education finance court cases in ohio

Chronology of the DeRolph v. Ohio School Funding Litigation

This chronology has been prepared, in part, by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding.

December 19, 1991 . A complaint is filed by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding in Perry County on behalf of the Northern Local School District challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's elementary and secondary public school funding system.

June 1992 . An April 19, 1993 trial date is set by Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. (which is later extended).

October 25, 1993 . The trial begins and lasts 30 days. The trial includes over 70 witnesses and over 500 exhibits.

December 8, 1993 . The trial is adjourned.

July 1, 1994 . Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. issues a ruling stating that education is a fundamental right and that Ohio's system of school funding is unconstitutional.

August 12, 1994 . The Ohio Governor announces that the State Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Perry County Court of Appeals. The State Board of Education is included among the Appellants in the Notice of Appeal.

August 30, 1995 . In a split decision, the Court of Appeals issues an opinion essentially overturning the trial court decision in DeRolph .

October 10, 1995 . The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding files an appeal asking the Ohio Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction of the case.

January 17, 1996 . The Ohio Supreme Court accepts jurisdiction of the case.

March 11, 1996 . Plaintiffs file their merit brief with the Ohio Supreme Court. Twelve amicus curiae briefs written on behalf of 16 organizations, including one presenting views of 37 Ohio legislators, are filed in support of the plaintiffs/appellants.

September 10, 1996 . Oral arguments are held before the Supreme Court.

March 24, 1997 . The Ohio Supreme Court issues an opinion holding that the current funding system is unconstitutional and orders a "complete, systematic overhaul" of the system with enactment required within 12 months by March 24, 1998. The Court remands the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing and issue findings as to whether the anticipated remedial legislation satisfies the mandates of the Ohio Supreme Court.( DeRolph I )

April 3, 1997 . The State defendants file a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the DeRolph v. Ohio decision. The defendants ask the Supreme Court to 1) clarify whether local property taxes may be used in the new funding formula; 2) clarify the continued validity of debt obligations, pursuant to state law, incurred before March 24, 1998; and 3) retain jurisdiction of the DeRolph case.

April 25, 1997 . The Ohio Supreme Court issues an opinion ruling on the State's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification and finds that 1) local property taxes may be used as part of the funding solution, but they may no longer be used as the primary source of funding for a thorough and efficient system of schools; 2) school district borrowing may continue through March 23, 1998; and 3) the Supreme Court will not retain jurisdiction of the DeRolph case because the trial court is in the best position to be a trier of fact and gatherer of evidence and to make decisions about the progress and constitutionality of the enacted legislation. The Supreme Court states that "it would be the trial judge's responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of the enacted legislation and to render an opinion. Any party could then appeal that decision directly to this court for final determination."

February 18, 1998 . The State files for an extension in the Perry County Court of Common Pleas of the March 24 deadline set by the Supreme Court for compliance. The State requests the court "(1) to extend the March 24th deadline until July 1, 1998, which is both after the May election and which would provide ample time to review the State’s remedy, and (2) to request the Ohio Supreme Court to enter an order asserting jurisdiction over any DeRolph -related cases, including any challenges to the May 5th ballot."

March 4, 1998 . Plaintiffs file a motion in opposition to the State’s motion for an extension of the March 24 deadline in the Perry County Common Pleas Court. Plaintiffs argue that the Perry County Court’s "remand authority is limited to the authority to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision, not to change it." And that extending the March 24 deadline will "serve no purpose other than to delay judicial review of the ‘remedy’ that the State asserts is now complete."

March 9, 1998 . The State files a Reply in Support of Its Motion for Extension of the March 24 Deadline in the Perry County Common Pleas Court, citing two main reasons for the extension. 1) "an extension is necessary to keep the schools open for the remainder of this school year" and 2) "an extension will allow this Court to defer a hearing plaintiffs’ challenge until after May 5th, which will allow the debate over the sales tax increase to occur in the proper forum."

March 10, 1998 . Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. rules that the Perry County Court "is without authority to extend the deadline" and denies the State’s motion for an extension of the March 24 deadline.

March 11, 1998 . The State files a motion for extension of the March 24 deadline to July 18 in the Supreme Court of Ohio. Dismissing the claim that an extension was needed to keep schools open for the remainder of this school year, the State said an extension was necessary to "clarify that the State defendants may continue operating and funding schools in a smooth and efficient manner." The extension will also "place the State on a reasonable schedule for implementing these changes."

March 20, 1998 . The plaintiffs file a motion in opposition to the State’s request for an extension of the March 24 deadline to July 18 in the Supreme Court of Ohio. Plaintiffs argue that the "State has failed to provide this Court with any valid reason to extend the March 24 deadline . . . the sole purpose and effect of the requested extension is to delay judicial review of that legislation." The plaintiffs also state that “the question of whether such legislation satisfies the mandates of the Court is totally independent of a May 5 election, and the passage or failure of the proposed tax levy will have no effect on the operation of the State’s school funding laws.”

March 24, 1998 . Plaintiffs file a motion for order reinstating remand, directing the trial court to establish a scheduling order, and allocating to the state the burdens of production and proof. The plaintiffs argue that the trial court should issue a scheduling order to immediately begin review of the State’s remedy to DeRolph . The plaintiffs also argue that “it is now the State’s responsibility, in the remedy phase of this litigation, to purge itself of the finding of unconstitutionality by affirmatively demonstrating that it has established an ‘entirely new school financing system’ that is consistent with the constitution and this Court’s decision of one year ago.” Plaintiffs urge the Court that if the State has appropriately answered the DeRolph decision then the State defendants have nothing to fear from immediate judicial review. Plaintiffs further state that if the State has not appropriately answered the DeRolph decision then delay is intolerable.

August 24 - September 4, 1998 . Hearing in Perry County Common Pleas Court to review the State’s response to DeRolph .

September 1, 1998 . Ohio Supreme Court issues an order holding that the State has the “burden of production and proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the constitutional mandates have been fulfilled.”

November 3, 1998 . Both the Plaintiffs and Defendants file Post-Hearing Briefs and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Judge Lewis in Perry County.

November 3, 1998 . Senator Ben Espy, along with Representatives Bender, Brady, Hartley, Healy, Krupinski, Mallory, D. Miller, Prentiss, Pringle, Sutton, Sykes; and Senators Furney, Hagan, Herington, Latell, McLin and Shoemaker, file a Brief of Amici Curiae with Judge Lewis on behalf of the Plaintiffs in DeRolph . The Ohio Association for Gifted Children also submits an Amicus Curiae Brief to Judge Lewis on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

November 16, 1998 . State Defendants file a Motion to Strike portions of amici briefs submitted by Senator Espy and other legislators, and the Ohio Association for Gifted Children - stating that both briefs contain “information extraneous to the record and are beyond the scope of an Amicus Brief.”

December 2, 1998 . Judge Lewis denies the State’s Motion to Strike portions of the two amici briefs “with the exception of the Radio Talk Show comments allegedly made by Senator Watts. Senator Watts’ comment to the effect that the districts that sued the State would ‘rue the day’ that the Court’s decision came down was previously excluded on objections by the State at trial.”

December 3, 1998 . Both the Plaintiffs and Defendants file Reply Briefs and Objections to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Judge Lewis.

February 26, 1999 . Judge Lewis issues an opinion ruling that the State's response to the Supreme Court order in DeRolph is unconstitutional.

March 26, 1999 . The State of Ohio appeals the Judge Lewis decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

June 23, 1999 . The record from the Perry County Common Pleas Court is filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.

August 2, 1999 . State Defendants file their brief with the Ohio Supreme Court. Governor Robert Taft files an amicus brief and Senate President Richard Finan, jointly with House Speaker Jo Ann Davidson, file a second amicus brief on behalf of the Defendants.

September 1, 1999 . Coalition Plaintiffs file their brief with the Ohio Supreme Court. Fifteen amicus briefs are filed in support of the Plaintiffs.

September 1, 1999 . Supreme Court sets oral argument for November 16, 1999.

November 16, 1999 . Supreme Court hears oral arguments from both parties in the DeRolph case.

May 11, 2000 . Supreme Court issues opinion holding that Ohio’s school funding system remains unconstitutional and gives the State until June 15, 2001 to bring the system into compliance. The Court retained jurisdiction to review the legislation enacted in response to its remedial orders. ( DeRolph II )

December 8, 2000 . Coalition Plaintiffs file a motion with Ohio Supreme Court for order requiring Defendants to (1) pay the costs of the unfunded mandates, and (2) file a master plan for achieving compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders and to file subsequent progress reports.

January 25, 2001 . Ohio Supreme Court issues an order requiring that Plaintiffs and Defendants file any evidence no later than June 15, 2001 and that the parties and amici file their merit briefs no later than June 18, 2001. Responsive briefs and stipulated extensions of time will not be permitted. The Supreme Court also sets oral argument for June 20, 2001.

June 15, 2001 . Evidence is filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in preparation for oral argument.

June 18, 2001 . Both Plaintiffs and Defendants file merit briefs with Ohio Supreme Court. Sixteen groups and Congressman Ted Strickland file amicus briefs in support of the Plaintiffs. Five briefs are filed in support of the State Defendants.

June 20, 2001 . Oral argument before the Supreme Court.

September 6, 2001 . Ohio Supreme Court issues an opinion which holds that Ohio’s school funding system is unconstitutional, but orders State defendants to alter the methodology for determining the per pupil base support and accelerate the phase-in of parity aid, at which point the system will become constitutional. ( DeRolph III )

September 17, 2001 . State Defendants file a motion for reconsideration with the Ohio Supreme Court.

November 2, 2001 . Supreme Court grants Governor Taft’s motion for reconsideration, but does not issue an opinion to define the parameters of reconsideration. The Supreme Court issues a statement that merely says, “On motion for reconsideration. Motion granted, Decision and opinion to follow.”

November 16, 2001 . Supreme Court issues written reconsideration order in which, in lieu of a decision on reconsideration, it orders a settlement conference between the Defendants and Plaintiffs and orders a master commissioner to preside over the conference. The Supreme Court provides a list of nine potential candidates for master commissioner and requests both parties to file, within ten days, memoranda to comment on the candidates or provide additional candidates.

November 26, 2001 . State Defendants and Coalition Plaintiffs both file memoranda commenting on the nine potential candidates of master commissioner. The Coalition Plaintiffs find no fault with any of the candidates, but do identify four of the candidates that appear to “possess the qualifications and experience that would be of greatest assistance to the Master Commissioner.” Those four are: Eric Green; Michael Lewis, Francis McGovern and Linda Singer. The State Defendants’ memorandum requests clarification on the parties to the litigation and also requests a status conference in addition to comments on the candidates. Specifically, the State Defendants wish to clarify that amici of the Court are not parties to the litigation, state entities are represented solely by the Attorney General’s office and individual legislators are not parties to the litigation. The State Defendants feel they did not have ample time to review the list of nine candidates nor to explore the possibility of additional candidates and therefore based on the “limited background information available, the State finds no apparent basis upon which to challenge any candidate for cause.” The State does, however, caution the Supreme Court that Eric Green was the mediator in the recent Microsoft settlement discussions and if he is selected that would involve him in two back-to-back mediations involving Ohio.

December 13, 2001 . Ohio Supreme Court issues order selecting Howard S. Bellman from Madison, WI as the master commissioner. The Supreme Court also denies the State Defendants’ request for clarification and their request for a status conference.

March 21, 2002 . Special Master Howard Bellman issues report which concludes that the parties were unable to come to a resolution of the issues.

March 21, 2002 . The Ohio Supreme Court issues an order restoring the case to the active docket for resolution.

December 11, 2002 . The Ohio Supreme Court issues its reconsideration decision and finds the school funding system unconstitutional and vacates DeRolph III and declares DeRolph I and II as the law of the case. ( DeRolph IV )

March 4, 2003 . The DeRolph plaintiffs file a motion for a compliance conference with the Perry County Court of Common Pleas. The motion requests a conference to ascertain when and how the State intends to comply with the mandates of the Ohio Supreme Court.

March 7, 2003 . The State files a Complaint for Writ of Prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court asking the Court to bar the trial court from entertaining the plaintiffs' motion for a compliance conference.

March 10, 2003 . Plaintiffs file a Motion to Intervene in Ohio Supreme Court Writ of Prohibition Proceedings and an Answer to Writ of Prohibition .

May 16, 2003 . The Ohio Supreme Court issues an opinion granting the writ of prohibition and stating that "we now grant a preemptory writ and end any further DeRolph litigation in DeRolph v. State ." Thus Court, thus, prohibited the trial court from conducting the status conference sought by the DeRolph plaintiffs and foreclosed any further proceedings in the case.

August 13, 2003 . Plaintiffs file Petition for Writ of Certiorari to United States Supreme Court. Amici Curiae briefs in support of petitioners are filed by the South Carolina School Districts, Taxpayers and Children; The Council of the Great City Schools in Support of Petitioners; Ohio School Boards Association, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and Ohio Association of School Business Officials; Various Members of the Minority Caucuses of the Ohio General Assembly; and Various Members of the U.S. Congress.

September 15, 2003 . The State files Brief of Respondent State of Ohio in Opposition to the Petition for Certiorari

September 24, 2003 . Plaintiffs file Reply Brief to State’s Brief in Opposition

October 20, 2003 . Certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court. No opinion issued.

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy .

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Election 2020

Despite being unconstitutional, ohio’s school funding system lives on. how is it hurting students.

CINCINNATI — Lawmakers across Ohio have been working for years to reform the state's school funding system, though experts say there has not been any definitive progress on the effort. Many still express uncertainty over when that progress will come, even as Election Day -- and a slew of school levies for voters to decide on -- is right around the corner.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state’s school funding method was unconstitutional in the landmark case DeRolph vs. State over 20 years ago. The state was found to have failed to provide a thorough and efficient network of schools with common, equitable conditions and called for a systemic overhaul. This eventually spurred lawmakers to introduce a proposal re-imagining Ohio’s school funding model last year using recommendations from the area’s education experts.

However, the bill, officially known as House Bill 305 , has been held up by six hearings and revisions since, and its advocates are under pressure to get the bill passed by December before the end of the legislative session. One of the bill’s original sponsors acknowledges this is an uphill battle, saying time is short and there are new, competing needs brought on by the pandemic.

“The plate that the finance committee is going to be devouring is going to be so overwhelming,” said Democratic Rep. John Patterson. “It would be better to take this school-funding rubric off the table so they can concentrate on the others. And we can do that, because this provides a framework, a blueprint, moving forward for the state…”

A defining aspect of the bill is that it bypasses the state’s historical defect in being overly reliant on property taxes to fund schools through deriving more accurate projections of local communities’ abilities to invest in their school districts. This in turn reveals more accurate figures as to how much the state needs to contribute to school budgets to create those more equitable conditions that were prescribed by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The bill also creates a formula that identifies specific costs for educating individual students that are unique to student bodies throughout Ohio, and allocates more money for schools’ various needs during a years-long phase-in process for the plan.

”It gives us a blueprint for the future, as we would plan for the future of our own household budgets,” Patterson said. He thinks it is crucial for Ohio to enforce a more viable plan that not only offers more balanced and effective learning environments across different neighborhoods, but also funds a diverse set of programs that appeal to students' various needs and interests.

“If we're really going to tap into the natural gifts that students come to us with and match them with their calling, we have to allow for those programs," Patterson said. "But you can't have programs without sustainable funding.”

Current school funding issues & the 2020 election

Currently, like most other states throughout the U.S., Ohio school districts are initially funded by property taxes based on the local tax base. The applied tax rate is voted on by constituents and the money ultimately comes through the form of levies. That money is then supplemented by state aid.

Experts said that property tax has historically been used for school budgets because they are stable and less likely to fluctuate with the economy, unlike other revenue, like income and sales taxes. They also said that Ohio voters distinctly favor holding local control over neighborhood institutions, which in part explains why Ohio has more levies than any other state.

In its most recent report card detailing its revenue types , Cincinnati Public Schools received about 46% (or $284,686,854) of its budget from local dollars in contrast to about 37% (or $229,311,807) from the state. The remaining 17% of the budget came from federal money and other miscellaneous sources.

Another local district, Mason City Schools, has a similar breakdown. The district’s Public Information Officer, Tracey Carson, says 49% of Mason City Schools’ expenses are funded by local revenue while 39% of the budget comes from the state. The remaining revenue is supplied by the federal government and non-tax sources like public utilities, agricultural property and residential construction.

However, experts who spoke with WCPO agreed that school budgets depend too much on local revenue through property taxes. They said that taxpayers in some school districts are wealthier than those in other areas, so some communities are better equipped to finance education. This leads to unequal conditions across schools.

Patterson also said that property does not necessarily paint an accurate picture of wealth or a district’s ability to pay for local education services. He said some areas may have particularly large or high-value properties that can skew figures on the average wealth in the area.

More than that, members of the education community point out that the school funding system is inadequate because it lacks a budget formula that is based on actual costs to educate different types of students. This deficiency was one of the reasons the system was found unconstitutional back in 1997.

“The state funding formula has always been a concern for districts like Cincinnati Public,” Carolyn Jones, the board president of Cincinnati Public Schools, said. “[W]hen we look at proportionately the size of our district, and where we're located being an urban district, I think the funding streams don't follow the kid in that way.”

She said CPS is not being allocated enough money. The dire need for financial support is evidenced by things like the fact that almost 85% of its students qualify for its free and reduced lunch program, according to CPS’ Director of Student Dining Services Jessica Shelly. By comparison, Carson said Mason’s free and reduced lunch rate is only at 9%.

“Cincinnati is considered a wealthy district,” Jones said, "and so that formula sort of minimizes that true picture of what's going on in Cincinnati with us being an urban core district.”

Carson acknowledges that Mason is an affluent area that spends less than the state average and less than some of its high-earning peers. Still, her department has struggled to keep up with students’ needs under the current system. She said that before the district passed an operating levy in April, it had to create more than $12 million in revenue by shutting down two schools and eliminating 160 jobs after failing another levy in 2010.

“We did all those things that helped,” Carson said, to “keep the ship sailing. But we sort of knew if we didn't pass this levy this spring, our school district would not be able to continue to deliver the kinds of services that it does.”

Mason has an unusually high number of issues in regard to school funding on the ballot for the November election this year. The nine issues are proposals to reduce local funding for operational expenses at a nominal amount, 0.01 mills, that were put forward through an initiative petition organized by Mason For Kids, an organization of local parents and concerned citizens. The group is focused on protecting the quality of Mason’s schools.

Voting “yes” on the proposals seeks to lower the district’s revenue while voting “no” aims to maintain it. One of its members, Casey Moran, said part of Mason For Kids’ strategy is to encourage voters to vote against the proposals to keep funding the schools intact. Their move to put the issues on the ballot is part of a larger plan to safeguard Mason’s levies from getting further cuts by those who opposed them through proposing to make the lowest millage reduction legally possible.

“When our opposition in November of 2019 shared their strategy, we could not not take action,” Moran said. “We were bound to protect the interests of our students... the interest of my children and other children, our faculty, our staff and transparently our community.”

CPS, on the other hand, has a levy on the ballot to renew funding for expanded preschool access, as well as additional support in its schools. Jones said the levy has a good chance of being passed based on projections from the early vote, and because it will not raise taxes. Still, she said, it is imperative that enough voters get behind the measure.

“Without this levy, we probably will see some some definitive cuts, which, you know, in this pandemic is not where we want to be,” Jones said.

There are a number of other school districts in the Greater Cincinnati area that have issues on the ballot for the Nov. 3 election, too.

Franklin City School District has a $66 million bond issue to construct a new high school, renovate the existing high school and make other improvements to sites.

Georgetown Exempted Village School District’s issue would renew a levy mandated for general improvements that has already been in place for 15 years. This levy would be active for five more years and does not raise taxes. If it does not pass, expenses like upgrading computer technology, textbooks, buses and maintenance equipment could instead be paid for by the district’s general budget or scrapped all together.

The Little Miami School District also has a renewal levy. It would continue an operating levy to avoid a budget deficit over a five-year period. This levy would not raise taxes either, and is set to generate $10.6 million each year for the district.

Norwood Schools’ tax levy would substitute an existing one to implement requirements for the district at an initial cost of $3,395,000.

Finally, Winton Woods’ tax levy would be applied to current operating costs brought on by its expanded preschool program and the resultant boost in enrollment. In exchange for homeowners paying around $243 to $486 a year in taxes, the levy is projected to collect another $3.2 million annually for the district.

Howard Fleeter, a consultant specializing in state and local government finance for K-12 education, said these levies are among more than 200 levies that have been on the ballot in Ohio this year. He said that while there has been a slight uptick in recent years, the number of levies the state has seen each year has declined since the DeRolph decision was brought down.

That decline suggests there has been improvement in school finance. However, Fleeter said the current school funding system’s model is still insufficient because it lacks crucial information about baseline costs, and there is still great need for reform.

“Right now, we really don't have a formula,” Fleeter said. “Again, we're being funded at 2019 levels, minus some cuts that were made because of the COVID pandemic. So we're kind of back to square one on the adequacy issue, and the share of property taxes versus, you know, local funding versus state funding is not very different now than it was in 1997.”

The fight for House Bill 305

Patterson said he and other lawmakers have been making a concerted effort to implement the formula detailed in House Bill 305 by refining it throughout the recent summer months after receiving feedback from concerned parties.

Republican Rep. Gary Scherer has joined Patterson in waging this effort in the place of Speaker of the House Bob Cupp, another original sponsor of the bill, due to Cupp’s new responsibilities. Republican State Senator Peggy Lehner and Democratic State Senator Vernon Sykes have joined the effort by leading the charge in the Senate with a companion bill. That bill is set to be introduced in the upcoming days.

Patterson explained that there won’t be formal legislative hearings until after the election, but that the Senate cannot have a hearing until after the bill is introduced. Once Senators bring forward the bill and refer it to a committee, and once officials return to session, there can be coinciding hearings in the House and Senate. Advocates hope that would get the measures for reform passed before the end of the legislative session in December. If that does not happen, the bill would go back on the shelf and lawmakers would have to start the process all over again.

“This is critically important,” Patterson said. “This is important for our kids. It's important for their future. It's important for Ohio's future that we get this right. Our most precious natural resource is our students. And if we really believe in the future of Ohio, we have to invest in our students today.”

Sign up for the Breaking News Newsletter and receive up to date information.

Now signed up to receive the breaking news newsletter..

Find WCPO 9 everywhere you stream.

School Funding Case Shows Challenges of Upholding Certain Rights in Court

An ideological shift on the North Carolina Supreme Court could upend a landmark decision in a long-running battle for adequate public education spending under the state’s constitution.

Advocates for public schools have found success in court by using state constitutional claims to increase unacceptably low funding levels from state legislatures. But in North Carolina, a recent state supreme court victory could be short-lived because of the latest election.

Twenty-five years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution guarantees “a right to a sound basic education.” Soon after, the court ruled that the state was failing to fulfill that promise. Last fall, after decades of continued litigation and state noncompliance, the court took matters into its own hands and ordered North Carolina to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from state budget reserves to state education agencies.

Despite the long-delayed victory for North Carolina students, changes on the state’s high court immediately put the status of this funding into question. As in 38 states, North Carolina’s justices are elected, creating the possibility of shifts in court composition every two years with potentially significant effects on the court’s willingness to vindicate state constitutional rights. The funding ruling was a 4–3 decision along partisan lines, with Democrats in the majority. Just four days later, two Republican candidates won elections to fill the seats of two of those Democratic justices. This has prompted calls from Republican legislators  to ignore the court’s order  and get the case in front of the newly configured court.

All told, the ongoing funding fight in North Carolina illustrates both the potential for state constitutions to advance equity in public education and the political challenges of vindicating state constitutional rights that require government expenditures.

State constitutional litigation over public school funding has been a feature of state court systems since 1973. That year, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in  San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez  that education is not a fundamental right, effectively foreclosing federal litigation as a path to achieving greater fairness in public school funding. Since  Rodriguez , courts in 48 states have issued  over 300  state constitutional decisions on public school funding.

Every state constitution contains provisions pertaining to public education. At a minimum, a state’s constitution requires that the state maintain a public school system, and  38  state constitutions impose additional requirements, such as mandating that states provide education of a certain quality.

Most state court systems have ruled that state constitutional provisions pertaining to public school financing are judicially enforceable. Plaintiffs that have challenged a state’s method for determining public school funding or the amount of that funding have often succeeded in getting a court to find the state is violating its constitution. According to  one study , plaintiffs prevailed in 68 percent of all cases concerning constitutionally inadequate public school funding between 1989 and 2008. Plaintiffs had less success in the wake of the Great Recession as courts became more sensitive to state funding shortfalls.

But as in North Carolina, the remedial phase of education funding litigation — the process of figuring out how to right the wrong the court identified — has frequently spanned decades as courts struggle to compel recalcitrant legislatures to provide additional funding. In New Jersey, for example, after finding that the state had violated the state constitution by failing to provide sufficient funding for its public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court spent years overseeing failed attempts by the state to satisfy its constitutional duties before finally issuing a ruling ordering the state to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of funding.

But because of the challenge of identifying and enforcing a remedy, few courts have been as bold as those in New Jersey and North Carolina in ordering the reallocation of state funds, leaving public school students with limited means to get the resources they are entitled to. This was the fate of Ohio schoolchildren. Beginning in 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a series of landmark rulings, finding that Ohio’s public school financing system violated Ohio’s constitution. The state initially responded by appropriating additional funding, which was significant but not enough to comply with its constitution.

Rather than ordering the legislature to transfer the shortfall, or continuing to oversee the state’s compliance efforts, the court directed the lower court to dismiss the action, declaring that “the duty now lies with the General Assembly to remedy an educational system that has been found . . . to still be unconstitutional.” While  some  believe that additional funding eventually brought Ohio’s school system into constitutional compliance,  others  maintain that it remains unconstitutional, with Ohio schoolchildren effectively unable to vindicate their state constitutional right to a “thorough and efficient” public education.

As for North Carolina, the high court’s ideological shift makes it unlikely the issue has been settled for good. Because the state legislature passed a new budget shortly before the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered the state to reallocate the funds, the court sent the case back to the lower court. It directed the trial court to calculate the state’s shortfall in light of its new budget and order state officials to appropriate this amount of funding. The case will probably return to the state high court.

If the newly constituted court does reverse course, the case will serve as an important reminder of both the powerful potential of state constitutions to enforce rights like education and the barriers litigants face in realizing that potential.

Michael Milov-Cordoba is a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program.

Related Commentary

Does tennessee’s school choice program violate the state constitution’s public education guarantee.

An education choice advocate argues that it does not — and points out that state high courts have consistently rejected arguments that such programs undermine public education.

North Carolina High Court Set to Backtrack on School Funding

The state supreme court is revisiting its 2022 ruling requiring the legislature to allocate funds to ensure children receive a constitutionally adequate education. 

• North Carolina
• Civil Rights

Students and Parents Bring State Constitutional Challenges to Racial Segregation in Schools

Seventy years after Brown v. Board of Education , state constitutions may be the best path to desegregation.

• Government Structure

The Constitutionality of Stripping Elected Officials of Their Power

Ohio’s legislature passed a law that eliminates most of the state board of education’s powers, potentially violating the Ohio Constitution.

A project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law

© 2024 Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law

• Donor Portal Sign In
• PBS Sign In

Ohio School Funding Unequal 20 Years After Supreme Court Case

It was 20 years ago that the Ohio Supreme Court found the state’s system of funding public schools unconstitutional. The case was brought by a coalition of hundreds of school districts and named after student Nathan DeRolph. They argued that relying on property taxes for school funding unfairly favored districts with higher property values. The Court agreed. The DeRolph decision was one of many attempts to solve a funding problem, and it won’t be the last.

To paraphrase an old WC Fields joke, it’s easy to decide the DeRolph school funding case, the Ohio Supreme Court did it 4 times. The court eventually washed its hands of the matter in 2002,  ruling that Ohio’s system was unconstitutional but never spelling out a solution.  

At issue was the wide disparity in funding among Ohio public schools.

Former Cleveland Plain Dealer Education Reporter, Scott Stephens, was part of a panel on WCPN’s Sound of Ideas show.   He saw for himself why Ohio was ranked last in the country for the quality of its school buildings.

“I went to an all wood –all wood-  middle school that had no sprinkler system.  I went to a school in Mt. Gilead where classes were held in a basement converted coal bin. And this was pretty standard for Ohio at the time and, quite frankly, if prisons had been in those conditions they’d be shut down.”

The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding that brought the case was led by Bill Phillis.  His own children attended both poor and rich schools.

“When I compare the kind of quality that some of my children had in low wealth districts with the quality of education in the higher wealth districts  - there’s no comparison.  Money makes a difference.” 

Some Changes Follow

One successful legacy of the DeRolph case was the passage of State Issue 1, which raised some $11 billion dollars over 20 years so low income districts could construct new buildings.

There were also some attempts to provide more operating resources for low wealth districts.   Governor George Voinovich wanted to raise the state sales tax for that but Democrats opposed the referendum and it was defeated at the ballot.  

Then there was the lottery.   It provides extra money to schools but former state legislator Lee Fisher points out, raising money in one place just allows legislators to cut revenues in another place.

“A lot of people thought it was a shell game because what you were doing was earmarking that money for schools but then the legislature could find a reason to spend less.”  

Early Cap Remains

One notable hurdle for local school funding came from House Bill 920. That 1976 law locks down revenue from school levies so that districts will not receive more income when property values rise.

Former state legislator Bryan Flannery laments that forces districts to keep asking voters over and over to pass new levies.

“If you would have taken all those wasted levies and all those things that would have passed over the years we would have found that had we just allowed the revenue to grow with inflation we’d be at the same point.  So all that wasted time and energy could have been focused on ‘How do we educate our children?’”   

Charter Schools Also Funded

Not long after DeRolph the General Assembly raised a new funding issue by allowing the formation of charter schools.  The privately-run schools are publicly funded, sometimes taking local levy dollars in the process.  

Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich is traveling the state now calling it a corrupt system rewarding campaign donors.

“Where  public education funds go to the highest bidder.  And of course the highest bidders are the sponsors of private schools.” 

Kucinich says he may go back to the courts to challenge that use of public dollars.

“DeRolph didn’t say ‘create a separate private school system to remedy the educational disparity in the state. ‘They said the money should be going to public schools.”  

Complete Overhaul Up for Discussion

Now, the chairman of the House Education Committee wants to ban all school levies.   Republican Andrew Brenner has proposed a system funded by an increase in the sales tax and by a single statewide property tax.  

Brenner says large urban districts are being protected now while small well-off districts like his own Olentangy Local are not getting their fair share.

“We don’t have an adequate funding system.  We have a funding system that is completely redistributing funds to areas where the funds are not needed or is being mismanaged.” 

Under his plan Columbus would distribute the money to follow each student so every district would receive the same amount per student. 

“Cleveland Municipal School District for instance would see their revenues cut but they would also see their property taxes cut by 63% under my proposal” says Brenner. 

“We would see an increase in the sales tax.”

In his upcoming 2 year budget, Governor Kasich cut spending for more than half of Ohio’s districts but added a little more money for high poverty districts.  This week the House put back some money for those well-off schools, notably in Brenner’s local Olentangy district.  

The Senate will tinker with the budget next and Kasich will get the final say with his line item veto in June.

100 public schools are suing Ohio, saying EdChoice voucher programs are unconstitutional

Calling it "an existential threat to Ohio's public school system," 100 school districts filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the state's voucher system. 

If they succeed, it could mean the end of the EdChoice scholarships programs that currently cover at least part of the private school tuition for more than 50,000 Ohio children.

Supporters of the lawsuit filed in Franklin County say Ohio must "secure" a single "system of common schools" and giving $2 billion to private institutions over the last decade goes against that goal. 

“Funding schools that aren’t for everybody is not the business of the Ohio General Assembly," Columbus City School board member and plaintiff Eric Brown said. "And it is not the responsibility of Ohio taxpayers to pay for these private schools."

More: Ohio legalized school vouchers to help kids in failing schools. Is that what's happening?

Opponents say public school funding has risen significantly since the EdChoice programs were created and scrapping these scholarships would devastate thousands of families. 

"The bottom line is, after maybe the most difficult educational circumstances in our lifetime, for the public schools to try and kick kids out of their schools right now is absolutely disgusting," said Aaron Baer, a longtime school choice advocate and president of the Center for Christian Virtue. "These heartless school leaders are trying to make kids' lives more miserable. It's unbelievable."

What the case is about

The lawsuit rests on five different arguments, but the crux of the case centers around the idea that school vouchers created multiple school systems, and that harmed the one common system state lawmakers were supposed to protect. 

Basically, the voucher program might have started as a way to help students in low-performing schools, but it's "increasingly paying for private school educations for all interested students." 

And that, in the eyes of the plaintiffs, is unconstitutional because more money for EdChoice has meant less money for public schools. 

Take the Fairborn City School District as an example, said Andrew Wilson, a board member with Public Education Partners, a group of educators, parents and other interested parties advocating for public education. The district received an additional $90 from the new school funding formula over the next two years. Meanwhile, private schools in the district will get about $3,000 more per student. 

"Virtually all growth in school funding authorized by the General Assembly in the past five years has gone to fund voucher programs," according to the lawsuit. 

But Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, disagreed. 

"We’ve increased spending on public schools by 50% in the past 25 years, and that doesn’t count that $12 billion we spent in tobacco money on school buildings," Huffman said. "They have plenty of money."

Segregation in schools 

Another argument in the lawsuit is that a "disproportionate percentage of non-minority students have used EdChoice vouchers."

Nneka Jackson, a school board member from Richmond Heights, said that her district used to be 26% white and 74% minority groups. 

"Today, after EdChoice, Richmond Heights is 3% white and 97% students of color, Jackson said. "What’s wrong with this picture? Everything."

When asked why more white children might be taking vouchers in districts like Jackson's, the attorney for Vouchers Hurt Ohio said it might come down to family economics. 

"In many schools, the tuition is higher than the voucher amount," attorney Mark Wallach said. 

School choice advocates were quick to point out the suburban school districts around Ohio's eight largest cities don't take kids from other districts even if they have open seats. 

"If people want to see systematic racism at work look at the map of districts that do and don't allow it," Baer said back in August. "It is the most racist policy in Ohio, and it is perpetuated by the public school system."

More: Should Ohio school districts be required to accept students who live elsewhere?

And Greg Lawson of the Buckeye Institute said the data on who takes vouchers varies from school to school, but overall more minority students use EdChoice. 

Ohio is about 82% white, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau . But 50% of the students who take an EdChoice scholarship identify as white or non-Hispanic, according to the Ohio Department of Education . 

"The choice is there for everybody regardless of what demographic box they check," Lawson said. 

Education and the courts

Ohio has a long history when it comes to legal challenges to the way it educates students. 

The Ohio Supreme Court declared part of the state's first voucher program for Cleveland students constitutional back in 1999.

The court said those scholarships didn't violate the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause "because (public) funds cannot reach a sectarian school unless the parents of a student decide, independently of the government, to send their child to that sectarian school."

The U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in 2002. 

But Ohio's highest court also found the General Assembly's  method of funding public schools unconstitutional.

Justices in DeRolph v. State of Ohio said the state's heavy reliance on property taxes meant a child's education was being unfairly dictated by his or her ZIP code.

Vouchers Hurt Ohio spokesman Dennis Williard said that's exactly what vouchers are doing now. 

For example, the EdChoice scholarship amounts are $5,500 for K-8 students and $7,500 per year for high school students. But children attending the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District get about $1,100 from the state. 

The complaint claims those students are therefore being denied equal protection under the law. 

"It’s discriminatory to be giving more to the private schools," Brown said. 

What happens next

The complaint asks for something called a declaratory judgment, which means they want a Franklin County Court judge to stop the EdChoice scholarship programs while the case is being litigated. 

If that doesn't happen, both sides agreed it could be years before the Ohio Supreme Court gets the case. 

"We are asking our judicial system a basic question: Where does the General Assembly get the permission to fund private school vouchers?" Brown asked. 

But Lawson wondered if the lawsuit served another purpose.

The new school funding formula doesn't have guaranteed funding beyond fiscal year 2023 – something the lawsuit repeatedly points out. 

"It does seem to imply that if you increase the funding, that might make it OK," Lawson said. "Is this really about budget positioning?"

Read the lawsuit here:

Anna Staver is a reporter with the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau. It serves the Columbus Dispatch, Cincinnati Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.

Get more political analysis by listening to the Ohio Politics Explained podcast

Supreme Court Declines Ohio School Finance Case

• Share article

This time, it’s really over.

After 12 years of litigation that resulted in Ohio’s school finance system being declared in violation of the state constitution on four separate occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court last week let stand a ruling that closed the books on the marathon funding fight.

Disappointing a coalition of school groups led by the National School Boards Association, the court declined without comment to review a lower-court decision that blocked the plaintiffs from keeping the case alive until the state actually fixes the constitutional violations.

A clear win for the state, the Supreme Court’s action on Oct. 20 in DeRolph v. Ohio (Case No. 03-245) creates a situation that some legal experts say is highly unusual.

In declaring an end to the case last May, the Ohio Supreme Court reiterated that the legislature had a “duty” to bring the funding system into line with the state constitution, but also that the courts were to play no further role in enforcing the directive.

“I’m not aware of any situation where a high court has said a funding law is unconstitutional, but we’re not going to do anything to enforce our ruling when there has been noncompliance,” said David Sciarra, the executive director of the Education Law Center, a Newark, N.J.-based advocacy group that successfully sued to overhaul New Jersey’s education funding system. “That scenario is unheard of anywhere else in the country.”

But state officials said the U.S. Supreme Court’s action keeps the problem of how to pay for schools exactly where it belongs: in the hands of the state legislature and the governor.

12-Year-Old Lawsuit

Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, said he was awaiting the findings of a blue-ribbon commission he appointed last summer, which he said was “working diligently to reach consensus on school funding improvements.”

“The DeRolph case is over,” Gov. Taft said in a statement last week. “But we still need to improve our school funding system to assure that every Ohio child is given the opportunity to receive a quality education.”

On four occasions, first in 1997 and most recently last December, Ohio’s highest court has declared that the method of paying for schools does not comply with the Ohio Constitution’s guarantee of a “thorough and efficient” public education system. Among the problems cited was what the court deemed to be an overreliance on local property taxes, a structure that contributes to spending disparities between rich and poor districts.

Those rulings came in a lawsuit filed in 1991 by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy, a Columbus-based group that represents more than 500 school districts. They include most of the state’s urban and rural school systems as well as some suburban districts. The case is named for Dale R. DeRolph, the parent of a student in one of five districts named as plaintiffs in the suit.

Although the state says it has sharply increased funding for schools, including through a major construction initiative, the coalition argues that officials have done far too little.

“The state was ordered to overhaul the entire school funding system,” said William L. Phillis, the coalition’s executive director. “They didn’t do it.”

In striking down the state’s funding system for the final time last December, the state supreme court made clear that it considered the case closed.

But to push for the changes it believed necessary, last March the coalition asked a state trial court to schedule a conference to address the state’s compliance with the state supreme court’s earlier orders. The state responded by asking the state supreme court justices to bar the lower court from taking any further action in the case, and they did so. ( “Ohio Court Declares End to DeRolph School Funding Case,” May 28, 2003.)

14th Amendment Issue

In their brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the state court had violated Ohio schoolchildren’s 14th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process under the law by ending the case without ensuring that the deficiencies in the financing system would be remedied.

For their part, Ohio officials contended that the plaintiffs had no business being in federal court on what was clearly a state matter.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, several school groups, led by the National School Boards Association, had argued that DeRolph ‘s outcome set a bad precedent for other states.

“Without enforcement state legislatures will be able to sit idly by and not make the tough political and economic choices necessary to invest sufficiently in the children of their state,” the brief said. For that reason, the brief argued, the case held major implications for “not only 1.8 million students in the state of Ohio, but also potentially 47 million students nationwide.”

Although the DeRolph case is closed, Mr. Phillis of the Ohio coalition said last week that the group was reviewing its legal options and was by no means ruling out a new funding suit in the future.

“We’re not going to go away,” he said.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Nearly one year on, 130 school districts’ lawsuit challenging Ohio private school vouchers continues in court

• Updated: Nov. 25, 2022, 7:19 a.m. |
• Published: Nov. 25, 2022, 5:30 a.m.

Pre-schoolers work on a project at the Fairview Elementary School in Chicopee, Massachusetts. (Don Treeger / The Republican) 11/21/2022

• Laura Hancock, cleveland.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio – The state and a coalition over 130 school districts are awaiting a decision by a Franklin County judge on whether a nearly year-old lawsuit challenging Ohio’s private school vouchers will be dismissed or can continue toward trial.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page held arguments at the state’s request for a dismissal of the case on Oct. 25. She said at the end of the hearing that she would decide soon, which could be in coming weeks.

Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, Richmond Heights Local School District, parents of students in each of those districts, and over 130 school districts around the state that are part of a coalition called the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding jointed together to file the suit on Jan. 4. The suit challenges the state’s EdChoice Scholarship Program , arguing it violates Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution, which states the General Assembly must secure “a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.”

Under EdChoice, the Ohio Department of Education pays private schools $7,500 per eligible high schooler and $5,500 per eligible elementary student per year, which covers all or part of the private school tuition. The General Assembly has broadened eligibility over the years. Public school districts say that with limited public dollars, the hundreds of millions Ohio has spent on vouchers over the years has not just decreased public school enrollment, but diminished available public funds. Unlike private schools, which can choose not to take disabled children or families that don’t agree with its religious teachings, public schools must be open for all.

The plaintiffs argue that the state money sent to parents and private schools for vouchers has hurt public school funding. They asked Page to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction, which would block the state from offering the EdChoice program. They also want her to declare that the program violates the Ohio Constitution.

The defendants are the state, the Ohio superintendent of public instruction, the Ohio Department of Education and the Ohio State Board of Education. They’re represented by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, whose office argued before Page last month that the coalition and parents don’t have standing, or the legal authority, to file the lawsuit.

The case has started to draw attention from across the state and country. Numerous groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs or have intervened with their own motions in the case.

These include the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Education Association, the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, Ohio Council 8 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Ohio School Boards Association, Heights Coalition for Public Education, Disability Rights Ohio, the Ohio Poverty Law Center, the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, the Buckeye Association of School Administrators and others supporting some or all of the plaintiffs’ arguments.

The Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative and a group of parents sending their children to private schools across Ohio are among groups backing the defendants. The parents are represented in part by the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that supports vouchers for educational choice.

The plaintiffs began working on the suit in 2021 and have said they’re prepared to fight it over the long haul, even if they initially lose in Page’s court. Many of the plaintiffs include the same districts and advocates who were involved in the DeRolph v. Ohio case spanning 11 years in the 1990s and early 2000s that resulted in the Ohio Supreme Court declaring the state’s public school funding system unconstitutional. The anti-voucher coalition is led by William Phillis, who led a coalition of plaintiffs in DeRolph.

“This voucher program effectively cripples the public school districts’ resources, creates an ‘uncommon,’ or private, system of schools unconstitutionally funded by taxpayers, siphons hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds into private (and mostly religious) institutions, and discriminates against minority students by increasing segregation in Ohio’s public schools,” the plaintiffs argue in a May 26 amended complaint . “Because private schools receiving EdChoice funding are not subject to Ohio’s Sunshine Laws or most other regulations applicable to public schools, these private facilities operate with impunity, exempt from public scrutiny despite the public funding that sustains them.”

The defendants maintain that the plaintiffs’ suit cherry picks a few selected alleged impacts of vouchers in a handful of districts but doesn’t show a complete picture of how voucher funding hurts the overall public school system.

The defendants also say the plaintiffs are ignoring key cases that set precedent for how judges must look at whether private schools take public school funding. They say that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, or the legal authority, to actually file the lawsuit in court.

“And if Plaintiffs want to change Ohio’s policy approach to eliminate choice for parents and students, they need to ask the People elected, the democratic representatives in the General Assembly, – not the courts – to do that,” Yost’s office wrote in a July 22 motion asking the court to dismiss the case. “Ohio’s Constitution allows educational choice, and this Court should say so.”

State’s arguments

Yost’s office argues that state laws don’t allow the plaintiffs to sue. The General Assembly has passed state laws to expressly allow some entities to sue , but there is no such law for the plaintiffs in this particular suit, court documents say. This is ample reason for Page to stop the case, they argued.

But the state also argues against each of the claims made by the school districts about EdChoice.

The state maintains that some of Ohio’s private schools have been open longer than some public schools, and the legislature didn’t establish a “separate system” of “uncommon schools.” It says that even the U.S. Supreme Court agrees “that the State did not establish private schools,” in the 2002 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris , which upheld Ohio’s first voucher program, in Cleveland, even for scholarships going to religious schools.

The private schools that receive vouchers do have some accountability. Private schools that take vouchers must document enrollment. Private schools, even those that do not accept vouchers, must use state achievement and graduation tests, and have to meet specified standards to even be allowed to open and grant credits and diplomas under state law, the state says.

Parental choice creates a heightened accountability “because a school that does not satisfy its customers will lose students and even shut down, unlike public schools,” the state says. “The strength of that incentive – that customers are not captive – is shown by the fact that now that Plaintiff Districts face a form of it, they do not like it and have sued to get rid of it.”

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office says that the plaintiffs demonstrate a handful of effects of vouchers on local school districts, but they have not documented overall the amount of money districts have lost across the state. The plaintiffs also ignore the millions of dollars in state money spent to build new public schools, money that private schools do not directly get.

“Destroying vouchers does not guarantee more funds for the Districts, both because students might choose private schools anyway… and because students who move back to traditional schools carry both the funding and the cost or burden of educating them, so that could be a wash,” the state argues.

Among the parents who have intervened in the lawsuit because they want to protect vouchers is Brian Ellis of Akron, who has children who attend Catholic schools on the voucher scholarships.

A Jan. 7 motion said Ellis became passionate about keeping his children out of Akron’s public schools after his stepson’s experience at Kenmore High School. “Kenmore is an academically low-performing public high school, and students there encounter constant fighting, rampant drug use, and widespread truancy,” the motion stated . “Moreover homework is commonly not assigned and, in Brian’s view, the school provides neither college nor vocational readiness.”

Plaintiffs’ arguments

EdChoice – which is a different state program than the older voucher program in Cleveland – began during the 2006-2007 school year. The legislature greatly expanded vouchers in 2012, 2020 and 2021, the plaintiffs argue.

In the beginning, EdChoice vouchers were offered only to families that live in the boundaries of lower-performing public schools. Only 30,000 vouchers a year were initially offered.

Today, there are no caps. Previous rules requiring families apply for the vouchers before a school year begins are gone. Parents can now apply at any time during a school year.

In addition to offering vouchers in the boundaries of low-performing schools, children who are homeschooled can get them too. Vouchers also are offered to families that are medium- and low-income that have never tried public schools.

A family of four can earn up to $69,375 annually and remain eligible for an income-based voucher for the 2022-23 school year, the plaintiffs say.

In 2019, the Ohio Department of Education issued 23,500 vouchers, paying the schools $113 million. In 2020, about 30,000 vouchers were issued, valued at $149 million. By 2021, 32,600 vouchers were issued, costing about $163 million.

In the two-year state government funding bill passed in 2021, the General Assembly increased the amount of voucher payments from $6,000 per high school student to $7,500, and from $4,650 per elementary student to $5,500.

All of this has resulted in a decrease in funding for public schools, the plaintiffs say. One of the examples plaintiffs provide is the Fair School Funding Plan, an overhaul in education funding passed in the 2021 budget bill, which was trying to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court’s rulings from the early 2000s that public school funding was unconstitutional.

The legislature didn’t fully fund Fair School Funding Plan. It provided 16.7% of the plan for last school year and 33% of the plan for this school year, the plaintiffs say.

“Because public funds are finite, funding EdChoice Program Vouchers from the budgetary allocations designed for public school districts inevitably depletes the resources designed for educating Ohio’s public school students,” the plaintiffs argue.

Local school districts also are increasingly having to take on debt and rely on property taxes, they say.

The Fair School Funding Plan funds schools by looking at local capacity – which means examining a combination of the incomes of residents in the district, plus property tax values. If the total local capacity is relatively small, the state provides payments to increase the funding, the plaintiffs argue.

Yet in some districts, the state payments are lower than the state payments to private schools, plaintiffs maintain.

The Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District was expected to receive $1,700 per student from the Ohio Department of Education for last school year, plaintiffs say. Yet, over 2,000 students residing within its boundaries were expected to receive over $11 million in EdChoice vouchers to attend private schools.

The Richmond Heights Local School District was to receive about $340 per pupil from the Ohio Department of Education. Over 100 students living residing in its boundaries were expected to receive over $675,000 in EdChoice vouchers.

The plaintiffs maintain private schools aren’t necessarily providing a better education. It cited a Cincinnati Enquirer review of nearly 2.5 million student scores on proficiency tests in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years in about 150 Ohio municipalities. The study found that 88% of the municipalities achieved better state testing results than private schools in the same community.

“Hence, the notion that private schools present a better educational opportunity to Ohio’s students than the ‘failing’ public school building those students would otherwise attend – the ostensible reason for the Performance-Based Voucher program in the first place – is a myth.”

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Judge reviewing arguments over Ohio’s school voucher program

A Franklin County judge is reviewing the many arguments filed in a court case against Ohio’s school voucher system, known as EdChoice.

The EdChoice Scholarship Program awards publicly-funded scholarships to students who want to go to private schools that accept those vouchers.

A coalition of more than 100 school districts — along with 20 different education and community groups — have filed motions in court to argue against the voucher program.

The groups said the EdChoice program is a violation of the state constitution, citing the section related to school funding which states the legislature “will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.”

Bill Phillis, executive director of Vouchers Hurt Ohio, said the vouchers are funded by public dollars to support separate systems of schools.

“And here, the state has been going off the road, right into the ditch, supporting charter schools — publicly-funded and privately-governed, deregulated — and private schools,” said Phillis.

Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, filed a motion in court to have the lawsuit dismissed. Yost said the plaintiffs lack a legal standing to bring challenge the program in court.

“No plaintiffs — the coalition, districts, or individual students — have standing, because none have pleaded that they were concretely or uniquely injured by the existence of voucher funding to other students, nor that the educations they offer or receive are impaired,” Yost wrote in his motion to dismiss the case.

School administrators for the various school districts have said they face budgetary challenges when students decide to use the EdChoice vouchers. Opponents also argue that more students — who already made the decision to go to a private school rather than their local public school — will be getting voucher money because of the changes made to the EdChoice eligibility standards.

State lawmakers expanded the EdChoice voucher program to increase student eligibility and the dollar amount per voucher which is $5,500 for K-8 students and $7,500 for high schoolers.

Supporters of EdChoice also argue that the the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court have already issued rulings in the past that support the state’s voucher programs.

Now that the motions have been filed by the different parties, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page will review the arguments.

Landmark US Cases Related to Equality of Opportunity in K-12 Education

Main navigation.

*denotes US Supreme Court Case

School Finance

Serrano v. Priest (CA, 1971)

The 1971 case, also referred to as Serrano I, was the first of three cases called  Serrano v. Priest .  Students of Los Angeles County public schools and their families argued that the California school finance system, which relied heavily on local property tax, disadvantaged the students in districts with lower income. The California Supreme Courtfound the system in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because there was too great a disparity in the funding provided for various districts.

*San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (TX, 1973)

Parents of students in a Texas school district argued that the school finance system in Texas, which relied on local property tax for funding beyond that provided by the state, disadvantaged the children whose districts were located in poorer areas. Unlike the state court in  Serrano v. Priest , the Supreme Court found that the system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause after determining that the system did not intentionally or substantially discriminate against a class of people.

Robinson v. Cahill (NJ, 1973)

Prior to this case, the New Jersey public school funding system relied heavily on local property tax.  The New Jersey Supreme Court found that this system violated the state constitutional guarantee of access to a “thorough and efficient” public education system.

Levittown v. Nyquist (NY, 1982)

The New York school finance system also relied on local property tax, and several districts with low funding challenged the system.  The New York Court of Appeals recognized inequality in the per-pupil spending between districts but concluded that the disparity was not great enough to jeopardize the constitutional right to education.

Abbott v. Burke (NJ, 1985-2011)

New Jersey’s Education Law Center claimed that New Jersey’s school finance system both disadvantaged students in low-income districts and contributed to significant differences in the adequacy of education offered in poor districts compared to wealthy districts.  The New Jersey Supreme Court found the system unconstitutional and ordered that the state implement a program to ensure that funding in the “Abbott Districts” would be comparable to that of the wealthier districts.

Rose v. Council for Better Education (KY, 1989)

The Kentucky Supreme Court found the state school finance system in violation of the Kentucky constitution, formally recognizing adequate education as a fundamental constitutional right.  The Court ordered the state to adhere to seven specific goals in its education reform. 

DeRolph v. State (OH, 1997)

Ohio’s school finance system, which relied heavily on local property tax and contributed to disparities between wealthier and poorer school districts, was found unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio constitution requires that the state provide a certain level of education.  The court called for decreased reliance on property tax as well as other reforms, but the finance system was found unconstitutional several more times in subsequent cases  DeRolph II  and  DeRolph III .

Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York (NY, 2001-2006)

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity argued that New York’s school finance system was unconstitutional because it failed to provide adequate funding to public schools, thus denying students access to the constitutionally-guaranteed right to a basic education. The Court of Appeals ordered the state to reform the system to ensure students would have the opportunity to receive an adequate education.

Desegregation

*Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Prior to this case, the "separate but equal doctrine" allowed public schools to deny admission to students based on race.   The Supreme Court unanimously found that segregation of public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause on the basis that segregation was psychologically harmful to black students. The case outlawed state-sanctioned segregation of public schools.

*Green v. County School Board (1968)

Although  Brown v. Board of Education  made de jure segregation, or segregation by law, illegal in public schools, public school districts were still experiencing de facto segregation.  This case found that "freedom of choice" plans, which allowed students to choose the public school they attended, did not adequately address the issue of integrating public schools. The Court declared that school districts must adopt realistic plans for active integration.

*Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1970)

Before this case was heard by the Supreme Court, a district court had ordered that busing be used to integrate public schools in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district.  The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the district court's decision.

*Keyes v. School District No. 1 (1973)

In one of the first cases involving segregation in the northern United States, Latino and African-American students claimed that their Denver school district was practicing de jure segregation.  The Supreme Court found that the district could not consider a school desegregated simply because it had both Latino and African-American students, as both groups of students were similarly discriminated against.  The Court also ruled that if a significant portion of the school district were shown to be de jure segregated, the rest of the district could be assumed to practice de jure segregation (as opposed to de facto segregation) unless the district were able to prove otherwise.

*Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

This case concerns plans for public school integration across districts.  A district court had ordered a system to integrate a segregated Detroit school district; this system involved busing students into and out of neighboring school districts that were not de jure segregated.  The Supreme Court found that this ruling was unconstitutional and specifically that integration could only be legally enforced in districts that displayed de jure segregation.

*Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 (1981)

A Washington state initiative prevented districts from enforcing mandatory busing policies.  A school district in Seattle, which relied on such a policy to integrate its schools, challenged the initiative in court.  The Supreme Court found the initiative in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it clearly targeted integration efforts and primarily disadvantaged minority students.

*Freeman v. Pitts (1992)

A school district in Georgia had been found to be segregated several decades earlier and ordered to desegregate by eliminating segregation in six specific areas.  After four of the areas had been accounted for, the district court supervising the school district ceased to supervise those four areas but continued to oversee the integration of the other two.  The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision, ruling that a court did not need to maintain control of a school district’s desegregation efforts in all areas if the district was compliant; it only needed to supervise the areas that had not yet been integrated. 

*Missouri v. Jenkins (1995)

A district court sought to remedy de facto segregation in a Missouri school district.  The court ordered a number of changes, including higher pay for teachers and staff that would be funded through increased taxes.  The Supreme Court found that the plan proposed by the district court was unconstitutional because the segregation was de facto and only affected a single school district.  The plan, which would have affected multiple districts, did not fall within the district court’s scope of power.

*Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2006)

This case concerned the student placement practices of two school districts.  The districts normally allowed students to choose which school they attended, unless a school was overenrolled. In that case, with the goal of racial balance within schools in mind, the districts looked to race as one of the primary factors in placing the student.  The Supreme Court found this practice unconstitutional.  The districts had either not been segregated or had already achieved integration, and the goal of racial balance was found not to be well-defined enough to justify using students’ as the sole factor in their placement.

Sheff v. O’Neill (2008, Connecticut Supreme Court)

The 2008 settlement of the Sheff v. O’Neill case was one of several settlements following a 1996 hearing.  Students in Hartford, Connecticut argued that the city’s schools were segregated and that minority students were not receiving the same resources as white students. District lines had been drawn such that students in the city were separated from students in the suburbs. The Connecticut Supreme Court found the districting unconstitutional and ordered the state to remedy the segregation. Over the following years, various settlements called for the creation of charter and magnet schools to increase racial diversity in Hartford.

Language Equity

*Lau v. Nichols (1974)

Non-English-speaking Chinese-American students in San Francisco claimed that they were being denied equal protection by the school system’s failure to provide additional English language instruction.  While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, it did so by relying on Section 601 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act rather than the Equal Protection Clause; Section 601 protects against discrimination on the basis of national origin. This case paved the way for future decisions regarding bilingual education.

*Plyler v. Doe (1982)

A Texas law allowed the state to withhold school funds for undocumented children.  The Supreme Court found that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of these children because it discriminated against them on the basis of a factor beyond their control, and because this discrimination could not be found to serve a large enough state interest.

Gender Equity/Title IX (Focused on K-12 Only)

Force v. Pierce City R-VI School District (1983)

A female middle-school student was unable to try out for her school’s football team, as the tryouts were restricted to boys only.  She claimed that the school’s policy violated her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights.  The district court ruled in the student’s favor, finding that the school offered no justifiable reason for preventing girls from trying out.

Sharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Education Department (1989)

The state of New York awards merit scholarships to high-achieving high-school students.  Prior to this case, scholarships were awarded based solely on SAT scores.  There was evidence to show, however, that female students received lower SAT scores than males, and that SAT scores were not adequate predictors of female student performance in college.  When female students challenged the practice in court, a federal court determined that the reliance exclusively on SAT scores discriminated against female students and ordered that the state consider high school grades in conjunction with SAT scores in determining scholarship eligibility.

Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area School District (1990)

A female high school student was dismissed from her school’s National Honor Society (NHS) chapter upon discovery that she was pregnant.  The NHS faculty council cited the student’s engaging in premarital sex as the reason for her dismissal, claiming that this behavior was inconsistent with the values expected of NHS members. The district court found no violation of Title IX. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had ignored testimony that the NHS had not dismissed a male student who had also publically admitted to fathering a child while unmarried and ordered the district court to consider this evidence.

*Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992)

A female high school student had been sexually harassed by a teacher.  Faculty and administration at the school had discouraged the student from pressing charges against the teacher, and the student sought monetary damages.  The Supreme Court ruled that the student could indeed sue for damages under Title IX.

Chipman v. Grant County School District (1998)

Female high school students who were unmarried mothers were denied admission to their school’s National Honor Society (NHS).  The NHS chapter claimed that the denial was based on the girls’ characters.  However, the court ruled that the chapter had violated Title IX by discriminating against pregnant women.

Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth (1971)

Prior to this case, a Pennsylvania law allowed public schools to deny admission to students with cognitive disabilities.  The district court hearing the case found the law unconstitutional and required that the state ensure the right to free education for children with disabilities at an appropriate level for the individual child. 

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972)

Shortly after the  PARC v. Commonwealth  decision, several children challenged the District of Columbia public schools in court for both expelling and refusing admission to disabled students.  The schools argued that they did not have the funding or resources to provide an education to disabled children. The district court found the practice in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and ordered the school board to provide equal access to education for disabled students.

*Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)

A New York public school refused to provide a sign-language interpreter for a deaf student, claiming that her academic performance and progress demonstrated that she did not need one.  The student’s parents argued that the school denied her access to education at a level equal to that of her peers. However, the Supreme Court found that the school was providing the child with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), guaranteed to children with disabilities under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA, later revised and now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). The Court determined that the school was not responsible for providing a maximally beneficial education and that FAPE could be achieved even if the instruction provided only some educational benefit.

*Smith v. Robinson (1984)

The parents of a boy with cerebral palsy brought suit against his school district for transferring him to a school with inadequate resources.  Before bringing the case to court, the parents had gone through the administrative process detailed in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA).  The Supreme Court determined that since the EHA was designed to be comprehensive, disabled students and their families must rely only on the EHA in making such claims against schools.

*Honig v. Doe (1988)

The EHA (now IDEA) contains a “stay-put” clause, which states that, in cases where a school wishes to take disciplinary action against a student with disabilities, the school cannot remove the student from the program set in that student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) until the new plan has been agreed upon by the parents.  A student with an IEP who had been threatened with expulsion brought suit against his school for violating the stay-put clause.  The Supreme Court confirmed that schools must adhere to the stay-put clause, although they can take other disciplinary actions (e.g. a ten-day suspension) if they suspect a student’s behavior may be dangerous.

*Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2009)

A student with learning disabilities switched from a public school to a private school after the public school failed to meet his needs as a student (a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE). A hearing officer ordered that the public school district reimburse the student for the private school expenses. However, the student had not been receiving special education at the public school. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could be forced to reimburse the student if FAPE had not been provided, regardless of whether the student had previously received special education.

« Section 4: Lawsuits

• Politics & Gov
• Health Care
• Public Corruption
• Election 2024

Plaintiffs say restraining order should have stopped Ohio K-12 education overhaul from starting

By: megan henry - october 4, 2023 5:00 am.

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)

Plaintiffs are arguing that the temporary restraining order in the lawsuit that seeks to block a transfer of power over Ohio K-12 education should have stopped that transfer from starting.

After an all-day preliminary injunction hearing on Monday, Franklin County Magistrate Jennifer Hunt ruled that the temporary restraining order blocking lawmakers’ attempts to overhaul Ohio’s K-12 education system remains in effect until the court makes a decision on the case, which must happen by Wednesday at noon. UPDATE: The judge in the case has moved the deadline from Wednesday to Oct. 20.

Shortly after Monday’s hearing, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine held a virtual press conference and said the court order has caused “a potential for chaos” and decided to move forward with changing Ohio’s education department regardless.

Plaintiffs are saying this move goes against the court’s restraining order.

“That temporary restraining order meant that there was to be no changes to the state of public education in Ohio until further notice,” Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, said Tuesday during a virtual press conference.

“The court was very clear on the record yesterday that in Ohio there should be no changes to the governance structure of the education system. That the State Board of Education, which is democratically elected and has been the system in Ohio for decades, would remain in place while the court considered the plaintiffs motion.”

As of Tuesday, the Ohio Department of Education ceased to exist and is now the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. The changes were set to happen on Tuesday since that marks 90 days since DeWine signed the state’s operating budget into law, where lawmakers included the K-12 education overhaul.

“Questions such as who will send out the checks that go to our public schools across the state of Ohio, who will make the determination about eligibility for school choice,” DeWine said. “I can not let this situation fester. I can’t let this chaos … actually happen.”

The law included in the state budget creates a cabinet-level director position, puts the department under the governor’s office, and limits the State Board of Education’s power to teacher disciplinary and licensure cases and territory disputes. Under this law, the board of education would no longer have various administrative powers or control over curriculum standards.

When the Ohio Capital Journal reached out to the state education department, spokesperson Lacey Snoke said “ we are unable to comment.” 

Because the temporary restraining prevents DeWine from picking someone for the cabinet-level director position, Interim Superintendent Chris Woolard is in charge of the department. 

“No order should stand in the way,” Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said during Monday’s press conference. “We need a leader of this new agency, we need to give Gov. DeWine the authority to pick that new leader because Ohio needs leadership in this space.”

Motion filed

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed a motion Monday night to clarify the temporary restraining order. 

“This is not a good-faith reading of the Order,” the motion reads. “In the interest of avoiding harm to students, teachers, parents, school boards, state employees, and citizens across Ohio, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court intervene before Defendants put the executive branch of Ohio into direct conflict with the judicial branch.” 

The judge has given both parties until noon Wednesday to submit additional briefs before issuing a ruling on the preliminary injunction. 

“What is clear is that Gov. DeWine made clear (Monday) that he didn’t want to do anything to preserve public education in Ohio as it has been preserved for decades,” Perryman said. “In our view, if Gov. DeWine removed any power from the State Board of Education while this matter was pending before the court is able to rule in the preliminary injunction, then we believe the governor would be held in contempt of court.”

In an attempt to block the overhaul of K-12 education, seven members of the Ohio State Board of Education filed a lawsuit against DeWine on Sept. 19 in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. F ranklin County Judge Karen Held Phipps issued the temporary restraining order Sept. 21. 

The lawsuit complaint was amended on Sunday and now Christina Collins, Michelle Newman, Stephanie Eichenberg, and the Toledo Public School Board are the plaintiffs in the case. 

Collins and Newman are parents of Ohio public school students and are also on the State Board of Education. Eichenberg is a former Toledo Public School Board president and is a parent of two public school students. The plaintiffs are being represented by Democracy Forward and Ulmer & Berne LLP.

“I am a parent and I want to be able to have a say in my child’s education,” Newman said Tuesday during a virtual press conference. “ The changes that have moved forward, which I believe are unconstitutional and illegal, remove the voice of parents when it comes to public education.”

Collins, Eichenberg and Toledo Public School Board President Shenna Barnes testified as plaintiffs during the hearing. Newman, who was present at Monday’s hearing, was not called to testify. 

“Maintaining the status quo of a fully or a partially elected state board of education allows those voices to continue to be at the table and give important feedback when it comes to making education policy,” Newman said. 

These changes to the Ohio Department of Education and State Board of Education started out as Senate Bill 1, which Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, introduced in January. The Senate added SB 1 to the state budget in June, which DeWine signed into law in July.

The plaintiffs are asking to grant a permanent relief to stop this from going into effect, remove this legislation from the state budget, and strike it void. 

Senate Minority Leader Nickie J. Antonio, D-Lakewood, expressed her disappointment in the sweeping education changes moving forward while the temporary restraining order is in place. 

“The decision to ignore the authority of the court is a dangerous precedent to set at a time when public trust in the institution of government is at an all-time low,” Antonio said in a statement. “Ohio’s students and families deserve an organized and effective department and state board. Until the court decides how to proceed, the state should not interfere.”

While this is worked out in a court of law, educators are continuing to do their jobs and “drown out the political noise,” Melissa Cropper, President of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

Follow OCJ Reporter Megan Henry on Twitter.

This story has been corrected to say Michelle Newman was present at Monday’s hearing. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

Megan Henry

Megan Henry is a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal and has spent the past five years reporting in Ohio on various topics including education, healthcare, business and crime. She previously worked at The Columbus Dispatch, part of the USA Today Network.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom , the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Related News

Litigation Overview

One of the most powerful advocacy tools employed by ELC to promote education equity is litigation. When used as part of a multi-pronged campaign — including communications, coalition building, research and capacity building — litigation can be an effective means of shaping public policy and mobilizing stakeholders.

In New Jersey, ELC’s legal advocacy has resulted in numerous landmark rulings, including the Abbott v. Burke   decisions, which significantly advanced the provision of fair school funding , high quality early education , and safe and adequate school facilities . In addition to systemic litigation impacting many thousands of students, especially those most at risk, ELC provides direct legal assistance to individual students, parents and guardians involved in disputes with public school districts in cases related to special education , discipline , bullying and residency .

ELC also provides technical assistance to lawyers across the country working to ensure all students have access to the resources, programs and services they need to succeed. ELC works with advocates to develop legal strategy, identify experts and draft court documents. ELC also hosts an annual Litigators’ Workshop to bring together lawyers working on state-level education equity litigation.

ELC has established a unique network of national and regional law firms to represent parents and children in education rights litigation on a pro bono basis . Using a “public-private” partnership model, ELC works with local and state advocates to develop litigation, and uses national connections to leverage millions of dollars in private law firm resources to undertake these cases. The result of this coordination is a high capacity legal team comprised of ELC, local private or public interest law firms, and national or regional firms representing students and parents in education equity lawsuits.

A few recent examples of this successful litigation model include:

D.R. v. Michigan Department of Education : Litigation brought by ELC, the private law firm White & Case , and local partner, the ACLU of Michigan , against the Michigan Department of Education, Flint Community Schools, and the Genesee Intermediate School District, resulted in the establishment of an unprecedented program to provide universal screening, and in-depth assessments when necessary, to all children impacted by the Flint lead in the water crisis. Lopez v. Schwartz : ELC, the private law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson , and local partner, Educate Nevada Now , successfully challenged a proposed voucher law in Nevada, which would have diverted millions of dollars in public funds to private schools. Cortes v. Mujica : ELC, the private law firm O’Melveny & Myers , and local partner Alliance for Quality Education , successfully challenged a decision by New York State’s Director of Budget to withhold grant funds appropriated by the Legislature to improve school performance, resulting in the release of $69 million dollars in transformation grants to nine schools.

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER .

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

• Search for Party Aliases
• Associated Cases
• Case File Location
• Case Summary
• Docket Report
• History/Documents
• Related Transactions
• Check Status

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?

Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions .

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Credit card rates
• Balance transfer credit cards
• Business credit cards
• Cash back credit cards
• Rewards credit cards
• Travel credit cards
• Checking accounts
• Online checking accounts
• High-yield savings accounts
• Money market accounts
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Car insurance
• Home buying
• Options pit
• Investment ideas
• Research reports
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Disability group, education center, Ohio agency fight special education lawsuit

Mar. 29—An organization that advocates for an equitable Ohio for people with disabilities recently filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the Warren County Educational Service Center against the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce to invalidate findings by the state. The findings claimed that the Warren County ESC violated education law and deprived students of a free appropriate public education.

In May 2022, Disability Rights Ohio filed a complaint against Warren County ESC and the local school districts for what they said were several violations of special education law. Ohio DEW agreed with the violations and ordered the ESC to make corrections. But later, they rescinded the corrections after the Warren County ESC raised concerns about the fairness of the previous findings.

After a second investigation ended in December, Ohio DEW ordered the Warren County ESC to provide updated professional development for staff and to work with the state agency and parents to make sure special education students had appropriate individualized education programs (IEPs) and were progressing at the correct rate.

A January 2024 letter from Ohio DEW cited problems including that some of the students hadn't progressed on the Ohio Standardized Tests (OSTs) and many had scored in the "limited" range, which is the lowest level.

Warren County ESC sued Ohio DEW on Feb. 20, saying the state does not have the legal authority to order these changes, and even if they did, DEW never allowed mediation or for the district to work with them to solve the problem.

In early March, Ohio DEW entered a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Warren County ESC. The state said the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter and even if it did, the case doesn't have merit.

A temporary restraining order in the case was extended to April 8, so it is likely the judge will rule before then according to Warren County ESC and DRO officials. The judge could grant a permanent injunction; allow the case to go to trial; or rule the Warren County ESC has no right to appeal and dismiss the case.

Disability Rights Ohio filed a motion on March 20 to intervene in the case to ensure that the rights of parents and students with disabilities are enforced. They said Warren County ESC had not exhausted all of its administrative remedies.

DRO said it intervened to:

—Ensure parents of students with disabilities can pursue available remedies when they are unhappy with IEP services being provided to their children.

—Ensure WCESC administrators and staff complete training and corrective measures to remedy Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) violations.

—Ensure students with disabilities who are not receiving the services they need at WCESC get compensatory education.

—Ensure DEW complies with federal law in providing parents of students with disabilities a transparent complaint process.

"DRO intervened in the ESC lawsuit because the ESC is asking for a remedy that can directly impact the complaint findings in DRO's original complaint, deprive students of necessary services, and prevent parents from exercising their rights in the special education process," said Kristin Hildebrant, DRO senior attorney and education team leader.

Hildebrandt said, "the filing of the motion to intervene has been accepted by the court but the judge has not yet ruled on it. We do not know when the court will rule on it."

"The WCESC seems to be doing everything but following ODEWs corrective action plans and taking the steps necessary to address the inadequacies we uncovered," Hildebrandt said. "This lawsuit would not only prevent the parents of students with disabilities from exercising their rights to complain about poor education services at the WCESC, but also prohibit DEW from implementing any corrective action at WCESC, thereby depriving students of necessary services and supports to address their disability related needs."

Disability Rights Ohio is the federally and state-designated Protection and Advocacy System and Client Assistance Program for the state of Ohio. The organization provides legal advocacy and rights protection to a wide range of people with disabilities.

Educational Service Centers supply services for school districts across Ohio, and often take the most severe cases of children with mental and emotional needs. Warren County works with school districts from as far south as West Clermont School District and as far north as Holmes County.

Among the local districts affected included Dayton Public, Xenia, Centerville, Vandalia-Butler and Springboro. The Warren County ESC operates nine buildings that provide specialized services and programs for special education and special needs children. It also provides staffing to districts, such as nurses, school psychologists, occupational and physical therapists.

Warren County ESC Superintendent Tom Isaacs said, "the overriding big issue is the state believes they have the right to intervene/overturn students' individual education plans (IEPs) which were developed by a local team including the parents/legal guardians. It is actually quite shocking the state's position is they have unlimited power and we do not even have the right to appeal. It is nothing short of outrageous that the state wants to deny free mental health services to these children who are so dangerous to themselves and their communities."

Isaacs said in the last court hearing, "the judge stated that we had 'overwhelmingly' proven our case and that his only decision is to rule on the state's contention that we do not have any right to appeal their orders."

He said Warren County ESC has 60 students from 40 school districts for its five-year-old program and has another 30 students on a wait list. Issacs the average stay is 95 days and following an evaluation by a mental health therapist, the student returns to his home school district.

"This is a day treatment center for students with extreme mental health challenges that makes them unsafe to themselves and others. This is not a school," Isaacs said. "The state contends that parents do not have a right to exclude their children from a typical school curriculum. The students are placed into our program through an individual education plan (IEP) that is developed by local school team and the parents/guardians."

Isaacs said his staff created this program and he has seen the benefits.

"It's worth the fight because we are saving kids' lives," Isaacs said. "We're in this for the long haul."

Recommended Stories

North wilkesboro speedway finds a potential moonshine cave under its grandstands.

Officials at the North Wilkesboro Speedway found a likely moonshine cave under the grandstands while performing a maintenance inspection.

Buy one, get one free Samsung smart TV? You bet — save hundreds with this unbelievable deal at Amazon

This deal even includes a discount on the entire package.

Brittney Griner stays in Phoenix on 1-year, $150K deal

Griner re-signed with the franchise that drafted her No. 1 overall and committed to supporting her return home from a Russian prison.

Photos of people looking at solar eclipses from 1907 to the present day

A collection of historical images of eclipse viewing from around the world.

X is funding a lawsuit against Jack Dorsey's Block to support the 'right to freedom of speech'

X is funding a lawsuit filed by Chloe Happe against her former employer Block, which was founded by Jack Dorsey, the same person who founded the website formerly known as Twitter.

These 'game-changer' storage bags instantly organize a closet — and they're just over $2 apiece

Save over 60% on these moisture-proof, breathable, stackable space-savers that 14,000+ shoppers go bonkers over.

Bad sleep can make you feel years older, and a new study supports eating an avocado every day: The latest health news

What to know about the latest health news, from how to improve your diet with avocados to whether you should worry about drinking milk.

Why it matters that weight loss drugs are one of Oprah Winfrey's new favorite things

After publicly chronicling her own challenges with traditional diets for decades, the cultural icon is now celebrating the emergence of breakthrough drugs like Ozempic.

March Madness: Duke knocks off No. 1 Houston to reach Elite Eight after Cougars lose star Jamal Shead

Jamal Shead had to be helped off the court after rolling his right ankle hard in the first half on Friday night in Dallas.

Microsoft Copilot has reportedly been blocked on all Congress-owned devices

US Congressional staff members can no longer use Microsoft's Copilot on their government-issued devices, according to Axios.

Jalen Brunson's 61 points not enough as Victor Wembanyama's 40-20 effort propels Spurs past Knicks in OT

Brunson fell one point short of Carmelo Anthony's Knicks scoring record as New York lost in overtime.

Trump legal news brief: Trump tries yet again to get Fani Willis kicked off Georgia case

Former President Donald Trump and several of his co-defendants charged in the Georgia election interference case submit an application to appeal Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to continue to prosecute them.

Timea Gardiner is thriving and has Oregon State in the Elite Eight — and it's all thanks to a fluke scooter accident

An accident 2 years ago nearly derailed Gardiner's college basketball career and life. Because of that accident (and what it revealed), she's back on the court and the Beavers are still alive in March Madness.

Want to get to know Gen Alpha? Meet their (mostly) millennial parents.

Move over, Gen Z — Gen Alpha is the newest, youngest generation that people of all ages are desperate to study and understand.

Caitlin Clark mania in full swing as Iowa readies for Sweet 16 showdown with Colorado

Clark is a natural in the spotlight, but coach Lisa Bluder's deference to the superstar makes Iowa's situation more unique than most as the women's game grows bigger than ever.

Brewers rookie Jackson Chourio, who is younger than Facebook, debuts with hit, RBI and steal

Chourio signed an $82 million contract before making his MLB debut.

I'm obsessed with cleaning, and this mini cordless vacuum — on sale for 55% off — will keep your kitchen crumb-free

I use it to clear my floors, countertops, stove and tight spaces in my kitchen where crumbs accumulate.

Oregon State's victory over Notre Dame eliminates last perfect women's March Madness bracket

The last remaining perfect entry in Yahoo's women's bracket challenge was eliminated with Oregon State's 70-65 win over Notre Dame.

NFL minicamps, OTAs and workout dates: When is your team holding them?

Here's when you can see players back on the field this spring.

OpenAI says it can clone a voice from just 15 seconds of audio

OpenAI just announced the results of a small-scale preview of a new voice cloning engine that’s based on the company’s pre-existing text-to-speech API. The technology generates natural-sounding speech that resembles the original speaker.

Here’s what’s open (and closed) on Good Friday 2024

Good Friday is a conundrum for many people. Easter is such a major holiday in the Christian faith that it seems like it would also be a government holiday. It’s not, though. But that doesn’t mean everything will be open.

Markets, governments and businesses usually agree on days off, but they have differing policies when it comes to Good Friday. Confused? Don’t worry. Here’s what you can expect.

Are banks open on Good Friday?

Yes—and no. Good Friday is not a federal holiday, so banks in most states will be open. Twelve states, however, recognize Good Friday as a state holiday, so branches in Connecticut, Texas, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina and North Dakota could be closed.

Will there be any mail delivery on Good Friday?

Yes. Since this isn’t a federal holiday, the U.S. Postal Service will operate as it does on any other day. UPS and FedEx will conduct business as usual, also—and their drop off locations will have normal hours.

Is the stock market open on Good Friday?

Here’s where things get a little confusing. The stock market observes Good Friday as a holiday, so the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq will both be closed.

Are government offices open on Good Friday?

As with banks, it really comes down to where you live. Since 12 states recognize the day as an official holiday, you won’t be able to access DMV offices, courts or city halls in Connecticut, Texas, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina and North Dakota.

Which retail and grocery stores are closed on Good Friday?

Almost none. No major retailer shuts down for Good Friday—and several hold Easter or Spring sales hoping to lure in last-minute shoppers who are assisting the Easter Bunny this Sunday.

Latest in Lifestyle

• 0 minutes ago

Pets won’t count as a carry on for American Airlines flyers traveling with furry friends

Gwyneth Paltrow-founded Goop hit with trademark lawsuit over several of its female health products

Young women are randomly getting sucker punched in New York City

NFL will air two games on Christmas this year—and the first game of the season will be a streaming exclusive

Beyoncé says her ‘country’ album was 5 years in the making and a response to ‘an experience that I had years ago where I did not feel welcomed’

Most Popular

Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk facing pressure as study finds $1,000 appetite suppressant can be made for just $5

A woman purchased a vacant Hawaiian lot for about $22,000. She was surprised to see a $500,000 home was built on it by mistake

Home Depot’s largest acquisition ever is an $18.25 billion bet on the housing market’s severe shortage of new homes

For New Yorkers, ‘there are no consequences for not paying your property taxes’ as delinquencies spike to $880 million

The U.S. and its allies want to bring the entire chip supply chain in-house—and that could create an OPEC-style cartel for the digital age

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Easter 2024

Lawsuit says Ohio’s gender-affirming care ban violates the state constitution

• Copy Link copied

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Two families of transgender minors filed a constitutional challenge on Tuesday to an Ohio law that severely limits gender-affirming health care for youth under 18.

The litigation, brought in Franklin County Common Pleas Court by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio and the global law firm Goodwin, alleges the law — enacted in January after lawmakers overrode a veto by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine — denies transgender youth health care and specifically discriminates against their accessing it.

The legislation in question contains a ban on transgender surgeries and hormone therapies for minors, unless they are already receiving such therapies and it’s deemed a risk to stop by a doctor, as well as restrictions on the type of mental health services a minor can receive.

It also banned transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ and women’s sports. The lawsuit says the combination of the two bans violates Ohio’s single-subject rule for bills.

The office of Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost did not immediately respond to request for comment Tuesday.

ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson said the new law “will cause severe harm to transgender youth.”

“These personal, private medical decisions should remain between families and doctors; they don’t belong to politicians,” she said in a statement. “H.B. 68 violates the Ohio Constitution in multiple ways. We will fight in court to ensure that trans youth and their parents can access critically important, lifesaving healthcare without government intrusion.”

DeWine vetoed the law Dec. 29, after touring the state to visit children’s hospitals and to talk to families of children with gender dysphoria. He cast his action as thoughtful, limited and “pro-life” — citing the suicide risks associated with not getting proper treatment for gender dysphoria.

DeWine simultaneously announced plans to move to administratively to ban transgender surgeries until a person is 18, and to position the state to better regulate and track gender-affirming treatments in both children and adults — a move he hoped would allay concerns of fellow Republicans that rule the Ohio Statehouse. But the administration swiftly backed off that plan, after transgender adults raised serious concerns about how state regulations could impact their lives and health.

Ohio was the 23rd state to ban gender-affirming health care for trans youth, as Republican state legislatures seek to stem a trend that they see as dangerous to children. Ohio lawmakers stood their ground on the bill after DeWine’s veto, easily overriding it.

The families who sued Tuesday — going under the anonymous surnames Moe and Goe — asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of the bans come April 24, when they officially go into effect, and to declare the law unconstitutional.

Samantha Hendrickson is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.