brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

More documents

Recommendations

Info

asic terms, Plaintiffs contend that as a result of under-funding and irrational and unequalfunding of public education, the State of Colorado is failing to provide a constitutionallyadequate, quality education; that the public school finance system fails to provide the financialresources necessary for school districts to exercise their authority to control instruction in theirschools; and that radically unequal and irrational variations in property tax mill levies to fund thestate’s duty to provide an adequate public education constitute a state-wide, non-uniformproperty tax.In pertinent part, article IX, section 2, of the Colorado Constitution (the EducationClause) mandates that the “general assembly shall . . . provide for the establishment andmaintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state.”Plaintiffs contend that the Education Clause includes a substantive guarantee of aconstitutionally adequate, quality education for all school-age Colorado residents. The generalassembly has acknowledged this guarantee in legislation, e.g.:[S]ection 2 of article IX of the state constitution requires the general assembly to providefor the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free publicschools. The state therefore has an obligation to ensure that every student has a chance toattend a school that will provide an opportunity for a quality education. 1In order to fulfill its constitutional duty, the State must provide sufficient financialresources for the public schools in a manner that is intentionally, rationally, and demonstrablyrelated to the accomplishment of the qualitative mandate of the Education Clause. The generalassembly has also acknowledged this duty. The Public School Finance Act of 1994 (PSFA), theprincipal source of education funding, “is enacted in furtherance of the general assembly’s dutyunder section 2 of article IX of the state constitution to provide for a thorough and uniform1COLO. REV. STAT. §22-30.5-301(1).2
system of public schools throughout the state . . . .” 2Funding for public education is derived from local taxes, state funds, and, to asignificantly lesser degree, federal funds. The PSFA sets the financial base of support for eachschool district, referred to as its “total program funding.” School year 2005-06 total programfunding is projected to be approximately $4.545 billion to provide services to some 733,000school children, for an average of $6,164 per pupil. Of this total, $2.835 billion (62.4 percent)will be provided by state funding and $1.710 billion (37.6 percent) from local school districtproperty taxes.The PSFA formula and funding levels that were established when it was amended in1994 were not based on an analytical determination of the actual costs to provide aconstitutionally adequate, quality education, but merely rolled forward historical spendingpatterns that were distorted by variations in local taxable property values and politicalcompromise. The problem was then magnified by years of under-funding. From 1994 until theimplementation of “Amendment 23” 3 in 2002, Colorado failed in every year to increase PSFAfunding at the minimal rate necessary to defray increased school district costs due to inflation.The result is a $3.4 billion cumulative shortfall in PSFA funding against inflation alone over theten year period from 1994 to 2004.Since the 1994 amendments to the PSFA, the state has undertaken a comprehensivereform of the Colorado public education system, 4 and, in 2002 the State Board of Education2§22-54-102(1). See Board of County Comm’rs of Douglas County CO v. Bainbridge, Inc., 929P.2d 621, 709 (Colo. 1997).3COLO. CONST., Art. IX, §17.4Key elements of education reform include the implementation of a state-wide standards-basededucation system incorporating mandatory minimum public school content standards andassociated student performance objectives; universal assessment of public school student3
Page 1: DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OFD
Page 5 and 6: Amendment 23 was not intended to an
Page 7 and 8: evenues they can raise, receive, an
Page 9 and 10: electorate, reacting against the de
Page 11 and 12: State to fund a thorough and unifor
Page 13 and 14: People v. District Court, 196 Colo.
Page 15 and 16: with an informal foster family.Ther
Page 17: In his concurring opinion, Justice
Page 20 and 21: Implicit are supportive services: (
Page 22 and 23: if the districts lack sufficient fu
Page 26 and 27: judicial power; that the executive
Page 28 and 29: The general assembly can reprioriti
Page 30 and 31: state auditor and treasurer from is
Page 32 and 33: There is nothing fair or just about
Page 34 and 35: Defendants offer revenues raised in
Page 36 and 37: a state must be deemed commensurate
Page 38 and 39: local over state control of instruc
Page 40: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby cert

brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?