Legislators abandon Fair School Funding Plan, funnel state support away from high-poverty districts

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Fahsai

Legislators in Ohio abandon the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP), reversing a decades-long effort to address unconstitutional disparities in public school financing. The FSFP would have increased state support based on each district’s capacity and actual education costs, but the enacted budget instead prioritizes tax breaks and growth/performance supplements tied to enrollment and report-card star ratings. As a result, high-poverty districts face a $570.2 million funding gap, while wealthier districts receive comparatively larger increases.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Key change to Ohio’s school funding

Purpose and design of the FSFP

How the FSFP formula works

Budget impact and funding gaps

State funding changes versus FSFP

Effects by poverty levels

Supplement structure and performance link

Enrollment growth supplement

Performance supplement and report card metrics

Concerns about correlating ratings with community context

September 23, 2025 Legislators abandon Fair School Funding Plan, funnel state support away from high-poverty districts Great public education isn’t cheap, but Ohio spends far more on tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations Molly Bryden Learn how the state budget could impact your district. Every child deserves a supportive, well-resourced learning environment where they can thrive. In Ohio, access to high-quality education too often depends on where a child lives, their race, or how much money their family has in the bank. The Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) was designed to fix that decades-old, unconstitutional1 disparity. This year, Ohio’s legislature abandoned it. The FSFP determines the amount of state funding provided to Ohio’s public-school districts based on local capacity and the actual cost of educating Ohio’s kids. 2 Instead of adequately funding critical investments in public schools, Ohio legislators prioritized a billion-dollar giveaway to Ohioans making six figures or more. The FSFP’s formula considers each district’s capacity to raise revenue through local funding streams, like property taxes or tax levies, and delivers additional state support to districts with lower levels of community wealth. The legislature’s departure from the FSFP strips resources from districts that need them most, creating an uncertain funding landscape for all school districts in the future. By refusing to fully fund the FSFP, legislators ensure further cost-shifting to local revenue sources with less state support in future budget cycles. Based on FY 2025 funding levels, Ohio’s budget increases state funding for K-12 public education by $281.9 million over the biennium, while the FSFP would have provided an additional $3.04 billion. Of the 609 school districts in Ohio, 161 will receive more state 1 See the History of DeRolph, the Ohio Supreme Court case that resulted in an opinion declaring Ohio’s school funding system unconstitutional in 1997, summarized by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding. 2 The FSFP made broad changes to Ohio’s school funding formula, updating calculations for the three major components: 1. The base cost, or the amount of funding per pupil needed to provide a quality education; 2. The state and local share, determined by districts’ respective ability to raise local revenue through tax levies, considering property values and individual income levels; and 3. Categoricals, or additional funds needed to better serve students in special education programs, English Language Learners, economically disadvantaged students, and gifted students, along with transportation funding. The FSFP was supposed to be phased in over six years – three budget cycles – using current data on student demographics, property values, districts’ personal income levels, and updated base costs. The FSFP additionally includes several “guarantees” using historical funding data to prevent school districts from approaching a funding cliff as the FSFP is phased in over time. For more details, see the Fair School Funding Plan Questions and Answers. funding over the biennium, compared to what the FSFP would have delivered. More than 60%(63 .4%) of the districts that will see a funding increase have very low or low student poverty levels. At the same time, this budget cuts funding for very high poverty districts by $34.6 million over the biennium, leaving a $570.2 million funding gap. Because legislators opted to dismantle the FSFP, which was based on real and current costs of educating all students, accounting for districts’ unique needs, districts that rely on state support the most will see funding cuts, while wealthy districts will see increases in state support. The figure below shows the change in total state funding from FY25 by school districts’poverty level, comparing what this budget provides to what districts would have gotten under the FSFP. Figure 1: Ohio’s budget shortchanges kids across

FAQs

What did Ohio’s legislature do regarding the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP)?

This year, Ohio’s legislature abandoned the FSFP, removing resources that the plan would have directed to districts with the greatest needs.

How does the FSFP determine state funding for districts?

The FSFP sets funding based on local revenue capacity and the actual cost of educating students, including additional categoricals for special education, English language learners, economically disadvantaged students, gifted students, and transportation.

What is the main funding impact on high-poverty districts under the adopted budget?

The budget leaves a $570.2 million funding gap for high-poverty districts compared with what they would have received under the FSFP.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Fahsai