School Spending

Question A: Cutting school spending by $650 million would significantly reduce Ohio's future human capital.

Question B: Cutting school spending by $650 million would significantly increase inequality in Ohio.

Question C: Cutting school spending by $650 million would significantly reduce the state's future economic output.

Question A: Cutting school spending by $650 million would significantly reduce Ohio's future human capital.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Agree	9	The only way to argue differently would be to try to claim that education has zero marginal benefit!
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	5
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Uncertain	5	My answer would depend on how the funds are cut, if the cuts are permanent, and how we define significant.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Agree	7	Although it is not much in terms of total spending, about $200 per student, every reduction will hurt. We should be spending more, not less.
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Agree	8
Faria Huq	Lake Erie College	Strongly Agree	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Disagree	7
Bill LaFayette	Regionomics	Agree	7
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Strongly Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	10
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Agree	9
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	6
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	8	The evidence shows that increased school spending can increase graduation rates, test scores, and future earnings. Cuts to spending will have the opposite effect.

Question B: Cutting school spending by $650 million would significantly increase inequality in Ohio.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Agree	8	See previous comment. Public education funding has always been America's biggest spending program for reducing inequality. In places without any public education funding, there is huge inequality in education which causes huge inequality in income.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	5
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Uncertain	5	My answer would depend on how the funds are cut, if the cuts are permanent, and how we define significant. If the highest performing students are disproportionately harmed by this funding cut, it could ultimate decrease inequality while still decreasing economic output.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Agree	7	Lower income districts do get more state funds but they have fewer resources to draw on locally.
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Strongly Agree	10	Increasing reliance on local funding and pay-to-play activities will definitely hurt less affluent school districts and reduce access to school services for those that need those services most.
Faria Huq	Lake Erie College	Strongly Agree	9
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	7
Bill LaFayette	Regionomics	Strongly Agree	8	The highest-performing districts are generally in wealthier communities which receive less state support. The most significantly impacted schools will be those in economically challenged communities that need the support the most.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Strongly Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	10
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Agree	8
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Uncertain	5
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	8	The purpose of the funding was to have less reliance on local property taxes. There are large differences in per-student-spending across districts within Ohio. Reducing this funding will increase those gaps and increase inequality.

Question C: Cutting school spending by $650 million would significantly reduce the state's future economic output.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Agree	2	This is just a guess that the marginal benefit of education is bigger than the marginal cost. It is really hard to get evidence of causality for a question like this.
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	5	The U.S. and Ohio have a large divergence in the quality of schools, primarily due to relying too much on local property taxes which leads to some local schools with much less funding than others. It is both efficient and fair to use state dollars to better equalize school funding. All children are future workers for the state.
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Uncertain	5	My answer would depend on how the funds are cut, if the cuts are permanent, and how we define significant.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Agree	7	Once again, not the big of a cut.
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Agree	8	There are possibly better investments than education, but I don't have much confidence that the legislature will make them.
Faria Huq	Lake Erie College	Strongly Agree	8
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	7
Bill LaFayette	Regionomics	Strongly Agree	8	School spending is not an expenditure, it is an investment in our future workforce. If we don't have the revenue to support our schools, colleges, and universities adequately, perhaps we should rethink some of those tax cuts.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Strongly Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Uncertain	5
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	10
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Agree	8
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	6
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	8	There are two effects I foresee. One is that there will be less productivity because there will be less human capital (fewer high school graduates, lower test scores and skills). A second effect is that there will be more reliance on government assistance programs and criminal justice costs due to the lower graduation rates and earnings potential of Ohio's students.