Property Taxes, Vouchers, and Broken Courts: The Perfect Storm Destroying Ohio's Public Schools

Ohio’s School Funding Problem Isn’t Just “Complicated.” It’s Been Ruled Unconstitutional, and Students Are Still Paying the Price.

Ohio loves to say it values local control. But in practice, Ohio has built an education funding system that leans hard on local property wealth, then acts surprised when the gap between wealthy suburbs and urban districts becomes a canyon. The result is predictable: public schools end up stretching fewer dollars across higher needs, older buildings, more intensive student supports, and deeper poverty related challenges. And when the money runs short, it's not the system that takes the hit. It is the student sitting in a crowded classroom, the teacher trying to do three jobs at once, and the family getting fewer services than they were promised. This is not a new argument. It is not a trendy talking point. It's an Ohio reality with a long paper trail and a long list of consequences.

DeRolph already told Ohio the truth:

the system is unconstitutional.

In DeRolph v. State, Ohio’s highest court held that Ohio’s method of funding public schools violated the Ohio Constitution’s requirement for a “thorough and efficient” system of common schools. The court issued multiple decisions across the late 1990s and early 2000s addressing the same core problem: the state’s reliance on local property taxes and uneven state support created unconstitutional inequities. But here’s the part that too many people missed, a court ruling doesn't magically create political courage. A ruling is a spotlight. The legislature still has to act. And for decades, Ohio has found ways to adjust around the edges without fully fixing the foundation.

What underfunding looks like in an urban district

When a district is underfunded, the pain shows up everywhere, not just in test scores.

It shows up when buildings stay old because major facilities upgrades keep getting delayed.

It shows up when mental health supports are thin, even as student needs rise.

It shows up when districts cannot compete for staffing, especially for intervention specialists, counselors, social workers, bilingual staff, and experienced teachers. It shows up when choices become cuts, fewer electives, fewer AP options, fewer arts opportunities, fewer career tech pathways, fewer tutors, fewer after school supports!

Ohio’s funding debates can sound abstract, but districts feel them as real dollars lost. For example, reporting in 2025 highlighted urban districts raising alarms about losing a specific stream of support, affecting large districts like Cleveland, Akron, Dayton, and Toledo among others.

Ohio says it has a modern formula, but the fight is over whether it is being fully funded.

Ohio’s Department of Education and Workforce describes a formula built around base costs and staffing inputs, aiming to fund students where they are educated and to use a more rational cost approach.  That is the theory. The controversy is the follow through. Advocates for fully funding the Fair School Funding Plan argue Ohio is not putting in what the model itself says is necessary, with gaps that can reach into the billions statewide. Others argue the state has made progress since DeRolph and that calling today’s system unconstitutional is not a productive frame. But here is the bottom line, if the formula claims one thing and budgets deliver another, districts do not live in the theory. They live in the shortfall.

Meanwhile, Ohio is expanding vouchers and sending more public dollars into private education.

Ohio’s voucher expansion has become one of the biggest education funding storylines in the state. Recent policy descriptions and analyses note that the 2023 to 2024 budget changes expanded eligibility broadly, with voucher amounts that can exceed six thousand dollars for K to 8 and more than eight thousand dollars for high school. Supporters say this is about parent choice and options, and some groups celebrate growth in the private sector tied to the expansion. Critics argue this is a quiet re routing of public funds away from public systems that serve the overwhelming majority of students, including students with the greatest needs, while private and parochial schools are not held to the same public accountability expectations. And this is where the politics gets real: it is hard to build political will to fully fund public schools when significant dollars are being committed to expanding voucher programs at the same time.

“No political will” is not just a feeling. It is the pattern.

When a state has already been told its system violates the constitution, yet the core reliance on property wealth remains, you are looking at a political decision, not a technical problem. It's easier to sell tax cuts. It's easier to sell CHOICE!! It is easier to blame districts than to restructure a funding model that benefits powerful constituencies. And it is especially easy to delay when the people most harmed by underfunding, often urban communities, often Black and Brown communities, often working class families, have less political influence in the statehouse than wealthy zip codes.

The property tax abolition movement: what it is, and why it could hit public schools hard.

Now layer in the growing push to eliminate property taxes entirely. There is an Ohio constitutional amendment effort that may appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot that would eliminate and prohibit taxes on real property. On its face, the message sells itself: property taxes are painful, unpredictable, and for many homeowners, crushing. The frustration is real. But public schools in Ohio rely heavily on local property taxes for operating revenue and for bonds and levies that keep buildings open and programs running. If property taxes disappear without a guaranteed, stable, and adequate replacement, public schools could face massive cuts or wild swings in revenue. Recent reporting has already raised warnings that replacing property tax revenue could require dramatic increases elsewhere and could trigger deep cuts. So is eliminating property taxes “good” or “bad” for public schools?

It depends entirely on the replacement plan, and whether it is legally locked in, not just promised.

It could be good if Ohio replaced property tax funding with a stable statewide revenue source that is progressive, predictable, and designed to fully fund every district based on student needs. In theory, that could reduce inequity driven by property wealth.

It could be devastating if property taxes are eliminated and the replacement is insufficient, regressive, or politically unstable. Sales taxes, for example, tend to hit lower income families harder. And if the replacement can be adjusted every budget cycle, districts will live on a financial roller coaster.

The hard truth: in the current political climate, it is risky to assume Ohio would replace property taxes with a fully adequate, student need based system. The same legislature that has not fully resolved a constitutional funding problem for decades is not automatically going to build a perfect replacement overnight.

The question Ohio has to answer

Ohio can keep debating around the edges, or it can face the central question:

Do we want a public education system that is funded as a public good, or do we want a system where opportunity rises and falls with zip code, property values, and political power?

DeRolph already gave Ohio the warning. Vouchers are accelerating a shift in where public dollars go. And property tax abolition could either become the moment Ohio finally builds a fair statewide system, or it could blow a hole in school budgets and deepen inequity even further.

Public School students do not get a second childhood. They do not get a do over on literacy, math foundations, graduation pathways, or college and career preparation. Every budget cycle that treats public schools as optional is another year kids pay for adult politics.

If Ohio truly intends to be "thorough and efficient," it needs to allocate funding accordingly!!