Over a decade after DeRolph v. State of Ohio – what’s really changed?
A reader of the Jungle wrote me an e-mail asking basically where was Ohio education funding at since it had been declared unconstitutional over a decade ago. She suggested it might be an interesting topic to cover here, and I agree. It’s actually been covered recently in some of the media outside of our area. One example is an article from the Columbus Dispatch, yesterday July 19 – (link) part of:
Strickland, with help from legislative Democrats, built a new funding formula in 2009 called the “evidence-based model.”
It changed the way the state determines the costs of various components identified as necessary for a quality education, a method public-school advocates have pushed for years. It attempted to get rid of phantom revenue, a component in the old formula that financially punished a number of districts when property values rose. It eventually will require every district to offer all-day kindergarten.
And once fully paid for – a proposition nine years and billions of dollars away – the plan is supposed to fund a quality education in every district without the need for property taxes beyond the state minimum 20 mills.
The funding plan addresses what the Supreme Court said must be done to achieve a constitutionally mandated “thorough and efficient” system of schools, without relying too much on property taxes, said Strickland spokeswoman Amanda Wurst.“Gov. Strickland has done what (past Republican leaders) have failed to do, which is a systematic overhaul of education in Ohio that will ensure children are successful in the 21st century,” she said.
But with Ohio’s tax revenue battered by a national recession, Strickland’s plan is missing one key element: money.
Columbus NBC 4i covered this topic on July 15 (link) part of that recommended article:
Jeff Anderson, Newark City Schools Treasurer, said he would bet that close to 700 other local school treasurers agree that something has to be done about DeRolph v. State of Ohio, in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the state school funding system unconstitutional in 1997.
Thirteen years later, Anderson said the burden is still on the local taxpayer.
“The legislature for the past 13 years has just chosen more or less to ignore that ruling from the State of Ohio Supreme Court. That’s wrong because continually it falls back on our local citizens and strictly on property taxes. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not what the Constituion of Ohio says,” Anderson said.
Anderson said a sales tax may be the answer or a combination of a sales tax, income tax and property tax.
Ohio’s School Funding Advisory Council is reviewing the Evidence-based School Funding Model adopted by the state in 2009. The Council consists of 28 members and six subcommittees. Subcommittee members include members of the full Council and appointed members.
For those of you interested in additional background information, two sites that have some of the legal history (link) and (link). On July 5 the Dispatch had an interview with the judge who first ruled Ohio’s school funding unconstitutional, (link).
As kind of an historical sidebar, what was stated in a report from the Council of State Governments (link) in 2000:
“This debate over school funding has been going on a long time. I know we will encounter some difficulties, but I also am hopeful and optimistic,” says Ohio Rep. Jeanine Perry of Toledo, one of six Democrats serving on the committee. “My belief is that we will seek some improvements, we will have lengthy debates, and we will come to agreements on part of the resolution to this problem.”
As the first article in this post points out, Governor Strickland’s plan to use the “evidence-based model” is believed will eventually be the solution to the question of unconstitutionality by some, including some involved in the original court filing seeking the opinion the school funding system was unconstitutional. With the current economic climate and so many school systems facing financial challenges, for many the end of reliance on the local levy system can not come soon enough. Yet it’s also clear, that not everyone is confident that the State of Ohio can ever provide a “thorough and efficient” educational system, as dictated by the Ohio Constitution.
It’s nice to discover great posts like this 1. Thank you!
July 20th, 2010 at 5:38 pmI don’t think it’s accurate to state that DeRolph is being ignored. If you read the last of the DeRolph decisions-I think it was DeRolph IV-you will see that the Supreme Court basically gave up and told the State that what it was doing was good enough.
I realize that I have greatly simplified what the Court said, but I think that if you read ALL of the DeRolph decisions, you will see that the Supreme Court had no idea how to equitably fund education.
The problem is that no one can come up with a funding plan that is acceptable to most people and that would ACTUALLY be an improvement over the present funding method.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:34 amI have read all of the decisions, I’m not sure if it is the Supreme Court’s task to decide how to do it, their focus is, is what is being done currently passing constitutional muster.
I don’t disagree the problem is no one has come up with a better solution, Strickland’s plan on paper would do it, but can the funding be found to actually put it into practice does appear to be questionable.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:44 pmAgree that Strickland’s plan on paper would help to take care of it, but funding is an issue.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:40 pmMy suggestion is we go the way that most states have now gone and have a visitor tax that would allow all funding from this tax to go towards education.
Minnesota is just one of those states that has seen this kind of benefit. In one county alone (Sarasota County) they were able to collect 7.5 million
in revenue this way. With close to 90 counties in Ohio – you need only do the math.
Ohioans have been taxed for to long and its time to give them some relief.
Some may disagree with my idea. But one of the privileges of working in an industry where I get see a lot of travelers from out of state, means I can ask them how they feel about this issue.
Out of around 80 people, only one had a problem with it and he said he would still come back. He just didn’t want to pay the tax. (For the record, he had no problem with the fact that his state used this type of tax.)
With so many feeling over burdened with taxes, and many more still unemployed or recovering from being laid off, its time to look outside the box and give them some relief while still making sure our kids receive a quality education!
Georgia as well as several other states have advocated/passed an increase in the sales tax, specifically tying it to education as opposed to going in to the general fund may be a way of ensuring it goes where voters would want the money to go.
example.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:35 pmWhy not just change the constitution to fit the way schools are funded now? Would be a helluva lot easier.
July 21st, 2010 at 8:33 pmbucknut – the problem with changing the funding to fit with how schools are funded, is that not all schools are actually funded the same.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:24 pmDepending on the school you attend, your school could receive almost all funding from the state or receive most of your funding from homeowners taxes.
Hence the reason the DeRolph case came about.
I am on two local boards of education, a regional executive committee and a state board of trustees all who deal with educational funding issues on a regular basis, and this is one of the most common questions that we find coming from local school systems across the state. Where will the funding come from?
When HB 66 went into affect it changed the funding process for school systems. This process took away tangible personal property tax from school systems that helped liten homeowners burden from paying greater taxes on their homes for education.
With TPP now being taken out of the picture we have a lot of school systems, who normally wouldn’t receive funding from the state, now trying to figure out how they will come up with millions of dollars to pay for kids education.
One of our biggest problems is that the state doesn’t have the extra funding to cover this loss of revenue stream. So of course the burden then falls on the homeowner/taxpayer to come up with the difference. The other solution is to greatly increase tuition, which many cannot afford in hard economic times.
This is why I have offered an alternative to help plug the gap once covered by TPP, as well as the gap now left because of the shortfall in our State budget.
My solution would help bring in funding for education while not draining the homeowner/Ohio taxpayers wallet.
Lisa has shown how Georgia came up with funding that wouldn’t just put the burden on homeowners. This type of taxation would allow for everyone who enters our state, as well as all Ohioans to pay into this type of funding.
Just like every other state out there, we are in tough economic times. The questions is – Do we want people and businesses to see us as the State they want to flock too, or the State they can’t wait to leave.
Are we just going to keep pointing the finger at the other guy (or girl) and get nothing done, or are we going to work together to make our State and our children’s education better?
Which would you choose!