Lobato vs. Colorado at the Colorado Supreme Court

11 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

9NEWS reports, a portentous set of oral arguments just finished before the Colorado Supreme Court:

It will be months before the Supreme Court issues a ruling, which could have a major affect [sic] on the state budget…

"We're a wealthy state," said Kathleen Gebhardt, founder of Children's Voices, a non-profit law firm which advocates for education. "We're in the top 10 for wealth and in the bottom for funding our students."

Gebhardt is an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit of Lobato vs. the State of Colorado. The lawsuit, which has been initially upheld in district court, states that school funding is not equal across the state of Colorado and that is a violation of the state constitution. The case is currently under appeal.

According to the Colorado Department of Education and Gebhardt, schools receive an average of $6,474 per pupil in tax dollars.

"And, that puts us well into the bottom quadrant of all other states," Gebhardt said. "That worries me greatly about Colorado."

The district court ruling, which we discussed when it was issued back in 2011, was a thorough 180+ page indictment of the present state of Colorado's education system. District Judge Sheila Rappaport found that Colorado's public education funding system is not "rationally related" to the increasing requirements imposed on it–and that the state is unconstitutionally violating the Education Clause in the Colorado Constitution, which requires a "thorough and uniform" public education system.

If plaintiffs prevail, what could follow is a massive and court-mandated shakeup of not just education funding, but just about every other publicly-funded program in the state of Colorado as priorities obligatively shift to comply. The potential major upheaval this could create is a big reason why Gov. John Hickenlooper and others, even many who would support a large systemic change in support of public education, to oppose plaintiffs and argue that creating a "thorough and uniform" education system is a responsibility of the elected legislature–not the courts.

Recognizing the difficulty in striking a balance between these competing rational arguments, but mindful of the stories of severe hardship in many chronically underfunded school districts around the state, we've been anticipating this showdown for some time.

11 thoughts on “Lobato vs. Colorado at the Colorado Supreme Court”

ElliotFladen says:

March 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm

This whole situation somehow brings to mind the following:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

Log in to Reply
DavidThi808 says:

March 7, 2013 at 12:53 pm

What happens if this wins? There's a ton of research showing increased funding has no impact on the quality of education. So forcing more money won't change anything. Does the court require a more effective system? Or do they say uniform just means equal funding and it doesn't matter if the results don't change?

Log in to Reply
1. MADCO says:
  
  March 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm
  
  Well- then in your ~~fantasy~~ universe, funding can be cut like crazy. All the way back to the 50's.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ElliotFladen says:
    
    March 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    
    MADCO – see the example provided above in first comment. Maybe its distinguishable from what is going in CO, maybe not. Haven't analyzed it.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. BlueCat says:
      
      March 7, 2013 at 3:38 pm
      
      Your example indeed proves that throwing money at education won't solve problems but what problems are ever solved by just throwing money at them. It doesn't prove that money wisely spent can't help solve problems and, at the very least, children attending poor schools shouldn't have to freeze, bake or endure broken plumbing, leaky roofs and lack of books and materials because of their zip code.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. DavidThi808 says:
    
    March 7, 2013 at 8:23 pm
    
    In my fantasy (universe) they would focus on improving the system instead of increasing the spending. And I'm happy to pay more if it makes the system better.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Phoenix Rising says:
  
  March 7, 2013 at 3:31 pm
  
  The ruling is almost certainly to be on the monetary question only, as that is the only question before the Court. Judges rarely stray outside of the question at hand. In theory (as being argued) the state must provide adequate funds to provide an education to every child in the state. Whether or not the child manages to acquire that education isn't at issue.
  
  As to your statement about research – there's also a ton of research showing that class size matters, and that it's better when schools aren't crumbling, and when they are supplied with actual school supplies sufficient to teach children. So how do those studies (whose implications should be obvious even to you who seems to be fighting against school funding) jive with the research you cite?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. MADCO says:
    
    March 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    
    I don't need a study to show me Colorado is going to need increased funding to provide a "thorough and uniform" education.
    
    Whatever that means, I know it when I see it and I don't.
    
    Log in to Reply
RavenDawg says:

March 7, 2013 at 4:26 pm

I guarantee

that Hickenlooper and John Suthers are already drafting language for the referendum to do away with the Education Clause in the CO constitution in case the state's appeal is denied. Or else they're sitting back with clean hands while the Independence Institute does it for them. Bad for business, you know?

Log in to Reply
GalapagoLarry says:

March 7, 2013 at 8:47 pm

So Hick argues

that creating a "thorough and uniform" education system is a responsibility of the elected legislature–not the courts.

So what, Hick? Most folks agree the court has a limited role, and I don't expect the court to do much creating in this case, except for commanding Coloradans to fix a deplorable and embarrassing situation. It's your job, Hick, to round up the legislators and do the system creating. Quit whining, get off your butt and do your job so the courts don't have to do it for you. (Listen up, Hick, you're getting to be a pretty heavy load to carry much farther. Jus sayin.)

Log in to Reply
1. gaf says:
  
  March 7, 2013 at 10:50 pm
  
  I agree. The whole point of the lawsuit is that it is the legislature's responsiblity, and the legislature has not done its job. The role of the courts here is not to do the legislature's job but to point out the facts and make the legislature do its job.
  
  Log in to Reply