16.9 Differences Between Wealthy and Poor School Districts

Wealthy and poor school districts in Ohio differ significantly in terms of governance and resources.

Typically located in affluent suburban areas, wealthy districts benefit from higher property tax revenues, leading to greater funding and resources. They often have well-maintained facilities, smaller class sizes, and a wide range of programs and services, including advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and support services. The governance structures in wealthy districts tend to be robust, with well-resourced boards of education that can focus on enhancing educational quality and innovation. These districts, however, may face challenges related to maintaining equity among their diverse student populations.

Often found in urban and rural areas, poorer districts struggle with limited funding due to lower property tax revenues. They face significant challenges, such as aging infrastructure, higher student-to-teacher ratios, and fewer academic and extracurricular programs. Governance in poorer districts can be more complex, dealing with higher rates of poverty and the need for additional support services to address students’ basic needs. These districts rely more heavily on state funding, which can be inconsistent, leading to potential budget shortfalls and resource constraints. Understanding these differences highlights the significant disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes between wealthy and poor school districts.

Why Urban Schools Face Resource Constraints

Urban school districts often have fewer financial resources compared to suburban districts due to a combination of historical and structural factors. Population shifts during the mid-20th century, including the migration of White families to suburban areas, reduced urban tax bases and contributed to funding challenges. Since schools are primarily funded by local property taxes, urban districts in these lower-value areas receive less funding for education.

Another significant issue is redlining, a discriminatory practice in which banks and government policies in the mid-20th century denied mortgages and financial services to residents of certain neighborhoods, often predominantly Black communities. This limited opportunities for homeownership and wealth-building, which left many urban areas with lower property values.

Over time, these disparities have been reinforced by persistent underinvestment in urban areas, particularly those affected by deindustrialization, as industries relocated or closed, leaving fewer economic opportunities and further eroding the tax base. Together, these factors created a cycle of disinvestment in urban areas, which continues to impact school funding today.

Funding Inequities in Rural Education

Rural school districts often have fewer resources because of lower property values and smaller populations, which result in less funding from local property taxes. Economic challenges, such as higher poverty rates and declining industries, further limit the tax base and financial support for schools. Geographic isolation increases transportation costs and makes it harder to provide services, while state and federal funding formulas often don’t fully address rural needs. These districts also face challenges in attracting and retaining teachers due to lower pay and fewer resources, and population declines reduce enrollment, further cutting funding.