DALE R. DeROLPH, Parent and Next Friend of NATHAN DeROLPH RANDY MISKELL NORTHERN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FINDINGS OF FACT, BOARD OF EDUCATION CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER AND MEMORANDUM J. KENNETH MILLER, a Member of CASE NO. 22043 the Northern Local School District Board of Education STEVEN JOHNSON, Superintendent of the Northern Local School District KEELY THOMPSON, Parent and Next Friend of CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, a Minor JOSEPH WINNENBERG SOUTHERN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION LOUIS ALTIER, a Member of the Southern Local School District Board of Education CAROL SPANGLER, Superintendent of the Southern Local School District DONNA BLANKENSHIP, Parent and Next Friend of JAMI BLANKENSHIP MARK SEMANCO DAWSON-BRYANT LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION CARL SWARTZWELDER, a Member of the Dawson-Bryant Local School District Board of Education WAYNE WHITE, Superintendent of the Dawson-Bryant Local School District DAVID BOWERS, Parent and Next Friend of ANDREW BOWERS, a Minor CHRISTOPHER BOWERS, a Minor JON CARVER LIMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION JAMES EATON, a Member of the Lima City School District Board of Education CHARLES BUROKER, Superintendent of the Lima City School District Board of Education MARION GARY SOUTHERS, Parent and Next Friend of SHERRI SOUTHERS, a Minor BRIAN SOUTHERS. a Minor ROBERT RIOS YOUNGSTOWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION SOCRATES KOLITSOS, a Member of the Youngstown City School District Board of Education and EMANUAL CATSOULES, Superintendent of the Youngstown City School District Board of Education PLAINTIFFS VS . STATE OF OHIO c/o Attorney General of Ohio STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OHIO TED SANDERS, Superintendent of Public Instruction and OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION This action at bar was heard by the undersigned Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Perry County at New Lexington, Ohio commencing October 25, 1993 and concluding December 8, 1993. Nicholas A. Pittner, John F. Birath, Jr., Sue Wyskiver Yount and Michael D. Smith appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Attorney General Lee Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Christopher Culley, Mark A. Vander Laan, Joel S. Taylor, William M. Mattes and David K. Mullen represented the Defendants. A Brief of Amici Curiae was filed by Kimball H. Carey on behalf of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators and Ohio School Boards Association. TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT I. STIPULATIONS II. BIOGRAPHIES OF WITNESSES III. THE ENTITLEMENT TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PUBLIC EDUCATION IN OHIO AND THE ADMITTED INEQUITIES IN THE PROVISION OF ENTITLED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IV. THE HISTORY OF SCHOOL FUNDING IN OHIO A. HISTORY OF OHIO'S PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING SYSTEM B. EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF THE STATE BUDGET C. THE IMPACT OF STATE BUDGET REDUCTIONS ON PUBLIC EDUCATION D. BUDGET AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM A. THE FOUNDATION FORMULA B. STATE BASIC AID C. THE RELIABILITY OF STATE FUNDING AND FORM SF-12 D. GUARANTEE PROVISIONS E. CATEGORICAL FUNDING F. SPECIAL EDUCATION UNIT FUNDING. G. VOCATIONAL UNIT FUNDING H. DPIA I. LOCAL REVENUE 1. PROPERTY CLASSIFICATIONS AND TAX ASSESSMENT 2. HOUSE BILL 920 AND TAX REDUCTION FACTORS 3. OPERATION OF THE TWENTY MILL FLOOR OF TAX RATE REDUCTION 4. OTHER TYPES OF TAX LEVIES AVAILABLE TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 5. SCHOOL DISTRICT INCOME AND ITS EFFECT ON LOCAL REVENUE 6. LOCAL TAX LEVIES 7. LOCAL TAX EFFORT 8. THE EFFECT OF LOCAL TAX ABATEMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS, ZONING LAWS AND ECONOMIC CLIMATE J. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE DISPARITIES THROUGHOUT K. FEDERAL FUNDS L. EQUITY FUNDS M. STUDY PERFORMED BY HOWARD FLEETER N. LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION WILLIAM PHILLIS O. EQUITY STATISTICS AS RELATED TO ANALYSES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING IN OHIO VI. FINANCIAL DISTRESS: THE RESULT OF OHIO'S SCHOOL FUNDING SYSTEM A. SCHOOL CLOSINGS FOR LACK OF FUNDS PROHIBITED B. FINANCIAL DISTRESS IN THE PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS VII. SCHOOL DISTRICT BORROWING A. THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE B. SPENDING RESERVE LOANS C. THE OPERATION OF THE EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM D. MANDATORY REDUCTIONS IN SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES E. THE MAGNITUDE OF BORROWING UNDER THE EMERGENCY SCHOOL ADVANCEMENT LOAN PROGRAM F. TRENDS IN BORROWING G. SPECIFIC LOAN DISTRICTS, INCLUDING PLAINTIFFS H. RECEIVERSHIP VIII. FACILITIES A. GENERAL B. CLASSROOM FACILITIES ACT, OHIO REVISED CODE CHAPTER 3318 C. EMERGENCY SCHOOL REPAIRS PROGRAM D. 1990 OHIO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FACILITIES SURVEY E. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER ABATEMENT F. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT G. FACILITIES IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS H. FACILITIES IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPARED TO PLAINTIFFS I. STATE INACTION IX. EDUCATIONAL INPUTS A. CLASS SIZE AND STAFFING RATIOS OVERVIEW CLASS SIZE AND STAFFING RATIOS IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS B. PAY SCALES AND RECRUITING OF STAFF OVERVIEW PAY SCALES AND RECRUITING OF STAFF IN PLAINTIFF DISTRICTS C. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING D. TEACHER CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING E. CURRICULA MODEL CURRICULA CURRICULA IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPARISONS OF THE SCIENCE CURRICULA IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS F. GUIDANCE SERVICES OVERVIEW GUIDANCE SERVICES IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS G. EXTRACURRICULAR OFFERINGS IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS OVERVIEW H. BOOKS, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS OVERVIEW I. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION J. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW TECHNOLOGY IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS X. MINIMUM STANDARDS A. MINIMUM STANDARDS EVALUATIONS THROUGHOUT OHIO PRE-1983 STANDARDS B. MINIMUM STANDARDS IN PLAINTIFF DISTRICTS XI. EDUCATIONAL OUTPUTS A. OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION B. PROFICIENCY TESTS C. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES AND PERFORMANCE ON PROFICIENCY TESTS AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS D. TESTING IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS E. DROPOUT RATES, GRADUATION RATES, AND NON- ATTENDANCE F. EXCELLENT AND DEFICIENT SCHOOLS G. EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS PROGRAM H. PARTICIPATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION I. EDUCATION 2000 GOALS XII. SPECIAL EDUCATION A. STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SERVICES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PUPILS B. FUNDING FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION C. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF OHIO (OSEP REPORT) D. STATE REVIEW OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS E. SERVICES TO SPECIAL EDUCATION PUPILS IN THE SEOSERRC REGION F. SERVICES TO AND FUNDING FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PUPILS IN PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS G. SERVICES TO SPECIAL EDUCATION PUPILS IN HIGH AND LOW CAPACITY DISTRICTS AND COMPARISONS TO PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS H. PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION I. SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATIVE MANDATES XIII. UNSERVED PUPILS A. CHAPTER PROGRAMS B. PRESCHOOL EDUCATION C. HEAD START D. SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE E. KINDERGARTEN F. GIFTED EDUCATION G. CHILDREN FROM LOW INCOME FAMILIES AND PUPILS ON ADC H. FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH I. AT RISK CHILDREN J. THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE INNER DISTRICTS K. RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONSIDERATIONS XIV. TRANSPORTATION A. OPERATION B. BUS PURCHASES C. TRANSPORTATION OF HANDICAPPED PUPILS XV. LOCAL CONTROL A. UNFUNDED MANDATES B. THE EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM C. LOAN PROGRAM AND RECEIVERSHIP DISTRICTS D. PLAINTIFF SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE LOCAL CONTROL XVI. THOROUGH AND EFFICIENT CLAUSE XVII. EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY A. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED IN OHIO B. DR. ALEXANDER'S CURRICULUM STUDY C. PLAINTIFF DAWSON-BRYANT COMPARED WITH THE BEACHWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT D. PLAINTIFF NORTHERN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPARED WITH GRANVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT E. PLAINTIFF SOUTHERN LOCAL COMPARED TO RICHMOND HEIGHTS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WORTHINGTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT F. PLAINTIFF YOUNGSTOWN COMPARED WITH THE MAYFIELD HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT XIII. FUNDAMENTALITY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. THE PARTIES II. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE III. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND THE EFFECTS THEREOF ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE IV. HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS V. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AND DECLARES MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT I. STIPULATIONS The parties filed final Joint Stipulations of Fact with the Court on October 1, 1993. During the course of trial on November 29, 1993, the parties supplemented those Stipulations. This Court hereby incorporates the Final Joint Stipulations of Fact, including the Exhibits thereto, into these Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. II. BIOGRAPHIES OF WITNESSES 1. Kern Alexander Dr. Alexander is a Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, and he has held that position since 1988. Previous to that, he served as president of Western Kentucky University, an institution of approximately 15,000 pupils where he served for a period of three years. Dr. Alexander was a full professor at the University of Florida where he taught school finance for approximately 18 years. During that time, he also served as Associate Director of the National Education Finance Project, and while on leave from the University, coordinated the education budget for the State of Florida from 1982 to 1985. Dr. Alexander holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Center College in Danville, Kentucky; a Master of Arts Degree from Western Kentucky University; a Doctor of Education Degree from Indiana University; and a Diploma in Educational Studies from the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. Prior to his college teaching, Dr. Alexander worked on a study of Kentucky school finance before joining the U.S. Department of Education where he served for approximately two years. Dr. Alexander also founded the Journal of Education Finance and served as its chief editor for approximately 18 years. The journal is a national publication and generally considered to be one of the leading publications dedicated to the field of school finance. In addition, Dr. Alexander has edited or authored 20 books on the subject of school law and school finance. One of his publications, American Public School Law, published in 1992, is used as a textbook in graduate schools and universities around the country, as well as some law schools around the country. Dr. Alexander has also published numerous articles on topics related to school law and school finance, including an article in the Harvard Journal of Legislation reviewing the decision in the Kentucky school funding case. In addition to his work in Ohio, Dr. Alexander has conducted studies of funding systems in the States of Tennessee, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Indiana, Utah, and others. He testified in the Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Montana funding cases. (Alexander Tr. 3584-605; Resume is Pl. Exh. 303) 2. Louis Altier Louis Altier is a graduate of the schools in Perry County. He is President of the Southern Local Board of Education, where he has served for 22 years. He is Chairman of the Board of the Corning Bank, and is President of Altier Brothers, an oil and gas company. He is a life-long resident of Perry County, Ohio. (Altier Tr. 1287-88, 91) 3. Stanley J. Aronoff Stanley J. Aronoff is President of the Ohio Senate. Senator Aronoff was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives in 1960. After serving three terms in the House, he was elected to, and began serving in, the Senate in 1967, and has served continually in the Senate since that time. Currently, Senator Aronoff is Chairman of the Rules Committee, is Chair of the Legislative Service Commission, is a member of the Legislative Budget Office, and is an ex-officio member of every other Senate committee. Senator Aronoff also has served as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee for six years, and was ranking minority leader on that Committee for two years. Senator Aronoff served on the Gilmore Cupp Committee pertaining to school equity. He also served on the Education 2000 Commission under Governor Celeste. (Aronoff Tr. 4805-10) 4. Craig Axline Craig Axline is a guidance counselor, teacher and coach at Plaintiff Southern Local School District, where he has been employed for seventeen years. Mr. Axline teaches math, advanced math and advanced math II in the eleventh and twelfth grades. Mr. Axline coached girls' volleyball and girls' basketball. Mr. Axline graduated from Sheridan High School, received a Bachelor of Science in Education from Ohio University in 1975, holds a Master's degree in Math Education. Mr. Axline holds teaching certifications in guidance and mathematics. (Axline Depo. 4-10) 5. Jamie Blankenship Jamie Blankenship, a Plaintiff student, was enrolled in the 8th grade at the Intermediate School and prior to that, attended the Deering Elementary School in the 1992-93 school year, and before that attended the Deering Elementary School. Both schools are in the Dawson-Bryant Local School District. (J. Blankenship Depo. 4) 6. Keri Blankenship Keri Blankenship, a student Plaintiff witness, was a seventh grade student at Dawson-Bryant Intermediate School in the 1992-93 school year, and attended kindergarten through sixth grade at the Deering Elementary School in the Dawson-Bryant School District. Keri is a handicapped child and has an Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.). (K. Blankenship Depo. 4-5; 19). 7. Charles Brown Charles Brown is the Assistant Director, Division of School Finance, directing the School Management Assistance section of the Ohio Department of Education. He has held that position since July of 1989. Prior to that, he worked as an area coordinator for the Department from 1987 to July of 1989. Prior to coming to the Department of Education, Mr. Brown served as Superintendent of schools and as a teacher. Mr. Brown received his bachelor of science from Marietta College in 1955 and his masters in 1985 from Ohio University. He did post master's work at Capital University. 8. Gregory Browning Gregory R. Browning is Director, Office of Budget and Management for the State of Ohio. The OBM is a cabinet level agency. He was appointed by Governor George Voinovich. In addition, he is Senior Policy Advisor for Governor Voinovich and, as such, works closely with the Governor and staff in developing and refining policy agenda and initiatives that are important to the Voinovich administration. The Office of Budget and Management is responsible for the financial management of state government. It is specifically required to put forward, biennially, a state budget and capital budget. (Browning Tr. 4360,4390) 9. Charles Buroker Dr. Charles Buroker is the superintendent of the Lima City School District. He has been employed in that position since 1988. Dr. Buroker received his bachelors degree from Bluffton College in mathematics in 1965, his masters in guidance and counseling from Bowling Green State University in 1968, and his doctorate in higher educational administration in 1976. Dr. Buroker has co-authored a number of articles in the field of education, including the development of a strategic planning model, as well as articles dealing with alternative high school models. In addition to his superintendency, he serves on the board of the Northwest Ohio Educational Television Council, the Northwest Ohio Educational Research Council, and committees serving Bluffton College and The Ohio State University educational programs. Prior to assuming the superintendency of the Lima City School District, Dr. Buroker taught mathematics and coached for a number of years. He served as assistant principal at the Franklin Heights High School in the South-Western City School District, and later as superintendent of the Bluffton City School District. In 1983, Dr. Buroker served as superintendent of the Shawnee Local School District in Allen County (a suburb of Lima), prior to his becoming superintendent of the Lima City School District in 1988. (Buroker Tr. 2866-69). 10. Charles Dilbone Charles (Chuck) Dilbone is employed by the Granville Exempted School Board of Education as principal at Granville High School. From 1987-88 through the 1992-93 school year, he was principal at Sheridan High School in the Northern Local School District. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History from Muskingum College, a Masters in Education Administration from The Ohio State University, and completed course work for a Doctorate in Education Administration at Ohio University. Mr. Dilbone started his professional career at Zanesville High School where he taught history and coached for ten years and then became assistant principal at Zanesville High School for three years before becoming principal at Sheridan High School. (Dilbone Tr. 1984-86) 11. Betty Drummond Betty Drummond is Assistant Director for Standards and Evaluations at the Ohio Department of Education. She has been employed by the Department of Education since 1979, and she has served the Standards and Evaluations Division as both a minimum standards consultant and as Assistant Director. Ms. Drummond holds a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from The Ohio State University and a master's in middle childhood education. In her employment with the Ohio Department of Education, Ms. Drummond was involved with school district evaluations under both the pre-1983 minimum standards and the current 1983 minimum standards. She was also involved in overseeing evaluations under the 1983 minimum standards. Ms. Drummond is currently a member of the committee which is reviewing and revising the 1983 minimum standards. (Drummond Depo. 1-9, 36, 176). 12. James Eaton James Eaton is a member of the Board of Education of the Lima City School District, where he has served for six years. Mr. Eaton is the Assistant Vice President, Manager of Private Banking for the Huntington National Bank in Lima, Ohio. Mr. Eaton graduated from Lima Senior High School and attended The Ohio State University for three years before entering the Air Force in 1964. (Eaton Depo. 4-7) 13 Howard Fleeter Howard Bruce Fleeter is employed by The Ohio State University as an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy and Management. He was in his fourth year of that employment during his initial deposition on February 25, 1993. Dr. Fleeter completed his bachelor's degree at Northwestern University in economics and spent six years at Berkeley where he completed his Ph.D in Public Finance in May of 1990. In spring of 1991, a representative of the Governor's office contacted the director of the School of Public Policy with regard to conducting a study of school funding in Ohio. Dr. Fleeter was involved in those discussions which resulted in a proposal for such a study to be submitted and approved. The study, funded by a grant from the Cleveland Foundation, took place over the summer and fall of 1991 and resulted in a written report to the Governor's Education Management Council (Fleeter Depo. Exh. B) submitted in November, 1992. Dr. Fleeter has since been retained by the Department of Education for work on additional projects. (Fleeter Vol. 1, 522) 14. Hazel Flowers Hazel Flowers is the Director of the Ohio Department of Education, Division of Equal Educational Opportunities. She has been employed by the Ohio Department of Education for nineteen years as a consultant, an Assistant Director in the Division of Equal Educational Opportunities, and in her current position. Ms. Flowers holds a bachelor's degree in elementary education from The Ohio State University, a master's in administration and supervision from Xavier University and a Doctorate of Education Administration from Ohio State. Ms. Flower's duties include consulting school districts on race desegregation issues, administration of state and federal programs regarding race and equal educational opportunity, and the administration of Ohio's Effective Schools Program. (Flowers Depo. 6-12, 159). 15. Jimmy Fortune Jimmy Fortune is a professor of research and evaluation at Virginia Tech University where he has been employed for over twenty years. Dr. Fortune obtained his Masters Degree in Education in 1958 from Memphis State and a Doctorate in Education with a minor in statistics from Stanford University in 1964. He has taught classes both in the public schools and at the college level. At Virginia Tech, Dr. Fortune currently teaches qualitative research, regression analysis, intermediate staff, research design, and evaluation design. Dr. Fortune's curriculum vitae is Pl. Exh. 304. (Fortune Tr. 3455-63) 16. Robert Franklin Robert D. Franklin is Building Assistant Supervisor for the Ohio Department of Education. His duties include assisting school districts in obtaining building assistance from the State of Ohio, monitoring the passage of levies, and overseeing construction pursuant to the Building Assistance Program. He holds an undergraduate degree in Industrial Arts, a minor in physical education and a Masters Degree in vocational and industrial administration. Mr. Franklin has had many years of experience in both teaching in the public schools, training foreign workers in the construction trades, and supervising construction projects, both domestic and international. He has taught teachers who are in the process of obtaining their superintendent certificate at Kent State University, Ashland University and Lake Erie College. The courses he teaches pertain to school facilities, including the Building Assistance Program and its operations, eligibility for that program, the condition of school facilities, school safety and funding for construction. (Franklin Depo. 1-24) 17. John Herner John Herner is employed by the Ohio Department of Education as Director of the Division of Special Education and has been since February 1992. (Herner Depo. 42) He obtained a bachelor's degree in elementary education in 1960 and a master's degree in 1962 from The Ohio State University. (Herner Depo. 6) 18. Thomas Hill Thomas J. Hill is a member of the Board of Education of Plaintiff Northern Local School District. Mr. Hill has been a board member for 20 years and is a self-employed real estate salesman. Mr. Hill has been a resident of Glenford, Ohio for 40 years, and he graduated from high school in Glenford in 1953. Mr. Hill has been president of Plaintiff Northern Local School District Board of Education four times. (Hill Depo. 4-6) 19. Douglas Hiscox Douglas Hiscox is presently the Assistant Superintendent at Canfield Local School District in Mahoning County, Ohio. At the time he was deposed, Mr. Hiscox was the Assistant Superintendent at Plaintiff Youngstown City School District, where he was employed since 1991. As Assistant Superintendent of Youngstown City School District, Mr. Hiscox was responsible for supervising the administration and assuring that the Youngstown City School Districts objectives with regard to such matters as philosophy, curriculum and building operations were carried out. Mr. Hiscox visited all of the buildings in the Youngstown City School District on a regular basis. Mr. Hiscox graduated from Heidelberg College in 1977 with a Bachelor of Science in education. He received a Masters Degree in secondary education from Youngstown State University in 1981. Mr. Hiscox received his principal certificate in 1982 and his superintendent certificate in 1986. He at the time of his deposition, he was enrolled in a doctoral program at Youngstown State University. Mr. Hiscox taught science to grades 7-12 from 1977 to 1986 in the Strasburg-Franklin Local School District and the East Palestine City School District. He was the high school principal in the Leetonia Exempted Village School District from 1986 to 1988 and superintendent of Leetonia Exempted Village Schools from 1988 until 1991, when he became assistant superintendent of the Youngstown City Schools. (Hiscox Depo. vol 1, pp. 5-9, 22, 24) 20. Jack Hunter Jack Hunter is supervisor of school facilities with the Ohio Department of Education. He is a licensed electrician, plumber, and Class l boiler operator. (Hunter Depo. 5-9). Jack Hunter has visited over 3,000 educational structures within the State of Ohio, including school buildings, bus garages, stadiums, etc. (Hunter Depo. 33) Jack Hunter is the technical assistant consultant for asbestos abatement for the public schools. (Hunter Depo. 136). Jack Hunter has visited the plaintiff school districts and most buildings within each district. (Hunter Depo. 92-105) 21. Christopher Jackson Christopher Jackson was a senior at the Dawson-Bryant High School in the 1992-93 school year. Chris is a student who loves computers, has had a computer at home since he was five years old, and during his senior year was making a project so that students could get accustomed to a bulletin board system and assisted the teacher in writing a program to assist students on the ninth grade sufficiency test. Christopher wants to attend college and major in computer programming. (Jackson Depo. 5, 17, 19-20). 22. Steve Johnson Steve Johnson is the Superintendent of Plaintiff Northern Local School District; he has been Superintendent for seven years. Mr. Johnson is a graduate of Belmont High School in Dayton, Ohio; he received a Bachelor's of Science in Education from Ohio University in 1966, his Master's Degree in Education in 1970, and is currently enrolled in a doctoral program at Ohio University. Throughout his career in education, Mr. Johnson has served as a coach for football, basketball and baseball, assistant principal, high school principal, athletic director, and principal. (Johnson Tr. 1381-84). 23. Socrates Kolitsos Socrates Kolitsos is a member of the Board of Education of Plaintiff Youngstown City School District, where he has served for twelve years. He has been president of the Youngstown Board of Education. Currently, as a member of the Board, he is the Board of Education liaison to the National School Board Association and the chairman of the Vocational Education Committee. Mr. Kolitsos is a life-long resident of Youngstown. Mr. Kolitsos graduated from Rayen High School in the Youngstown City School District in 1962, and he holds a bachelor of arts degree from Youngstown State University. He has taken additional course work at James Madison University in Washington, D.C., University of Akron and Kent State. He also taught at Rayen and East High Schools in the Youngstown City School District. Mr. Kolitsos is currently employed as Director of Marketing and Operations for Professional Health Services in Lorain, Ohio. (Kolitsos Depo. 4-8, 16-17). 24. Marie Lichtenstein Marie Lichtenstein is a first-grade teacher at Plaintiff Southern Local School District. Ms. Lichtenstein has been a teacher at Southern Local for 16 years. Additionally, Ms. Lichtenstein is a Chapter One teacher and a reading recovery teacher. Ms. Lichtenstein is also a member of Plaintiff Southern Local School District's Language Curriculum Development Committee. (Lichtenstein Depo. 4-5, 15). 25. Dewey Lykins Dewey Lykins is employed as the Administrative Assistant in the Scioto County Office of Education. Mr. Lykins holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Rio Grande and a master's degree from Marshall University. He has been employed in the field of education in Ohio as a teacher, elementary school principal, high school principal and superintendent. Immediately preceding his employment with the Scioto County Office of Education, Mr. Lykins was Director of the Appalachian Access and Success Project, which is a grant project funded by the Ohio Board of Regents to examine the factors leading to the low levels of participation of Ohio's appalachian students in higher education. The Appalachian Access and Success Project generated a written report of its findings entitled "Appalachian Access and Success." (Lykins Tr. 2287-91) 26. Carol Marino Carol Ann Marino has been employed by the Youngstown Board of Education since 1969 and is currently an administrator in the area of curriculum and instruction. Dr. Marino graduated from Chaney High School in the Youngstown City School District and obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Science and Education in 1969 and a Master's Degree in Science Education with a Reading Supervisor's K-12 certification in 1974, both from Youngstown State University, and a Ph.D in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Akron in 1987. Dr. Marino taught in the regular classroom and in Chapter I programs and served as Elementary Supervisor beginning in 1979 for eight years, as Director of Personnel for two years, and as Director of Instruction for four years through the 1992-93 school year. Currently, she is the coordinator for the Upper Elementary Learning Centers. Dr. Marino published an article on minimum competencies in The Ohio Reading Teacher, and she had responsibility for implementation of the 1983 minimum standards as Elementary Supervisor from 1979 to 1987. (Marino Tr. 3170-74) 27. Richard Maxwell Richard Maxwell is presently employed by the Buckeye Association of School Administrators as a school finance consultant. He has held that position since April of 1993. Mr. Maxwell has served 31 years in public education, most recently as the Superintendent of the Holmes County Board of Education where he served from 1981 to 1993. Previous to that, he served as the superintendent of the West Holmes Local School District in Holmes County where he served from 1970 to 1981. Prior to his administrative work, Mr. Maxwell taught in a number of school districts in Ohio. Mr. Maxwell completed his Master of Arts in Education work in 1968 at the University of Akron. His graduate advisor was Oliver Ocasek who is presently the President of the State Board of Education. Mr. Maxwell has had extensive involvement in issues regarding the funding of public education in Ohio, having taught school finance and school facilities at Ashland University since 1982. He has also lectured extensively for the State Department of Education on school finance issues. He has also published a school finance newsletter. (Maxwell Tr. 48-51; curriculum vitae is Pl. Exh. 1) 28. Benjamin McGee Benjamin L. McGee is the Director of Pupil Personnel Services at the Youngstown City Schools and is responsible for special education programs, school health services, school attendance services, student accounting and maintenance, at-risk programming, and other areas. Mr. McGee graduated from South High School in Youngstown and obtained a bachelor's degree in education from The Ohio State University in 1972, and a master's degree in education administration from Youngstown State University in 1979, and is presently pursuing a doctorate in educational leadership. Mr. McGee's entire educational career has been at the Youngstown City Schools beginning in 1972. He taught classes, served as school social worker for four years, and served in various principal positions before serving as Supervisor of Special Education Programs and then as Director of Pupil Personnel Services. (McGee Depo. 4-7) 29. Lee McMurrin Lee McMurrin is the Superintendent of the Beachwood City Schools in Beachwood Ohio. At the time of his testimony, Dr. McMurrin was in his seventh year in that position having previously served as Superintendent of the Milwaukee City Schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for slightly more than 12 years. Prior to that, he served as a deputy superintendent of the Toledo City Schools for ten years and previous to that he served as an administrator in the South-Western City Schools in Franklin County, Ohio. Dr. McMurrin, at the time of his testimony, had completed 43 years of service in public education as a teacher and administrator. (McMurrin Tr. 2494-96) 30. John Kenneth Miller John Kenneth (Ken) Miller is a member of the Board of Education of Plaintiff Northern Local School District, where he has served for six years. Mr. Miller also served a two year term as president of the Northern Local Board of Education. Mr. Miller is a self-employed farmer, and he has been in the agribusiness industry for 22 years. He graduated from Sheridan High School in the Northern Local School District in 1970 and entered the agribusiness industry the following year. Mr. Miller currently operates a cash grain operation that involved corn, soybeans and wheat covering over 2,100 acres. In addition, he runs a seed business, where he is solely responsible for all invoicing, sales, inventory control, purchasing and ordering. In addition to his businesses, Mr. Miller is a member of the board of the Federal Land Bank and is involved with the Production Credit Association and the Somerset Bank. Mr. Miller employs computer, accounting and financial skills in his professions. Mr. Miller has three children who have attended or currently attend school in the Northern Local School District: J.B., who graduated from Sheridan High School in 1992, Jodi, who is a junior at Sheridan High School, and Jessie, who is in the sixth grade in a modular unit at the high school/junior high school complex. (Miller Tr. 1602-08) 31. Roger Miller Roger L. Miller is the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel at the Lima City Schools. He is responsible for the entire student discipline program, attendance, special education supervisors, and administrative staff in special education. He is also the hearing officer for student discipline appeals. Mr. Miller is a graduate of Lima Senior High School and obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Elementary Education in 1968 and a Master's Degree in Guidance and Counseling in 1971. Mr. Miller's entire career in education has been with the Lima City Schools, beginning in 1968 teaching junior high special education, and later serving as Associate Principal from 1978 to 1982 and Principal at Lima Senior from 1982 until August 1991, when he became Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel. (Roger Miller Depo. 4-6; 13-16) 32. Cheryl O'Connor Cheryl O'Connor is the guidance counselor for the senior class at Lima High School in Plaintiff Lima City School District. She has been employed for eighteen years by the Lima City School District, and has served in her current position for eight of those years. Prior to becoming senior guidance counselor, Ms. O'Connor taught academic and vocational business. Ms. O'Connor holds a bachelor's degree in comprehensive business education from the University of Toledo and master's degrees in guidance, counseling, and educational administration from the University of Dayton. She holds a permanent teaching certificate, a four year provisional supervisory certificate, a four year provisional administrative certificate and an eight year professional guidance certificate. (O'Connor Tr. 3096-98) 33. Oliver Ocasek Oliver Ocasek is President of the State Board of Education of Ohio, on which there are 11 members. Prior to his election to the State Board of Education, President Ocasek served for 28 years in the Ohio Senate. During his tenure in the General Assembly, he served six years as Leader of the Ohio Senate, and also served as Chairman of the Senate Education Committee. While in the Ohio Senate, President Ocasek considered himself to be an advocate of funding for public education. President Ocasek has a Bachelors and Masters degree in education, and has completed his hours for a PX.D at Case Western Reserve University. In addition, President Ocasek taught high school, and also was principal of Tallmadge High School. He is the recipient of seven honorary doctorate degrees. In addition, for 32 years President Ocasek taught school finance, school law and school construction at the University of Akron. Since becoming a member of the State Board of Education, President Ocasek has visited 62 school districts. (Ocasek Tr. 2777-83, 2786) 34. Peggy Papritan Peggy Lynn Papritan has been the principal at Glenford Elementary in the Northern Local Schools for seven years. Ms. Papritan obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Elementary Education in 1975 and a Master's Degree in Curriculum Supervision, with a concentration in children's literature and writing in 1983, both from The Ohio State University. She holds certifications in elementary education, gifted education, K-12 curriculum,supervision K-12, and elementary principal. She began her career in education as a Title I (now Chapter I) reading teacher at Lancaster City Schools, taught language arts in the Southwest Licking Local Schools, and was enrichment coordinator at the Granville Exempted Village Schools. She is a member of various professional organizations and has served in leadership positions of those organizations. (Papritan Tr. 1913-15) 35. Jimmy J. Payton Dr. Jimmy J. Payton is the Assistant Director of the Policy Research and Analysis Office at the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), and is the most senior member of the Simulation Unit within that office. (Payton Tr. 4882-83; 4911) Dr. Payton received a Bachelor's Degree from Otterbein College in 1969, a Master's Degree in Economics in 1971, and a Ph.D. in Educational Research and Development with a concentration in School Administration and School Finance in 1980 both from The Ohio State University. (Payton Tr. 4881) Dr. Payton was employed from 1971-73 at the Ohio Department of Taxation as a Tax Economist. For two to three years in the late 1970s, Dr. Payton was a consultant with the Education Review Committee of the Ohio General Assembly and worked on developing different approaches to improving the school finance formula and analyzing the results of different proposals regarding an income factor and a cost of doing business factor for school funding. (Payton Tr. 4881; Payton Depo. 10) From 1977 to 1981, Dr. Payton was employed by ODE as director of the State-Wide Student Needs Assessment Program. (Payton Tr. 4881-82) Since October 1989, Dr. Payton has been employed by ODE as a Research Consultant. (Payton Depo. 13) Dr. Payton's current responsibilities include school finance research, simulations of proposed legislation relating to school finance and school finance reform in the state legislature, and simulations of various proposals that Dr. Ted Sanders, members of the state board, and school superintendents may request. Dr. Payton also assists in formulating the State Board of Education's budget requests and does simulations of various budget proposals for the legislature. (Payton Tr. 4832-83) 36. William Phillis William Phillis is presently employed as an adjunct professor of school finance and school administration at Ashland University. He is also employed as the Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, an organization of some 500 Ohio school districts supporting reform in school funding. Prior to assuming his position with the Coalition, Dr. Phillis served as Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction from August 2, 1976 to April 13, 1992. In that capacity, he was responsible for a wide range of duties including responsibility for administration of the Classroom Facilities Act and served as liaison to the Ohio General Assembly and the State Board of Education. As Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Phillis was in contact with virtually every city, local, exempted village, and joint vocational school district in the state. His contact included both telephone communications as well as travel to the districts. During the 16 year period, he traveled nearly 1/2 million miles to various school districts in the state. (Phillis Tr. 1667-68) Dr. Phillis has served a total of 36 years in public education including service as a teacher and later principal at the Southeastern High School in Ross County, Superintendent of the Minford local School District in Scioto County, County Superintendent for Columbiana County and later, Superintendent of the Joint Vocational School as well. In addition to his service to public education, Dr. Phillis serves as vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Valley College in Parkersburg, West Virginia, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Midwestern Children's Home, and as President of the Board of Fort Hill Christian Youth Camp in southern Ohio. Dr. Phillis is the recipient of numerous honors and awards including commendations from both the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate. (Phillis Tr. 1654-68) 37. Edna Pincham Edna Pincham is Vice President of the Board of Education of the Youngstown City School District, where she has served since 1984. She has also served as Board President. Ms. Pincham holds an associate's degree from Youngstown State University. Ms. Pincham is currently employed as Assistant to the Mayor of Youngstown, a position she has held for eight years. She has also been Vice President of the Ohio PTA. (Pincham Depo. 4-13, 56). 38. William Pletcher William Pletcher is a freshman at The Ohio State University. He graduated in June of 1993 from Cardington-Lincoin High School in the Cardington-Lincoin Local School District in Cardington, Ohio. Both Mr. Pletcher and the Cardington-Lincoln Local School District are named plaintiffs in the suit captioned Thompson. et al v. State of Ohio. et al., Case No. C2-91-464, now pending before Judge Holschuh in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. (Pletcher Tr. 263335) 39. Tod Porter Tod Porter is an Associate Professor of Economics at Youngstown State University. He holds both a Ph.D. and Masters in economics from Syracuse University with emphasis in both labor economics and public finance. He has been teaching at Youngstown State since 1984 and his course work includes both graduate courses as well as statistics and principles courses. (Porter Tr. 1049-53) Dr. Porter first became interested in school finance when he did a study of the effects of steel mill closings for the Youngstown City Schools in 1988. That study led to additional analysis of school funding on a statewide basis beginning in 1990. (Porter Tr. 1054-55; Resume is Pl. Exh. ga) 40. David Roach Dr. David Roach is employed by the Washington County Board of Education which serves as fiscal agent for the SEOSERRC (Southeast Ohio Special Education Regional Resource Center). Dr. Roach serves as the Director of SEOSERRC and has served in that capacity since 1985. He holds a Bachelor of Arts, Masters of Science and Ph.D degrees from Ohio University. His Doctorate is in the field of educational administration. In addition to his duties as SERRC director, Dr. Roach also teaches special education at Ohio University and has been a regular participant in workshops on issues related to special education. The SEOSERRC is one of 16 statewide regional resource centers, each of which is an agency of the State Department of Education but is governed by a regional board of governors. The SERRC is charged, generally, with the responsibility to provide assessment services to handicapped children, to provide inservice and training seminars in the area of special education, to coordinate the provision of multi-district special education programs, to assist in the evaluation of school district programs for compliance with state and federal program requirements, and to provide assistance to school districts by making available a limited materials library. The SEOSERRC, in addition to Dr. Roach, employs 14 staff members, including eight professionals and six non-certified employees. (Roach Tr. 2666-74; Resume is Pl. Exh. 249) 41. Warren Russell Warren Russell is the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Ohio Department of Education. He hag been employed in that capacity since July 6, 1992. Prior to the most recent employment with the Department of Education Mr. Russell was employed by the Jostens Corp. as Director of Governmental Relations in a division of the corporation that dealt with the development and sale of educational software. In that capacity, he served a 12 state region including Ohio. The software that his division marketed was directed to public and private elementary and secondary schools. From 1982 to 1990, Mr. Russell was Director of Legislative Services and Labor Relations for the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and Ohio organization representing public school superintendents. The Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) is a state affiliate of the American Association of School Administrators. In that position, Mr. Russell was responsible for monitoring and reporting on the progress of legislation dealing with the funding of public schools in Ohio. In the course of that employment, he visited at least half of the 612 public school districts in Ohio. He was also responsible for the presentation of seminars dealing with various aspects of collective bargaining as that process affected school districts in Ohio. Mr. Russell was first employed by the Ohio Department of Education during the period from 1978 to 1982 when he served as a Legislative Liaison, Policy Analyst. In that position, he reported to William L. Phillis, another witness in this case. In that capacity, Mr. Russell was responsible for assisting Dr. Phillis in representing the Department of Education in the legislature. He was also responsible for the information simulation system operated by the Ohio Department of Education. In that capacity, Mr. Russell participated in the development of two biennial education budgets. Prior to joining the Ohio Department of Education, Mr. Russell taught in various public school districts having completed his Bachelor's of Science degree from Bowling Green State University in 1969 and his Master's of Arts Degree in psychology in 1972. Mr. Russell also undertook postgraduate work at Bowling Green following the award of his Master's Degree. (Russell Depo. 5-35) 42. John Theodore (Ted) Sanders Dr. Sanders became Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Ohio on October 1, 1991. He came to Ohio from a position as Under-Secretary of Education for the United States Department of Education where he reported directly to the Secretary of Education. As Under-Secretary of Education he was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the United States Department of Education Before assuming responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education, Dr. Sanders served as Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Illinois, and prior to that, for the State of Nevada (1979 to 1985). Before his state administrative service, Dr. Sanders taught in various public schools and served as Assistant Superintendent for Administration for the State of New Mexico. (Sanders Tr. 274-82) 43. Colleen Sexton Colleen Marie Athens Sexton is an Assistant Professor in Curriculum and Instruction at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, where she teaches science education to future and practicing science teachers. She obtained a degree in biology from Quincy College (Illinois) in 1976; a Master's in Ecology and Conservation from Governor's State University (Illinois) in 1980; and a Ph.D. in Science Education from Ohio University in 1991. She began her teaching career in 1977 as a teacher of high school science. In addition to her duties at Ohio University, she is the Curriculum Director of the Appalachian Distance Learning Project. Dr. Sexton is a member of a number of professional organizations and honorary societies, and has published a number of articles including a recent textbook called "Teaching Science for All Children." Following the publication of "New Dimensions in Science Education," an Ohio Department of Education (ODE) guide for school districts' science curriculum, Dr. Sexton was employed by the ODE to present workshops regarding that publication. In October 1993, Dr. Sexton made a presentation regarding distance learning and read and evaluated technology grants at the request of the ODE. (Sexton Tr. 846-60; 866-68; Resume is Pl. Exh. 93) 44. Kathleen Schindler Kathleen Schindler has been employed by the Ohio Department of Education since 1980 and is currently the Assistant Director of the Division of Special Education. Ms. Schindler obtained a bachelor's degree in speech and hearing therapy from Bowling Green State University in 1964 and a master's degree in guidance and counseling from The Ohio State University in 1977. Ten educational consultants and six support staff report to her, and she reports to Mr. John Herner. (Schindler Depo. 5-7; 9-10) 45. Frank Schiraldi Frank Schiraldi has been employed by the Ohio Department of Education since 1978. He is currently Assistant Director of the Division of Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development. Dr. Schiraldi obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Youngstown University in 1965, a Master of Arts degree in Political Science from Kent State University in 1972, and a Ph.D. from The Ohio State University in Educational Theory and Practice in 1988. Dr. Schiraldi is a member of the Ohio Department of Education Technology Task Force, and authored portions of the State Board of Education's Plan for Technology. Dr. Schiraldi testified before the Court and his deposition taken by Plaintiffs was properly submitted as evidence. (Schiraldi Tr. 5032-33; 5035; Schiraldi Depo. 146) 46. Mark Semanco Mark Semanco is a Plaintiff teacher employed by the Dawson- Bryant Local School District where he has taught high school science since the 1981-82 school year. He obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Biological and General Sciences from Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia in 1980 and a Master's Degree in Biological Science from the same university in 1981. Mr. Semanco has taken post-graduate work in education administration and is certified to teach grades 7 through 12 in chemistry, biology, and general science. (Semanco Depo. 4-6) 47. Michael Shoemaker Michael C. Shoemaker is a State Representative from the 91st District, which includes half of Pickaway County, all of Ross County and all of Vinton County. Representative Shoemaker taught high school level classes at Paint Valley High School, Chillicothe High School, and Unioto High School, and he has held certification for grades 7-12 in mathematics, science, physical education and health. In the field of education, Representative Shoemaker has held the positions of football coach, track coach, basketball coach and athletic director Representative Shoemaker was first elected to the Ohio House of Representatives to represent the 88th District in November of 1982. He has served on the Health & Retirement Committee, the Education Committee, the Public Utilities Committee, the Finance & Appropriations Committee, and the Veteran Affairs Committee. Representative Shoemaker is currently chairman of the Finance & Appropriations Committee. Representative Shoemaker has also served on select committees, including the Public Testing and Competency Committee, the State Medical Board Committee, the Health Maintenance Organization Study Committee, the Select Committee to Review and Study Ohio's Education System and the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee. Representative Shoemaker has chaired the Select Committee to Review and Study Ohio's Education System, and he spends between 65-75 percent of his time as a legislator on education. (Shoemaker Tr. 4049-57; curriculum vitae is Pl. Exh. 308) 48. Carol Spangler Carol Spangler is the Superintendent of the Southern Local School District in Perry County. In 1975, she received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Marshall University in the field of education and speech therapy. In 1976 she received a Master's degree in speech pathology and audiology from the same university. She has taken courses at Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland, in the field of curriculum and supervision and child language and additional course work in curriculum and supervision at Ohio University. She has entered a doctoral program in educational administration at Ohio University, where she has completed course work in school finance, school law, educational administration, curriculum development, curriculum supervision, curriculum change in educational philosophy and history pertaining to curriculum. She has authored student publications as well as two nationwide publications, one for professionals working in the field of speech and language disorders and another regarding curriculum. Carol is a member of two educational honorary societies, belongs to the Association for Supervision of Curriculum Development, is chairperson of the local Educational Media Research Center, and is Vice-Chairman of SEOVEC, a computer consortium that operates shared computer services to school districts and operates as the district's A-site for the state's Education Management Information System (EMIS). She holds an Ohio Superintendent's Certificate, an Ohio Assistant Superintendent's Certificate, an Educational Specialist's Certificate in the area of Special Education or Exceptional Child, and a professional certificate in the area of speech and hearing therapy. Ms. Spangler's professional employment began in the area of special education working with speech disordered children in Annapolis, Maryland from 1976 to 1978. She then returned to Ohio and served one year as a speech/language supervisor for Southeastern Ohio Regional Resource Center (SEORRC). In 1979-80, she served as a speech language pathologist for Meigs County School District. Then at the Federal Hocking Local School District, she held several positions over a number of years, beginning as a speech language pathologist and moving to directing and supervising budgets of the district's special education programs. Around 1985, she became director of curriculum at Federal Hocking and served in that capacity for about five years. As director of curriculum, she was responsible for implementing the 1983 minimum standards, including developing many new courses of study, implementing a competency based testing program, and providing staff development. In 1990-91, she served as middle school principal at Federal Hocking, and she became Superintendent at Southern Local in August 1991. (Spangler Tr. 420-29) Upon becoming Superintendent at Southern Local Schools in 1991, Ms. Spangler undertook a variety of duties, including chief executive officer for the board of education, chief manager of operations such as transportation, food services, personnel, budget development, finance issues, finance monitoring and financial planning, and serving as the district's purchasing agent, reviewing each purchase order. Superintendent Spangler is involved with and makes presentations for staff development. She is responsible for development, monitoring, and compliance for state and federal projects, and she performs grant writing for the district. A major responsibility has been the restructuring of the school district. (Spangler Tr. 429-33) 49. Phyllis Spohn Phyllis Spohn is a second-grade teacher at Plaintiff Northern Local School District, where she has been employed for 23 years. In her 23 years of teaching at Plaintiff Northern Local School District, Ms. Spohn has been a teacher's aide, she has taught 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, and she has taught gifted students in grades 3 through 6. She has taught her entire 23 years at the Glenford Elementary School in Plaintiff Northern Local School District. Ms. Spohn received her bachelor's degree in Elementary Education from Ohio State University, and she is certified in grades 1 through 8 and gifted education. (Spohn Depo. 4-6) 50. Carl Swartzwelder Carl Swartzwelder is a member of the Board of Education of Plaintiff Dawson-Bryant Local School District. Mr. Swartzwelder has been on the Board of Education for four years. Mr. Swartzwelder is also on the Dawson-Bryant Local School District Athletic Board. (Swartzwelder Depo. 6) 51. Susan Tavakolian Susan Tavakolian has been employed by the Ohio Department of Education since January of 1984. She currently holds the position of Director of School Finance, having been appointed to that position when Dr. James Van Keuren was promoted to Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction. Prior to becoming Director of School Finance, Dr. Tavakolian served as legislative liaison between the Department of Education and the legislature. From 1985 to 1989, Dr. Tavakolian was in charge of the Department of Education's simulation unit and took an active role in the development of the Department's state budget proposals. As legislative liaison, she continued to be involved in the budget process but assumed additional responsibilities for other Department of Education legislative positions as well. She reported to William L. Phillis prior to his leaving the department. Dr. Tavakolian holds a Ph.D from the University of Massachusetts and a Masters Degree in public administration from The Ohio State University. (Tavakolian Depo. 5-17) 52. Kenneth Taylor Kenneth Taylor is employed by the Ohio Department of Education as an "Area Coordinator." Mr. Taylor reports to Ray Cook, who reports to Dr. Susan Tavakolian in the Division of School Finance. (Taylor Depo. 52). There are nine Area Coordinators' offices in the state, and two Area Coordinators are generally assigned to each office, but not all positions are filled. (Taylor Depo. 17) Mr. Taylor's office serves Area 5, consisting of Galia, Lawrence, Jackson, Scioto, Pike, Ross, Pickaway, Fayette, Highland, Adams and Brown Counties. The area would be considered an economically depressed area, with very few jobs. Many people leave the area to find employment elsewhere. (Taylor Depo. 51). Mr. Taylor has been employed in that position and has served basically those same counties since 1977. He knows the superintendent and the treasurer in each of the school districts in Area 5 to varying degrees. (Taylor Depo. 16). Mr. Taylor's duties include consulting with superintendents on school finance issues, collecting subsidy data for the School Foundation Program, school transportation work, and some driver's education work. (Taylor Depo. 14) Mr. Taylor received a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture from The Ohio State University, an Education Degree from Rio Grande College with an emphasis in math and science, a Master's Degree in Education Administration from Xavier University, and currently holds a superintendent's certificate. From 1972 to 1977, Kenneth Taylor was employed by the Department of Education as an education consultant, and he read and approved Title 1 projects from approximately 60 school districts scattered across the state. Title 1 was a program of compensatory education for educationally disadvantaged students that has now become the Chapter 1 program. (Taylor Depo. 8-11) 53. Christopher Thompson Christopher Joel Thompson is a Plaintiff Student and a sophomore at Miller High School in the Southern Local School District. (Thompson Tr. 1306-07). Chris was born in 1978, began his first formal schooling at the kindergarten level in 1984, and has attended Southern Local Schools continuously since that date. Chris has attended every school building that has been operated by the Southern Local School District since 1984, except for Moxahala Elementary and the new elementary and middle school facilities opened in the fall of 1993. Chris plans to attend college and would like to study genetics and engineering, with a minor in computer engineering or computer programming. (Thompson Tr. 1352-53) 54. Sue Tobin Susan Gail Tobin is an attorney employed by the Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS) and has been since 1981. OLRS is a state agency that receives state and federal funds to protect and advocate the rights of persons who are, or alleged to be, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or mentally retarded. Ms. Tobin obtained a bachelor's degree from Kenyon College in 1978 and a juris doctorate from The Ohio State University College of Law in 1981. (Tobin Depo. 6; 12-13; Resume is Tobin Depo. Exh. 1) 55. Robert Towner Robert Towner is Athletic Director at Miller High School in Southern Local School District, and Principal of the Middle School. He is a graduate of Corning High School and received a Bachelor's Degree in Education from Ohio University in 1964. In 1971, he obtained a Master's Degree in Secondary School Administration from Ohio University. He is a holder of a Principal's Certificate, for grades 5-12. He has worked in Southern Local School District since 1964, teaching sixth grade, as well as health and physical education in the high school. He has served as assistant basketball coach as well as head varsity basketball coach, and has been Athletic Director since 1976. (Towner Tr. 819-21) 56. James Van Keuren James Van Keuren is employed by the Ohio Department of Education as an Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction. He received his Bachelor's degree from Olivet College, his masters in education administration from Bowling Green State University, an EDS degree from Kent State University, and a doctorate in educational administration from Akron University. Dr. Van Keuren taught in the Waynesfield Goshen Local School District, served as junior high school principal at the Oberlin City Schools, high school principal at the Ledgemont Local Schools, and later as Superintendent of that district. He also served one year as superintendent of the Rolling Hills Local School District before coming to the Department of Education. Dr. Van Keuren began his work with the Ohio Department of Education in June of 1983 as director of the Division of School Finance. He continued in that capacity until April of 1992 when he became Assistant Superintendent for finance and administration. (Van Keuren Tr. 4632-42) 57. Donald Washburn Donald Washburn is a Plaintiff Superintendent from Dawson- Bryant Local School District (Dawson-Bryant). Mr. Washburn obtained a Bachelor's Degree in 1970 and a Master's Degree in Adult and Continuing Education with an emphasis in counseling from Moorehead State University and has taken post-graduate work at Ohio University. He holds superintendents' certifications and adult vocational director's certification and has held a variety of teaching certificates. (Washburn Tr. 2305-06) Mr. Washburn's first employment as an educator was at Rock Hill Local Schools in 1970 as a special education teacher. He was employed as Lawrence County Career Development Coordinator for two years, and then was Deering Elementary Principal at Dawson-Bryant Local from 1981 to 1988. From 1988 to 1990, Mr. Washburn was supervisor of curriculum and federal programs for Dawson-Bryant, and following two years of employment at the PLASCO-Ross SERRC, became Dawson-Bryant Superintendent in August 1992. Mr. Washburn has worked with the Ohio University southern campus in developing workshops and in-service programs for teachers, and since 1990 he has taught classes for Ohio University. (Washburn Tr. 2314-26) Mr. Washburn is a member of several governing boards and is serving or has served on five committees to which he was appointed by a representative of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE); two committees dealt with teacher in-service, the other two dealt with revision of state regulation of special education, and the fifth was the Learners Outcome Panel, that was charged with restructuring all elementary and secondary standards for education in Ohio. In 1989, Mr. Washburn was recognized as the outstanding visionary in the state of Ohio by the ODE. (Washburn Tr. 2306-14) 58. Wayne White Wayne White was Superintendent of Plaintiff Dawson-Bryant Local School District from 1982 until 1992. Presently he is director of the Ohio Appalachian Center for Higher Education. He received his undergraduate degree in elementary education from Ohio University, and in 1971 obtained his Masters Degree in Education from Moorehead State University. He is the holder of a permanent Superintendent's certificate. Mr. White taught history, American government, physical education and health at the high school level. He also coached high school basketball. He serves on numerous boards, including bank and hospital boards. Mr. White also served on the Ohio Department of Education Committee on Kindergarten. (White Tr. 2053, 2064-70) 59. Jane Wiechel Jane Wiechel is Director of the Early Childhood Education Division of the Ohio Department of Education. The Division of Early Childhood Education is responsible for screening and assessing needs of young children, pre-school education, and school-age child care. The Division of Early Childhood Education is primarily involved with five areas, including: pre-school special education; public pre-school; Head Start; school-age child care; and screening and assessing needs of young children. (Wiechel Depo. 18-19) 60. Joseph Winnenberg Joseph R. Winnenberg is a high school teacher at Southern Local School District, in Miller High School. He teaches senior English, senior English-College Prep., humanities, personal computing, and desk-top publishing. Mr. Winnenberg taught at Logan City School District, and New Lexington High School before he started teaching at Miller High School in 1983. He has variously coached football, basketball and track in the Logan City School District and New Lexington High School, and has also coached high school football in the Southern Local School District. Mr. Winnenberg belongs to the National Council of Teachers of English, and has served on the Advisory Board to Educational Technology Services, which provides educational TV and computing services to the public school in southeastern Ohio. He taught at Hocking Technical College as a computer instructor, and has provided consulting services to numerous businesses in town and to career education. (Joe Winnenberg Tr. 741-45) 61. John Winnenberg John Winnenberg is a member of the Board of Education of Plaintiff Southern Local School District, where he has served since 1978. He has been president and vice president of the board on several occasions. Aside from his duties as a Board member, Mr. Winnenberg volunteers at the Millcreek Elementary School one morning a week. After Mr. Winnenberg graduated from Miller High School in the Southern Local School District, he received a bachelor's degree in elementary and secondary education from Bowling Green State University. He has been certified to teach in the areas of special education and elementary education. After receiving his degree from Bowling Green, Mr. Winnenberg returned to Perry County to teach seventh grade at the New Straitsville Elementary School in the Southern Local School District for one year. Mr. Winnenberg was born and raised in Southern Perry County, and he has resided there all but five years of his life. Mr. Winnenberg's daughter Emily is a second grade student at Millcreek Elementary in the Southern Local School District. Mr. Winnenberg is heavily involved in the Southern Perry County community. He is a member of the Citizens for Southern Local group, which is active in school district improvement issues. He is also involved in the Tecumseh Theater Restoration and the Shawnee Historical Preservation groups, which are involved in restoring the buildings in downtown Shawnee, Ohio. Mr. Winnenberg has been on the Perry County Library Board since 1976, and he publishes a local newspaper called "Community Life News." (John Winnenberg Tr. 1223-28) III. THE ENTITLEMENT TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PUBLIC EDUCATION IN OHIO AND THE ADMITTED INEQUITIES IN THE PROVISION OF ENTITLED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 1. It is the responsibility of the state of Ohio to provide school districts with adequate resources that are equitably and reliably distributed. (Sanders Tr. 4552; Ocasek Tr. 2792) 2. It is the position of the State Board of Education that all children in Ohio should have access to equitable educational opportunities. (Phillis Tr. 1741) 3. By statute, the State Board of Education is charged with the responsibility of providing the system of public education throughout the state. This responsibility includes providing the most effective and highest quality education. (Ocasek Tr. 2788) 4. The State Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education have communicated to the Ohio General Assembly that the current level of funding for public education in Ohio is neither equitable nor adequate. (Phillis Tr. 1797-9 a ) 5. The mission statement of the Ohio State Board of Education is: The mission of education is to prepare students of all ages to meet, to the best of their abilities, the academic, social, civic and employment needs of the 21st century by providing high quality programs that emphasize the life-long skills necessary to continue learning, communicate clearly, solve problems, use information and technology effectively, and enjoy productive employment. (Pl. Exh. 10, p. ii) 6. The State Board of Education has recognized that in the 1990s, the State of Ohio needs to restructure school funding, realign our resources to allow for greater flexibility at the district and building levels, and continue modernizing our vocational educational system to reflect the needs of a dynamic workplace. (Pl. Exh. 10, p. 10 ) 7. As part of a strategic plan for education in the 1990s, the Ohio State Board of Education set a goal of re-structuring the state school funding system, noting that successful school reform requires a funding system that truly equalizes the educational opportunities for all students. (Pl. Exh. 10, p. 16) 8. The State Board of Education has recognized the state's obligation to provide a high quality educational program for all pupils in the state. Plaintiff's Exhibit 140 is the State Board's Budget and Policy Recommendations to the Governor and the 119th General Assembly. That document recognized the constitutional responsibility of the State of Ohio, and further pointed out five weaknesses in the state funding formula, which are as follows: (Phillis Tr. 1736-39; Pl. Exh. 140) a. The level of basic aid provided through the school foundation program does not approach the average expenditure per pupil in Ohio. In 1980, basic aid represented 59 percent of the average expenditure, in 1989, the gap had grown to 70 percent. The average expenditure per pupil is out-pacing the foundation level at an increasing rate. (Pl. Exh. 140) b. Categorical funds are not equalized. Wealthy districts receive the same unit funding for vocational and special education as poor districts. Poor districts have less ability to pay the difference in the cost of those programs between state funding and the actual program cost. (Pl. Exh. 140) c. The operation of a guarantee provision diminishes the equalization effects of the foundation program. (Pl. Exh. 140; Ocasek Tr. 2843; see also Defense Opening Statement, Tr. 27) d. The present charge-off does not accurately measure the ability of districts to pay the local share of the foundation program. (Pl. Exh. 140) e. Only small effort is given to the funding of capital improvements from the state level. (Pl. Exh. 140) 9. Ohio State Board of Education President Oliver Ocasek has stated publicly that he hopes the Plaintiffs win the instant case. Further, he informed the State Board of Education at its October, 1993 meeting that if the price of the State of Ohio winning the case was that he would have to testify that funding was adequate, that there was equity, and mills were equal, then he could not so testify and would just as soon lose the case. 10. The General Assembly has not appropriated sufficient funds to alleviate disparities between school districts. Equalization is not occurring as it should. The system is failing at the extremes, for the rich and for the poor. (Ocasek Tr. 2842) 11. The extent of disparity in school district expenditures between school districts in Ohio ranks our state as one of the most disparate states in the nation. (Russell Depo. 177; see also Alexander Tr. 3728) 12. Superintendent Sanders has conceded the disparities in funding to school districts is not morally right. (Sanders Tr. 415, 4556) 13. State Superintendent Sanders has informed the State Board of Education, "I do know that the state's system of school finance is not morally right. . . the disparity between high-spending and low-spending districts is too wide. . . classrooms in some districts are not equipped with appropriate instructional materials and equipment; many teachers use their personal funds to purchase supplies for their classrooms; the state still raises the majority of its resources for education through the property tax; the system has not responded to the categorical problems changing demographics of communities, families, and children; and categorical problems limit local communities' and schools' flexibility to address the underlying problems and needs of students." (Pl. Exh. 40, p. 5) 14. Defendants have admitted that the current system of funding public elementary and secondary education in Ohio is in need of reform. State Superintendent Sanders and the State Board of Education have communicated to the Ohio General Assembly the belief that "If every learner is to have access to the educational opportunities that will achieve the results we require as a state, we will need to comprehensively reform our school finance system." (Defense Opening Statement, Tr. 42; Sanders Tr. 348; Pl. Exh. 15 p.l) 15. Defendants have admitted that Ohio's educational system has become obsolete and cannot fully respond to the challenges our state will meet in the remainder of this century and into the next. (Sanders Tr. 349; Pl. Exh. 15 p. 2) 16. Defendants have recognized that inadequate resources could doom Ohio students to a second class educational system the effects of which will be felt far into the future. Similarly, inequitable distribution of resources will deny some students access to the educational opportunities students enjoy in wealthier districts. (Sanders Tr. 362; Pl. Exh. 15, p. 15) 17. Investment in education is essential to the state's economic growth and security. (Sanders Tr. 4550-4551) 18. In September of 1993, Superintendent Sanders notified the school superintendents of Ohio that-the legislative budget efforts for the current biennium had not been able to "...secure a level of funding sufficient to cover even the ongoing cost of current operations for all of our school districts." (Sanders Tr. 412; Pl. Exh. 39; Pl. Exh. 31) 19. Defendants have conceded that the disparities in the state's spending across school districts in the state are not good public policy. A range of two to one in expenditures for education is too great as a matter of public policy. (Sanders Tr. 4490-4491) 20. either the Ohio General Assembly, the Ohio Department of Education nor the State Board of Education has ever determined the amount of money required to provide a specific educational program for a specific school pupil. Amounts appropriated for the funding of public elementary and secondary education are a "budgetary residual" based on funds remaining after programs with legal entitlement have been provided for. (Russell Depo. 90; Tavakolian Depo. 142; Sanders Tr. 4525 4526; Phillis Tr. 1725-26; Fleeter Depo. 11; Shoemaker Tr. 4161) 21. Many school districts in Ohio do not have enough money to cover the basic needs of the pupils whom they are statutorily and constitutionally obligated to educate. (Sanders Tr. 4548; Shoemaker Tr. 4175) 22. Neither the $54 increase in the foundation level, the provision of $60 million in "equity" money for the 1993-94 school year, nor the additional $75 million in "equity" money for the subsequent year is sufficient to significantly reduce the degree of inequity in school funding in Ohio (Sanders Tr. 4544) 23. The Governor acknowledges that there are inequities in the system of public school funding in Ohio, and that unless this is remedied a court will order a remedy. Governor Voinovich wants to see more equity in the school financing system. (Browning Tr. 4464, 4466) IV. THE HISTORY OF SCHOOL FUNDING IN OHIO A. HISTORY OF OHIO'S PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING SYSTEM 1. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 recognized that education is important in our society: "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." (Pl. Exh. 161; Pl. Exh. 445; Pl. Exh. 142 p. 2) 2. In 1785, a land ordinance was adopted setting aside the 16th section of each township in each county of Ohio for the maintenance of public schools within the township. (Pl. Exh. 161) 3. The delegates to the Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1802 recognized that "schools and the means oŁ instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision, not inconsistent with the rights of conscience." (Pl. Exh. 445) 4. The 1802 Constitutional Convention delegates also found that the doors of Ohio's schools should be open without distinction or preference, and that the common school system of Ohio should be adequate to afford a liberal education, not merely the rudiments of education, to the whole population. (Pl. Exh. 445) 5. In 1821, Ohio's first general school act provided for the establishment of school districts in each township and the for property within each district to be subject to school taxes. The Act was a failure because the levying and collections of taxes was at the discretion of the district. (Alexander Tr. 3631; Pl. Exh. 161) 6. In 1822, the Commissioners of Ohio's Common Schools recognized that "education should seek to bring its subjects to the perfection of their moral, intellectual and physical natures, so that they may be of the greatest use to themselves and others." The Commissioners also recognized that "with a population, made up entirely of individuals, thus educated, our penitentiary would hardly be needed, or if needed at all, its tenants would be few, and the expenses of that school or vise, trifling to the community." The Commissioners asked the question, "what man among us would not sooner pay tax for the purpose of educating the poor, in the ways of knowledge and virtue, than, in the penitentiary, be preparing them for doing more and more mischief to society." (Pl. Exh. 458, p. 3) 7. In 1825, Ohio's next major school act passed allowing for the election of school directors to manage the schools and a county board of examiners to certify teachers. The Act required districts to levy taxes on property. (Pl. Exh. 161) 8. The current language of Article VI, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution, commonly known as the "thorough and efficient clause," and requiring the Ohio General Assembly to secure a "thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state" was adopted as part of the 1851 Ohio Constitution on March 10, 1851. The 50th General Assembly of the State of Ohio under the Constitution of 1851, provided for the reorganization, supervision and maintenance of common schools in Ohio by act dated November 15, 1852. (Pl. Exh. 459) 9. The concept of "common schools" emerged from the writings of Henry David Thoreau and John Locke and later Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, Horace Mann, and Ohio's first Superintendent of Common Schools, Samuel Lewis. The concept was based on the view that education is one of the rights of man, that every person was entitled to knowledge, and that knowledge should be protected by government. The "common school" related to commonality of benefit from education. The word "common" in this context historically and philosophically means that the government participates in a social contract with all of the people in the state and they all participate equally. Government has no reason to treat them differently. (Alexander Tr. 3628-29) 10. The term "system" as related to the concept of a system of common schools was discussed by Benjamin Rush as encompassing the concept of an organized delivery of public education on equal terms to all pupils, the concept of system was incremental in that the educational structure envisioned by the framers was one that developed from grade to grade. (Alexander Tr. 3632) 11. The terms "thorough and efficient" in the historical and philosophical context of the development of education clauses encompass the idea that an efficient system of public education is one that developed all of the human capital of the state based on the view that the state must efficiently utilize its human capital in order to produce wealth. Education enabled the people of the state to become producers as well as consumers. (Alexander Tr. 3634-36) 12. In the context of the historical development of the terms "thorough and efficient system" of "common schools", it is the obligation of the state to provide for the schools and to provide the resources for the operation of schools. The state has a burden of justification if it departs from equal distribution of its resources for education. (Alexander Tr. 3636-37) 13. The delegates to the 1850 Ohio Constitutional Convention recognized that education is essential to self-government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, and that "had not knowledge been shed upon the human understanding, all would have remained in the darkness of heathenism and governed by superstition and fanaticism." (Pl. Exh. 456, p. 15) 14. The delegates to the 1850 Ohio Constitutional Convention recognized that the institution of a thorough and efficient education system was necessary to allow Ohio to compete with the other states in the Union, and that in order to compete, Ohio would have to assist in "so great an enterprise." (Pl. Exh. 456, p. 15) 15. At the 1850 Constitutional Convention, the house committee that was convened to consider the role of the state in public education reported "[t]hat in the opinion of the committee, the education of our youth is the first care and highest duty of every parent, patriot, and statesman." (Pl. Exh. 456) 16. On September 3, 1912, Article VI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution was adopted, providing for the organization, administration and supervision of state schools. The Ohio School Survey Commission followed in 1913, and many of their recommendations were enacted into law in 1914. Some of those enactments were: a. Establishment of county school districts, which provided for the supervision of the schools in each county (Pl. Exh. 161); b. Fifty percent (50%) state reimbursement for the salaries paid to employees of each county system. This partial reimbursement partially funded the supervision mandate; however, schools relied almost exclusively on property taxes for funding until 1935 when the foundation program was adopted. (Pl. Exh. 161) 17. On November 3, 1953, the current version of Article VI, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution was enacted, establishing a state board of education and a superintendent of public instruction to be appointed by the state board of education. (Pl. Exh. 187, 190). 18. The history of the Foundation Program is as follows: a. Prior to establishment of the foundation program, state support was only provided to financially weak districts under the provisions of an educational equalization law, which was repealed in 1935. (Pl. Exh. 161) b. In 1935 the General Assembly passed the Foundation Program Act, which created a method of funding a basic education for all public school students. (Pl. Exhs. 167, 168). The Program was constructed so that each school district in the state had a guarantee that the district would receive in total support in state and local taxes an amount determined by computing the district's Foundation Program payment. (Pl. Exh. 161) c. Under the original Foundation Program, a state sales tax was enacted to support schools, allowing 50 percent state funding for schools. The state share of funding remained at approximately 50 percent until 1946. From 1946 to 1965, the state share dropped to 30 percent. From 1965 to present, the state share has increased back to a level close to the 1935 level of state support of approximately 50 percent. (Phillis Tr. 1829; Pl. Exh. 161) d. The original Foundation Program calculated the cost of a school district's foundation program payment based on four different rates according to grade level. These rates applied to the number of students in kindergarten, in grades 1-8, in grades 9-12, and in part-time, continuing education and evening schools. An amount for transportation was included. (Pl. Exh. 161) e. Funds under the original Foundation Program were distributed based on ADA (average daily attendance). School districts received a flat distribution payment amounting to approximately 52 percent of calculated cost of each pupil level. A school district received additional aid if funds received from the flat rate plus 3 mills of assessed valuation were less than the calculated cost of the foundation program. (Pl. Exh. 161) f. Significantly, the original Foundation Program introduced three concepts in school funding to Ohio: an equalization factor; a formula charge off based upon a local community's ability to fund schools; and a guaranteed amount of financial support for the district. (Pl. Exh. 167, 168) g. Changes to the Foundation Program over the next 20 years were minimal and included the increase of both the charge-off and required local millage. Distribution changed from a basis of ADA (Average daily attendance) to ADM (average daily membership). h. In 1956, the Foundation Program Act was repealed and replaced by a five-prong funding formula based on teacher units, a teacher salary allowance, a current operation expense allowance, and a formula charge-off deduction. Special education and vocational education units were also allocated by this formula. (Pl. Exhs. 167, 168) i. The number of units under the 1956 formula was based upon the number of students in all instructional areas; one unit was assigned to each of thirty students in grades 1-12, and one unit was assigned for each kindergarten unit. Added to these classroom units were the number of approved special education and vocational units, one administrative unit for each 8 classroom units, and one supervisory unit for the first 50 approved classroom units and one for each additional 100 units. (Pl. Exh. 161) j. Under the 1956 formula, a school district received the larger of two calculations (1) The unit allowance times the number of units or; (2) The salary allowance of all certificated personnel according to the minimum teachers' salary schedule, plus amounts for retirement and sick leave, classroom operation and transportation less the 10 mil charge off. (Pl. Exh. 161) k. In 1972, the foundation calculation returned to an ADM basis. The charge-off was applied to the basic aid amount plus supervisory amounts, with transportation, special education and vocational education classroom units not subject to the equalization charge-off. Municipal overburden funding was introduced, targeting funds to districts with an ADM of greater than 20,000. Districts with an ADM greater than 70,000 received additional amounts. (Pl. Exhs. 161, 168, 169) l. In 1976, the equal yield formula was introduced. It was intended to provide an equal sum of combined state and local funds, on a per pupil per mill basis, for each qualifying school district. The millage for each district was equalized to reflect estimated changes in the per pupil value of a mill figure due to reappraisal of real property values. (Pl. Exhs. 161, 167, 168). The Equal Yield Formula provided a 2-tiered system: (1) Every district received an amount per pupil per mill for the first 20 mills; (2) Additional amounts were given to school districts with millage above 20 mills up to 30 mills. (Pl. Exh. 161; see also Tavakolian Depo. 48) m. The equal yield formula, subject to challenge in the case of Cincinnati v. Walter (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 368, operated differently than the school foundation program. The equal yield formula incorporated a "power equalizing" tier by which local millage in excess of 20 mills was augmented with additional state revenue. The power equalizing portion of the system was never fully funded, and the power equalizing concept was abandoned by the legislature in 1981. (Phillis Tr. 1836; Ocasek Tr. 2822-2823; Fleeter Depo. 13) n. The Equal Yield Formula increased the disparity in the revenue actually received by school districts. Districts which voted the additional millage necessary to receive the incentive funds were usually wealthy districts. (Pl. Exh. 161) o. In 1976, the current DPIA (disadvantaged pupil impact aid) replaced municipal overburden funding. DPIA changed the focus from districts with large populations to districts with high percentages of children from families on ADC. (Pl. Exh. 161) p. In 1982, the foundation formula assumed its present form. This Formula, as described in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 399, was designed to assure each school district adequate funding to provide each student a basic education at 20 mills of levied property tax. (See Stip. 15; Pl. Exhs. 161, 168, 169) 19. Transportation was the first categorical program. Categorical funding for special education was introduced in 1945, and by 1958, there were six categorical line items. Currently, there are 70 categorical line items in the state budget. (Pl. Exhs. 161, 168, 169) 20. During the period from 1982-1990, Federal funds flowing to state school districts represented an average of four to five percent of the total budget for public elementary and secondary education. The remainder of the funds were made up of a combination of state and local tax revenues. (Russell Depo. 27) B EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF THE STATE BUDGET 1. The biennial budget begins July 1 of every odd numbered year. The State of Ohio must have a balanced budget. (Browning Tr. 4364) 2. In the last biennium, the state went through four rounds of budget cuts. The Governor cut over $700 million out of the budget. (Browning Tr. 4414) 3. The largest single item in the general revenue fund appropriation in the recent budget was Medicaid, reflecting 32.1 percent. Medicaid has increased approximately five times the rate of inflation. Medicaid is an entitlement program. (Browning Tr. 4374) 4. The budget for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has been growing dramatically. There has been a growth in incarceration from 16,000 in the early 1980s to a projected 42,000 in July, 1994. The Department of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction recognize the relationship between the number of high school dropouts and the size of the prison correction population. (Sanders Tr. 349; Pl. Exh. 15 p. 2; Browning Tr. 4376) 5. Both the appropriations for Medicaid and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction have been growing at the same rate. (Browning Tr. 4377) 6. For the fiscal year 1994-95 biennium budget, prison spending rose over 33 percent. The budget proposed hiring 904 new correction officers, a proposal adopted by the General Assembly. The debate about hiring new guards was intensified by the Lucasville prison riots. (Browning Tr. 4395-96) 7. In the new biennium, Human Services received an increase of 16 percent. Spending for colleges and universities also rose about 6.6 percent. (Browning Tr. 4397) 8. The increase for primary and secondary education in the new biennium (FY94 and FY95) is only approximately 4 percent over the biennium. (Browning Tr. 4393) 9. The state education budget receives the remaining funds after state legislative appropriations for human services and corrections. (Sanders Tr. 4555; Pl. Exh. 40; Shoemaker Tr. 4161; Russell Depo. 92) 10. Over the past 16 years, the relative percent of the state budget devoted to elementary and secondary education has declined. (Russell Depo. 52; Shoemaker Tr. 4174-75; Pl. Exh. 182 p. 6; Tavakolian Depo. 50; Maxwell Tr. 138) 11. In FY81, total educational disbursements in the State of Ohio were 35.54 percent of all state disbursements. In FY93, educational disbursements were 31.39 percent of total state disbursements. (Pl. Exh. 38) 12. Pl. Exh. 142 is the final report of the Gillmore-Cupp Commission to Study School Funding and Expenditures, released to the Ohio Senate in 1989. That document recognized that primary and secondary education's share of the overall state operating budget gradually decreased over the decade of the 1980's. The Gillmore Cupp Commission determined that if education funding from 1979 to 1989 kept pace with increases in general revenue funding, there would have been $3.1 billion more for education. (Shoemaker Tr. 4159-60; Pl. Exh. 142, p. 3) 13. The extent of disparities in funds available for the education of pupils among Ohio school districts has grown over the period from 1980 to 1990 and continues to grow. (Tavakolian Depo. 52) 14. When the legislature passed a $1 billion increase in taxes in Ohio in December, 1992, President Ocasek was astounded that the money did not go for education. (Ocasek Tr. 2859) 15. In the total context of the most recent State Budget, education did not do well, and other areas of state government did better in funding. (Ocasek Tr. 2960) 16. The 1992-93 budget was the first to allocate Division of Youth Services tuition charges to school districts; those costs have formerly been absorbed by the State. (Tavakolian Depo. 168) 17. The new budget for FY94 and FY95 approved by the General Assembly included a $115 million pay raise for state employees. (Browning Tr. 4397-98) 18. During his employment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, commencing in January, 1991, Director Browning's salary has increased 15 percent. He, as well as other state employees, enjoys standard state health benefits, including HMO coverage, dental and vision care, for him and for his family members. (Browning Tr. 4442-44) 19. Within the current education budget of $8 billion, there are some line items that do not go to public school districts, including those for county MRDD boards, for transportation and vehicle purchases, totaling $13.3 million. Also, $160 million is contained the budget for "auxiliary services," but this represents monies spent for children in non-public schools. (Browning Tr. 4411) C. THE IMPACT OF STATE BUDGET REDUCTIONS ON PUBLIC EDUCATION 1. The Governor of Ohio has the authority to reduce funds appropriated for the operation of the school foundation program at any time in the event of a projected shortfall in state tax revenues. Such reductions have been implemented by three Ohio Governors since 1980, with the latest of these cuts occurring in FY92. In that year, due to a projected shortfall of state revenues to meet state appropriations, Governor Voinovich cut $88.8 million out of the state funding for primary and secondary education. (Stip. 13; Browning Tr. 5487) 2. In the 1992 cuts, the poorest 172 districts in the state were subject to a hold harmless clause. Those districts are listed in Stipulation Exhibit 14. (Stip. 13; Stip. Exh. 14; Browning Tr. 5487) 3. These reductions caused some school districts to seek spending reserve loans and others to seek increases in the size of emergency school assistance loans previously approved. (Brown Tr. 5487) 4. By law, the state of Ohio must have a balanced budget. The State cannot engage in deficit spending. By its actions in implementing budget cuts and reducing monies that otherwise would be going to public school districts, the State has forced some of those districts to borrow money that would otherwise not have been borrowed. (Brown Tr. 5494) 5. In January 1992, Superintendent Ted Sanders issued a memorandum to all city, county, local, exempted village and joint vocational school superintendents in the State of Ohio regarding the budget reductions imposed by the Governor in January of 1992 detailing the impact of the $88.8 million budget reduction on the school districts in the State of Ohio. (Pl. Exh. 17) 6. As a result of budget cuts required by the 1993 budget bill, H.B. 152, basic aid was held harmless, but the remainder of the SF-12 items received cuts of 1.37 percent. Consequently, DPIA, special education, gifted education and transportation were cut across the board by 1.37 percent, and vocational education was cut by .28 percent. (Pl. Exh. 442) 7. Senator Aronoff testified that in the last biennium, there were approximately $700 million made in overall budget cuts by the State of Ohio. Neither Senator Aronoff nor Governor Voinovich, nor any legislator, is in a position to make any assurances to anyone that there will not be any further budget cuts in this biennium, the next biennium, or beyond. (Aronoff Tr. 4858-59) 8. Director Browning also conceded that it is possible that another budget crisis will arise in the next biennium, so that the state may once again have to reduce expenditures. This is because Ohio is required to have a balanced budget, and the Governor has authority in that regard to cut the budget, and the General Assembly can act at will. (Browning Tr. 4414) 9. There are always unanticipated expenses that can occur that will affect the budget. Such expenses include the Lucasville prison riot, which was unanticipated and cost the State of Ohio at least $10 million, as well as additional funds not yet tallied. (Browning Tr. 4417) 10. With reference to equity funds to school districts, Senator Aronoff testified that there is no assurance beyond the present biennium budget that there will be any further equity funds available to any school districts after FY95. (Aronoff Tr. 4854) Although the State of Ohio, according to Senator Aronoff's testimony, has a surplus of approximately $100 million, Senator Aronoff refused to say whether any of those monies would go toward education. (Aronoff Tr. 4855) 11. President Ocasek's frustration as a legislator, and today as a taxpayer, is that the legislature can appropriate monies for only a two year period. Having been an educator, he finds it very difficult to run a school district on a two-year commitment. (Ocasek Tr. 2822-2823) D. BUDGET AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 1. Every two years the State Board is required by law to develop budget and policy recommendations to the Ohio General Assembly. (Russell Depo. 10) 2. The State Board of Education prepares and submits recommendations to the Ohio General Assembly in advance of the approval of each biennial budget. The State Board's recommendations are developed through the efforts of the State Board members and the Ohio Department of Education staff with input from state educational organizations and other interested persons. (Tavakolian Depo. 19) 3. State Board of Education budget proposals have been heard before the Education Subcommittee of the House Finance Committee. The level of appropriations is determined by the Full Finance Committee in the House and the Senate Finance Committee, neither of which routinely hear Department of Education testimony in support of its education budget. (Phillis Tr. 1800-01) 4. The State Board's budget proposals are based on estimates of the costs of the programs proposed together with a consideration of political realities. (Tavakolian Depo. 143) 5. According to the Budget and Policy Recommendations for the 1992-93 biennium, the "common" school that served so well in the past is not able to cope effectively with the changes in the social and economic order. The school system must be restructured immediately to accommodate the current social and economic needs. The call for reform during the decade of the 1980s produced minimal results. The State Board of Education believes the "common" school can and will be restructured to more appropriately serve the pupils of Ohio. The State Board of Education's Policy and Budget Recommendations convey a sense of urgency for educational reform and restructuring. (Pl. Exh. 16, 1-2) 6. Tavakolian Exhibit 1 is the Legislative Recommendations to the Governor and Members of the 117th General Assembly adopted by the State Board of Education and submitted to the 117th General Assembly for FY88 and FY89. (Tavakolian Depo. 22; Tavakolian Depo. Exh. l) 7. Tavakolian Exhibit 2 is the State Board's legislative Recommendations to the Governor and Members of the 118th General Assembly as adopted by the State Board of Education on or about Dec. 12, 1988. (Tavakolian Depo. 23; Tavakolian Depo. Exh. 2) 8. Tavakolian Exhibit 3 is the State Board's Policy and Budget Recommendations to the Governor and the 119th General Assembly as adopted by the State board on December 10, 1990. At that time, the State Board of Education determined that the Ohio Constitution may reasonably be interpreted as follows: a. The General Assembly, not the local school district, bears full responsibility for providing an education system. b. "Common" implies that schools must be available to all at no charge and implies a level of adequacy of uniform quality. Common schools must be supported by taxes and by their nature cannot be private. c. "Thorough and efficient system" implies a high degree of uniformity of programs and services. It implies an appropriate curriculum that is reasonably uniform for all children. It also implies that each pupil in Ohio has an equal prospect for educational opportunities. (Tavakolian Depo. 27; Tavakolian Depo. Exh. 3) 9. Stipulation Exhibit 12 represents a comparison of the amounts requested by the State Board of Education as compared with the amounts actually appropriated for the operation of public schools for a number of years. That comparison reflects that in FY86 and FY87, the legislature appropriated more dollars than were requested by the State Board of Education. In all other years the appropriations were far less than required. The reason for the 1986-87 appropriation level was that the State Board of Education advanced a master plan for the improvement of public education with respect to those years but did not reflect the cost of those specific proposals in their budget requests. (Phillis Tr. 1729-30) 10. The State Board's Budget and Policy Recommendations for 1984 and other years included a recommendation for the equalization of funding for facilities. By that recommendation, funds would be appropriated such that a mill of tax for facilities in a poor school district would be brought up to a greater level so that there would be an equalization of funding for levels of tax effort. Equalization has been proposed by the State Board of Education a number of times but has not been approved. (Phillis Tr. 1732-33) 11. For the last two fiscal years (FY94 and FY95), the State Board of Education requested a billion dollars more in funding than that which was appropriated by the General Assembly. (Ocasek Tr. 2806) 12. For FY94 and FY95, the State Board of Education requested a $1.9 billion increase from the General Assembly and received only a total of $625 million increase in funds for public education. (Russell Depo. 53) 13. The $1.9 billion increase that was requested for elementary and secondary education by the Department of Education for the 1994-1995 biennium, and which was not included in the State budget, represented amounts reasonably believed by Dr. Sanders and the State Board of Education to be necessary for the education of Ohio's public school pupils. (Sanders Tr. 4527) 14. President Ocasek referred to the Budget and Policy Recommendations of the State Board of Education for the 120th General Assembly (Pl. Exh. 15), in which the State Board of Education advocated the need for comprehensive reform in Ohio's system of funding public education. The current State Board of Education, upon which President Ocasek serves, concurs in that position, as does President Ocasek, personally. (Ocasek Tr. 2794) Additionally, President Ocasek testified that the current State Board of Education has adopted the three goals set forth in Pl. Exh. 15, including the goals of equity, adequacy and reliability of school funding. President Ocasek concurs in these goals. (Ocasek Tr. 2795) 15. Dr. Payton compared the State Board's proposal adopted December 13, 1992 (Payton Depo. Exh. 6) with the Governor's budget proposal at that time and found that the State Board's proposal would have resulted in greater increase in equity in both FY94 and FY95 than will be achieved by the provisions enacted by the General Assembly. (Payton Depo. 170-71) 16. Each year, the Ohio Board of Education publishes its annual report. Each of those annual reports contains information regarding appropriations and expenditures for education throughout the State of Ohio, as well as information, charts and graphs regarding demographic information, financial information and test scores for school districts throughout Ohio. Annual reports of the State Board of Education for the years 1980 through 1991 were admitted into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibits 356 to 367. V. OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL FOUNDATION PROGRAM 1. Of the total revenue for the support of public schools in Ohio for FY92, 42.7 percent comes from state taxes, 5.7 percent comes from federal revenue sources, and 51.6 percent comes from local taxes. The percentage of state revenue is less for Ohio than for the nation, with the national percentage of state revenue being 48.3 percent. (Alexander Tr. 3706; Pl. Exh. 302 p. 10) 2. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 399 is a publication of the Ohio Department of Education describing the operation of the school foundation program. Van Keuren Deposition Exhibit 14 is a description of the method by which the cost of doing business factor (an element of the foundation program) is calculated. (Pl. Exh, 399; Van Keuren Depo. Exhs. 13, 14) B. STATE BASIC AID 1. Stipulations 8 through 12 and Stipulation Exhibits 11 through 13 deal with the concept of state basic aid and the basic aid levels from year to year as well as basic aid amounts requested compared to amounts appropriated. 2. For 1991, the basic aid level established by the school foundation program was $2,781 per pupil. That level of funding consists of a combination of state and local funds. The basic aid level is reduced by a "charge off" which has consisted of 20 mills times the assessed valuation of the school district. The amount of the "charge off" will vary with the valuation of taxable property in the district. In 1991, the 20 mill "charge off" produced $307 per pupil in the poorest school district, Huntington Local, and $17,408 in the wealthiest school district, Perry Local. (Maxwell Tr. 57) 3. State Basic Aid is reflected on lines 5 and 6 of the Ohio Department of Education form SF-12. State Basic Aid is adjusted by the school district equalization factor, also referred to as the cost of doing business factor. The range of adjustment is from zero to 1.075 times the basic aid amount. The adjustment varies from county to county, with Cuyahoga County receiving the largest adjustment. (Maxwell Tr. 97) 4. The cost of doing business factor is calculated for school districts every two years with wage data obtained from the Bureau of Employment Services, which includes eight or ten different sectors in the economy used to calculate the average weekly wages. School district employees wages would be figured into the public employee sector of the calculation, along with all of the other sectors, and would be a very small portion of the total calculation. Educational costs are not considered in computing the cost of doing business factor. (Payton Tr. 4921-22) 5. Cost of doing business factors are applied equally all school districts in a county, regardless of the actual cost of operations in the individual districts. (Maxwell Tr. 97) 6. Cost of doing business factors assume that costs are lower in rural districts. However, costs in rural districts, particularly in construction, may be as high or higher than in urban districts. (Shoemaker Tr. 4176-77) 7. If a school district buys textbooks, pays utility bills, purchases insurance, or is required to pay other fees, those expenses would not be affected by location in the state. (Payton Tr. 4921-22) 8. The cost of doing business factor for Southern Local is approximately 1.02, which is on the lower end of that adjustment. For many expenses, the cost of doing business in Perry County is not less than the cost of doing business in any other county, because mechanical parts may have to be ordered from somewhere else, service personnel have to come from Columbus, and transportation costs must be paid for that travel. (Spangler Tr. 480-81) 9. Average Daily Membership (ADM) is the number of pupils included in the basic aid portion of the school foundation calculation. ADM does not include one-half of the kindergarten pupils, pupils in special education units, or pupils in vocational units except that in school districts with pupils attending joint vocational schools, only 75 percent of the ADM count for vocational pupils is excluded. Preschool special education pupils are not included in ADM though special education programming Łor those pupils is required by law. (Maxwell Tr. 101-104) 10. The increase in the charge-off from 20 mills to 20.5 mills in the first year and from 20.5 to 21.0 mills in the second year represents savings to the state of approximately $13 million per year for each of those years. (Sanders Tr. 4528) 11. The increase in the "charge-off" from 20 mills to 20.5 mills in 1993-94 and 21 mills thereafter will require a greater contribution of local dollars to maintain the same relative level of funding. (Russell Depo. 89; Shoemaker Tr. 4173; Pl. Exh. 182, p. 4) 12. The combined effects of increased valuation through reappraisal, resulting in an increased "charge off" applied to the calculation of basic aid, with the lack of growth in local tax levy revenue due to the application of tax reduction factors leads to a circumstance under which some school districts can experience a growth in the value of local school district property and a net loss in school district operating revenue. This circumstance is an aspect of a problem with the current foundation program sometimes described as "phantom revenue." (Maxwell Tr. 98-99; Maxwell Depo. Exh. 3 pp. 37-38; Russell Depo. 87-88; Fleeter Depo. 22, 23) 13. The amount of the 20 mill charge-off provision of the foundation program is determined solely based on the valuation of taxable property in the school district without regard to the income of the school district residents. The sole reliance on property value for this purpose is considered by the State Board of Education to be a weakness in the school foundation program. (Tavakolian Depo. 57) 14. The changes in the foundation program for FY94 and FY95 have also created circumstances by which some school districts will actually receive less money, considering the operation of the foundation program and guarantee provisions, than they would have received without the changes. (Maxwell Tr. 139, 141, 143) 15. Failure to increase state basic aid level by a sufficient amount for the current biennium has further exacerbated the fundamental weaknesses in the school foundation program. (Maxwell Tr. 143) 16. Under the current biennial budget, approximately 130 to 140 Ohio school districts will receive less in state funds than they received previously. Absent the passage of additional local tax levies those districts are faced with the problem of continuing their education programs with reduced levels of funding. (Sanders Tr. 4494) 17. The amount of basic per-pupil aid guaranteed to local school districts by the foundation formula ($2,817 per pupil for school year 1992-93) is determined by the General Assembly in conjunction with the biennial budget process. (Stip. 9) 18. The State Board of Education, according to President Ocasek, has taken the position that the foundation figure should be $4,000 per pupil. (Ocasek Tr. 2838) 19. The difference between average per pupil expenditure and state basic aid has increased each year over the past five years. One of the weaknesses is the school district per pupil expenditure is greater than the foundation formula amount. The disparity between the two numbers has increased over time. (Tavakolian Depo. 53; Russell Depo. 92) C. THE RELIABILITY OF STATE FUNDING AND FORM SF-12 1. Reliability is an important aspect of school finance. If school districts are unable to rely on stable income, they cannot plan educational programs with the confidence that they will be sustained. (Sanders Tr 362-363; Pl. Exh. 15 p. 15) 2. The funding formula does not provide reliable funding for school districts. School districts cannot operate efficiently when they do not know what their revenue will be. The reliability of state funding has been a problem for school districts in planning and budgeting. (Taylor Depo. 96; Washburn Tr. 2330; Fleeter Depo. 1) 3. There is no single document to tell a school district Treasurer the total amount of local tax revenue that the school district will have for the year. The County Auditor is the sole source of information about the amount of local property tax revenue to be received. (Russell Depo. 77, 78) 4. The final tax distribution of local property tax revenue is in the fall, the only time that a school district knows for sure how much it will receive in local tax revenue. (Brown Depo. 183; Russell Depo. 80) 5. The Department of Education notifies public school districts of the amount of money to be received from the school foundation program, which provides funding for basic aid, Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, special education, gifted education, transportation, vocational education, and extended service, through the use of a form called an SF-12. (Taylor Depo. 97) 6. Payment of foundation funds is made based on an estimated number of students, and an estimated number of vocational, special education and gifted units, from July through December. Upon receipt of updated information, the Department of Education recomputes the SF-12. (Stip. 12) 7. Approximately 80-85 percent of the state funds for public elementary and secondary schools are distributed through the programs reflected on the SF-12. (Maxwell Tr. 93) 8. Form SF-12 is the only document by which the Ohio Department of Education notifies school districts of the amount of School Foundation funds that the district will receive, and school districts are expected to rely upon that document. During FY90, five or six different SF-12 forms were mailed to school districts during the year. During FY92 at least one SF-12 per month was mailed to school districts. (Van Keuren Tr. 4751-4752; Phillis Tr. 1899) 9. For planning purposes, Southern Local relies heavily on the State Foundation 12 Report (SF-12). (Spangler Tr. 479) 10. The SF-12 forms provided to Southern Local School District for FY93 varied as much as $55,000 from one form to another. For Southern Local $55,000 is as much as the district spends on all materials and supplies in a year. (Spangler Tr. 583-85; Pl. Exh. 87) 11. The average number of SF-12's received by school districts in Area 5, which includes Plaintiff Dawson- Bryant, increased in FY93 such that districts in the Area had a more difficult time planning because of the number of changes in their SF-12s. (Taylor Depo. 253) 12. For FY1993, the numbers of SF-12s received by each of the plaintiff school districts, and the amount of the line 23 total state support indicated thereon, was as follows: Run Date Dawson- Bryant Local Lima City Northern Local Southern Local Youngstown City 7-01-92 3,880,340.78 16,360,780.6 5 4,002,801.48 2,652,596.05 43,184,450.2 8 8-01-92 N/A 16,139,157.4 5 4,075,613.66 2,650,239.12 42,770,746.0 8 9-02-92 3,877,744.25 16,139,642.2 8 4,077,878.33 2,651,920.42 42,823,246.1 9 1-29-93 3,820,792.80 16,123,736.2 1 4,295,150.54 2,535,431.18 42,779,196.1 3 2-26-93 3,820,792.80 16,123,736.2 1 4,295,150.54 2,535,431.18 42,779,041.7 0 4-07-93 3,826,381.82 16,124,713.9 4 4,270,583.04 2,535,431.18 42,793,875.1 4 4-23-93 N/A 16,135,577.8 1 N/A N/A N/A 5-07-93 3,839,544.98 16,135,577.8 1 4,300,386.00 2,550,459.65 42,791,820.3 2 5-21-93 3,836,680.09 16,135,577.8 1 4,314,724.55 2,544,781.70 42,807,305.7 7 6-25-93 3,837,493.15 N/A 4,315,933.89 2,562,532.61 42,577,701.3 5 7-15-93 3,837,494.15 N/A 4,322,055.09 2,606,815.39 42,753,073.1 7 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 214 is a true and accurate summary of the FY93 SF-12s for each of the plaintiff districts, which were admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibits 87, 131, 211, 212, and 213. (Pletcher Tr. 2643; Pl. Exhs. 87, 131, 211, 212, 213, 214) 13. Family income is a major factor in the formula for distribution of the equity funds, but is not a factor in the distribution of funds to school districts under the SF-12. (Taylor Depo. 155; 158) D. GUARANTEE PROVISIONS 1. Stipulation Exhibit 13 is a chart which accurately depicts the number of school districts receiving dollars under a guarantee provision rather than a formula amount, and the total cost of guarantee payments over and above formula payments for FY84 through FY93. (Stip. 11; Stip. Exh. 13) 2. The number of districts receiving guaranteed payments increased from 190 in FY84 to 360 in FY92 and 247 in FY93. Over one-third of all school districts in Ohio received guaranteed payments in FY93. The cost of the guarantee has increased from $55.1 million in FY84 to $156.9 million in FY92 and $130.2 million in FY93. (Stip. Exh. 13) 3. Guarantee provisions of the school foundation program ensure that school districts will receive the greater of the program amount or the guarantee amount. There are three different guarantee provisions, the most common of which is the basic aid guarantee. Stipulation Exhibit 13 reflects that for 1993, 247 school districts received payments of funds under a guarantee provision rather than under the foundation formula, costing the State an additional $130.2 million. (Maxwell Tr. 111; Maxwell Depo. Exh. 3 p. 44) 4. Guarantee provisions of the foundation program are designed to prevent substantial losses of school district revenue due to changes in valuation or changes in the size of the pupil population. (Russell Depo. 114). 5. A majority of the funds distributed to school districts as a result of the guarantee provision of the funding system goes to the highest wealth districts. (Payton Depo. 156; Russell Depo. 118). 6. The Beachwood City School District has an average valuation per pupil of approximately $288,000.00. (McMurrin Tr. 2499; Pl. Exh. 270). Beachwood City School District receives approximately $90,000.00 per year under the state foundation program by reason of guarantee provisions. (McMurrin Tr. 2579) 7. Guarantee districts would stand to gain from the receipt of additional funded units, such as special education or vocational units, since the loss of basic aid pupils to those units will not adversely affect their basic aid payment. (Russell Depo. 119) 8. The operation of the guarantee provisions of the foundation program is considered a weakness in the program by the State Board of Education. (Tavakolian Depo. 55; Russell Depo. 117; Shoemaker Tr. 4171; Pl. Exh. 142 p. 20) 9. Since 1980, the number of school districts receiving basic aid under a guarantee provision of the foundation program has tended to fluctuate in proportion to the amount of funding provided by the General Assembly. (Tavakolian Depo. 57) E. CATEGORICAL FUNDING 1. Categorical funds are basically flat distributions based upon ADM (the number of students). The main categoricals, which have never been fully funded, include special education and vocational education. (Ocasek Tr. 2844) 2. There is no equalization for funding of categorical units, so that each district receives funding for vocational, special education, and gifted units based on the same formula. (Taylor Depo. 105) 3. The Department of Education recommended to the 120th General Assembly that categorical program funds be equalized because the unit funds do not pay the full cost of the service being provided and the burden of making up the difference in costs falls more harshly on poor districts than rich. That recommendation was not approved. (Sanders Tr. 367-368) 4. The fact that categorical programs are not equalized is considered a weakness in the foundation program by the State Board. (Tavakolian Depo. 54) F. SPECIAL EDUCATION UNIT FUNDING 1. Special Education unit funding is described in Stipulations 58, 59 and 61 through 75, together with Stipulation Exhibits 32 and 33 2. The State of Ohio provides funds for the support of special education programs and services through a "unit funding" mechanism whereby funds are allocated to school districts in accordance with a formula that includes teacher compensation based on the state minimum teachers' salary schedule, retirement and all other fringe benefits at 15 percent of the state minimum teachers' salary and a fixed amount for all other expenses. (Stip. 58) For classroom units, the fixed amount is about $8,900 and for a related services unit, about $2,000. (Roach Tr. 2682; Herner Tr. 5520; Schindler Depo. 18) 3. A unit, in general terms, is a professional staff person, such as a teacher for a classroom unit, or a school psychologist, speech and hearing therapist, or occupational therapist for a related service unit. (Herner Tr. 5520) 4. The estimated average amount of funding provided in connection with a funded special education unit is $30,000 to $35,000. (Stip. 59) 5. Funded special education units are determined by the legislature and allocated by the State Department of Education. In the allocation of units, a preference is given to those that had the units last year; then to pupils formerly educated in MRDD units. (Russell Depo. 99) 6. Age ranges are applicable to funded special education units; if a child outgrows the unit, the child must be educated with local dollars if no additional unit funding is available. (Russell Depo. 100) 7. For the current year (1993-94) school districts have received a 1.37 percent reduction in funds for special education applied to categorical funding. (Pl. Exh. 442) 8. Since about 1990 (actually 7/26/91 per ORC 3317.13), there has been no increase in the state minimum teacher's salary schedule and, accordingly, no increase in the amount of funds provided by a funded special education classroom unit or a funded vocational or gifted unit. (I-lerner Tr. 5564; Maxwell rr. 144; Maxwell Exh. 6) 9. There are more applications for funded special education Units than there are units available. 1 order to apply for funding for a special education unit, a school district must first provide (without any guarantee of funding) the program and services that would qualify the unit for special education funding. (Van Keuren Depo. 196-197) 10. The amount provided for teacher salary and benefits through a funded special education classroom unit is generally less than the actual cost of the unit. (Russell Depo. 101; Van Keuren Depo. 195) Approximately GO percent of the costs of providing the unit is paid by the unit amount. (Russell Depo. 102) 11. If no special education program is available in the local school district, the pupil may be served in a multi-district collaborative program. (Russell Depo. 103) G. VOCATIONAL UNIT FUNDING 1. Joint vocational school programs are funded through a combination of unit funding and vocational school district tax levies. City school districts that provide vocational funding may receive unit funding for specific vocational programs but do not have the benefit of separate tax levies to fund vocational programs. For those districts, costs in excess of the unit funding costs are paid from the school district's general funds. (Tavakolian Depo. 104) 2. Funding provided to joint vocational school districts has been partially equalized since January 1989. (Shoemaker Tr. 4212) 3. Pupils included in vo