Who Is In Charge

Lawsuit: Education clause trumps TABOR

The revised school-funding lawsuit filed Monday argues that the state constitutional requirement for “a thorough and uniform system of free public schools” creates a “substantive” right to which “procedural amendments” such as TABOR “must yield.”

The new complaint in Lobato v. State, made possible by an October 2009 Colorado Supreme Court ruling that revived the original 2005 case, raises the issue of whether Colorado spends enough on its schools at a time when the legislature is considering historic cuts in K-12 spending.

The case also is expected to set into motion years of judicial and perhaps legislative debate on some big constitutional and policy questions:

  • What educational rights does the state constitution confer?
  • What is “adequate” funding of the schools?
  • Is it up to the courts or legislature to determine that?
  • Does the state constitution’s original language about a “thorough and uniform” system of schools – and any rights that language confers on citizens – override such later amendments as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and the Gallagher Amendment, which regulates property taxes?

The plaintiffs’ claim about TABOR, deep in the 38-page complaint, reads: “The ability of the state and school districts to provide and maintain sufficient funding and other resources and to implement a system of public school finance that meets the substantive right to a quality public education established by the Education Clause is fundamentally impaired by the taxing and spending conditions imposed by TABOR and the Gallagher Amendment. These procedural amendments to the constitution must yield to the substantive rights guaranteed by the Education Clause.”

The Lobato case started in 2005 when a 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.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to revive the lawsuit, sending it back to the trial court.

The updated suit adds new plaintiffs – the Jefferson County and Colorado Springs 11 districts plus a group of metro-area parents. The parents and their children include residents of the Adams 14, Boulder Valley, Denver, Pueblo County and Woodlin schools districts, plus the San Luis Valley districts.

There now are more than 30 individuals and 17 school districts on the suit.

The suit also cites more recent facts 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 that state constitutional mandate of a “thorough and uniform” system. The suit also claims the current system violates the constitutional local control rights of schools boards.

“The state has persistently failed to fund public education in a rational and sufficient manner and at the levels required to meet constitutional and statutory standards of quality,” the complaint reads.

“The Colorado public school finance system particularly fails to provide sufficient funding to provide a constitutionally adequate, quality education for the under-served student populations in the state.”

The suit repeated uses the words “irrational and inadequate” and also has some critical things to say about state education reform efforts in recent years.

“Education reform legislation has established instructional and other substantive goals and mandates without analyzing the cost to attain those goals or providing the means to fund the accomplishment of those mandates. The General Assembly has enacted education reform legislation without corresponding reform to the system of school finance.”

The suit seeks a court declaration that the current system isn’t rationally related to the constitutional education mandate, doesn’t provide enough funding to fulfill that mandate and violates the constitutional rights of school districts. It asks injunctions directing the state to fix the system and establishing continuing court monitoring of any such efforts.

At the time of the high court’s ruling last autumn, 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 to cut 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 were part of the original 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 on the issue, including helping raise money to pay legal bills.

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.

The lawsuit also cited a 2008 Colorado School Finance Project study that estimated a similar, $2.9 billion-a-year gap in adequate state funding.

The next step in the process will be filing of an answer by lawyers representing the state.

Adequacy has been a focus of activity and court review 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.

Do your homework

Speaking Up

Letters to J.B.: Here’s what 10 Illinois educators said governor-elect Pritzker should prioritize

PHOTO: Keri Wiginton/Chicago Tribune/MCT via Getty Images

As governor-elect and national early childhood education advocate J.B. Pritzker assembles his transition team and builds out his early agenda, we asked educators to weigh in with items he should consider.

Here are 10 of their responses, which range from pleas for more staffing to more counseling and mental health services. Letters have been edited only for clarity and length. Got something to add? Use the comment section below or tell us on Twitter using #PritzkerEdu.

From: A non-profit employee who works with schools in the city and suburbs

Letter to J.B.: I work with a number of students from the City of Chicago and sadly most of them lack basic skills. Most of the students lack the ability to read and write properly, and perform below grade level. It is alarming how many students don’t have critical-thinking and analytical skills. The lack of education in low-income and minority population will hurt our city and state in years to come.

***

From: A youth organizer at Morrill Elementary, a K-8 school on Chicago’s Southwest Side

Letter to J.B.: Morrill School has suffered from constant turnover due to an unstable Chicago Public Schools environment that cares more about upholding its own self-interest than the people it should be serving. We need representatives that will advocate for what communities say they need!

***

From: A music teacher at a Chicago charter school

Letter to J.B.: I work at a charter school and I don’t think we are doing the best we can for our kids. Our school’s policies are too harsh and dehumanizing.

***

From: A Chicago charter school social worker

Letter to J.B.: We’ve cut mental health services throughout the city and that has crippled us. Parents have a hard time getting jobs and having enough money to supply basic needs.

***

From: A Chicago principal

Letter to J.B.: My school is 100 percent free- and reduced-price lunch-eligible, or low-income population. We are a middle years International Baccalaureate school. Our children were once were the lowest performing in the area and now we are a Level 1-plus school. Our school was on the closing list back in 2005 when I took over.

But now we are an investment school. Teachers are dedicated and work hard. We need funding for a new teacher to keep classes small and additional funds to purchase multiple resources to continue and strengthen overall academics. We have a vested interest in educating all of our children!

***

From: A teacher at A.N. Pritzker Elementary in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood

Letter to J.B.: Great kids. Great staff. No librarian. Extremely poor special education services. No substitute teachers. No time for planning. No time for anyone to provide mental health services for those in need.

***

From: A teacher at Whitney Young High School on Chicago’s Near West Side

Letter to J.B.: Every teacher knows that well over 90 percent of the students with academic problems have serious problems at home and in their neighborhoods. In the suburbs, social worker and psychologist staffing levels are often five to 10 times what they are here in the city, where kids are dealing with way more challenges, not less. If you’re looking for bang for your buck, fund psychologists and social workers!

***

From: A teacher in the Galesburg CUSD 205

Letter to J.B.: Our school is diverse in all definitions of the word. We have a diverse population in terms of race, money, and ability. We currently don’t have the money to keep all of the schools in our district open and are in the process of closing some of the buildings in order to get the others up to code and comfortable; many of our schools don’t even have air conditioning.

***

From: A teacher at Kiefer School, a Peoria school that educates children with severe behavioral and learning challenges

Letter to J.B.: We work with students with behavioral and mental challenges who need more help getting mental health services. We’ve had children deflected from being hospitalized due to no beds being available.

***

From: A teacher at Unity Junior High School in Cicero

Letter to J.B.: People often think that our school is “bad,” but the truth is, we have so many staff and students that work hard every day to bring positive change.

Who's In Charge

Who’s in charge of rethinking Manual High School’s ‘offensive’ mascot?

PHOTO: Scott Elliott/Chalkbeat
Manual High School is one of three Indianapolis schools managed by Charter Schools USA.

As other schools in Indiana and across the nation have renounced controversial team names and mascots in recent years, Emmerich Manual High School in Indianapolis has held onto the Redskins.

One of the reasons why the school hasn’t given it up, officials said during a state board of education meeting this week, is because it’s unclear whose responsibility it would be to change the disparaging name.

Is it the obligation of the district, Indianapolis Public Schools, which owns the building and granted the nickname more than 100 years ago?

Is it the duty of the charter operator, Charter Schools USA, which currently runs the school?

Or is it the responsibility of the state, which took Manual out of the district’s hands in 2011, assuming control after years of failing grades?

“I don’t care who’s responsible for it,” said Indiana State Board of Education member Gordon Hendry, as he acknowledged the uncertainty. “I think it’s high time that that mascot be retired.”

The mascot debate resurfaced Wednesday as state officials considered the future of Manual and Howe high schools, which are approaching the end of their state takeover. Charter School USA’s contracts to run the schools, in addition to Emma Donnan Middle School, are slated to expire in 2020, so the schools could return to IPS, become charter schools, or close.

Manual is only one of two Indiana schools still holding onto the Redskins name, a slur against Native Americans. In recent years, Goshen High School and North Side High School in Fort Wayne have changed their mascots in painful processes in which some people pushed back against getting rid of a name that they felt was integral to the identity of their communities.

Knox Community High School in northern Indiana also still bears the Redskins name and logo.

“The term Redskins can be absolutely offensive,” said Jon Hage, president and CEO of Charter Schools USA. “We’ve had no power or authority to do anything about that.”

He suggested that the state board needs to start the process, and that the community should have input on the decision.

An Indianapolis Public Schools official told Chalkbeat the district didn’t have clear answers yet on its role in addressing the issue.

Even if the state board initiates conversations, however, member Steve Yager emphasized that he does not want the state to make the decision on the mascot.

“We don’t have to weigh in on that,” Yager said. “I feel like that’s a local decision.”