The Lobato Ruling in Colorado
Spencer Weiler on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 7:01PM On May 28, 2013 the Colorado Supreme Court overturned a trial court’s ruling that deemed the state’s funding formula unconstitutional for failing to comply with the “thorough and uniform” constitutional standard. In fact, the trial judge referred to the state funding formula as “irrational.” The state Supreme Court, on a 4-2 vote (one justice recused herself due to potential conflict of interests), offered an extensive analysis of “thorough and uniform” and adequacy. Based on this analysis, the state Supreme Court ruled that the current funding formula meets the “thorough and uniform” standard and provides all students with an adequate educational opportunity in the state of Colorado.
Although I was extremely disappointed by this ruling – I had hopes that a more favorable ruling would have resulted in a repeal of the restrictive Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) – legally, I do not disagree with the state Supreme Court. The justices offered a defensible definition of thorough and uniform (“describes a free public school system that is of a quality marked by completeness, is comprehensive, and is consistent across the state”), and then applied that definition to the state’s funding formula. Despite extensive evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ claim that the funding formula is inadequate, the state Supreme Court’s definition of thorough and uniform required a decision that the state funding formula is constitutional.
However, the fact that the state funding formula meets a minimal constitutional standard is not to imply that it even approximates the state’s moral obligation to its students. Colorado is currently shackled by two regressive constitutional amendments – the Gallagher Amendment and TABOR – that have resulted in an alarming disparity between local and state dollars supporting public education. Despite the goal of 50-50 between local and state funds supporting public education, the current distribution is 35-65 with the state shouldering the greater burden. My research findings have estimated that the state is failing to collect between $1.7 and $2.2 billion in property taxes because of the unintended consequences of the Gallagher Amendment and TABOR. As a result, the state coffers are being used to backfill these lost revenues.
So, what is our moral obligation to children in Colorado (or any other state)? I feel the answer to that question should be driven by policy makers in Denver but my point here is that there needs to be a shift in thinking. Ensuring all children have access to an adequate education should be a political agenda that unites policy makers on both sides of the aisle. Why only political party is viewed as a friend to public education is a mystery to me (or I am incredibly naïve). If you value a stronger economy then you have to value public education. If you value stronger communities then you have to value public education. If you value people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps then you have to value public education. In fact, even if the only thing you value is your own well being then you have to value public education given all the benefits associated with an educated populace.
If the discussion related to school finance operated in the moral arena, as opposed to the legal one, then children would benefit. I guess it comes down to how the question is crafted – does public education need more money (politically unpopular) or do America’s children require additional resources to be able to complete in the 21st Century? Advocates for better funding ought to take a page from Bush’s No Child Left Behind. If you had voted against that it would have appeared like you were voting for some children being left behind. A similar catch phrase is needed to encapsulate the need for greater funding in Colorado and the nation.
I will end my commentary on this ruling by stating that the state Supreme Court failed in one key aspect of Lobato. State statute requires school districts to work toward providing students with a world-class education. In other words, the standards and expectations are fairly high for educators throughout the state. However, what are the standards and expectations for the state to fund a world-class system of education? According to the state Supreme Court, there are no such standards or expectations.
