Poor, rural school districts who felt like big-time losers under Gov. John Kasich’s school funding plan would fare better under the school funding plan introduced in the House of Representatives this week.
Under the House funding plan, poor, rural districts would get an average funding increase of about $150-$200 per student, according to an Legislative Service Commission analysis. That’s compared to an an average increase of about $5-$10 under the Kasich plan.
Under both plans, wealthier, suburban districts and poor, urban districts would also get more state funding per student on average, according to the same LSC analysis. But under the House plan, the average increase in per-pupil state funding for the wealthiest districts would be nearly one-third less than it would have been under the Kasich plan. And, on average, urban districts would get also smaller funding increases under the House than under the Kasich plan.
And the House plan caps funding increases at just 6 percent, while under the Kasich plan a handful of mostly rich, suburban districts would see their state funding more than double.
All told, the House plan puts about $50 million less into K-12 schools than the Kasich plan, says House Finance and Appropriations Chair Rep. Ron Amstutz.
Here’s how districts fare under the two plans.
|Kasich School Funding Plan||House School Funding Plan|
Note: Funding figures are projections based on enrollment and valuation estimates and subject to change. Also, funding figures for the Kasich plan and the House plan are not directly comparable. The Kasich funding projections did not include state funding for transportation and career/technical education. The Kasich plan would still have given schools funding in those areas, but did not include them in its initial funding projections. The House plan does include state funding for transportation and career/technical education. Yes, we’d like to be able to make an apples-apples comparison between the plans too.