Columbus Dispatch...
Many questions
Proposed expansion of school vouchers needs far more review, debate 

Ohio’s EdChoice school-voucher program has been a godsend for thousands of children whose public schools perform poorly, but whose parents can’t afford to send them to private schools. State-funded tuition vouchers give them the choice that wealthier families already have and that children in better school districts don’t need. 

The Dispatch fully supports vouchers in principle and as the program currently is structured. Proposals to improve the program are welcome. But a recently proposed state law to dramatically expand the voucher program will need plenty of public debate and examination. 

House Bill 136, sponsored by Republican Rep. Matt Huffman of Lima, would greatly expand voucher eligibility, regardless of how good or bad a student’s assigned public school is. It also would radically change how the voucher is paid for, and no one has estimated how that change would affect the state budget or those of public school districts. 

EdChoice, which originally made up to 14,000 vouchers available and created a separate state fund to pay for them, already has been expanded, with 30,000 available for the current school year and 60,000 next year. 

Before criteria are changed to take in even more students, lawmakers should require data showing how effective vouchers have been. Undoubtedly, vouchers have pleased families who felt their children were trapped in failing schools. But to merit substantially greater public investment, advocates should be able to show that students who go to private schools using vouchers do better than their peers who remain at the public schools they left. 

So far, no one has collected that information. 

And Huffman’s bill would go far beyond previous voucher programs, by making income, rather than the quality of one’s public schools, the determining factor in qualifying. The relatively high ceiling of $95,000 in   family income would vastly expand the pool of potential vouchers. 

And the bill’s method of paying for those vouchers could hit the state general-fund budget hard, along with those of local school districts. That has implications for the local property taxes that voters approve for their local school districts, and that has public-school advocates howling. 

Rather than create a separate fund for vouchers, as in the Ed-Choice program, the bill would have vouchers, which would range from $2,313 to $4,626, paid with state aid that otherwise goes to local school districts. 

So, when Johnny Smith opts for a voucher to attend a private school, the state would take whatever per-pupil state aid the public school would get and send it to the private school instead. That’s a change that could force a substantial increase in state per-pupil spending. 

No one has estimated how much paying per-pupil aid for voucher students would affect the state budget. 

The bill also could ding the budgets of the public schools that voucher students have left. For some districts, the per-pupil-aid amount is lower than the state voucher would be. Johnny’s public school might receive only $1,500 per student from the state, when Johnny might qualify for a $4,000 voucher. 

In that case, the state would deduct the entire $4,000 from the public school’s state aid. That would leave the public school with something less than the $1,500 in state aid for each of its remaining students, requiring the district to make up the difference from its local tax revenue. 

Opponents see that as an unconstitutional diversion of local tax dollars. A court challenge could result. 

Faced with skepticism by Republican leadership, Huffman already has said he’s willing to reconsider some provisions of the bill, including the generous income limit. 

The voucher program is valuable and necessary. A bill that proposes such far-reaching changes must be considered with care. 

Read this and other articles at the Columbus Dispatch