Under Gov. John Kasich’s education funding proposal, growing school districts would receive more money, and shrinking districts would get less.
Next year, should lawmakers leave Kasich’s school formula unchanged, 346 school districts would lose state funding; 256 would get more and eight would see no change.
To understand the impact of Kasich’s formula, the Beacon Journal looked at how much more or less would be given based on enrollment, student poverty and local tax effort, or how burdened local taxpayers are.
Between 2011 and 2016, enrollment grew for about 100 school districts and fell for roughly 500. Those that gained students would get 3.4 times more funding per student in Kasich’s plan, according to the newspaper’s analysis.
Districts with higher student poverty also would do well, though Kasich’s bid to divert more money to charter and private schools could erase some gains, especially for urban school districts. Nonetheless, districts with little poverty would get $27 more per pupil compared to $248 more per student in districts with concentrated poverty. Districts in the middle, with a quarter to three-quarters of students eligible for subsidized lunches, would get $55 per student more — again, on average.
The state’s “local tax effort” compares incomes, property values and locally levied dollars to determine how taxed local residents are. The Beacon Journal divided all school districts into five categories based on tax burden. There appears to be no correlation between how Kasich’s plan distributes funds and what local taxpayers contribute today. Sure, the most taxed would get twice as much as the least taxed. But those in the middle get even more.
This is a reflection of a school funding system that shifts around what’s available, not necessarily what the state’s highest court calls “thorough and efficient.” Changing property values, which track communities that attract or repel families and students, is partly to blame for the inequity.
“There’s no safety valve to protect districts whose state share goes down because property values have changed,” said Howard Fleeter, a school funding expert with the Ohio Education Policy Institute. “That combination of circumstances is causing what’s going on. It is highly likely districts will lose money with declining enrollment. To fix that, legislators will need additional revenue. It’s not clear where they will be able to find it.”
How schools fare
In Summit County, Cuyahoga Falls, Barberton and Twinsburg would gain the most. Superintendents were taking a wait-and-see approach until the budget proposal has gone through the legislature, which must send the plan back to Kasich’s desk before July.
“Ultimately, while we are projected to see an increase, there are other aspects of the budget proposal to be concerned with statewide,” Cuyahoga Falls Superintendent Todd Nichols said. Nichols pointed out that:
• The announced $200 million increase is more than offset by another reduction in Tangible Personal Property reimbursement — that outlawed tax on business equipment and assets — amounting to $240 million over the biennium.
• Inflation is outpacing the projected overall increase.
• School transportation is cut by more than 12 percent.
• Career Tech educational enhancements are cut by 33 percent.
• EdChoice private school vouchers expand from $31.5 million to $38.4 million in fiscal year 2018 to $47.7 million in fiscal year 2019.
• Charter facilities funding increases from $17.2 million to $18 million each year.
“How the details ultimately impact our bottom line remains to be seen,” Nichols said.
In Barberton, “we usually look very cautiously at the initial budget proposal because there are a lot of changes that may happen before it is approved by the House and Senate,” Superintendent Patti Cleary said. “With that said, I believe that we fared better than some because we have a high percentage of students on free or reduced lunch, about 73 percent, and also our enrollment is fairly stable.” Barberton lost 13 students between 2011 and 2016, barely enough to notice.
“[But] even though percentages are up [this time], we are still struggling with inflation,” Cleary said. “In 2010 we fell off the cliff and lost $3 million,” she said. “In the last biennium, we just got back up to that point. Ohio has gone in the wrong direction for a lot of years. It’s a shame. When you rank it nationally, we don’t come out too well.”
In a letter sent home to families in the Twinsburg district, Superintendent Kathi Powers references the projected increase of $534,715 in the next two years for her district.
But factor in the loss of tangible personal property tax, and Powers figures the gains turns into a $451,737 loss.
“Clearly, the ‘additional’ revenue projected in the governor’s proposed biennial budget does not tell the entire story,” Powers said. “We pledge to continue to advocate on behalf of our students as the budget bill continues its review in Columbus. We encourage our parents and residents to do likewise.”
The Summit districts losing at least $150,000 or more in formula funding alone are Nordonia Hills, Stow-Munroe Falls and Hudson. Revere, Coventry and Springfield also see losses.
“Nordonia would lose money under the governor’s funding plan because we have had a slight decrease in enrollment over the past five years,” Superintendent Joe Clark said. “What is frustrating to me is that Nordonia is seen by the state to be one of the wealthiest districts in Ohio (27th of 611) based on our property values, which means we get less state funding than 584 other school districts in Ohio.
“The state reasons that our great property wealth would make it easier for our citizens to give more ‘effort’ in raising local taxes to support the schools. Unfortunately, our average income for our residents is significantly below the state average, meaning our residents can’t necessarily afford to pay more local taxes. Passing levies has been notoriously difficult in Nordonia for this reason, even though Nordonia residents pay the third lowest property tax rate in Summit County.”
In Stow-Munroe Falls, Superintendent Tom Bratten has similar concerns.
“It is no secret that the funding formula is in serious need of repair and that our citizens are already overtaxed as it is with no relief in sight,” he said. “That would be so disheartening in a place like Stow-Munroe Falls because our community does an incredible job of supporting our students and our district already and to expect more of them all the time is tough to even fathom. I’m still hoping for the best at this point that these projections will change dramatically.”
In Hudson, the numbers just don’t add up.
“Our data reflects a 5.3 percent decline in enrollment, not a 6.6 percent decline in enrollment” as the state reports, said Superintendent Phil Herman. “It will be important to all school districts affected by this proposal that we fully understand how the [enrollment] percentages are being calculated by the state.”
Doug Livingston contributed to this report. Monica L. Thomas can be reached at 330-996-3827 or mthomas@thebeaconjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter @MLThomasABJ and www.facebook.com/MLThomasABJ.