Earlier this year, the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding filed a lawsuit aimed at eliminating the state’s EdChoice Scholarship Program. Over the next several months—more likely years—lawyers will argue the merits of this challenge in court. While it’s obviously premature to know how things will shake out, it’s important to consider what could happen if the lawsuit succeeds. Three of the biggest potential impacts deserve immediate attention.
The impact on kids and families
The most obvious—and most important—consequence of a successful anti-voucher lawsuit is its dire effect on EdChoice participants. For many parents, the school they believe best meets their children’s educational needs will once again be out of their financial reach. Those who used an EdChoice voucher to escape schools with a history of poor performance will be back to square one, searching for a better option that won’t break the bank. Others will return to districts that are satisfactory (or even good) academically, but for myriad reasons—like a lack of specific services or student behavior issues—weren’t a good fit for particular children. The fortunate few will be able to move to a different district, snag a seat at a charter or STEM school, or take advantage of scholarships and penny pinching to remain in private schools. But the vast majority won’t be so lucky.
For students, the adjustment could be difficult. Research shows that changing schools can have a negative impact on academic growth and achievement, especially if students transition to a lower-performing school. Temporary dips or difficulties might be an acceptable trade-off when families make a proactive choice, but that’s not the case when the choice is forced upon them. And that’s without even weighing the social and emotional impacts of a new school, new teachers, and new friends, none of which is easy even without a traumatic pandemic.
The impact on districts
The ultimate goal of this lawsuit is to get the 48,871 students who participated in EdChoice during the 2020–21 school year back into district schools. Public school advocates would view this as a massive victory—enrollments will increase, district coffers will swell (at least theoretically), and those pesky private schools won’t be able to “steal” kids and funds anymore.
But are districts really ready for all that? For many, enrollment increases will be small because the number of students participating in EdChoice is small. But in larger districts, the influx of new kids could be substantial. Consider Columbus City Schools, one of the districts named in the lawsuit. According to the most recent state report card, 6,720 students living in the district participated in EdChoice during 2020–21. If that program disappears, many of those students will return to their assigned public schools—and the district could see an enrollment increase up to 15 percent of its current student population.
This would have widespread impacts. School cafeterias will need to feed thousands more children. Principals will need to find classrooms and desks and textbooks and technology for an influx of new students with widely varying academic and social needs. And, most importantly, hundreds of new teachers and staff will need to be hired, or class sizes will have to increase.
Such adjustments require money. And given how often districts complain that EdChoice “steals” public funding, one might assume that eliminating the program would lead to a cash windfall for districts. But that might be illusory. Remember, vouchers are paid for using state dollars. Traditional districts, meanwhile, are funded by state and local dollars. On average, 45 percent of public school revenues are from local sources, and local dollars aren’t tied to student enrollments. That means if Columbus and other districts see a huge influx of students, the only additional funding they’ll receive is whatever the state funding formula allows. Nearly half of their budgets won’t adjust at all to the new enrollment count. District leaders are free to go to the ballot box and ask local taxpayers for more, of course. But given that many of those taxpayers are feeling the effects of price hikes and lingering pandemic impacts, that could be a big ask.
The impact on other voucher programs
From the standpoint of underserved kids and educational excellence, the most troublesome impact of a courtroom victory win is that it would open the door for challenges to Ohio’s other three voucher programs. They serve specific groups of children—two are limited to students with special needs, while the third is for children living in Cleveland—but they still allow families to use taxpayer dollars to attend private schools. If the lawsuit’s reasoning is sound, then these programs are just as unconstitutional as EdChoice. It stands to reason, then, that in time the state would need to sacrifice all voucher programs, including those that serve over 11,000 children with special needs. Families who found that traditional public schools were not equipped to handle the unique needs of their students but couldn’t afford to pay out-of-pocket expenses for the right care will be forced to return to the assigned public schools that weren’t meeting their needs in the first place. That’s immoral and inexcusable.
***
As the anti-voucher lawsuit travels through the courts, the focus will be on legal and constitutional considerations. Yet we must not forget the real-world consequences for thousands of Ohio families, students, and taxpayers should the plaintiffs prevail. Those shouldn’t be ignored.
