3 Valley school districts ranked state’s poorest
By Denise Dick
YOUNGSTOWN
The Mahoning Valley is home to three of Ohio’s top five poorest school districts.
That’s based on the districts’ capacity, or the median income and property valuation per pupil, as determined in the school district funding simulations announced earlier this month as part of Gov. John Kasich’s biennial budget proposal.
Youngstown is No. 1. Campbell ranks fourth and Warren, fifth. Lima at No. 2 and Canton in the third spot round out the top five.
The budget isn’t final and is expected to go through several more rounds of changes before it’s approved by the Legislature.
Youngstown Superintendent Connie Hathorn isn’t surprised that the city district ranks high in poverty.
“It just means we have more work to do for students in that category,” he said. “We have a plan in place to meet their needs.”
All students in the district are served free breakfast and lunch and because of the high poverty, the district also receives more federal Title I funding — money to help economically-disadvantaged students — than many other districts.
“Regardless of how we’re rated , we’re still responsible for educating these kids, and we have plans in place to educate all kids regardless of whether they’re socioeconomically disadvantaged,” Hathorn said. “We’re going to stay focused on the plan we have in place and try to do that with fidelity.”
There are no Valley districts among the top five wealthiest districts, according to the state formula. That distinction goes to districts in Ottawa, Hamilton and Cuyahoga counties.
The Valley’s wealthiest district may not be what you’d think. It’s Jackson-Milton.
Canfield ranks second followed by Lordstown, Mathews and Howland.
“We don’t agree with it, but that’s how they do it,” said Kirk Baker, Jackson-Milton Schools superintendent.
Expensive houses around Lake Milton and some of the businesses in the district bump up the property valuation, he said.
But about 50 percent of Jackson-Milton students are on free or reduced lunch based on poverty guidelines, highlighting a discrepancy between the two factors used in the state determination.
The latest state budget directs more state support to districts with less capacity to meet their own needs.
The districts that receive less though don’t necessarily have an easy route. Just because a district’s wealth capacity is considered high doesn’t mean those districts are able to pass school levies, the superintendent said.
Baker said the district struggles to get voters to approve even renewal levies. The last time the district tried to pass a new levy a few years ago, it failed by 75 percent.
“It’s very difficult for us to pass levies,” he said.
Though 90 percent of Campbell’s students receive lunch for free or at a reduced cost, Superintendent Matthew Bowen said Campbell students perform better academically than those in most districts at that poverty level.
“There’s a lot of growth, and we are higher achieving than what one might expect when looking at just the poverty level,” he said.
Contributing to Campbell’s low wealth is a lack of industry in the city.
The low-wealth ranking means more funding from the state under the formula used in the governor’s budget, but Bowen cautions that though districts such as Campbell may get more funding on the front end, they anticipate losing money on the back end.
That’s because the way students are counted to determine funding uses a different formula. Rather than average daily membership, the state is using a full-time equivalent guideline. The way money is allocated to school districts for technology infrastructure also is expected to affect the school district.
Bowen said the district is trying to provide a level playing field for all students and “providing every opportunity for our learners.”