Colorado

Useful Resources

Historical Background

In 1977, 68 schoolchildren from 16 different districts brought suit against the Colorado State Board of Education, claiming that disparities in school funding deprived them of equal educational opportunities in violation of the state and federal constitutions. Although the trial court sided with the plaintiffs, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed that decision in Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education, 649 P.2d 1005 (1982). The supreme court concluded that the state's education clause did not require "absolute equality in educational services or expenditures." In addition, the court ruled that the goal of local school control was a legitimate state purpose which justified the state's school financing system under the equal protection clause.

Subsequently, a suit was filed on behalf of 17 schoolchildren claiming a denial of basic, "adequate" -- rather than "equal" -- educational opportunities. Although the suit was eventually withdrawn, it helped to spur the legislature to pass the 1988 Public School Finance Act, which established a guaranteed foundation of funding for all districts. This foundation formula was revised by the legislature in 1994 to include personnel costs and additional funding for at-risk students.

In 1998, a new group of plaintiffs represented by the Colorado Lawyers Committee brought suit claiming that the deteriorating physical state of the public schools deprived students of educational opportunity. In June of 2000, a trial court judge approved a settlement to the suit. Under this agreement, the State committed $190 million dollars to fund school repair and construction in the neediest school districts over more than a decade. In 2000, the legislature passed Bill 181 to implement the settlement.

In November 2000, a majority of voters passed Amendment 23, requiring the legislature to increase spending on public schools by at least the rate of inflation, plus one percent, each year for the next ten years and by the rates of inflation thereafter. The legislature implemented the voters' command by expanding funding in the spring of 2001.

Lobato v. State

In June 2005, Children’s Voices, a Colorado public-interest law firm, acting on behalf of concerned parents and financially strapped districts from across the state, filed suit, alleging that, as a result of Colorado's extremely restrictive tax laws, the state is unconstitutionally under-funding the education system by close to one billion dollars annually. The lawsuit is supported by the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado Association of School Boards, and the Colorado Association of School Executives, amongst others. Plaintiffs argue that the Colorado legislature has consistently failed to fulfill the education clause of the state constitution, which mandates a “thorough and uniform” public school system.

One of plaintiffs’ primary concerns is the dramatic lack of resources for educating students with disabilities and English Language Learners (ELLs). The Denver Post reports that ELL students in Colorado currently receive only $80 to $90 more per year than the average student. According to the Rocky Mountain News, plaintiffs’ case also emphasizes the need for preschool and full-day kindergarten, improved transportation, and specialized programs that improve educational outcomes, such as vocational education and gifted and talented programs. Plaintiffs are requesting that the state mandate an education cost study, which will determine the specific dollar amount required to provide a constitutionally “thorough and uniform” education to all of the state's public school students.

On March 2, 2006, Judge Michael A. Martinez of the Denver District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ adequacy claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. According to Judge Martinez, “The current financing scheme is in accord with the minimum mandates of Amendment 23, does not pose a constitutional question, and is therefore non-justiciable.” Plaintiffs’ claim that school tax levies were actually state taxes subject to the state constitution’s uniformity requirement was rejected, on the grounds that finding in plaintiffs’ favor would inhibit local control of financing of public education. Finally, it was determined that plaintiff school districts lacked standing, as they were political subdivisions of the state.

On January 24, 2008, the intermediate Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Denver District Court’s judgment in favor of the State. As was the case in the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that educational adequacy was a non-justiciable political question. According to the court, the state constitution’s Education Clause did not provide judicially discoverable or “manageable standards” for discerning the definition of educational adequacy. As such, the court reasoned, the matter was to be left to the state legislature. The court rejected plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Education Clause’s “thorough and efficient” requirement was justiciable, claiming that other states’ courts had engaged in judicial policymaking by considering claims based on identical phraseology.

On September 15, 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Lobato case regarding the Court of Appeals' holding that educational quality and adequacy was a non-justiciable political question and the holding that school districts could not challenge the consitutionality of the Colorado school finance system.

Useful Resources

For information regarding other states with facilities-only cases, see Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, and New Mexico.

Christina Burnett and Drew Dunphy, Who's in Control? The Court, the Legislature and the Public in Colorado's School Finance Debate (Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., June 1999).

Last updated: September, 2008