State funding for schools must give priority to rural and urban at-risk students

Akron Beacon Journal: Larry Householder wasn’t going to remain silent. In looking at a portion of the two-year state budget plan unveiled by fellow Republicans in the Ohio Senate last week, the House speaker saw a “sort of a rob from the poor and give to the rich kind of thing.”

He had in mind the Senate’s decision to include $37.6 million in additional funding for many wealthier suburban school districts.

The Senate responded to the concerns of districts with rapidly expanding enrollments. They insist they need more state funding to cope, and it hardly seems an unreasonable request. Yet what appeared to trouble the speaker, and rightly so, is the path the Senate took to the new money.

Recall that in his budget plan, Gov. Mike DeWine proposed directing an additional $550 million for the biennium to low-wealth school districts in urban and rural areas.

The money would support “wraparound” services, such as mental health counseling and after-school programs, for at-risk students. These services are designed to address the trauma of severe poverty and put children in a better position to learn.

Under the governor’s plan, the Akron Public Schools would receive $11.3 million for the biennium in new wraparound funds.

The need is evident in the alarming achievement gap, disadvantaged students trending 30 percentage points behind their peers in wealthier districts on state proficiency tests.

The governor has underlined the point by stressing studies that show it takes more resources to educate children burdened by poverty.

House Speaker Householder understands his district with poor rural schools. That helps explain the House version of the state budget increasing the funding for wraparound services to $675 million during the next two years.

REROUTING OF FUNDS

What has the Senate proposed to dismay the speaker? Its budget plan returns to the $550 million put forward by the governor, and it directs a portion to districts with sharp increases in enrollment, again largely in wealthier suburban areas. So, from the perspective of the speaker, the Senate takes from what would be routed to poor students and gives to those with far more advantages.

Ideally, the state would have a school funding formula that addressed both challenges, the needs of at-risk students and districts with rapid enrollment growth.

Work continues on the promising efforts of state Reps. Robert Cupp, a Lima Republican, and John Patterson, a Jefferson Democrat, to redesign the current mess of a formula. Their initial plan makes many advances yet falls short on the crucial element of adequate funding for poor urban and rural districts.

The point made by the speaker is about policy choices when resources are limited, mostly because Republicans at the Statehouse having opted for big tax cuts the past 14 years, skewed to the wealthy. Which deserves priority?

The speaker lands on the problem with the greater resonance for the state as a whole. Ohio isn’t going to move forward as many hope without addressing more effectively the similar needs of its urban and rural communities.

Consider, too, that wealthier suburban districts have a much greater capacity to raise money on their own, and many currently are not close to carrying the equivalent tax burden of districts with less capacity.

The state Senate expects to complete its budget plan this week, setting up a conference committee with the House to bridge their differences. Which gets to what may be foremost on the speaker’s mind – gaining a negotiating edge.

He wants the final budget plan sent to the governor to lean more in the direction of the House when it comes to wraparound services and low-wealth districts. It should be to his advantage that such an outcome would be better for Ohio.