A lawsuit that could have a huge impact on Colorado school funding also offers a preview of this falls election. With a measure on the November ballot to boost school funding, the arguments presented in court last week are sure be repeated often in the next two months.
The adversarial quality of a trial and the zero-sum nature of an election obscure the fact that both arguments have merit and both have been overstated.
The court case is Lobato vs. Colorado. Several parents and school districts including the original plaintiff, Anthony Lobato of Center, and Montezuma-Cortez schools sued the state saying Colorados current school funding does not fulfill the states obligation under its xonstitution to provide every child a thorough and uniform education.
They argue that the state has imposed testing, boosted academic standards and raised graduation requirements without funding those mandates. The plaintiffs attorney wrote in his trial brief: School districts are left to meet 21st century educational standards with 1980s funding, and it cannot be done.
What a win for the Colorado plaintiffs would mean depends on exactly remedy the courts impose and how exaggerated the states concerns might be. Officials worry a ruling against the state could require as much as $2 billion more for schools almost the whole state budget.
No money for prisons, said Gov. John Hickenlooper, No money for federal matches for health care. No money for higher education, and you go down the list. The ramifications of that, I cant even understand.
None of that is certain to happen. In any case, this is likely to go to the state Supreme Court first.
Beside the constitutions Education Clause, the case in part turns on the interaction of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights requirement that tax increases be voted on and the Gallagher Amendment, which limits residential property taxes. But the judge in the case rejected some of the states arguments concerning TABOR and giving deference to the Legislature. That left the state having to argue that money does not matter.
Just pouring money into the schools doesnt produce a better quality product, said Attorney General John Suthers.
The states star witness, Stanford professor Eric Hanushek, reiterated that, saying, How you spend money is much more important than what you spend.
It would be ridiculous to say more money is all that is needed to improve public education. But it is also obviously wrong to suggest that money does not affect the quality of a childs education. Spending wisely implies money to spend.
Hanushek rightly stressed the importance of good teachers. But teachers need to be paid, and good ones should be paid more. He says class size does not matter. But is there no limit to that? What about books, supplies, warm buildings and safe school buses? They cost money, too.
That Colorado schools need $2 billion per year more, as the plaintiffs have asserted seems excessive. That money has nothing to do with quality in education, as the states witness claims, mocks human experience.
The courts will sort out Lobato. But faced with similar arguments this fall, that responsibility will fall to the voters.