Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Principal Time Usage and Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Principal Time Usage and Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship

: This study explored the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals in Ohio whose schools have par tic i pated in the EdChoice Scholarship pro gram. The researcher employed the lens of prin ci­ pal time usage to exam ine the expe ri ences of Ohio Cath o lic school prin ci pals with EdChoice, with a focus on the direct expe ri ences of prin ci pals par tici pat ing in the pro gram, the prin ci pal’s role in the super vi sory aspects of oper at ing the pro gram at a school, and on the con nec tions between work load and prin ci pal per cep tions of the EdChoice pro gram. The research ques tions were explored through semi­struc tured inter views with eight Cath o lic school prin ci pals and three admin is tra tive des ig nees at those schools. The study con cluded that no sig nif cant and direct admin is tra tive bur den was cre­ ated by the pro gram on the study par tic i pants, but that sec ond ary effects are pres ent, such as the poten tial need for the hir ing of a staff mem ber to man age the pro gram and the impor tance of com mu­ ni ca tion with stake hold ers. Additionally, this study illus trated the need for Cath o lic school prin ci pals to remain aware of and engaged in the leg is la tive pro cess in Ohio, as changes made by the gov ern ment can have a direct effect on the oper a tion of a school.

con nec tions between work load and prin ci pal per cep tions of the EdChoice pro gram. It should be noted that this study was conducted dur ing the 202021 school year and reflects EdChoice pol i cies and pro ce dures at that time. Aspects of the pro gram have changed through leg is la tion since then.
Ohio funds fve voucher pro grams that allow for pri vate school choice. The most uti lized and the larg est pro grams are EdChoice where stu dent selec tion is based on the recip i ents' res i dence within the bound aries of an underperforming school dis trict and Ed Choice Expansion which is based on the recip i ents' income level. In 201718, the two EdChoice pro grams accounted for 66% of all voucher dis tri bu tions in the state (EdChoice, 2019).
The EdChoice Scholarship voucher pro gram (referred to locally as "Traditional EdChoice") began in 2006. The pro gram pro vi des schol ar ships to attend chartered non pub lic schools for stu dents enrolled in kin der gar ten through 12 th grade who have been assigned, based on their res i dence, to attend "low performing pub lic schools, " a des ig na tion made by the Ohio Department of Education that is deter mined by the state's pub lic school report card sys tem. The receiv ing schools must meet the state's eli gi bil ity cri te ria through accred i ta tion and test ing require ments. During the 202021 school year, the schol ar ship pro vided fam i lies with a voucher up to $4,650 to attend any par tici pat ing pri vate ele men tary school or up to $6,000 to attend a par tici pat ing pri vate high school, the amount of which is deducted from the state funded por tion of the bud get of the home pub lic school dis trict (Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Program, 2023).
The EdChoice Expansion Scholarship voucher pro gram (referred to locally as "Expansion" and also as the "Ohio Income Based Scholarship") was enacted by the state of Ohio in 2013 as an exten sion of the orig i nal EdChoice pro gram. Expansion awards vouch ers to fam i lies based on house hold income rather than the per for mance of local pub lic schools, with fam i lies at or below 200% of the fed eral pov erty level receiv ing full voucher amounts of $4,650 for ele men tary schools and $6,000 for high schools. As with EdChoice, the receiv ing schools for this schol ar ship also must meet the state's eli gi bil ity cri te ria through accred i ta tion and test ing require ments. Both pro grams are capped at a com bined 60,000 vouch ers (Ohio Income Based Scholarship Program, 2023).
During the 201920 school year, 39,732 stu dents par tic i pated in Ohio's EdChoice pro grams, with 28,197 in Traditional EdChoice and 11,535 in Expansion (Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Program, 2023;Ohio Income Based Scholarship Program, 2023). Of those par tici pat ing fam i lies, 73% chose to use their Traditional vouch ers to attend a Cath o lic school while 57% of Expansion voucher recip i ents used their voucher to attend a Cath o lic school (Cath o lic Conference of Ohio, 2020). In the state, 320 chartered non pub lic schools enrolled stu dents through Traditional EdChoice vouch ers and 405 chartered non pub lic schools enrolled stu dents using the Expansion vouch ers, with many schools accepting stu dents through both pro grams (Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Program, 2023;Ohio Income Based Scholarship Program, 2023).
Many stud ies have exam ined the impact of voucher pro grams through out the United States, includ ing in Ohio, on the stu dents receiv ing them and on the pub lic school dis tricts affected by them. No stud ies could be found that have exam ined the expe ri ence of the prin ci pals of nonpub lic schools who receive stu dents through the voucher pro grams. This study explored the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals in Ohio whose schools have par tic i pated in the EdChoice Scholarship pro gram. A study of this pop u la tion group is needed, as Cath o lic schools make up 54% of the chartered nonpub lic schools in the state (Fordham Institute, 2020), representing the larg est seg ment of voucher eli gi ble schools.
The role of a Cath o lic school prin ci pal is dif cult and dis tinct from that of a pub lic school coun ter part, as stud ied by Ozar (2010) and by Nuzzi et al. (2013), who found that the prin ci pal's role is likely to demand that he or she directly and per son ally man age all of the tasks nec es sary to be a faith leader, an aca demic leader, a facil i ties man ager, a staff super vi sor, and an admin is tra tor. Managing a pro gram like EdChoice is likely to fall on the prin ci pal's shoul ders in a Cath o lic school, adding more work to this already com plex role.
Understanding the expe ri ences of Cath o lic school prin ci pals with the EdChoice voucher pro gram can be accom plished through an exam i na tion of prin ci pal time usage. Grissom et al. (2015) explained the impor tance of inves ti gat ing how prin ci pals spend their time dur ing the school day, a devel op ing feld of research. The grow ing demands on prin ci pals, includ ing increas ing com pli ance activ i ties, build ing man age ment, stu dent ser vices, and instruc tional super vi sion, require prin ci pals to become adept at dis trib ut ing their time. The research ers found that bet ter time man age ment strat e gies allowed prin ci pals to spend more time on instruc tional sup port and reduced jobrelated stress.

Review of Literature
This study sought to extend the lit er a ture on prin ci pal time usage and voucher usage by inves ti gat ing the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals in Ohio who have par tic i pated in the state's EdChoice Scholarship voucher pro gram. Grissom et al. (2015) explained the impor tance of inves ti gat ing how prin ci pals spend their time dur ing the school day, as the demands on prin ci pal's time con tinue to grow.
Although not a defn i tive con clu sion, Robinson et al. (2008) and Marzano et al. (2005) found a cor re la tion between greater prin ci pal atten tion on activ i ties related to teach ing and learn ing and greater aca demic gains for stu dents. Many stud ies also have made con nec tions between voucher accep tance, usage, and stu dent aca demic per for mance. Chingos et al. (2019), Egalite and Wolf (2016), West et al. (2001), and Wolf et al. (2013) discussed stud ies that showed improve ments in test scores, high school grad u a tion rates, and col lege accep tance rates among stu dents receiv ing vouch ers. However, some stud ies have found the oppo site cor re la tion. The most rel e vant of those stud ies was conducted by Figlio and Karbownik (2016), who com pared voucher stu dents with nonvoucher stu dents in Ohio. Through a pro pen sity score matching approach that iden ti fed com par a tive pairs voucherpar tici pat ing and nonpar tici pat ing stu dents, the research ers com pared test score data between these groups and found that that math and read ing test scores were lower among stu dents par tici pat ing in voucher pro grams than among nonpar tici pat ing stu dents.
However, Camburn et al. (2010) and Horng et al. (2010) deter mined that prin ci pals tend to spend the major ity of their work ing time on tasks related to admin is tra tion. DiPaola and TschannenMoran (2003) explained that these admin is tra tive demands have increased due to reporting require ments for account abil ity pur poses. Boyland (2011) sur veyed ele men tary school prin ci pals in Indiana to fnd links between stress lev els and job require ments. She found that the major ity of respon dents listed "task over load" as their pri mary cause of stress, a term she defned as hav ing too much to accom plish in too lit tle time. The greatest sources of stress were reported to be paper work, state reports, dead lines, and other man a ge rial duties.
Most of the lit er a ture related to prin ci pal time usage focuses on pub lic school prin ci pals. This study chose to exam ine Cath o lic school prin ci pals, a job with a sim i lar title but with sig nif cant diff er ences in scope and in required tasks. Nuzzi et al. (2013) described the Cath o lic school prin ci pal as "both the chief exec u tive of cer (CEO) and the chief oper at ing of cer (COO), ulti mately respon si ble for all of the for mal and infor mal edu ca tional activ i ties of the school" (p. 1). Ozar (2010) found that the role had become more com plex over time, exceed ing the abil ity of one per son to han dle all the tasks nec es sary to be a faith leader, an aca demic leader, a facil i ties man ager, and a staff super vi sor. Cath o lic schools tend to have fewer fnan cial resources avail able than pub lic schools (Marks, 2009), mak ing the hir ing of addi tional admin is tra tive per son nel chal leng ing in some sit u a tions. There is a gap in the lit er a ture at the inter sec tion between voucher pro grams and prin ci pal time usage, par tic u larly in the con text of a Cath o lic school. This study sought to exam ine the effect of the deci sion to par tic i pate in Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship Program on Cath o lic school prin ci pal time usage. Such infor ma tion could be use ful to other schools con sid er ing par tic i pa tion in EdChoice.

Research Design
One can rea son ably assume that the dis po si tion of prin ci pals, par tic u larly those who are already overburdened and under heavy stress, can influ ence the way that new pro grams are enacted, inter preted, and implemented. How prin ci pals respond to any addi tional respon si bil i ties, either direct or indi rect, com ing from the require ments of EdChoice may affect the expe ri ence of vouch ers within a school com mu nity. Given that assump tion, the impor tance of prin ci pal time spent on instruc tional super vi sion, and the unique voucher pro gram per mit ted in Ohio, this study was devel oped to exam ine the fol low ing research ques tions: 1) What has been prin ci pals' expe ri ence of the Ohio EdChoice Scholarship voucher pro gram on their time usage? 1a) How do prin ci pals man age the require ments of the Ohio EdChoice Scholarship voucher pro gram? 2) What is the rela tion ship between how prin ci pals use their time and how they feel about their par tic i pa tion in the EdChoice Scholarship voucher pro gram?
The frst ques tion exam ined the direct expe ri ence of a prin ci pal in man ag ing tasks asso ci ated with the EdChoice pro gram, such as com pli ance reporting and paper work. Question 1a expanded on the frst and inves ti gated the prin ci pal's role in the super vi sory aspects of oper at ing the EdChoice pro gram at a school, refer ring to tasks that are more indi rect than in the frst ques tion, includ ing engage ment with stake hold ers and super vi sion of per son nel. Research ques tion 2 focused on the feel ings respon dents pro vided in response to the pre vi ous ques tions, gen er ated and explored whether their par tic i pa tion in EdChoice is worth while for their school, and assessed the chal lenges and ben e fts of the pro gram.
Because no other stud ies could be found that have exam ined this par tic u lar sub ject, an induc tive study was designed, aimed at constructing a nar ra tive inquiry of the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals with the EdChoice Scholarship pro gram as mea sured by their use of time. The par tic i pants in this study were selected based on how recently the schools opted into EdChoice, spe cif cally schools that joined the pro gram dur ing the 201617, 201718, or 201819 aca demic years. These cri te ria allowed for the cre a tion of a sam ple that had either direct expe ri ence with the pro gram or an insti tu tional mem ory that included a time with out the EdChoice Scholarship and a time with the schol ar ship, while avoiding a school year com pli cated by the COVID19 pan demic. The selected schools reflected the geo graphic var i a tion of the state, representing the dis tinct cul tural, eco nomic, and demo graphic regions of cen tral, south west, northwest, and north east ern Ohio. The prin ci pals also represented schools in urban, rural, and sub ur ban com mu ni ties and showed a range of Cath o lic school admin is tra tive expe ri ence. The study was inclu sive of both high schools and ele men tary schools and included schools with both large and small enroll ments.
Eight Cath o lic school prin ci pals were selected from the data set of Cath o lic schools that have accepted the EdChoice Scholarship dur ing the pre vi ous four years. Table 1 pro vi des a sum mary of the descrip tors for prin ci pal par tic i pants in this study. Specifc iden ti fy ing infor ma tion of each par tic i pant has been coded to allow for ano nym ity. The total num ber of years that each indi vid ual has held their posi tion of prin ci pal that the cur rent school is listed, as well as the total num ber of years that each per son has held the posi tion of prin ci pal at any Cath o lic school.
During the inter views, par tici pat ing prin ci pals were asked if any one on their staff pro vided them with sig nif cant aid or assis tance in man ag ing the require ments of EdChoice. From the afr ma tive responses, three peo ple were selected and sent invi ta tions to par tic i pate in the study. These indi vid u als are referred to as "admin is tra tive des ig nees" in this study. All three were employ ees of the schools whose work respon si bil i ties included the direct man age ment of the EdChoice Scholarship pro gram.  Table 2 pro vi des a sum mary of the descrip tors for the schools that were included in this study. As in Table 1, spe cifc iden ti fy ing infor ma tion about each school has been coded to pro tect ano nym ity. There is cor re spon dence between the school name code and the prin ci pal name code. For exam ple, prin ci pal "A" serves at school "A." The grade range served by each school is given along with the type of com mu nity served by the school: either urban, sub ur ban, or rural. The enroll ment at the time of each inter view is given as well as the per cent age of stu dents who receive either an EdChoice Traditional or an EdChoice Expansion schol ar ship. The fnal col umn lists the year in which the school began accepting the EdChoice schol ar ship from the State of Ohio.
One school did not fully meet the cri te ria discussed above. At the time of this study, School E did not accept EdChoice. However, within the pre vi ous fve years, the school both began and ended its par tic i pa tion in the pro gram. Though it does not strictly meet the cri te ria of the study, the unique ness of those cir cum stances and the fact that the same prin ci pal was pres ent at the school though those deci sions suggested an intrigu ing nar ra tive pos si bil ity.
The research ques tions were explored through semistruc tured inter views using a defned inter view pro to col. Using the Dedoose plat form, the data col lected from the inter views was coded to describe the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals of par tic i pa tion in EdChoice as mea sured by their time usage. The data was grouped into eleven gen eral categories defned in Table 3. Each of these categories was then connected to one of the research ques tions. Next, the "Qualitative Charts Code Application" func tion within Dedoose was used to iden tify the most fre quently occur ring codes contained in the prin ci pal inter views and in the admin is tra tive des ig nee inter views. Table 4 dis plays the resulting align ment between the research ques tions, the codes, and the fre quency of each code. Note: * = In 2017; ** = School no lon ger par tic i pates in EdChoice. This study was conducted dur ing the COVID19 pan demic, cre at ing an impor tant lim i ta tion. The pan demic changed the pro cess of data col lec tion in this study from direct, inper son inter views to Zoom meet ings, remov ing the pos si bil ity of frst hand obser va tion of the set ting and con text of the prin ci pals' schools. While this did not affect the data gath ered, it did change the warmth of the inter view and could have influ enced the com fort and open ness of the sub jects. Additionally, COVID19 caused dis rup tions to the nor mal pro cesses that schools expe ri ence with EdChoice. For exam ple, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) worked remotely through out the pan demic, mean ing that staff mem bers were avail able pri mar ily through email. The ODE also mod i fed dead lines and accepted dig i tal sub mis sion of paper work rather than in a hard copy for mat. While these con di tions could have impacted the views of prin ci pals on the pro gram, they pose a minor threat to validity. For the pur poses of this work, the school years pre ced ing and dur ing the pan demic were treated as com pa ra ble.

Findings
Research Question 1 addressed the direct impact on prin ci pal time usage of par tic i pa tion in the EdChoice pro gram. Impact is defned in this study as change in admin is tra tive bur den or work load, refer ring to the range, char ac ter is tics, and quan tity of work that is done by a Cath o lic school prin ci pal. When asked about the impact of par tic i pa tion in EdChoice on their work load, the prin ci pals did not feel it was sig nif cantly heavy or bur den some. Their responses were mea sured on a scale from one to fve, with one representing no addi tional bur den and fve representing an extreme bur den. Their responses aver aged to a mean of 2.73 representing a mod er ate increase in work. "It's just paper work, " commented Principal F, and Principal C said, "I don't think . . . EdChoice takes up a ton of time, and I love that it still gives our kids an oppor tu nity to be here." Participation in EdChoice does not seem to be a direct bur den on the prin ci pals. Although it fol lows the asser tion by DiPaola and TschannenMoran (2003) that com pli ance activ i ties are increas ing for prin ci pals and Ozar's (2010) obser va tion that the work load of a Cath o lic school prin ci pal is grow ing, it does not appear to be a sig nif cant dis com fort for the prin ci pals included in this study. DeAngelis et al. (2018) had suggested that greater reg u la tion would reduce the par tic i pa tion of pri vate schools in school choice pro grams. While that was the case in their exper i ment with prin ci pals in Florida, a sim i lar con clu sion was not found in this study.
Further questioning explored how prin ci pals man age the require ments, and sev eral strat e gies appear to be com monly used, the most fre quent of which is del e ga tion. The school prin ci pals did not feel a direct bur den from EdChoice because most of the com pli ance paper work is assigned to an admin is tra tive assis tant or other staff mem ber as part of their duties. Principal F described a knowl edge able EdChoice des ig nee as, "the secret weapon to really max i miz ing the schol ar ship." Principals were aware of the respon si bil i ties of EdChoice and of the tasks that had to be com pleted by their admin is tra tive des ig nees and viewed them as part of the cost of par tic i pa tion in the EdChoice pro gram. In con trast, the admin is tra tive des ig nees interviewed in this study rated the admin is tra tive bur den of the pro gram as a mean of 4.1 on the same scale described above. Administrative Designee 3 from School F said, "This [EdChoice] is time con sum ing. I can't tell you how many days I spend on this. There is no way that a prin ci pal can do [EdChoice] on top of their own job. Of course, they know what is going on, but they can not keep up with these things by them selves." She fur ther added, "[EdChoice] is 70% of my job. It's a lot. It's a has sle with all the paper work, so you have to have that per son who's doing these things [man ag ing the workflow]." This study found a pos i tive trend between the avail able admin is tra tive sup port and the num ber of stu dents uti liz ing EdChoice.

Indirect Costs to Principal Time
Since prin ci pals did not appear to be directly bur dened by par tic i pa tion in EdChoice, Research Question 1a explored other, indi rect costs charged to the prin ci pals' time. The prin ci pals spoke about the sec ond ary effects cre ated by being the school's spokes per son for EdChoice. In this role, prin ci pals are tasked with act ing as the pub lic face of the pro gram in their com mu nity. The prin ci pals interviewed for this study shared that this role could encom pass inter ac tions with par ents, includ ing retriev ing forms to com plete appli ca tions, signing schol ar ship checks, and explaining the pro cess and pro ce dure to new fam i lies. No prin ci pal expressed that these respon si bil i ties were bur den some.
Instead, the prin ci pals spoke twentyfve times about defending their school's par tic i pa tion in the pro gram from detrac tors, a group that could include par ents of nonEdChoice par tici pat ing stu dents, staff mem bers, and local pub lic school of cials. The prin ci pals described chal lenges related to incom plete under stand ings of the pro gram, such as par ents who found it unfair that some stu dents received the full pay ment of tuition while they still had to pay. Principal E described this as a pri mary cause for her school's with drawal from the pro gram, "At some point, the con ver sa tion became, 'Well, wait a sec ond, I'm mak ing sac ri fces to pay tuition, and these folks here are, just based on where they live, get ting to come to school for free.' So, it was an uncom fort able con ver sa tion that our pas tor wasn't will ing to take on." The prin ci pals also described a stigma asso ci ated with accepting EdChoice, as if the term "EdChoice" was some how syn on y mous with pov erty, mis be hav ior, or stu dents who did not ft the school's norm. Principal C recalled a con ver sa tion with a new par ent at her school. "They pulled me aside, " she said, "and asked, 'Do those EdChoice kids get in a lot of trou ble? Do they make a lot of trou ble for you?' A lot of reedu ca tion was needed for those par ents." Principal G had sim i lar con ver sa tions with her staff, "So if . .

. a fam ily [didn't] ft into what our [lo cal] demo graphic [is]
, staff were say ing behind my back, 'Why would she take this stu dent? They don't go to this church!' and 'Oh, she took that fam ily, they must be an EdChoice fam ily.'" Horng et al. (2010) iden ti fed six broad categories of prin ci pal time usage: admin is tra tion, orga ni za tion man age ment, daytoday instruc tion, instruc tional pro gram, inter nal rela tions, and exter nal rela tions. The afore men tioned sce nar ios described by par tic i pants in this study ft into the cat e gory of inter nal rela tions, defned in part as inter ac tions with par ents and with the staff, con trib ut ing to 15% of a prin ci pal's time usage. Ozar (2010) would argue that these types of rela tions are the respon si bil ity of the school prin ci pal and would likely increase the per cent age of prin ci pal time spent on inter nal rela tion ships.
Principals must also develop strat e gies for connecting EdChoice with the exter nal rela tions described by Horng et al. (2010) which includes engage ment with the dis trict to obtain resources. In their study, this area of work accounted for 5% of the prin ci pal's time usage. The prin ci pals in this pres ent study spoke about encoun ter ing this area of respon si bil ity in dis cus sions with local pub lic school dis tricts. Several prin ci pals indi cated that their local pub lic school dis tricts viewed stu dent eli gi bil ity and funding pro vided through EdChoice as "theirs, " and con se quently per ceiv ing Cath o lic school par tic i pa tion as cause of enroll ment and funding loss. Principals who spoke of this also iden ti fed a need for work that was required to cor rect mis per cep tions and restore pos i tive rela tion ships with the pub lic dis tricts, reduc ing ani mos ity over the uti li za tion of EdChoice. The prin ci pals explained that this rela tion ship build ing requires their time, though none could be spe cifc on the exact quan tity of time.

Principal Feelings About Participation and Time Usage
The fnal research ques tion explored a pos si ble con nec tion between the prin ci pals' feel ings about his or her school's par tic i pa tion in EdChoice and their responses to the frst two research ques tions. Reflecting on the time that they spent on the pro gram both per son ally and in a man a ge rial capac ity, the interviewed prin ci pals were asked to assess the ben e fts and chal lenges of pro gram par tic i pa tion as well as their future plans for the pro gram at their schools. A direct con nec tion between the prin ci pal's responses and their feel ings about the pro gram could not be established.
Although time usage did not appear to influ ence the feel ings that prin ci pals have toward the EdChoice pro gram, more gen eral impres sions of the pro gram were discussed. The prin ci pals felt that the ben e fts of the EdChoice pro gram made it a worth while invest ment of time and resources for their schools. Among the ben e fts men tioned were the increase in school diver sity as a result of low er ing the fnan cial bar rier to entry cre ated by tuition. The prin ci pals supported Friedman's (1955) mar ket argu ment for vouch ers, which advo cates for giv ing par ents the abil ity to freely choose between a vari ety of school options and allowing mar ket forces and com pe ti tion to influ ence the school land scape. Principal F explained, "I see [EdChoice as] an equal izer for our com mu nity. We are now a school that any one can come to, [where they] know they're get ting a solid Cath o lic edu ca tion and their fnances don't play a part in that deci sion." In their com ments, the prin ci pals also discussed the chal lenges of the EdChoice pro gram. The most com mon theme in their responses is the worry about the future sus tain abil ity of the pro gram. EdChoice exists as an act of Ohio's leg is la ture, and as such, it can be mod i fed or ended through leg is la tive action. The prin ci pals expressed a desire to see more funding pro vided to schools through EdChoice, a sim pli fed appli ca tion pro cess, and a way to make the pro gram a per ma nent part of the edu ca tion land scape in Ohio. These feel ings were expressed by Principal G who stated, "The big ques tion lurking is always, 'What would hap pen if this went away? What would hap pen if [the state] took it all away?' And I'd say, 'Well, we would be in a lot of trou ble, like many schools would be." Principal F shared the same con cern, "My ques tion is, what is the sus tain abil ity of all this? . . . At what point does the well run dry, and then what do we do with those fam i lies?"

Limitations
As pre vi ously noted, this study took place dur ing the COVID19 pan demic. Although this unprec e dented time in his tory was not the focus of this study, it unavoid ably served as a back drop to all prin ci pal and staff inter views. Those con ver sa tions occurred in April, May, and June 2021 as a chal leng ing school year was nearing its end. All of the par tici pat ing schools had stu dents in the class rooms and strict COVID19 pro to cols in place, such as masking, rigid social dis tanc ing, and health checks. Many pub lic school dis tricts were not open for inper son edu ca tion at this time, and so many nonpub lic schools had faced a year of scru tiny over their deci sions. It is entirely pos si ble that this back drop impacted the data in this study. It would only be human nature for the stress and pres sure of the COVID19 year to have impacted the feel ings of the prin ci pals in this study; for exam ple, many might have felt that any stressor related to EdChoice was minor rel a tive to their cur rent expe ri ences.

Discussion
This study explored the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals in Ohio and the impact of par tic i pa tion in the state's voucher pro gram on their time usage. The study could not con clude that a direct admin is tra tive bur den was cre ated by the pro gram on the study par tic i pants, but sec ond ary effects were found, such as the com mon prac tice of hir ing of a staff mem ber to man age the pro gram and the need for com mu ni ca tion with stake hold ers. This study also illus trated the need for Cath o lic school prin ci pals to remain aware of and engaged in the leg is la tive pro cess in Ohio, as changes made by the gov ern ment can have a direct effect on the oper a tion of a school. While the par ent, stu dent, and pub lic school expe ri ences of vouch ers have been welldocumented, the explo ra tion of the expe ri ence of the Cath o lic school prin ci pals with school choice pro grams offers many intrigu ing pos si bil i ties for future explo ra tion.
These com ments made by the par tic i pants in this study dem on strate the ines cap able bond of edu ca tion and gov ern ment. Many states have a form of pri vate school choice, but many do not. The rea sons are often polit i cal, and, in the states that do have a pri vate school choice mech a nism, rea sons vary based on leg is la tive action (EdChoice, 2019). Levin's (2009) descrip tion of the unique role of edu ca tion in soci ety as both a pri vate good and a pub lic good sur faces in this dis cus sion. States have addressed this ten sion in vary ing ways, with some stressing the impor tance of allowing fam i lies to freely choose their child's edu ca tional set ting, while oth ers empha size the impor tance of the pub lic ben e ft of edu ca tion as a rea son for pub lic edu ca tion. Friedman's (1955) mar ket argu ment is vis i ble in this ten sion, as he explained that the gov ern ment should fund edu ca tion as it is a pub lic good. But, because it is also a pri vate good, gov ern ment should not unfairly influ ence the admin is tra tion or meth od ol ogy of edu ca tion. The prin ci pals in this study seem to be say ing just that but adding a dimen sion of anx i ety about the future, per haps reacting to the fact that EdChoice remains a lively annual debate in Ohio. They also are afrming the con clu sions of Massucci and Ilg (2003), who found that par tic i pa tion in voucher pro grams involve pros and cons that must be weighed by each school in mak ing the deci sion to accept vouch ers. Their state ment that, "No one gives you some thing for noth ing" (Massucci & Ilg, 2003, p. 358) res o nates with the fnd ings of this study.

Implications for Practice
This study focused on the expe ri ences of Cath o lic school prin ci pals in Ohio, but it is likely that the impli ca tions of the fnd ings would be appli ca ble to prin ci pals of any nonpub lic school, includ ing other reli giously afl i ated schools and inde pen dent, nonreli gious schools. Few, if any, of the fnd ings or impli ca tions are directly connected to the con di tion of being a Cath o lic school, mak ing them more broadly rel e vant.
If a chartered nonpub lic school in Ohio were to con sider par tic i pa tion in the EdChoice pro gram, the school should con sider budgeting for an addi tional per son to help with the man age ment of the appli ca tions and reporting required by the state. The fnd ings sug gest that this indi vid ual does not nec es sar ily need to be a sec re tary or that he or she be ded i cated to EdChoice man age ment on a fulltime basis. All of the admin is tra tive des ig nees had other duties, but the expense of the indi vid ual appears to be a key con sid er ation for schools in the pro gram and the appro pri ate allo ca tion must be included in the bud get. The con sis tent fnd ing is that the pro gram require ments are too much to man age for a prin ci pal alone.
Overall, the prin ci pals interviewed for this study described added job respon si bil i ties due to the man a ge rial and super vi sory aspects of EdChoice. Creating pro ce dures for ensur ing appli ca tions are com plete and funding is received, pro vid ing train ing to staff, and stay ing cur rent on EdChoice rules and reg u la tions affected prin ci pal time usage. Those tasks also occu pied the del e gated admin is tra tive des ig nees as well. While these areas rep re sent more tasks to com plete, the added admin is tra tive bur den did not seem to be over whelm ing.
Several of the par tici pat ing prin ci pals did express higher lev els of stress due to defending the EdChoice pro gram from incor rect per cep tions and ste reo types within their par ent com mu nity, their staff, and in their inter ac tions with their local pub lic school dis tricts. Schools that are con sid er ing par tic i pa tion in the EdChoice pro gram would do well to invest time and resources into build ing the case for the pro gram and ensur ing that a right under stand ing of its pur pose, qual i f ca tions, and intent is com mu ni cated. Conversation with other school admin is tra tors and shar ing expe ri ences would help prin ci pals to pre pare for man ag ing objec tions.

Implications for Policy
As a polit i cal cre a tion, the EdChoice pro gram is sub ject to change driven by the will of the state gov ern ment. Several prin ci pals commented on the stress presented by the lack of cer tainty with the EdChoice pro gram. If the leg is la ture or the gov er nor were to become less sup port ive of EdChoice, the pro gram could be fun da men tally changed or even elim i nated. This lack of per ma nence speaks to the impor tance of the need for prin ci pals to be attuned to devel op ments in the state gov ern ment to a degree that col leagues in other states may not need to be. It also sig nals the impor tance of advo cacy, as prin ci pals must par tic i pate in efforts to pre serve and strengthen EdChoice.
During the course of conducting this study, Ohio passed a new bien nial bud get that took effect on July 1, 2021. This new bud get con tains many changes to the EdChoice pro gram, some of which alle vi ate some of the con flict points men tioned by the prin ci pals in this study and all of which illus trate the idea that this pro gram is sub ject to leg is la tive mod i f ca tion. The changes made for 2021 through 2023 include: • Direct funding of EdChoice schol ar ships from the state, rather than using the pre vi ous method of deduc tions from the state por tion of pub lic school dis trict bud gets. • Improvements to the appli ca tion pro cess and enhance ments to the noti f ca tion pro ce dures to appli cant par ents, which should expe dite the pro cess and improve the time line. • Increased max i mum schol ar ship amounts for both EdChoice schol ar ships to $5,500 for stu dents in kin der gar ten through 8 th grade and $7,500 for high school stu dents. These amounts will no lon ger be stag nant. Instead, they will be tied to increases in the state wide aver age base cost for for pub lic school stu dents. • Elimination of the cap of 60,000 stu dents who may be awarded EdChoice schol ar ships each year. (Redmond et al., 2021).
The items high lighted in the list above are not the only changes made to the pro gram by the new state bud get, but they do directly relate to many of the com ments made by the prin ci pals who par tic i pated in this study.
While these changes would likely be viewed as favor able by the Cath o lic school prin ci pals interviewed in this study, ques tions remain as to future adjust ments to the EdChoice pro gram that might address con cerns raised in this study. For exam ple, fnd ing ways to min i mize the stigma of EdChoice men tioned by some of the study par tic i pants would avoid mis con cep tions about the pro gram. Broadening the eli gi bil ity require ments into a more uni ver sal abil ity to access the schol ar ship would help to alle vi ate this issue. Principals will need to main tain their engage ment with the state gov ern ment in order to know how best to pro ceed. They must also con tinue to mon i tor the polit i cal pro cess to track future leg is la tive action that may could change these mod i f ca tions either pos i tively or neg a tively.

Future Study
This study was not able to con clude that the prin ci pal time usage acted as a deter rent for other schools to opt into EdChoice. Several fur ther stud ies of the Cath o lic school EdChoice expe ri ence would ben e ft the feld. Another study within the area of prin ci pal time usage could con trast the job duties of prin ci pals at schools that do par tic i pate in EdChoice with those that do not. Time and admin is tra tive bur den may be a fac tor, but other fac tors may also be at play. Future stud ies might move beyond time usage and attempt to deter mine the other var i ables that could affect the deci sion to par tic i pate in the pro gram. Perhaps there are other driv ers of the deci sion that have not been con sid ered here that would pro duce impor tant rec om men da tions for pol icy that could improve the pro gram. Another poten tial area of fur ther study could con nect the link described by Robinson et al. (2008) and Marzano et al. (2005) between prin ci pal time usage and stu dent achieve ment and the fnd ings of research ers such as Egalite and Wolf (2016) and Figlio and Kar bownik (2016) on achieve ment diff er ences of voucher and nonvoucher stu dents. A future study could seek to explore prin ci pal expe ri ence of time usage and the achieve ment of their stu dents who both receive and do not receive vouch ers.
This study could also be expanded to exam ine the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals in Ohio against those in other states to fur ther deepen the under stand ing of how par tic i pa tion in school choice pro grams impacts the job of the prin ci pals. Interesting con clu sions could be drawn from com par ing Ohio to prin ci pals in states such as Indiana, which has a sim i lar voucher pro gram, or states that have other school choice vehi cles, namely Florida or Arizona. Such a study could be car ried for ward another step by com par ing those per spec tives with Cath o lic school prin ci pals in nonschool choice states.
Additionally, future stud ies could explore the expe ri ence of Cath o lic school prin ci pals by exam in ing all of their inter ac tion points with the state gov ern ment. As noted in this study, EdChoice is only one of sev eral funding streams pro vided by the gov ern ment, includ ing other voucher pro grams, admin is tra tive cost reim burse ment, stu dent transportation require ments, and aux il iary ser vices funding. A com par i son between the level of state sup port allo cated to chartered nonpub lic schools in Ohio and sup port from other states pres ents sev eral oppor tu ni ties for study. Contrasting the time usage of prin ci pals in Ohio with those in other states would help to develop a bet ter under stand ing of how the prin ci pal role can change based on engage ment with the gov ern ment.

Conclusion
This study was not able to develop a clear the ory that links EdChoice par tic i pa tion with increased bur dens on prin ci pal time usage. As an induc tive study, this study did not set out to prove or dis prove a hypoth e sis, but rather to develop an under stand ing of the Cath o lic school prin ci pal expe ri ence of the EdChoice pro gram, in other words, to under stand the per spec tive of the ser vice pro vider rather than the stu dent or the pub lic dis trict. Certain con clu sions do emerge from this. Principals appear not to expe ri ence a bur den because they have devel oped strat e gies for man ag ing the pro gram, the most com mon and most impor tant of which is del e ga tion. The admin is tra tive des ig nees to whom this work is passed do expe ri ence stress, largely caused by the rules of the pro gram and the need to work with fam i lies through a timecon sum ing appli ca tion pro cess. Principals do expe ri ence an increase in sec ond ary work related to EdChoice, includ ing explaining the pro gram to par ents, nav i gat ing inter nal ten sions between school com mu nity mem bers, and work ing with pub lic school dis tricts who may be opposed to the pro gram. Despite those stress ors, the prin ci pals interviewed rec og nized ben e fts to accepting EdChoice and all expressed an inter est in con tinu ing to offer the pro gram into the future.