Forest Hills board debates resolution as superintendent presses lawmakers on school funding

Forest Hills Board of Education members heard a lengthy update on state school funding from Superintendent Mr. Hote and agreed to move forward with a board resolution backing full funding of the Fair School Funding model.

In remarks to the board, Superintendent Mr. Hote outlined the district’s funding gap and urged lawmakers to adopt changes that would better cover special education and mental-health categorical funding. "If you pull that out and start funding that at any percentage above that, that's a win," he said, referring to separate funding for special education.

The superintendent said the district spends roughly $14,701 per pupil while state aid covers a far smaller share. Board members said the governor’s proposed budget would reduce state support to many districts and increase reliance on vouchers and community schools. Board member Wendy (last name not specified) moved to approve a draft resolution supporting full funding of the Fair School Funding plan; members agreed to condense and refine the language and consider it again at a special meeting on Saturday so the board can meet legislative timing.

Why it matters: board members said further state cuts would force schools to seek more local levies or cut programs. In board discussion, members referenced specific budget figures presented to them, including a projected $2.8 million potential loss for Forest Hills over five years if current proposals proceed, and broader statewide shifts of funding toward vouchers reported in the governor’s budget.

Superintendent remarks and board discussion focused on three policy points: (1) separating high-cost categorical programs such as special education from general formula calculations, (2) adding a categorical line for mental-health services, and (3) preserving the guarantee for districts currently receiving hold-harmless funding. Board members asked staff to tighten the proposed resolution and to place a revised version on the Saturday agenda to meet legislative timing.

Board members emphasized the need to pair advocacy language with suggested solutions. "We need to get it done efficiently or we will miss the window," a board member said. The board did not vote on the resolution at this meeting; members agreed to edit and return it for a vote at the special meeting.

The board also discussed planned testimony to state legislators and noted other Ohio districts have adopted similar resolutions. No formal action on the resolution occurred at this meeting.