Fight over control of Ohio's public education: Here's what you need to know

Ohio is in a legal battle over who controls public education.

On one side are Gov. Mike DeWine and Republicans in the state legislature. They say Ohio's 1.7 million public school children would be better served by a director who reports to the governor instead of the 19-member State Board of Education.

On the other side are three parents, two of whom are also board members. They say taking away the board's powers is not only unconstitutional, it would give parents less of a voice in things like state standards and how new laws, like the phonics requirements, get implemented.

More: DeWine: Part of overhaul of K-12 education will happen despite a court order

In the middle is Franklin County Court Judge Karen Phipps.

Here's what you need to know about the case:

How we got here

When state lawmakers passed Ohio's operating budget in June, they included about 1,000 pages overhauling the Ohio Department of Education.

These changes included eliminating ODE, renaming the agency the Department of Education and Workforce, creating a new director that DeWine would appoint, and transferring most education policy powers from the 19-member Ohio State Board of Education to DeWine's new director.

More: Ohio Senate passes budget. What does it mean for education, taxes and other issues?

Supporters said taking control away from the board would improve academic outcomes for children, make the department more agile, and end ideological fighting over culture war issues that have bogged down board meetings.

"The bottom line is we have thousands of kids who are behind and not being remediated. They are not getting caught up,"  Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, said.

Democrats and seven members of the state board disagreed. They said a political appointee would be less responsive to parental concerns than the elected members, and this restructuring might be unconstitutional.

Board members sue the state

Those seven members of the state board sued DeWine in September, arguing that the budget bill broke three different constitutional provisions.

• Adding education policy to the budget violated the single-subject rule that says laws can't be about more than one topic.

• The "education takeover" part didn't get three considerations as required.

• Ohioans voted to create the board in 1953, giving it certain core powers that the legislature can't take away.

Judge Phipps ruled there was enough evidence to suggest the plaintiffs might be right, so she issued a temporary restraining order blocking certain sections of the budget from becoming law.

More: Ohio State Board of Education members sue to stop major overhaul of K-12 schools

What DeWine did in response to court order

The problem with that order was it didn't include the sections that ended the Ohio Department of Education.

DeWine told reporters Monday night that, legally speaking, ODE “dies at midnight” along with its ability to pay local school districts and approve voucher applications. If the new Department of Education and Workforce wasn’t created, then he wasn't sure how those important tasks would continue.

The governor said that “created what would appear to be a crisis." And he "cannot let this chaos happen."

So, he and his legal team looked at their options and decided the new department could start Tuesday so long as he didn't appoint a director or transfer the board's powers to that new cabinet appointee.

"We believe based on what our lawyers tell us that the new department can, in fact, function," DeWine said.

Did DeWine violate the court order?

Judge Phipp’s temporary restraining order said the governor was prohibited from "creating the Department of Education and Workforce."

To the plaintiffs in this case, now three parents of public school children, DeWine's actions appear to violate that order.

"Gov. DeWine said that he plans to violate the court order because parents care about their children's education, but that's exactly why I filed this lawsuit to begin with," Christina Collins said. "This all stems from the governor's attempt to take away our elected representation, jeopardize the quality of my children's education, and remove local input and control."

Democrats, who opposed the education overall, agreed.

“The decision to ignore the authority of the court is a dangerous precedent to set at a time when public trust in the institution of government is at an all-time low ...," Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. "Until the court decides how to proceed, the state should not interfere.”

But Lt. Gov. Jon Husted told reporters that not interfering could have brought public education to a screening halt.

The $30 billion appropriated to fund schools "exists in the Department of Education and Workforce," he said. "Without the governor stepping in and providing this leadership," schools might not have enough money to pay teachers or buy food for lunches.

What happens next?

The plaintiffs and the state have until Oct. 4 at noon to submit arguments as to why the temporary restraining order should end, be modified, or continue for another 14 days.

Judge Phipps could also decide whether the governor's actions violated her order.

DeWine told reporters his interpretation of create meant to take "affirmative action," and he won't be doing that. His legal theory was DEW came into existence on Tuesday as "a function of law."

He will not appoint a new director nor will DeWine remove any of the board’s existing powers over education policy. Interim Superintendent Chris Woolard will also continue to serve as the department’s leader.

"If someone wants to file a suit and say he can’t lead have at it," DeWine said. "All you’re doing is taking a leader away from the department that is here to help our kids."

Democracy Forward, the group representing the plaintiffs, strongly disagreed with that interpretation.

"Make no mistake, the court already ruled that the DeWine administration’s takeover of the State Board of Education in Ohio must be halted until it has an opportunity to issue a decision," Democracy Forward CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement. "If the governor is suggesting the state will not comply with the court’s order, then he would be in contempt of the court."

Anna Staver is a reporter for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Columbus Dispatch, Cincinnati Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio Governor begins education overhaul despite court order