COURT VOIDS SYSTEM FOR FUNDING SCHOOLS

NEW PLAN ORDERED IN A YEAR

The political bombshell was dropped in the capitol Monday when the high court, in a long-awaited opinion, found that the system of mixing state aid with local property taxes has led to a great disparity in per pupil spending across Ohio, and the failure for some children to receive an adequate education. The court split 4-3 on the ruling.

Recognizing the impact of its decision and the complexities of a solution, the court gave the Ohio General Assembly one year to replace the current funding formula.

But the court also made clear it expects major change.

`By our decision today, we send a clear message to lawmakers: the time has come to fix the system,' Justice Francis E. Sweeney wrote for the majority. `Let there be no misunderstanding. Ohio's public school financing scheme must undergo a complete systematic overhaul.'

While no one would place a precise price tag on reaching statewide equality, previous estimates have said it could cost billions of tax dollars just to bring buildings in low-wealth districts up to par.

Donald C. Berno, head of the Ohio Public Expenditure Council, a nonpartisan tax-study group, said the court decision specifically rejected a `Robin Hood' approach to school financing - simply moving tax dollars from property rich districts to poor districts.

`The court has left the General Assembly very little choice but to approve a major tax increase,' he said.

The magnitude of the justices' decision was evidenced by the unwillingness of major political participants to publicly comment Monday. Gov. George Voinovich, House Speaker Jo Ann Davidson, R-Reynoldsburg, and Senate President Richard Finan, R-Cincinnati, issued a joint statement expressing `disappointment' in the ruling. They plan a joint press conference today.

Voinovich and legislative leaders tried hard to maintain the current system, but the high court made clear it was persuaded more by lower court testimony about school buildings slipping down hillsides in southeast Ohio; students being overcome by fumes from faulty heating systems; and some students rationing `such necessities as paper, chalk, art supplies, paper clips and even toilet paper.'

`Obviously, state funding of school districts cannot be considered adequate if the districts lack sufficient funds to provide their students a safe and healthy learning environment,' Sweeney wrote.

Budget time

The decision comes amid legislative deliberations on the next two-year state budget, which includes about $5 billion for primary and secondary schools to be distributed under the system now declared unconstitutional. That budget, which has passed the House and will begin Senate hearings today, must be approved by June 30.

It's expected the budget hearings will proceed while legislative leaders determine how to deal with the court ruling.

State Rep. Bob Corbin, R-Washington Twp., chairman of the House primary and secondary schools subcommittee, said he anticipates a special committee or task force will be created to meet the court's 12-month deadline.

`There are so many issues wrapped up in this, including tax policy and economic development policy, that it's going to be a major job to deal with it in one year,' he said.

Once the Legislature develops a new funding method, it must go back to Judge Linton Lewis Jr. of the Perry County Common Pleas Court for review, the Supreme Court said.

Lewis set the stage for Monday's historic ruling when he issued an opinion in 1994 declaring the funding formula unconstitutional. His ruling came in a lawsuit filed in 1991 by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, a group representing most of the state's 611 public school districts.

The state fought Lewis' decision and Ohio's 5th District Court of Appeals did reverse it, sending the matter to the Supreme Court. Lewis said Monday he could not comment on the specifics of the case because of his future involvement, but said he was pleased to be upheld.

Since the case raised no federal issues, no appeal to the federal courts is expected.

William Phillis, executive director of the Equity & Adequacy coalition, called the ruling ``a big victory for the children of the state of Ohio. We at the coalition didn't see how the justices could deem the system constitutional.'

The Ohio constitution requires the state to provide a thorough and efficient system of education.

Phillis said his group will release its recommended changes to the funding system next week.

The court ordered the state to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and court costs, which Phillis said amount to more than $1 million.

While the majority opinion was strongly worded, it answered few questions about what might be the ultimate outcome.

In Ohio, a little more than half the money for public education comes from local taxes and a little less than half comes from the state. A small portion of federal assistance makes up the difference.

But, because of differences in property values and wealth in each district, per-pupil spending ranges from as high as $12,000 a year per student to as low as $4,000.

That, the court said, is unacceptable.

The court also strongly indicated that the Legislature should take a hard look at Ohio's historic reliance on property taxes to funds schools.

In a separate, concurring opinion, Justice Alice Robie Resnick wrote, `The General Assembly must first determine the cost of a basic quality education in both primary and secondary schools in Ohio and then ensure sufficient funds to provide each student with that education, realizing that local property taxes can no longer be the primary means of providing the finances for a thorough and efficient system of schools.'

Sweeney agreed, saying the current system of determining how much money the state will spend on education and then distributing it `has absolutely no connection with what is necessary to provide each district enough money to ensure an adequate educational program.'

Formula dismissed

The court not only dismissed the state's foundation formula - the heart of the state's funding mechanism - but also rejected as unconstitutional legislative programs, such as the school loan fund and an emergency building repair program, that have been adopted over the years to deal with inequities in the system. Sweeney took a slap at a Voinovich program designed to help poor schools by giving them computers to electronically link with other schools and teachers.

`Appropriations for computers are meaningless when school systems cannot use the equipment due to asbestos, faulty electrical wiring, or the lack of teachers,' he wrote.

Sweeney also seemed to anticipate arguments from opponents to the lawsuit who say the court's solution will result in loss of local control of schools and that steps have been taken since the lawsuit was filed to try to correct the equity problem.

`Our state Constitution makes the state responsible for educating our youth,' he wrote. `Thus, the state should not shirk its obligation by espousing cliches about `local control.''

Sweeney said the Legislature has `scrambled to enact new laws to soften the blow of the failing system,' but, `they simply are insufficient to get the job done.'

In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer did not dispute that there are disparities in the system, but argued the funding debate should not be settled in court.

``The words of the Ohio Constitution commit to the General Assembly, not the courts, the responsibility to fund a `thorough and efficient' system of public schools,'' Moyer wrote.

The court decision places Ohio in a group of 17 states where supreme courts have ruled funding systems unconstitutional since 1971, said Mary Fulton, an analyst for the Education Commission of the States, a research organization.

State school funding systems have been upheld in 18 states, including Ohio, whose system of funding withstood a legal challenge in 1979.

In states where funding systems have been thrown out, the trend is away from heavy reliance on property taxes, Fulton said. The remedies typically bring poorer districts to higher spending levels, and sometimes place limitations on spending growth in wealthier districts.

In his opinion, Sweeney made clear the court recognized the importance of its decision.

`Practically every Ohioan will be affected by our decision: the 1.8 million children in public schools and every taxpayer in the state,' he wrote. `For the 1.8 million children involved, this case is about the opportunity to compete and succeed.'

Monday's ruling

* The Ohio Supreme Court declared Ohio's method of paying for K-12 education unconstitutitional and ordered legislators to reduce the gap between the wealthiest and poorest districts.

Timetable for change

* The ruling's full effect was delayed for one year to allow lawmakers time to come up with an equitable plan, which the court said must move away from the reliance on property taxes to fund shcools.

What it will cost

* State officials warned that any new funding method that achieves the court's mandates will likely require a tax increase.

-------------------------------------------------------------

How they voted

Here's how the 4-3 Ohio Supreme Court decision, which declared Ohio's K-12 school funding system unconstitutional, broke down among the justices:

* THE MAJORITY: Justice Francis E. Sweeney, a Democrat, was joined by fellow Democrat Alice Robie Resnick and Republicans Andrew Douglas and Paul Pfeifer.

* THE MINORITY: Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justices Deborah Cook and Evelyn Stratton, all Republicans, dissented.

PHOTO: Francis Sweeney

* STAFF WRITER Lynn Hulsey contributed to this report.

We want your opinion

In light of Monday's ruling, how would you pay for education in Ohio? Would shift to sales taxes, or to the income tax? Would you pool property tax money from across the state? Do you think inequities in education are even a problem? To voice you opinion, call NewsLine at 463-4636 and enter code 1012. Please include your name, place of residence and phone number.

OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES ON SCHOOL FUNDING