School Choice Is Under Attack Again

Apparently, in Ohio, allowing parents to decide where their children go to school is now a constitutional problem.

On Oct. 15, a three-judge state appeals court ruled that Ohio’s EdChoice school voucher program violates the state constitution, potentially jeopardizing the educational future of roughly 180,000 students who rely on it.

The ruling has been put on hold pending an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, so families can continue using their vouchers for now.

But the question at stake goes well beyond Ohio: Who should decide where a child goes to school, the parents or the government?

Ohio’s EdChoice program, established in 2005 and significantly expanded in 2013, allows families to use state-funded scholarships toward tuition at participating private schools, including religious institutions.

For parents dissatisfied with their assigned public school, it provides an alternative that might otherwise be financially out of reach.

After all, wealthy Americans have always enjoyed school choice. They can afford private tuition or purchase homes in neighborhoods with better public schools.

Poor and middle-class families often lack those options. Their children are generally assigned schools based on where they live, regardless of whether those schools meet their needs.

Vouchers help level the playing field.

Yet Ohio’s appeals court has declared that the state’s voucher program violates the constitutional requirement to maintain a “thorough and efficient system of common schools.”

The judges asserted that the program diverts resources from public education while funding private institutions that can select their students and operate under different rules.

Of course, private schools have admissions standards. But that hardly means parents are better off having no financial assistance to pursue alternatives.

Public school officials argue that losing students means losing funding, even though districts must still pay for buildings, transportation and other expenses.

That is a legitimate budgetary concern. But it is hardly a justification for denying parents alternatives.

Public schools should have to earn parents’ confidence, not rely on laws that make it harder for families to choose an alternative.

The existence of a public school system should not give it an exclusive claim on taxpayer support for education.

Milton Friedman understood this distinction more than 70 years ago.

In a landmark 1955 essay, the Nobel Prize-winning economist proposed giving parents vouchers to help pay for their children’s education at schools of their choosing. Government, he argued, could finance education without having to operate the schools themselves.

“A far better alternative to political control is to introduce competition in schooling, to give parents a real choice,” Friedman wrote in Newsweek in 1968.

This is hardly the first time Ohio has found itself at the center of a legal battle over school choice.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an earlier Ohio voucher program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, ruling that allowing parents to use public assistance at religious schools did not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

The current lawsuit raises different questions under Ohio’s constitution, so that precedent does not settle the matter.

While Ohio’s courts reconsider school choice, much of the country is moving in the opposite direction.

States such as Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas have embraced expansive school choice programs. According to the nonprofit EdChoice, 19 states have enacted programs with universal eligibility, allowing families to pursue educational alternatives regardless of income.

Congress too has joined the effort.

Legislation enacted last year established a federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for contributions to organizations providing educational scholarships. The program takes effect in January 2027, with states deciding whether to participate. As of Oct. 22, 30 states had signed up.

Public schools educate millions of American children, and taxpayers have every reason to demand that they succeed. But supporting public education should not require families to accept a school that doesn’t meet their children’s needs.

A school that works well for one child may be entirely unsuitable for another.

Some students need smaller classrooms or specialized instruction. Others flourish in schools that emphasize particular academic subjects or reflect their families’ religious values.

Parents should not have to justify those choices to politicians, school administrators or judges.

The Ohio Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether EdChoice survives. For tens of thousands of families, the consequences will be anything but theoretical.

The government has an obligation to ensure that children receive an education. But it does not have the right to insist that they receive it in a government-run school.

The Ohio Supreme Court should keep that difference in mind.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org