Education Amendment Sec. (D) -(E): GSM

Follow along as I read out loud.

Sections (D)(3)-(4) and (E) are where the amendment gets financial on us. After the State Board of Education determines the components of a quality education in (D)(2), it then does another study in (D)(3) to determine how much those components cost.

This two-part approach – determine the components of a quality education, then determining how much they cost – directly responds to one of the central concerns the Supreme Court had in the DeRolph case. The Court found that Ohio’s education funding was residual. That is, the state figured out about how much it had to spend on education and that’s what it spent.

Residual funding, by the way, can be quite the exercise. The State funds schools using a per-pupil formula, with various add-ons and multipliers mixed in. To engage in residual funding, the State presumably figures out how much they have, runs the formula backwards to figure out what that comes to on a per-pupil basis, sets the per-pupil or foundation amount and tinkers with the variables, then the whole thing runs forward and you have a school system.

The two-part approach in (D)(2)-(3) tries to get away from all that. There is something to be said for determining what makes a high-quality education independent of cost consideration. One of the strengths of the AWNN is the requirement that the state cost out what is needed for schools.

Next, (D)(4) which basically says that the General Assembly can’t stop the School Facilities program.

Section (E) says as much as you are going to get about how this is funded. The General Assembly must deposit in the Education Trust Fund money enough to fund what the Department of Education has determined constitutes a high quality education. The only funding mechanism identified is the one already in place – net proceeds from the Lottery. Aside from that, it’s up to the GA to come up with the money.

All this is why critics of the proposal say the amendment has no cap. In fact, the proponents concede – nay celebrate – the fact. They even graphically represent it. I’ve reproduced art from a page on the website which they use to illustrate the effect of the amendment. In converting the image from .gif to .jpeg, my software made it look more reasonable by creating discrete gradients. Check out the original where the top of the post-amendment graph dissolves effervescently into the heavens.

The difficulty facing the framers is that a specific budget cap arguably doesn’t really belong in a Constitution. Constitutions are for procedures and principles. Budget figures belong in budget bills. But it’s a challenge to proponents of this amendment to reassure voters that the state can sustain amount of spending the amendment will require. (And it will be a challenge to explain why they shy away from budget specific figures for K-12 education when they get specific on other areas.)

Once this thing is in effect, it’s an open question what a court would do if the General Assembly just said, “Eh,” and refused to fully fund the Education Trust Fund. It’s hard to imagine any court, much less the one we have now, ordering a legislature to impose a tax. Theoretically, a court could order deposits into the Fund, but what if all the revenue streams are already encumbered? The bottom line – there does come a point where the legislature is still the legislature.