U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 07, 2013 11:49 AM UTC
11 Comments
This whole situation somehow brings to mind the following:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
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?
Well- then in your
fantasyuniverse, funding can be cut like crazy. All the way back to the 50's.MADCO – see the example provided above in first comment. Maybe its distinguishable from what is going in CO, maybe not. Haven't analyzed it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
So Hick argues
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.)
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.