Ohio House GOP Budget Proposal Slashes Education Funding

A Threat to Ohio’s Future: Huffman and Stewart’s Plan Undermines Public Schools

On April 1, 2025, Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) and Finance Chair Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) unveiled their state budget proposal, a plan that has sparked immediate controversy due to its significant reduction in funding for Ohio’s public education system. The proposal, presented as an amendment to H.B. 96, allocates only $226 million for K-12 education, falling far short of the $666 million required to fully fund schools under the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) established in 2021. When adjusted for 2025 inflation rates, education advocates argue the true need is closer to $800 million. This drastic cut, coupled with the redirection of state resources to projects like a $600 million bond for a new Cleveland Browns stadium, has raised alarms among educators, parents, and economists about the long-term consequences for Ohio’s children and economy.

Details of the Budget Proposal

Huffman and Stewart’s budget proposal marks a sharp departure from the bipartisan FSFP, a six-year plan designed to address Ohio’s historically unconstitutional school funding system, as ruled by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1997. The FSFP aimed to reduce reliance on local property taxes by increasing state contributions, with a phased rollout that was partially funded in its first two years and fully funded in the next two. Now, in its final two years, the plan faces abandonment under this proposal. Instead of the $666 million base increase—or the $800 million advocates say is necessary—the GOP plan offers just $226 million, a figure Stewart touted as an increase over 2025 levels but one critics call misleading given rising costs and prior commitments.

During a press conference on April 1, 2025, Huffman and Stewart outlined their substitute bill without providing reporters advance access to the legislation, limiting detailed scrutiny. Huffman, a vocal proponent of private school vouchers, has long argued that public education spending is “unsustainable,” a stance he reiterated in January when he threatened cuts, claiming the state lacked the budget to maintain current levels. Stewart, meanwhile, defended the $226 million as a compromise, noting that Huffman initially sought to eliminate FSFP increases entirely. The proposal also includes a $600 million bond for the Browns stadium, which Stewart justified as a “once-in-a-lifetime project,” distinct from general revenue spending—a claim disputed by Governor Mike DeWine and others who argue it still burdens state finances.

The Harmful Impact of Decreasing Education Funds

The decision of decreasing education funding carries profound implications for Ohio’s students, communities, and economic future. Here’s why experts and stakeholders view this move as detrimental:

1. Widening Inequality
   The FSFP was designed to level the playing field by providing more state support to districts with lower property tax bases, reducing disparities in per-student spending. Cutting this funding, as Huffman and Stewart propose, will exacerbate inequality. A February 2025 survey by Scioto Analysis found that 82% of 17 Ohio economists agreed that a $650 million cut over two years—close to the shortfall in this proposal—would “significantly reduce the state’s future economic output” and increase inequality. Economist Bill LaFayette emphasized, “School spending is an investment in our future workforce,” warning that underfunding perpetuates gaps between wealthy and poor districts.
2. Economic Consequences
   Education is a cornerstone of economic vitality. The same economists’ survey highlighted that slashing school budgets would sap Ohio’s long-term economic output by producing a less skilled workforce. Public schools educate the vast majority of Ohio’s students—over 1.6 million in 2025—yet this proposal risks forcing districts to cut jobs, increase class sizes, or reduce instructional hours. Parma City Schools Superintendent Charles Smialek warned that his district alone might need to impose fees for extracurriculars or shrink classroom time, asking, “What type of education do you want for the lesser privileged among us?”
3. Burden on Local Taxpayers
   By failing to fully fund the FSFP, the state shifts the financial burden back to local property taxes, a system deemed unconstitutional decades ago. With property valuations soaring in 2025, districts like Pickerington face pressure to raise levies, as parent Jason Marshall noted: “I can’t budget groceries on 2022 prices, so how can lawmakers budget schools on outdated costs?” This rollback undermines the FSFP’s goal of equitable funding and punishes communities already stretched thin.
4. Erosion of Public Education
   Critics, including superintendents and Democrats like Finance Ranking Member Bride Rose Sweeney (D-Cleveland), see this as part of a broader push to privatize education. Huffman’s advocacy for vouchers—costing the state nearly $1 billion in 2024—contrasts sharply with his “unsustainable” label for public schools. Sweeney called the proposal “one of the lowest state shares in our state’s history,” warning it could dismantle a system that gives every child “a shot at a middle-class life.”
5. Competing Priorities
   The allocation of $600 million in bonds for a Browns stadium while cutting education has drawn fierce criticism. Governor DeWine, who fully funded schools in his $218 billion budget proposal, argued that such expenditures are directly comparable, urging lawmakers to prioritize education over private ventures. Experts like those cited by the Statehouse News Bureau question the Browns’ optimistic revenue projections, suggesting the state could be left footing the bill with interest, further straining resources.

Opposition and Next Steps

Governor DeWine, public school advocates, and some GOP lawmakers have vowed to fight the cuts. DeWine’s budget, projecting $108 billion for FY 2026 and $110 billion for FY 2027, offers a stark contrast by fully funding the FSFP. The Ohio Senate will now review the House proposal, with DeWine holding line-item veto power. Education coalitions like All In For Ohio Kids and faith leaders from the Hunger Network have also mobilized, arguing that the budget reflects Ohio’s values—or lack thereof.

Conclusion

Huffman and Stewart’s budget proposal represents a pivotal choice for Ohio: invest in the future through education or prioritize short-term projects at the expense of long-term prosperity. As debates unfold, the stakes couldn’t be higher for the state’s students and the communities that depend on a robust public education system.

Disclaimer & Sources, this article reflects sentiment and opinions, not necessarily facts. Sources, links, and views may not represent the author’s personal stance. and nothing in this article should be interpreted as such and or advice, legal advice. You have read the article and by reading the article you came to your own conclusions and used your own thoughts.

If you spot an error, please contact me promptly to correct it ellenniedz@gmail.com. Rights of logos placed here are for recognition for the blind or eyesight problems on this blog. 😎 Be sure to click on all the Blue Links. You can buy me a coffee here and it's very much appreciated. Thank you

---

References and Sources

1. News 5 Cleveland: “Ohio House GOP budget proposal slashes public school funding”
   Link: www.news5cleveland.com
   Published: April 1, 2025
2. WCPO: “Ohio House GOP budget proposal slashes public school funding”
   www.wcpo.com
   Published: April 1, 2025
3. Ohio Capital Journal: “Ohio House GOP budget proposal slashes public school funding”
   ohiocapitaljournal.com
   Published: April 1, 2025
4. Statehouse News Bureau: “Two-year state budget moves to Ohio Senate”
   www.statenews.org
   Published: April 27, 2023 (contextual background)
5. Scioto Analysis via Ohio Capital Journal: “Economists: Ohio school funding cuts would hurt economy, increase inequality”
   ohiocapitaljournal.com
   Published: February 4, 2025
6. All In For Ohio Kids: Statement on DeWine’s budget proposal
   referenced via Ohio Capital Journal, February 10, 2025)