The corpus › Litigation

DeRolph v. State (DeRolph II, 2000)

The decision that said what “thorough and efficient” means, and the reason the phrase is a test rather than a quotation.

litigation/derolph-ii-2000 · 4 nodes point here

On 11 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the parts of the trial court’s judgment consistent with its opinion: the General Assembly’s response to DeRolph I — H.B. 412, H.B. 650, H.B. 283, S.B. 55 — had not produced a compliant system. verified The court declined to appoint a special master, kept continuing jurisdiction, and continued the matter to 15 June 2001. verified

The syllabus is the durable part. Paragraph 3 supplies the operational test that DeRolph I had left as a standard without content:

A thorough system means that each and every school district has enough funds to operate. An efficient system means one in which each and every school district in the state has an ample number of teachers, sound buildings that are in compliance with state building and fire codes, and equipment sufficient for all students to be afforded an educational opportunity.

verified Two things follow that matter for everything downstream. The test is distributive and universal — “each and every school district” — so a statewide average cannot satisfy it and a system is judged by its worst-served district rather than its mean. And it is stated in inputs — teachers, buildings, equipment — not in outcomes, which is why adequacy in Ohio is costed from a resource specification rather than inferred from test results. The first two syllabus paragraphs approve and follow Miller v. Korns (1923), 107 Ohio St. 287, making the state-wide rather than local character of the duty a holding of seventy-seven years’ standing rather than a 1997 innovation. verified

Whether Ohio’s current system satisfies paragraph 3 of this syllabus has never been adjudicated, and the four decisions ended without a compliance finding. open

What this repository computed

Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.

The seven areas the court flagged are a checklist this corpus can still run. Paragraph 139 named what warranted further attention, and the striking thing reading them now is how many are unresolved rather than superseded: verified

  1. Continued reliance on local property tax was not addressed, and H.B. 283’s inventory tax phase-out might deepen it — the same substitution problem the corpus records under TPP replacement payments.
  2. The basic aid formula “has structural deficiencies and may not in fact reflect the amount required per pupil”; the phase-in of the basic aid amount should be reconsidered. The Fair School Funding Plan is phased in too, twenty-five years later, and its phase-in percentage is still a budget lever.
  3. Facilities funding, and the requirement that districts pass a levy to qualify for state assistance — the local-share condition in classroom facilities assistance.
  4. The School Solvency Assistance Fund should be reserved for extreme emergencies.
  5. Unfunded mandates in H.B. 412 and S.B. 55 must be funded.
  6. Phantom revenue “has not been eliminated and may increase.” This is the court naming the interaction the corpus models as charge-off local share against H.B. 920: a district charged for revenue its reduction factors prevent it from raising.
  7. Statewide academic guidelines.

Why this node exists at all. DeRolph IV vacated DeRolph III and reinstated DeRolph I and II as the controlling law of the case, so this decision — not the more specific one that followed it — is half of the standing judgment against Ohio’s funding system. verified A corpus that held I and IV but not II could state the holding and not the test, and the test is what a claim about adequacy has to be measured against.

Properties

Case nameDeRolph v. State
Citation89 Ohio St.3d 1, 2000-Ohio-437
CourtSupreme Court of Ohio
Filed1991-12-19
Decided2000-05-11
HoldingThe school funding system enacted in response to DeRolph I still fails the Thorough and Efficient Clause of Article VI, Section 2. A thorough system is one in which each and every district has enough funds to operate; an efficient system is one in which each and every district has an ample number of teachers, sound buildings compliant with state building and fire codes, and equipment sufficient for all students. Miller v. Korns (1923), 107 Ohio St. 287, approved and followed. Authored by Resnick, J.; Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concurring; Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissenting. verified
RemedyThose portions of the trial court's decision consistent with the opinion affirmed. The court declined to appoint a special master to oversee the state's further efforts, maintained continuing jurisdiction, and continued the matter to 15 June 2001 for a briefing schedule. No deadline for compliance and no stated consequence for its absence. verified

The continuation to June 2001 is what produced DeRolph III three months later, and DeRolph III is what DeRolph IV vacated. verified
Procedural history
1997-03-24  DeRolph I; effect stayed twelve months, cause remanded with jurisdiction retained
1997-04-25  On clarification: local property tax may be part of a plan but not its primary
              means; parties may present evidence on the enacted remedy and appeal directly
1998-08-24  Trial court hearing on the General Assembly's response opens
1998-09-03  Hearing concludes
1999-02-26  Trial court holds the state failed its burden of proof; 263 pages, reported at
              98 Ohio Misc.2d 1
1999-11-16  Submitted on the defendants' appeal, No. 99-570
2000-05-11  DeRolph II