Petition — Board of Education of the City School District v. Walter
Supreme Court brief1980
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
————
OS OR erie Ee Eg
ee ee ae
Pee el
~
vpromeé Court, U, ene
FILED
OCT 38 1979
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1979
No. @€9-615
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
CINCINNATI, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
FRANKLIN B. WALTER, SUPERINTENDENT
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ET AL.,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
JOHN A. LLOYD, JR.
NANCY A. LAWSON
610 Mercantile Library Building
414 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Counsel for Petitioners
COURT INDEX PRESS, INC. — 215 E. Ninth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 — (513) 241-1450
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1979
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
CINCINNATI, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
V.
FRANKLIN B. WALTER, SUPERINTENDENT
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ET AL.,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
VOLUME II
(Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)
INDEX TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FINDINGS OF FACT
:.
Il.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Ga ews sess esc e eee
EVOLUTION OF SCHOOL FINANCE IN
SG We cases cs cscs cee eee
DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT SYSTEM IN
SS ee
ANALYSIS OF MECHANICS OF PRESENT
a hg bocce sce ees eeee
EFFECT OF STATE FUNDING FORMULA
UPON THE CINCINNATI SCHOOL DIS-
ee
LEVEL OF FUNDING IN GENERAL ........
CONDITIONS IN OHIO SCHOOL ODIS-
es yas ek ce cee ee
REASONS WHY CONDITIONS OF EDUCA-
TIONAL DEPRIVATION AND INEQUALITY
OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY EXIST
UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM ..........
DEFICIENCIES AND INEQUITIES IN
THE SYSTEM IN GENERAL ..............
DEFICIENCIES AND INEQUITIES IN
THE STATUTORY SCHEME INCLUDING
THE SCHOOL FOUNDATION LAV ......
II. ; I.
Page Page
IX. IT IS FEASIBLE FOR THE GENERAL Substantive Issues
ASSEMBLY TO FINANCE ELEMENTARY I. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ............. 389a
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SUCH ere
A MANNER AS TO GUARANTEE ESSEN- II. SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS ................. 393a
TIAL EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OP- ~—o . .
PORTUNITY AND TO PROVIDE THE iolations of Article VI, Section 2 of the
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH SUFFICIENT RN Fak, tag hes Se en ee 393a
FUNDS TO ENABLE THEM TO DELIVER Violations of Article I, Section 2 of the
AN EDUCATION OF HIGH QUALITY TO Ohio Constitution .................0.0000-. 404a
THE STUDENTS ........ ccc ccc ccccccceen. 349 Pare
Witeria of a Valid System ................. 416a
X. THE COMPONENTS OF A HIGH QUALITY
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CAN BE IDEN-
TIFIED AND FINANCIALLY QUANTIFIED .. 352a
XI. A FAR MORE DOMINANT ROLE BY THE
STATE IN THE FINANCING OF PUBLIC
EDUCATION WOULD PROVIDE DISTRICT
BOARDS OF EDUCATION WITH A GREAT-
ER DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER EDUCA-
TIONAL DECISIONS THAN THEY NOW
Ns MR ROE ST I BAe Ca Bysga tl Be SCAT sis Ss gy ns sen apie ae 375a
XII. THE PROVISION OF AN EDUCATION OF
HIGH QUALITY TO OHIO’S YOUTH IS OF
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO THE CITI-
ee CM AIRNOE eee ea ewe een 377a
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural Issues
I. STANDING OF PLAINTIFFS ............... 379a
II. CLASS ACTION ORDER ...............055- 385a
89a
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS
VS.
FRANKLIN B. WALTER, SUPERINTENDENT
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JOHN A. LLOYD, JR., ESQ. DAVID H. BEAVER
Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs | Trial Attorney for Defendants
NANCY A. LAWSON, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM J. BROWN
610 Mercantile Library
Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants
Attorney General
Building
414 Walnut Street 15th Floor, State Office Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 30 East Broad Street
(513) 381-7200 Columbus, Ohio 43215
ADOPTED AND FILED BY THE COURT,
DECEMBER 5, 1977
90a
[INDEX OMITTED}
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Court comes now to file its findings of fact and con-
clusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Ohio Rules of
Civil Procedure.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary presentations, counsel
on both sides requested extended time to formulate their
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those were
filed on November 28, 1977.
The Court has reviewed the filings of the parties and has
concluded that those of the plaintiffs are amply supported by
the record and the applicable law. Therefore, the Court adopts
in their entirety the findings of fact and conclusions of law
submitted by the plaintiffs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a class action seeking declaratory and ancillary
relief challenging, under four provisions of the Ohio Con-
stitution, the constitutionality of the entire system which the
General Assembly has enacted for the financing of public
elementary and secondary education in Ohio. The plaintiff
classes are those which include all of the school districts in
Ohio, all of the members of the boards of education for such
districts, all of the administrators employed by such districts,
all of the students who reside in Ohio’s school districts and
who attend public elementary and secondary schools, all
of the parents of such students, and all of the owners of real
property and personal property used in business who reside
in Ohio school districts. The action was preliminarily certi-
fied as a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Civil Rule
23. At the conclusion of their case in chief, the plaintiffs
filed a proposed amended class action order which the Court
Qla
has adopted and placed of record. The order is included
herein infra.
The plaintiffs contend that the Ohio Constitution guarantees
to every school age child resident in this state the right to
attend school in a thorough and efficient system of common
schools financed by public funds, and that the Constitution
further makes the provision of such an educational opportunity
a direct responsibility of state goverment. If a school district
is unable to secure sufficient revenue from property taxation
to operate its schools in a thorough and efficient manner, the
state must provide such additional funds as are necessary to
make the school system in that district thorough and efficient.
Since the duty to finance a thorough and efficient system of
public education is the state’s duty, the failure of any school
district to carry out that function is a failure of the state,
itself, to carry out the command of its Constitution.
The plaintiffs assert that the state may not constitutionally
delegate the responsibility for financing education to the school
districts unless those school districts have the financial re-
sources to provide a thorough and efficient system of common
schools. They further assert that the system of educational
financing presently in effect in Ohio does not fulfill the
thorough and efficient mandate of the Constitution because,
as is the case with the Cincinnati School District, certain
school districts are not able to raise sufficient revenue through
property taxation to provide a thorough and efficient system
of public education for the children whom the state has the
responsibility to educate. The existence of this condition
places the state’s system in violation of both the thorough and
efficient clause and the equal protection and benefit clause
of the Ohio Constitution because the children attending
school in the Cincinnati School District and other similarly
situated school districts are deprived of the opportunities
which a thorough and efficient system for financing public
education in this state would provide them, and because edu-
cational levels in the Cincinnati district and many other simi-
92a
larly situated districts have progressively deteriorated, both
quantitatively and qualitatively, during the last ten years
and will predictably continue to deteriorate further in the
immediate future due to the failure of the state to carry out
its financial obligation to the children of Ohio. The General
Assembly has thus failed to deliver to the school children in
the Cincinnati School District and other similarly situated dis-
tricts the educational opportunities which the Ohio Consti-
tution guarantees to them.
The plaintiffs contend, further, that because the system for
financing education in this state operates in such a manner
as to treat school children in the various school districts
of Ohio unequally — that is, in such a manner that the edu-
cational opportunities available to children in certain districts
are substantially greater than those available to children in
other districts — and because the quality of the education
available to children throughout Ohio depends not upon fisical-
ly neutral and educationally relevant criteria, but upon the
property wealth and income wealth of the residents of school
districts and upon the willingness of those residents to vote
in favor of property tax levies, the system deprives the school
children in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws and the
benefit of the government.
In their comprehensive complaint, the plaintiffs contend
that the entire system which the General Assembly has en-
acted, including certain provisions of Chapter 3317 O.R.C.
known as the school foundation program, under which public
elementary and secondary education is financed, violates the
following specific provisions of the Ohio Constitution:
(1) Article VI, Section 2, which provides that “the Gen-
eral Assembly shall make such provision, by taxation or other-
wise, as . . . will secure a thorough and efficient system of
common schools throughout the state . . .” (known as the
thorough and efficient clause);
(2) Article VI, Section 3, which provides that “Provision
shall be made by law for the organization, administration and
93a
control of the public school system of the state supported by
public funds. . .” (known as the educational support clause );
(3) Article I, Section 2, which provides that “All political
power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for
their equal protection and benefit.” (known as the equal pro-
tection clause); and
(4) Article II, Section 26, which provides that “All laws
of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout
the state.” (known as the uniform operation clause )
The plaintiffs characterize the present system as being one
which places upon the school districts in Ohio the burden
of raising, through the levy of a tax upon property located
in the districts, an excessive portion of the current operating
funds necessary to meet the above stated constitutional man-
dates and statutory duties. They allege that the School
Foundation Program established in Chapter 3317 O.R.C. causes
the funds which the local school districts are able to raise
in that manner to be supplemented with money derived on
a statewide basis from other revenue sources, that the boards
of education of the school districts are largely dependent upon
the funds raised from these two sources to meet the cost
of educating children attending the public schools therein,
and that such sources are inadequate to enable the Board
of Education for the Cincinnati School District and the boards
of education for similarly situated school districts to deliver
to the school children they have the duty to educate the edu-
cational services which are required by the thorough and ef-
ficient and equal protection clauses of the Ohio Constitution.
The plaiutiffs assert that the Ohio system of public school
finance contains the following principal revenue and expendi-
ture features:
Chapter 5705 O.R.C., known as the Tax Levy Law, au-
thorizes the board of education of each school district to
levy taxes for current operating expenses upon taxable prop-
erty located within the school district and listed on the gen-
eral tax lists and duplicates. Such taxable property includes
Ota
all real estate (except such as is expressly exempted) and
all personal property used in business. Such statutory authori-
ty, however, is subject to the limitation, popularly known as
the “ten-mill limitation,” imposed by (i) Article XII, Section
2 of the Ohio Constitution, which provides that “No property,
taxed according to its value, shall be so taxed in excess of
one percent of its true value in money for all state and
local purposes” unless approved by at least a majority of the
electors of the taxing district voting on such proposition,
and (ii) Section 5705.02, O.R.C., which limits the aggregate
amount of taxes that may be levied on any taxable prop-
erty in any subdivision or other taxing unit to ten mills
on each dollar of tax valuation (taxable value) of such
subdivision, unless specifically authorized by the voters there-
of. As a consequence, any school district which, in order
to meet current operating expenses, desires to impose a prop-
erty tax, the rate of which, when added to the rate of existing
taxes for school and all other local government purposes upon
property within such school district, will result in a combined
tax rate in excess of 1% (10 mills) of taxable value, must
submit such tax to the voters of such school district for their
approval. Unlike municipal corporations, which are authorized
by law to levy earnings and income taxes, school districts are
not authorized by law to levy any type of tax other than
a property tax.
The present school finance system came into existence
August 29, 1975, when Amended Substitute Senate Bill 170
became effective. That bill substantially modified Chapter
3317 O.R.C., commonly known as the School Foundation
Law. This law, which is administered by the defendant State
Board of Education with the approval of the defendant Con-
trolling Board, provides for the payment of supplemental
funds, calculated in accordance with the provisions of such
chapter out of moneys in the state treasury derived from
all sources, to school districts with current school tax levies
of at least twenty mills. Subject to certain provisions for
95a
minimum support and guarantees, Chapter 3317 contains,
inter alia, the following provisions:
Without regard to the differentials existing among
the various school districts in Ohio in the cost of pro-
viding a thorough and efficient system of public edu-
cation to the children located in such districts, and with-
out regard to whether or not the children resident in
any one of the districts are receiving an educational op-
portunity equal to that received by the school children
in other school districts, Chapter 3317 provides that
each qualifying school district (i.e. each district in which
the voters have approved a school tax levy for cur-
rent expenses in the minimum amount of 20 mills per
thousand dollars of taxable property valuation) will re-
ceive state basic aid in an amount which, when added to
local tax revenue, will total $960 per year per pupil in
average daily membership, when the law is fully funded.
This sum results from Section 3317.022 O.R.C., which
guarantees (at full funding) to each school district state
basic aid in an amount which, when added to local
revenue, will total $48 per pupil in average daily mem-
bership per mill for each of the first 20 equalized mills
levied per thousand dollars of taxable valuation.
Without regard to the differentials existing among the
various school districts throughout Ohio in the cost of
providing a thorough and efficient system of public
education to the school children located in any such
districts, and without regard to whether or not the
school children located in any one of the districts are
presently receiving an educational opportunity equal to
that provided to the scheol children in other school
districts in Ohio, the law provides for the payment
of a basic aid bonus to those school districts having
school tax current expense levies in excess of 20 equalized
mills per thousand dollars of taxable property valuation.
Such statutory provision, which is contained in Section
96a
3317.022 O.R.C., guarantees to each participating school
district, at full funding, payment of basic aid which,
when added to local revenue, will total $42 per pupil
in average daily membership per mill for each state
equalized mill levied for current expenses in excess of
20 mills, up to a maximum of 30 mills per thousand dol-
lars of taxable property valuation. Provision for such
payment is made without regard to the ability, or lack
thereof, of a school district to secure voter approval of
school tax levies for current expenses in excess of 20
mills per thousand dollars of taxable property valuation.
That element of the present system is known popularly as
the “reward for effort.”
Although Am. Sub. SB 170 provides for categorical
grants for special education (handicapped ) and voca-
tional education students and for certain other programs
and services, the amount of categorical aid is not suf-
ficient to provide adequately for the students and ser-
vices it is designed to subsidize, and this insufficiency is
particularly acute in urban districts which have dispro-
portionately large populations of vocational educational
students, special and children who are A.D.C. recipients.
Plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint, which was filed by leave
of the Court after the Supreme Court of Ohio declared Gov-
ernor Rhodes’ line item veto of certain provisions of Am.
Sub. $.B. 170 void, alleges that Section 3317.023 O.R.C.
which penalizes school districts for non-compliance with man-
dates relating to the training and experience of classroom
teachers, number of educational service personnel employed
and pupil-teacher ratios, and which rewards school districts for
compliance with such mandates, establishes an invidious dis-
crimination among the school children of Ohio in that it causes
the children enrolled in those school districts which lack
the resources to comply with the mandates to suffer financial
detriment, and provides a financial benefit to those children
Sitio.»
97a
enrolled in the districts which have the resources necessary
to comply with the mandates.
The plaintiffs assert in general that the Ohio system places
excessive reliance upon property taxation on a district by
district basis, and compounds the evil of such excessive re-
liance upon property taxation by keying the amount of basic
state aid available to each school district to the willingness of
its voters to approve increases in the tax rate. They allege
also that, since the voters of many school districts are unwill-
ing or unable to approve property tax rate increases, the chil-
dren in those school districts are deprived not only of adequate
amounts of state basic aid but also of adequate amounts of
dollars for educational purposes which are derived from local
property taxation.
The plaintiffs contend, moreover, that the school children in
urban and central city districts, such as the Cincinnati School
District, are further deprived because the system fails to com-
pensate such districts for the multiple financial burdens of
urban government which cut heavily into the tax base and
correspondingly reduce the number of dollars which those
bases are capable of generating for educational purposes. Such
failure is especially onerous because those school districts
which are penalized by municipal overburden are the ones
whose educational needs and costs are the highest in the
state.
The plaintiffs allege that the laws now in effect perpetuate
enormous disparities in per pupil expenditures among the
various school districts, and that these disparities bear no
relationship to actual educational costs. The laws restrict the
state’s role to that of supplementing the revenues which school
districts are able to generate by means of the property tax,
and they restrict direct state participation in the financing
of public education to approximately one-third of the total
moneys now available, thus placing excessive reliance upon
the local property tax, which is a demonstrably inadequate and
unreliable source of funds.
98a
The plaintiffs contend that, in relying upon property taxation
and in linking the level of state support to the millage rate
of a school district, the system perpetuates the evil of making
the quality of a child’s education a function of the wealth
of the residencts of his school district, and it brings into
play yet another evil — that of consigning the fate of school
children to the wholly irrational factor of voter caprice at
a time when voter resistance to all forms of taxation is at an
all-time high. The plaintiffs assert that the system fails
to utilize adequate amounts of revenue from other and new
sources of state revenue, principally the state income tax,
the burden of which has made voters hyper-resistive to
approving increases in the rate of property taxation.
The plaintiffs ask that this Court declare the present system
unconstitutional and make such ancillary orders as the rights
of the plaintiffs require. .
The defendants’ answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint is es-
sentially a general denial. Thus, their defenses must be de-
rived from their briefs supporting their motion to dismiss and
their two opening statements, one of which was deferred until
after the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case in chief. In their
briefs and opening statements, defense counsel contend prin-
cipally that: |
The complaint is insufficient because the plaintiffs appear to
assert that equal educational opportunity requires that the
state make available to every district an equal number of
dollars per pupil; the General Assembly has considerable lati-
tude in discharging its duty under the thorough and efficient
clause; the scope of this Court’s inquiry is limited; the wis-
dom of the statutory plan is not an issue.
The defendants further asserted that the right to an edu-
cation established by the Constitution is not a fundamental
right “requiring absolute equality between school districts
as to services and facilities”; Ohio's Equal Protection Clause
is to be construed “coextensively with the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” and that therefore the
plaintiffs’ Equal Protection complaint is foreclosed by the
99a
Supreme Court's opinion in San Antonio Independent School
District vy. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973); education is not
a fundamental state right under the Ohio Constitution. Thus,
the state need only show that the system for financing public
education is predicated upon a rational basis.
The defendants asserted that the present system is valid
because it is designed to equalized property tax values and
access to state basic state aid dollars; the plaintiffs appear to
contend that the school finance system should underwrite
the cost of municipal government, but such an undertaking is
not a responsibility of a school finance system; O.R.C. Chapter
3317 is a “major legislative effort to organize, administer and
control the public school system through support by public
funding” in compliance with Article VI, Sections 2 and 3
of the Ohio Constitution, and it is “reasonably designed to
prevent a starvation of funds and a lack of teachers, build-
ings and equipment; and, as per the Supreme Court’s direc-
tion in Miller vy. Korns, 107 Ohio St. at 298, and that is all
that is required;” the system is rational and fair “because
the foundation program includes not only adjustments to
equalize valuations on a state-wide basis but also provides
for added funds, to compensate for municipal overburden,
which are determined . . . on the basis of how many students
within a school district receive ADC;”
The defendants contended that the Cincinnati School Dis-
trict is in financial distress because it has not made an ade-
quate effort to pass school tax levies; the plaintiffs are in-
sisting that the state has an obligation to provide such things
as violin lessons, breakfast, lunch and dinner for school chil-
dren; that they want children to be happy in their junior
high school and to be on winning football teams. Such things
are not part of a minimum educational system; the state
has a duty to provide only a minimal educational program; the
Cincinnati School District is one of the richest school districts
in the state; the reason that it has financial problems is
that it does not levy enough mills; it would not be a terrible
burden on the taxpayers in the Cincinnati district to levy 30
100a
mills: and the district would receive an additional $10,000,000
per year from such a levy; large school districts do not
have uncompensated costs that are greater than small districts
because of economics of scale; districts such as Cincinnati
and others which are short of funds are inefficient, wasteful and
bureaucratic; the Cincinnati District always finds the money
to keep its schools open; the Legislature, and not the Court,
should determine the level of funding; the state is making an
honest effort to straighten out any problems which the system
might have with a $550,000 grant it just received from the
federal government; the Legislature will solve the situation
before the case is concluded; the Court should test Am.
Sub. SB 170 by comparing it to the prior system and by esti-
mating how successful it will be in the future; Am. Sub. SB
170 requires both standards and reports. These are its most
important features; Am. Sub. SB 170 has worked toward fiscal
neutrality in its first year; Ohio has an immense investment
in education; the differing needs of students are being met
by the system: there is progress in education in Ohio; the
thorough and efficient clause embodies a changing concept;
and the system is responsive to it; the thorough and efficient
standard cannot be measured in dollar terms. The dollar distri-
bution formula of Am. Sub. SB 170 is a secondary consider-
ation; dollars do not equal education. Education cannot be
measured in those terms; and finally, local control of education
is required for continued responsiveness of the educational
system.
The Court finds and concludes that the plaintiffs have
proved every material allegation of their complaint with clear
and convincing evidence and, indeed, have proved far more
concerning the sorry state of public education in Ohio and
the collapse of the school funding system than they or-
iginally alleged.
The Court finds that members of the plaintiff classes of
school districts, boards of education, school district administra-
tors, school children and parents of school children are sustain-
10la
ing substantial and irreparable harm by reason of the present
system for financing elementary and secondary education, spe-
cifically through the operation of specific statutes which the
court has concluded are unconstitutional. The plaintiffs have
no adequate remedy at law. The Court's specific findings
of fact and conclusions of law follow.
i
Il. EVOLUTION OF SCHOOL FINANCE IN OHIO
(1) Except for the very earliest years in Ohio’s history
when the machinery established by the Northwest Ordinance
for financing public schools was in effect,’ public elementary
and secondary schools in Ohio were financed, until 1935,
solely through the proceeds from local property taxation.
The ability of school districts to finance themselves by this
means was limited, however, by constitutional and statutory
restrictions which have been carried over to the present time.
(Tr. 136, 137, 139).
(2) Those limitations,? which are now codified in Chapter
' The Northwest Ordinance provided that the proceeds from the sale
of land in each township would be used to support public education.
(Tr. 136).
2 Chapter 5705 of the Ohio Revised Code, The Tax Levy Law,
authorized the board of education of each school district, to levy taxes
for current operating expenses upon taxable property located within the
school district and listed on the general tax lists and duplicates. Such
taxable property includes all real estate (except such as is expressly
exempted) and all personal property used in business. This statutory
authority, however, is subject to the limitation, popularly known as
the “ten-mill limitation,” imposed by (i) Article XII, Section 2 of the
Ohio Constitution, which provides that “No property, taxed according to
its value, shall be so taxed in excess of one percent of its true value
in money for all state and local purposes” unless approved by at least
a majority of electors of the taxing district voting on such proposition,
and (ii) Section 5705.02 of the Ohio Revised Code, which limits the
aggregate amount of taxes that may be levied on any taxable property
in any subdivision or other taxing unit to ten mills on each dollar of
tax valuation (taxable value) of such subdivision, unless specifically
authorized by the voters thereof.
102a
5704, O.R.C., specifically § 5701.01 and 5705.02, and Article
XII, § 2 of the Ohio Constitution, have operated and continue
to operate to restrict the taxing powers of school districts.
Any school district which, in order to meet current operating
expenses, desires to impose a property tax, the rate of which,
when added to the rate of existing taxes for school and all
other local government purposes upon property within such
school district, will result in a combined tax rate in excess
of 1% (10 mills) of taxable value, must submit such tax
to the voters of such school district for their approval. Un-
like municipal corporations, which are authorized by law to
levy earning and income taxes, school districts are not au-
thorized by law to levy any type of tax other than a property
tax.
(3) In 1935 the General Assembly enacted a form of state
subsidy to school districts which provided approximately 50%
of the school districts’ total revenues in the form of modified
flat grants per pupil. (Tr. 139).
(4) That statute (Section 7600-1 to 7600-8, General Code),
which enacted the first state aid program for school districts,
made reference to the provisions of Article VI, $2 of the
Ohio Constitution in declaring the purpose of the legislation to
be that of:
creating a public school fund in the state treasury and
providing for the distribution thereof, with a view of
providing a thorough and efficient system of common
schools throughout the state promoting economy and
efficiency in the operation thereof, and providing for the
equalization of educational opportunities.
(5) Thus, 42 years ago the General Assembly announced
that its statutory objective was to establish education and
provide equality of educational opportunity for the school
children of Ohio.
(6) In 1956 the General Assembly modified the state sys-
tem for financing the public schools, adopted the first form
103a
of a school foundation program, and established the State
Board of Education. The statute establishing the Board (O.
R.C. § 3301.07) empowered it to “formulate and _ prescribe
minimum standards to be applied to all elementary and high
schools in this state for the purpose of requiring a general
education of high quality”. .
(7) Thus, again in 1956 the General Assembly reiterated
the policy of the State to be that of providing to the school
children of Ohio a high quality education.
(8) The foundation program, which was in effect in
various forms until 1975 when the present system was en-
acted, was known as a Strayer-Haig system.? It was designed
to supplement the local tax revenues of the school districts
in order to assure that all districts received enough funds
to provide certain specified educational programs. The amount
of state subsidy to each district was supposed to relate to
the actual cost of providing the educational services. (Tr. 141).
(9) The last form which the foundation program assumed
was enacted in HB 475 in 1971. That law, Chapter 3317
of the Ohio Revised Code, provided for basic state aid in
the amount of the greater of: (a) allowances for each ap-
proved classroom unit of certain enumerated types of special
education classes and extended service contracts plus the sum
of $660 of combined state and local funds per pupil in average
daily membership. This amount was limited to the portion
of such figure which was in excess of a figure derived by
multiplying 25 mills times the tax valuation of the district
or (b) a flat grant sum calculated by multiplying the nvenber
3 The Strayer-Haig system was formulated in 1923 by Strayer and
Haig who conducted a study of the New York finance system and issued
a report in which they recommended changes. Their system is a variable
grant type system in which state aid is provided in inverse relation-
ship to the assessed valuation of the school district. The purpose
is to supplement local revenue so that all districts have sufficient re-
sources to provide the educational programs. (Tr. 142),
104a
of pupils in average daily membership times an amount per
pupil fixed by statute, which was graduated from a high figure
of $179 per pupil in districts whose taxable property valua-
tion per pupil was less than $20,000 to a low figure of $75
per pupil for districts whose taxable property valuation per
pupil was $32,000 and over.
It also provided categorical assistance for certain special
needs and programs, such as transportation, vocational educa-
tion units, special education units, classroom teachers with
higher-than-average training and experience, and municipal
overburden. (Tr. 169-175).
(10) Modifications to this foundation program were made
by the General Assembly in subsequent sessions of the Leg-
islature in the form of numerous separate guarantees and
the system thus became substantially disequalized. (Tr. 184).
Ill. DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT SYSTEM IN GENERAL
(1) In 1975 the General Assembly enacted Amended Sub-
stitute Senate Bill 170, which materially altered the theory
and form of the system for financing elementary and secondary
education. It supplanted the guarantee-encrusted foundation
formula which had been in effect in various forms since 1956
with a modified form of a school financing system known as
“district power equalizing’ designed to “equalize” the “taxing
power” of school districts and to “reward” districts for making
an extra “tax effort”. (Tr. 187-188).
(2) Although Amended Substitute Senate Bill 170 altered
the theoretical approach of the state to financing public edu-
cation in Ohio, it did not create an educational climate
appreciably different than that of the prior system.
4A district power equalizing formula provides for an equal amount
of combined state and local support on any given property tax millage.
The purpose is to provide an equal yield to all districts which levy
equal millage, regardless of the districts’ assessed valuation. (Tr. 188).
105a
IV. ANALYSIS OF MECHANICS OF THE PRESENT
SYSTEM
(1) O.R.C. § 3317.022, which was enacted as part of Am.
Sub. SB 170 establishes a complicated formula for determin-
ing the amount of state aid which a school district will re-
ceive each year. One phase of the aid is called Basic Pro-
gram Support and the other Categorical Program Funding.
(Tr. 1719).
(2) Basic Support is calculated for each district on a
complicated formula which pegs the level of each district’s
state funding to a mathematically “equalized” level of prop-
erty wealth and a mathematically “equalized” tax rate. It
also rewards districts which levy more than 20 school op-
erating mills commensurately with their millages up to 30
mills. This last element is called “reward for effort”. The
entire basic support formula is referred to as “guaranteed
yield” and “equal yield” and is a variation of a type of school
financing called “district power equalizing”, “power equalizing”,
“DPE” and “percentage equalizing”. Its objective purports to
be that of “equalizing” the property wealth bases upon which
the school districts raise operating revenue through the levy
of voter-approved taxes so that school districts receive the
same number of dollars per pupil in basic state aid plus local
revenue for each mill levied up to 30 mills. (Tr. 1719, 1734).
(3) The system does not equalize the ability of school
districts to increase school millage rates, however. Nor does
it purport to equalize the income wealth of the residents of
school districts. Indeed, the “reward for effort” element op-
erates to enlarge the disparities in school operating revenues
which exist among the districts based upon their different
tax rates and differing taxing abilities. Because the formula
establishes an arbitrary property wealth ceiling of $48,000
per pupil, which is lower than the tax duplicates of some of
the districts, disparities in educational resources based upon
property wealth, as well as disparities based upon tax rates,
106a
continue to exist among Ohio’s school districts. (Tr. 4510-4512,
3186-3187 ).
(4) In addition, the system provides “save-harmless” guar-
antees which reward certain districts with extra funds based
upon the amount of basic state support they received under
the prior system, without regard to the present needs of the
districts or their actual entitlements under the present basic
support formula. It also rewards some districts and penalizes
others depending upon their compliance or non-compliance
with certain mandated requirements. As of this time, the Leg-
islature has not appropriated sufficient funds in order to com-
pensate the districts fully in accordance with the formula.
(Tr. 1738-1740).
(5) In categorical funding, the state provides specific
amounts of money for approved units of special education
students (students having special needs because they are deaf,
blind, crippled, emotionally disturbed, neurologically impaired
or educably mentally retarded), for units for vocational edu-
cation students, for gifted children, for those needing occu-
pational and physical therapy, speech and hearing therapy
and provides specific amounts of money for extended service
and for transportation. The state also provides a subsidy called
Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, which is calculated on the
percentage of the students enrolled in the district who receive
Aid to Dependent Children. Categorical Aid is restricted and
can be used only for the education of the categorical stu-
dents. The use of Impact Aid is unrestricted. (Tr. 1719-1720).
(6) Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 41, as explained by Carl H. Heim-
erdinger, Clerk-Treasurer of the Cincinnati Board of Educa-
tion,5 illustrates the mechanical calculations necessary to de-
5 Mr. Heimerdinger has been Clerk-Treasurer of the Cincinnati Board
of Education since 1963. He was Assistant Clerk-Treasurer from 1939-
1963. As Clerk-Treasurer, Mr. Heimerdinger is the fiscal officer re-
sponsible for all of the revenue derived by the Board from all sources.
He is thus familiar with the operation of Am. Sub. SB 170.
107a
termine the state aid which a school district receives. That
exhibit is the Ohio Department of Education Division of
School Finance SF-12, 1975-76, Revised Calculation for Cin-
cinnati City School District. Lines 1 through 13 represent
the calculation of Basic Program Support. Lines 14 through
20 represent the calculation of Categorical Program Funding.
(Tr. 1721-1723).
(7) Lines 1, 2 and 3 depict the number of children en-
rolled in the district's schools (called average daily mem-
bership, ADM) who will be counted for purposes of the basic
support formula. These figures are taken from the districts’
membership reports to the Ohio Department of Education
reporting the number of students in attendance the first week
of October. In the event that the membership is declining,
the average of the present year and the prior two or three
years is used. The students who are enrolled in special edu-
cation and vocational education units are excluded from the
ADM as are } of the children enrolled in kindergarten and %
of the children enrolled in joint vocational and contract
programs. The Basic ADM for the Cincinnati School Dis-
trict for 1975-76 was 60,716. (Tr. 1723-1724, Plaintiffs’ Exh.
41),
(8) The next step in the calculation, which is on line 4 of
the SF-12 Form, is to adjust the tax value duplicate of the
district. The actual assessed valuation of the Cincinnati
School District is $1,989,230,760. The average assessed value
to true value for all those districts which went through re-
appraisal in the year prior to the enactment of the statute is
30.1%. Consequently, that percentage was used as an ad-
justment base. The Cincinnati ratio of assessed valuation to
true value was 29.6%. Therefore, an equalization calculation
was made by taking a ratio of 30.1% divided by 29.6%, and
multiplying the product by the actual assessed valuation of the
school district to arrive at an equalized assessed valuation.
Thus, for the purpose of calculating its basic support, the
108a
school district is assigned a valuation greater than the vatu-
ation on which it actually collects taxes. (Tr. 1725-1726).
(9) Line 5 is a similar adjustment applied to the millage
or school tax rates of the district. The Cincinnati school
district’s actual millage rate for 1975-76 was 25.94. But for
the purpose of calculating basic state aid, the rate of 24.95
mills, the “equalized” millage, is used rather than the actual
levy of 25.94 mills. “Equalized” millage is a statistically con-
trived figure, as is “equalized” valuation. “Equalized” millage
is a rate which, when applied to the “equalized” valuation,
would generate the same tax revenue as the district realizes
from its actual assessed valuation and actual millage rate (as-
suming a 100% collection rate). Thus, it is clear that the sys-
tem bases the amount of support on statistically contrived
figures rather than the districts’ actual assessed valuation rates
and the millage rates. (Tr. 1727-1729, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(10) Line 6 calculates the “equalized” valuation per pupil
by dividing the total “equalized” valuation by the basic ADM.
The figure thus derived is the computed “equalized” tax
base per pupil in the Basic ADM. The “equalized” valuation
per pupil in 1975-76 in Cincinnati was $34,065. (Plaintiffs’
Exh. 41, Tr. 1729-1730).
(11) Line 7, local yield per pupil per mill, is the equalized
valuation per pupil on line 6 divided by 1,000. For Cincin-
nati in 1975 it was $34.07. (Tr. 1730, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(12) The foregoing exercise establishes the figures neces-
sary to compute the entitlement of a school district under the
Basic State Aid formula. (Tr. 1730).
(13) The State Basic Aid formula is a two-step calcula-
tion and proceeds as follows: The statute provides for a total
yield of $48 per pupil per mill from both local revenue and
state support for the first 20 mills. The figure of $48 is an
arbitrary level of funding adopted by the Legislature for the
first 20 mills, assuming that the system is fully funded. This
109a
means that, if all of the districts received all of the local
tax revenues which they are presumed by the formula to
receive, each district in the state which levies 20 mills would
be eligible to receive from local and state funds 20 x $48 or
$960 per pupil, if the system were fully funded. The state
would in that manner provide basic support to each school
district for the first 20 mills by making up the difference
between the district’s line 7 local yield per pupil per mill and
$48. (Tr. 1730, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(14) In the case of the Cincinnati School District for
1975-76, Exhibit 41 demonstrates that the computation worked
as follows: $48.00 — $34.07 (Line 7 local yield per pupil
per mill) = $13.93 (the difference between the local yield per
pupil per mill and $48.00) x 60,716 (the Basic ADM) x 20
(mills). In order to receive state basic support, a school dis-
trict must levy at least 20 mills and must have a local yield
per pupil per mill of less than $48.00. The result of that
calculation for the Cincinnati School District is $16,915,477.60.
(Tr. 1730-1731, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(15) It is clear from the foregoing, that the fewer pupils
who are counted, the lower the district’s support will be.
Not only does a decrease in ADM mean a higher equalized
valuation per pupil and a smaller difference between the
equalized valuation per pupil and $48, it also means that the
ADM, the number by which the difference is multiplied, is
reduced and, thus, the total number of dollars the school
district receives is correspondingly reduced. (Tr. 1732-1733).
(16) The second calculation for State Basic Aid, shown
on line 8(B), is the element of the state finance system called
“reward for effort” or “bonus aid”, wherein the state pays
a bonus to and rewards school districts for their school oper-
ating millages above 20 and up to 30. For that quantum of
funding the guarantee level is pegged at $42 per pupil. Since
the purpose of the Act is to pay extra moneys to districts
based upon the number of mills they levy beyond 20, the
110a
procedure is to deduct the district's local yield per pupil per
mill from $42 and multiply that difference by the Basic ADM
and finally by the “equalized” millage in excess of 20 up to
30. (Tr. 1734-1735).
(17) The “reward for effort” calculation for the Cincin-
nati School District is $42.00 — $34.07 = $7.93 x 60,716 x
4.95 (equalized mills above 20). The total sum of the calcula-
tion on line 8(B) of Exhibit 41 is $2,203,315.51. (Tr. 1737,
Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(18) State Basic Aid for the Cincinnati School District if
the system were fully funded would have been $19,298,793.11,
the total of line 8(A) and 8(B). (Tr. 1737, Plaintiffs’ Exh.
41).
(19) The “reward for effort” feature of the system op-
erates to the advantage of some districts and the disadvantage
of other districts depending upon the level of their school
operating millages. A district which is levying only 20 equal-
ized mills receives no aid under line 8(B). Conversely, a
district which is able to levy 30 mills, would receive addi-
tional funds under line 8(B). If the Cincinnati School District
had been able to levy 30 “equalized” mills, its payment under
line 8(B) would have been $4,814,778, more than twice that
which it received. (Tr. 1737).
(20) Line 9 of the SF-12 reflects the “adjustments” (also
called rewards and penalties) which affect the school districts
positively or negatively depending upon whether they are in
compliance with the mandates contained in Section 3317.023
of the Ohio Revised Code pertaining (A) to a number of
classroom teachers, (B) to training and experience of class-
room teachers and (C) to the number of educational service
personnel. Exhibit 41 shows that in 1975-76 the Cincinnati
School District’s teachers exceeded the average in experience
level of all the teachers in the state and that the District
received a premium under line 9(B) of $389,863. Plaintiff's
exhibit 310 shows, however, that for the year 1975-76, 385
llla
school districts in Ohio suffered penalties and thus reductions
in Basic Support as result of non-compliance with one or more
of the mandates. That exhibit shows also that for the year
1976-77, 397 of the state’s districts were penalized for non-
compliance with one or more of the mandates. (Tr. 1738-1739,
Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(21) Line 11 of the SF-12, called Basic State Aid, is the
amount of Basic Aid the school district received in 1974-75
under the previous school financing law. Am. Sub. SB 170
provides that during 1975-76 a school district receives the
amount which it received during 1974-75 plus 17% of the dif-
ference between that amount and what its 1975-76 basic state
support would be under Senate Bill 170 if it were fully funded.
This calculation yields a district’s basic support for 1975-76.
The figure for the Cincinnati School District was $11,075,291.-
30. This allocation however was reduced to 96.961% in order
to stay within the limits of the Legislature’s appropriation for
the biennium. This figure is the amount a district actually
received in Basic Support for the year 1975-76. It appears
on line 13 of the SF-12 form and for the Cincinnati District it
was $10,738,674.41. (Tr 1739-1742, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(22) Lines 14 through 20 of the SF-12 contain calcula-
tions for districts’ Categorical Program Funds. The Cincin-
nati School District had 211.57 vocational units approved
by the state for funding. For each such approved vocational
unit, the district receives an amount of money equal to the
salary which that unit’s teacher would be paid if he were
on the state’s statutory minimum salary schedule. Fifteen
percent of that amount is added for retirement and fringe
benefits. The state then provides only $4000 to cover all
of the costs of educating all of the children in the unit ex-
clusive of the teacher’s salary allowance. These factors en-
titled the Cincinnati District to a total of $3,153,696.62 in
1975-76 for its vocational education program. (Tr. 1742-1743,
Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
112a
(23) Since the entire teacher salary schedule in the Cin-
cinnati district, including that for vocational education teach-
ers, is considerably higher than the state minimum salary
schedule, the excess cost of each teacher's salary beyond
the state subsidy creates an automatic deficit in each voca-
tional education unit. (Tr. 1743).
(24) Payments to the districts for approved units of spe-
cial education students are calculated in the same manner
as the units for vocational education students (line 15 and 16).
The identical automatic deficits are created by the salary al-
lowances. (Tr. 1743-1744, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(25) Line 17 represents the payment for extended services
— to employ personnel beyond the school year. Line 18 rep-
resents the payment for approved transportation on the basis
of mileage or the number of pupils transported. That pay-
ment is not related, however, to the wages of bus drivers.
(Tr. 1745-1746, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(26) It is clear from the foregoing that categorical funding
is made in the form of flat grants to a district based upon the
number of students included in each unit rather than upon
the actual cost of the unit in any particular district. (Tr.
1746-1747).
(27) The final type of categorical funding, which is not
a flat grant, is called Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid. The
statute establishes a formula for the calculation of that aid,
under which the amount which a district receives is related
to the percentage of the districts’ students who receive Aid
For Dependent Children (ADC) benefits. Any district in
which fewer than 10% of the students (but at least 600) re-
ceive ADC payments receives $7.50 per pupil for the number
of pupils in the total ADM. At the top of the range, districts in
which ADC recipients constitute 474% or more of the ADM
receive $71.50 per pupil. For 1975-76 the Cincinnati district's
percentage of ADC students fell into the category of 314%
to 344% and thus it received $47.50 per student and a total
113a
: $2,896,494.34 in impact aid. (Tr. 1746-1748, Plaintiffs’ Exh.
1).
(28) In 1975-76 the Cincinnati District received a total
of $13,162,341.00 in Categorical Program F unding. Combining
that with its Basic State Support in the amount of $10,738,-
674.00, the district received a total of $23,901,015 under the
state funding formula in the year 1975-76. (Tr. 1749-1750,
Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
14a
4
No.
NEU BEL
.
|:
dé
PLAINTIFES:
ON
rm
LSTelStG viNweod
Tee*.g 2°39 NO G31LxOd3H Sv wOY wIOl
8 NOTL¥IWNDT¥S wOss G3IGNIDX¥S wov LOwHLNOD ONY SAT
ALNNOS NOL Wee *O*S ALID TLYNNIDNID
*7*STO*TO6*E2S (O& 3NI1 SONTW
272 4#O T2 3NID 4O B39NWI) LYOddNS 3lvYLS Iwlol *¢2
(VO®LTEE NOTLD3S)NOILVGIIOSNOD* gs
(7PO°LTEE NOTL93S6) AwSIvydavan*y
00° (AS19D3GS) SIILNYYUYIO BSHLO °22
>" STO*TOb6*EZ O02 3NIN SANG ET BNI °T2
ECO*THE*Z9OTPET (6T ONW BT *2T *D>9T
*ST #591 SANIT 40 WAS) ONIONAS WYHDONd JwIHOOZLYD IWLOl °02
SE*°v69*968°2 *%8%6°ER Y¥ Glv LOWan!l IldNd G39WLNVAOWSIO “°6T
™S"SOL*OG4SIT *®E96°S6 x NOTLYLHOCSNWHL G32AONGaY “BT
O€*TTIE*TI2 *196°96 KX ADIAN3BS G3SCN3Lx¥3 OZAO¥aeY “LT
26*92L*62E%% 4%T09°L6 x GOT HO WOT 3NID 4O U294VI (9)
6L°9LT*6SS wow °33dS x %SOT x (€ ANID / ET 3NID) cay
uO
€$0#2 «OV 4rd OO SST SLINN uw3
BSE wOvY ND380 Of£°9ZT SLINN N3D3Aa0
ST®POSGT*9E Ste OrS*S © SST © 39NUMOTIY AUuWWS (¥)
ISLINA Bw ONW NDRA0 ABADGaV °97
0€*90%*029 STO9°2Z6 x (OLE © HAGT © B9NWMOTIY ANY IWS
00°6* SSLINN NOILWSNGS IwID3eS 40
SHOLWNIGHOOD ONY SHOSTAMAGNS *ONTMVIH ONY HD39dS SAdwNaAHL
WOISAHG HO TWNOTLYdND5SO *AONLS ATIHD *AILsI9 ABAOMAGGY *St
29°96F* ESTE ~1L%°66 x art xO welt 3BNIT 40 waDUYS (3)
32°S19* 269 313 x “SOT x (€ B99 7 ET 9:39 (3)
¥O
(Le°EOO" Ts x 30 “Cw Auwl3aludOnd SIAN IDNI)
Oe *eOrtO IE OOOvE ¢ SST © IONYYCTIY ABV IWSi¥)
Z6°OTS*E BJla 8LG°TI2 tSLINA IWNOILYSOA C3ACmsaay °oT
SONTONNS wWvd90ONG IwWDTHOoOaLlYD °a
TO*9L9*BEL* CT *796°96 XK (27 3NIS ONY TT SNIT 3D HSDUWT) LydGGNS DIS “FT
O€*TS2*SL0' TT (TT StID * 2t® yx
(TT 3NID SANIW OL 3 TT) LN3BwW3TLILNE LL6T ag °21
9B 6GO* TIES (S2Z6T Ad) CIV VLvLS DISvA “TT
79*9¢69*RRO*6T (63NI7 SOG 8 INIT) LeOadNS ALWIS SISwA “oT
(vO138 €2 3NI% 33S)
NOTLINGIA NOTLW5SNG3 40 GuvdOw ALNNOD (0)
JINNOSU3d JDIAL3BS JWWNOTLWONGS (d)
OS*ESRB* BRE Sm3HDv9L WOOUSSWTID 4O IONIIC3ax3 ONY ONINI wel (A)
SusHov3L WOONSSYID 4O H3SAWAN (¥)
r(EZO°LTEE NOIL9IS) SLNSHASNCOWV °6
TT*°E6L* 62% 6T Wildl
IS*STE*ERES2 2 $6°° KX € 3SNIV x (L 3BNIT SANIW 00°2%S) ¢@)
O9*Liv*ste*ot 32 00°02 x € BNIDV xy (2 BNID SANIW O0*ROS) fv)
r(Z2Z20°LTEE wOlLDIS) Olw SISwa Biwis °e
(OOOT / 9 BNIT) WIW YU3a WdNd H3d OVAIIA WD07 LO*sE mi
(€ ANTIT / & BNIDW Wd B3d NOILYNIWA O371IvWNDI S9O* vt *9
%6°S2 s (SAC °TDNI) J9OWVTTIW NOTLWH3d0 LNINYND IWNLdY
(O02 NwHi SOT LON) Jive 3OVTTIw A37IIvNO3 $b6%s2 °S
(O9L*OEZ2*686*T = & NOTIWA TWA O3SS3SS¥ why)
(WT°OE OL USZIIWNNZ 3BNIWA Iv3u) NOTLwN WA 668*00E*B90"2 *%e
(2 3NIN SANG T 3NID JSIWHE3NO) wOV SISvWA 9TL*09 *¢
(wow LIWHLNOD ONW IWNOTLYSOA INTO 4M *SL ONY
ST 3NIT NO wOY *%1T 3SNIDV NO 3143 S3B0NIDK3) Z2T9T S30vHD THL°LS "—
vidY N3LBVONIONIN Beets 7
t:LunadNsS wwnhOna DISve °y
AALNNOD NOLII WH *3°S ALID ILYNNIDNID
94/89/60: 31v0 NNN
(OLTPRES*ANS wy) NOTIVINDIWD GISIAIH GL"SLET BYBA IWDSI4 271°4S wHdd
JINYNId TOOKIS JO NOISIATO@NOTLWINGS JO LN3wlywa30 OIHO
JA ON R35 S4hiMersaa
Ll5a
V. EFFECT OF STATE FUNDING FORMULA UPON
THE CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT
(1) When the supplemental appropriation of 360.00 per
pupil, which was disbursed to all of the districts in the state
participating in the foundation program in 1974-75, is added
to the regular state foundation payments received by Cin-
cinnati that year, the Cincinnati District received more in
total state funding during 1974-75, the last year of the prior
system, than it received in 1975-76, the first year of the present
system. The total state support the district received in 1974-
75 was $23,969,827, as compared to the $23,901,015 it received
in 1975-76. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 47).6
(2) Cincinnati School District’s Basic Program Support,
$10,738,674 in 1975-76, was reduced to $10,023,012 in 1976-
77, notwithstanding the fact that the formula’s phase-in per-
centage increased from 17% to 26%. This occurred because
the district's property was reappraised and its millage rate
was automatically rolled back correspondingly from 25.94
mills to 24.06 mills. The increased valuation (from which
the district received no additional local revenue because of
the rollback), coupled with a decline in ADM, pushed the
valuation per pupil upward. This reduced the difference
between the local yield per pupil per mill and the guarantee
levels of $48 and $42 for both calculations under line 8. At
the same time, the lower equalized millage rate resulting from
the rollback reduced the number of mills in excess of 20 upon
which the district’s “reward for effort” (line 8B Basic Sup-
port) was calculated. (Tr. 1752-1753, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(3) The precise calculations of the Cincinnati School dis-
trict’s Basic Support for 1975 and 1976, assuniing full funding,
were as follows:
6 Carl H. Heimerdinger, Clerk-Treasurer of the Cincinnati Board of
Education testified concerning the effect of the state funding formula
upon the Cincinnati School District.
116a
1975-76: $48.00 — 34.07 = $13.93 x 60,716 x 20 = $16,915,477
(line 8A)
1975-76: $42.00 — 34.07 = $7.93 x 60,716 x 4.95 = $2,203,315
(line 8B)
1976-77: $48.00 — 38.78 = $9.22 x 58,182 x 20 = $10,728,945
(line 8A)
1976-77: $42.00 — 38.78 = $3.22 x 58,183 x 4.06 = $760,638
(line 8B)
Total Basic Support (if fully funded) 1975-76 $19,298,793
Total Basic Support (if fully funded) 1976-77 $11,489,583
(Tr. 1753-1754, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 41).
(4) But in continuing the calculation for the Cincinnati
District for 1975-76, the application of the 17% phase-in per-
centage netted the district Basic Support of only $10,738,674.
In 1976-77, the application of the increased phase-in per-
centage of 26% netted the Cincinnati school District Basic
Support of $10,023,012. (A reduction from the prior year).
(Tr. 1756, Plaintiffs’ Fxh. 42).
(5) The Cincinnati school district received $14,540,000
in categorical aid in 1976-77 (as compared to $13,162,000 in
1975-76) as the result of an increase in the number of approved
educational units from 211.57 to 239.00. (Tr. 1755-1756). Be-
cause of this increase in categorical aid, Cincinnati's total state
support (both basic and categorical) was $24,536,201 in 1976-
77 as compered to $23,901,015 in 1975-76. As the evidence
shows, however, the reduction in basic program support
which commenced in 1975-76 will become aggravated in the
years ahead until the district receives no basic support. (Tr.
1755, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 42).
(6) For the purpose of demonstrating the future effect of
the present system upon the Cincinnati District and other
117a
similar districts having relatively high valuations and rela-
tively low millages, Mr. Heimerdinger projected the applica-
tion of the formula to the Cincinnati School District for the
years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. He assumed the
formula to be fully funded for all of those years and made
certain conservative assumptions concerning the district dur-
ing that four year period. Those assumptions, all of which are
consistent with the district’s historical experience, are as
follows:
(a) Utilizing the pupil population projections of the Cin-
cinnati School District’s administrative research branch, the
number of Full Time Equivalent Pupils who will enroll in the
district’s schools during the school years 1977-78 through
1980-81 is estimated to be as follows:
1977-78 — 59,743;
1978-79 — 56,547;
1979-80 — 53,539;
1980-81 — 50,929.
(b) Local tax revenues for the years following 1977 are
computed at a 4% net annual increase (1-% increase reduced by
1% for rents and non-collections ).
(c) Categorical units will increase by 5 units per year
through 1978-79, and those units will remain constant there-
after.
(d) There will be no increase in school millage either
through the passage of additional levies or through any equali-
zation adjustment. (Tr. 1757-1761).
(7) Based upon the foregoing assumptions, the present state
school finance system, if fully funded, would yield the Cin-
cinnati School District the following revenues in the years
1977-78 through 1980-81:
118a
School Basic State Categorical Total State
Year Support Aid Support
1977-78 8,295,185 15,012,792 23,307,977
1978-79 5,479,085 15,027,806 20,506,891
1979-80 2,242,733 15,288,301 17,531,034
1980-81 —0- 15,414,206 15,414,206
( Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 47 )
(8) The total state support per FTE pupil (total state sup-
port divided by the number of full-time equivalent pupils)
would decline as follows:
1977-78 — $390.14;
1978-79 — $362.65;
1979-80 — $327.44;
1980-81 — $302.66
( Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 47 )
(9) Further, during the same period of time, Basic State
Support per pupil (as distinguished from Categorical Aid
which is targeted to specific pupils) would decline as follows:
1977-78 — $138.85;
1978-79 — $ 96.89;
1979-80 — $ 41.89;
1980-81 — -0-
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 47)
(10) The Cincinnati School District received $199.41 in
Basic State Support per FTE pupil in 1974-75 and $165.45 in
1975-1976. Therefore, the Cincinnati School District’s Basic
Support per FTE pupil dropped by $33.96 the first year of the
operation of Amended Substitute Senate Bill 170 and an addi-
tional $7.10 the second year of its operations from 1974-75 (the
final year of the prior system.) The Cincinnati School District
119a
will receive substantally less Basic State Support each year
until 1980-81 when it will receive no Basic Support at all, even
if the system were to be fully funded. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 47).
(11) It is also evident that the number of dollars which the
district may reasonably expect to receive from local tax rev-
enues during the years 1978 through 1981 is estimated to in-
crease very slightly from $54,724,000 to $55,548,000. If those
figures are added to the District’s inevitably decreasing total
state support, it is clear that the Cincinnati School District’s
total revenue from total state support and total local taxes
would decline as follows during the four year period:
1977-78
54,724.000 (local taxes )
23,307,977 (state support ) 78,031,977 (total)
1978-79
54,998,000 (local taxes )
20,506,891 (state support ) 75,504,891 (total)
1978-80
55,272,000 (local taxes )
17,531,034 (state support) 72,803,034 (total)
1980-81
55,548,000 (local taxes )
15,414,206 (state support) 70,962,206 (total )
( Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 47)
(12) By converting the district’s total state support to sup-
port per FTE pupil, and considering the district’s anticipated
decline in pupil population, it is clear that the district would
receive only a slight increase in the number of dollars of com-
bined total state and local support per FTE pupil during the
120a
period from 1977-78 through 1980-81, if the system were fully
funded. This slight increase would be the result of slightly
increasing local tax revenues.
12la
Total State & Total Expenditure
Local Support (Projected Requirement)
School Year Per FTE Pupil Per FTE Pupil
1974-75 1124.17 1075.15
1975-76 1194.64 1267.02
1976-77 1248.38 1368.37
°1977-78 1306.13 1526.55
°1978-79 1335.25 1703.02
° 1979-80 1359.81 1899.89
°1980-81 1393.35 2119.52
*Assumes full funding.
Total Total State &
State Support Local Taxes _—_ Local Support
School Year PerFTE Pupil Per FTE Pupil Per FTE Pupil
1974-75 359.25 764.92 1124.17
1975-76 368.23 826.41 1194.64
1976-77 388.07 860.31 1248.38
°1977-78 390.14 915.99 1306.13
° 1978-79 362.65 972.60 1335.25
°1979-80 327.44 1032.37 1959.81
°1980-81 302.66 1090.69 1393.35
° Assumes full funding
( Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 47)
(13) The Cincinnati District projects that the per pupil
cost of maintaining the current level of educational programs in
the district will rise from $1526.55 in 1977-78 to $2119.52 in
1980-81. (based on the average cost per pupil increase trend
of the past five years) (Tr. 1777-1779, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 47).
(14) The deficits reasonably expected to exist between the
number of dollars the Cincinnati School District would receive
in total state and local support per FTE pupil (if the system
were fully funded,) and the total projected expenditure per
FTE pupil to maintain existing programs during the years
1977-78 through 1980-81 are represented on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
47:.
(15) Based upon the foregoing, the aggregate amount by
which projected expenditures would exceed total state and local
support in the year 1980-81 would be $36,974,454. (Tr. 1783,
1784).
(16) Ohio’s school finance formula even if it were fully
funded in 1977-78 and thereafter, would reduce the level of
Basic Program Support received by the Cincinnati School Dis-
trict each year until the district receives no Basic Support in
1980-81. Making the same conservative assumptions regarding
the number of pupils and the amount of tax valuation as pre-
viously stated in number 6 above, the district’s state basic sup-
port will be as follows:
1977-78 (Full Funding)
$48.00 — $41.02 = $6.98 x 55,685 x 20 = $7,773,626
$42.00 — $41.02 — $ 98 x 55,685 x 4.06 = $ 221,559
$7,995,185
(Tr. 1762-1763, 1816, Plaintiffs’ Sub. Exh. 43).
122a
1978-1979 (Full Funding)
$48.00 — $42.85 = $5.15 x 53,195 x 20 = $5,479,085
$42.00 — $4285 = $ 0 x $ 0
$5,479,085
(Tr. 1769-1770, 1817, Plaintiffs’ Sub. Exh. 44).
1978-80 (Full Funding)
$48.00 — $45.76 = $2.24 x 50,061 x 20 = $2,242,733
$42.00 — $45.76 = $ 0
|
Pn
—)
$2,242,733
(Tr. 1772, 1818, Plaintiffs’ Sub. Exh. 45).
1980-81 (Full Funding)
$48.00 — $48.87 = $ 0 x 47,100x 200 = $ 0
$42.00 — $48.87 = $ 0 x = § 9
(Tr. 1775, 1818, Plaintiffs’ Sub. Exh. 46).
(17) The Cincinnati School District’s ineligibility for Basic
State Support by the 1980-81 school year would result from a
continuing decline in enrollment and a very slight increase in
property valuation. (Tr. 1772). Thus, the present system es-
tablished by the General Assembly for financing public ele-
mentary and secondary education operates in such a manner
as to place certain school districts entirely outside the Basic
Support calculation. This occurs solely by reason of natural
and inevitable phenomena utterly beyond the district’s control
and without any regard to whether, if deprived of Basic Sup-
port, the districts have the wherewithal (through local property
taxation) to finance their schools at any level — or at all.
(18) As the testimony of Mr. Heimerdinger and the at-
tendant exhibits, all of which are uncontroverted on the record,
(23a
demonstrate, there is no way in which the Cincinnati School
District can long survive under the present system for financing
public elementary and secondary education.
VI. LEVEL OF FUNDING IN GENERAL
(A) Distribution Of Districts By Total State And Local
Support Per FTE Pupil
(1) Very great disparities exist among the school districts
in this state in total sums of basic aid plus local support (money
generated through property taxation) per pupil and in total
state aid (basic and categorical) plus local support per pupil.
(2) With the exception of Disadvantaged Pupil Impact
Aid, categorical aid may not be used to purchase educational
services for any students except those in the units for which it
is targeted. Thus, in order to consider the disparities which
exist in the financial resources which the districts have available
for the education of regular students, the sum of basic aid plus
local support per pupil which the districts have must be noted.
(3) The range in sums of basic aid plus local support
among Ohio's 617 districts in 1975-76 was from $604 per pupil
to $3537 per pupil, almost 6 to 1. The range in the total state
aid plus local support was from $722 per pupil to $3563 per
pupil, 4.9 to 1. ( Plaintiffs’ Exhs. 245-256).
(4) The Cincinnati City School District realized only
$960.44 per pupil in state basic aid plus local support with
which to pr.» hase services for its regular students in 1976.
The total of i163 per pupil in total state aid plus local support
which it received included the sum of $202.79 per pupil in
categorical aid, most of which was restricted to the pupils in
the categerical units. By contrast, the Princeton City School
District in Hamilton County received $1879 per pupil! in total
state and local support in 1976 and it had $1769 per pupil in
basic aid plus local support. Princeton’s financial resources per
124a
pupil were therefore almost twice those of Cincinnati. (Plain-
tiffs’ Exh. 217A).
(5) Thus, a disparity of approximately 2 to | in the sum
of basic aid plus local support exists between two school dis-
tricts in the same county and metropolitan region. That phe-
nomenon is not peculiar to Cincinnati and Princeton. It exists
throughout the state. In Cuyahoga County, Beachwood City
had $2366 in basic aid plus local support per pupil compared
to Cleveland’s $1067. In Trumbull County, Lordstown had
$3460 compared to Warren’s $962. In Lucas County, Ottowa
Hills had $1560 compared to Toledo’s $856. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh.
245-256).
(6) Dividing the pupils in Ohio into decile groupings of
approximately 220,000 pupils per decile, and excluding the 62
districts ranked highest and the 62 districts ranked lowest in
total state plus local resources per pupil, the districts in the
90th percentile had an average of $1460 per pupil in total state
plus local revenues; those in the 10th percentile had average
resources of only $776 per pupil. That is a ratio of 1.9 to 1.
( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 180, Tr. 3301).
(7) In 1975-76, 22,622.5 full-time enrolled pupils (1.09%
of all those in the state) attended school in the 12 districts
which received less than $750 per pupil in total state plus local
support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(8) In 1975-76, 100,812.5 (4.5%) attended school in the 52
districts which received less than $800 in total state and local
support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(9) In 1975-76, 270,209.5 (12.2%) attended school in the
133 districts which received less than $850 in total state and
local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(10) In 1975-76, 481,894.5 (21.8%) attended school in the
228 districts which received less than $900 in total state and
local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
125a
(11) In 1975-76, 662,706 (30%) attended school in the
305 districts which received less than $950 in total state and
local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(12) In 1975-76, 984,823 (40.5%) attended school in the
377 districts which received less than $1,000 in total state and
local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(13) In 1975-76, 1,073,283.5 (48.6%) attended school in
the 435 districts which received less than $1,050 in total state
and local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(14) In 1975-76, 1,386,489.5 (62.8%) attended school in
the 483 districts which received less than $1,100 in total state
and local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(15) In 1975-76, 1,481,069 (67%) attended school in the
509 districts which received less than $1150 in total state and
local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(16) In 1975-76, 1,679,856.5 (76.1%) attended school in
the 532 districts which received less than $1200 in total state
and local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(17) In 1975-76, 1,805,484 (81.8%) attended school in the
551 districts which received less than $1250 in total state and
local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(18) In 1975-76, 2,023,015.5 (91.7%) attended school in
the 569 districts which received less than $1300 in total state
and local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(19) Thus, in 1975-76, only 181,171.5 (8.3%) of Ohio’s
school children attended school in the 48 districts which re-
ceived more than $1300 in total state and local support. ( Plain-
tiffs’ Exh. 181).
(20) In 1975-76, only 2% of the state’s students attended
school in the 23 districts which received more than $1500 in
total state and local support. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
1262
(21) Only 1.2% attended school in the 14 districts which
received more than $1700 in total state and local support in
1975-76. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 181).
(22) Thus, not only are there very substantial disparities
among Ohio’s school districts in total state plus local resources
for education, butthe overwhelming majority of pupils
attend school in those districts whose total educational re-
sources were less than $1100 per pupil in 1975-76. ( Plaintiffs’
Exh. 181).
(B) Comparison Of Ohio’s Funding Level With Those
Of Comparable States
(1) The 1975 Digest of Educational Statistics published
by the United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare shows that in 1974-75 Ohio’s support per pupil for
public education was substantially lower than that of compar-
able northern, industrial states. That conclusion is apparent
from the following table:
Amount By Which Each
Amount of Support —_State’s Support Level
State Per Pupil Exceeds Ohio's
Ohio $1,119.00
Illinois 1,488.00 $369.00
Massachusetts 1,420.00 301.00
Minnesota 1,484.00 365.00
Michigan 1,467.00 347.00
New Jersey 1,718.00 599.00
New York 2,216.00 1,097.00
Pennsylvania 1,450.00 331.00
(Tr. 3125-3127).
(2) In 1975 Ohio’s support per pupil was below the na-
tional average. (Tr. 3128).
J
'
127a
(3) If Ohio were to provide $1700 to $1800 per pupil in
1977, it would not exceed the level at which the comparable
northern, industrial states are now financing elementary and
secondary education. (Tr. 4856).
(4) In 1974 Ohio ranked 50th among the states in per
capita percentage of personal income expended for all educa-
tion. (Tr. 3210).
(C) Sources And Levels Of Revenue For Financing Ele-
mentary And Secondary Education In Ohio
(1) In the school year 1975-76 all of the school districts
in Ohio received an aggregate of $2,674,086,000 in state and
local revenue. (Tr. 4681).
(2) During that year the Ohio school districts received a
total of $174,213,976 in federal aid. (Defendants’ Exh. I-B-
10).
(3) Local tax revenue’ constituted 62.8% of all state-local
funds. (Tr. 4681).
(4) The percentage of Ohio's general revenue fund ap-
propriated for elementary and secondary education has de-
clined from 37.2% of the total, in the 1965-67 biennium, to
32.2% in the 1973-75 biennium and is estimated to decline
further to 29.9% in the 1975-77 biennium. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 260,
p. 5, Tr. 3693).
(5) As disclosed by the graph on page 2 of Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 260, the total in state appropriations (excluding auxili-
ary services) plus local revenue for the operation of all public
schools in Ohio rose from $1,985,600,000 in 1972 to $2,639,500,-
000 in 1976 (estimated), an increase of 30%.
7 The amount representing what is called the property tax rollback
is counted as local revenue for the purpose of computing the _per-
centage of the state-local funds because it is money derived from the
levy of millage on local tax duplicates which the school districts would
receive were it not for the rollback. (Tr. 4672-4678).
12838
(6) As is also disclosed by plaintiffs’ Exhibit 260, on page
iv, during the years 1971 through 1976 the consumer price
index increased by 47%. During that same period the state
minimum teacher salary schedule increased by 86.6%,® the cost
of hospitalization and major medical care increased by 111.6%,
and the cost of purchasing numerous other items necessarily
purchased by school districts increased from 40% to 316%.
(7) Thus, during the period from 1971 through 1976 the
increases in the incomes of Ohio school districts fell far
short of the escalating operating costs which the districts in-
curred as a result of the spiraling inflation. (Tr. 3660).
(8) It is therefore true that the general funding level for
the public schools in this state is substantially lower than is
necessary to enable most of the school districts to meet their
operating costs.
(9) Such an unacceptably low level of financing schools
is irreconcilable with the wealth of Ohio and with the tax-
paying capacity of its citizens. (See Finding V(B)(4) that
Ohio ranked last among all the states in the percentage of
per capita income devoted to public education).
(10) The level of funding public education could be raised
substantially without straining the taxpaying capacity of the
people of Ohio. (Tr. 3225). Ohio has a very low income tax
rate as compared to those of most states which levy income
taxes. (Tr. 3224).
(11) The General Assembly has thus failed to marshall the
available tax revenues necessary to finance public elementary
and secondary education at even minimal levels throughout the
state. (See Findings VII(A)(E)(F)(G) and (L)).
8 As plaintiffs’ Exhibit 260 discloses on p. 4, disbursements for sal-
aries plus retirement and other fringe benefits represent 83% of the
current operating expenditures of Ohio’s school districts.
129a
VII. CONDITIONS IN OHIO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
(A) Inability of Schools To Compy With State Minimum
Standards
(1) Pursuant to O.R.C. § 3301.07, which provides that the
State Board of Education shall prescribe minimum standards
to be applied to all schools “for the purpose of requiring a
general education of high quality”, the Board has promulgated
separate minimum standards for high schools, junior high
schools and elementary schools. The standards for high schools
and junior high schools were made effective July, 1968. Those
for elementary schools were made effective July, 1970.
(2) The publication of the Ohio Department of Education
which contains the standards for high schools ( Plaintiffs’ Exh.
23) states that those standards are a revision of the original
minimum standards which were made effective in 1957. The
publication which contains the junior high school standards
( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 22) refers to no prior standards. Presumably,
the junior high school standards came .uto existence in 1968.
The publication containing the elementary school standards
( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 21) raises a similar presumption that there
were no elementary school standards in effect prior to 1970.
(3) Both the publication containing the junior high school
standards ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 22) and that containing the high
school standards ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 23) include introductory
statements that “The eight basic standards in the publication
are consistent with the provisions of Section 3301.07 of the
Revised Code of Ohio and are in keeping with those generally
accepted practices which are considered necessary to sound
educational practices.” The publications also state that the
standards “state in definite terms the minimum standards
which each school must meet for chartering purposes . . .”
(4) The junior high school and high school standards
establish minimum requirements relating to organization and
administration, curriculum and instruction, pupil services, staff
1302
personnel, instructional material and equipment, school and
community relations, evaluation and research and_ physical
facilities. The minimum standards for junior high schools
and high schools are similar and in many instances identical.
Both sets of standards provide, for instance, that the pupii-
teacher ratio shall not exceed 27:1.
(5) The minimum standards for elementary schools, cover
the same subjects as do those for junior high schools and high
schools, but they establish different criteria.
(6) There are 4,263 school buildings in Ohio. Plaintiffs’
Exhibits 1001 to 2848 are the reports of inspection of Ohio
schools made by the State Department of Education to de-
termine each building’s compliance or non-compliance with
state minimum standards during the years 1972 through 1976.
During that period of time fewer than half of the schools in
the State (1869) were inspected for compliance. (Tr. 6059-
6060).
(7) Those inspection reports disclose that almost 97% of
the 1869 schools which were inspected were found not to be
in compliance with one or more separate standards. (Tr. 3119).
(8) Specifically, the reports indicated the following lack
of compliance with various state standards: 53% of the build-
ings were found to be deficient in curriculum and instruction;
63% in staff and personnel; 14% in pupil-teacher ratios; 29%
in libraries; 54% in textbooks; 34% in classroom facilities; 45%
in library facilities; 47% in art, music and industrial education
facilities; 31% in physical education facilities. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh.
165).
(9) The evidence demonstrates that non-compliance with
minimum standards is widespread and uniformily pervasive in
certain areas of the state. For example, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
1861-A contains the following statement from Virginia H.
Kunkel to Martin Essex: “This is a sad educational situation
with inspection evidencing a withheld status for all the schools
in Highland County.”
13la
(10) The total number of deficiencies in significant cate-
gories in all of the schools which were inspected was 7797.
(Tr. 3119).
(11) If the schools which have not been inspected are
as deficient as are those which have been inspected, an as-
sumption which is reasonable, the total number of instances
of non-compliance with state minimum standards that exist
among all of the state’s 4263 schools is between 16,000 and
18,000 in the aggregate.? (Tr. 3121).
(12) Every single elementary school which was inspected
was found to be in violation of at least three minimum stan-
dards. Only 18% of the elementary schools were found not
to be in violation of a physical facility requirement. Only 24
of the 986 secondary schools were found not to be in violation
of the standards. These facts were acknowledged by State
Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction G. Robert
Bowers. (Tr. 6712).
(13) The condition of widespread non-compliance with
state minimum standards by Ohio schools demonstrates that
most of the schools in the state are not able to conform to
the “sound educational practices” standard expressed by the
Department of Education and thus are not technically eligible
for chartering.
(14) Thus, based upon the Department of Education’s
reports, the schools in Ohio are not in compliance with the
State Board’s minimum standards and must be regarded as
submarginal by the State’s own standards. It is beyond dispute
that the minimum standards represent the lowest level at
which instructional services should be provided in Ohio. Wil-
9% This conclusion was made by Robert H. Wessel, Professor of Econo-
my and Administration at the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Wessel
stated that the sample of 1,800 schools out of 4,200 schools produced
reliable results as it was a very large sample as well as a representative
sample. Thus, assuming that the same proportion of deficiencies which
existed in the sample schools also existed in the other schools, there
are a total of 16,000 to 18,000 deficiencies. (Tr. 3121).
132a
liam A. Harrison, Staff Director to the General Assembly's
Education Review Committee, a witness called by the defen-
dants, conceded that this is so. (Tr. 4956).
(15) The significance of the evidence of non-compliance
by schools with state minimum standards is that the General
Assembly has established a system of common schools through-
out the state in which the overwhelming majority of the
schools are substandard as measured by the state’s own criteria.
(B) Closing Districts (1976)
(1) In 1976, seventeen of Ohio’s school districts were
forced to apply to the State Auditor for closing audits'®
due to acute shortages of funds."
10 Those applications were made pursuant to § 3313.483 O.R.C.
which provides:
A board of education, upon the adoption of a resolution stating
that such board may be financially unable to open on the day or
to remain open for instruction on all days set forth in its adopted
school calendar and maintain minimum standards as may be re-
quired by the state board of education, shall request the auditor
of state to determine whether such situation exists. If the auditor
of state finds that the board of education has attempted to avail
itself to the fullest extent authorized by law of all lawful revenue
sources available to it except those authorized by section 5705.21
of the Revised Code, he shall certify that finding to the super-
intendent of public instruction and shall certify the date on which
the district will have remaining only such moneys as are neces-
sary for maintaining the district while the edncation program is
suspended and the date on which the district, by utilizing all lawful
revenue sources for securing such moneys, will have available
sufficient moneys to open or reopen the instruction program meet-
ing the required minimum standards.
Upon receipt of such certificate, the superintendent of public
instruction may authorize such school district to delay the opening
of its schools or close schools on or after the certified date on
which the district will cease to have sufficient funds and order
such district to open or reopen on the certified date on which it
will again have sufficient funds available. The order to open or
reopen may be extended by the superintendent of public instruc-
tion for good cause shown.
No board of education may delay the opening of its schools
133a
(2) The districts which made such applications were
Blanchester Local in Clinton County, Wayne Local in War-
ren County, Toledo City in Lucas County, Plain Local in
Franklin County, North Union Local in Union County, Grove-
port Madison in Franklin County, Colonel Crawford Local in
Crawford County, Jackson-Milton Local in Mahoning Coun-
ty, Union Scioto Local in Ross County, Ridgedale Local in
Marion County, Grand Valley Local in Astabula County,
Ripley-Union-Lewis in Brown County, Seneca East Local in
Seneca County, Ontario Local in Richland County, Bucyrus
City in Crawford County, Bellair City in Belmont County and
Federal Hocking Local in Athens County.
(3) Seven “audit” districts actually closed their schools
for varying periods of time. Toledo City closed on: December
3, 1976. (Tr. 565). If the Toledo City district had com-
pleted the school year without closing, its estimated deficit
would have been $3,454,520.28 (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 1). North
Union Local closed on November 8, 1976. (Tr. 699). If the
North Union Local district had completed the school year
without closing its estimated deficit would have been $194,-
980.59 ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 3). Groveport Madison Local closed
on November 3, 1976. (Tr. 719). If the Groveport Madison
Local district had completed its school year without closing,
its estimated deficit would have been $714,644.49 (Plain-
tiffs’ Exh. 4). Colonel Crawford Local district closed on No-
vember 24, 1976. (Tr. 805). If Colonel Crawford Local dis-
trict had completed its school year without closing, its esti-
mated deficit would have been $96,748.02. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh.
5). Jackson-Milton Local district closed on November 11, 1976.
(Tr. 829). If Jackson-Milton Local had completed its school
or close its schools for financial reasons unless so authorized
by the superintendent of public instruction.
11 Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Martin Essex
acknowledged that all of the school districts which closed were brought
to that position because they simply did not have enough money to
keep their schools open. (Tr. 241-42).
134a
year without closing, its estimated deficit would have been
$210,938.33. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 6). Grand Valley Local closed
or November 29, 1976. (Tr. 931). If Grand Valley Local had
completed its school year without closing, its estimated deficit
would have been $55,464.54. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 9). Wayne Local
District was to close on December 19, 1976, according to the
testimony of Superintendent Swamberger on December 10,
1976. (Tr. 482).'?
(4) The Benton-Carroll-Salem district closed November 24,
1976, without an audit because, although the district lacked
funds to operate beyond that date, the Auditor refused to
provide a closing audit based on his policy of not auditing
a district for closing unless the district had two unsuccessful
tax levies in that year prior to August 1.'* (Tr. 669, 671).
(5) As a result of the foregoing closings, 68,947 children
were prevented from obtaining free public schooling on all
the days of the 1976 school calendar. This number does not
include the students in the Wayne Local and Benton-Carroll-
Salem schools because their number does not appear in the
record.
(6) Those districts which applied for closing audits in
1976 but did not close, avoided closing in a variety of ways.
(6.1) Blanchester Local district cancelled the Audit after a
2 mill levy passed.
(6.2) Plain Local district disregarded the auditor’s state-
12 Even though the State Auditor designated November 29, 1°76
as the date for closing, the Wayne Local district was able to defer the
closing until December 17 because employees agreed to defer receipt
of their paychecks. (Tr. 474-5).
13 The Court judicially notices the policy adopted by Thomas F.
Ferguson, Auditor of the State of Ohio and published in the Sept./Oct.,
1975 and March/April 1975 issues of “The Auditor’s Messenger”. This
policy was revised in 1977 and two unsuccessful levies are no longer
required prior to an audit. May/June 1977 “Auditor’s Messenger”.
135a
ment that the district would have no operating funds after
December 10, 1976, and completed the school year. (Tr. 643,
649).
(6.3) Union Scioto Local district was scheduled to close
December 3, 1976 but was able to avoid closing because it
passed a levy on December 2 by 71 votes. (Tr. 877, 879).
(6.4) Ridgedale Local, which applied for an audit in
August of 1976, passed a levy December 2, 1976 and was able
to avoid closing. (Tr. 911).
(6.5) The Ripley-Union-Lewis district applied for an audit
which was not completed because an emergency levy passed
and the closing was avoided. (Tr. 966).
(6.6) The Seneca East Local district managed to avoid
closing despite the Auditor’s conclusion that the district would
be without operating funds on December 23, 1976. (Tr.
1000).
(6.7) The Ontario Local district applied for an audit
which was cancelled due to the repeal of a statute which
had caused the district to sustain a penalty and thus incur
a deficit. (Tr. 1034).
(6.8) The Bucyrus City district avoided closing because
it received unanticipated receipts from personal property tax
in the amount of $120,000. (Tr. 1069). The district had a
$12,000 deficit nonetheless, but it was deemed advisable by
the Auditor that it not close because the schools were re-
cessed for Christmas vacation. (Tr. 1069, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 11).
(6.9) The Federal Hocking Local district avoided closing
by passing a levy at a special election in August. (Tr. 1114).
(6.10) ‘The Bellair City district also avoided closing by
passing a levy. (Tr. 1087-8).
(7) Those districts which avoided closing in 1976 by
passing levies will not derive enough benefit from the levies
136a
to avoid facing identical problems in 1977. (Tr. 967, 881,
1116-7, 1401, 1511-2).
(8) In many cases anticipated 1977 income from the
levies had to be encumbered in 1976 in order to keep schools
open and thus that income is unavailable for operating ex-
penses in 1977. (Tr. 487, 650, 881, 967, 1014).
(9) Many of the districts have been forced to borrow from
commercial banks and from bond retirement accounts, and
have had to defer the payment of bills until the next school
year. (Tr. 439, 786, 881, 1115, 1081, 498-9, 569, 650, 734-5,
763-4).
(10) The superintendents anticipate that the financial
problems of their districts will become even worse in 1977
than they were in 1976, that the deficits will become larger and
that their schools will have to be closed for longer periods
in 1977 than they were in 1976. (Tr. 407, 487, 514, 541-2,
651-2, 674, 707-8, 541-2, 768, 844, 882, 940, 968, 1004, 1072,
1115-6, 1116-7).
(11) School closings place districts in deeper financial
holes because they incur additional costs for unemployment
compensation, interest and make-up days. (Tr. 534-6, 786,
813-4, 836-7, 839, 939-40, 823, 859-60).
(12) The additional cost to the Toledo City District in
unemployment compensation alone as a result of the 1976
closing was $1.5 million. (Tr. 534-6).
(C) Closing Districts (1977)
(1) According to information received by the plaintiffs
from the Auditor of the State of Ohio, as of November 16,
1977, 51 school districts in Ohio were forced to apply to
the State Auditor for closing audits in 1977 due to acute
shortages of funds.
(2) The Auditor certified that 33 of the 51 school dis-
tricts would have deficits if they completed the 1977 school
137a
year and he computed the number of days each district
would be required to close in order to avoid that deficit.
(2.1) Scioto Valley Local School District in Pike County
would have a deficit of $206,715.01 if it failed to close for
40 school days.
(2.2) Frontier Local School District in Washington Coun-
ty. would have a deficit of $29,379.94 if it failed to close for
seven school days.
(2.3) Canton City School District in Stark County would
have a deficit of $259,691.08 if it failed to close for three
school days.
(2.4) Newton Falls Exempted Village School District in
Trumbull County would have a deficit of $184,567.32 if it
failed to close for 20 school days.
(2.5) New Carlisle-Bethel Local School District in Clark
County would have a deficit of $302,216.00 if it failed to
close for 14 school days in 1977.
(2.6) Northwestern Local School District in Ciark Coun-
ty would have a deficit of $384,001.58 if it failed to close
for 63 school days in 1977.
(2.7) Toledo City Schoo: District in Lucas County would
have a deficit of $9,812,802.85 if it failed to close for 44
school days in 1977.
(2.8) Monroeville Local School District in Huron County
would have a deficit of $220,942.88 if it failed to close for
84 school days in 1977.
(2.9) Eastern Local School District in Meigs County would
have a deficit of $23,280.64 if it failed to close for 9 school
days in 1977.
(2.10) Greenville Local School District in Ashtabula Coun-
ty would have a deficit of $216,971.52 if it failed to close for
16 school days in 1977,
138a
(2.11) Indian Creek Local School District in Jefferson
County would have a deficit of $394,563.09 if it failed to
close for 24 school days in 1977.
(2.12) New Richmond Exempted Village School District
in Clermont County would have a deficit of $258,210.39 if it
failed to close for 21 school days in 1977.
(2.13) Southern Local School District in Meigs County
would have a deficit of $156,685.87 if it failed to close for
59 school days in 1977.
(2.14) Edison Local School District in Jefferson County
would have a deficit of $533,036.17 if it failed to close for
33 school days in 1977.
(2.15) Manchester Local School District in Summit Coun-
ty would have a deficit of $72,066.36 if it failed to close for
ten school days in 1977.
(2.16) Jackson Local School District in Stark County
would have a deficit of $446,528.98 if it failed to close for 26
school days.
(2.17) Seneca East Local School District in Seneca Coun-
ty would have a deficit of $51,804.63 if it failed to close for
13 school days in 1977.
(2.18) McComb Local School District in Hancock County
would have a deficit of $146,188.17 if it failed to close for
33 school days in 1977.
(2.19) Licking Valley Local School District in Licking
County would have a deficit of $76,168.63 if it failed to close
for 13 school days in 1977.
(2.20) Amherst Exempted Village School District in Lorain
County would have a deficit of $124,254.14 if it failed to close
for ten school days in 1977.
(2.21) Scioto-Darby County School District in Franklin
County would have a deficit of $93,262.87 if it failed to close
for six school days in 1977.
139a
(2.22) Sylvania City School District in Lucas County
would have a deficit of $482,134.24 if it failed to close for
16 school days in 1977.
(2.23) James A. Garfield Local School District in Portage
County would have a deficit of $124,394.00 if it failed to
close for 21 school days in 1977.
(2.24) Northwest Local School District in Hamilton Coun-
ty would have a deficit of $644,322.15 if it failed to close
for 15 school days in 1977.
(2.25) Perry Local School District in Allen County would
have a deficit of $12,897.57 if it failed to close for five school
days in 1977.
(2.26) Allen East Local School District in Allen County
would have a deficit of $16,518.99 if it failed to close for five
school days in 1977.
(2.27) Ashtabula Area County Sthool District in Ashtabula
County would have a deficit of $366,010.70 if it failed to close
for 17 school days in 1977.
(2.28) Nelsonville-York County School District in Athens
County would have a deficit of $262,918.49 if it failed to
close for 48 school days in 1977.
(2.29) Cleveland City School District in Cuyahoga Coun-
tyf would have a deficit of $20,942,125.69 if it failed to close
for 51 school days in 1977.
(2.30) Rootstown Local School District in Portage County
would have a deficit of $104,849.92 if it failed to close for 19
school days in 1977.
(2.31) Ottawa-Glandorf Local School District in Putnam
County would have a deficit of $54,997.38 if it failed to
close for 12 school days in 1977.
(2.32) Blanchester Local School District in Clinton County
would have a deficit of $123,919.17 if it failed to close for
21 school days in 1977.
140a
(2.33) West Muskingum Local School District in Mus-
kingum County would have a deficit of $332,943.42 if it failed
to close for 48 school days in 1977.
(2.34) Parkway Local School District applied for a clos-
ing audit on October 19, 1977. As of November 16, 1977
that audit had not been completed by the Auditor's office.
(2.35) Fairlawn Local School District applied for a closing
audit on November 16, 1977, which, as of that date, had not
been completed.
(3) According to the information supplied to the plain-
tiffs by the Auditor’s Office, closing audits were not per-
formed for 16 of the 51 school districts which applied for
closing audits because these districts either passed _ levies,
cancelled the audits or were certified by the auditor to have
no deficit.
(4) Of the 33 school districts which were certified by the
Auditor to have a deficit if they completed the 1977 school
year, at least 11 of those districts will close in 1977 unless
they pass a levy prior to the closing date or unless they devise
some other means to secure the funds necessary to avoid the
deficit. These are: Canton City School District in Stark
County, New Carlisle Bethel Local School District in Clark
County, Eastern Local School District in Meigs County,
Scioto-Darby County School District in Franklin County, James
A. Garfield Local School District in Portage County, North-
west Local School District in Hamilton County, Perry Local
School District in Allen County, Allen East Local School Dis-
trict in Allen County, Rootstown Local School District in
Portage County, Blanchester Local School District in Clinton
County and West Muskingum Local School District in Mus-
kingum County.
(4.1) In addition to the 11 districts, enumerated above,
the Cleveland City district, in Cuyahoga County, was sched-
uled to close school 51 days early in 1977. However, the
l4la
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
intervened and enjoined the early closing. The Toledo City
district in Lucas County closed early; however, they passed
a levy and thus were able to resume the school year.
(4.2) The Parkway Local School district in Mercer Coun-
ty and the Fairlawn Local School District in Shelby County
recently applied for closing audits. Thus it is assumed that
unless they pass an emergency levy, they will also close school
early in 1977 due to a lack of funds.
(5) If all the school districts which are certified by the
auditor to have deficits if they complete the 1977 school
year (the 33 districts listed in Finding VII(C)(2) above,
actually close in order to avoid those deficits, a total of 856
school days will be lost in 1977 by all of those districts.
And 282,635 students will have lost a total of 10,352,122 pupil
school days in 1977.
(6) If the 33 districts listed in Finding VII(C)(2) were
to complete the school year without closing and without pass-
ing any additional tax levies, their total deficits, according to
information provided by the State Auditor, would be $37,461,-
371.84.
(D) Effects Of Closings
(1) All of the children deprived of schooling as a re-
sult of school closings suffered educational losses.'4 The edu-
cational development of the children was affected because a
loss of a day of instruction can never be recaptured. (Tr.
540, 7412). The learning process of the children in kinder-
garten and in the early primary grades is disrupted more
by closings than is that of the older children because the
beginners forget at a faster rate than the more advanced
4 Martin Essex conceded that it is very inconvenient educationally
when a school district closes. (Tr. 346). It is greatly to be avoided.
(Tr. 347).
142
students and, thus, have more to re-learn when they return.
(Tr. 675, 704, 614, 688).'5
(2) Although the lost days are made up during the second
half of the school year, the loss in sequential learning can-
not be made up. (Tr. 540). High school seniors are affected
adversely by prolonged school years because their time to
earn money for college or to hunt for jobs is curtailed. (Tr.
703-4 ).
(3) School closings and levy defeats also damage student
morale and teacher morale. This damage has a detrimental
effect upon the educational process. Students are also hurt
psychologically by school closings. (Tr. 614-15, 675-6, 688,
739-40, 811).
(4) Not only do school children suffer academic damage
when schools are closed, they also suffer damages as a result
of being deprived of a continuity in extra-curricular activities
such as sports and music. (Tr. 741, 856-8).
(5) Martin Essex stated that in his opinion it was proper
for the state to stand by and allow the school districts to close
for lack of funds. (Tr. 328).
(E) Educational Conditions In Closing Audit Districts
(1) Financial resources are so limited in the closing audit
districts that in none of those districts are the children re-
ceiving more than barely minimal educational opportunities.
The superintendents of those districts described the educa-
tional programs they are able to provide as “just able to get
by” and below state minimum standards (Tr. 678), “barely
adequate” (Tr. 709), not having enough money “to carry
on an educational program” (Tr. 783), lacking “severely in
the quality level” (Tr. 820), not allowing each child to ex-
15 Superintendent Frank Dick of The Toledo district, Superintendent
Walter Joseph of the Benton-Carroll-Salem district and Superintendent
Richard Coulter of the North Union District.
143a
ploit his individual talents to the fullest (Tr. 900, 981), “the
bare minimum . . . just enough to be chartered”. (Tr. 983).
(2) In the case of each of the districts so disadvantaged,
the conditions are the direct result of a severe shortage of
funds.
(3) The physical plants in the audit districts are inade-
quate, obsolete, not well maintained and inefficient.
(4) The physical plants in a school district are substan-
tially educationally significant. Obsolete, poorly lighted, in-
adequately maintained school buildings impair teaching and
learning efficiency and have a negative effect upon student
morale and motivation. (Tr. 488-489, 816-817, 1005-1007, 1122-
1124)."6
(5) Conversely, modern, clean, cheerful, well equipped
and well maintained school facilities enhance teaching and
learning efficiency, contribute to positive student and teacher
morale and instill pride in students. (Tr. 1006-1007, 1124,
1160-1161, 1269-1270, 3795, 3800-3802) .17
(6) The Superintendents from the audit districts described
the deficiencies in the physical plants to be typically as
follow:
(6.1) Due to a shortage of classrooms, the Blanchester
Local district has been renting rooms in a nearby church.
(Tr. 446). One building in that district requires a new roof,
but the district does not have the necessary $7000 to $9000.
(Tr. 460-1).
16 Marian J. Conrad, Professor Emeritus at Ohio State University;
Robert E. Lucas, President of Wilmington College; Paul Schwamberger,
Superintendent of Wayne Local School District; William Ferrell, Super-
intendent of Colonel Crawford Local School District; Robert Schneider,
Superintendent of East Local School District; Charles Caniford, Super-
intendent of Federal Hocking Local School District.
17 Refer to footnote 16.
144a
(6.2) In the Wayne Local district the heating plant is
inadequate and the roofs need repair. (Tr. 488-9).
(6.3) In the Plain Local district, due to an inadequate
number of classrooms, all of the teachers do not have their
own classrooms. (Tr. 654-5).
(6.4) In the Benton-Carroll-Salem district there are boil-
ers that need replacing and roofs that need repair. (Tr. 679).
(6.5) In the Colonel Crawford Local district the build-
ings are generally fifty years old and in disrepair. Maintenance
has not been kept up and the heating facilities are in poor
condition. (Tr. 816).
(6.6) In the Jackson-Milton Local district one of the
buildings is quite old and needs a great deal of repair. It
has poor lighting and requires new windows. An elementary
school building depends upon a well for its water. The well
is inadequately maintained and two days of school were lost
when the well went dry. (Tr. 851).
(6.7) The Union Scioto Local district has a relatively new
building which had to be closed because the district did not
have the funds to operate it. (Tr. 882).
(6.8) The Ridgedale Local district has a new high school
facility which has been occupied since 1975, however, it is
unfinished due to lack of funds. The elementary schools are
fifty years old and seriously in need of repairs, especially
to their heating plants and roofs. (Tr. 916).
(6.9) The Ripley Union Lewis district has one building
that is almost one hundred years old and other buildings that
are fifty years old. The district has been unable to maintain
these buildings satisfactorily. Recently one building was closed
for two days due to a furnace malfunction. The furnace is
so old that the district is unable to obtain parts for it. (Tr.
969-70).
(6.10) The Seneca East Local district has two buildings
145a
which were built in the late 1920s. The windows need re-
pair, as well as the furnaces and boiler systems. Outside
and inside painting and plastering have fallen far behind.
(Tr. 1002, 1005).
(6.11) The Federal Hocking Local district has a building
that was built before 1900. All of its buildings are in “a
very sad condition.” (Tr. 1122). Two buildings were closed in
1975 because the roofs leaked so much that the plaster fell
from the walls and the district did not have sufficient funds
to make repairs. As a result of the closings, the junior high
school students moved into the high school building with the
high school students and went on double sessions. The double
sessions have had a detrimental impact upon the educational
program. (Tr 1122-24).
(7) The audit districts have been forced to reduce their
professional and non-professional staffs, have exceedingly high
pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes, and are unable to pay
salaries high enough to attract teachers having substantial
training and experience.
(8) The ratio of teaching staff to students is educationally
significant. It bears a direct relationship to the quality of
the educational program. Low pupil-teacher ratios are especial-
ly important for primary grade students and for students who
have learning disabilities and special educational needs. (Tr.
1165-6, 4458, 4669, 4670, 1385, 1471, 1385, 1471, 2150, 848-849,
1032). The educators who testified in this case were virtually
unanimous in their agreement with this propositiori.'®
18 Robert E. Lucas, President of Wilmington College; G. Robert
Bowers, Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of
Ohio; Harold Howe, vice-president of Education and Research for the
Ford Foundation; John Ellis, Superintendent of the Columbus City
School District; Paul Briggs, Superintendent of the Cleveland City
School District; Raymond Brokamp, Assistant Superintendent of the
Cincinnati City School District; Richard Rezek, Superintendent of the
Jackson-Milton Local School District and James Tesar, Superintendent
of Ontario Local School District are some of the educators who tes-
tified to this proposition.
146a
(9) The training and experience of the teaching staff is also
of tremendous educational importance.'? (Tr. 1162-3, 2989).
(10) The following conditions are typical of those existing
in the audit districts:
(10.1) In the Blanchester Local district the pupil-teacher
ratio is 26 to 1 in the kindergarten and 25 to 1 in grades 1
through 12. (Tr. 454).
(10.2) The North Union Local district is able to pay
teachers only the state minimum salary and thus cannot at-
tract the best teachers. The first six teachers who were of-
fered special education teaching positions declined the offers.
(Tr. 708).
(10.3) The Big Walnut Local district cannot afford to hire
any elementary art teachers, elementary physical education
teachers, elementary librarians or elementary guidance per-
sonnel. (Tr. 777).
(10.4) The Jackson Milton Local district has a pupil-
teacher ratio of 29 to 1. (Tr. 848). It had only one high
school math teacher for all 443 high school students until
the school year 1976-77 when an additional math teacher was
hired. However, due to lack of funds the second math teacher
will not be retained. (Tr. 861).
(10.5) The Union-Scioto School district is not able to af-
ford certificated music teachers, elementary art or physical
education teachers. (Tr. 8885). It reduced its professional
staff by 12 teachers in 1974 and presently has one principal op-
erating two elementary schools with 800 students and one
high school principal operating a high school with 750 stu-
dents. (Tr. 882-883). The pupil-teacher ratio in the sixth
grade is 32 to 1. (Tr. 891).
(10.6) The Grand Valley Local School District was forced
19 Robert E. Lucas and John R. Grate are two of the many educators
who agreed with this proposition.
147a
to reduce its certified personnel from 90 to 77 due to finan-
cial shortages. (Tr. 933). It has difficulty attracting new teach-
ers due to its low salary schedule and it loses teachers to
surrounding districts in which the salary schedules are higher.
(Tr. 936).
(10.7) In the Ripley-Union-Lewis School district the ele-
mentary pupil-teacher ratio is 32 to 1. (Tr. 970-971). The
district has had to lay off teachers due ‘to financial shortages
and presently has only one band teacher and one vocational
teacher for three buildings. (Tr. 971, 975).
(10.8) The Ontario Local School District has had to re-
duce the number of its certificated personnel. (Tr. 1031).
When it hires new teachers, it is forced to hire teachers who
are at the bottom of the salary schedule and thus have
no experience.
(10.9) In the Bellaire City Schools, the pupil-teacher ratio
is 28 to 1 and some classes are as large as 30 to 40 to 1.
(Tr. 1092). It loses many of its well-qualified and experi-
enced teachers to other school systems which are able to pay
higher salaries.
(10.10) The Federal Hocking Local School district is able
to pay only the minimum salary schedule and therefore is
able to hire only inexperienced teachers. (Tr. 1120-1121).
(11) In the audit districts the curricula are restricted and
the course offerings are limited to the “basic” subjects. Most
of those districts have had to curtail the breadth of their course
offerings in recent years due to financial shortages.
(12) A full range of curricula is essential to affording to all
students the opportunity to fulfill their educational potentials,
especially children with learning disabilities and gifted chil-
dren.?° (Tr. 4458, 1166, 1169).
20 Harold Howe, Vice-President of Education and Research for The
Ford Foundation and Robert E. Lucas, President of Wilmington College
are two of the many educators who stated this proposition.
148a
(13) The superintendents from the audit districts described
the restricted curricula and limited course offerings typically
to be as follows:
(13.1) The Blanchester School District, in spite of its goal
to provide a comprehensive educational program, has been
unable to offer more than the minimum state requirements
due to a shortage of funds. It does not even have a qualified
reading teacher. (Tr. 455-456).
(13.2) The Wayne Local School District has had to re-
duce the quality of its overall instructional program and its
present program does not permit each student to realize his
individual talents to the fullest. (Tr. 488, 490).
(13.3) The Plain Local School District has been forced
to cut back the breadth of its educational program. It does
not offer music or art at the elementary level nor does it offer
physical education on a full-time basis. (Tr. 652, 662).
(13.4) The Benton-Carroll-Salem School District offers
only minimal educational programs and has not been able to
meet state standards for many years. The curriculum re-
quires additional courses in mathematics, English and foreign
languages which the district does not have the funds to pro-
vide. (Tr. 678-679).
(13.5) The North Union Local School District has been
forced to make many cutbacks in its educational program
offerings and its present program is barely adequate. Foreign
languages are offered for only two years and math is offered
for only four years. (Tr. 707, 709, 711).
(13.6) The Groveport-Madison School District has had
to make cutbacks in its educational program due to financial
shortages. It presently needs more middle school reading,
science and language arts teachers and more courses in ad-
vanced science and mathematics. (Tr. 741, 747).
(13.7) The Big Walnut Local School District is able to
offer only a basic educational program to the elementary and
149a
middle school children. It does not have elementary art
teachers, physical education teachers, librarians or guidance
personnel. The educational program offered to the junior and
senior high school students is also deficient Cue to lack of
sufficient financial resources. (Tr. 777, 779, 783).
(13.8) The Colonel Crawford Local School District does
not offer a sufficient number of courses to provide a high
quality educational program to its students, especially to its
gifted students. (Tr. 820).
(13.9) The Jackson-Milton Local School District has been
required to eliminate many of its social studies courses and
presently has a deficient social studies department. The course
offerings in the areas of mathematics and science are also
deficient. (Tr. 855, 861-62).
(13.10) The Union-Scioto Local School District offers only
a minimal educational program to its students. It does not
have a fully certified elementary music teacher, elementary
art teacher or physical education teacher. It does not have
a counselor for the elementary children, only one full-time
counselor for the high school children and one part-time
counselor for the junior high school children. It does not
have a comprehensive foreign language department, nor does
it have a full range of mathematics courses. (Tr. 855, 892,
894).
(13.11) The Ridgedale Local School District is not able to
hire art teachers, music teachers or elementary librarians due
to a lack of financial resources. (Tr. 915).
(13.12) The Grand Valley Local School District has a
deficient educational program. (Tr. 942).
(13.13) The Ripley-Union-Lewis School District offers only
the minimum courses required by the State of Ohio in order
to remain a chartered high school. It has only one music
teacher and one vocational educational teacher for three
1502
buildings. It offers a very limited college preparatory pro-
gram. (Tr. 970, 975, 977).
(13.14) The quality of the educational program of the On-
tario Local School District has declined due to a cutback
in the teacher salary schedule. (Tr. 1046).
(13.15) The Bucyrus City School District is able to offer
only a basic educational program to its students. (Tr. 1073).
(13.16) The Bellaire City School District offers only a
minimal educational program to its students. It has no ad-
vanced courses at the high school level except for physics.
_ (Tr. 1127, 1133).
(14) The audit districts do not provide a full range of
extra-curricular activities and have been forced to reduce their
extra-curricular programs in recent years due to financial
shortages.
(15) Extracurricular programs are educationally essential.
They are not frills. They afford certain students the oppor-
tunity to succeed which they do not have in the classroom.
They provide children the motivation to succeed academical-
ly and they teach values which cannot be derived in the
classroom. A school system which lacks the essential elements
of a comprehensive extracurricular program is not fully
equipped to educate children. (Tr. 1161-2, 1239-42, 771, 789-
9 859, 889-90, 974, 1031-2, 1048, 1555).2" The educators
who testified were unanimous in support of that proposition.
(16) The superintendents from the audit districts de-
scribed their limited extra-curricular programs typically to be
as follows:
21 Robert E. Lucas, President of Wilmington College, Highland
Sounders, Superintendent of Big Walnut Local District, James Tesar,
Superintendent of Ontario Local School District; James Ferguson,
Superintendent of Ripley-Union-Lewis School District; Guy DeAngelys,
Superintendent of Union-Scioto Local School District.
l5la
(16.1) The Big Walnut Local School District has been
forced to cut back its athletic program. (Tr. 770).
(16.2) The Colonel Crawford Local School District has
been forced to cut out its basketball and football programs.
(Tr. 858).
(16.3) The Union-Scioto Local School District has been
forced to cut back many of its extracurricular programs. It
cut out junior high school basketball and all athletics for
junior high school girls. (Tr. 889).
(16.4) The Ripley-Union-Lewis School District has had
to cut out its football program. It is unable to provide uni-
forms or instruments for the school band. (Tr. 973-974, 977).
(16.5) The Ontario Local School District has had to
abolish intramural programs in the elementary and middle
school and field trips for all students. (Tr. 1031).
(16.6) The extracurricular athletic program in the Federal
Hocking Local School District operates largely with money
raised by volunteer organizations. (Tr. 1130-31).
(17) The audit districts uniformly suffer from a shortage of
textbooks and the financial inability to purchase up-to-date
textbooks.
(18) Itis beyond dispute that having up-to-date textbooks
for every student is essential to providing even a minimal
educational opportunity to children. (Tr. 1167).2?
(19) The following textbook deficiencies exist in the audit
districts.
(19.1) The Blanchester Local District budgets $6.50 per
pupil annually for textbooks and is unable to keep its texts
current with that amount of money. (Tr. 458-9).
(19.2) The Toledo district has not been able to adopt
any new texts in a period of eight to ten years, even though
22 Robert E. Lucas, President of Wilmington College.
152a
the state minimum standards require new adoptions every
five years. (Tr. 595-6).
(19.3) Not all of the students have their own textbooks
in the Plain Local district. (Tr. 654).
(19.4) The Benton Carroll Salem district lacks the funds
to replace textbooks that teach that some day man will walk
on the moon. (Tr. 678-9).
(19.5) The board of education of The Big Walnut Local
district has frozen the purchase of any new textbooks, library
books and other supplies. (Tr. 767).
(19.6) The Madison Local district has curtailed the pur-
chase of textbooks and library books. (Tr. 742).
(19.7) The Jackson-Milton Local district has not made a
major expenditure for textbooks in the last seven years. Stu-
dents may not take books out of the classrooms because the
students in the next class must use them. (Tr. 854).
(19.8) In the Union Scioto Local district the library has a
very limited number of books. The textbooks are outdated.
The children have to share books. The district cannot com-
ply with the state requirement that texts be replaced every
five years. (Tr. 888).
(19.9) Similar textbook deficiencies exist in the Ridgedale
Local, Grand Valley Local, Bellaire City and Federal Hock-
ing districts. (Tr. 915-16, 933, 943, 1094, 1127, 1130).
(20) The children in the audit districts are similarly de-
prived of library books, educational equipment and educa-
tional supplies.
(21) The following conditions typically exist:
(21.1) The Blanchester Local district has one librarian
for 2200 students and has no media center. The children do
not have access to any tapes or records. Nor do they have
any individualized study areas. (Tr. 456-7).
153a
(21.2) The Jackson-Milton Local district has a new li-
brary in the middle school but the shelves are almost com-
pletely empty. (Tr. 852).
(21.3) The Madison Local district has the barest minimum
of educational supplies. (Tr. 748). It needs more equipment
and material for math and science courses. (Tr. 747).
(21.4) Ridgedale Local district is unable to buy neces-
sary audio-visual materials. (Tr. 913). It does not have a copy
machine for teachers, overhead projectors or cassette record-
ers. Thus it cannot show films. It does not have in-school
television. As a result it is unable to bring in special educa-
tional TV programs which are provided by state universities.
(Tr. 920).
(21.5) The Grand Valley district has no funds with which
to replace buses that have more than 100,000 miles on them.
Nor can it afford to pay mechanics to work overtime to keep
the old buses in good condition. (Tr. 934).
(21.6) Federal Hocking Local district has copy machines,
but no paper. Some schools have no writing paper for the
children. It does not have adequate tools to teach industrial
arts or materials to teach science properly. The district
does not buy chalk by the box. It buys it by the stick. (Tr.
1128-32).
(21.7) Seneca East Local district, Ontario Local district,
and Bucyrus City district suffer from a similar shortage of edu-
cational supplies and equipment. (Tr. 1008, 1031, 1032-3,
1974).
154a
(F) Conditions of Educational Deprivation Similar To
Those Which Exist In The Closing Audit Districts
Exist In More Than Half Of Ohio’s School Districts
(1) The plaintiffs showed with documentary and statis-
tical evidence and with expert testimony that in all likelihood
the conditions of educational deprivation which exist in the
audit districts also exist in ali of the districts in the state which
fall in the same range of dollars per pupil as do the audit
districts. The number of districts which are similarly limited
financially is 377. They comprise over 60% of the districts
in the state. Eight hundred ninety five thousand students
are enrolled in those districts. (Tr. 3146).
(2) The witness who expressed the foregoing conclusion
is Robert H. Wessel, Phd., Professor of Economy and Ad-
ministration at the University of Cincinnati, an expert in both
applied statistics and public finance. (Tr. 3084). Dr. Wes-
sel’s conclusions have such significance to the issues in this
case that it is appropriate to set them forth herein in detail:
(2.1) Dr. Wessel reviewed the testimony of the superin-
tendents from the following districts: the Blanchester Local
School District; the Wayne Local School District; the Plain
Local School District; the Benton-Carroll-Salem Local Dis-
trict; the North Union School District; the Madison Local
School District; the Big Walnut School District; the Jackson-
Milton Local District; the Ridgedale Local District; the Grand
Valley Local School District; the Union-Scioto Local School
District; the Ontario Local School District; the Ripley-Union-
Lewis Local School District; the Seneca Local School Dis-
trict; the Bellaire City School District; the Federal-Hocking
Local School District; the Colonel Crawford Local District;
the Bucyrus City School District; and the Toledo City School
District. (Tr. 3135-3136).
He also examined statistical data compiled by the Ohio
Department of Education relating to Ohio school districts
including the foregoing districts. (Tr. 3137).
155a
(2.2) Dr. Wessel found from the testimony and the data
that all of these districts (listed in 2.1 above) have two
important characteristics in common: (a) the levels of total
support are low and (b) the educational opportunities pro-
vided by these districts are generally inadequate. (Tr. 3137).
(2.3) Dr. Wessel noted that the average school operating
millage rate for these districts was 24.3, that the average
property valuation per pupil was $18,400, the average median
family income was under $10,000 (Tr. 3138), and that 17
of the 19 districts enumerated had less than $1000 per pupil
in total state and local support.?*
(2.4) Altogether there were 377 districts in the state
(over 60% of the districts) that had less than $1000 in total
support in 1975-76 and there were 895,000 children attending
school in those districts. Thus, the closing audit districts fall
into the same general total support range in which more than
half of Ohio’s school districts fall. (Plaintiffs) Exh. 345-56,
Tr. 3145-6).
(2.5) Dr. Wessel also noted that the closing audit dis-
tricts exhibit the following symptoms of inadequate funding:
(a) the inability to hire experienced teachers; (Tr. 3139).
(b) the lack of a sufficient number of current teaching ma-
terials including textbooks; (Tr. 3140).
(c) the lack of classroom equipment; (Tr. 3140-41).
(d) the lack of adequate art, music and physical edu-
cational programs; (Tr. 3141).
(e) an inadequate number of counselors and _psycholo-
gists; (Tr. 3141).
23 The two districts which had more than $1000 per pupil in total
state and local support were Toledo, which had $1061, and was forced
to close for lack of funds in both 1976 and 1977, and Ontario whose
total support per pupil was $1225. (Plaintiffs’ Exh. 245-56). Ontario
applied for an audit which it cancelled because of the repeal of a statute
which caused the district to sustain a penalty and thus incur a deficit
(Tr. 1034). Presumably, Ontario is atypical of the closing audit districts.
156a
(f) inadequate extracurricular programs; (Tr. 3141-2).
(g) the poor condition of physical plants; (Tr. 3142) and
(h) narrow and austere curricula. (Tr. 3143).
(2.6) Dr. Wessel concluded that the conditions noted
above are likely to be pervasive in all of the 377 districts
which had less than $1000 per pupil in total support in 1975-
76. He stated that “when we have a sample of 17 and all
of them exhibit the same characteristics, it would be very
unlikely if this characteristic were not attributable to the
great majority of the other school districts with under $1000
funding.” (Tr. 3147). He stated also that “under $1000 per
pupil is just not adequate to bring the school districts out of
the state of poverty.” (Tr. 3147).
(2.7) Dr. Wessel’s conclusion was further corroborated
by his examination of Ohio Department of Education data
compiled by the Education Testing Service which relates the
districts’ levels of total and state and local support to the
levels of expenditures for instruction, for libraries and for
operation and maintenance, and to their average teacher sal-
aries. That information, which appears on Plaintiffs’ Exh. 166,
which is reproduced herein, shows that the districts having less
than $1,000 in total support were not able to spend nearly
as much for instruction and for teacher salaries as were the
districts having substantially more in total support. (Tr.
3153-57 ).
Expenditures Per Pupil and Average Teacher Salaries
1974-1975 (Pupils grouped by Total Supporr)
Operation
Library
Administrative Instructional Expendi-
Maintenance Average
Total State & Local Total Expendi-
Support Per Pupil
1974-75
Expenditure Teacher
ture Per
Per Pupil
Pupil
Expenditure
Per Pupil
Expenditure
Per Pupil
cures Per
Salary
il
é
137a
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT No. 166
a) i=) «oo w @o Ww w N ial w
ao o ~ N os N=) ~ re) a st
4 a) ~ nan sg ie] oO i] i] Ln)
a * - - *- * - a 7~ -
oa n n on °o oO onl N N N
Coal Cae ~ col a eH
“”
wo ol w sw wT @ fea] ° v co
oe wT «o an | eo wo wy onl oO mo
’ . . . . . . . . .
° \o va) N vt N “" ° ~ ”
o °o 4 N N - va) wy ~ °
a - a4 cl ot Oo) ) m4 el ™N
”
° N “ an “ io] oa n o a
o ~ o “4 Ww ~~ wy N w n
J , . . . . J .
i=) eo N “ N wo “ w vw @o
os 4 4 _ 4 + onl a+ N N
uv
N N w — oO wo ina] w @ ~
~ ° a4 oo coal va) an o ~ ts)
. J , . . . J . . .
ol © “ co w i=) “ “ w f°]
o ~ 7 w oO © =] n N vt
wv w w wy wo © =) o ~ @
»
“ oO wo w ~ w wv \o ~ =)
Loa] wy N v7 ~ «a co a ~ ~
J . . . . . . . . .
° 4 a” Val i=} vt ial 2 oo
ta] ” a“ Dal o a “ “ tal zt
”
“ o °o ot fo] N w «o N N
wv “ ~ 4 oO ~ a“ a =a) ~
. . . . . . . . .
a) a“ o w N ~ aa o N n
= co — wo N ~ nw CO 4 _
2 i @] oa) fon) oO o 4 aml N w
-~ -~ . a -~ a
+ a4 _ al nl 4
”
— (oa) Oo Va) fa) zt a) N wv ex
o z+, @ N s N on wy ° Oo
co «a fo] oC fea) °o o lol N °
* . . 7
a4 4 col fon! ~~
”
! ' ' ! 1 ! | | j !
wv N no oO w wT w ~ N i 2]
~ oO wv @o © La N a) w oO
Ww @ @o ioe) © toa) ° ae nl N
- 7~ .
4 as os
”
4-
(Deciles of
Pupils)
SF-12 forms, Form 25, Ohio
Source:
Department of Education, analyzed
and compiled by Educational
Testing Service.
159a
(2.8) Dr. Wessel’s conclusion was also corroborated by
his analysis of the reports of inspection of the school districts
to determine their state of compliance with minimum stand-
ards. (Plaintiffs) Exhs. 1001 to 2848). That analysis (Plain-
tiffs’ Exh. 165) shows that the percentage of deficiencies is
absolutely and inversely correlated to the level of support
which the districts have, and that the percentage of deficien-
cies noted in the schools which have less than $1000 per
pupil in total support is higher than in the districts which
have more than $1000. Specifically, in the category of per-
sonnel, the percentage of buildings deficient is more than 67%
in the districts with less than $1000 in total support as com-
pared to 58% in the districts with more than $1000. In the
category of curriculum, the percentage of deficiency is 58%
in the districts below $1000, 46% in those above it. Thus,
as Dr. Wessel observed, the inspection reports tell the same
story that the superintendents tell. (Tr. 3152).
(3) From the above evidence, the Court concludes that
conditions of widespread educational deprivation which the
testimony of the superintendents showed to exist in the clos-
ing audit districts, exist throughout more than half of the
school districts in this state.
(G) Conditions In Urban Districts
(1) The same conditions of educational deprivation exist-
ing in the audit districts, which, with the exception of Toledo,
are essentially rural, also exist in the principal urban, inner-
city districts. The plaintiffs introduced substantial evidence
of educational conditions in the Toledo, Cleveland, and Co-
lumbus school districts, and presented comprehensive evi-
dence of educational conditions in the Cincinnati City district,
one of the representative plaintiffs. Based upon the testimony
of Superintendent Briggs of the Cleveland district, Super-
intendent Dick of the Toledo district and Superintendent
Ellis of the Columbus district concerning conditions in those
160a
districts, the conditions which the evidence shows to exist
in the Cincinnati district are so essentially similar to those
which exist in the other three urban districts that the Court
regards them to be deserving of separate findings.
(2) The following conditions exist in the Cincinnati City
School District:
(2.1) The Cincinnati School District has barely enough re-
sources to maintain a minimal educational program in 1977.
(Tr. 1576, 1876).
(2.2) It is unable to make any program improvements.
(Tr. 1579).
(2.3) Its costs are escalating and it faces a decline in
revenue. (Tr. 1715-1716).
(2.4) A tax levy failed in June, 1977.74 (Tr. 7379).
(2.5) The last time that the Cincinnati District was able
to pass a school tax levy was in 1969. (Tr. 1708).
(2.6) The District has had successive levy failures in 1970,
1972, 1973, 1974. Since 1965 seven out of eight proposed
levies have failed. (Tr. 1708).
(2.7) Since the mid-1950’s the educational program of-
fered by the Cincinnati School District has consistently de-
clined both quantitatively and qualitatively as a direct result
of the failure of the district’s total revenues to increase at the
same rate as educational costs. (Tr. 1712-1716, 1548-1549).
(2.8) In 1967 a number of reductions in the budget were
necessary due to the financial limitations of the school dis-
trict. $500,000 in deferred maintenance was cut from the
budget. Educational television was cut by $117,000. (Tr.
2085-2086). $165,000 for the purchase of instructional ma-
terials was eliminated. (Tr. 2089). In-service training for
24 The Court judicially notices that another school tax levy failed in
November, 1977.
1l6la
teachers was substantially curtailed. (Tr. 2090). In order to
save an additional $130,000, the opening of several new schools
was deferred. (Tr. 2092). It was necessary to curtail the
use of school buildings by students for social purposes in the
evenings. (Tr. 2092-2093). The budget for adult and evening
classes was reduced by $145,500. (Tr. 2096). The summer school
program was cut by $150,000. (Tr. 2097). $420,000 for need-
ed buildings was eliminated. (Tr. 2097). These cutbacks and
others totaled a $2,623,000 reduction in the 1967 budget.
(2.9) In 1969 another $2,399,000 was trimmed from the
budget. The District began to eliminate ‘clerical staff. Pro-
fessional meeting funds were further curtailed. (Tr. 2098).
Instructional and office supplies, books, in-service training,
and summer school were further curtailed. (Tr. 2099). The
Board reduced its contingency fund by $500,000. The main-
tenance budget was cut by an additional $369,000. (Tr.
2100).
(2.10) In 1971 it was necessary for the district to re-
duce its protessional staff by approximately one-fourth. (Tr.
2101). The free use of buildings and grounds by student
groups, parent groups and community groups was eliminated.
(Tr. 2102). The number of the districts’s security aides was
reduced by 40% even though the need for security was greatly
increased due to student unrest. (Tr. 2102-2103). The cleri-
cal staff was further reduced. (Tr. 2103). The medical di-
vision within the school district was eliminated. (Tr. 2104).
The administrative and supervisory staff was reduced. (Tr.
2105). The opportunities for teachers to visit other schools
and school districts were eliminated. (Tr. 2114). A publication
entitled “Schools in Action” in which the superintendent com-
municated with teachers and principals was abolished. (Tr.
2114). Elementary counselors and junior high and reserve
athletics were eliminated. (Tr. 2116). The effect of the 1971
cutbacks on the athletic program has been severe and is still
being felt today. (Tr. 2117). The budget for the school
district’s supplies was reduced by an additional $103,000.
162a
The kindergarten program was reduced by 50%, and thus
the children attended kindergarten every other day or for one-
half of the school year. (Tr. 2119-2120).
(2.11) The reduction in staff which the district was forced
to make in 1971 resulted in a permanent reduction in instruc-
tional time for students which still exists today. The school
day had to be reduced by one hour and this resulted in a
loss of educational opportunities to students. (Tr. 2122-2138).
(2.12) As a result of the reduction in the number of
staff and the length of the school day, many courses had to be
eliminated. Thus the breadth of the district’s curriculum in
the secondary schools was severely limited. (Tr. 2142).
(2.13) Both teacher and student achievement was nega-
tively affected by these changes and many teachers left the
Cincinnati School System. (Tr. 2144-2146).
(2.14) The cutbacks made in 1967 and 1971 have not been
restored and thus the educational program has continued to
deteriorate. (Tr. 1547-1549, 1715).
(2.15) The Cincinnati School District does not have the
funds to adequately maintain its school buildings and thus
the buildings are deteriorating. (Tr. 1936, 1960).
(2.16) There is presently a backlog of maintenance needs,
which has been accumulating since 1966, totaling $7.5 million.
(Tr. 1960).
(2.17) There are deteriorated pipes in the water supply
system and in the heating system. (Tr. 1960). Many of the
older buildings still have their original plumbing which is
now corroded and rusted. (Tr. 1961). Because there is no
money to replace old plumbing, the plumbing systems must be
constantly repaired in order to keep them operating. (Tr.
1961). The pipes often leak causing plaster to deteriorate,
floors to buckle and causing a general unkemptness in the
buildings. (Tr. 1961). The plumbing systems need a total of
$345,000 of deferred maintenance work performed. (Tr. 1960).
163a
(2.18) Many of the older buildings have antiquated elec-
trical systems which constantly break down. There are a few
schools which have inadequate lighting. The backlog of
deferred electrical maintenance work totals $400,000. (Tr.
1962).
(2.19) There are at least 21 roofs which need serious
repair. The district’s inability to make these repairs has re-
sulted in water leakage damage to plaster and floors and in
deterioration of the structure of the buildings. (Tr. 1963).
The backlog of deferred roofing repairs totals $500,000. (Tr.
1962).
(2.20) None of the interiors of the school buildings have
been painted for over five years. For five years the school
system has been unable to follow its normal schedule of
painting the interior of each building every sixth, seventh or
eighth year, depending on need. Thus, there are some build-
ings whose interiors have not been painted for over fifteen
years. (Tr. 1963). Many of the interiors have cracked and
peeling plaster, peeling paint, smoke stains on the walls from
the heating system, and graffiti on the walls. (Tr. 1964).
The backlog of deferred interior painting work totals over
$2,000,000. (T. 1963).
(2.21) Even though the exterior painting needs of the
buildings are given a high priority in order to protect the
buildings from rot and rust, the deferred exterior painting
needs of the Cincinnati school buildings total $625,000. (Tr.
1964).
(2.22) Three buildings have serious structural problems
which require repair. (Tr. 1964-1965).
(2.23) The playground and grounds maintenance back-
log totals $50,000. (Tr. 1965).
(2.24) Many of the old buildings require repairs as well as
mechanical and structural improvements in order to conserve
164a
energy. These deferred maintenance needs total approximate-
ly $2,800,000. (Tr. 1965).
(2.25) The total maintenance budget for the Cincinnati
School System was approximately $3,000,000 in 1976 and is
expected to be only slightly higher in 1977. Consequently,
the buildings will continue to deteriorate due to the continu-
ing 'ack of resources for repair and maintenance. (Tr. 1966-
1967).
(2.26) The maintenance budget for the Cincinnati School
District in 1960 was $2,000,663. Thus, the budget increased
only 13% from 1960-1976 in spite of a 30% increase in the
amount of building space to be maintained. (Tr. 1967).
(2.27) The program of preventive maintenance which pre-
vents unnecessary and rapid deterioration of physical plant
facilities, was terminated in the late-1960’s due to budget
cuts. (Tr. 1968). The present maintenance program is thus
one of prioritizing emergencies. (Tr. 1969).
(2.28) The inability to perform preventive maintenance
has resulted in extra costs. For instance, a gymnasium floor
costing $50,000 had to be replaced due to a leaking plumbing
system. (Tr. 1962, 1969).
(2.29) The buildings of the school district are inspected
by the Cincinnati Health Department. (Tr. 1971). The Health
Department has cited such conditions as peeling paint in
lunchroom ceilings, hot water temperatures not high enough
in dishwashers, drafty classrooms, and water stained ceilings
as health hazards. The district has not been able to correct all
the violations cited by the Health Department. (Tr. 1972-
1973).
(2.30) The buildings in the Cincinnati School system are
inspected by the Fire Department which has cited such con-
ditions as malfunctioning hardware on exit doors, malfunc-
tioning fire alarm systems and inadequate water pressure as
fire hazards. Although all of the conditions which constitute
165a
health and safety hazards receive high priority for repairs, the
district has been unable to correct all of the violations cited by
the Fire Department. (Tr. 1973-1974).
(2.31) The vocational shops and industrial arts shops are
inspected by the Industrial Commission for conditions such
as the improper grounding of motors or electric circuits and
the improper exhaust of fumes. The Cincinnati district has
been cited for violations by the Industrial Commission, but
has not been able to correct all of the cited conditions. (Tr.
1974).
(2.32) The sole reason for the failure to correct any of
the violations referred to in Finding 2.29-2.31 above is insuf-
ficient funds. (Tr. 1975).
(2.33) In 1960 the district had 576 custodians. In 1976
it had only 578 custodians despite a 30% increase in building
space since 1960. The result of having an insufficient num-
ber of custodians has been a reduction in the frequency of
cleaning the classrooms, the lunchrooms and the restrooms.
The windows are washed, at most, only once a year and
furniture is rarely washed. (Tr. 1976-1977).
(2.34) The interiors of the buildings have deteriorated
seriously in the last fifteen years. As a result, the school en-
vironment is no longer conducive to encouraging the students
to take care of their school buildings because the buildings
are never clean. (Tr. 1978, 2409).
(2.35) The Carson Elementary School requires painting
and plumbing repairs. The lunchroom is not located in the
main school building, but is located in an Army barracks which
is used as an annex to the school building. The children
must go to the barracks building in order to eat their lunch.
The lunchroom does not have an automatic dishwasher so the
trays and dishes are washed by hand. The paint on the ceil-
ing of the lunchroom is peeling. Five classrooms are also lo-
cated in the army barracks and there is insufficient lighting and
heat in these classrooms. (Tr. 2277, 2283).
166a
(2.36) The Hyde Park Elementary School has not been
painted in ten years. There is only one boys’ bathroom and
one girls’ bathroom both of which are located in the base-
ment. The boys’ bathroom is often odoriferous and the odor
travels across the hall to the kindergarten classroom. (Tr.
2617-%628).
(2.37) The Fire Department found 101 fire Code viola-
tions in the Walnut Hills High School last year. At least one
of the classrooms has plaster which falls from the ceiling.
(Tr. 2661).
(2.38) The Sands Elementary School is dirty. The wall-
paper is coming off the walls, the bathrooms are obsolete,
the classrooms are small and the window shades are falling
apart. (Tr. 2536, 2539).
(2.39) The Lyon Junior High School had 351 of its win-
dows broken. It presently has inadequate lighting because
the glass of the broken windows was replaced with non-break-
able vinyl and the old style bulbs used in the lighting fixtures
are an inadequate source of light. (Tr. 2498).
(2.40) The Western Hills High School is over 50 years
old. The halls are drab. The lighting is inadequate. The
classrooms are unattractive. “The whole decor of the build-
ing is just plain miserable.” (Tr. 2409).
(2.41) The Sawyer Junior High School has a great many
broken windows. (Tr. 2368).
(2.42) The deteriorating condition of the physical facili-
ties adversely affects the ability of the children to learn. (Tr.
2543 ).
(2.423) The pupil-teacher ratio in the Cincinnati School
District is approximately 28 to 1 which is among the highest
in the state. (Tr. 2147-2148).
(2.44) Because of the reduction in the length of the school
day in 1971, most of the teachers are required to teach
167a
throughout the school day without an opportunity for rest,
for preparation or for consultation with other teachers, stu-
dents or parents. (Tr. 2151).
(2.45) As a result, teacher fatigue is high, teacher morale
is low, and teacher effectiveness is impaired. (Tr. 2595-2598).
Teacher absenteeism is also high. (Tr. 2166). Many teachers
have left the district to teach in suburban districts where the
conditions are better. (2405).
(2.46) The Cincinnati School District does not have the
funds to employ a sufficient number of teachers, librarians,
(Tr. 2160), clerical assistants, (Tr. 2160), nurses, administra-
tors, security personnel, counselors, visiting teachers, psycholo-
gists, and speech and hearing therapists. (Tr. 2165-2167, 1551,
1556, 1572-1574, 2015).
(2.47) The Cincinnati School District is abie to employ
only one psychologist for every 4000 students and is thus be-
low the state minimum standard of one psychologist for every
3000 students. (Tr. 2003).
(2.48) The Cincinnati School District’s psychologists can
handle the psychological needs of only one-half of the chil-
dren referred to them. (Tr. 2001).
(2.49) The Cincinnati School System is not able to com-
ply with the state requirement of one counselor for every 400
students. The number of counselors presently employed by
ihe district is five below the state minimum requirement.
(Tr. 2016, 2017).
(2.50) The Cincinnati School System employs only five
nurses for the whole district. This nursing personnel cannot
begin to meet the health needs of the Cincinnati students.
(Tr. 2007-2008). For instance, one elementary school was
forced to close down because a majority of the students be-
came affected with lice. (Tr. 2006).
(2.51) Each visiting teacher in the district is assigned the
168a
responsibility to inquire into the attendance of all of the
students in five separate schools. (Tr. 2009). There are no
visiting teachers assigned to the high schools. (Tr. 2011).
(2.52) The principals of the schools have very small staffs
including clerical staffs. (Tr. 2170).
(2.53) There is a severe shortage of consultants in the
system. One of the reading instructional consultants super-
vises 126 teachers, over twice the number of teachers whom
she can contact in the course of one school year. (Tr. 2439).
(2.54) The district cannot afford to provide special teach-
ers in art, music and physical education for the primary
grades. These subjects are taught by the classroom teachers,
many of whom are not equipped to teach them. (Tr. 2541,
2568, 2289-2290).
(2.55) There are not enough adults on duty in the schools
to make many of the schools safe for the students and the
teachers, to maintain discipline and to prevent massive van-
dalism. (Tr. 1156, 1572, 2051-2052, 2367-2368, 2483, 2325).
In the spring of 1976, a survey of the Cincinnati School sys-
tem showed that 58% of the 4,000 elementary students sur-
veyed, 36% of the 2,000 junior high students surveyed and
50% of the 3,000 senior high school students surveyed stated
that they did not feel safe in school. (Tr. 1570).
(2.56) The district has only 91 security aids, and needs
three times that number. (Tr. 2015).
(2.57) Student vandalism is a major problem in the district.
It costs the district $500,000 a year, of which approximately
one-half is expended to replace broken windows. (Tr. 2054).
The type of vandalism which typically occurs in the district
is illustrated by Plaintiffs’ Exh. 48. The district is unable to
keep up with the repairs required by the vandalism. (Tr.
2056).
( 2.58) The degree of vandalism would be substantially
reduced if the district were able to employ professional per-
—
169a
sonnel to deal with the intellectual, psychological and social
needs of the students and to maintain discipline in the
schools. (Tr. 2049, 1572).
(2.59) The district can afford to provide its teachers vir-
tually no in-service training. (Tr. 1552). As a result of this
inability, many teachers who could be effective are left on their
own to flounder and fail. (Tr. 2153).
(2.60) Besides not having an adequate number of teach-
ers, the district does not have an adequate number of spe-
cialists to deal with the special educational problems of an
urban school district. (Tr. 1556). The district has limited
resources for the children who have special needs, but who
do not qualify for categorical programs. (Tr. 2160). The dis-
trict does not have programs for gifted children except for
a limited program at Walnut Hills High School for 75 stu-
dents. (Tr. 2160, 2204).
(2.61) While the children in the specially funded cate-
gorical programs have the benefit of lower mandated class
sizes, in the Cincinnati district as in every other district, the
limited professional staff and very high pupil-teacher ratio
causes the general students in the district to receive very little
individual attention. In a very real sense, the most disad-
vantaged student of all is the regular student in the large
underfunded inner city district, such as the Cincinnati School
District. (Tr. 2169-2170). This accounts, to some degree at
least, for the migration of many middle class families to sub-
urban school districts.
(2.62) Due to the curtailment of the school day as a
result of the substantial reduction in professional presonnel, the
breadth of the curriculum was effectively curtailed. Not only
were some courses eliminated altogether because there was
no one to teach them, but the reduced number of class
hours has prevented students from having the opportunity to
schedule as many courses as they might like. Students have
— —— - SY ESE IO TE LETT IT eS
170a
few opportunities to take courses beyond those courses re-
quired for graduation. (Tr. 2160).
(2.63) In addition, the curtailment of class hours has re-
duced the students’ exposure to the basic courses. (Tr. 2395).
(2.64) Asa result of these staff and curriculum limitations,
the educational opportunities in the Cincinnati School District
have declined quantitatively and qualitatively. (Tr. 1611,
2161). As a result the school children are generally grossly de-
ficient in basic skills. (Tr. 1560).
(2.65) The district lacks the funds to implement the re-
sults of its research and development in the area of curriculum
innovation. (Tr. 1557-58).
(2.66) The district provides insufficient remedial reading
programs. It has developmental reading programs in only
three of its sixteen junior high schools. (Tr. 2318).
(2.67) Educational conditions are worse in the junior high
schools than in the elementary or high schools. In 1977 a
special task force studied the problems in the junior high
schools and made nine recommendations for improving those
conditions. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 40). Due to lack of funds, the
district has not been able to implement any of those recom-
mendations. (Tr. 1600-1610).
(2.68) No secondary school in the district is totally in
compliance with state minimum standards. (Tr. 2182).
(2.69) As a result of the elimination of summer school,
many students are unable to progress to the next grade with
their classes. (Tr. 2490-2491).
(2.70) The Cincinnati district is able to offer few extra-
curricular activities to its students. (Tr. 1554, 2494).
(2.71) The athletic and music offerings are minimal and
inadequate. There are no hobby clubs. (Tr. 1555, 2162).
Field trips have been almost completely eliminated. (Tr.
2178).
l7la
(2.72) There are no instrumental music offerings at the
elementary level. Only three high schools have marching
bands. (Tr. 2160). In the 1976-77 school year a lower per-
centage of the system’s students were enrolled in music
courses than at any time in the last 17 years. (Tr. 2566).
The basic reason for the decline in the music program is re-
duction in the length of the school day. (Tr. 2567). No per-
forming group from the Cincinnati district was able to enter
a state music contest in the 1975-76 school year. (Tr. 2566).
With the exception of the Alternative School for the Creative
and Performing Arts and the Walnut Hills High School, there
are only two orchestras among the 16 junior high schools and
two orchestras among the eight senior high schools. (Tr.
2573). There are only three instrumental music teachers for
all of the elementary schools and they are string teachers. (Tr.
2568). The district does not have the funds to replace the
musical instruments which are lost or to repair those which
are damaged. (Tr. 2571). The district was forced to lay off
its one piano tuner. (Tr. 2572).
(2.73) The district lacks funds to employ the number of
coaches necessary to develop successful athletic programs.
Teams from Cincinnati schools cannot compete successfully
against teams from other districts. (Tr. 2162, 2419). In addition,
the athletic facilities are inadequate. Two of the high schools
have no football fiields. The gymnasiums in many of the
junior and senior high schools are inadequate. (Tr. 2402,
2488 ). The Withrow basketball team has to play its games at
the Walnut Hills gymnasium. (Tr. 2162-3). The district is not
able to provide any intramural sports offerings. (Tr. 2180).
(2.74) The Cincinnati district’s textbooks and instructional
aids are obsolete. (Tr. 2177). There are not enough books so
that all of the children may be assigned their own books. (Tr.
2476, 2447). For that reason, homework cannot be assigned
to some students. (Tr. 2544). The language arts books do not
cover a wide enough range of ability levels. (Tr. 2448).
172a
(2.75) Many schools in the Cincinnati district have inade-
quate libraries. (Tr. 2159).
(2.76) The Cincinnati district cannot afford to purchase
films, tape recordings and other educational supplies. (Tr.
2159). Teachers must spend their own money to purchase cas-
settes, workbooks and other necessary educational supplies.
(Tr. 2544).
(2.77) The Cincinnati district has established approximate-
ly 35 alternative schools and programs throughout the system.
Those have been established for the purpose of offering special-
ized curricula suited to the varying needs and interests of the
children and in order to improve racial balance among students.
All of the alternative schools are racially balanced. . In..the
1976-77 school year more than 8,000 children attended alterna-
tive schools. The district hopes to have 12,000 students en-
rolled in alternative schools by the 1977-78 school year. Yet
the district’s financial limitations preclude the district from ex-
panding its alternative programs and schools. (Tr. 1561-66,
1887-91).
(2.78) The Cincinnati district incurs certain special costs
which are occasioned by problems unique to urban school
systems. Those costs, which are delineated in Plaintiffs’ Exh. 48
for the 1975-76 school year are as follows: The district ex-
pended $1,614,382 from its general funds on its vocational
educational programs and $858,854 on its special educational
programs. The categorical grants for the vocational education
and special education units are not adequate to defray the en-
tire costs of those programs. The district expended $682,000 for
transportation because the state subsidy was inadequate. In
addition, it expended approximately $500,000 to repair the
damage caused by vandalism, $100,000 for plant security,
$360,000 for student security and $620,000 for attendance serv-
ices. These expenditures total $4,735,236. (Tr. 1785-7). This
amount does not represent the cost of dealing with the edu-
cational problems which gave rise to the expenditures. In addi-
173a
tion, there are numerous problems which the Cincinnati district
has because of its urban, inner-city character and which it lacks
the financial resources to deal with.
(2.79) In 1976-77 the Cincinnati district had slightly more
than $1200 per pupil in total state and local revenue. It is
estimated that the district needs an additional $500 per pupil at
the present time to bring the program to an acceptable mini-
mum level and an additional $1000 per pupil to bring it to a
high quality level (assuming no increases in teacher salaries
and no expenditures on its plant and facilities). (Tr. 2185-6).
(3) Based upon all of the foregoing findings, the Court
finds that the Cincinnati City School District is financially
destitute, is starved for funds, lacks teachers, adequate build-
ings and equipment, and that the school children resident in
that district are receiving submarginal educational opportuni-
ties.
(4) The Toledo City School District, also a large urban,
inner-city district, closed its schools in 1976 and in 1977 because
of a lack of funds. The 1976 closing occurred on December 3rd.
(Tr. 519). The 1977 closing was scheduled for October 13th.
(Tr. 7407). The Court judicially notices that the 1977 closing
actually occurred on October 28th. The Toledo district’s stu-
dents lost 13 school days in 1976 (Tr. 566) and will lose ap-
proximately 35 school days in 1977. (Tr. 7407).
(5) The Toledo district had a school levy defeated in
November of 1975, one defeated in June of 1976 and had an
emergency levy defeated in November of 1976. (Tr. 524). An-
other levy was defeated in June of 1977. (Tr. 7400). The
Toledo district last passed an additional levy in 1968. Five suc-
cessive levies have failed.?5
25 The Court judicially notices that the Toledo district passed a
school levy in November, 1977, while the schools were closed for lack
of funds.
174a
(6) Had the Toledo District not closed its schools in 1976
its deficit would have been $3,454,520. ( Plaintiffs’ Exh. 1). It
carried over $600,000 in unpaid bills into 1977. (Tr. 533). The
closng in 1976 was necessary in spite of the fact that the district
cut $2,300,000 from its budget in 1975. As a result of those
cuts, no reading books were purchased and a freeze was placed
on the hiring of teaching and non-teaching personnel. (Tr.
542).
(7) The Toledo district anticipated a $13,000,000 deficit in
1977. (Tr. 7418). The district had to close its schools despite
reducing its 1977 appropriation by $6,713,727. Cost of living
adjustments for the staff were eliminated. $612,000 was saved
by cancelling plans for textbook adoptions and replacements
and for the purchase of instructional suppl
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.