Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members warn of potential cuts in early House Bill 96 draft, urge public awareness
Summary
Board members reviewed a preliminary analysis of House Bill 96 and expressed concern that the current biennial budget draft would shift funding toward vouchers and charter/STEM schools while reducing base funding for many traditional districts; they urged early community outreach and advocacy.
Board members on Feb. 24 discussed early results from Ohio House Bill 96, the biennial budget bill, warning that the draft would reallocate state education dollars in ways that could harm many traditional districts over the coming years.
Board member Mr. Bertram summarized an early analysis of the draft budget, stating the changes appear to increase funding in four areas while reducing base funding for many traditional districts. Bertram said the draft showed roughly $104,000,000 to traditional district add‑ons (including preschool, special education and special education transportation) largely in the first year; about $116,000,000 for JVSDs over the biennium; about $222,000,000 for community and STEM schools; and an increase of about $265,400,000 for vouchers. He said, "[a]s the budget stands now" many traditional districts would see a reduction in base funding—Bertram gave an estimate of roughly a $103,000,000 decrease to the traditional districts’ foundation formula as presented in the early draft.
Bertram emphasized the draft could change several times before final passage in June and said Middletown’s preliminary report does not show the district being harmed in the initial version, although he warned public education statewide is "going backwards" under the plan as he read it. Board member Missus Stewart urged proactive community outreach, saying the district should begin an "education process and an awareness process" so the public understands potential impacts before any changes take effect.
Board members discussed the limits of local control over state funding and encouraged parents and community members who support public education to advocate at the state level. No formal action or vote was taken on the budget analysis; board members said they would continue to monitor subsequent budget drafts and keep the community informed.
