Ohio is in the thick of another biennial budget season. The governor has rolled out his proposal, the House has passed its version, and now it’s the Senate’s turn to take the wheel. In the coming weeks, we should expect a familiar chorus from the usual suspects in the public-school establishment decrying the funding formula as “unconstitutional.” It’s as predictable as April showers and summer mosquitos.
This refrain surfaces like clockwork whenever the state adjusts the funding formula, particularly in ways the establishment claims “underfund” public schools. It’s not rooted in legal arguments but in political strategy—a way to stir up urgency, push for more dollars, and paint anyone proposing reform as an enemy of public education. But that claim doesn’t hold up anymore. The DeRolph decision, which declared Ohio’s system unconstitutional, was issued more than twenty years ago. And Ohio has come a long way since.
In the years since DeRolph v. State (1997–2002), Ohio has enacted not one, not two, not three, but four major overhauls (one during each gubernatorial administration) of its school funding system. The current model is fundamentally different than the one the Ohio Supreme Court found lacking two decades ago.
For starters, Ohio’s present system is designed to be progressive and targeted. Districts with weaker property tax bases—typically lower-income communities that were emphasized in DeRolph—receive more state aid per pupil than their wealthier peers. That’s not conjecture; it’s how the funding formula is designed. Ohio’s high-poverty districts receive significantly more taxpayer support (see page 18) per pupil than affluent ones. In 2019, the poorest 20 percent of districts spent nearly $15,000 per pupil, compared to just over $12,000 in the wealthiest quintile. These are not signs of a state shirking its constitutional duty—they’re clear indicators of a system working to support schools that need dollars most.
Then there’s facilities. Since DeRolph, the state has invested more than $12 billion in constructing and renovating school buildings, with a clear emphasis on high-need districts. Travel across the Buckeye State and you’ll find a plethora of newly built schools dotting the landscape. Many of these facilities only exist because of considerable state support. Providing modern learning environments in Ohio’s most economically challenged areas isn’t just good policy—it’s the constitutionally mandated “thorough and efficient” education the Court envisioned.
The public school establishment often points to the growth of school choice as irrefutable proof that Ohio is undermining its commitment to public education. But as a 2020 Fordham analysis shows, school choice has not eroded district funding. In fact, per-pupil spending in Ohio’s major urban districts (see pages 23–26)—those most impacted by the competitive aspects of school choice—has increased in inflation-adjusted dollars, not declined, since the expansion of charter schools and vouchers.
Moreover, it should be noted that Ohio’s choice programs don’t even operate on a level playing field. Charter schools and voucher students receive significantly less taxpayer support than their district counterparts. In cities like Cleveland, the gap between district and average charter funding exceeds $8,000 per pupil. The discrepancy is even bigger when looking at funding for Cleveland Scholarship students. That’s not “draining” traditional public schools—it’s subsidizing them, since local property tax dollars remain in district coffers even when students leave for schools of choice.
Still, the claim persists. “Unconstitutional!” they cry. Yet no one files a lawsuit on the funding formula itself. Why? Because deep down, the critics know the case wouldn’t survive a courtroom. Their argument is more press release than legal brief—designed to shift political winds, not win judicial battles.
That’s not to say everything is perfect. The current funding model still relies too much on temporary phase-ins, guarantees, and inefficient allocations like DPIA. But let’s have that debate honestly—based on facts, tradeoffs, and real needs—not on reheated grievances from a case that predates smartphones and YouTube.
Ohio has proven time and again that it supports its public schools. So as the Senate gets to work on its version of the budget, let’s stop pretending we’re still stuck in the DeRolph era. Ohio’s school funding system may not be flawless. But unconstitutional? That dog won’t hunt.
