When it comes to the amendments that limit lawmakers ability to govern as they ought to be empowered, Colorados constitution is a case study in dysfunction. Competing clauses have been added through popular vote have, by turns, dictated constraining property tax formulas, eliminated state legislators and local officials capacity to levy tax increases, and required an ever-increasing stream of funding be dedicated to K-12 education. The net result is a system that cannot feed itself and yet lacks the capacity to make the necessary changes to remedy the imbalance.
Add to that a constitutional requirement that all Coloradans between the ages of six and 21 have access to a thorough and uniform system of free public schools, and the ensuing quest for clarity as well as parity has advocates on all sides pursuing remedies in all venues. This week, that meant opening arguments in a lawsuit claiming that the conflicting funding limitations articulated in the state constitution make delivery of that thorough and uniform education impossible, therefore placing the state in violation of its own foundational promises. The suit, which was brought by 21 school districts including Montezuma-Cortez, claims that in mandating ever-increasing achievement standards while simultaneously limiting funding, the state is forcing districts to renege on the constitutional bargain they are bound to fulfill. It is an argument worth having, but it is more likely to function as a springboard for discussion than a solution to this vexing and enduring problem.
While the plaintiffs are correct in their assertion that Taxpayers Bill of Rights restrictions, in concert with the Gallagher Amendments property tax formula mean less dollars for schools, the argument of whether dollars translate to achievement cannot be overlooked. Defendants the state of Colorado will argue that they do not, and not without merit. Indeed, while Colorado is ranked 40th among states per pupil spending, schools performance ranks 17th in the nation. That suggests that Colorado is using its limited resources to achieve impressive results. It also suggests that schools in the state could do far better with more resources.
Plaintiffs will make just that argument in the case, being heard by Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport, and it is worth considering, regardless of the cases outcome. Districts across the state face daunting budget reductions. Re-1, which is now operating a four-day school week and has ever-shrinking funds available for supplies, is hardly alone in its budgetary woes. Addressing that shortage is essential, but a court victory might raise more questions than it settles.
Regardless of the outcome in district court, the case will likely make its way to the state Supreme Court, where a ruling could kick the problem back to the legislature to solve, or hand it over to voters for a complex ballot solution that addresses the conflicting mechanisms that created the mess. The way out of it will take work on all sides of the issue; it has been necessary for some time and is becoming increasingly so. As Lobato v. Colorado navigates the court system, lawmakers and advocates would be wise to look ahead to crafting viable means for making good on the states educational promise.
