Is Norton’s School Funding Crisis Really a Statewide Problem? Education Expert Breaks Down the Numbers

When a school district asks voters for more money, the questions tend to sound familiar. Why can’t the district cut spending? Where is the money going? And why are taxpayers being asked to contribute more?

But former Ohio state representative and school funding expert Stephen Dyer says the financial challenges facing Norton City Schools aren’t simply a matter of local spending. He argues they’re part of a much larger problem with how Ohio funds public education.

During an extensive community discussion about school funding, Dyer examined Norton’s finances, the growth of private school vouchers, Ohio’s property tax system and the district’s proposed earned income tax levy.

His central argument was that the state isn’t keeping up with the actual cost of educating students, leaving communities to repeatedly turn to local taxpayers to make up the difference.

Is Norton Spending Too Much?
One of the biggest criticisms school districts face when proposing a levy is that they need to reduce administrative spending.

But Dyer said Norton’s financial figures tell a different story.

After reviewing state data, he said the district’s spending has increased more slowly than inflation since 2018.

He also pointed to administrative costs. According to Dyer, approximately 10% of Norton’s spending goes toward administration, compared with a statewide average of about 13%.

Meanwhile, he said roughly 60% of Norton’s spending goes toward classroom instruction, above a statewide average he estimated at 56% to 57%.

Dyer said Norton’s administrative spending share has actually decreased since 2018, while its instructional spending share has increased.

He argued those trends don’t support the claim that excessive administrative spending is the primary reason the district is struggling financially.

The figures were presented as part of Dyer’s analysis and have not been independently verified for this article.

Where Does the State Come In?
Ohio uses the Fair School Funding Plan, a formula intended to calculate education costs based on student needs and district resources.

However, Dyer explained that the state has not fully updated important elements of that formula, including staffing costs and additional funding calculations for students with disabilities and those living in poverty.

He said the state is relying on outdated financial inputs while the cost of providing education continues to rise.

Another issue, according to Dyer, is how the state determines how much money a community can contribute toward its schools.

When property valuations increase, the state may calculate that a district can afford a larger local share of education costs.

But Dyer argues that doesn’t necessarily mean a district is collecting more money.

Ohio’s House Bill 920 generally limits revenue growth from existing voted property tax levies as property values increase, although certain taxes, including those affected by the 20-mill floor, are treated differently.

The result can be confusing for residents: A school district may appear wealthier on paper without receiving a corresponding increase in operating revenue.

Vouchers, Charter Schools and Norton’s Funding
Dyer also raised concerns about Ohio’s growing investment in private school vouchers and charter schools.

He presented figures showing that Norton had 12 students receiving private school vouchers in 2018, associated with approximately $49,850 in state funding.

For the most recent school year, he said those figures had increased to 127 students and $671,575.

Dyer also estimated approximately $533,000 in funding associated with Norton students attending charter schools.

That would put the combined amount associated with voucher and charter school enrollment above $1.2 million.

However, the charter school figure is an estimate, and these amounts should not be interpreted as a verified direct reduction of $1.2 million from Norton’s operating budget.

Dyer argues the growth of these programs competes with funding for traditional public education.

He also questioned whether private schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers are held to the same financial accountability standards as public school districts.

Supporters of school choice, however, maintain that voucher programs allow families to select educational environments that better meet their children’s needs.

The debate recently reached another turning point when Ohio’s 10th District Court of Appeals upheld a ruling finding the EdChoice voucher program unconstitutional. The decision remains stayed during the appeal process, allowing vouchers to continue while the legal battle moves forward.

Why Norton Is Asking Voters for an Earned Income Tax
Norton voters will decide Issue 7 on November 3, a proposed additional 0.75% earned income tax for school operating expenses.

The levy would be continuing rather than expiring after a set number of years. If approved, it would begin January 1, 2027, and increase the district’s existing 0.5% school earned income tax rate to a combined 1.25%.

District officials have estimated the additional tax would generate approximately $3 million annually.

Unlike a property tax, an earned income tax is based on qualifying earnings of people who live within the school district.

It applies to wages and certain self-employment income, but not Social Security benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits or most investment income.

Importantly, the school district tax is based on residency, not workplace location. Someone who works in Norton but lives outside the district would not pay Norton’s school income tax solely because of their employment location.

During the discussion, Dyer was asked about the difference between a five-year levy and a continuing tax.

A temporary levy would give voters another opportunity to review the tax when it comes up for renewal.

But Dyer argued that repeatedly returning to the ballot also creates uncertainty for school districts trying to plan staffing, transportation and other operating expenses several years into the future.

He said a continuing levy offers a more predictable source of revenue at a time when state funding remains uncertain.

What Happens if the Levy Doesn’t Pass?
Perhaps the most immediate concern discussed during the meeting was how the district’s financial difficulties could affect students and their families.

A participant involved in the discussion said approximately 900 students could lose school transportation if the levy fails.

The potential reductions described included eliminating high school busing and reducing transportation eligibility for younger students based on distance from school.

The participant also said pay-to-participate fees for athletics and extracurricular activities would increase, with no family cap.

For families with several children involved in sports or school activities, those added expenses could become significant.

Transportation reductions could also leave parents responsible for arranging rides, coordinating carpools and covering additional fuel costs.

The figures and proposed reductions were described during the meeting and should be confirmed against the district’s official contingency plan.

Dyer said those consequences illustrate a larger concern: When school funding falls short, the financial burden doesn’t necessarily disappear. Some of it shifts directly to families.

Should Businesses Play a Bigger Role?
Dyer also discussed changes in how Ohio schools are funded, particularly the financial burden shared between residential and commercial property owners.

He argued that decades of business tax changes and property tax abatements have increased the pressure on homeowners.

Dyer estimated that if businesses in Norton contributed property taxes at comparable levels to 1986, the burden on residential taxpayers could be approximately $1 million lower.

He also encouraged businesses to become more active in supporting their local school systems.

He recalled a time when major employers regularly participated in school levy campaigns because they recognized the connection between education, workforce development and a community’s long-term economic health.

For Dyer, strong schools and successful businesses aren’t separate priorities. They’re connected.

A Bigger Question for Ohio
After decades working on school funding as a journalist, state legislator, policy analyst and parent, Dyer said he continues to see the same issues resurfacing.

He believes Ohio should fully fund and regularly update its school funding formula so districts aren’t repeatedly asking voters to cover basic educational costs.

He also encouraged residents to direct more of their questions toward state lawmakers, rather than assuming all funding problems originate with their local school boards.

The Ohio Constitution places responsibility on the state to provide a thorough and efficient system of common schools, although debates continue over exactly how that obligation should be met and how costs should be shared.

For Norton voters, the immediate decision is whether to approve an additional continuing earned income tax, weighing the household tax impact against the district’s projected financial needs and proposed reductions.

But Dyer’s larger point extends beyond one district and one election.

Until Ohio establishes a more predictable way to fund public education, he believes communities like Norton will continue facing the same difficult choices, regardless of how carefully they manage their local budgets.