A newly released investigation analyzing standardized test scores from Ohio’s schools reveals sharp contrasts between public and private institutions—findings that may influence similar policy discussions and education choices in Thailand. Amid a massive expansion of Ohio’s school voucher program, the study presents key insights on how private schools perform compared to their public counterparts, prompting questions about the value of “school choice” and its implications for educational equity.
Recent changes by Ohio lawmakers have dramatically broadened the eligibility of families to receive publicly funded vouchers, enabling more students to enroll in private schools at the state’s expense. This legislative shift has driven voucher spending to nearly $1 billion annually according to Dayton Daily News. The effect is twofold: families now enjoy greater school choice, but clear, comparative data guiding these pivotal decisions remains limited.
Against this backdrop, education reporters undertook a months-long analysis of school performance using datasets from the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. Their objective was to provide parents—facing critical decisions about their children’s schooling—with the most reliable comparison available between local public and private schools, based on student proficiency in core subjects such as English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics.
Perhaps the investigation’s most striking discovery is that within Ohio’s lowest-performing public school districts, virtually all local private schools outperformed their public counterparts in both ELA and math. Out of 17 private schools situated in these struggling districts, 16 surpassed the district-wide averages on standardized proficiency exams. This pattern underscores a potentially significant advantage for families seeking higher test outcomes for their children where public schools are under-resourced or face persistent challenges.
Conversely, the picture changes in Ohio’s more affluent, higher-performing districts. In these areas, where public schools already post strong academic results, private schools seldom surpass public benchmarks: just one of nine local private schools bested the district’s averages in both tested subjects. This finding indicates that the perceived superiority of private schools may be highly context-dependent, and that in well-supported public systems, public schools can offer performance equal to (or exceeding) that of their private competitors.
The investigation also highlights the complexity behind comparing test scores across school types. Experts caution that standardized assessments, while useful, do not capture the full spectrum of school quality or student experience. Disparities in resources, family backgrounds, and admissions policies can skew results. As a lead statistician affiliated with an Ohio university tells the report’s authors, “Families should consider not only test scores, but also each school’s environment, teaching approach, extracurricular offerings, and track record with diverse student populations.” The article further notes that private schools may have different admission standards or self-select student populations in ways that public schools cannot.
For Thai readers, these findings hold particular relevance as Thailand continues to grapple with issues of educational equity between Bangkok and rural provinces, as well as the ongoing debate over the role of private schooling and state subsidies. Thailand’s own Equitable Education Fund (EEF) and O-NET national assessments strive to narrow performance gaps and raise standards. The Ohio example prompts fresh examination of whether expanding voucher-style programs could advance or undermine Thailand’s equitable education goals—especially if similar outcomes appear likely.
Historically, Thailand’s private schools have catered mainly to urban families with higher incomes, leading to concerns that increasing subsidies or support for private enrollment could exacerbate educational and socioeconomic divides, particularly outside major urban centers. Comparing the U.S. findings with the Thai context, Professor W. of the Ministry of Education (described here as an education policy researcher) points out, “International experience suggests that allowing public money to follow the student can work only if there is equal accountability and rigorous assessment across all types of schools.”
Looking forward, education stakeholders in both the U.S. and Thailand will need to carefully weigh the trade-offs between fostering more school choice and ensuring equitable opportunities for all students. Calls for better transparency and more robust data—enabling parents to make informed, holistic choices—are likely to intensify. In Thailand’s case, this may spur further investment in national transparency platforms and open data initiatives that let families compare not only test scores, but also broader indicators of school climate, teacher qualifications, and student wellbeing.
For Thai families and policymakers, the key takeaway is the critical importance of local context: while private schools may outperform public ones in some areas, especially where public institutions are under-resourced, strong public systems can and do match or exceed the offerings of private programs. Any move toward expanded school choice or greater reliance on vouchers must be accompanied by robust measures of accountability and support for schools serving the neediest populations.
Practical recommendations for Thai readers include: advocating for greater public access to school-level performance data; encouraging local education offices to provide more tailored, region-specific guidance for families facing school choices; and supporting ongoing research into the effects of voucher expansions, both in Thailand and abroad.
Readers can explore the full data and methodology of the original analysis at Dayton Daily News. For background on O-NET scores and ongoing reforms in Thailand’s education sector, see resources from the Office of the Basic Education Commission and local news coverage on educational equity and reform.