This article on the Ohio EdChoice voucher program was written for and published in the fall issue of the Ohio School Law Journal. It provides a summary of the program with analysis of some issues from the perspective of independent schools. For more detailed information on the program go to the Ohio Department of Education website. Look under the School Options tab for the EdChoice program. Ohio EdChoice Scholarship Pilot Program By Karin H. O’Neil, Executive Director, Ohio Association of Independent Schools Among the 50 states, Ohio stands out in the depth of its commitment to school choice programs in general and to school vouchers in particular. With passage of HB 66 (the budget bill effective June, 30, 2005) the Ohio General Assembly directed the Department of Education to implement the Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Pilot Program (referred to less formally as EdChoice) 1. While the focus of this article is on the recently established Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Pilot Program, it is important to note that implementation and administration of the Cleveland Scholarship Pilot Program 2, a separate and distinct voucher program in operation since 2000, 3 served as a testing ground for the Ohio Department of Education in implementing such an ambitious statewide program in less than a year. The Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Pilot Program provides up to 14,000 vouchers worth $4250 for elementary grade students and $5000 for high school students to be used only in chartered non-public schools.4 To be eligible for a voucher 5, a student must be assigned to a public school building that was rated by the Ohio Department of Education as in “academic emergency” for three previous consecutive years. Students who attend a “community school”6 or are starting school and otherwise would be assigned to the underperforming public schools are also eligible. Students already enrolled in non-public schools (either chartered or not) are not eligible for vouchers. For the most part, eligible students come from underperforming public schools in large urban districts: Dayton, Columbus, Youngstown, and Cincinnati schools. 7 The EdChoice legislation specifically reaffirms that elementary students with vouchers are entitled to bus transportation (unless the travel time is more than 30 minutes) in accordance with existing law requiring public school districts to provide transportation for students attending chartered non-public schools. 8 Department of Education personnel have worked admirably on a fast track schedule to implement awarding of just over 3000 scholarships 9 for the 2006-2007 academic year. With administrative rules for the program becoming effective on February 24, 200610, many of the non-public schools that wished to participate in the program were very near or already past their deadlines for student applications. There were also serious questions as to how information about the program would reach the families whose children were eligible for EdChoice vouchers. 11 On May 19th, The Columbus Dispatch reported that 561 students statewide had applied for the 14,000 vouchers allotted by the General Assembly. This low number may also have been an effect of the requirement that students apply to and be accepted by a participating
1
chartered non-public school before applying to the Department of Education for a voucher. In order to expand the number of students eligible to apply for vouchers, the General Assembly passed HB 530, effective June 30, 2006, which extended eligibility to students from schools on “academic watch” as well as “academic emergency” for the previous three consecutive years. The availability of EdChoice vouchers was not common knowledge among the families with eligible students. However, the complication of a telescoped timeline for implementation was also a factor in the initial small number of voucher applicants. Chartered non-public schools had to register with the Department of Education to participate but, with administrative rules not completed and effective until late February, there was little time for non-public schools to review the implications of what would be required of them if they registered. Requirements include, for example, administering state tests to the voucher students, 12 maintaining additional records, and agreeing to unannounced compliance visits by the Department of Education. 13 The decision making process was accelerated by the need to register with the Department of Education in order to be listed on its website and available to families as a participating school. For families whose children are eligible, the Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Program offers the opportunity to choose a school which they perceive to offer a stronger education for their children. For some, however, the way the rules operate has been disappointing. For example, a student is not eligible for a voucher if he or she is making the transition from an elementary school not on academic emergency or watch to a middle school that is. 14 For low income families, the fact that the voucher covers neither the private school application and registration fees nor the cost of books and other necessary supplies could be economically daunting. While the law requires that priority in awarding vouchers be given to students from families with incomes less than 200% of the poverty line 15 (after insuring that students in the voucher program may continue), there are no further income requirements. With 14,000 vouchers funded for FY2007 and just over 3000 awarded for the current academic year, the program could potentially provide vouchers to families able to pay private school tuition or at least more able to cover the extra fees than those who are low income. A few families have sought loopholes in the rules in the hope of making their children eligible for vouchers. In late spring, several schools on academic emergency or academic watch had students transfer in from non-public schools which they had been attending. 16 From the perspective of public schools and their advocates, the decision to fund EdChoice vouchers by deducting $5200 per student from base funding to the district from which the students come is of understandable serious concern. While a net difference of $203 per voucher student 17 will be retained by the district, it remains to be seen whether that will cover the administrative costs of record keeping, tracking the student’s progress, and providing bus transportation for eligible voucher students. Public school districts will have to keep track of voucher student testing as well as of voucher students who drop out of or are expelled from nonpublic schools if they are to recoup a pro-rated portion of the money deducted. Further, the law permits students already in receipt of vouchers to
2
continue through grade 12 even if their public school district moves out of the academic “emergency” or “watch” category during that time. 18 While the chartered nonpublic schools which choose to accept vouchers clearly benefit from the voucher program, the benefit is not without its challenges. The law requires participating schools to provide parents below the federally defined poverty line an opportunity to do volunteer service to make up any gap between the voucher award and the school’s tuition. 19 Where the gap is small, this may be practical, but where the school’s tuition is as much as two or three times the amount of the voucher, it is impractical to ask any working family to do that much volunteer work. Further, low income families working off tuition through volunteer work may well feel singled out and not included in the school community. Another gap in the voucher program is failure to provide for the kinds of supplementary support which some students who have been in an underperforming school for three consecutive years may need to succeed in a non-public school. This is a drawback for both the school and the family as both have high hopes for the students’ success. As the EdChoice program has only just begun its first year, it is more timely to articulate questions than to reach conclusions. Much remains to be seen. Will chartered non-public schools that are currently taking a “wait and see” approach to the program decide to participate for the 2007-2008 year? What conclusions will the families in the program draw from their experience with the program? What is the effect of the fact that the vast majority of participating schools are religious schools of various denominations? Will this help inner city religious schools sustain themselves, thereby offering urban dwelling low income parents choices near their neighborhoods? Will there be constitutional concerns about the fact that the voucher program includes very few schools that are not religious in nature? 20 Will the program grow to its full 14,000 voucher capacity? What will the impact be on the public school districts affected? Over the long run, will Ohio’s many school choice programs improve the education it provides to the children of the state.
1 2
R.C. 3310.01 to 3310.17 and 3317.03 Section 206.10.03 R.C. 3313.975 3 R.C. 3310.05 4 R.C. 3313.975 Chartered non-public schools are private schools, both religious and non-sectarian, which are accredited by their associations and are approved by the Department of Education as meeting Ohio Operating Standards. Associations of non-public schools which have accreditation standards approved by the Department of Education include: Association of Christian Schools International, Catholic Conference of Ohio, Lutheran Schools of Ohio, Ohio Association of Independent Schools, and Ohio Conference of Seventh Day Adventists
5
R.C. 3310.03
3
6
Ohio uses the term “community school” for schools that would be called charter schools elsewhere. These are publicly funded schools that do not operated under the same rules as public schools. 7 Ohio Department of Education website 8 R.C. 3310.04 9 Ohio Department of Education website 10 O.A.C. 3301-11-01 11 The Department of Education held a number of meetings around the state for parents and schools and such groups as School Choice Ohio which promote school choice legislation engaged in a variety of outreach activities to encourage participation in EdChoice. 12 R.C. 3310.04 13 O.A.C. 3301-11-11 14 Columbus Dispatch, July 1, 2006 15 R.C. 3310.02 16 Reported in Columbus Dispatch, June 7, 2006 17 Legislative Service Commission Analysis of Am.Sub. H.B 66 18 R.C. 3310.03 19 R.C. 3310.13 20 While the Cleveland and Ohio Education Choice voucher programs are separate and distinct, they are alike in that the nonpublic schools receiving vouchers are, for the most part, religious schools. While this fact has called into question the constitutionality of such programs, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 536 U.S. 639 (2002), upheld the constitutionality of the Cleveland Scholarship Program.
4