Catholics mull role in Ohio school
policy
By JOHN
ALLEN Special to the National Catholic
Reporter 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 property 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.
State Sen. Michael Shoemaker, a Democrat, argues that these
inequalities are no accident. "I have accused folks opposing this issue of
being racially and culturally bigoted," he said. "As long as it's us down in
southern Ohio with no shoes, and the inner-city black kids, no one cares. They
go crazy when I say that, but until they can prove me wrong, I believe it."
Critics of the present system believe that a fundamental issue of
justice is at stake. State Sen. Ben Espy, the leader of the Democratic
minority, said, "It's the epitome of denying children a chance to grow.
Education is the equalizer in this country -- it equalizes everybody no matter
the race, color or creed. Morally, to deny children this opportunity is the
biggest sin we could ever commit."
In its court papers, the state conceded the existence of
wealth-based disparities, but argued that they were justified in the name of
local control of education. The state also contended that decisions about how
education should be funded are properly legislative, not judicial, issues.
For students of educational law, these arguments have a familiar
ring. They're the same arguments state governments made in the Brown v. Board
of Education litigation in defense of segregated schools. In this case, the
Ohio Supreme Court rejected the local control argument. The court noted that in
low-wealth districts facing a declining tax base and trapped in a cycle of
indebtedness, "local control is a cruel illusion."
Voinovich and legislative leaders argue that they've put more
dollars into education in recent years, in amounts that should be sufficient to
satisfy their critics. "We've made significant progress in dealing with the
equity part of it," said Speaker of the House Jo Ann Davidson, a Republican,
referring to an "equity fund" created by the legislature to increase resources
in low-wealth districts. The coalition that brought the DeRolph suit,
however, contends that the equity fund merely staved off new borrowing.
The governor also argues that disparities are a good thing, that
they signal the willingness of some communities to go above and beyond for
their children. "The reason the disparities exist is because local citizens
have decided they want to do more for their kids," said Mike Dawson,
spokesperson for Voinovich. "We think that's a good thing. If a community says,
'We want to have more courses, more computers, smaller class sizes,' a group of
people ought to be able to do that for themselves," he said. Anyway, the
leadership contends, people are not willing to fork over the taxes to do much
more. "You can only tax people so much," Dawson said. "This isn't a utopian
society where we can afford everything that we would like to have."
Political fallout
Dawson's comment suggests the political borders along which the
public education debate will occur. The battle will be cast, most observers
agree, as a choice where higher education spending means higher taxes. Given
the strong antitax sentiments in Ohio, framing the issue in these terms makes
it tough political going for proponents of a "leveling up" approach. Reform
plans advanced by different groups have suggested price tags of $3.5 billion to
$4 billion over several years to accomplish a "leveling up" program, figures
immediately dismissed by Voinovich and the legislative leadership as too
high.
Reluctance to spend more money leaves three options in dealing
with the court verdict. The first is to deny that educational quality is a
function of money, with the suggestion being that the state can meet the
court's mandate of an adequate education without spending any more. That course
has been enthusiastically embraced by Rep. Mike Fox, chair of the House
Education Committee and point man for the Republican majority on education
issues. Quoting a colleague, Fox said that "nothing short of a direct IV to the
taxpayer's wallet" would satisfy the state's education community. "The fact is,
just throwing money at a district doesn't make it any better," he said.
"It's not just about money," said Steve Anderson, superintendent
of schools in suburban Dublin, Ohio. "But when you have buildings falling down
in some districts and brand-new facilities in others, when you have some
schools with textbooks from the '60s and others with the latest CD-Roms, it's
hard not to believe that money has some relationship to quality."
The Supreme Court concurred, pointing to patterns of proficiency
test score results that show that despite individual variations, the best
scores tend to cluster in affluent suburban districts and the worst in poor
urban and rural schools.
The second choice open to those opposed to new education spending
is a ballot measure that would overturn the court's decision. This is the
course advocated by David Zanotti of the Ohio Roundtable, a Cleveland-based
conservative advocacy group with ties to the Christian right. Zanotti indicated
that his group intends to pressure the legislature to put such a measure on the
November ballot. "Everyone agrees that this ruling will result in huge tax
increases," Zanotti said. "We don't think the people of Ohio will stand for
that."
Fears that the Republican leadership in the state might back such
a move were confirmed on June 30, when the School Funding Task Force --
including Voinovich and all the key Republican legislative leadership -- voted
to place whatever funding package they eventually devise on a statewide ballot.
William Phillis, head of the coalition that filed the DeRolph case,
expects that this ballot measure will contain language saying that only the
legislature determines what constitutes a thorough and efficient education, in
effect overturning the DeRolph decision by eliminating any basis for
judicial review in the area of public funding.
"We'll fight it," Phillis said. "These legislators just can't
stand the idea of court oversight, because someone might actually force them to
do the right thing," he said. The actual language of the ballot measure has to
be in place by August 6 in order to qualify for a vote in November.
On the ballot
The third and most likely course of action is to put a tax
increase on the ballot, providing cover for legislators squeamish about voting
for it. "It should be the people of Ohio who decide on that level of taxation,
not the legislature," said Rep. Priscilla Meade, a Republican member of the
finance committee. "Any vote like that needs to go back to the people."
If tax increases are on the ballot, they're likely to run into a
political buzz saw. Scott Pullins, executive director of the National Taxpayers
Union of Ohio, makes no secret of his group's strategy. "We'd like to defeat a
tax increase on the ballot, and have some leverage there," he said, explaining
that the Taxpayers Union is prepared to spend around $1 million to defeat a tax
increase.
Given such antitax furor, many public education advocates are
concerned that the DeRolph victory may be squandered, either through
outright rejection by voters or through legislative responses that provide a
temporary fix. "There's a sense that this moment in history may be lost," said
Lynda Sirk of the Dublin School District.
Despite the crisis in public education, the non-public school
sector in Ohio has been doing comparatively well. All told, only New York state
spends a greater aggregate amount on non-public schools. On a per-pupil basis,
Ohio is far and away the nation's leader, allocating over $600 per pupil in
state aid for the 235,000 students in non-public schools. That figure includes
$131 million in support for textbooks, counselors and reimbursements for
complying with state mandates as well as $5.5 million in the Cleveland voucher
program and smaller amounts for participation in various programs also open to
public schools.
Since Voinovich took office in 1991, non-public school funding has
risen by 64.7 percent while public school funding has grown by 49.9 percent.
Voinovich has boasted at a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting of his strong
support for the non-public school sector.
Although the Catholic Conference is careful to avoid presenting
itself as a rival of the public school system, there is little doubt that the
dynamics of the legislative process have sometimes cast it in that role. During
the 1995-96 school year, for example, 20 public school districts were forced
into borrowing $87.1 million just to stay in operation, while non-public
schools were enjoying another significant bump in funding. The difference can't
help but grate on some in the public education community. "Until the state
starts addressing all the needs of the public schools, it should minimize
support to the private schools," said Brian Williams, superintendent of the
Akron public schools and a former Catholic school principal.
In the most direct example of rivalry between the two sectors, a
residual of $4 million remained in the administrative cost reimbursement
account at the end of the 1995-96 school year, and some legislators discussed
freeing up that money for public school repairs. The Catholic Conference
mobilized its schools, who called their state representatives and senators
demanding that the money be released to the non-public sector. The legislature
raised the per-pupil administrative cost limit so the non-public schools could
claim the money.
That sort of political muscle has reinforced the Catholic
Conference's reputation as well-organized, articulate and effective on the
issues it chooses to pursue. "They're effective. They're knowledgeable," Dawson
said. "The people that represent the Catholic lobby are people that the
administration and the legislature respect. There's no question that they have
topflight representation in this state."
Lurking behind such statements of respect for the Catholic
Conference is also a measure of fear. "Every legislative district in the state
has a sizable Catholic community," said Thomas Needles, a Voinovich aide
specializing in non-public school issues. "Their constituency is important to
virtually every legislator, and the members of the General Assembly are
responsive to the issues that are important to the Catholic Conference," he
said.
"We have a very well-organized grassroots network," chief lobbyist
Tim Pond said. "Our parents and families are very good about responding to
requests for help, such as letters and phone calls. We can generate thousands
of letters. In fact, some legislators have said to us, 'Please, don't send me
any more letters. I get it.' "
None of this political capital, however, has been expended on the
issue of justice in public education. Indeed, House Speaker Davidson said the
only contact she's had with Catholic lobbyists connected to the DeRolph
case has been their argument that any increases in public school funding should
be matched by commensurate increases in non-public school dollars.
Sitting this one out
Why is the church sitting this one out? Archbishop Daniel
Pilarczyk, chair of the bishops conference in Ohio, declined to be interviewed
for this story, but Timothy Luckhaupt, executive director of the Catholic
Conference, provided several answers.
First, he suggested the time has never been right for the church
to speak out. "In this whole issue that's upon us right now, prior to this
court case, I don't envision any time when the church should have come out and
said something about public education," he said.
Although reluctant to publicly challenge the Catholic church,
those involved with the DeRolph litigation have a hard time with the
notion that the moment has never been right to say something. "Anytime between
December of 1991, when the case was filed, until this issue is ultimately
resolved would be an appropriate time," said Phillis of the coalition that
initiated the lawsuit. In fairness, Phillis stressed that other religious
groups, and even some in the education community, have not provided vocal
support either, nor has he solicited any help from the Catholic community.
Luckhaupt also argues that Catholic involvement in the issue might
be inappropriate, given the religious sentiments of some of the school
districts involved, particularly those in areas of Appalachia. "The Catholic
church in some of those areas is feared, is almost thought of as something
that's evil," he said.
Patrick Timmins disagrees. A Catholic with a long record of
involvement in church affairs in Ohio, Timmins is an attorney in Columbus who
filed an amicus curiae brief in the DeRolph case on behalf of a
coalition of Appalachian schools. "There are Roman Catholic families living in
those areas. Due to economic factors, the church has decided that it cannot
operate schools there. It should come out in strong support of public education
for that reason alone.
"Those people are looking for support for their public schools.
They would gladly accept help from anyone reaching out to them."
Luckhaupt, on the other hand, argued that church involvement
"would be really resented by a lot of the public education groups" that would
say, " 'What are you guys doing in here? You've got your own schools.' "
That assessment was disputed by Michael Cherney of the Cleveland
Teachers Union. "Only the most bitter, resentful types would have that
reaction," he said. "The vast majority of public school educators would welcome
their involvement on behalf of equity and justice."
Other observers suggested a more crassly political interpretation
of the Catholic Conference's silence on public education issues. Speaking off
the record, several legislators said the Catholic Conference was so closely
allied with the Voinovich administration, it was unlikely to embarrass him by
denouncing a system he has spent so much energy defending. On an even more
basic level, the church might fear a legislative backlash to the effect that if
the public schools need so much help, maybe some of it could come from the
non-public budget. "The attitude may be, 'If somehow you're going to side with
public education, then you don't need to have us tooting the horn for Catholic
education,' " Espy said. "That's just reality."
While admitting the possibility of backlash, Superintendent of
Public Instruction John Goff dismissed it as a serious threat. "I'm not telling
you that such an idea wouldn't be brought up by someone, but I don't think that
would prevail," he said. Espy questioned whether such political calculations
should even be part of the church's thinking on the issue. "It may be a
legitimate concern in this present environment, but I believe the Catholic
church should not be thinking politically. I think the Catholic church has to
think morally all the time, and this is a moral issue," Espy said.
And if the church were to speak out, said state Sen. Shoemaker,
the consequences would be significant. "Are you kidding me?" he said. "You get
the Catholic church stepping up, and everybody in the General Assembly would
know a new day has dawned on this issue," he said.
Luckhaupt was less convinced of the influence of the Catholic
lobby. "I just don't know why, if we were to speak out on that issue, it would
change the hearts and minds of anyone," he said.
Will the church speak out now, given the urgency of the Supreme
Court decision? Luckhaupt said it was possible. "I would think that there will
be some opportunity for the church to speak out in some way, shape or form," he
said. Still, it all depends on how the church's interests are affected. "The
program the legislature comes up with could cut non-public school funding,
which would mean that we would obviously have to take a position against that
type of measure," he said.
Jeanie DeRolph, Nathan's mother and a former Catholic school
teacher, summarized the argument in favor of Catholic attention to the needs of
public education. "Unless you're going to live in a vacuum, you're effected by
this issue. You have to be concerned about everybody's children. Catholic or
not, private school or not, they're all our kids."
National Catholic Reporter, June 20,
1997
|