2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
E-mail 
E-mail Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2011 > November > 14 > Entry
Voucher bill next school battle
Not all public school educators opposed Senate Bill 5, though more than a few administrators and school board members stood beside the teachers’ unions in working to repeal the controversial collective bargaining law.
But now attention is shifting to another controversial issue affecting public schools: the proposed expansion of the private school voucher program. And this time, public educators of every stripe — teachers, administrators, board members — appear united in opposition to the bill.
They are concerned House Bill 136 could potentially drain millions in public tax dollars from school districts at a time when many already have experienced deep funding cuts.
“It’s the most powerful and aggressive piece of legislation with a direct goal of destroying public education,” Yellow Springs Exempted Village Schools Superintendent Mario Basora said.
His district would face the potential loss of more than $300,000 within three years. That’s about one-third of the $900,000 in state aid the district receives annually.
Basora, who testified against the bill before the House Education Committee, joined the eight other Greene County superintendents in signing a letter to state representatives outlining their concerns about the bill that would create the Parental Choice and Taxpayer Savings Scholarship Program, known as PACT.
Several districts across the Miami Valley — including Dayton Public, Bellbrook-Sugarcreek, West Carrollton and Valley View — also have passed formal resolutions against HB 136, which would offer low- and middle-class students tax-funded vouchers to pay private school tuition regardless of how well their home public schools are doing.
While opponents are against using public dollars to fund private education, proponents believe the vouchers would offer more school choice to those who can’t afford a private education.
State Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, said the issue has struck a nerve.
“I have received far more letters on this issue from school districts than I did during the entire six months of Issue 2,” said Lehner, who chairs the Senate Education Committee.
Lehner estimated she’s received about 50 letters or copies of resolutions from school districts regarding the bill, which was voted out of the House Education Committee by a 12-10 vote. No vote before the full House has been scheduled yet .
Lehner said the measure, sponsored by Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, isn’t likely to make it to the Senate in its current form as some changes are being made to it.
“The current rendition of it is certainly causing a great deal of concern among school districts, and I think rightfully so,” she said.
Lehner said she has a problem with a provision that would make vouchers available to families of nearly 200,000 students already enrolled in private schools. “Some provisions don’t work in an environment where we’re already stretching our education dollars,” she said.
But beyond the financial issue, she said the bill raises an important ideological question: What is the role of public education in Ohio?
Lehner isn’t calling for a referendum on it but said, “It almost strikes me as the real constitutional question that is more something the public should be weighing in on… It definitely drastically changes the way we perceive and fund public education.”
The Ohio Constitution requires that the state provide a thorough and efficient education for every child, she said. “When we fail to do that, in my personal belief, then we need to provide alternatives,” such as vouchers to private schools, she said.
“With this bill, it takes it beyond that because no longer are we talking about just those school districts where we are failing to provide that kind of education. It also allows a child to move from an excellent school into a private school and that’s a very different question. ” The bill would expand on the concept of Ohio’s Educational Choice Scholarship, which since 2006 has allowed students in chronically low-performing public schools to move to private or parochial schools.
There are 15,403 voucher-users this school year, but that program has mainly impacted four area districts — Dayton Public, Trotwood-Madison, Jefferson Twp. Local and Springfield. There are 2,477 voucher users from those four districts, according to School Choice Ohio and Ohio Department of Education.
Dayton , which has 1,789 voucher-users, has lost $30 million since Ohio started the voucher program, the district’s treasurer has said.
HB 136 would expand the program beyond those districts. It would award scholarships up to $4,626 to families with household incomes up to $95,000 a year on a sliding scale. The amount of the voucher would be deducted from the state aid to the local school district.
Chad Aldis, executive director of School Choice Ohio who testified in favor of the bill, said the challenge is to find the best way of educating every member of the public. “HB 136 is a crucial step in the right direction. It empowers parents and focuses on the needs of the individual child,” he told lawmakers.
As far as the concerns from superintendents who fear the bill could cost take away millions from public districts, Aldis said, “The simple truth is that the majority of Ohioans already choose where their children will be educated by living in a particular school district or writing a check to a private school. This legislation will assist those families who because of financial limitations cannot exercise the same control over their children’s education.”
The Greene County superintendents said in the letter to state Rep. Jarrod Martin, R-Beavercreek, they are opposed to using public money to subsidize private school tuition.
They believe the bill would turn the state’s obligation to provide an efficient system of public education into “a private benefit, resulting in an unprecedented level of voucher expansion that could impact every school district in the state.”
They said the bill would make students currently enrolled in private schools eligible over the next four years, further eroding dollars to public school districts when the state didn’t even consider this funding reduction during the state budget deliberations.
“Approval of HB 136 will strike at the very heart of Ohio’s obligation to maintain a system that provides a free public education to all students,” the letter said. Martin could not be reached for comment.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: HB 136 and vouchers
Tweet
Comments
By Maxwell Powers
November 20, 2011 10:46 PM | Link to this
Bad idea. Bad bill. This is simply another plan by the legislature to cripple public education in Ohio and make us into 3rd World America.
By M005E
November 14, 2011 10:54 PM | Link to this
Here we go again. The unions have already shown that they will not tolerate competition. Never mind what is best for the students, unions don’t care about them. The first thing we need to do is eliminate the NEA.
By Mike Bock
November 14, 2011 5:28 PM | Link to this
Ms Kissell: I was glad to see your article in today�s DDN, �Voucher Bill Next School Battle,� but I think you missed noting the most newsworthy aspect of this bill — the fact that it proposes to use coercive taxation to fund religious education on a scale, up to now, unheard of in Ohio or, for that matter, any other state. This bill deserves a lot of attention and analysis, and I hope you will expand on what you wrote today to include three important aspects that you omitted in today�s piece: 1) You focused on the budgetary impact this HB136 legislation will have on local school districts, and ignored the key fact that almost all private schools in Ohio are religious schools, The current voucher program is defended as necessary to give children in failing schools a chance for a good education in a religious school. This POV, I believe, is misguided and makes for bad law, but because of sympathy for the disadvantaged, the current voucher program has public and court support. This huge expansion of the use of tax money for religious education, in HB135, however, is much more controversial and certainly will be subject to challenge in the court system. Future articles that you write on HB136, I hope will explore this big topic. 2) Your article failed to describe how nonpublic schools differ from public schools. In addition to religious training / indoctrination, private schools operate according to different standards concerning teacher certification and different standards concerning policies admitting and dismissing students. One amendment that was defeated in committee said: “No nonpublic school that receives payments from a parent or student who is paid a scholarship under the PACT scholarship program shall limit admission to students on the basis of intellectual ability, measure of achievement, or aptitude, disability, or athletic ability.” 3) I�m surprised that you did not report the fact that two Dayton legislators serve on the House Education Committee: Republican Jim Butler voted �Yes� for the legislation and Democrat Clayton Luckie voted �No.� As you develop more in-depth reporting concerning HB136, I hope you will contact both of these legislators and ask them to go on record to defend their votes. Thanks for writing your article, and I think your readers will be well served if you contintue your research and write future articles. Sincerely, Mike Bock