Ohio is Back on Track for Constitutional
Compliance
Seven years after the Ohio Supreme Court declared that
it would take no further action to compel the executive
and legislative branches to fix the state’s unconstitutional
educational funding system, the Executive Branch, on
its own initiative, is taking significant action to
promote constitutional compliance. Ohio Governor Ted
Strickland announced in his State of the State address
on January 28, 2009 that his first priority as governor
is to reform the state’s public education system.
Having repeatedly stated that his governorship will
rise and fall on his successful revamping of the state’s
educational system, Strickland’s speech formally
announced his administration’s plans to overhaul
the state’s current education funding formula
and to improve teacher quality, expand learning opportunities,
develop innovative teaching techniques, and integrate
comprehensive early childhood programs with the rest
of the school curriculum.
Using an evidence-based research approach to develop
the new funding formula, Strickland critiqued the current
school funding method in Ohio. Calling the current system
“indefensible,” his proposed school funding
formula promotes equity by lowering local district contributions
and increasing the state’s share of education
funding from 46% to 55%.
In his speech, Strickland referenced the unfulfilled
constitutional obligation of the Ohio Legislature to
provide quality educational opportunities to its students.
“When we do these things [the reforms outlined
in the governor’s new education plan],”
stated Strickland, “I believe we will have finally
and unquestionably meet our constitutional obligation
to our children.”
Education funding has been a topic of litigation for
almost two decades in Ohio. In 1991, the Ohio Coalition
for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding filed an
adequacy lawsuit, DeRolph v. State, and six
years later, the Ohio Supreme Court declared the state’s
education finance system unconstitutional and ordered
the state to revamp certain aspects of the system. Over
a period of five years, the Ohio Supreme Court issued
a series of decisions holding that the state was not
providing its students a thorough and efficient education
and obtained partial compliance responses from the legislature.
In 2002, after finding that recent legislative actions
had still fallen short of constitutional requirements,
the court reiterated that “the constitutional
mandate must be met,” but then quickly made clear
that it nevertheless would cease enforcing its own constitutional
ruling. Not surprisingly, ever since, there has been
mounting political confrontation, but no serious attempts
to move toward constitutional compliance. Strickland’s
dramatic stance, however, illustrates how a court ruling
can continue to have substantial impact, even if the
court no longer enforces it.
Strickland is the first democrat to serve as governor
in 16 years. His proposed funding formula revision marks
the first serious attempt to reform Ohio’s grossly
inadequate school finance system since the State Supreme
Court terminated judicial jurisdiction in 2002. Since
being elected in 2007, Strickland has immersed himself
in school funding reform. Within the last year, he has
convened seventeen “Conversations on Education”
throughout the state, soliciting feedback on the Ohio
education system from education groups, advocates, and
community members. Additionally he has held ongoing
meetings with education stakeholders throughout the
state addressing the issues of his proposed funding
formula. According to Bill Phillis, Executive Director
of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy in School
Funding, the governor has shown a consistent commitment
to revising the plan based on the input of others and
has made a significant attempt to be open and transparent
with his plans and operations.
Despite these efforts, Strickland’s proposed
education funding formula has not been universally lauded
by policymakers in Ohio. Opponents of the plan have
voiced concern over the merits of the evidence-based
approach used to develop the funding formula. On Monday,
April 6, 2009, Republican Representative Seth Morgan
filed a lawsuit to pressure the governor to release
more information on the evidence that provides backing
for the proposed funding formula.
Proponents of school funding reform, however, strongly
support Governor Strickland’s efforts. Responding
to the criticism, Bill Phillis optimistically noted
that, “Obviously there are glitches that need
to be worked out, and the governor’s office has
shown a willingness to work out these glitches.”
Even Strickland in his State of the State address gave
a nod to the concerns of “those who protest that
education research isn’t perfect.” Maintaining
the unconstitutional educational status quo in Ohio,
however, is not an option for the governor. In his speech,
Strickland stressed that, “frankly, we cannot
afford to ignore the best available answers,”
and he emphasized the importance of accepting and implementing
his proposed plan.
Especially since Strickland’s election was accompanied
by a shift in power in the State House of Representatives
from Republican to Democratic control, the new funding
formula is expected to pass the House and move on to
the Senate by the end of April.
LETTER
TO THE EDITOR
Re: Ohio
is Back on Track for Constitutional Compliance,
April 10, 2009
To: Editor, School
Funding Updates, April 14, 2009
We were pleased to see your story on Ohio and Governor
Strickland's recommendation that the Evidence-Based
approach be used in determining how to fund Ohio's schools
in the future. We would like to clarify that the Evidence-Based
model recommended by Governor Strickland (as noted widely
in the press in Ohio) is based on the Evidence Based
Model developed by the two of us. We would add that
prior to the release of the Ohio Evidence Based Model,
we had no contact with anyone in the Governor's office
and are pleased to see the increasing acceptance of
this approach in the policy environment.
Larry Picus and Allan Odden
|
