Is Ohio school funding unconstitutional? The last word from the Ohio Supreme Court is yes. Between 1997 and 2002, the court ruled four separate times in DeRolph v. State that Ohio’s school funding system violated the Ohio Constitution, and no court has ever reversed that finding. What the court did instead, in its final ruling, was stop enforcing it. So the system that was declared unconstitutional keeps running, the constitutional standard it failed still applies, and no judge is currently making anyone fix it.
What the Ohio Constitution Requires
Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution tells the General Assembly to “secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.”1Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Constitution Article VI Section 2 – Schools Funds Courts have treated that phrase as a binding obligation, not an aspiration. “Thorough” covers the full range of what students need across every district. “Efficient” means money has to reach classrooms in a way that produces reasonably consistent opportunities statewide. When the Ohio Supreme Court measured the funding system against both prongs in the 1990s, it found the system failed on each one.2Supreme Court of Ohio. DeRolph v. State
The Four DeRolph Rulings
A coalition of school districts sued the state, arguing their students were being shortchanged by a funding system tied too tightly to local property wealth. In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed. DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193, struck down key provisions of the school funding statutes and the Classroom Facilities Act, and sent the matter back to the legislature.2Supreme Court of Ohio. DeRolph v. State
The legislature made changes. The court kept rejecting them.3Ohio Legislative Service Commission. DeRolph v. State School Funding Case – Members Brief
- In DeRolph II (2000), the court again found the revised system unconstitutional and kept jurisdiction over the case.
- In DeRolph III (2001), a narrower majority credited some reforms but acknowledged constitutional problems remained.
- In DeRolph IV (2002), the court vacated DeRolph III, reaffirmed that DeRolph I and II were the law of the case, and declared the funding system unconstitutional one final time.
What matters about DeRolph IV is what the court chose not to do. It did not retain jurisdiction. It directed the General Assembly to “enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient” and effectively dismissed the case. Students were left with a declaration that their rights were being violated and no judicial mechanism to enforce a remedy. Dissenting justices warned the ruling “returns the parties (and all Ohio citizens) to the uncertain positions in which they stood” after DeRolph II, with no guarantee the legislature would act.4Supreme Court of Ohio. DeRolph v. State, 2002-Ohio-6750
The Property Tax Problem the Court Identified
The court focused on one structural flaw above all others: Ohio was letting local property taxes carry the weight of school funding. A district with valuable commercial real estate or expensive homes could raise plenty of money at modest tax rates. A rural or economically depressed district could tax residents at much higher rates and still fall short. The court stated flatly that “property taxes can no longer be the primary means of providing the finances for a thorough and efficient system of schools.”5Supreme Court of Ohio. DeRolph v. State
That structural reliance never fundamentally changed. Ohio law also caps growth on voter-approved millage at the three-year rate of inflation, so when home values climb, existing levies do not capture the increase. Districts have to return to voters to raise more money, and low-wealth districts need higher millage rates to generate the same dollars, which makes voters less willing to approve them. The gap the court described in the 1990s is still the mechanism producing unequal funding today.6Ohio Legislative Service Commission. H.B. 186 Fiscal Note and Local Impact Statement
The Closest Thing to a Fix, and Its Retreat
After nearly two decades of incremental patches, the General Assembly adopted the Fair School Funding Plan in the early 2020s. Growing out of a bipartisan proposal by Representatives Robert Cupp and John Patterson, it built a formula from the ground up: a base cost calculated from actual district spending on teachers, counselors, and administrators; a local share that factored in both property wealth and resident income; and weighted funding for students in poverty, students with disabilities, and English learners. Education funding advocates viewed it as the most credible attempt to answer DeRolph since the litigation began.
The plan was designed to phase in over six years. It never got there. The FY2026–27 state budget proposals moved sharply away from the framework. Governor DeWine’s budget proposed roughly $8.1 billion for traditional K-12 funding in 2026 but used 2022 base cost figures rather than updated numbers reflecting two years of inflation; school officials have said that approach alone understates need by about $1.8 billion. The Ohio House went further, eliminating targeted supplements for districts with large wealth disparities and for districts losing students to the expanded voucher program, while also cutting the top income tax rate.7Ohio House of Representatives. Ohio House Passes Budget Plan The direction is clear even if the final bill is not: the state is stepping back from the evidence-based model that was supposed to finally answer the constitutional problems DeRolph identified.
So What Is the Answer Today?
It depends on whom you ask, and the disagreement itself is the honest description of where things stand.
The Ohio Senate’s official position is that the funding system has been constitutional since 2003, because no court has ruled otherwise since the DeRolph litigation ended.8Ohio Senate. The School Funding System in Ohio is Constitutional On this view, each subsequent budget satisfies the constitutional requirement by default unless a court says otherwise.
Education advocates read the record the other way. The Ohio Supreme Court declared the system unconstitutional four times and never issued a ruling saying it had been fixed. The court simply walked away in DeRolph IV. The last word from the judiciary is that the system violates Article VI, Section 2, and no later case has overturned that finding.1Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Constitution Article VI Section 2 – Schools Funds
Both readings have support, and no court is currently going to break the tie. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1973 that education is not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution, so school funding challenges can only be brought under state constitutions.9Justia Law. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) State courts often lack the tools or the political will to force a legislature to appropriate money. Ohio’s court tried four times and then stopped, rather than order specific appropriations.
The practical result is legal limbo. The constitutional requirement has not changed. The court’s finding that the funding system fails that requirement has not been reversed. And the funding model that came closest to meeting the standard is being unwound. For families in underfunded districts, the constitutional promise of equal educational opportunity is still a promise without an enforcer.