Both.news
Donate
Story AnalysisOpinion

Ohio court rules EdChoice scholarships unconstitutional

The state's 10th District Court of Appeals called school choice a "misnomer." The Ohio Supreme Court will get the last word.

reason.comPublished Analyzed on October 17, 2026

This page is Both News's AI analysis of the article, not the article itself. Read the full story on the publisher's site.

This is an opinion piece. It is written to argue a point of view, so a clear lean is expected; the balance score shows whether it treats facts and opposing arguments fairly.

Our verdict

Political lean

Right-Leaning ▶
5.0 / 10
◀ Left 10Center10 Right ▶

0 = center. The further from 0, the stronger the lean (max 10).

Reporting balance

39
One-sided
39 / 100

How complete and even-handed the reporting is — separate from which side it leans.

This Reason article reports accurately on the Ohio ruling, but it is a school-choice advocacy piece presented in a news format, with a clear right-of-center lean. Its main weakness is that the program's critics are represented only by a website while the defense gets an attorney's extended comments and the last word, and the closing paragraphs state the author's opinion as a conclusion. Readers should look for the public school districts' and the attorney general's own arguments, and for independent data on the funding effects, before forming a view.

Why this lean
The article is framed around a libertarian/school-choice position. The ruling's critics are represented by their website and the court's reasoning is quoted in a way that invites doubt ('Interestingly, the Court ... largely concurred'; 'took the argument further'). The one voice given sustained space is Keith Neely, who gets the last word on the ruling's likely reversal and says 'the only conclusion' the Ohio Supreme Court can reach is that the program is constitutional. The closing paragraphs add editorial judgment ('a nationwide war on school choice', 'The real myth isn't school choice'). The outlet does disclose its ties to Reason Foundation, and the legal reasoning is presented at some length, which keeps this from being an extreme opinion piece. This is a clear lean rather than a strong one.
Framing
The story treats the ruling as an attack on parental choice and a legal overreach, asking whether the Ohio Supreme Court will restore the program.

Key Findings

  1. 1The article gives the most space and the last word to the pro-program side: Neely is quoted at length on the budgeting argument and his prediction that 'the only conclusion' the Ohio Supreme Court can reach is that the program is constitutional.
  2. 2The opposition is represented only by its website. VHO's position appears as 'state-funded discrimination' and 'myth' with no reply, while the author adds 'Interestingly, the Court ... largely concurred', which casts doubt on the court's reasoning rather than presenting it straight.
  3. 3The closing paragraphs move from reporting to advocacy: 'a nationwide war on school choice' and 'The real myth isn't school choice' are the author's own judgments, not attributed to any source. The line between news and opinion is blurred because the article is not labeled as opinion.
  4. 4The article does present the court's reasoning in a fair amount of detail, including Leland's point about selective admissions and urban concentration, and explains the Simmons-Harris precedent. This gives readers the material to assess the legal argument themselves.
  5. 5The numbers mostly come from advocacy sources (EdChoice and the parent organization's Reason Foundation report), and the Cato test-score claim is given without specifics. Readers would need independent data to check the program's effect on districts or on student outcomes.

Who gets a voice

  • Judge David Leland (10th District Court of Appeals)
    Wrote the panel opinion that the program violates the Ohio Constitution's common-schools clause
    Court ruling against the programMain voice
  • Keith Neely
    Institute for Justice attorney representing EdChoice families
    Pro-school choice, defense of the programMain voice
  • Vouchers Hurt Ohio (VHO)
    Coalition of public school districts that sued the state in 2022; represented only via its website
    Opposition to vouchers, public school fundingMinor voice
  • EdChoice
    Educational freedom nonprofit that runs the program; source of program figures
    Pro-school choice advocacyMinor voice
  • Ohio Attorney General
    Plans to appeal; position described only via a linked social media post
    State government defending the program on appealMinor voice
  • Jude Schwalbach
    Senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, the outlet's parent nonprofit
    Pro-open enrollment and school choiceMinor voice

Loaded language

“a big hit”→ a significant setback

Describes the ruling as damage to school choice, adopting the program's supporters' view.

“nationwide war on school choice”→ a broader national legal and political debate over school choice

'War' frames opponents as aggressors and presents the debate as hostile rather than policy-based.

“The real myth isn't school choice”→ Critics' claims about school choice are disputed; the author's view is that they are wrong

Turns the opposition's word 'myth' back on them in the closing judgment, presenting an opinion as a conclusion.

“Interestingly, the Court of Appeals ... largely concurred”→ The appeals court's ruling largely agreed with the VHO's position

The word 'Interestingly' signals a suspicious coincidence and casts doubt on the court's neutrality.

“system of state-funded discrimination”→ VHO's claim that vouchers discriminate, which the article should attribute and test

The article quotes this claim only through the VHO website, with no response, so a contested claim is left unexamined.

Dimension Breakdown

Source Diversity3/10

Of the substantial voices, almost all favor the program: Neely and the EdChoice and Reason Foundation sources, with the court ruling as the only opposing material. VHO appears only through its website and no public school official is quoted directly.

Language Neutrality4/10

Loaded phrasing appears in the framing and closing, e.g. 'a big hit', 'a nationwide war on school choice', and 'The real myth isn't school choice'. Opposition claims are put in scare quotes or attributed to a website ('school choice is a "myth"').

Data Balance4/10

Program figures ($6,166 / $8,408 maximums, 100,000+ families) are sourced to EdChoice, and the 80 percent statistic comes from the parent organization's own report, with no independent check. The Cato test-score claim is a general reference with no specifics. No data on the funding impact on districts is presented, though that is central to the VHO argument.

Perspective Completeness3/10

The main opposing side (public school districts and the VHO coalition) is almost absent beyond a website quote, and the state attorney general's position is reduced to a link. The defense of the ruling is only represented through quotations from the judge's opinion.

Headline Accuracy8/10

The headline 'Ohio Court Strikes Down a Scholarship Program' matches the body, which reports a unanimous panel ruling that the program is unconstitutional. The subhead's 'may get the last word' correctly signals that an appeal is planned.

Context Sufficiency5/10

The article explains the constitutional clause and the 1999 Simmons-Harris precedent, which helps. It does not explain the program's total cost, the size of the funding diversion for districts, or why the plaintiffs argue the program harms districts, so the reader lacks the economic context needed to weigh the funding debate.

Missing Perspectives

  • Public school district officials and the VHO coalition speaking in their own words, to explain how the voucher funding affects their budgets and why they believe the program violates the constitution.
  • The Ohio Attorney General's arguments on appeal, which would show the state's legal reasoning rather than just a link to a social media post.
  • Independent analysis of the program's fiscal effect on districts and of its outcomes for students, which matters because the funding dispute is central to the ruling.
  • Lawyers or representatives for the defendants who argued for the program's constitutionality at trial, whose reasoning the article only summarizes through the plaintiffs' side.

Highlighted Passages

“Interestingly, the Court of Appeals of Ohio's 10th Appellate District largely concurred.”
The word 'Interestingly' implies the court's agreement with the plaintiffs is suspicious, without explaining why it should be questioned. The sentence casts doubt on the ruling without giving the reader the reasoning needed to assess it.
“The court's decision reflects the broader rationale fueling that opposition: that education dollars going to anything other than public schools are taken from ordinary students.”
The author describes the opposition's view as a 'rationale' that is simply to be dismissed, without giving the view's supporters a chance to respond or pointing to data on the funding question.
“The real myth isn't school choice; it's that giving families more options means betraying students' education.”
This closing line is the author's opinion stated as a conclusion, and it is presented in a news-format article without an opinion label. It also treats the opposition's claim as settled.
“For decades, policymakers have invested in that premise, yet student outcomes have little to show for it.”
This claim about student outcomes is supported only by a general link to a Cato blog post, with no specific data and no discussion of what outcome measures show for voucher students in particular.

Key Facts

  • According to the Ohio news report, a unanimous panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals ruled the EdChoice scholarship program unconstitutional on a Thursday in October 2026.
  • According to EdChoice, the Traditional Plan (in place since 2005) offers up to $6,166 per year for elementary and middle school and up to $8,408 for high school.
  • According to EdChoice, the scholarship program supports more than 100,000 Ohio families.
  • The Vouchers Hurt Ohio coalition of public school districts sued the state in 2022 over the program.
  • Judge David Leland wrote that the program violates the 'thorough and efficient system of common schools' requirement in Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.
  • According to the Institute for Justice, the Ohio Supreme Court in Simmons-Harris v. Goff (1999) invalidated the Cleveland scholarship program as improperly enacted, and the legislature later reenacted it.
  • According to Reason Foundation's report, 80 percent of public-school students live in states with weak or ineffective open enrollment laws.
  • Families and the state attorney general plan to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, and families will keep their scholarships while litigation is pending.
Read the original articlereason.com · reason.com
← All headlines
Read the original articlereason.com · reason.com