New chapter opens in K-12 funding lawsuit
Plaintiffs in the Lobato school adequacy lawsuit filed a revised complaint in Denver District Court Monday, reviving the major policy issue of whether Colorado spends enough on its K-12 schools at a time when the legislature is considering historic cuts in school spending.
The updated suit adds new plaintiffs – the Jefferson County and Colorado Springs 11 districts plus a group of Denver parents – and cites more recent evidence about the condition of school funding in Colorado.
As was the case when the lawsuit originally was filed, the core of the plaintiffs’ argument is that Colorado public schools are so under-funded that students are denied an adequate education, in violation of the state constitutional mandate of a “thorough and uniform” system.
Filing of the new complaint is the first step following an Oct. 19, 2009, Colorado Supreme Court ruling in which the court voted 4-3 to revive the lawsuit, which had been rejected by two lower courts.
The Lobato case started in 2005 when large group of parents from eight school districts across the state and 14 school districts in the San Luis Valley sued the state, claiming that Colorado’s school finance system violates the state constitution’s requirement for a “thorough and uniform” public education system.
In March 2006 Denver District Judge Michael Martinez ruled against the plaintiffs, concluding the current system meets the requirements of Amendment 23, isn’t subject to court review and that the school districts didn’t have standing to sue.
A Colorado Court of Appeals panel upheld the district court decision in January 2008.
The high court’s decision last year overturned all that and sent the case back to district court for trial.
At the time of the high court’s ruling, two of the lawyers involved in the case, Alexander Halpern and Kathleen Gebhardt, called on “the legislature to act immediately to remedy the problem, thereby avoiding a costly and lengthy trial.”
The legislature, faced with a continued decline in state revenues, already has cut just over 2 percent from 2009-10 state school support and is expected to reduce state aid by 6 percent or more in 2010-11.
Lawmakers and the Ritter administration are taking a narrow view of Amendment 23, arguing that its provision only apply to base school funding, which is about 75 percent of total state aid.
School districts were prepared for the 2009-10 cuts, given that they had to hold a total of $110 million in reserve until the legislature decided whether or not to release it.
Administrations and school boards around the state now are working in earnest of cutting their 2010-11 budgets, and some boards already have taken the legal steps necessary to lay off teachers before the new budget year starts on July 1.
Several education and other advocacy groups are part of the case as “friends of the court,” including the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Association of School Executives, the Colorado League of Charter Schools, the Colorado Lawyers Committee, the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, Great Education Colorado and Padres Unidos. They joined the case in support of the plaintiffs.
The school boards group, CASB, has been particularly active in the case, including helping raise money to help pay for the effort.
While “adequacy” might seem to be a concept whose definition is in the mind of the beholder, some people have taken a stab at estimating its cost. According to an estimate the Department of Education gave to a legislative study panel last summer, funding an “ideal” K-12 education system could cost nearly $9 billion a year, compared to the $6.1 billion currently spent.
Adequacy has been a focus of interest and court action in several other states in recent years. Here’s information on recent court action around the country, as reported by the National Access Network, a project of Teachers College at Columbia University.
Check EdNews later for an expanded version of this story.
More information
