Ohio courts invalidate parental educational choice program
An Ohio appeals court upheld a ruling invalidating the state’s Education Choice Scholarship program, which provides public funds for eligible students to attend participating nonpublic schools. The court found that EdChoice conflicts with Ohio’s constitutional requirement to provide a thorough and efficient system of public schools; its order is stayed pending review by the Ohio Supreme Court. The author criticizes the appellate panel for giving little substantive attention to U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which upheld a similar Ohio scholarship program. EdChoice has expanded since its 2005 launch and now serves nearly all students, regardless of family income or the condition of their local public schools.
9 hours ago
An Ohio appellate court has upheld a ruling invalidating the state’s EdChoice scholarship program, but put its decision on hold while the case proceeds to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Catholic World Report column covering the ruling argues that the appellate panel gave insufficient weight to U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning religious schools and public benefits. 1
On October 15, a unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a trial court decision finding EdChoice inconsistent with the Ohio Constitution’s requirement for a “thorough and efficient system of common schools.” The panel stayed the ruling pending review by the state Supreme Court, so the program continues for now. 1
The panel’s stated concerns included that the program lacked meaningful state oversight, was unavailable to some rural residents, and gave participating schools discretion in selecting students. It also said the program could draw students and funding from public schools, hamper their ability to secure local levy support, and give voters less reason to approve school levies. 1
Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson said the state was disappointed but welcomed the stay, adding that families should expect no immediate change while Ohio appeals. 1
The column traces EdChoice to Ohio’s Cleveland scholarship program, which followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the Court upheld a program that offered aid to a broad class of families, including those choosing religious schools, reasoning that the aid reached schools through parents’ independent choices and was not allocated by the government to promote religion. 1
Ohio adopted the program in 2005, initially directing scholarships to eligible low-income students seeking alternatives to Cleveland public schools. The legislature later expanded eligibility; the column says the program now reaches nearly all students, regardless of family income or the performance of their local public schools, and costs the state almost $1.4 billion. 1
The column’s central criticism is that the appellate panel did not meaningfully address three U.S. Supreme Court cases involving religious institutions and public benefits. It says the panel did not discuss Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017), which rejected exclusion of a church from a public benefit solely because it was religious. 1
The panel cited Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022), but, according to the column, did not explain their significance in depth. Those cases rejected state restrictions that barred religious schools from generally available education benefits; the panel’s stated view was that they did not require states to fund religious education, while also recognizing that a state could not discriminate against religious schools once it offered a benefit. 1
The column argues that these federal cases strengthen the case for allowing families to use neutral, generally available aid at religious schools. The appellate dispute, however, also turns on the Ohio Constitution’s requirements for public schooling. 1
The author presents EdChoice as a way for parents to seek alternatives when local public schools are not meeting students’ needs, and argues that the program continues the approach upheld in Zelman. The column also criticizes opponents of school choice, including teachers’ union leaders, for opposing programs that it says could provide families with more educational options. 1
The legal outcome remains unresolved: the appellate ruling has not taken effect while the Ohio Supreme Court considers the appeal, and EdChoice remains in operation during that process. 1*
Catholic social thought grounds parental educational choice in subsidiarity
Yes—but with an important qualification: subsidiarity supports parental educational choice because parents are the first educators of their children; it does not make their educational responsibility exclusive or eliminate the legitimate roles of schools, the Church, or the state.
John Paul II states the relationship directly:
Parents are the first and most important educators of their own children, and they also possess a fundamental competence in this area: they are educators because they are parents. They share their educational mission with other individuals or institutions, such as the Church and the State. But the mission of education must always be carried out in accordance with a proper application of the principle of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity means that a larger authority should assist a family in fulfilling responsibilities that properly belong to it, rather than taking those responsibilities over without sufficient reason. In education, therefore, the state’s role is subsidiary: it should “guarantee, protect, promote and supplement” the family’s educational work, not claim an educational monopoly. Parents have the right to choose schools and to establish educational institutions in accordance with their beliefs.
This principle also recognizes that parents need support. Families cannot provide every form of schooling and social formation on their own, and educational institutions can make a real contribution. But, in the Church’s account, that contribution should respect the parents’ prior responsibility and ordinarily work with their consent.
The claim is therefore stronger than saying parents should simply be permitted to select among whatever options the state happens to offer. The Congregation for Catholic Education says that school choice should be free and according to conscience, and that civil authorities have a duty to make different options available and support families in choosing a school and educational project. John Paul II likewise says the right to choose an education in conformity with the family’s religious faith must be guaranteed, and that the state and Church should give families aid proportionate to their needs.
At the same time, subsidiarity does not mean that parents can meet every educational need alone, or that public institutions have no proper responsibilities. Catholic teaching describes the family as the primary but not the only educating community, calling for well-ordered cooperation among families, schools, civil society, and the Church. Nor does the principle by itself settle every policy question about school funding or the limits of particular curricula. The supplied sources affirm a general duty to support genuine educational choice, but they do not specify a single policy mechanism for fulfilling it.
So the precise formulation is: Catholic social thought grounds parental educational choice in the parents’ prior educational responsibility and uses subsidiarity to guide how other institutions assist that responsibility—without replacing it.