Board of Education v. Walter

Last updated

Board of Education v. Walter was a 1979 Ohio Supreme Court case relating to the funding of primary and secondary schools in Ohio. The Court ruled that the method of funding public schools at the time was constitutional despite disparities in per-pupil education spending between different districts. Article VI of the Ohio Constitution states that the state must provide an "adequate system of public schools." [1] The ruling overturned a previous trial court ruling that the State's school-funding system violated the Constitution of Ohio's requirement of providing a thorough and efficient system of public education. Board of Education v. Walter is one of the cases that played a role leading to DeRolph v. State of Ohio in 1997, which found the model of funding for public schools in Ohio to be unconstitutional.

Contents

Background

The plaintiffs of this case brought suit claiming that Ohio held the responsibility to fund its public schools. The Cincinnati school board filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Ohio school districts that believed they were underfunded. The plaintiffs believed that the system of funding, a mixture of state and local funding, violated the constitutional requirement to provide sufficient funding to operate a school district. [2] Furthermore, they argued that forcing a school district to adequately fund its district violated the education provisions of the State Constitution. At the trial court level, the method of funding for public schools was deemed unconstitutional. However, on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the constitutionality of the school funding method.

The Ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court justices argued that despite the inequalities that existed between school districts in terms of funding and ability to raise local revenue, there was no basis to strike down the funding method. They agreed with the defendant, in this case the Cincinnati Board of Education, that local control of school districts served as a rationale to defend the funding inequalities. The court stated that the local control of school districts "meant not only the freedom to devote more money to the education of one's children but also control over and participation in the decision-making process as to how those local tax dollars are to be spent." [3]

The court did not answer the questions of whether the Ohio General Assembly at the time fulfilled their constitutional requirement to provide a "thorough and efficient" system of public schools, despite the trial court's ruling stating that the Assembly did not. Furthermore, the court declined to state what constitutes a "thorough and efficient" system of public education. [2] By leaving these questions unanswered, whether intentionally or not, the court allowed for the school funding model to be revisited in future court cases.

In addition, the court defended their decision by explaining that the state had taken steps to close the disparities in school funding. The state of Ohio gave extra money to school districts that levied 20 mills of property tax up to a maximum of 30 mills. [3] The court used this rationale to explain that the inequalities were not unconstitutional because the state made an effort to even out funding through that policy. Despite upholding the method of funding, the court kept the possibility of further court cases regarding education funding alive. The Court stated that the structure of funding would become unconstitutional if a school district failed to receive enough funding from all sources that it could not operate adequately. [4] This made it possible for the funding of schools in Ohio to be struck down in the case DeRolph v. State .

Notes

  1. ↑ "Ohio Constitution".
  2. 1 2 Hawl, M. (1995). "As perfect as can be devised': the right to education in Ohio". Case Western Reserve Law Review. Retrieved October 21, 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  3. 1 2 "The Supreme Court of Ohio". Google Scholar. June 13, 1979. Retrieved October 10, 2015.
  4. ↑ "Access Quality Education: Ohio Litigation". www.schoolfunding.info. Archived from the original on August 30, 2015. Retrieved October 13, 2015.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Hampshire Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is the supreme court of the U.S. state of New Hampshire and sole appellate court of the state. The Supreme Court is seated in the state capital, Concord. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices appointed by the Governor and Executive Council to serve during "good behavior" until retirement or the age of seventy. The senior member of the Court is able to specially assign lower-court judges, as well as retired justices, to fill vacancies on the Court.

<i>Gebhart v. Belton</i> United States Supreme Court case

Gebhart v. Belton, 33 Del. Ch. 144, 87 A.2d 862, aff'd, 91 A.2d 137, was a case decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery in 1952 and affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in the same year. Gebhart was one of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found unconstitutional racial segregation in United States public schools.

Claremont School District v Governor of New Hampshire is an important legal case in New Hampshire. In the mid-1990s, the city of Claremont, New Hampshire started a process against the State of New Hampshire, challenging the constitutionality of the New Hampshire allocation of school funding.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.

The Robin Hood Plan is a colloquialism given to a provision of Texas Senate Bill 7 , originally enacted by the U.S. state of Texas in 1993 to provide equity of school financing within all school districts in the state of Texas. The plan is now codified within the Texas Education Code as Section 49.002.

Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 12, 1995 the Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed a district court ruling that required the state of Missouri to correct intentional racial discrimination in Kansas City schools by funding salary increases and remedial education programs.

Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey that are provided remedies to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with the state constitution. They were created in 1985 as a result of the first ruling of Abbott v. Burke, a case filed by the Education Law Center. The ruling asserted that public primary and secondary education in poor communities throughout the state was unconstitutionally substandard. The Abbott II ruling in 1990 had the most far-reaching effects, ordering the state to fund the (then) 28 Abbott districts at the average level of the state's wealthiest districts. The Abbott District system was replaced in 2007 by the New Jersey Schools Development Authority.

The Constitution of the State of Ohio is the basic governing document of the State of Ohio, which in 1803 became the 17th state to join the United States of America. Ohio has had three constitutions since statehood was granted.

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) was a not-for-profit advocacy organization that sought to protect and promote the constitutional right to a sound basic education for all public school students in the State of New York. Under the leadership of Michael A. Rebell, the organization filed and won the landmark "CFE v. State of New York" lawsuit, which successfully argued that the state's school finance system under-funded New York City public schools and denied its students their constitutional right.

<i>San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez</i> 1973 United States Supreme Court case

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that:

The Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Horton v. Meskill on April 19, 1977. It held that the right to education in Connecticut is so basic and fundamental that any intrusion on the right must be strictly scrutinized. The Court said that public school students are entitled to equal enjoyment of the right to education, and a system of school financing that relied on local property tax revenues without regard to disparities in town wealth and that lacked significant equalizing state support was unconstitutional. It could not pass the test of strict judicial scrutiny. The Court also held that the creation of a constitutional system for education financing is a job for the legislature and not the courts.

<i>DeRolph v. State</i> Landmark case in Ohio constitutional law

DeRolph v. State is a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional. On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in a 4–3 decision that the state funding system "fails to provide for a thorough and efficient system of common schools," as required by the Ohio Constitution, and directed the state to find a remedy. The court would look at the case several times over the next 12 years before it relinquished jurisdiction, but the underlying problems with the school funding system remain to this day.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance or counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.

Miller v. Korns (1923) is a significant legal case in the U.S. state of Ohio. It was one of the first Ohio Supreme Court cases to challenge the Ohio State General Assembly's system of school financing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States</span> Constitutional issue United States ;aw

The constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States has been challenged on a number of state and federal constitutional grounds. While the Supreme Court of the United States has twice upheld sex offender registration laws, in 2015 it vacated a requirement that an offender submit to lifetime ankle-bracelet monitoring, finding it was a Fourth Amendment search that was later ruled constitutionally unreasonable by the state court.

Gannon v. Kansas was a case brought before the Kansas Supreme Court that focused on the funding of K-12 public education by the state. In 2010, several school districts initiated legal action against the State of Kansas, alleging that the State failed to provide equitable and sufficient funding for public education, in violation of Article 6 of the Kan. Const. art. VI, 6(b). The trial began in 2012.

<i>National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System</i> U.S. court case ruling that male-only military conscription is unconstitutional

National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System was a court case that was first decided in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on February 22, 2019, declaring that requiring men but disallowing women to register for the draft for military service in the United States was unconstitutional. The ruling did not specify which actions the government needed to take to resolve the conflict with the constitution. That ruling was reversed by the Fifth Circuit.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.