Senate Finance Committee hears hours of proponent testimony for Senate Bill 68, which would create education savings accounts for non‑chartered schools

The Ohio Senate Finance Committee held a second hearing on Senate Bill 68, which would create a non‑chartered educational savings account program to help families pay for tuition and other education expenses at non‑chartered, nonpublic schools. Proponent testimony filled the hearing; no committee vote was taken.

Supporters told the committee that the program would expand school choice to families currently excluded from existing state programs and ease out‑of‑pocket costs that keep some parents from enrolling children in non‑chartered schools. Many speakers also urged removing means‑testing provisions in the bill so that more families could access the full award amount.

“Giving parents more affordable options to find the right fit for their students is an immediate step in improving education in Ohio,” said Robin Hoos, a parent from the Olentangy Local School District, who described moving her children to a non‑chartered school after struggling with their public school placements. Jamie Corey, representing Southridge Christian Academy in Ashtabula County, told senators her school’s enrollment had fallen during the pandemic and that tuition is currently about $3,300, which she said many local families cannot afford without outside help. “It is only by the grace of God with the recent change in law regarding tax credits for donations to scholarship granting organizations that we’ve recently been able to get scholarships for our kids,” Corey said.

School leaders and advocates described a wide range of non‑chartered programs and outcomes. Nick Keakley, chairman of the board at Mars Hill Academy in Mason, said his school is accredited by national bodies and highlighted college placements and standardized‑test performance. Luke Masic, headmaster of the Lyceum in South Euclid, emphasized a classical curriculum and noted the school’s students scored highly on the Classic Learning Test; Masic said the Lyceum was recently named the top school in the nation on that assessment.

Troy McIntosh, executive director of the Ohio Christian Education Network, addressed legal and fiscal concerns raised by opponents in other forums, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent and arguing that ESAs fund parents, not schools: “The money is going to the parents and not to the faith‑based school,” he said, referencing decisions the department cited in testimony. McIntosh also argued that local property tax revenue remains with school districts, meaning local tax bases are not cut off when a student uses an ESA.

Committee members questioned witnesses about accountability, reporting and budget impacts. Senator Jay Brenner (questioning during the hearing) summarized statewide spending and outcomes, saying, “we’re spending roughly 24 and a half billion in K‑12, if you count local, state, federal dollars,” and pressed witnesses on how ESAs would affect public finances and services. Proponents repeatedly replied that non‑chartered schools already comply with state safety and reporting requirements they must meet and that parental choice produces market accountability: if families are dissatisfied they can withdraw.

Speakers described specific family situations they said illustrate demand: several parents said children with behavioral or learning challenges improved after transferring to non‑chartered schools; one parent said her child’s grades moved from D’s and F’s to A’s and B’s after the change, and that she had avoided medication. Other witnesses described small rural schools that rely on tuition and local church support and said the bill would remove a financial barrier for low‑ and middle‑income families.

Advocacy groups argued ESAs would broaden options and lower taxpayer cost in some cases. Witnesses from non‑chartered schools and associations — including Mars Hill Academy, Columbus Classical Academy, the Lyceum, Agape Christian Academy, Licking County Christian Academy and others — asked senators to pass SB 68 or to include it in the state operating budget process. Several witnesses specifically requested the bill be amended to remove or loosen means‑testing so awards would be available to a larger set of families.

The committee did not take formal action at the hearing. Senators asked for additional information during questioning — including school demographic breakdowns, per‑student cost calculations, and how the program’s rules would be administered — and proponents said they would provide follow‑up materials.

What happened next: The hearing record closed with the Chair announcing that written testimony submitted would be available to members, and the committee adjourned. The bill’s next procedural steps and any legislative amendments were not specified during the hearing.