Background/Footnotes: In 1989, the Ohio legislature enacted Senate Bill 140 to enable students to transfer to another school within their district as of the1993-1994 school year. The law also allows students to transfer to other schools in adjacent participating districts. Each district must establish a policy indicating whether or not it will receive transfers. Space limitations and stipulations regarding racial balance may limit transfers. Transportation is provided if students use existing bus stops. Districts may reimburse low-income parents for the transportation costs associated with interdistrict transfers.[1]

Since 1990, the state has allowed students in junior and senior high school to enroll in free college courses and receive both college and high school credit. Students in chartered private schools may also participate. Students may choose any state-approved public, private nonprofit, or proprietary higher education institution that grants degrees.[2]

On June 30, 1995, then-Governor and former Cleveland Mayor George Voinovich signed a state budget bill that included a pilot voucher program for Cleveland students.[3]

Starting in the 1996-1997 school year, the state provided vouchers worth up to $2,250 to 1,994 low-income students in grades K-3 to attend the public or private school of their parents' choice. In 2003-2004, the vouchers were worth up to $3,000 for elementary school students and $2,700 for high school students.) Although this program allows students to transfer to participating suburban schools, no suburban school has yet opted to participate. During the same year (1996-1997), 124 public school students received tutoring at state expense.[4]

On July 31, 1996, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lisa Sadler ruled that the Cleveland voucher plan did not violate either the state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Noting that the "nonpublic sectarian schools participating in the scholarship program are benefited only indirectly, and purely as the result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients," Judge Sadler concluded that allowing religious schools to be included in the voucher program did not violate the First Amendment.[5] Opponents of the voucher plan appealed the decision.

In May 1997, the Ohio Court of Appeals struck down the Cleveland pilot scholarship program by a vote of 3 to 0, ruling that the program violated the religious establishment clauses of the Ohio and U. S. Constitutions, as well as a provision in the state constitution requiring general laws to have statewide application. The Ohio Supreme Court granted a motion to stay on July 24, 1997, allowing the Cleveland scholarship program to continue operating while the court considered the case.[6]

After two years of failed efforts to pass a charter school bill, Governor Voinovich signed House Bill 215 on June 30, 1997.[7] The law allowed the creation of new charter "community schools" in Lucas County (which includes Toledo) and allowed an unlimited number of traditional public schools throughout the state to convert to charter status. The law was later amended to permit other urban districts to establish new charter schools.[8]

In 1998, Parents Advancing Choice in Education (PACE) began offering scholarships to 765 low-income students to attend a private school of choice in Dayton (250 of the students were already in private schools). Scholarships were equal to 50 percent of tuition, up to $1,200. In 2000, a study on the outcome of the program found that African-American voucher recipients in grades 2-8 scored, on average, nearly 7 percentile points higher in math than those who did not receive scholarships. The research also found greater satisfaction among parents whose children used the scholarships.[9]

In 1998, Dayton, Toledo, and Cincinnati became Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF) "partner cities." The CSF, a $100 million foundation, matches money raised by residents in its partner cities to fund private scholarships for low-income students to attend a school of choice. A lottery awards scholarships to children entering kindergarten through 8th grade for a minimum of four years. In Dayton, the CSF partnered with the city's existing private choice program, PACE.[10]

In May 1998, both houses of the legislature approved an amendment to the Cleveland voucher legislation sponsored by then-Representative Mike Wise (R-15) that required the Cleveland school district to provide transportation to students in the scholarship program.[11] This amendment significantly decreased the number of students who had to rely on taxicabs to get to their new schools of choice.[12]

In May 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Cleveland scholarship and Tutoring Program in Simmons-Harris v. Goff. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer wrote for the majority that "Whatever link between government and religion is created by the school voucher program is indirect, depending only on the genuinely independent and private choices of individual parents." The court, however, struck down the program for violating the state's requirement for "one subject" legislative bills, since the legislature had attached the Cleveland choice program language to an appropriations bill. The ruling allowed the scholarship program to continue until the end of the school year and gave the legislature the opportunity to reauthorize the scholarship plan in a one-subject bill.[13]

Soon after the law was passed, the Ohio Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Way filed suit in federal court to challenge the program on First Amendment grounds and to obtain a preliminary injunction. In August 1999, one day before the start of school, Judge Solomon Oliver of the Federal District Court for Northern Ohio granted the injunction, prompting a national outcry. Judge Oliver modified his ruling several days later to allow current voucher recipients to remain in the program but also preventing 794 new participants from entering school.[14]

A study released in September 1999 by Indiana University found that the Cleveland scholarship program was beneficial and was serving the populations for which it was intended. The program primarily served low-income, minority families headed by single mothers. The study found that families applied for the scholarships for academic and safety reasons and that 97.4 percent of voucher users and applicants who did not receive vouchers were satisfied with the program. Scholarship students showed a small but statistically significant improvement in their achievement scores in language and science after two years.[15]

A June 1999 survey published by Paul Peterson, Ph.D., revealed that more parents participating in Cleveland's voucher program were "very satisfied" with many aspects of their children's schools, including academics, safety, and discipline, than were parents of the children who remained in public schools. The research also indicated that families using vouchers were more likely to be African-American, headed by single parents, and poorer than average families that used public schools.[16]

A study released in November 1999 by the Columbus-based Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions found that school choice in Cleveland provided better racial integration than did the conventional public school system. According to the study, 19 percent of Cleveland's voucher recipients were enrolled at private schools that had a racial composition approximating the average for the Cleveland area, while only 5.2 percent of the Cleveland area's public school students were in schools with comparable integration. While 61 percent of the public school students in the Cleveland area attended schools that had almost entirely white or minority enrollment, only 50 percent of voucher recipients were educated in such a homogenous environment.[17]

In November 1999, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a stay of the injunction against the Cleveland school choice program; but in December, Judge Oliver ruled that the program "has the effect of advancing religion through government-supported religious indoctrination" and is therefore unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Meanwhile, the parties on both sides of the case agreed to allow the program's nearly 4,000 students to remain in their schools until a final decision was reached.[18]

In December 2000, by a vote of 3 to 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District ruled that the Cleveland school choice program was unconstitutional, contending that government funding of private tuition promotes religious education.[19] Proponents sought a ruling from the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In March 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals declined to review the lower panel's ruling. However, it did decide that the program could continue to operate while supporters sought a U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision.[20]

A new privately funded scholarship program for low-income Columbus families, Children First Columbus, was created in 2000. This program, founded by Thomas Needles and other private benefactors, is an affiliate of Children First America.[21]

A 2001 Indiana University study of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program found that voucher recipients' test scores were higher than those of their peers in public schools. The study concluded that "Students who entered the Scholarship Program as kindergartners were achieving at significantly higher levels than other students when they entered first grade" and that, while public school students made academic gains in the first grade, students who used vouchers for three years remained ahead academically.[22]

In May 2001, several education groups--including the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Cleveland Teachers Union, the Ohio School Boards Association, the Ohio League of Women Voters, and the Ohio PTA--filed a lawsuit contending that Ohio's charter school program violated the state constitution by illegally transferring funds from traditional public schools to schools that are subject to little oversight by elected school boards.[23]

In 2001, several Republican lawmakers unveiled proposals to expand community school programs and voucher programs. State Senator Ron Amstutz (R-17) introduced S.B. 89, which would have increased the maximum scholarship provided under the Cleveland voucher program from $2,250 to the amount of the state's basic public school per-pupil expenditure. Another bill introduced during the 2001 session, H.B. 204, would have provided "child-centered scholarships" for students in school districts that were in a state of "academic emergency." Both bills died in committee.[24]

Representative Michael Gilb (R-Findlay) proposed H.B. 202 to allow tax credits of up to $10,000 toward the corporate franchise tax of companies that contribute to nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to low-income students. The bill would have allowed individuals to take a credit of up to $500 for a contribution to a scholarship program or a credit of up to $100 for educational expenses. This bill also died in committee.[25]

On June 6, 2001, the governor signed H.B. 94, which increased the grades served by the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program to the eighth grade.

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, ruling that the use of public money to underwrite tuition at private and religious schools does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as long as parents make the decision regarding where the voucher is used.[26] Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, "We believe that the program challenged here is a program of true private choice, consistent with Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest and, thus, constitutional. As was true in those cases, the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion."[27]

The program awarded scholarships to 4,456 students in kindergarten through 8th grade during the 2001-2002 school year.[28] Although the number of available vouchers was increased from 4,523 for the 2001-2002 school year to 5,523 for the 2002-2003 school year, officials say they have been forced to turn away more than 1,100 Cleveland parents who applied for vouchers because there were not enough to meet the demand.[29]

On January 7, 2003, Governor Robert Taft signed H.B. 364, which amended the charter school law, stipulating that the Ohio State Board of Education may no longer sponsor community schools and that those schools sponsored by the state board will have two years to find new sponsors. The law also gives the Ohio Department of Education greater oversight over charter sponsors; caps the number of community schools at 225 until July 1, 2005; allows private, nonprofit education organizations to authorize charter schools; and increases the number of districts where charters can be formed.[30]

On June 26, 2003, the governor signed H.B. 95 which expanded the grades served by Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program (CSTP) to grade ten. The bill also increased the maximum scholarship to $2,700.[31]

On April 21, 2003, Franklin County Judge Patrick McGrath dismissed the majority of the allegations of the lawsuit filed in May 2001 by the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio School Boards Association, the Ohio League of Women Voters, and the Ohio PTA. Although other elements of the case remain, Judge McGrath dismissed the claim that the law is unconstitutional.[32]

According to a third analysis of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program (CSTP), released in December 2003 by the Indiana University School of Education, students who received publicly funded school vouchers through the performed as well academically as their public school counterparts, The report was the final annual report of the longitudinal effects of the school choice program. The research team, led by Kim K. Metcalf, has followed a cohort of scholarship participants and non-participants since 1998, tracking their academic achievement and school experience.[33]

The coalition that challenged the state's charter law in 2001 and saw most of its case dismissed in 2003 received another defeat in 2004.[34] The group, now represented by the Coalition for Public Education, challenged the state's charter law by saying that charter schools are not part of Ohio's "system of common schools" and that local school boards should govern the schools. A panel for the state's 10th District Court of Appeals dismissed these arguments. The judges ruled, however, that the plaintiffs can claim that charter schools are not held to the same standard. The case was moved back to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.[35] The charter opponents have appealed the dismissal to the Ohio Supreme Court.[36]

H.B. 447 and companion bill S.B. 212 were introduced in the March 2004 to create a two-year moratorium on the creation of charter schools in Ohio. Neither bill moved out of committee before the session ended.[37]

A new study by The Buckeye Institute predicts establishing "education empowerment zones" would revitalize Ohio's six largest cities: Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo. In the zones, parents would have access not only to a growing number of Community Schools (Ohio's charter schools) but also to a voucher worth $5,250 for use at a private school. According to Buckeye, the education benefit would bring middle-income families into the cities and reverse decades of urban flight to the suburbs.[38]

In the summer of 2004, Ohio's first "charter education schools" opened to train teachers for teaching slots in urban, high-poverty areas. Wright State University in Dayton and the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati will receive $375,000 in federal funding to operate the teacher training programs.[39] The teacher training programs are free from many state regulations with the stipulation that graduates meet specific quality standards.[40]

In January 2005, the Ohio House of Representatives created a subcommittee to study school choice in the state and to consider expanding the Cleveland voucher program and increasing the number of charters schools. State Representative Jon Peterson (R-2) will chair the subcommittee.[41]

In February 2005 the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear a lawsuit (State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Board of Education) claiming that charter schools violate the state constitution. The justices will consider whether charter school funds come from state or local sources and whether charter operators should receive state money since they are private entities.[42]

On June 30, Governor Bob Taft (R) approved the state's budget (H.B. 66), which includes a program to provide vouchers to some 14,000 eligible students at low performing schools across the state starting in the 2006-7 school year.[43] This is the second major voucher victory of 2005 for disadvantaged students, after the passage of Utah's Carson Scholarships Program. The new program is a compromise between a House proposal for vouchers for 18,000 students and a Senate proposal for vouchers for 10,000 students.[44] Eligible elementary school students could receive vouchers worth up to $4,250, and high school students could receive vouchers worth $5,000. Eligible students must have attended a traditional public school or a charter school that has received the state's lowest academic rating for three consecutive years. The budget also included a provision to raise the cap on the number of charter schools allowed in the state by 30 schools.

In July, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation announced that it will sponsor 13 Ohio charter schools, 8 of which are already operating. The remaining five must wait for the statewide lottery selection process, set for the end of the month. If all are approved and operating, the 13 schools will serve some 4,000 students next year.[45]

---