DeRolph v. State, 95-2066
| Decision Date | 24 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2066,95-2066 |
| Citation | 677 N.E.2d 733,78 Ohio St.3d 193 |
| Parties | , 116 Ed. Law Rep. 1140 DeROLPH et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Ohio et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
Ohio's elementary and secondary public school financing system violates Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution, which mandates a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state. The following specific provisions are unconstitutional:
(a) R.C. 133.301, granting borrowing authority to school districts;
(b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.4810, the emergency school assistance loan provisions;
(c) R.C. 3317.01, 3317.02, 3317.022, 3317.023, 3317.024, 3317.04, 3317.05, 3317.051, and 3317.052, the School Foundation Program;
(d) R.C. Chapter 3318, the Classroom Facilities Act, to the extent that it is underfunded.
The constitutionality of Ohio's public elementary and secondary school finance The defendants-appellees are the state of Ohio, the State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Ohio Department of Education. The Alliance for Adequate School Funding, Stanley Aronoff, JoAnn Davidson,
system is at issue in this case. The named plaintiffs-appellants are the Youngstown City School District Board of Education, Mahoning County; the Lima City School District Board of Education, Allen County; the Dawson-Bryant Local School District Board of Education, Lawrence County; the Northern Local School District Board of Education, Perry County; the Southern Local School District Board of Education, Perry County; and the superintendents and certain named members of the boards of education of these districts, as well as certain teachers, pupils, and next friends. Numerous organizations representing such diverse groups as teachers' unions, administrators, school boards, and handicapped children, and various legislators, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Ohio AFL-CIO, have filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the appellants and Governor George Voinovich have filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the appellees.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 19, 1991, appellants filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County, seeking a determination that Ohio's system of funding public education is unconstitutional. Trial began on October 25, 1993 and lasted thirty days, culminating in more than five thousand six hundred pages of transcript and the admission of approximately four hundred fifty exhibits into evidence. Sixty-one witnesses testified at trial or by way of sworn deposition. Although the parties disagree over the constitutionality of the relevant statutes, plaintiff and defense witnesses alike testified as to the inadequacies of Ohio's system of school funding and the need for reform. In fact, defendant State Board of Education has not only advocated comprehensive reform but has stated the following three goals of such reform: equity, adequacy, and reliability of school funding.
Following trial, the trial court issued extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court determined that Ohio's system of school funding violates numerous provisions of the Ohio Constitution, including Section 2, Article VI, requiring a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state. The trial court ordered the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education to prepare legislative proposals for submission to the General Assembly to eliminate wealth-based disparities among Ohio's public school districts. The trial court retained jurisdiction in the matter only for a period of time to ensure that the order was followed and that appropriate steps were taken to institute a totally new system of school funding. The trial court also awarded costs and attorney fees to appellants.
The State Board of Education voted not to appeal from the trial court's decision. However, the Ohio Attorney General filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals, in a split decision, reversed the trial court. The majority relied on Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Walter (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 368, 12 O.O.3d 327, 390 N.E.2d 813, and found that the current system of school funding is constitutional. The court also determined that the trial court had erred in awarding attorney fees to appellants and in retaining jurisdiction in the case.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Reader conceded that current school funding was insufficient, but was unwilling to find the statutory scheme unconstitutional. Instead, he stated that it is up to this court to declare the current system unconstitutional and for the General Assembly to repair it. Despite this position
Judge Reader emphasized the peculiar nature of this case and the lack of dispute over the evidence:
Judge Gwin, in his dissenting opinion, agreed with the trial court that Ohio's statutory scheme for financing its schools violates the "thorough and efficient" clause of the Ohio Constitution. He stressed that due to the glaring discrepancies in school buildings, facilities, access to technology, and curriculum, some students within the state are being deprived of educational opportunity. Furthermore, Judge Gwin stated that the state had shirked its duty to generate revenue for the schools by underfunding Ohio schools and by permitting schools to borrow against future revenue. He also criticized the majority for disregarding certain findings of fact by the trial court and for essentially conducting a de novo review. Judge Gwin found that the trial court had not abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
Bricker & Eckler, Nicholas A. Pittner, John F. Birath, Jr., Sue W. Yount, Michael D. Smith and Susan B. Greenberger, Columbus, for appellants.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Sutton, State Solicitor, and Christopher M. Culley and Sharon A. Jennings, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.
Dinsmore & Shohl, Lawrence A. Kane, Jr., Mark A. VanderLaan, Cincinnati, Joel S. Taylor, Columbus, David K. Mullen, Cincinnati, and William M. Mattes, Columbus, Special Counsel, for appellees State Superintendent of Public Instruction and State Department of Education.
Ben Espy Co., L.P.A., and Ben E. Espy, Columbus; Jan Michael Long, urging reversal for amici curiae members of the Ohio House of Representatives Mary Abel, John Bender, Ross Boggs, Dan Brady, Samuel Britton, Jack Cera, Jack Ford, Robert Hagan, David Hartley, William Healy, Troy Lee James, Jerry Krupinski, Lloyd Lewis, Jr., Sean Logan, June Lucas, Mark Mallory, Dan Metelsky, William Ogg Joan M. Englund, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc.
Darrell Opfer, C.J. Prentiss, Tom Roberts, Frank Sawyer, Michael Shoemaker, Betty Sutton, Vernon [677 N.E.2d 736] Sykes, and Charleta Tavares; Ohio Senators Robert Boggs, Robert Burch, James Carnes, Ben Espy, Linda Furney, Leigh Herington, Jeffrey Johnson, Anthony Latell, Jan Michael Long, Rhine McLin, and Alan Zaleski; and U.S. Representatives Louis Stokes, Robert Ney, and Frank Cremeans.
Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., and Kimball H. Carey, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio School Boards Association and Ohio Association of School Business Officials.
James A. Ciocia, Cleveland Heights, urging reversal for amicus curiae Cleveland Teachers Union.
Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell Co., L.P.A., and Frederick I. Taft, Cleveland, urging reversal for amici curiae Coalition for School Funding Reform (Bay Village City School District, Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, Lakewood City School District, and Shaker Heights City School District).
Patrick F. Timmins, Jr., Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools.
David Goldberger and Edward B. Foley, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Institute for Democracy in Education.
Goldstein & Roloff, Cleveland, and Morris L. Hawk, Shelby, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators and Ohio Association of Secondary School Administrators.
Buckley, King & Bluso, Robert J. Walter and Thomas C. Drabick, Jr., Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE)/AFSCME Local 4, AFL-CIO.
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio AFL-CIO.
Schnorf & Schnorf Co., L.P.A., David M. Schnorf and Johna M. Bella, Toledo, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Federation of Teachers.
Susan G. Tobin, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Legal Rights Service and Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children with Disabilities.
Berry, Shoemaker & Clark and Kevin Shoemaker, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Professional Staff Union.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coles ex rel. Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ.
.......2d 1019 (1983), ruling that opening prayers are constitutionally permissible at sessions of a state legislature. . Are the prayers in question more like "school prayers" prohibited ... provide the city's youth with "a free, public elementary and secondary education." DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733, 737 (1997); see also OHIO REV.CODE ANN. § 3313.48 ......
-
Ex parte James
......v. Fob James, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and as a president of the State Board of Education, et al.) . Ex parte Governor Fob ...See, e.g., DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997) . Those words, "thorough and efficient," are ......
-
Lobato v. State
......58, 515 S.E.2d 535 (1999); Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (1997); Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997); DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 86 N.Y.2d 307, 631 N.Y.S.2d 565, 655 N.E.2d 661 ......
-
Campaign for Quality Educ. v. State
......Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to address [plaintiffs'] constitutional challenge to the state's public education system"]; DeRolph v. State (1997) 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733, 737 ["We will not dodge our responsibility by asserting that this case involves a nonjusticiable ......
-
Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
...Ct., N.M. Oct. 14, 1999); CFE I, 655 N.E.2d 661, 667-68 (N.Y. 1995); Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249, 256 (N.C. 1997); DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733, 747 (Ohio 1997); Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535, 541 (S.C. 1999); Tenn. Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 91 S.W.3d 232,......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...OH 2002 97 Ohio St. 3d 434 Court of last resort OH 1994 [Unreported] Trial court OH 1995 1995 WL 557316 Intermediate court OH 1997 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 Court of last resort OH 2000 89 Ohio St. 3d 1 Court of last resort OH 1999 98 Ohio Mise. 2d 1 Trial court OK 1980 [Unreported] Trial court OK......
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...Bd. of Educ., 357 S.E.2d 432 (N.C 1987) (S); Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 511 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1995) (S); DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997) (P); Board of Educ. v. Walter, 390 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio 1979) (S); Fair Sch. Fin. Council v. State, 746 P.2d 1135 (Okla. 1987) (S); ......
-
William S. Koski & Rob Reich, When "adequate" Isn't: the Retreat from Equity in Educational Law and Policy and Why it Matters
...(Edgewood III), 826 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1992); Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno (Edgewood IV), 917 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1995); DeRolph I, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State (DeRolph II), 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State (DeRolph III), 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v.......