Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Open-enrollment funding gaps highlighted as district weighs enrollment, contracts and staffing
Summary
District staff reviewed Open Enrollment Policy 5113 and showed the fiscal strain created by state funding that 'follows the student' while local costs remain high: FY25 state base for an open-enrolled pupil was reported as $2,732 versus a district cost-per-pupil reported at about $19,422.
District staff (Christie) presented an informational review of Open Enrollment Policy 5113 and the financial mechanics that now govern open-enrollment students under Ohio’s fair-school-funding framework.
Christie summarized policy basics: the district honors applications from adjacent school districts and follows the statutory military-family exemption that allows service‑member families stationed in Ohio to enroll without tuition. She explained priority rules (native students and returning open-enrolled students receive preference if class-size constraints occur) and special-education considerations (the district may deny transfers if required services cannot be provided due to caseload limits).
On funding, Christie explained the key structural change under House Bill 110: "state funding follows the student to the educating district." She showed three-year trends (peak FY21 open-enrollment = 474; current year = 335) and walked the board through per-pupil numbers used in district planning: a FY25 state base for an open-enrolled student of about $2,732 versus a reported district cost to educate of roughly $19,422 per pupil.
Board members pushed for more granular data, including how many open-enrolled students are staff children, grade-level breakdowns and the net classroom and staffing impact of reduced enrollments (for example, when fewer students cause loss of sections or staff). Several members raised the possibility of phased restrictions or grandfathering existing students if policy changes were considered; staff noted that collective-bargaining contracts and current agreements limit immediate, unilateral elimination of open enrollment and that last‑minute changes would be legally and logistically sensitive.
Staff committed to return with additional analysis requested by the board: grade and program breakdowns of open-enrolled students, financial modeling of partial phase-outs and the staffing impact of enrollment changes, and examples of neighboring districts’ practices (Norton and Ka Falls were mentioned as districts that made changes this year).
