Sycamore SAC recommends joining "Vouchers Hurt Ohio" lawsuit; board debates levy risk and costs

Members of the Sycamore Advisory Committee told the school board that they recommend Sycamore join the "Vouchers Hurt Ohio" lawsuit, saying recent EdChoice expansion has shifted billions in state dollars to private schools and may reduce state funding for public students.

The committee’s presentation said voucher recipients in Sycamore rose from about 18 students to roughly 577 after the statewide eligibility expansion and reported that many voucher recipients are not low‑income. “We have seen because of EdChoice expansion that in Sycamore there's a 3,000% increase in the students that are receiving vouchers that live within our school district,” SAC member Kelly Tedesco said during the presentation.

The SAC framed three core arguments for joining the lawsuit: to defend public‑school funding, to signal to families that the district is fighting for state dollars, and to hold private providers accountable for academic and fiscal standards the committee said private schools do not face. Presenters cited statewide figures — including multi‑billion‑dollar estimates for voucher spending — and interviews with a small set of peer districts about costs and experience with litigation.

Board members and SAC presenters both acknowledged limitations in the district‑level data. One board member stressed that the SAC’s interviews reached only a few districts and asked why many comparable districts had not joined the suit. SAC members said they had interviewed Lakota, Upper Arlington and Mason and included appendix material with additional context; they also noted that Lakota and Upper Arlington had chosen different approaches and that Mason had so far declined to join.

Board discussion focused on two related questions: fiscal exposure and political risk. Legal and budgetary concerns about long‑running litigation were raised repeatedly: each board member recognized that initial join fees described in the presentation — discussed in the meeting as roughly $12,000 for a single year’s participation if pro‑rated — could grow substantially if the case extends for many years. “This lawsuit could go on for years,” a board member said, urging caution about cumulative legal fees.

At the same time, other board members argued joining is a principled stand to protect public education. One board member used an analogy of “standing up” even when an outcome is uncertain: “I think we should join the lawsuit, not because I think we'll win, because it's the right thing to do,” they said.

School officials and presenters also discussed potential downstream effects on local levies. SAC presenters and a district official said that Sycamore’s funding relies heavily on local taxes (the presentations repeatedly cited a district reliance of roughly 85% local vs. 15% state), and warned that persistent shifts in state support could force more frequent levies or service reductions. Several board members responded that levy outcomes depend on many variables — messaging, turnout and the broader economic climate — and that joining a lawsuit would be only one factor among many.

What happens next: SAC recommended the board consider joining, and presenters urged improved public communication about vouchers regardless of the decision. Board leaders said the discussion will continue and the issue will remain on the board’s agenda for further deliberation.

Reporter’s note: quotes and attributions in this article are taken from the board work session transcript. Where exact speaker mapping to a board seat was unclear in the transcript, attributions use names or functional labels shown in the record.