Four Ohio Supreme Court justices called their Thursday decision in DeRolph vs.

Friday, September 07, 2001

Four Ohio Supreme Court justices called its Thursday decision in DeRolph vs. the State of Ohio an opportunity to end gridlock and better fund education. Three justices labeled it as missing the mark. Educators called it: Not exactly what everybody’s looking for in funding fixes.

"My initial reaction is one of concern," said Don Washburn, former superintendent of plaintiff district Dawson-Bryant.

The court labeled the state’s work in funding education equally and better, primarily through House Bill 94, as constitutional but areas previously considered unconstitutional were not addressed, Washburn said.

"As long as the basis for school funding is still property taxes, we will continue to see discrepancies," he said.

After twice ruling against the state in the 10-year-old lawsuit, the high court handed down its third, and seemingly final decision – one that said the system of paying for education would be constitutional once the state increases some funding to schools. The justices, in the 4-3 ruling, did not say how much additional money must be spent.

Click here to read the actual text of the decision.

Current Dawson-Bryant superintendent Dr. Jim Payne called that decision a compromise in terms of what justices feel makes school funding constitutional.

"I hope their compromise does not jeopardize the opportunities for schoolchildren, especially for those in southern Ohio," Payne said.

Yet, the court’s decision – like the state’s plans and fixes for funding – does not address the continued overreliance on property taxes and allows special education, the gifted programs and other areas of education to remain underfunded, he said.

"As superintendent, I have a lot of concern if (the state) is going to follow through," Payne added. "I hope I’m wrong and they comply We’ve been fighting for 10 years and I don’t think (the state) has met the mandate. The fight’s not over yet."

A state teachers’ union and some of Ohio’s poorer school districts made similar remarks about the court’s decision, which in general upheld the state’s school funding plan.

”Obviously our view is that the fundamental flaws in the school funding system have not been fixed,” said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, which represents 20,000 public school teachers in Ohio.

The decision still did not solve the problem of disparity between rich and poor schools, Mooney said.

”It just pumps more money through the same funding formula with minor changes.”

Mooney said the union would urge the Legislature to raise additional revenue – and not cut from other areas – to pay for schools.

Lawrence County superintendent Harold Shafer said he had not read the entire 100-plus-page court decision. But in the end it will come down to individuals, including students, he said.

"We must look at it and see if it’s putting us on the same playing field as other schools," Shafer said. "Our kids are just as important and should have the same opportunity."

The DeRolph lawsuit that led to the court-schools-legislature debate began because rich urban districts could afford to spend more money for each child’s education than districts with little property tax revenue.

Some area schools continue to scratch for textbook money, and many remain behind in technology and new curriculums, Shafer said.

"We need to look at the decision and see if the state has done its job," he said. "If the state hasn’t, they need to go back to the drawing board."

With the court no longer retaining jurisdiction in school funding, Thursday’s decision puts the ball in individuals’ hands, the superintendent added.

"Any changes now, it will be from people telling our legislators, ‘Hey, we need the same down here as they have up there.’"

Ohio Supreme Court orders state to spend more

ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS

The Associated Press

COLUMBUS – The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the state to increase funding to schools and said Ohio’s system of paying for education would be constitutional with the additional spending.

The court also said it has no reason to doubt the state’s intention to fully fund schools. The court ended its involvement in the case, effectively returning jurisdiction over school funding to Legislature.

Courts have had jurisdiction since 1997 when the Ohio Supreme Court first ruled the system was unconstitutional.

The justices ruled 4-3 that the additional spending would meet the constitutional test created in the court’s two previous school-funding opinions. The court did not order the state to pay a specific amount of money.

Justices Andy Douglas and Paul Pfeifer, who twice ruled against the state, joined Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton in ruling against the coalition of schools that sued Ohio over the system.

”A climate of legal, financial and political uncertainty concerning Ohio’s school-funding system has prevailed at least since this court accepted jurisdiction of the case,” Moyer wrote for the majority.

”We have concluded that no one is served by continued uncertainy and fractious debate,” he said. ”In that spirit, we have created the consensus that should terminate the role of this court in the dispute.”

Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who twice ruled against the state, called the decision a ”Machiavellian maneuver” to stop the 10-year-old lawsuit. She said the court was approving a system of public education that remains unconstitutional.

Resnick said the court was acting as a ”superlegislature” putting its own version of a constitutional plan in place.

The court ordered the state to recalculate how it determines the amount each school district receives to pay for the basic education of a student.

The court also ordered the state to speed up funding meant to close the gap between poor and rich school systems. The state wanted to fully fund the $500 million ”parity aid” program by 2006. The court ordered the full funding in place by July 2003.

That could mean the state would have to pay an additional $300 million over two years in the next budget cycle beginning in 2003.

The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, a group of more than 500 public school districts that sued the state in 1991, said the ruling did not address all of the group’s concerns.

”Certainly, there are a lot of items that we’re concerned about that apparently haven’t been addressed, so we’re going to continue to pursue this matter in whatever venues are available,” the executive director, William Phillis, said Thursday.

Despite the court’s order for additional spending, the ruling was an apparent victory for the state. State officials had spent the year since the court’s last ruling on May 11, 2000, preparing their response.

By spring, Republican lawmakers had a plan to spend an additional $1.4 billion on education over two years and overhaul the state’s system of academic standards and tests. They coupled those initiatives with Ohio’s 10-year, $23 billion school building plan.

When viewed as a whole, ”I believe we will have satisfied the outstanding issues in the DeRolph school-funding case,” Republican Gov. Bob Taft said June 6 when he signed the state budget.

The schools’ coalition had argued that the state’s latest school-funding plan fell woefully short of meeting the constitutional standard.

”Local property taxation continues to be a hallmark of Ohio’s school-funding system together with the educational disparities that inevitably flow from that reliance,” Nicholas Pittner, the coalition’s lead attorney, said in a court filing.

The state vehemently disagreed, saying its efforts created a better education system that ended overreliance on local property taxes.

”Even when viewed quantitatively, the sheer magnitude of the advancements made in the system since 1991 is staggering,” Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery argued to the court. ”By any measure, the state has met the court’s standard.”

The state’s plan raised the amount of basic per pupil spending from $4,294 last year to $4,814 this year and $4,949 in 2003. It also provided $300 million in parity aid over two years.

The coalition proposed that $6,178 per student was closer to an accurate spending figure.

The case dates to December 1991 when the coalition sued in Perry County Common Pleas Court on behalf of Nathan DeRolph, then a student in the Northern Local School District, and others.

In July 1994, Perry County Judge Linton Lewis Jr. ruled the state system of financing education was unconstitutional. In March 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld his ruling by a 4-3 vote and returned jurisdiction to Lewis.

On May 11, 2000, the Supreme Court again declared the school-funding system unconstitutional and gave the state until June 15, 2001, to fix it.

On the Net:

Ohio Supreme Court: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us