To amend sections 3317.02, 3317.022, 3317.03, and 5747.75 and to enact sections 3310.21, 3310.22, 3310.23, 3310.24, 3310.25, and 3310.26 of the Revised Code to establish the Nonchartered Educational Savings Account Program and to make an appropriation.
SB68 would create Ohio’s Nonchartered Educational Savings Account Program, beginning with the 2026-2027 school year. The program would be administered by the state treasurer with support from the Department of Education and Workforce and would provide education savings accounts for eligible students enrolled in participating nonchartered nonpublic schools. Funds in each account could be used for tuition and fees at participating schools, as well as curriculum, textbooks, instructional materials, and supplies. The bill also establishes application, renewal, complaint, audit, and due-process procedures for the program, and requires participating schools to maintain certain records, have a physical in-state location with regular teacher contact, and comply with health, fire, safety, and minimum education standards review.
The bill also ties the new accounts into Ohio’s school funding formulas by amending the state foundation funding statutes. It adds a new nonchartered educational savings account unit to the state funding system and directs annual transfers from that unit to individual scholarship accounts. The scholarship amount would be based on family income, with students at or below 450% of the federal poverty guidelines receiving the base amount and higher-income students receiving a reduced amount subject to a minimum floor. The bill further amends the school enrollment reporting statute so students using these accounts are counted for funding purposes, and it changes the state tax credit for nonchartered nonpublic school tuition so the credit cannot be claimed for tuition paid with scholarship-account funds. The bill includes a $51 million appropriation for fiscal year 2027 for foundation funding related to the program.
Overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to supportive of expanding educational choice, but there is limited public process data here because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts. The structure of the bill suggests an emphasis on access, parental choice, and administrative oversight rather than on restricting participation. At the same time, the bill’s inclusion of compliance checks, audits, and due-process protections indicates an effort to balance flexibility for nonchartered schools with state accountability.
The main points of contention likely center on whether public funds should follow students to nonchartered nonpublic schools, how much oversight the state should impose on schools that are described as autonomous, and how the program will affect district funding. Another likely issue is the interaction with the existing tuition tax credit, since the bill prevents double-dipping by disallowing the credit for tuition paid from scholarship accounts. School districts and critics of voucher-style programs may focus on fiscal impact and accountability, while supporters are likely to emphasize parental control, access to private education, and support for students in nonchartered settings.
SB68 would create a new statewide education savings account program for students enrolled in participating nonchartered nonpublic schools and would integrate that program into Ohio’s school funding formulas. It amends state aid statutes to create a new funding unit, directs annual payments into scholarship accounts, and requires districts to count affected students in enrollment and funding calculations. It also narrows the existing nonchartered-school tuition tax credit by excluding tuition paid with scholarship-account funds, and it appropriates $51 million for fiscal year 2027 to support the program.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to measure. Based on the bill’s design, the measure appears generally favorable to school-choice expansion and parental flexibility, while also reflecting concern for oversight through audits, complaints, and compliance review. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials limits any stronger conclusion about legislative sentiment.
Likely areas of contention are the use of public funds for nonchartered nonpublic school tuition, the degree of state oversight over schools that the bill says remain autonomous, and the fiscal effect on school districts and the state foundation funding system. Another possible dispute is the income-based scholarship formula and whether the program should prioritize lower-income families or be available more broadly. The bill’s prohibition on claiming the tuition tax credit for expenses paid from scholarship accounts may also draw attention from taxpayers and school-choice advocates concerned about benefit design and double benefits.