MOUNT VERNON — It seems like every time an election rolls around, one school district or another is asking for money — either new money or a continuation of current revenues. There were 165 school issues on the March ballot. Of those, 58 were requests for new general fund money; 46 were renewals of operating revenues and 37 were permanent improvement levies. All but 18 of those issues involved local property taxes to fund schools.
That reliance on local property taxes is one of the main reasons the Ohio Supreme Court, in four separate decisions, said educational funding in Ohio is unconstitutional. Relying on local taxes means schools are funded on an unequal basis: Wealthier districts have more money available to spend on schools than do poorer districts.
DeRolph is the shorthand term used to refer to the lawsuit which led to the court’s findings. The following information regarding DeRolph comes from a publication of the Ohio School Boards Association titled “Making $ense out of $chool Finance.”
In DeRolph I, in March 1997, the court said the General Assembly was not providing for a thorough and efficient system of “common schools” throughout the state as required by the state constitution. The four unconstitutional features identified by the court were: The School Foundation Program failed to provide sufficient funds for an adequate education; the school funding system placed too much reliance on local property taxes; the state failed to provide adequate funding for school buildings; and the requirement that school districts borrow money also violated the constitutional requirement that the state provide for adequate funding.
The court summary stated ... “the establishment, organization and maintenance of public education are the state’s responsibility. ... ”
The court’s opinion in DeRolph II was issued in May 2000. In general, the court emphasized the need to improve the school funding system to ensure enough money for all school districts to fund an “adequate” education.
It acknowledged the General Assembly had made some progress in fixing school funding, but still found serious problems in the existing structure of school finance. Among other things, the court said the state’s response to DeRolph I failed to seriously address the continued reliance on local property taxes as the primary funding mechanism for Ohio’s public schools. It continued to question the basic aid formula and said the state should provide the money for certain unfunded mandates. Additionally, the court suggested the state review the requirement that local districts have to pass levies as a prerequisite to receiving state funding should be reviewed.
In DeRolph III, September 2001, the court stopped calling for a complete and systematic overhaul of the school funding system, but insisted on several changes in the formula for determining the per-pupil base cost of an adequate education.
On Dec. 11, 2002, in DeRolph IV, the Ohio Supreme Court once again found Ohio’s school funding system unconstitutional and repeated its decision that the state legislature be required to fix the school funding system. The court also effectively ended the lawsuit by relinquishing jurisdiction over the case.
