Background
Several Ohio public-school districts, a school-funding coalition, and individual students challenged the state’s EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion programs. They alleged that the programs’ growth into a nearly universal system of taxpayer-funded private-school scholarships violated Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution, which requires the General Assembly to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on claims that EdChoice created a competing system of uncommon schools, undermined the thorough-and-efficient-school mandate, and placed public-school funds under sectarian control. It declared the programs unconstitutional and enjoined their continued implementation, while staying the injunction pending appeal. The court ruled for the defendants on the student plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim and left another claim unresolved.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the first two constitutional claims. It held that EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion, as presently structured and funded, use taxpayer money to maintain a competing system of nonpublic schools at the expense and detriment of Ohio’s constitutionally mandated common-school system.
The court emphasized the programs’ scale, participating private schools’ comparatively limited state oversight and enrollment discretion, and evidence that voucher appropriations corresponded with shortfalls in full formula funding for public schools. It concluded that the programs diverted resources, permitted private schools to select less costly students while public schools retained broader obligations, and increased fiscal pressure on public districts.
The court limited its holding to the current EdChoice programs and did not declare every form of school voucher unconstitutional. Because the rulings on the first two claims were sufficient to invalidate the programs, it declined to reach the religious-control claim, the student plaintiffs’ equal-protection cross-appeal, or the parties’ other remaining assignments of error. It stayed enforcement pending an anticipated further appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s current EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion programs violate Article VI, Section 2 because they fund a competing system of nonpublic schools in a manner that undermines the state’s common-school system.
- The holding is limited to the programs as presently structured, funded, and challenged; the court did not hold that all school-voucher programs are unconstitutional.
- The court affirmed on two common-school claims and did not decide the religious-control or equal-protection issues.
Why It Matters
The decision invalidates Ohio’s greatly expanded private-school voucher system under the state constitution and affirms an injunction against its continued operation, although that injunction remains stayed during further appellate review.
The ruling also identifies a constitutional limit on education policy: Ohio may support educational alternatives, but it may not structure and fund them so broadly that they operate to the detriment of the thorough and efficient system of public schools the state constitution requires.