1. In Defense of Governor Kasich’s Proposed School Funding Formula Using Montgomery County Districts Steve Clark, Treasurer/CFO Kettering City School District

2. When Governor Kasich introduced his proposed funding formula to Ohio School Superintendents, he stated: If you’re poor, you’ll get money, if you’re wealthy you will not.

3. When the Governor’s Office released their Preliminary Estimates they indicated that – A number of “poor” districts would receive no increase Those districts would be “guarantee” districts Meaning their state funding would not be cut, instead They will receive the same amount of state funding they received in the prior year. – A number of “wealthy” districts would receive significant increases.

4. Almost all Ohio basic school funding formulas have been based on the following formula: Number of students times a per pupil minimum Minus (the district’s contribution): The total taxable property (assessed value) times the charge-off (a set millage rate)

6. In defense of the Governor’s proposed funding formula, the Governor’s staff, said – Over time, a number of “poor districts” have lost students or gained property value, since fiscal year 2009, the last time we had a school funding formula.

7. – The result of those actions would be lower state funding for those districts. – A measure of those changes would be a district’s valuation per pupil (District Assessed Value divided by the number of students in the district).

8. Jerry Ellender, Treasurer, Mad River Locals (Montgomery County) compared – The state’s valuation/per pupil rankings for each Montgomery County school districts (ranked lowest to highest) and – Montgomery County School districts’ proposed fiscal year 2014 total per pupil funding (ranked highest to lowest).

10. Jerry’s chart seems to indicate that total proposed funding per pupil in Montgomery County closely follows the state’s wealth rankings. – The only exception would be Jefferson Township which is ranked 10 th in wealth in the county, – But is ranked 4 th in proposed FY14 total per pupil funding in Montgomery County.

11. To examine whether “poor” district valuation per pupil increased, I divided the Montgomery County school districts into two groups, based on their FY 14 projected increases in Governor Kasich’s proposed funding formula

12. Group A consisted of the districts projected to receive little or no increase in state funding All of the districts were projected to be guarantee districts (no funding increase) With the exception of Trotwood Madison who had a projected increase of 0.38% Group B consisted of those school districts slated to receive increases of about 10% or higher.

14. Districts in Group A that were projected to be on the guarantee in fiscal year 2014 were also on the guarantee in fiscal year 2009. The only exception was Oakwood which was a formula district in fiscal year 2009. Trotwood Madison was on the guarantee in fiscal year 2009, but is projected to receive a 0.38% increase in fiscal year 2014.

15. Using the earliest year which state funding reports are available on the Ohio Department of Education’s website (fiscal year 1999, SF final version 5), I compared each district’s: – Fiscal year 1999 valuation per pupil (line 4-valuation divided by line 3A-formula ADM) – The governor’s fiscal year 2014 projected 3-year average valuation per pupil.

18. The chart and related graph indicate: – The valuation per pupil of all of the districts in the study have increased over this period With the exception of Northridge, which lost value – The average increase in valuation per pupil for Group A (the districts that received little or no increase in state funding) was 30% – The average increase in valuation per pupil for Group B (the districts that would receive little or no increase in state funding) was only 9%.

19. Huber Heights seems to be an anomaly, in that their valuation per pupil increased 30% during that period but they’re projected to receive a 15.72% increase in state funding in fiscal year 2014. I believe this is caused by the total dollars they’re projected to receive in Target Resources, Students with Disabilities, English Language Learners, Economically Disadvantaged Students, and Early Childhood Access under the Governor’s proposed funding formula.

20. In actual dollar funds (projected) among Montgomery County districts Huber Heights is ranked 4 th, 2 nd, 2 nd, 3 rd, and 3 rd, respectively, in those funding categories. Projected funding for Huber Heights in these categories total almost $9 million dollars (30%) of their projected $28 million for fiscal year 2014.

21. In conclusion, – Governor Kasich’s statement that poor districts would receive more funding than wealthy districts seems to be the case in Montgomery County. – The Governor’s staff’s claim that a number of “poor districts” have lost students or gained property value seems to be true for Montgomery County.