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.

Zoom into the Future: China’s Fly Taxis Take Off While America’s Still Taxiing

Buckle up, folks—China’s taking to the skies with their latest high-flying adventure: autonomous passenger drones, a.k.a. "Fly Taxis"! On March 30, 2025, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) handed out the world’s first-ever Operation Certificates (OCs) to two Chinese companies, EHang Holdings and Hefei Hey Airlines, officially launching commercial drone taxi services. 

Meanwhile, America’s still stuck in traffic, trying to figure out if these flying wonders are more sci-fi than reality. Let’s dive into this sky-high story, sprinkle in some laughs, and see why China’s soaring ahead while the U.S. is lagging behind.

China’s Fly Taxi Frenzy: The Sky’s the Limit!

Picture this: you’re in Guangzhou, sipping tea, and instead of hailing an Uber, you book a Fly Taxi through an app. Minutes later, a sleek EHang EH216-S—think of it as a giant drone with VIP seating for two—whirs down from the clouds. No pilot, no fuss, just pure autonomous awesomeness. With 16 propellers buzzing like a swarm of happy bees, this electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) craft can hit 62 mph and soar up to 10,000 feet. It’s already racked up over 60,000 safe flights, and now, with those shiny new OCs, it’s ready to ferry paying passengers across China’s bustling cities.

EHang’s not stopping at joyrides either. They’re planning low-altitude tourism hubs in Guangzhou, offering urban sightseeing and short-hop flights you can book as easily as a ride-share. Hefei Hey Airlines, based in Anhui, is joining the party too, proving China’s low-altitude economy is no longer just pie in the sky—it’s a full-on buffet! Industry experts predict it’ll take two to three years for big cities like Beijing and Shanghai to fully embrace this tech, but with the government pushing hard (and throwing cash at it), China’s already miles—or should we say, kilometers?—ahead.

And get this: China’s not just first in line; they’re setting the pace. The EH216-S is the only passenger drone worldwide with all three golden tickets—Type Certificate, Production Certificate, and Airworthiness Certificate—plus the new OC. It’s like the drone aced flight school with extra credit! Meanwhile, companies like AutoFlight are testing five-seater eVTOLs, and Sichuan Tengden just flew a massive cargo drone with a 2-ton payload. China’s low-altitude economy, valued at 500 billion yuan ($70 billion) in 2024, could skyrocket to 2 trillion yuan by 2030. Talk about a high-flying investment!

America’s Grounded Dreams: Why So Slow, Uncle Sam?

Now, let’s hop across the Pacific to the U.S., where flying taxis are still more “Back to the Future” fantasy than everyday reality. Sure, companies like Joby Aviation are making moves—testing piloted eVTOLs with plans for passenger services by 2026—but autonomous drones? Not yet. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released a roadmap in July 2023 for eVTOL integration, but it’s a cautious crawl, starting with onboard pilots and no fully autonomous passenger flights in sight. Joby’s latest milestone? A pilot onboard, no passengers, and a lot of “we’ll get there eventually” vibes.

So, why the delay? For one, the FAA’s got stricter rules than a librarian shushing a sneeze. Certifying an autonomous passenger drone in the U.S. is a billion-dollar marathon of red tape, safety checks, and public trust hurdles. China’s CAAC, on the other hand, moves faster—partly thanks to government subsidies slashing certification costs to a third of U.S. levels—and they’re not afraid to let drones loose in controlled zones. Plus, the U.S. lacks reciprocal agreements with China, meaning EHang’s certifications don’t translate here. Analysts say Western regulators don’t fully trust China’s process, citing transparency issues and different safety standards. Translation: America’s not ready to let drones dodge skyscrapers without a human babysitter.

And let’s not forget the culture gap. China’s all-in on the “low-altitude economy” as a national priority—think of it as their version of the space race, but closer to the ground. The U.S.? We’re still debating if drones should deliver pizzas, let alone people. Morgan Stanley pegs flying taxis as a $1 trillion opportunity, but America’s playing catch-up while China’s already cashing in.

Fly Taxi Funnies: Laughing All the Way to the Sky

Now, for some sky-high humor! Imagine telling your boss, “Sorry I’m late, my Fly Taxi got stuck in a cloud jam!” Or picture the in-flight announcement: “Please keep your arms and legs inside the drone—selfies with birds are at your own risk!” In China, you might see a Fly Taxi lane next to the bike lane, while in the U.S., we’d probably slap a “No U-turn” sign on it and call it a day. And if these things take off globally, will we need air traffic cops yelling, “Hey, you’re hovering in a no-fly zone!”?

The Sky’s Calling—Will You Answer?

China’s Fly Taxis aren’t just a cool gimmick—they’re a glimpse into a future where commuting means soaring over gridlock. With EHang and friends leading the charge, China’s low-altitude economy is buzzing with potential, from tourism to emergency rescues. America’s got the tech chops to compete, but until the FAA loosens up and the U.S. bets big, we’ll be waving at China’s drones from the ground. So, next time you’re stuck in traffic, just look up—those whirring wings might be your ride someday. Who’s ready to ditch the carpool for a Fly Taxi pool? Sky’s the limit, folks!