Tag: program

  • Ohio House bill removes funding set aside for state childcare accessibility program

    Ohio House bill removes funding set aside for state childcare accessibility program

    Sponsor

    Ohio House bill removes funding set aside for state childcare accessibility program

    An Ohio House committee eliminated funding for a program intended to increase childcare accessibility in a bill meant to address potential childcare fraud.

    The House Children and Human Services Committee brought Ohio House Bill 647 up for a hearing recently for the sole purpose of making changes to the bill. The committee’s chair, Republican state Rep. Andrea White, said she hopes to see the committee approve the bill soon.

    The bill was initially introduced in response to a right-wing influencer’s claims out of Minnesota that federal funding was being fraudulently used by childcare facilities, particularly those managed and owned by Somali immigrants.

    The Trump administration responded to the Minnesota claims by freezing childcare funding to that state, and other Democratically led states.

    Ohio officials including Gov. Mike DeWine made comments at the time that the claims were made, hoping to avoid a freeze on federal funds coming to the state for its Publicly Funded Child Care program.

    The sponsors of H.B. 647, Republican state Reps. Phil Plummer and Tom Young, defended the state’s oversight of the childcare system, while also introducing the bill to help prove enforcement of laws would be strong and swift, so the federal funding distributors didn’t take action.

    “We can’t gaslight this and freak out the federal administration, and they pull our funding,” Plummer said in January when the bill was announced. “Because then we lose childcare centers.”

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

    The bill focuses on increasing the state’s data analysis skills when it comes to childcare centers and funding. It would also put in a new oversight system, including not only county prosecuting attorneys who are typically the ones to investigate local childcare fraud allegations, but also the state Inspector General’s Office, and the Ohio Attorney General’s Office as well.

    The legislation would base funding from the Publicly Funded Child Care coffers on a child’s enrollment in a childcare facility, rather than on a child’s individual attendance. It would also allow the Ohio Department of Children & Youth to suspend a childcare center’s license without a prior hearing “if DCY has reason to suspect that (the center) has engaged in the misuse of public dollars or acted with intent to commit fraud against the PFCC program,” according to bill analysis by the Legislative Service Commission.

    H.B. 647 received the support of Kara Wente, director of the Ohio Department of Children & Youth.

    Changes made this week by the House committee remove money for a pilot program that Republicans have been trying to enact for several years, a program that was an attempt to increase accessibility in a state that advocates say is in “crisis” when it comes to affordability and access to childcare.

    The Child Care Cred Program was originally a standalone piece of GOP-led legislation, but had since been absorbed into H.B. 647. The program was sold by supporters as a cost-sharing model, one in which the state would contribute to the cost of childcare, while the remaining cost would be split between participating employers and eligible employees.

    In the committee changes, an appropriation for the program of $600,000 for fiscal year 2026 and $4.4 million in 2027 was removed, among other changes.

    “So, instead of using the Child Care Cred money, that money is going to stay in (the budget of the Ohio Department of Children & Youth), and then the department will use other funds that are within their budget,” White told the committee.

    The most recent state budget put forth $10 million in support of the Child Care Cred program.

    There were no objections to the changes made to the bill. State Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, R-Ashtabula, said the bill changes were “a big improvement,” but commented on a different change, one in which the time period for childcare centers to “backdate,” or make changes to attendance records, was increased from seven days to 10 business days or 14 calendar days, whichever is later.

    “I would prefer to see even tighter timelines,” Fowler Arthur said. “I think we really need to be making sure that we have the most accurate data possible.”

    Another change made to H.B. 647 eliminated an increased to the Department of Children & Youth’s “community projects and assistance” funding by $2 million in 2026 and $3 million in 2027. In a previous version of H.B. 647, the money was required to go toward “enhanced data analytics for use in conducting automated attendance reviews of publicly funded childcare providers.”

    SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

    Susan Tebben
    ohiocapitaljournal.com

    Sponsor
  • Private school voucher lawsuit heads to Ohio’s 10th District Court of Appeals

    Private school voucher lawsuit heads to Ohio’s 10th District Court of Appeals

    Sponsor

    Private school voucher lawsuit heads to Ohio’s 10th District Court of Appeals

    Getty Images.

    Attorneys fighting on behalf of public and private school funding will present arguments before an appellate court today, Tuesday, in a continued battle over Ohio’s private school voucher program.

    A lawsuit that has been active since 2022 will now go before the 10th District Court of Appeals, as attorneys for more than 300 public school districts and advocates defend an attempt to force the state legislature to eliminate funding for the private school voucher program.

    Public school advocates are against the state funding of private school vouchers, partly because they argue the program funding has overtaken that of public schools.

    The Ohio Constitution includes a provision requiring the state to fund a single system of public schools. The lawsuit argues that the private voucher program represents an unconstitutional funding of a second system of education.

    The lawsuit also argued that the program violated the equal protection clause in the constitution.

    Schools including Cleveland Heights-University Heights, Columbus, Richmond Heights, Lima, and Barberton were signed on to the lawsuit, along with individuals and parents.

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

    The case landed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, where Judge Jaiza Page said the legislature has “exceedingly broad powers” in its authority over the state’s education system, but the power does not come with “unlimited discretion.”

    Supporters of private school vouchers argued that it is a scholarship program, and does not purport to be a “system” of schools, something Page didn’t buy in the June 2025 decision in which Page said the voucher program was unconstitutional.

    Calling vouchers a scholarship program “is mere semantics” because the state pays schools directly, the judge wrote.

    “Where EdChoice participating private schools are inexplicably receiving double the per-pupil state funding than public schools, it is difficult to say that EdChoice is simply a scholarship that follows and/or benefits the students, as opposed to a system that benefits private schools,” Page wrote in 2025.

    The judge didn’t make a decision on one claim in the lawsuit: that the voucher program created “segregation” in public schools.

    Page wrote that there was no evidence of “discriminatory intent,” and denied the request for a summary judgment from both sides of the lawsuit, meaning the claim is still active and awaiting a ruling in the Franklin County court.

    Anticipating the rest of the lawsuit would be appealed, Page allowed the program to continue “in recognition that this decision may cause significant changes to school funding in Ohio.”

    The parties in the suit have appealed, with the state and private school advocates appealing the rulings that the voucher program is unconstitutional, that it creates more than one “system of uncommon schools,” and that the direct payments from the state allows unconstitutional funding for religious schools.

    Attorneys for private school parents maintain their argument that it is “a scholarship program, not a school-funding program,” according to appeals court documents.

    “It therefore cannot run afoul of any prohibition against funding ‘uncommon schools,” wrote attorney Keith Neely, of the Institute for Justice, a DC-based law firm representing private school parents.

    Public school advocates are cross-appealing, pushing back against the one ruling for which Page sided with the state.

    Page ruled that there was no evidence that the voucher program in Ohio creates a disparity in education.

    “While it seems inevitable that some Ohio students might be excluded from the EdChoice program by a participating private school, none of student plaintiffs have alleged or provided any evidence of denial of participation in the EdChoice program,” Page wrote.

    Cleveland-based attorneys Maria Fair and Mark Wallach argued in a brief to the appellate court that “there is no valid governmental interest in funding private education, much less seeking parity between public and private resources.”

    “The cycle never ends: The state insufficiently funds public schools, which are then forced to seek local tax levies or apply for private grants,” the attorneys wrote.

    “The state then diverts more taxpayer dollars to private entities, justifying this by citing those very same levies and grants.”

    The case is scheduled to go before the 10th District Court of Appeals on Tuesday morning.

    SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

    Sponsor