Governor Ted Strickland walks a tight line when he tries to explain why the EdChoice voucher program should be shuttered, but the Cleveland voucher plan left intact.  One of the arguments he has presented is that the Cleveland program is an acceptable use of tax dollars because it is means tested, while the EdChoice program is not.  This is a misleading claim for two reasons.

First, it ignores the fact that the children attending chronically failing schools who are eligible for EdChoice typically live in economically depressed areas.  Second, it relies on the false impression that eligibility for the Cleveland voucher program is means tested.

It is a clear and simple fact that eligibility for the Cleveland voucher program is not based on the income of the applicant.  Income does play a role in the application process.  It is used to determine the amount of the voucher and preference in admission to schools that have more students wanting to attend than seats available.  However, parents are not denied entry into the program based on their income level.

The more contentious issue though is whether the EdChoice program is offering vouchers to families that are relatively well off.  This is likely not the case.  For one, a student has to attend a failing traditional public school in the previous year to be eligible for a voucher.  Those parents with the means to send their children to a private school have likely already done so.

More importantly, the median household income for the zip codes where EdChoice eligible children live shows that such areas are significantly less well off than the state as a whole.  According to Census Bureau figures, Ohio's median household income is about $41,000.  Areas that are eligible for the EdChoice program have an average median household income of about $30,600 - and some of these eligible areas have incomes as low as $16,000 per household.

Even if the argument is that the Cleveland program is means tested by only being available to parents living in that city, it remains unpersuasive.  The median household income level in Cleveland is about $26,000 per household, or 63 percent of the state’s median household income level.  The EdChoice areas are, on average, at about 74 percent of the state median.  Parents living near EdChoice eligible schools may be slightly better off than those in Cleveland, but they are still typically in areas that are economically disadvantaged.

By limiting EdChoice eligibility to chronically failing schools, the program is de facto means tested.  This is due to the fact that there is a high correlation between the poverty level of a school and its academic performance.  The governor prefers to paint a picture of middle class suburbs losing students to private schools, but the data show that this is simply not the case.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly in this debate, is that the governor has shown his hand by offering this argument against the EdChoice program.  If policymakers prefer a means test for determining eligibility or for weighting the amount of the voucher, they should add a means test.  Arguing that a program should be ended because it lacks a component that restricts access belies a political, rather than a policy, motivation.

Such a position would be akin to saying that because a new car doesn't have a CD player you should just ride your bicycle.

As the debate over the EdChoice program continues there are important facts policymakers need to keep in mind.  First, eligibility in the Cleveland program is not means tested. Second, EdChoice eligible schools are located in areas that are, on average, less well off than the rest of the state.   And finally, ending a program even though small changes could make it better is the epitome of politics trumping good policy.