Ask a parent in a struggling school district what “choice” means, and you won’t hear about constitutional theory. You’ll hear about a child falling behind, a classroom that isn’t safe, or a school that has failed for years while the adults in charge asked for patience.
For two decades, EdChoice has given those families a way out. Last week, a state appeals court ruled that way out unconstitutional.
The 10th District Court of Appeals said EdChoice creates a “competing system of uncommon schools” that drains money from public districts. The program survives for now while the Ohio Supreme Court takes up the case. But the message to families is clear: the system comes first.
We disagree.
EdChoice began in 2005 to rescue kids stuck in Ohio’s lowest-performing schools. Wealthier families have always had choice. They can afford private tuition or a house in a better district. EdChoice gives that same power to families who can’t.
The lawsuit was brought by more than 300 school districts, backed by a public-school establishment, including teachers' unions, that has opposed vouchers for decades. Their arguments center on money: diverted funding, squeezed budgets, harder-to-pass levies. Those are institutional concerns, not the concerns of a child reading two grades behind.
Critics have a fair point that since the 2023 expansion, much of the money goes to families who could already afford private school. Lawmakers should refocus the dollars on the low-income families EdChoice was created to serve.
But scrapping the program would hurt the kids with the fewest options most. Many of the roughly 180,000 students using EdChoice would be sent back to the very schools their parents worked to escape.
The Ohio Supreme Court should reverse this ruling. A good education shouldn’t depend on a family’s ZIP code or bank account. Schools exist to serve children, not the other way around.
This editorial reflects the views of The Pennant Editorial Board. Questions or comments are welcome at [email protected].