COLUMBUS — A $1.4 billion plan meant to finally reform Ohio's school funding system is now in the hands of a divided Ohio Supreme Court that has twice declared it unconstitutional.

        As attorneys made final oral arguments Wednesday, the deep political and philosophical rift on the high court, which has handed the state two 4-3 defeats, was plain to see. Justices in each faction attacked the state's and schools' cases in turn, and on several occasions took swipes at one another.

Justice Andrew Douglas, (left), questions attorneys in Ohio's school-funding battle. (The Associated Press photo) | ZOOM |

        The central question in this pivotal case is whether the new funding plan lawmakers approved weeks ago meets the Ohio Constitution's mandate for a “thorough and efficient” system for funding public schools.

        A decision that upholds the state's plan could effectively end the historic, decade-old lawsuit. A court order to do more raises fears of a constitutional crisis or a massive tax increase.

        The court ruled in 1997 and in May 1999 that the state's system fails because schools rely on property taxes for most of their money. The state argued Wednesday this new plan satisfies the court's orders, while a coalition of 550 schools labeled it a miserable failure.

        The justices took center stage, asking sharply worded questions that at times sounded more like statements. The same four justices appeared critical of the state while the remaining three took sides against the schools group — the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding.

        Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, one of the four-member majority, appeared to give the plan a “C” grade. He asked why the new funding formula is based on spending patterns of schools that met only 75 percent of academic standards deemed necessary for a good education.

        “If a student got a 75 on a paper what grade would it be?” Justice Pfeifer asked. “It would be a "C,' would it not?”

        “It's a passing grade, Your Honor,” replied Assistant Ohio Attorney General Mary Lynn Readey.

LAWSUIT HISTORY

Ohio's school funding dilemma began Dec. 19, 1991, when the Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding filed its lawsuit in Perry County. The suit said the state's school funding system was unconstitutional because it creates rich and poor school districts. Here is a look at the case's most recent history.    • March 1997: The Ohio Supreme Court rules 4-3 that the state's school funding system is unconstitutional. It orders the state to overhaul the system in 12 months.    • February 1998: Lawmakers change the school funding formula to set a minimum per-pupil spending level. The $4,063-per-pupil level was to be increased 2.8 percent a year for five years.    • February 1998: The General Assembly asks voters to approve a 1-cent sales tax increase for schools. It would raise $1 billion, half of which would be used to reduce property taxes.    • May 1998: Voters rejected the proposed sales tax increase by a 4-1 margin.    • June 1999: Gov. Bob Taft signs a budget that would spend a record $13 billion on schools. The budget sets schools per-pupil spending one year ahead of schedule.    • November 1999: Ohio voters pass Issue 1, which lets the state borrow construction money for schools.    • November 1999: The General Assembly approves a 12-year $10 billion school construction program funded in part through tobacco lawsuit settlement money.    • May 2000: In another 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court declares that the school funding system remains unconstitutional and gives the state until June 15 to fix it.    • December: The Ohio General Assembly passes a bill intended to ease unfunded mandates on schools.    • January: Mr. Taft outlines a two-year $808 million school plan in his State of the State address. The next day, Senate Republicans unveil a $1.3 billion plan.    • March: House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, proposes a $3.2 billion spending plan funded in part by placing slot machines at Ohio racetracks. Though it is embraced by the coalition of schools, the governor sinks it with a threat to veto the gambling measure.    • April: Mssrs. Taft, Finan and Housholder agree to a $1.4 billion spending plan.    • May: The General Assembly passes a $44.9 billion state budget containing the school spending changes.    • June: Mr. Taft signs the budget bill.

        Justice Deborah Cook, one of the three dissenters, was equally critical of the schools coalition's request for a massive funding increase beyond what the General Assembly passed.

        “The message seems to be, "We have to have a tax increase,'” Justice Cook said. “"How else will there be more money?'”

        Spending rollbacks at universities and state agencies were one consequence of the $1.4 billion schools plan lawmakers passed. Faced with a slowing economy and falling tax revenues, lawmakers cut promised spending increases to fund their school fixes.

        The reform measure raises schools' minimum per-student spending from $4,294 to $4,814 next school year. That amount rises to $4,949 in 2002-03.

        Another $300 million would go to property-poor schools to help pay for teachers, classrooms and programs wealthier districts fund with property taxes.

        Ms. Readey told the justices the state's plan meets every concern the high court outlined in its May 11, 2000, ruling.

        The court ordered the General Assembly to do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor schools, try again to determine the cost of an adequate education, improve a $10 billion program to fix school buildings and to eliminate a series of unfunded state mandates.

        Coalition attorney Nicholas Pittner argued the state's new formula does nothing to end school reliance on property taxes. He said it raises per-pupil funding at the expense of special-education programs, impoverished students and urban school districts.

        “The state has asked the court to put on blinders and look at little parts and pieces of the plan,” Mr. Pittner said.

        The coalition has asked the court to order the state to spend more on schools until it can come up with a better plan.

        The coalition's suggested per-pupil spending figure, $6,178, would require an additional $2.7 billion, according to Senate President Richard Finan, R-Evendale.

        The justices frequently interrupted these arguments and sometimes each other.

        Of the four who previously ruled against the state, Justice Pfeifer was the most critical.

        “To me it looked like what happened is that a gross number was agreed upon and you backed it into a formula,” Justice Pfeifer said. “That's the way it looks.”

        Fellow majority justices Alice Robie Resnick, Francis Sweeney and Andrew Douglas also threw barbs. Justice Sweeney said the plan appears to increase schools' reliance on property taxes.

        Justice Douglas wondered if the Supreme Court could trust the state to stick to its funding plan if it was declared constitutional.

        Of the four, Justice Douglas appeared least critical, raising the state's hopes that he might swing his vote that way. The justice, however, appeared undecided to some observers two years ago before he voted against the state.

        Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Justice Cook and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton attacked the schools coalition with equal verve. On a few occasions they grew angry over what they were hearing.

        One outburst occurred when Mr. Pittner defended the $6,178 figure as appropriate. He said other states pay more and asked, “Are our children worth so much less?”

        “Really we don't need that,” Chief Justice Moyer said. “When someone asks about the value of students, frankly that's not appropriate.”

        Justice Stratton demanded to know how the state could not have performed a comprehensive assessment of crumbling school buildings when it is spending $1.5 million a day to fix them.

        “To me, I find that offensive,” Justice Stratton said. “What does $1.5 million (a day) account for if it means they are doing nothing?”

        The justices also sparred among themselves. In most cases, their verbal shots came as questions posed to the attorneys.

        When Justice Cook wondered if the coalition's goal is to transfer local control of schools to the state, Justice Resnick offered a quick rebuke.

        “How can you have local control in a school system where the state provides generalized tests?” Justice Resnick said. “I don't think there's a real argument to make about local control.”

        When Justice Cook said her definition of “thorough and efficient” is doing an “adequate” job, Justice Pfeifer fired back.

        “Would it be fair for us to say the Constitution provides for an average system of public schools?” he asked.

        The historic case now goes to the full court for a third decision. While the court usually takes three to six months to publish rulings and opinions, Justices Pfeiffer and Moyer have said a decision could come before July 1.

        No matter the outcome, it will fundamentally alter the education funding debate in Ohio.

        Officials with the state and the schools coalition continued to support their arguments outside the courtroom, while trying to avoid making predictions.

        When asked if the state could swing Justice Douglas to its side, schools coalition leader Bill Phillis said he didn't think the balance on the high court had shifted.

        “I don't presume to know what the judges are thinking,” he said “But they're consistent with their first two decisions, and they are going to see clearly that we still do not have a complete systematic overhaul.”

        Ms. Readey said the state is very confident its $1.4 billion plan meets the high court's requirement.

        “It's quite frankly very difficult for me to read anything from their questions,” she said. “Where it will come out? We'll have to wait for the court to decide.”

        While they wait for that decision, Republican lawmakers who crafted the plan issued public warnings about what would happen if the court actually orders lawmakers to spend $6,178 per student.

        “There is no way the state is going to get to that level by further belt tightening,” said Brian Hicks, Gov. Bob Taft's chief of staff. “We don't know how we can get to that level without potentially a very significant increase in taxes.”

Airport tackles runway safety
$1.4B may not be enough
Ohio justices defy convenient labels
UC tuition will rise by 8% in fall
A boost for home buyers
Cities say rules thwart growth
Clinton visits Dayton to accept peace prize
Cops take it where crime happens
Doctors rally against concealed carry
Dulcimer picked as official Ky. instrument
Fair's touchy about animals
Grand jury will hear Lebanon case
Group moves to scrap city's civil service rules
Hospitals won't get Medicaid raise
Kenton teachers get 7% hike
Low-income housing would be controlled
Nature Conservancy buys more land along palisades
No sex indictment against teacher
Ohio PTA award announced
Outside auditor to watch ballpark
Proposal for video slots at racetracks dies in committee
Protester on trial for fest disruption
Officer Roach trial scheduled for Sept. 17
School gets 2nd inspection
Silverton development group launched
United Way pledges other help
Video store bandits use the same script
Welfare reform spending in danger
Worms sicced on Ky.'s coal scars
Kentucky News Briefs
Tristate A.M. Report