Sandbox

Sandbox

Franklin County — Literacy, Graduation & Investment Summary (LWV)


Ohio's Budget Widens the Urban–Rural/Suburban Divide, Foundational Mentoring Pays Dividends

Franklin County Divide: 2–3★ U-R vs 4–5★ SUB Districts

Map of Franklin County showing 2–3 star vs 4–5 star districts

Franklin County — Literacy, Graduation & Investment Summary

Focus: bridging the Urban–Rural (2–3★) and Suburban (4–5★) divide with literacy-first interventions and graduation targets.

What Franklin County Schools Need

Metric 2–3★ Urban–Rural
UR
4–5★ Suburban
SUB
Comments / Reference
Total Enrollment 113,000 81,800 Source:Ohio Report Card
Avg. Economically Disadvantaged 68.20% 19% Disparity drives service intensity needed in UR.
Est. Not Reading at Grade 3(~33% statewide) 3,240 2,348 Franklin County ≈ 14–15k 3rd graders → ~4.6–5.0k not proficient. Non-proficient readers are ~4× more likely to drop out; dropouts ≈3× more likely to face incarceration/extreme interventions.
% At-Risk of Dropout (≈ 4×) 810 587 Estimate used for planning (actual youth incarcerated ~175 countywide, but dropout risk is a also key indicator).
Extreme Intervention Costs (per student ≈ $200k/yr) $78,000,000 $2,800,000 Illustrative burden (drugs, incarceration, etc.); shows scale of reactive costs vs prevention.

Note:Estimates are directional for advocacy planning and reflect known statewide relationships between early literacy, graduation, and justice involvement.

Foundation Mentoring investment proposal:$6,000 per identified non-reader (UR:$19.44M, SUB:$14.088M; total$33.528M).

Graduation Gains & Economic Impact

Metric 2–3★ (UR) 4–5★ (SUB) Explanation
Current Graduation Rate ~80% ~95% Pattern from ODE report cards (UR lower; SUB already ≈95%).
Graduates New (est.) 90,400 77,710 Enrollment × current grad rate (illustrative).
Graduates at 95% Target 107,350 77,710 Raises UR to 95%; SUB already ~95%.
Increase in Graduates +16,950 ≈ 0 Gains are concentrated in 2–3★ districts.
Added Annual Economic Value (≈$15,000per additional graduate) $254,250,000 / yr $0 Earnings + taxes + avoided social/corrections costs.
County Total (Annual) ~$254,000,000 Lifetime (~40 yrs):$10.2B

Economic increment uses a conservative average of ≈$15,000 per new graduate per year.

26–27 Biennium Funding vs FSFP

Line Item 2–3★ (UR) 4–5★ (SUB) Comments / Reference
Current Economic Disadvantage Funding $422 per student Not applicable to community-centered Foundational Mentoring; available to all students.
FSFP Shortfall (Total) −$229,850,951 −$22,400,895 Assumes state fully funds districts; remaining burden shifts local.
FSFP Shortfall (Per Student) ≈ $2,034 ≈ $274 Per-student shortfall = total shortfall ÷ district students.
Share Covered by State vs Levies State ≈ 35%; Levies ≈ 65% State ≈ 35%; Levies ≈ 65% What can be raised varies by property values (2% in UA ≫ 2% in Columbus).
FSFP Shortfall Not Made Up by Levies ? ? To fill in:county auditor + district levy receipts (2024). See: Franklin County Auditor & ODE District Profiles.

Source links:Ohio Report Card, Franklin County Auditor (levy receipts), ODE District Profiles.

Foundation Mentoring — Investment Snapshot

Investment Need

  • UR (2–3★) non-readers × $6,000 →$19.44M
  • SUB (4–5★) non-readers × $6,000 →$14.088M
  • Total:$33.528M

Why It Pays

  • 3rd-grade literacy → 4× higher grad odds.
  • New graduates add ≈$15,000/yr each in value.
  • Reduces extreme interventions (≈$200k/youth/year).
  • Increases economic activity by (≈$254,250,000per year; ≈$10.2Bover 40 yrs)

Advocacy Takeaways

The Ask

The 'Economically disadvantaged' component is currently funded by the state at $422 per student. Best practices suggest more than $6,000 per identified student and a Resource Coordinator for each building. This will support the two elements ofFoundation Mentoring:
  • preventive mentoring for all identified students.
  • proactive mentoring identified by at-risk data.
  • resource coordinator at each building to work within the community.

The goal is to provide students with mentoring that, in addition to the state's services, ensures follow through by connecting to the families and community.

 

Justification

  • Funding gap is inequitable:2–3★ UR districts bear ~91% of the combined FSFP shortfall (−$229.9M of −$252.3M), ≈$1,760more shortfall per student than suburban peers (UR ≈$2,034vs SUB ≈$274).
  • Limited local tax capacity magnifies the gap:FSFP shortfall per student is substantially higher in UR (≈$2,034) than SUB (≈$274), and levy capacity varies is less in UR districts.
  • Higher UR student needs with lower in-school capacity:UR districts average68.2%economically disadvantaged students vs19%in suburban districts.
  • Policy ask:Prevent diversion of public funds with vouchers for the wealthy and require standards for all publicly funded schools. This will help close the divide.
  • Foundational Mentoring pays:Preventive investment (~$6,000/student) helps avoid extreme interventions (~$200,000/youth/year).
  • Economic upside:Raising 2–3★ districts to 95% graduation adds ≈$254,250,000 per yearin countywide value (≈$10.2Bover 40 years).
  • 📌 Franklin County pilot:Propose a countywide pilot program to establish clear metrics on Foundation Mentoring and graduation outcomes. This pilot would document avoided costs, track literacy and mentoring impacts, and provide evidence for scaling statewide investments.

Sources & Notes:Numbers are fromMetro Columbus Public Education Advocacyand the Ohio Report Card. Literacy→cost avoidance assumptions held constant across groups for comparability.

Sources

FSFP – State stance vs Impact (Handout)


FSFP — State stance vs Impact (Condensed)
State stance Impact
State underfunds FSFP yet claims it is supporting the funding formula by using 2023 costs. Shortchanging schools shifts the burden to families through higher property taxes, rents, and sales taxes. Low-wealth districts raise far less, so kids in poorer communities get less even when voters say “yes.”
“We can’t afford FSFP.” The gap is only $2.5 billion—small compared to Ohio’s budget. Instead, funds go to vouchers and incarceration rather than classrooms.
Vouchers should help low-income families in failing schools. In 2023–24, over $400 million went to EdChoice Expansion, mostly for wealthier families. Less than 20% of recipients are low-income.
“Parental choice” expands opportunities. 78% of students attend public schools, and in nine counties they are the only choice. Vouchers drain funds from the system serving most kids.
State support for education is stable. Repeated state income tax cuts shift the burden to local property taxes. Low-wealth districts fall further behind.
The system is accountable to communities. School boards are becoming more accountable to state politicians, not local voters. Community voice is diminished.
No money for full school funding. Lawmakers approved a $600M subsidy for the Browns stadium while cutting school support. Stadium jobs are temporary; education builds futures.
School choice drives improvement. Diverting funds to unaccountable alternatives weakens public schools. Private schools receiving vouchers must be held to state standards.
Federal support can fill the gap. Federal aid is unstable and likely to decline. Ohio must invest directly in its schools.
“Flat taxes are fair because everyone pays the same rate.” Flat(er) taxes shift the load to sales and property taxes, which are regressive. Poorer families pay more of their income than the wealthy.
“Local control is better; just pass a levy.” Levies raise far less in low-wealth areas for the same millage. This isn’t local control—it’s structural inequality.
Governance principles for a public education system are being met. Wealthy districts use loopholes to avoid open enrollment from poorer districts. State control is eroding true school board independence.

What Franklin County Schools Need — Summary


What Franklin County Schoools need

Metric 2–3★ Urban–Rural
UR
4–5★ Suburban
SUB
Comments / Reference
Total enrollment 113,000 81,800 https://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/home
Avg. Economically Disadvantaged 68.20% 19%
Est. Not Reading (Statewide ~33% of 3rd graders) 3,240 2,348 Franklin County estimate: ~14,000–15,000 3rd graders, so ~4,600–5,000 not proficient. A 3rd grader who is not proficient in reading is 4× more likely to drop out, and high school dropouts are 3× more likely to be incarcerated.
% At-Risk of Dropout (≈4×) 810 587 Actual number incarcerated is 175, but we are using this estimate because: A 3rd grader not proficient in reading is 4× more likely to drop out, and high school dropouts are 3× more likely to or need extreme interventions or be incarcerated.
"Extreme intervention costs (drugs, incarceration
etc.   per student ~$200,000/year)."
$78,000,000.00 $2,800,000.00 $80,800,000.00
Current graduateion rates. 80 95 2-3* is at 80%; 4-5* is at 95%
Additional graduations due to Foundation Mentoring 16950 0
Economic Gains due to state investment in the divide

LWV Alerts and Watchlist — Full Collection


Act Now

Browse activities and add your voice

Click the caret next to each issue for a brief explainer
Activity Issue
LWV METRO COLUMBUS
None
No active alerts
Metro Columbus actions will appear here when available.
LWVO
Tell Ohio lawmakers
Put people before party in redistricting
Fair maps ensure communities choose their representatives, not the other way around. It directly affects who sets education policy and funding priorities.
LWVUS
Tell Congress
Protect our voting rights
Strong voting rights protect accountability for school funding, transparency, and district governance.
ALLIES
None
No active alerts
Partner organization alerts will be listed here when available.

Key Explainers

Context, solutions, and actions


The Problem We Must Solve Together

Franklin County highlights Ohio’s UR vs. SUB divide.

2–3★ urban–rural districts carry higher concentrations of poverty and lower graduation rates; 4–5★ suburban districts are near 95% graduation. Equalizing opportunity requires targeted, sustained supports.

More details


Why Early Supports & Community Connectedness Work

Reading, tutoring, attendance, and mentoring lift graduation.

Early literacy, high-dosage tutoring, attendance and mental-health supports are most effective when paired with mentors, family engagement, and after-school or work-based learning.

More details


FSFP: State Stance vs. Impact

Outdated costs and voucher growth strain district budgets.

Using older cost inputs underfunds schools; shortfalls are shifted to local levies. Voucher expansion diverts funds while fixed costs remain, especially in high-need districts.

More details

Our Impact

Collaboration, outreach, and action tools


The Role of Non-Partisan Collaboration

Bipartisan cooperation gets funding to what works.

We convene urban, rural, and suburban partners; work across political lines; and keep focus on proven interventions that raise graduation rates and reduce long-term costs.

More details


Send Emails to Legislators

Use targeted messages to support full FSFP funding.

Make your voice heard. Explain how fully funding the “economically disadvantaged” component helps schools deliver literacy, mentoring, and attendance supports that boost graduation.

More details


Measure What Matters

Track literacy, attendance, and graduation outcomes.

Use simple indicators tied to prevention mentoring: K–3 literacy gains, attendance improvements, grade progression, and cohort graduation rates.

More details

Fishbone — Increased Economic Activity


From Students to Skilled Workers: Increasing Economic Activity

Public Education Advocacy Strategy

FranklinCountyDivideHigher graduation rates= More economic activity(~$33M annually, Franklin)⬆️ Vote:FundingNon-instructional support (Increase)Addressing inflation (Yes)Regressive taxes (No)ConnectednessMentors within community? (Critical)Early intervention? (Critical)Graduation3rd grade reading (Improves)Workforce readiness (Increase)Experiential learning (Increase)⬇️ Act Against:DiversionPublicly fund. vouchers ($400M)Institutional services, sans communityStudent LossDelayed intervention (Less effective $$)Incarceration ($70M)GovernanceLack of standardsBoard answers to politiciansIneffective representationPositive / improvesCriticalRisk / increases / diversion

Divide Image — Disadvantaged vs Rating


Franklin County Divide

Economically Disadvantaged vs. School Rating illustrating the Urban-Rural (top left) / Suburban (bottom right) divide

Chart: Economically Disadvantaged vs Performance Rating (Ohio districts)
Source: my.lwv.org — disadvantaged_versus_rating_2.jpg

Tip: Open image directly for maximum resolution.