HB 305: A Step in the Right Direction for Ohio's Students

Akron Law Review Volume 55 Issue 1 Article 6 HB 305: A Step in the Right Direction for Ohio's Students Jacob Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Education Law Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Davis, Jacob () "HB 305: A Step in the Right Direction for Ohio's Students," Akron Law Review: Vol. 55: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol55/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact , . Davis: HB 305 for Ohio Students HB 305: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR OHIO’S STUDENTS Jacob Davis * I. II. III. IV. V. Introduction ..................................................................220 The Story of School Finance Litigation in Ohio..............221 A. Education as a Fundamental Right ...........................221 B. Pre-DeRolph: Walter and the Foundation Program ...223 C. The DeRolph Decisions...........................................226 1. DeRolph I ..........................................................226 2. DeRolph II.........................................................228 3. DeRolph III and Its Fallout .................................229 4. DeRolph IV........................................................230 D. Current Funding Formula ........................................231 Necessary Change to an Unconstitutional System...........232 A. The Ills of Property Tax Reliance ............................232 B. Cupp-Patterson HB 305...........................................234 1. Cupp-Patterson introduces wealth factors to a district’s funding formula.............................235 2. Cupp-Patterson provides for the creation of a new review commission, which will make on-the-fly revisions to the state funding formula..............................................................240 3. The Cupp-Patterson drafters have proven responsive to public criticism. ............................243 C. The Political Battle That Remains............................244 Conclusion ....................................................................248 Epilogue – A Half-Hearted Solution...............................249 Jacob Davis is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Akron School of Law, May 2022. Many thanks to the Akron Law Review for the guidance and feedback I have received at every step of the writing process. This article was inspired by, and is dedicated to, two phenomenal educators and parents, Walter and Aimee Davis. Thank you for your continued support, and for being my greatest teachers. * 219 Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 1 Akron Law Review, Vol. 55 [], Iss. 1, Art. 6 220 AKRON LAW R EVIEW [55:219 I. INTRODUCTION “Unconstitutional” remains one of the most powerful words in American democracy. American society is rooted in the idea of liberty, certain unalienable rights that have been deemed to be self-evident. When these rights are violated, there is hell to pay, and the people’s government must swiftly respond to correct the injustice. But this swift response to an identified injustice has not been felt by millions of Ohioans—instead, it has persisted for almost twenty-four years. The right to a thorough and efficient system of common schools is not as flashy or oft-cited as the rights to life, liberty, or property, but it is shared by the American public just the same. Ohio’s Constitution establishes the fundamental right to education: “The general assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the State.” 1 Over four years, the Ohio Supreme Court provided four different rulings finding that Ohio’s approach to achieving this constitutional mandate was flawed, and therefore unconstitutional. 2 These rulings, known as the DeRolph decisions, found that a funding formula rooted in a district’s property value leads to rampant inequality. According to the Court, this inequality violated the Ohio Constitution’s Thorough and Efficient Clause. Ohio’s schools, though, have continued to be funded under this unconstitutional formula because the state legislature had failed to implement the changes required under DeRolph. The Ohio House of Representatives passed the latest attempt to remedy this injustice on December 3, 2020. 3 HB 305, also known as the Cupp-Patterson proposal, overhauled Ohio school funding. The formula combines wealth-focused factors with factors focused on a district’s property value. 4 The proposal would also create the Funding Oversight Commission, which would oversee, monitor, and propose real-time tweaks and changes to school funding as problems or new considerations arise. 5 1. OHIO C ONST. art. VI, §2. 2. DeRolph decisions; discussed in detail infra. 3. Anna Staver, Ohio Senate Won’t Consider New School-Funding Plan This Year That Was Ok’d 84-8 by House, C OLUMBUS DISPATCH (Dec. 4, 2020, 1:47 PM) https://www.dispatch.com/ story/news/education/2020/12/03/ohio-house-passes-new-k-12-funding-formula-but-senate-may kill-measure-to-make-system-constitutional/3810589001/ [perma.cc/MJK9-XECA]. 4. See Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet, Fair School Funding Plan: State/Local Distribution Calculator, https://sites.google.com/view/ohiofairschoolfunding/report [perma.cc/NFD2-W6TS ] (accessible under “State/Local Distribution Calculator”) (last visited Mar. 10, 2021). 5. H.R. 305, 133 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2020) (citing to §3317.64(A)). https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol55/iss1/6 2 Davis: HB 305 for Ohio Students 2022] HB 305 FOR OHIO S TUDENTS 221 Unfortunately, the Ohio Senate did not even take a vote on CuppPatterson before the ending of the General Assembly’s session on December 31, 2020. 6 This failure will require the bill to be reconsidered by the one-hundred thirty-fourth General Assembly, which will reconvene in 2021; HB 305 will need to again pass through both the Ohio House and Senate. 7 Cupp-Patterson is the most viable option lawmakers have proposed to correct Ohio’s persistently unconstitutional school funding. While the proposal has some room for improvement, its passage would be the first step in the right direction for Ohio’s students in nearly twenty-four years. No matter a child’s zip code, they should be provided the same opportunity to learn and grow throughout Ohio. The passage of HB 305 would ensure this inherent right becomes a reality. Part Two of this article will explore the checkered past of (...truncated)