NOTES: Today, the Ohio House Finance Committee heard testimony on House Bill 96, the next biennial budget. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided written testimony on a number of education provisions in the as-introduced version of the bill. However, a substitute version of the bill was released after this testimony was filed and the following supplemental testimony was delivered by Chad Aldis before the committee.
Let me begin with a sincere thank you. Crafting a state budget is no small feat—especially one that aims to reshape how we fund education in this state. Substitute House Bill 96 takes on what has quickly become a sacred cow: the Cupp-Patterson school funding formula. That formula, while well-intentioned, is fiscally unsustainable. It links state appropriations to inputs that are beyond your control—inputs that inflate costs whether they improve education or not. By moving away from that model, this legislature is beginning to reassert its constitutional authority over education funding. That’s a big deal—and a commendable step forward.
But just as we start to make progress, another provision of the bill threatens to pull us right back into the status quo: the entrenchment of funding guarantees.
Let’s be blunt. Guaranteeing that no district ever loses a dollar—regardless of enrollment loss or rising property wealth—is bad policy. It’s economically inefficient and educationally indefensible. These guarantees keep dollars flowing to empty seats and declining districts while limiting funding to places where kids actually are.
Yes, it may be politically easier to smooth over losses. But that ease comes at a cost. In two years, when you’re back in this room wrestling with the next budget, the 800-pound gorilla that is guarantees will still be there—costlier than ever. And once again, Ohio’s most underserved students will be left behind.
This isn’t just about dollars and cents—it’s about values. We should be investing in students, not systems. But this budget leans toward fiscal comfort for a few instead of educational justice for all. Nowhere is that clearer than in the failure to fix Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid (DPIA). The current approach is bordering on the absurd. When one-third of the students deemed “economically disadvantaged” aren’t because of quirks in a federal meals program, the term loses meaning—and with it, the ability to target resources where they are most needed. The better path—shifting to direct certification and boosting per-pupil support—would ensure that aid reaches the students who need it most. But instead of solving that problem, the bill protects guarantees. That’s a missed opportunity of the highest order.
On the policy front, the situation is equally concerning. Ohio’s recent results on the Nation’s Report Card—the NAEP—ought to set off alarm bells. They show middling performance, flatlining progress, and persistent gaps. This is not the moment for half-measures or watered-down ideas. It’s a moment for urgency and boldness.
That’s why the decision to remove key reforms from the substitute bill is so troubling. These weren’t radical or untested policies. They were smart, practical moves with broad support—high-leverage strategies designed to improve outcomes where they matter most. I’m talking about:
- Uniform, early literacy and numeracy screeners to catch struggles before they become crises.
- Transparent reporting on math curricula, with a gentle push toward programs that work.
- Data collection on teacher vacancies—because we can’t solve problems that we don’t understand.
- Better access to unused public school buildings for charter schools—ending a long-standing inequity.
- And a suite of career-connected learning provisions that help students prepare for the real world.
Scrapping these reforms sends the wrong message. It suggests that mediocrity is acceptable. That we’re okay with tinkering around the edges when real transformation is needed. I urge you to restore these vital provisions.
Finally, a word of caution—from someone who’s spent his career championing school choice:
First, the proposed $35 million for education savings accounts at non-chartered, non-tax-supported schools is misguided. These schools, by design and conviction, have chosen to exist outside the state’s regulatory and funding frameworks. That choice should be respected—but not subsidized. Dollars used to educate the public should have a measure of accountability and transparency.
Second, Ohio has led the nation in performance-based charter school funding—rewarding excellence, incentivizing quality, and raising the bar. Weakening the criteria to access those funds, as the substitute bill proposes, would be a serious step backward. If anything, we should be strengthening the standards, not softening them. Ohio’s charter policy should remain laser-focused on quality.
In closing: This budget is a fork in the road. One path leads back to outdated structures and guaranteed funding that props up yesterday’s systems. The other moves us forward—to a student-centered, performance-driven, and more equitable model of public education.
Let’s choose the path that puts Ohio’s students first.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions.
