A CH-UH district parent's view of Ohio EdChoice

To the Editor:

In the ongoing dialogue concerning the use of public funds for private education, incoming FutureHeights board member Matthew Wilson recently argued in favor of this practice. Mr. Wilson contends that there are many private-public partnerships for which taxpayer dollars are allocated. While this may be true, that does not necessarily make it right. I object to the use of public funds for private education on several grounds. However, here is my main objection: private schools are not obliged to enroll everyone.

Private schools admit and dismiss children from their schools based on behavioral issues, academic ability and special needs. Public schools cannot do so. Public schools must educate everyone. Period. This is an asset to the community. Do we really want to live in a world where we are not trying to meet the needs of everyone? Do we want the most challenged members of society to be without resources? Our schools should represent our community fully. This is how we keep them strong. We need the schools and they need to be supported as they try to meet the very difficult task of education for all. When money is taken out of the schools and given elsewhere, it does weaken the school for all students. Not every student costs the same to educate and those funds are more of a pool than allotted to any one person. In this regard, Ohio EdChoice benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Until private schools are willing to educate everyone (and be held to the same testing and accountability standards), public dollars should not be diverted to these institutions. 

Eve McPherson

Eve McPherson
Cleveland Heights

Read More on Letters To The Editor
Volume 9, Issue 6, Posted 10:45 AM, 05.30.2016