The school voucher debate is really pretty simple. It’s all about your answer to the following two questions:Is it better to give more parents the opportunity to choose the school which they believe will provide the best education for their child?Or, should we stick with the status quo and say, “Sorry, tough luck, you live in this school district and your child is stuck.” Supporters of House Bill 136, the voucher program sponsored by state Rep. Matt Huffman, are in favor of children receiving a choice for a better education.Supporters of the status quo argue in favor of school districts getting the funding needed to operate the same old way they have in the past — spending the money on step increases, salary increases on top of that, and paying teachers overtime and more to attend seminars.House Bill 136 would allow parents in any Ohio household making $96,000 or less annually to use state money to send their children to private or parochial schools. Currently, only students in failing or struggling districts can take advantage of state vouchers to escape those schools.Huffman’s bill recognizes there are other reasons parents might opt for an alternative to public schools. And public school officials are fine with those parents opting out — so long as they continue paying both for a public and a private education, as they current have to do.Huffman’s bill, however, would send state money with the students transferring to private or parochial schools. It’s no real surprise, then, that public school boards have begun passing resolutions opposing House Bill 136 and district officials are speaking out against it. The Bath, Lima and Shawnee school boards did so last week. Lima Superintendent Karel Oxley and Shawnee school board member Linda Haycock are among those who testified against the bill before the House Education Committee. School officials are encouraging people to contact their state representatives to oppose the bill. Still, the Republican-controlled Legislature is expected to pass the bill, which Gov. John Kasich supports. The opposition followed the same script it always does: This is bad for public schools. Many of our public educators seem to be forgetting the people who should be at the center of every discussion involving education: Ohio’s children.Huffman’s bill allows parents to do what they believe is best educationally for their children. Those parents will continue paying state and local property taxes that largely still will support the local school districts. That those parents now might want to remove some state funding shouldn’t strike anyone as unfair. Besides, House Bill 136 sets a reasonable income limit on who may use the program — and voucher amounts decrease as household income goes up.Putting one’s children in the best situation is what’s in the interest of the children, short term and long term. Public educators shouldn’t take issue with that. But, of course, Huffman’s bill threatens their guaranteed funding. So long as a school and the district meet certain standards, their thinking goes, they ought to be guaranteed state money for every student whose family doesn’t have the money to leave for another school.That is in the best interest of the public schools. Huffman’s bill is in the best interest of Ohio’s families and children.It’s true that individual public school districts might lose some funding. But with a limited amount of money to allocate, state lawmakers have to have a first priority. They’re right to make it what’s in the best interests of Ohio’s schoolchildren.