Ohio

Eye on Education

Why Rich Districts Get More but Poor Districts Don’t Under Kasich’s New School Funding Plan

Ida Lieszkovszky / StateImpact Ohio

Outside of Carrollton Elementary School hangs a bell that once signaled the change of class when it was still just a one-room school house. The district is poor and rural, and school officials were disappointed to see no funding increases in Governor Kasich's new school funding plan.

“If you are poor you’re going to get more, if you’re richer you’re going to get less,” Governor John Kasich said when he first introduced his new school funding formula.

But a week later, when the administration released estimates of how much money each district would receive, many poor districts saw nothing extra.

But some rich districts saw more.

In some cases a lot more.

So what gives?

A Lot of Changes

“We’ve had a lot of changes over the last 5 years,” Barbara Mattei-Smith, explained on a conference call with reporters.

“We’ve had a lot of valuation changes, we’ve had people move, we have student population growth in some of those suburban districts while declining growth in our urbans,” she said. “So with some of those shifts going on that’s been some of the big cause for why these percentages are the way they are.”

Dick Ross, the governor’s top education advisor, put it like this: “If the media’s surprised I mean this represents reality and I think maybe the perception needs to be recognized as not being what’s real.”

Basically, the governor’s staff says districts we used to think of as “rich” – mostly suburban districts with high property values – are no longer rich. Those districts have seen drops in property values but spikes in student population without any extra support from the state.

On the other hand, districts we think of as “poor” – mostly rural districts – are now considered rich- or richer than they were.  Rural property values have risen sharply thanks to rising corn and soybean prices and the oil and gas-drilling boom.

“We’re Not Wealthy”

Ida Lieszkovszky / StateImpact Ohio

Carrollton Schools' superintendent David Quattrochi says he hopes his district will one day gain from the nearby fracking boom. But until then, he says they are always cash-strapped.

“Right now? No, we’re not wealthy,” says David Quattrochi, superintendent of Carrollton Exempted Schools. Carrollton is the mecca of the fracking boom in Ohio.

“In the future, I sure hope so,” Quattrochi says.”I sure hope the money and a lot of the revenue generated will stay here in this county and we’ll be able to prosper from the oil and gas boom but at this point, no we’re not a wealthy school.”

He hopes they will be in the future, but he’s not terribly optimistic at the moment.

It’s been 36 years since Carrollton schools voters passed a levy, though not for lacking of trying. School officials will try again with a levy on the May ballot.

The district also hopes to get money from a half dozen fracking wells planned for school property.

But in the meantime, the district will rely heavily on state funding – more than half of Carrollton Schools’ budget is made up of state dollars.

“Reverse Robin Hood”

Ida Lieszkovszky / StateImpact Ohio

Carrollton County Commissioner Tom Wheaton says the fracking boom is too recent, and Kasich can't expect an immediate about-face in school finances.

Tom Wheaton, a Carroll County commissioner bluntly describes the governor’s funding formula: “Reverse Robin Hood.”

Wheaton says the way he sees it, the Governor is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, “because we’re not rich yet.”

He says you can’t assume poor districts like Carrollton will suddenly see a reversal of fortune.

“There are some counties that are very well off and have $500,000, $1 million homes that are getting 13 million and we’re getting nothing,” he says.

Grown Three School Districts in Ten Years

“I can totally respect the concerns of the rural district when they say ‘where’s our money,’” says Wade Lucas, superintendent of Olentangy Schools just north of Columbus. “That’s been our campaign for the last ten years.”

Ida Lieszkovszky / StateImpact Ohio

Olentangy Schools' Superintendent Wade Lucas says his district has grown immensely, justifying his district's projected 330 percent funding increase.

His suburban, well-off district would get a 330 percent increase under the Governor’s plan – an increase Lucas says is overdue.

In 1990, the district only needed one building for all of their students, K-12. Today, Olentangy Schools has 23 buildings.

The district has seen explosive population growth, and Lucas says state aid has not kept up.

“The average sized school district in the state of Ohio is 3000 students. We’ve grown three school districts over ten years basically, at zero dollars from the state,” he says. “I’m not talking about a few, I’m not talking about a guarantee, I’m talking about zero.”

One-Time Deal

State aid makes up just five percent of Olentangy schools’ budget. Lucas says it may look like the funding increase the district would get is huge, but compared to how many more students they have to educate now, it’s really not.

And this could be a one-time windfall for districts like Olentangy that have seen rapid growth.

The Kasich administration promises over the long haul, poor students will indeed get more money than affluent ones.

Note: A previous version of this story identified Tom Wheaton as a Carrollton County Commissioner. The county is actually Carroll County.

Comments

  • Jene Wilson

    It may be that suburban districts are attracting more students, but look at some of the contributing factors. Ohio has based it’s support to schools on property values, so urban and rural districts where property values are low, suffered. We also know that students in these districts tend to have more food insecurity and fewer available resources at home. Then, instead of addressing these issues in a positive way, districts were put at a further disadvantage by the introduction of for profit schools, often run by non-educators, that drained more resources from these districts, with little to no benefit to students. It’s a bold-faced case of blaming the victim. When we figure out a way to support kids in poor – yes, the traditionally poor – districts in the same way kids in the traditionally rich districts are supported, this move might make sense. However, at this point, it’s just mean and unethical.

  • Art Bach

    Anyone who thinks consolidation is a good idea for small rural towns in Ohio, has never been to a small Ohio town. Take a look at the conditions of towns who have 30 years of the after effects of this plight to deal with. No one wants to live in a town without a school. Businesses close up and move away. Property values plummet. Population figures decline. The children in these towns often turn to thuggery, vandalism and drop out of school and perform below other kids on tests. The cost to transport these kids, for as much 2 hours a day to get them to school far surpasses the cost to keep small town rural schools open. Pushed by the folks who scream how patriotic they are and how business oriented they are. Sure have ZERO clue about small town America or the financial devastation school consolidation has on small rural communities.

    Google these towns, see how Great consolidation has been for them. Then push this poison with full knowledge of what the ramifications are for small rural towns without a school. And if your town school becomes a target of this proven failure called consolidation,… Fight it hard and relentlessly. Or watch your town languish and wither, your property values plummet, your children have almost zero opportunity to participate in extracurricular actives, significantly lower student achievement for your children and the cost to finance a consolidated district far out cost your local school expenses.

    Hartford, Ohio

    Fowler, Ohio

    Green, Ohio

    Johnston, Ohio

    West Farmington, Ohio

    Vernon, Ohio

    Gustavus, Ohio

    Orangeville, Ohio

  • Art Bach

    Anyone who thinks consolidation is a good idea for small rural towns in Ohio, has never been to a small Ohio town. Take a look at the conditions of towns who have 30 years of the after effects of this plight to deal with. No one wants to live in a town without a school. Businesses close up and move away. Property values plummet. Population figures decline. The children in these towns often turn to thuggery, vandalism and drop out of school and perform below other kids on tests. The cost to transport these kids, for as much 2 hours a day to get them to school far surpasses the cost to keep small town rural schools open. Pushed by the folks who scream how patriotic they are and how business oriented they are. Sure have ZERO clue about small town America or the financial devastation school consolidation has on small rural communities.

    Google these towns, see how Great consolidation has been for them. Then push this poison with full knowledge of what the ramifications are for small rural towns without a school. And if your town school becomes a target of this proven failure called consolidation,… Fight it hard and relentlessly. Or watch your town languish and wither, your property values plummet, your children have almost zero opportunity to participate in extracurricular actives, significantly lower student achievement for your children and the cost to finance a consolidated district far out cost your local school expenses.

    Hartford, Ohio

    Fowler, Ohio

    Green, Ohio

    Johnston, Ohio

    West Farmington, Ohio

    Vernon, Ohio

    Gustavus, Ohio

    Orangeville, Ohio

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Economy
Education