The Uneven Playing Field of Ohio Schools

In a democracy, "the land of opportunity" implies equal opportunity. Every citizen should have an equal chance to succeed. 

We all know that such talk is a utopian idea that will never occur in our flawed country. If for no other reason than geography or skin color, Americans will not have equal opportunities. However, the lack of equal opportunities does not prevent some of us from succeeding, even against seemingly insurmountable odds.

For example. success was possible for many of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents because of public education. They may have been living on starvation diets, but they had a future if they were able to acquire an education.


Unfortunately, in Ohio and other states, public education is not equal and fails to provide equal opportunities. To illustrate that point, I offer the following letter written by Jim O'Connor, a Princeton high school teacher, entitled "A Tale of Two Districts."


"Years ago, Ohio’s General Assembly borrowed the idea from other states that the best way to evaluate public school districts is to categorically compare them by letter grade. The goal, as stated in the Ohio Department of Education Report Card website, is to “ensure equitable outcomes and high expectations for all of Ohio’s students.”

One would think that equitable outcomes imply a level playing field in terms of financial inputs. After all, equality is the flip side of the equitable coin. However, when you scroll down to the bottom of each district’s Report Card, the amount spent per pupil says otherwise. The difference in funding between wealthy and modest/low-income school districts is striking.

The tale of these two school districts in the same county (Hamilton) sheds light on what Jonathan Kozol called, nearly thirty years ago, the “savage inequalities” of school funding. The two districts are Indian Hill and North College Hill.

Indian Hill

Take a look at the data and make your own conclusions. In 2016-17, Indian Hill spent $12,189 per student (1929 students). NCH spent $6,629 per student (1,590 students). IH student body: 91% White or Asian and 7 % Free or Reduced Lunch (at or near poverty). NCH student body: 92% Black or Bi-racial, 81% Free or Reduced Lunch.

Savage inequalities, indeed! Because of an unconstitutional over-reliance on local property taxes, NCH can only spend 55% of what Indian Hill spends on each student. For IH, this means better-paid teachers, more electives and counselors, less staff turnover and smaller class sizes. For NCH, the opposite is true.

Despite this “Have and Have Not” funding system, the state of Ohio uses the same measuring sticks for each district. The Report Cards are mostly the result of standardized tests. Yet, there is nothing standardized about the allocation of resources to fairly educate ALL of Ohio students.

The Indian Hill-type districts will continue to receive awards and platitudes while the North College Hill-types will continue to receive condemnation and punishment.

The state leaders of Ohio are not fulfilling their constitutional mandate of a “thorough and efficient” education system. It is thorough for White, wealthy districts; it is not for Black and/or low-income districts. Ensuring equitable outcomes can only be achieved, and fairly compared, by the equitable inputs of resources and funding for each and every district.

On May 17, 1954, Justice Earl Warren stated in the Brown v. Board of Education case,  “in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” They were then and they still are today."