DeRolph v. State
78 Ohio St. 3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's system for funding public elementary and secondary education that relies heavily on local property taxes, creating vast wealth-based disparities that deprive students in poorer districts of an adequate education, violates the constitutional mandate to provide a 'thorough and efficient system of common schools.'
Facts:
- Ohio's public school funding system relied primarily on local property taxes, causing vast disparities in available revenue between districts with high property values and those with low property values.
- The state's 'formula amount' for basic aid was not based on the actual cost of educating a student, but was determined as a budgetary residual after other state expenses were allocated.
- Many school districts with low property tax bases, including the appellant districts, operated in deteriorating buildings with conditions like crumbling plaster, leaking roofs, coal dust, asbestos, and inadequate plumbing and electrical systems.
- These financially struggling districts lacked sufficient funds for basic resources, resulting in outdated or non-existent textbooks, a shortage of computers and technology, and the rationing of essential supplies like paper and chalk.
- Curricula in poorer districts were severely limited, often lacking foreign language courses, advanced placement classes, and adequate science labs, which were available in wealthier districts.
- Tax laws created a phenomenon called 'phantom revenue,' where inflationary increases in property values could lead to a reduction in state aid without a corresponding increase in local tax revenue for the school district.
- Financially distressed districts were forced into a cycle of borrowing through state-mandated loan programs, which diverted future funds to repay debt and required further cuts to educational programs to qualify.
Procedural Posture:
- A coalition of over 500 Ohio school districts and several students sued the State of Ohio, the State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
- The lawsuit was filed in the Perry County Court of Common Pleas, which served as the trial court.
- After a 30-day trial, the trial court found Ohio's school funding system unconstitutional under the 'Thorough and Efficient Clause' and other provisions of the Ohio Constitution.
- The State of Ohio (appellee) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the funding system constitutional based on the precedent set in Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Walter.
- The plaintiff school districts (appellants) then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Ohio's statutory system for funding public elementary and secondary education, which relies heavily on local property taxes and results in wide disparities in resources among school districts, violate the 'Thorough and Efficient Clause' of Section 2, Article VI of the Ohio Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.
Yes, 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. The system's overreliance on local property taxes has created vast, wealth-based disparities that leave many districts 'starved for funds' and unable to provide students with even a minimally adequate education. The court found overwhelming evidence of deplorable building conditions, insufficient supplies and textbooks, and inadequate curricula in poorer districts. The state's funding formula is arbitrary, and mechanisms like 'phantom revenue' and forced borrowing exacerbate the problem. It is the state's, not the local district's, ultimate constitutional responsibility to secure a thorough and efficient system, and the current legislation has failed to do so, necessitating a 'complete systematic overhaul.'
Dissenting - Moyer, C.J.
No, the statutory financing system does not violate the Ohio Constitution. The question of what level of funding constitutes a 'thorough and efficient' system is a nonjusticiable political question that the Constitution commits to the General Assembly, not the judiciary. The court lacks judicially manageable standards to resolve this issue and, by intervening, violates the principle of separation of powers. The General Assembly has established and funded a system of schools with minimum standards, which all plaintiff districts have met, thereby satisfying its constitutional duty. The majority's decision is based on anecdotal evidence and fails to acknowledge recent legislative efforts to increase funding, and it will inevitably lead to protracted litigation where the court improperly determines state taxation and educational policy.
Concurring - Douglas, J.
Yes, the statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Concurring with the majority, this opinion adds that public education in Ohio is a fundamental right, and therefore the funding system also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution. The state's justification of 'local control' is a 'cruel illusion' for districts that are financially destitute and have no meaningful choices. The record provides exhaustive and compelling evidence of the system's failures, including deplorable building conditions and gross inequities. The court has a duty to perform judicial review and cannot defer to the legislature when constitutional rights are at stake.
Concurring - Alice Robie Resnick, J.
Yes, the system is unconstitutional. Concurring with the majority, this opinion clarifies that the case is not about achieving equality of funding in all districts, but about ensuring a baseline quality education for every child in Ohio. A 'thorough and efficient' system requires meeting a constitutional threshold of adequacy, which includes safe buildings, sufficient teachers, and enough textbooks and equipment. The evidence of students being taught in coal bins and schools lacking sanitary facilities makes it obvious that this threshold has not been met. The state must first determine the cost of a quality education and then create a system to provide it, recognizing that property taxes can no longer be the primary funding source.
Concurring - Pfeifer, J.
Yes, the funding system violates the Thorough and Efficient Clause. The remarkable funding inequities, even within a single county, are direct evidence that the system is inefficiently designed and administered. The system allows residents in some districts to tax themselves at a much lower rate yet spend more than twice as much per pupil as residents in other districts who tax themselves heavily. The dissent's approach would render the 'Thorough and Efficient' clause a 'dead letter.' The framers of the constitution intended the standard to be fluid and to evolve over time, placing a burden on each generation to ensure it is met.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered Ohio's constitutional law by invalidating the state's entire public school funding system and ordering a complete legislative overhaul. It established the 'Thorough and Efficient' clause as a judicially enforceable mandate, rejecting the argument that school funding is a nonjusticiable political question reserved for the legislature. The ruling affirmed the judiciary's power to compel legislative action on core constitutional obligations, setting a powerful precedent for judicial oversight of fiscal policy related to education. This case initiated decades of subsequent litigation and legislative reform efforts as the political branches struggled to create a funding system that complied with the court's mandate.
