Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates running for Spring Hill Board of Education to address leading up to the Nov. 4 election.
Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to the Spring Hill community.
Each day this week, we’re publishing the candidates’ responses to one question.
Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:
Voucher efforts: What is your position on state policies that allow tax money to be used to pay for private schools, like tax credits for private school scholarships and tax rebates that go toward private school tuition? As someone who will represent a public school district, will you advocate for or against such policies at the state level?
Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on this issue:
Member 4
Autumn Coleman-Marconett
I personally do not believe in voucher efforts to a certain degree. I don’t believe those who choose willingly to send their children to private schools be afforded the opportunity to receive a “voucher” paid by taxpayers. The only reason I see a student receiving a voucher is if a student’s intellect supersedes what is offered in their neighboring public school. Especially if the student does not have the financial means to support their education. Other than this, if you choose to send your children to a private and/or public school, you should understand both the positives and negatives including the financial aspect that decision carries without the assistance of taxpayers who don’t have a choice.
Nicole Melius (incumbent)
Did not provide the Post with a response.
Member 5
Steve Miller
I strongly oppose sending public tax dollars to private schools through vouchers, tax credits, rebates or the like. Taxpayers’ money must strengthen the public schools that serve all students, not subsidize institutions that can select which students they admit or that are not held to the same accountability standards.
Every dollar redirected to private education reduces resources for the classrooms, teachers, and programs that directly impact our students’ success. Our focus should be on improving public schools—supporting smaller class sizes, competitive teacher pay, mental health services, and innovative programs that meet diverse student needs.
As a school board member, I will advocate at the state level for policies that prioritize and protect public education funding. Our responsibility is to ensure every child—regardless of background, income, or zip code—has access to an excellent public education.
Chris Olsen
Did not provide the Post with a response.
Member 6
Ted Beauchamp
I strongly oppose efforts to divert public funds to private schools. Some of the legislation we’ve seen proposed has been enacted in other states. We’ve seen that the beneficiaries of these programs are relatively few, and they tend to provide tax credits to families already enrolled in private schools while severely hampering the state budget, resulting in funding cuts to public schools. Funding cuts at the state level can also have the effect of raising local property taxes to pay for necessary services. When put on the ballot in 2024 in Nebraska, Colorado, and Kentucky, voters overwhelmingly rejected voucher programs. Many politicians attempt to mislead with semantics, but tax credit scholarships and educational savings accounts are all voucher-like programs. Vouchers are wrong for public education, wrong for Kansas, and wrong for USD 230.
As a board member, I will always support the best interests of our public schools and will absolutely advocate against voucher policies at the state level. In fact, I have a proven history of doing this with written testimony submitted earlier this year in opposition to Senate Bill 75.
https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/committees/ctte_s_ed_1/documents/testimony/20250128_83.pdf Page 16.
Keith Ewing (incumbent)
Did not provide the Post with a response.
