DeRolph vs. the State of Ohio

On May 9, 1991, Dale R. DeRolph, on behalf of his son Nathan, filed a lawsuit, along with five school districts, against the state of Ohio stating the school funding system is unconstitutional. The lawsuit began a course of action that has resulted in three major Ohio Supreme Court decisions including the most recent (DeRolph III) on September 6, 2001, in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Ohio's school funding system unconstitutional, and mandating the legislature to make changes to the system. As of February 2002, a court-appointed mediator is attempting to reach a settlement or the case goes back to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Case History
Below are some of the major highlights from this case and information on this most recent decision.

• May 9, 1991 - Dale R. DeRolph, on behalf of his son Nathan, filed a lawsuit, along with five school districts, against the state of Ohio stating the school funding system is unconstitutional.

• July 1, 1994 - Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. rules that Ohio's school funding system is unconstitutional.

• August 12, 1995 - The state appeals to the 5th District Court of Appeals saying the legislature, not the courts, should determine school aid.

• August 30, 1995 - The court of appeals overturns Lewis' ruling 2-1.

• October 10, 1995 - An appeal is made to the Ohio Supreme Court by The Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, which today represents 550 of the state's 612 school districts.

• 1997 - The Ohio Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, declared the school funding system unconstitutional (DeRolph I).

• May 2000 - The Supreme Court ruled (4-3) that although lawmakers have made strides in the right direction by increasing funding to education, the system is still unconstitutional and gave the legislature until June 15, 2001 to fix it (DeRolph II).

• September 6, 2001 - The Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that Ohio's school funding system is still unconstitutional, but if the legislature does two things, it will be constitutional (DeRolph III). Since the Court had no reason to believe the legislature will not do as it is told, the Supreme Court decided to no longer hold jurisdiction over the school funding issue (meaning it will not consider the case again unless the coalition renews the lawsuit). The two stipulations the Court gave were:
  1. The state must raise the minimum per-pupil funding guaranteed by the state. This will be done by altering the formula the legislature used to find the dollar amount (the formula they used excluded some districts that would raise the amount to a level which the Court believed was higher than the legislature wanted to spend).

  2. Lawmakers must increase the amount of funding that helps poor school districts pay for programs such as special education, vocational education, and transportation (this is known as parity funding). Also, the phase in period for this money was decreased from the five (5) years the legislature wanted to two (2) years.

• The Supreme Court also ruled that the legislature should consider alternative means for paying for school facility improvements, though no order was given.

• November 2, 2001 - The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its Sept. 6 ruling that ordered the state to provide $1.2 billion more a year for public schools retroactive to last July 1.

• November 16, 2001 - The Ohio Supreme Court decided to hand the case over to a mediator to be chosen from a list of qualified candidates. Mediation will take an undetermined amount of time.

Key Findings
Despite extensive media coverage, only 50.6% of Ohioans knew that Ohio's Supreme Court was deciding a lawsuit that could find Ohio's system of school funding to be unconstitutional and those who are aware of the case don't feel that they know very much (5.8% know "a lot" and 15.3% know "a little"). Of the people that were aware of the case, 62.9% agree that the Ohio Supreme Court needs to be involved.

Most respondent believe that the Supreme Court decision will have some impact on the quality of education in their communities (69%), as well as on themselves, personally (69%). Most expect any impact to be small, but positive. Although 67% of respondents believed that the Supreme Court decision would have a positive impact on Ohio's academic success in years to come, respondents seemed to acknowledge that it will take more than additional funding to address specific problems. For example, only 47% expected that the Supreme Court decision would have a positive impact on graduation rates in years to come.

In terms of new sources of funding, participants were favorable towards expanding the Ohio Lottery (60% in favor), a combination of tax increases and budget cuts (55% in favor), and an increase Ohio's state sales tax (53% in favor). However, respondents were firmly against pooling business and property taxes to evenly distribute them; 70% were opposed to this idea when it meant some districts will receive less funding.