By Spencer Hunt
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS - Saying "we have changed our collective mind," the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out its own tentative approval of the state's latest school funding system and ordered lawmakers to try again.

While the 4-3 decision demands a new legislative plan that would require millions more for public schools, it does nothing to force the General Assembly to act. Instead of setting a new deadline to make changes, the justices decided to end their control of the case.

WHAT'S NEXT

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the way the state legislature funds public schools is unconstitutional because it favors rich schools over poor ones. It ordered the legislature to devise a new funding method but gave no deadlines and relinquished jurisdiction over the case. Gov. Bob Taft says that with the 81 percent increase in money the state has poured into schools since the court case was filed in 1991, he considers the system to be constitutional. Justice Paul Pfeifer, who wrote the majority decision, disagreed with the governor and said the ruling was explicit. The coalition of schools that brought the case says the decision means the legislature must come up with a new plan. Mr. Taft says he will continue to work with the legislature next year to ensure what he considers adequate funding for schools. Critics of school funding may eventually file a new lawsuit to challenge levels of spending. Gov. Taft's lieutenant governor, Maureen O'Connor, will be a justice next year, which could change the court's balance of power.

HOW THEY RULED

Here is how the Ohio Supreme Court broke down in deciding 4-3 that the state school-funding method was unconstitutional: Majority Justice Paul Pfeifer Justice Alice Robie Resnick Justice Andrew Douglas Justice Francis Sweeney Minority Chief Justice Thomas Moyer Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton Justice Deborah Cook

That led Gov. Bob Taft and Senate President Richard Finan R-Evendale, to declare the 11-year-old school funding lawsuit officially over. Both said a $1.4 billion funding fix and a $10 billion school construction plan passed more than a year ago are constitutional unless a future court rules otherwise in a new lawsuit.

"They dismissed the case," Mr. Finan said. "It's over."

That mystified Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, who wrote the court's majority opinion. He said there should be no doubt lawmakers are under orders to draft a new plan.

"What part of `unconstitutional' do they not understand?" Justice Pfeifer said. "I'm just amazed. I find that astounding. I don't know how you could write it any more plainly or succinctly."

Even Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, the decision's biggest dissenter, agreed the court called for a new plan.

"Certainly, four votes declared it unconstitutional," Justice Moyer said.

Also angered were leaders of the coalition of schools suing the state, who saw the ruling as their third major victory. The Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy in School Funding says the high court agrees lawmakers haven't done enough to narrow the gap between Ohio's rich and poor schools and end the reliance on property taxes.

"Clearly, the mandate for a complete, systematic overhaul of school funding has now been reiterated by the Supreme Court," said Nicholas Pittner, the coalition's attorney. "It's a final decision and they expect it to be carried out now."

Local school districts say the reliance on property taxes means they have to return to voters every few years to ask for more money to operate schools. And administrators say that when voters defeat levies or bond issues, students suffer because schools have to cut back on teachers, textbooks, supplies and custodians.

"We do believe the current system, which relies too heavily on property taxes, is unconstitutional," said C. Scott Romans, general counsel for Cincinnati Public Schools.

"There's absolutely no way that we can ascertain what solutions will be devised by the general assembly to meet the court's decision," Mr. Romans said.

This decision is only the latest twist to a case that's taken several recent bizarre turns. At stake are literally billions of dollars the state spends every year to help pay for public schools.

In September 2001 the high court ruled the state's school funding system would be constitutional if lawmakers made specific changes to a $1.4 billion reform plan. That plan was intended to raise all schools' funding levels to $4,949 per student this school year.

Justices later admitted they had vastly miscalculated the cost of those changes, which would have required an additional $1.2 billion a year.

When Mr. Taft asked the high court to reconsider its decision, the justices ordered the state and the coalition into settlement talks. Those talks went nowhere.

The case remained in limbo for months while the court searched for a new majority to resolve the case.

Instead of ordering a new set of solutions, Wednesday's decision reverses course and vacates the September ruling. It declares the school funding system unconstitutional because lawmakers still haven't found a way to reduce schools' dependence on property taxes.

With property taxes as their main source of funding, Ohio school districts are split between property-poor and property-rich districts. Some wealthy schools can spend over three times more per student than their poor neighbors.

"The General Assembly has not focused on the core constitutional directive of `a complete systematic overhaul' of the school-funding system," Justice Pfeifer wrote. "Today we reiterate that that is what is needed, not further nibbling at the edges."

Past rulings kept the case at the high court, requiring lawmakers to return and defend their work. This decision puts an end to that practice, and simply assumes lawmakers will do what they're told.

"It's very direct and straightforward," Justice Pfeifer said in an interview.

Mr. Taft and Mr. Finan said they believe the high court's decision takes the case back to a May 2000 ruling that ordered the state to come up with a plan by July 1, 2001.

They say the $1.4 billion school funding plan lawmakers passed to meet that deadline hasn't been addressed by this court.

"I continue to believe with the changes we've made pursuant to DeRolph I and DeRolph II, Ohio has a constitutional system of funding our schools," Mr. Taft said, using the title of the lawsuit, which is named for its lead plaintiff, Perry County student Nathan DeRolph.

Both leaders also questioned whether four justices really declared the new system unconstitutional. Mr. Taft pointed to a separate opinion written by Justice Andrew Douglas, which states that he concurs "only in the judgment of the majority." Mr. Finan and Mr. Taft said that means only three justices are calling for a new overhaul.

Chief Justice Moyer disagreed with that assessment, but he also criticized the majority for failing to offer any solutions.

"The majority has yet to define what it means by `overreliance on property tax' and Ohio's policymakers are left to wonder," he wrote in his dissent. "The infusion of billions of additional dollars into the public school system of this state in the last 10 years, as demonstrated in the record before us, constitutes significantly more than `nibbling' at the edges or elsewhere."

The state has increased funding for primary and secondary schools by 81 percent since 1992, from $3.6 billion to $6.5 billion this year.

Justice Moyer`s dissent offers lawmakers guidelines to change the plan that would make it constitutional. Without those changes, he said, the majority has merely set the stage for a new school funding lawsuit to be filed. The outcome of a new suit could be quite different, because Justice Douglas is retiring and will be replaced by Mr. Taft's lieutenant governor, Maureen O'Connor.

Justice Alice Robie Resnick, a member of the majority, agreed that a new lawsuit may well be filed, writing: "History shows the General Assembly has never mounted a concerted effort to fix the school funding crisis."

She encouraged Ohioans to consider amending the state constitution in a way that would force lawmakers to fund schools at appropriate levels.

Mount Healthy Schools don't hold out much hope for a change that would help the chronically underfunded district.

"Obviously, we're pleased that they settled, seemingly, in our favor, but having gone through this three times already and they never fixed it, I seriously doubt we're going to be looking at a fix in the near future," said Rebecca Brooks, Mount Healthy's treasurer.

Enquirer reporters Jennifer Mrozowski, Cindy Kranz, Nathan Leaf and Gannett News Service reporter Jim Siegel contributed to this report.