Catholics mull role im Ohio school policy - public school concerns balanced by concerns for Catholic parochial schools

National Catholic Reporter, June 20, 1997 by John Allen

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- In the shadow of the state capitol building here, the offices of the Catholic Conference of Ohio are perched atop the World Gym. The location is an apt metaphor for the political muscle flexed by the conference, widely regarded as among the most effective lobbies in the state.

Under the patronage of Republican Gov. George Voinovich, described by a spokesperson as "aggressively Catholic," the church has enjoyed a remarkable run of legislative success. Ohio now leads the nation for example, in taxpayer support for private elementary and secondary schools.

In the arena of educational policy, though, the church's political clout in Ohio raises the question of how Catholic leadership balances self-interest with a concern for the common good. In March, the state Supreme Court struck down the public school finance system on the basis of persistent and severe inequities between wealthy and poor districts. The court's ruling in DeRolph v. Ohio gave the political leadership of the state a year to devise a remedy, and all signs suggest a looming showdown between proponents of educational justice and conservative antitax forces.

The Catholic Conference, meanwhile, has continued to press the needs of its own schools, but has remained silent on the public education issue. Its reticence is by no means unique; a recent NCR survey revealed that in 10 states with school finance litigation in the 1980S and 1990s, no Catholic Conference has taken a public position in favor of equity.

That silence rankles some critics, who say the church should speak out against injustice wherever it occurs. Others say that since the vast majority of Catholic children are in public schools, simple pastoral responsibility should include concern for public education.

In Ohio, that argument gets a symbolic boost from the fact that Nathan DeRolph, the public school student for whom the case is named, is Catholic. While he was receiving what the state Supreme Court determined to be an inadequate education at Sheridan High School in Perry County, he was also attending religious education classes at Holy Trinity Parish in Somerset.

Ohio a test case

In many ways, Ohio is a microcosm of the national scene. More than 30 states have faced school finance litigation since 1973, and most education experts acknowledge an enduring, nationwide gap between educational opportunities in the suburbs and in poor urban and rural areas. But because these disparities are so pronounced in Ohio (by one measure, the third worst difference in the nation), and because the Catholic lobby in the state is so strong, Ohio provides a test case of the role the church will choose to play. What happens in Ohio may well have implications for how the church positions itself elsewhere on public education, an issue that affects most of America's children.

The education crisis here was triggered by the Ohio Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in the case of DeRolph v. Ohio, handed down on March 24. The court held that "vast wealth-based disparities among Ohio's schools" violated the state constitution's promise of a "thorough and efficient system of common schools," as well as its equal protection clause.

Ohio, like most states, relies on a mixture of state and local funds to pay for public education. The result is that districts with high property wealth can provide exemplary educational opportunities, while districts low on properly wealth often fail to deliver even basic programs. Although the state attempts to compensate for such disparities in its school funding formula, the court found those attempts insufficient.

Analysts on both sides of the question emphasize that the court did not mandate absolute equality among all districts; it did not endorse a "Robin Hood approach to school financing reform" in which dollars are taken away from wealthy districts for poor districts. Instead, the court called for a "leveling up" program, in which the state provides sufficient resources for all districts to offer the type of educational experiences characteristic of the best suburban schools.

In handing down its decision, the majority on the state Supreme Court painted a devastating picture of the conditions faced by many public school students in low-wealth districts in Ohio.

One of the major issues in the case concerned Ohio's burgeoning school facilities problem. A study in 1990 concluded that $10 billion was needed just to bring public school buildings up to state health and safety codes. The trial record showed that students face conditions such as friable asbestos, coal dust, raw sewage, collapsing floors, poor lighting, leaking roofs and windows, collapsing walls, and even the absence of indoor plumbing, on a daily basis.

The court also struck down the system of basic state aid to education. Despite its ostensible purpose of equalizing disparities in property wealth, the court found that the system is biased in favor of wealthy districts in several ways.

Finally, the court rejected the system of mandatory borrowing to meet cash shortfalls in school districts, which it said traps poor districts in a cycle of debt and violates the state constitution's requirement of a balanced budget.