Both Sides in Lobato: Resources Matter.
Six years after it was first filed, the five-week Lobato trial came to a close last week. In Lobato, plaintiff parents and school districts are challenging the state’s failure to meet the Colorado constitution’s mandate of a “thorough and uniform system of free public schools” — a system that enables every child to become engaged, effective members of their communities and of the workforce.
Not surprisingly, there were frequent clashes between the State’s and the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The questioning of witnesses and the legal wrangling got intense and heated at times.
But the real story of the trial is not about the differences in testimony. It’s about the similarities. Ultimately, witnesses on both sides agreed on this fundamental truth: well-targeted resources make a difference in student achievement and success.
Consider these statements (defense (state) witnesses are in bold):
- Kenzo Kawanabe, plaintiffs’ attorney in closing: “Plaintiffs do not argue that resources equal student achievement. There is no guarantee. But not funding schools guarantees failure.”
- Lt. Gov. Joe Garcia: Resources are a “necessary but not sufficient” condition for improved student achievement.
- Jeffco Superintendent Cindy Stevenson: “More dollars in the right places makes a difference” for student achievement.
- Former Colorado Commissioner of Education William Moloney praised the accomplishments of KIPP schools, the website of which states: “Public funding does not cover all costs of running KIPP Colorado Schools, leaving a significant shortfall that must be covered by private philanthropy. . . . On average, $1600 per student must be raised in order to ensure that KIPPsters will receive art, music, daily PE, and end-of-year field lessons – vital programs that these students would not have access to in their neighborhood public schools.”
- Harrison School District Superintendent Mike Miles noted “I believe we have significantly reduced our resources and we are going to have a hard time meeting our goals.”
- Even the state’s star national witness, Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution, acknowledged that well-targeted resources will improve achievement:
Q. If a school district in Colorado efficiently spends its money, then do you think that additional funds for education could lead to higher student achievement?
A. Yes, if they’re spending money, it implies that more money would lead to higher achievement, if they’re efficient at it.
Also notable was the overwhelming amount of plaintiffs’ testimony that the state did not dispute. Over the three-and-a-half weeks that they presented their case, plaintiffs painted an uncontested picture of a system that is so under-resourced that it leads to the academic failure of many children and impedes the achievement of most. Among the stories told from the witness box that were uncontested by the state:
- A teacher in Cortez works three jobs in order to afford supplies for his classroom;
- In Creede, the sole math teacher for the upper grades teaches two separate courses to two classes of students durng the same period;
- In Jefferson County, graduation requirements were reduced, in order to avoid layoff of teachers in earlier grades;
- A national expert noted that Colorado has among the largest achievement gaps in the country between children in poverty and those not in poverty.
- A state witness admitted he had no reason to dispute one finding that ranked Colorado 51st among all states and D.C. in special education contribution.
Ultimately, the state had little to argue, other than that it is not the court’s place to make a determination of whether the state’s system is “thorough and uniform” — an argument that the Supreme Court had already dismissed almost two years ago:
To be successful, [plaintiffs] must prove that the state’s current public school financing system is not rationally related to the General Assembly’s constitutional mandate to provide a “thorough and uniform” system of public education. . . . If the trial court finds the current system of public finance irrational and thus unconstitutional, then that court must permit the legislature a reasonable period of time to change the funding system so as to bring the system in compliance with the Colorado Constitution.
The case is now in the hands of Judge Sheila Rappaport, who patiently listened to almost two hundred hours of testimony and will apply the facts she heard to the Court’s test. (In about six weeks, the parties will provide her with their “Proposed Findings of Fact,” and her decision will follow.)
In pretrial rulings, the Judge Rappaport described her role and the issue before her:
In the name of the Education Clause, the General Assembly has established a comprehensive system of educational goals, methods, and measures, all of which it requires school districts to implement successfully. A system intended to finance a constitutional mandate cannot be rationally related to that purpose if it is created and funded without reference to the costs of providing the mandated services. . . .. . . The Supreme Court held that if this Court finds the school finance system unconstitutional, it would be the task of the General Assembly to bring it into compliance. Therefore, the remedy should permit the General Assembly an “appropriate period of time” to enact a constitutional system.
And so it is that the Judge will decide the case by determining whether there is a “rational relationship” between the system of mandates and the system of funding that the General Assembly has adopted. As plaintiffs’ attorney Kathy Gebhardt noted, the evidence demonstrated that there is, in fact, a relationship between those two systems: unfortunately, it’s not a “rational” relationship — it’s an inverse one “that ratchets up the standards, ratchets up the expectations and diminishes the resources.”
The uncontested testimony in the Lobato trial demonstrated the gaping chasm between what is demanded of our schools and the resources provided to accomplish those demands. Indeed, with the case so clear, the legislature doesn’t need to wait for a court decision to act. That chasm is a problem that doesn’t need to be studied any more; it needs to be fixed, for the sake of Colorado’s children and its economic future.
And, as the Supreme Court made clear, it’s the legislature’s job.
Related posts:
