This Comment critically evaluates DeRolph v. State and asserts that the supreme court\u27s decision is dangerous precedent, inasmuch as it dispirits the sacrosanct role a legislature assumes in a democratic society and overtly legitimizes judicial policymaking. This Comment suggests the court\u27s vision of a thorough and efficient school system, via more economic parity, ultimately undermines the General Assembly of the State and will not extricate Ohio schools. Part II explores the current system of financing public schools in the State of Ohio. This section will not delve into the minutia that have come to define school finance, but will instead acclimate the reader to a more holistic perspective of funding public school systems. Part III evaluates DeRolph v. State. Part IV contemplates whether more financial parity among school districts and the concomitant expenditure of additional funds is a realistic approach to ameliorating the state of public schools in Ohio. Part IV also examines the notion of judicial policymaking, its deleterious impact on democratic processes, and maintains that the DeRolph court arrogated its authority. Part V summarizes this Comment and counsels that DeRolph v. State will markedly fail to advance the quality of the Ohio public school system
