Category Archives: Courts

I’m still catching up on stories and commentaries I may have missed while on break at the end of the year. A few months ago I brought your attention to a growing dispute in Weld County’s Valley Re-1 School District, from the local teachers association that claimed its collective bargaining privileges were being stripped away illicitly. In December by my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow on his personal blog took a closer look and found more reasons to be skeptical of the Valley Education Association’s claims that the existing policy represented collective bargaining. He also pointed out how the dispute was set up by Colorado’s unique legal formulation and noted the potentially significant ramifications from VEA’s lawsuit against the school district for officially changing the policy. A precedent from the case very well could affect other Colorado districts with similar policies. Well, on December 23, the Michigan-based Education Action Group (EAG) featured the story in its national e-newsletter and on its NEAExposed blog under the headline “Colorado school board battling to keep aggressive teachers union in check.” EAG’s interview with the Valley Re-1 superintendent:

Everybody’s got the election on the brain today, but there is something maybe even bigger going on out there that is of concern to us education transformers. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court is set to hear the case Garriott v Winn, which will decide the constitutionality of Arizona’s K-12 tuition tax credit program. Apparently, somebody didn’t like the program because a lot of people have given to scholarship organizations that make it easier for students to attend religious schools. But it seems groups like the ACLU never bothered to ask whether the program helps families like the Dennards, featured below in an Institute for Justice video: As a new study by Dr. Vicki Murray shows, Arizona’s tax credit program “overwhelmingly” benefits low- and middle-income families. But that didn’t stop the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from stepping out on a limb to say that the program empowering more parents to make educational choices is somehow against the law. Thank goodness there is one higher judicial stop to determine what should happen. For some more background and basic facts on the case, check out this page from “On the Docket.”

As the boss Jon Caldara noted yesterday, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers took time this week to talk to my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow about the latest with that school funding lawsuit. Lobato, you’ve heard of it? Click the play button below (or follow this link) to listen to the 12-minute interview: A quick follow-up with three points:

Not that it’s a huge surprise, but we’ve learned the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to take a second look at the Ninth Circuit decision striking down Arizona’s 13-year-old individual scholarship tax credit program. The American Federation for Children reports this morning: Supporters of school choice programs that provide children with educational opportunity will once again have their day in court—in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided today that it would hear an appeal to a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that declared an Arizona school choice program unconstitutional.

It wasn’t that many months ago the Colorado Supreme Court decided it has the right to decide our state’s school funding policy in the Lobato case. Faithful readers have seen me write about it on several occasions. A couple months ago the plaintiffs — including some funded by school district tax dollars — filed a new official complaint, arguing 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. As reported in Ed News Colorado, Colorado’s Attorney General last Friday filed a response: In standard legal language, the answer rejects most of the plaintiffs’ claims or terms them legal conclusions that don’t require an answer. The AG’s filing claims the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case, seek an unconstitutional remedy and that their claims violate the separation of powers. It asks that the court rule in the state’s favor. I happen to think the Attorney General is right. But anyway, thanks to the Colorado Supreme Court, Round 2 of the long, costly legal battle is now underway. It could be many years and many taxpayer dollars spent on both sides before the […]

Do individual teachers have a right to decide how their money is spent on politics? A few years ago the U.S. Supreme Court upheld common sense and unanimously ruled in the Davenport case that the answer is Yes. The case originated from a lawsuit by the state of Washington and a group of teachers whose funds were being misused by the union. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) in Olympia, Washington, did the hard work and led the charge in filing the complaint that brought the abuses to the state’s attention. Last week EFF won final victory (and closure) in the case, as the Washington Education Association officially signed off on a settlement that “will pay $1.2 million in penalties and restitution, not to mention the attorneys fees spent to defend itself.” You know that’s a big deal, because the case has been going on longer than little old me has been alive … Wow! EFF’s Mike Reitz, a recurring favorite iVoices guest, sat down with my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow to talk about the basic facts of the case, the cause for celebration, and what lies ahead in the fight for union accountability and public employees’ free speech […]

If you can dig way back into your memory banks, four months ago the Colorado Supreme Court decided it had a say in determining the state’s school funding policy — giving new life to the Lobato v State lawsuit. Recently, two of the plaintiff lobbying groups have been urging local school boards to agree to help pay the legal fees. In essence, this means taxpayers are funding both sides of a lawsuit to force taxpayers to spend more money on schools. As News 5’s Andy Koen reports, Colorado Springs School District 11 last week voted to spend $50,000 on the lawsuit, even though a Democrat state legislator says the money simply isn’t there in the budget, and an education legal expert says these lawsuits are ineffective (click here to watch a 2-minute video of the news story):

Last week I told you about a new Colorado Supreme Court decision (PDF) that opens up the doors to judicial policy making in our state’s school funding system. Well, now my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow has weighed in with a column for today’s Colorado Daily on the Lobato v State ruling: The four-member majority in last week’s ruling showed a token amount of concern about overstepping their bounds into legislative turf. The justices said they just want to ensure a “rational basis” exists for the current system. Nevertheless, Coloradans should have very little confidence in restraint from the Colorado Supreme Court.

Update, 10/21: Joshua Dunn dissects the decision in writing over at the Education Next blog. Check it out. I haven’t had a chance to take a course yet in Colorado civics and government, so maybe I’m just a bit confused. Isn’t the legislature supposed to make the laws, and the courts just supposed to interpret them? Well then, how do you explain this overreaching 4-3 decision from the Colorado Supreme Court? The Lobato case started in 2005 when large 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. The high court’s decision Monday overturned all that and sends the case back to district court for trial.

Exactly what role should unelected judges play in making policies for our schools? What problems have been created? What can we expect in the future? These are the kinds of questions that University of Colorado at Colorado Springs professor Joshua Dunn addresses in a new iVoices podcast with my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow (click the play button below to listen to the 15-minute discussion): The podcast only scratches the surface on the issue of the courts and education policy, because Joshua Dunn really knows what he’s talking about. Along with Martin West, he edited an important new book on the topic called From Schoolhouse to Courthouse — published by the Brookings Institution Press and Thomas B. Fordham Institute.