Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Warnings as Fair School Funding Phase-In and 'Base-cost' Inputs Fall Out of Balance
Summary
Superintendents, treasurers and education advocates told the Ohio House Education Committee that failing to update base-cost inputs in the Fair School Funding Plan will shift costs to local taxpayers and push growing districts onto guarantees.
Superintendents, treasurers and education advocates told the Ohio House Education Committee on Feb. 19 that the Fair School Funding Plan’s final phase must include updated base-cost inputs to prevent a sharp reduction in the state share of school funding.
The committee heard repeated testimony that leaving base-cost components at older years while updating local property and income measures would shift responsibility for K–12 costs onto local taxpayers, reduce per-pupil state support and push growing districts onto funding “guarantees.”
Why it matters: Witnesses said the mismatch already produces districts that gain students but still receive less state formula funding. They urged the Legislature to finish phasing in years 5 and 6 of the Fair School Funding Plan and to update the cost inputs to reflect more recent economic data, arguing that doing so would limit levy pressure on local taxpayers and preserve services.
What committee members heard: Aaron Rausch and Director Steve Dack for the Department of Education and Workforce described the administration’s budget assumptions and acknowledged the policy trade-offs. Superintendents and treasurers from districts that span the state — including Chardon, Olentangy, Marysville, Perrysburg and Southwest Local — reported specific impacts: declines in projected state formula dollars, larger projected student-to-teacher ratios, cuts already implemented after failed levies and tight futures even for high-performing districts.
Examples cited in testimony included: Olentangy forecasting sizable reductions in state share if inputs remain unchanged; Perrysburg projecting its state share dropping significantly over the next four years; and Marysville saying recent reappraisals made a larger levy ask fail and that updating inputs allowed the district to reduce its ask.
What supporters want: Multiple witnesses asked the Legislature to (a) continue the phase-in included in the governor’s proposal, (b) update base-cost inputs to FY 2024 data (or apply an annual inflation factor such as 3%), and (c) preserve or raise the minimum state-share floor so that the formula does not overburden local property taxpayers.
Outlook: Committee members asked for follow-up analyses and district-level breakdowns. Several witnesses committed to send simulations showing effects of the governor’s proposal versus full implementation with updated inputs. Absent legislative action, witnesses predicted more levy requests and further program and staff cuts in districts already testing local support.
