Ohio Supreme Court Declares School Funding System Unconstitutional, in DeRolph IV

In the third State Supreme Court school funding decision favoring plaintiffs in 2002 (see Arkansas and Tennessee), the Ohio Supreme Court ended the 11-year-old DeRolph v. State case on December 11 when it declared the state education finance system unconstitutional. The court directed "the General Assembly to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient, as explained in DeRolph I [and] DeRolph II." These earlier decisions had also declared the funding system unconstitutional and identified particular elements, such as the "over reliance on property taxes" and "forced borrowing," which the General Assembly needs to change in order to develop a system that meets the "thorough and efficient system of common schools" required by the Ohio Constitution.

After three earlier DeRolph Supreme Court decisions ruling the system unconstitutional and one mediation order that failed, a heavily financed, contentious supreme court election in November 2002 changed the make-up of the court, effective in January 2003. Based on the candidates' stated positions, there was speculation that the new court might, for the first time, find in favor of the State in DeRolph. However, the justices who formed the majority in DeRolph I and II re-grouped and issued this concluding opinion, DeRolph IV. The court did not retain jurisdiction.

For a brief historical background on school funding litigation and costing-out studies in Ohio and related advocacy and policy links, go to the ACCESS Ohio page.

Prepared December 11, 2002