The laudable intentions of HB 715 are offset by two misguided provisions

Earlier this year, state lawmakers introduced House Bill 715, legislation aimed at expanding available data on chartered nonpublic (private) schools that accept scholarships provided by Ohio’s five private school choice programs. In a press release announcing the bill, one of its sponsors, Representative Gayle Manning, emphasized its focus on transparency. “Every public dollar,” she said, “whether for public schools or school choice programs, should be fully accountable, carefully tracked, and wisely invested to ensure all students benefit.” Representative Mike Odioso, the bill’s other primary sponsor, noted that the legislation “provides the transparency required to justify future public expenditures without placing burdens on private school administrators.”

Here at Fordham, we couldn’t agree more about the importance of transparency. Ohio taxpayers invest billions in education each year. They deserve to know those dollars are being spent in ways that benefit children. Parents, in particular, need access to transparent and accurate data. Ohio has a robust school choice sector designed to provide every family—regardless of income—with multiple school options. To help them navigate these options, state leaders have an obligation to provide resources that enable them to compare and make informed choices.

Last year, Fordham called on state officials to create and publish annually updated informational sheets for each scholarship-accepting private school. To help visualize the possibilities, we designed two samples: one for a fictional elementary school and another for a fictional high school. Both contain the following information, all of which is based on data that are currently reported by the state, albeit not in a user-friendly format:

• Details like the school’s address, phone number, website, grade span, and student enrollment.

• Which state scholarships the school accepts, as well as the number and percentage of the student population that attends via each scholarship.

• Confirmation that the school meets state operating standards and background check requirements.

• Student and teacher demographics.

• Academic outcomes. For achievement, that includes the percentage of students who scored proficient or above on state or state-approved alternative tests, both schoolwide and broken down by grade and subject. Student growth data, which will be calculated beginning this year, would appear, as well.

These sheets address several of the key provisions contained in HB 715. Most importantly, they make it possible for parents to easily review academic performance. But they also address transparency concerns. For example, in keeping with Representative Manning’s desire to track taxpayer funds, they clearly identify the total amount of state support each private school receives through scholarship funding, auxiliary services, and administrative cost reimbursement. They identify a school’s total enrollment and provide a demographic breakdown by race, gender, and low-income status, as well as the number and percentage of scholarship students. Moreover, because all of this information is already publicly available, the concerns about administrative burden expressed by Representative Odioso would largely be moot. It would be the state, not schools, that’s responsible for creating the sheets.

There are, however, two provisions in HB 715 that these informational sheets don’t address—and for good reason.

First, the bill would require the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to annually post for each private school what kind of school each scholarship student attended during the prior year. This level of detail is unnecessary because it doesn’t benefit students and families. Parents make schooling decisions based on all sorts of variables, like academics, safety, proximity to home, and access to reliable transportation, before or after-school care, and extracurricular activities. Knowing how many scholarship students were previously enrolled in a district, charter, or STEM school doesn’t answer the question of why those families made a different choice. It just indicates that they did. Anti-choice advocates might benefit from these data, as they can twist it into proof that public schools are suffering as a result of private school choice (rigorous research says otherwise). But parents and kids gain nothing. Knowing that a student previously attended a private school, regardless of whether it’s their current one, is similarly useless. This type of data isn’t included on public school report cards. Why report it for private schools?

Second, the bill requires DEW to publicly report the number of students participating in a state scholarship program and disaggregate the data by family income along precise income brackets that go well beyond the conventional “economically disadvantaged” rate reported for public schools. This is unnecessary for two reasons. First, just like above, it won’t help families make more informed decisions. And second, it establishes a double standard in state law. In 2025, public schools received approximately $15,000 in state and local taxpayer funding per student. In some districts, overall per pupil revenues are double or even triple the current maximum EdChoice scholarship amount.[1] If, as Representative Manning asserts, “every public dollar, whether for public schools or school choice programs” should be “carefully tracked,” then why wouldn’t the bill require DEW to annually post the income brackets of families who attend public schools, as well? Taxpayers are funding the education regardless of whether a student attends a district school or a scholarship-accepting private school. It’s hard to fathom a scenario where this level of detailed information would be compiled and publicized for the parents in a traditional public school district.

Lawmakers deserve credit for their commitment to transparency. Ohio taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and Ohio parents deserve detailed and accurate resources that help them make informed decisions. But HB 715 takes these imperatives a step too far by requiring data collection that doesn’t accomplish either of these goals. Going forward, policymakers should keep the focus on kids and families.