DeRolph v. State

• Decision Date: 11 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-570.,99-570.
• Citation: 89 Ohio St.3d 1,728 NE 2d 993
• Parties: DEROLPH ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

89 Ohio St.3d 1

728 NE 2d 993

DEROLPH ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS.

No. 99-570.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted November 16, 1999.

Decided May 11, 2000.

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Nicholas A. Pittner, John F. Birath, Jr., Sue Wyskiver Yount, Quintin F. Lindsmith and Susan B. Greenberger, for appellees.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Mary Lynn Readey, Roger F. Carroll and James G. Tassie, Assistant Attorneys General; Jones, Day, Reavis & Rogue and Jeffrey S. Sutton; Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., and Joel S. Taylor, for appellants.

Joseph P. Sulzer, urging affirmance for amici curiae members of the Ohio House of Representatives John R. Bender, Jack Ford, Barbara C. Pringle, Daniel Metelsky, Charles A. Wilson, Jr., Troy Lee James, Barbara Boyd, William L. Ogg, Tom Roberts, David Hartley, Jerry Krupinski, Sylvester Patton, Jr., Sean D. Logan, Joe Sulzer, William Healy, June H. Ferderber, Peter Lawson Jones, Dale Miller, Betty Sutton, Vernon Sykes, Samuel Britton, Dixie J. Allen, Darrell Opfer, Erin Sullivan, John E. Barnes, Jr., Bryan Flannery, L. George Distel, Jeanine Perry, Chris Verich, Catherine L. Barrett, Robert Gooding, Joyce Beatty, Ray Miller, and Shirley A. Smith; and Ohio Senators Ben Espy, Leigh Herrington, Daniel Brady, Robert F. Hagan, Michael C. Shoemaker, Mark Mallory, and C.J. Prentiss.

Walter & Haverfield, James E. Betts and Frederick W. Whatley, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Alliance for Adequate School Funding.

Raymond Vasvari and Gino J. Scarselli, urging affirmance for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., Kimball H. Carey and Katherine A. Francis, urging affirmance for amici curiae Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio School Boards Association, and Ohio Association of School Business Officials.

Patrick F. Timmins, Jr., urging affirmance for amicus curiae Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools.

Louis B. Geneva Co., L.P.A., and M. Jayne H. Geneva, urging affirmance for amici curiae Coalition for School Funding Reform, Cleveland Heights—University Heights City School District, East Cleveland City School District, Grand Valley Local School District, Lakewood City School District, Shaker Heights City School District, Waverly City School District, and Coalition for Greater Cleveland's Children.

Courtney Williams, urging affirmance for amicus curiae League of Women Voters of Ohio.

Bernard Cohen, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Child Caring Agencies. John T. Ryerson, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Gifted Children.

Buckley King & Bluso, Robert J. Walter and Thomas C. Drabick, Jr., urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE)/AFSCME Local 4, AFL-CIO.

Christopher Lopez; Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., Ted Iorio, Christine A. Reardon and Donato Iorio, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Education Association.

Schnorf & Schnorf Co., L.P.A., David M. Schnorf and Johna M. Bella, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Federation of Teachers.

Ohio Legal Rights Service and Susan G. Tobin, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Legal Rights Service.

Ennis, Roberts & Fischer and C. Bronston McCord III, urging affirmance for amicus curiae West Clermont Local School District Board of Education.

John M. Haseley, urging affirmance for amicus curiae United States Congressman Ted Strickland.

Chester, Willcox & Saxbe and John J. Chester, urging reversal for amicus curiae Governor Bob Taft.

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., and N. Victor Goodman, urging reversal for amici curiae Richard H. Finan, President of the Ohio Senate, and Jo Ann Davidson, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives.

ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.

I BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

In DeRolph I, after an exhaustive review of the evidence, a majority of this court concluded that Ohio's system of primary and secondary public schools in place at that time fell well short of the mandate of Section 2, Article VI. DeRolph I recognized that, despite the earnest efforts of the General Assembly, it was simply impossible to characterize the existing system as "thorough and efficient." Accordingly, this court declared the system unconstitutional and stated that the General Assembly must devise and implement a new "thorough and efficient" system.

Now, this court is called upon to consider the same basic constitutional question that was before us in DeRolph—Can the revised system be characterized as thorough and efficient pursuant to Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution? Although the key inquiry is the same, the specifics of that inquiry have changed commensurately with the state's attempts to institute the necessary reforms. Therefore, realizing that legislation involving schools is an ongoing and ever-changing process as new laws are continuously enacted and former laws are constantly amended or repealed, it is incumbent upon us to examine the extent of those reforms to consider whether the mandate of the Constitution has been satisfied.

The benchmark of our inquiry remains the Thorough and Efficient Clause, as set forth in Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution:

"The general assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the State * * *."

We reiterate the standard for a thorough and efficient system of common schools as set out in Miller v. Korns (1923), 107 Ohio St. 287, 297-298, 140 N.E. 773, 776:

"This declaration is made by the people of the state. It calls for the upbuilding of a system of schools throughout the state, and the attainment of efficiency and thoroughness in that system is thus expressly made a purpose, not local, not municipal, but state-wide.

"With this very purpose in view, regarding the problem as a state-wide problem, the sovereign people made it mandatory upon the General Assembly to secure not merely a system of common schools, but a system thorough and efficient throughout the state.

"A thorough system could not mean one in which part or any number of the school districts of the state were starved for funds. An efficient system could not mean one in which part or any number of the school districts of the state lacked teachers, buildings, or equipment."

Furthermore, in Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Walter (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 368, 387, 12 O.O.3d 327, 338, 390 N.E.2d 813, 825, this court observed that a school system could not be thorough and efficient if any school district in Ohio "was receiving so little local and state revenue that the students were effectively being deprived of educational opportunity." See, also, DeRolph I, 78 Ohio St.3d at 204, 677 N.E.2d at 741, citing both Miller and Walter with approval.

In DeRolph I,78 Ohio St.3d at 212, 677 N.E.2d at 747, this court identified four aspects of the school-funding scheme in place at that time that contributed "to the unworkability of the system and which must be eliminated." Those four aspects were "(1) the operation of the School Foundation Program, (2) the emphasis of Ohio's school funding system on local property tax, (3) the requirement of school district borrowing through the spending reserve and emergency school assistance loan programs, and (4) the lack of sufficient funding in the General Assembly's biennium budget for the construction and maintenance of public school buildings."

This court, in declaring the statutes unconstitutional, stated in DeRolph I at 213, 677 N.E.2d at 747, that "[b]ecause of its importance, education should be placed high in the state's budgetary priorities. A thorough and efficient system of common schools includes facilities in good repair and the supplies, materials, and funds necessary to maintain these facilities in a safe manner, in compliance with all local, state, and federal mandates."

The defendants claim that they have enacted a package of remedial legislation that meets and even exceeds the requirement for a system that is both thorough and efficient. Defendants argue that the decision of the trial court should be reversed and ask this court to "give the new, ongoing remedy a chance to succeed."

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, urge this court to find that the state has fallen woefully short of its obligations to craft a thorough and efficient system. Plaintiffs argue that this court should affirm the judgment of the trial court, which was in their favor on every significant point. Furthermore, plaintiffs request that this court (1) declare that the right to an education is a fundamental right under the Ohio Constitution, with a corresponding duty on the state to justify any disparities in the funding system; (2) specify what programs and services must be provided to children at every level, in order to define what level of educational opportunities must be made available; (3) retain jurisdiction of the case and direct the parties to a settlement conference under the supervision of a special master; and (4) issue an interim funding order that, among other things, requires the state to fund the foundation level at $5,051 per pupil, updated for inflation from FY99, and also requires the state to fund school facilities at a minimum level of $1 billion for each fiscal year.

In DeRolph I, 78 Ohio St.3d at 198, 677 N.E.2d at 737, this court stated that "Ohio's statutory scheme for financing public education is complex." In addition, this court noted that "[s]chool funding has been, and continues to be, a Herculean task." Id. at 211, 677 N.E.2d at 746. These remarks apply with equal force to the system now at issue. In fact, the educational system continues to be extraordinarily complex, and as evidenced by the record now before us, reforming that system continues to be a task...