DeRolph vs. State of Ohio

1. DeRolph vs. State of Ohio By Kristen Chozinski

2. What’s it about? • School funding in the State of Ohio is inadequate and unequal. • There is a huge disparity in equality in Ohio’s 612 school districts.

3. What are some other expenses the state may have besides school funding?

4. Current Funding System • School funding has primarily relied on local property taxes • State revenues have been misused because they have been used to fund other state functions before the schools

5. Current Funding System Problems • The school funding system does not provide regular growth in revenue. • Schools don’t receive additional taxes when a property’s value increases. • The distribution of state funds to schools is inadequate. • Spending per pupil in Ohio has the highest disparity.

6. Current Funding System Problems • School funding is a low priority. • Despite limitations in local tax growth, overall school taxation has stayed the same. • Inequities in distribution have become worse. • The need to constantly pass levies has resulted in an unstable system. • Inequity increased because of “phantom revenue”

7. As a result. . . Schools in low income districts suffer with: • Lack of supplies • Overcrowding • Small classrooms • Lack of appropriate books • Poor transportation

8. DeRolph vs. State of Ohio • E&A Coalition filed a suit against the State of Ohio because they found the condition and tools of Ohio’s schools to prohibit opportunity for success. • By filing the case, the Coalition hoped the State would be forced to remedy the problem.

9. Timeline 12/19/91 2nd Complaint filed by E&A Coalition in Perry County 10/25/93 Trial begins and lasts 30 days 7/1/94 Judge Lewis found Ohio’s school funding to be unconstitutional 9/10/96 Oral arguments presented before Supreme Court 3/24/97 The Supreme Court ruled funding system unconstitutional

10. Timeline 2/18/98 State filed for extension on deadline 3/11/98 Motion for extension denied 9/1/98 Supreme Court rules that State needs to show evidence that the mandates have been fulfilled 5/11/00 Court gives State until 6/15/01 to bring system into compliance 9/6/01 Ohio’s school funding system remains unconstitutional

11. What did the court say? • Supreme Court ruled the current funding system to be unconstitutional • The Court stated that the state shall provide for a “thorough and efficient system of public schools” • The state must provide evidence of improvement in school funding system

12. What’s Next? • State must alleviate heavy reliance upon local property taxes • Funds from State should be used for schools • State plans to work from lowest wealth districts up through all 612 districts • Claims all districts will be repaired in 12 years and cost about $750 million per year

13. What’s Next? • Action Plan for Implementing DeRolph • Goal 1 “Create an Inventory” • Goal 2 “Establish High Quality System” • Step 1 “Develop equal standards for all schools” • Step 2 “Establish per-pupil funding level” • Step 3 “Design funding plan for all schools” • Goal 3 “Abolish SSA Fund” • Goal 4 “Fund the Mandates”

14. Hopefully someday all schools across America will be equally funded and able to provide an equal education for all students.