16.8 Inequity of School Funding

The inequity of school funding in Ohio is a significant issue, with the reliance on local property taxes resulting in stark differences in funding between wealthy and poorer districts. Wealthier districts can afford better facilities, more extracurricular activities, and higher teacher salaries. The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled multiple times, notably in the DeRolph v. State of Ohio (1997) case, that the state’s school funding system is unconstitutional, as it fails to provide a “thorough and efficient system of common schools” as required by the Ohio Constitution.

Despite these rulings, substantial reforms have been slow to implement, leaving disparities in place. The DeRolph ruling was based on the Court’s conclusion that overreliance on the property tax caused significant disparities between wealthy and poorer districts. At the time, Governor Voinovich proposed an increase in the state sales tax to address this problem but it was sent to the voters of the state for approval and was rejected. The legislature’s failure to comply with the court’s rulings represents a breakdown in Ohio’s system of checks and balances.

The issue of school funding inequity is widespread across the United States, not just in Ohio. Variations in funding levels are largely driven by local property taxes, leading to significant disparities in educational resources available to students in different regions. Many states rely heavily on local property taxes to fund schools, creating a system where educational opportunities are tied to the wealth of the local community.

State funding formulas are intended to balance these disparities but often fall short. States vary widely in their contributions to education, and the effectiveness of their funding formulas can differ greatly. Federal contributions to education are relatively small and often targeted toward specific programs, which do not necessarily address broader inequities in the overall funding system.