President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 07, 2013 11:49 AM UTC

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.

Comments

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

  1. 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?

      1. MADCO – see the example provided above in first comment.  Maybe its distinguishable from what is going in CO, maybe not. Haven't analyzed it. 

        1. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

  2. 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? 

  3. 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.)

    1. 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.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

249 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!