16.9 Differences Between Wealthy & 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 than suburban districts, in part because of depopulation and long-term economic shifts. Cleveland is a clear example: the city’s population declined from a peak of 914,808 in 1950 to about 356,000 today. During this period, many predominantly White families moved to the suburbs. The loss of residents reduced the local tax base, making it harder to fund public services, including schools.

Depopulation is the process by which residents move away from a community, leading to a decline in its population.

Another significant factor 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. As a result, many Black families could not move to the suburbs and were also denied opportunities to purchase homes in the city. This limited homeownership and wealth-building, leaving many urban areas with lower property values.

Over time, these disparities have been reinforced by underinvestment in urban areas, particularly those affected by deindustrialization, as industries relocated or closed. The loss of jobs and economic activity further eroded the tax base. Together, these factors created a cycle of disinvestment, in which businesses close or relocate, banks refuse to lend, and governments reduce services—resulting in economic decline and deteriorating infrastructure.

Disinvestment continues to affect cities like Cleveland today, which creates financial challenges for school districts.

Funding Inequities in Rural Education

Rural school districts often face financial challenges tied to depopulation, the gradual loss of residents from small towns and rural areas. Many rural communities have seen their populations decline as younger generations move to cities or suburban regions in search of jobs, education, and other opportunities. At the same time, industries that once anchored rural economies—such as manufacturing, mining, and agriculture—have become more automated or relocated elsewhere.

For example, towns in southeastern Ohio that once relied on coal mining have struggled to replace those lost jobs. Moreover, the decline of family-owned farms has also played a role, as larger agribusiness operations require fewer workers and contribute less to the social and economic life of small towns.

As people leave, the local tax base shrinks, and schools are affected.

Lower property values and smaller populations mean that rural districts collect less from local property taxes, their main source of school funding. Geographic isolation also increases costs for transportation, technology, and specialized programs, while state and federal funding formulas often fail to fully account for these added expenses.

Rural districts also may struggle to attract and retain teachers because of lower salaries, limited professional opportunities, and fewer community amenities. As populations continue to decline, student enrollment drops as well—further reducing school funding and forcing difficult decisions about consolidation and services.