religious charter school in Oklahoma. Facts of the case aside, this ruling could further blur the lines between church and state, and create a chance for religious indoctrination. Unfortunately, this trend is not unique to religion. Social media is spreading the disease of indoctrination like nothing else, with symptoms of close-mindedness, hatred, and blind devotion taking a toll on our population. If the state funds religious schools, then schools could indoctrinate students with their set of values. Social media already indoctrinates us with radical personalities, echo chambers, and 250 character posts. If EdChoice is upheld, it will signify a further development towards an America where beliefs are not challenged, students are not curious, and compromises are not reached.