Lobato vs. Colorado: John Suthers, Colo. Attorney General, Appeals Judge's Funding Decision

On Monday, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers filed an appeal of Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport's landmark ruling on school funding in the Lobato v. State of Colorado case, 9News reports.

There were several reasons Suthers' office claims that Rappapport's decision was in error, but one of the main concerns Suthers had was with the judge's exclusion of allowing the state to use the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in its defense of how it funds education. TABOR restricts revenues for all levels of government (including schools) and requires a public vote for tax increases.

However, before the case started, Rappaport had ruled that TABOR would not be considered in the Lobato case, according to Education News Colorado.

Judge Rappaport issued the landmark 186-page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the Lobato case, concluding the state's education funding is not "thorough and uniform," and therefore unconstitutional. In her ruling, Rappaport went so far as to say the system is "unconscionable," according to a report by the Denver Post.

The Lobato lawsuit does not seek a specific sum of money, but does estimate that Colorado is underfunding its educational system by $4 billion, writes KDVR. State officials have been worried that declaring the state's education funding system unconstitutional could force the state to spend most of its general fund on education, when it already spends over 40 percent on it.

In December 2011, Gov. Hickenlooper announced that the state would appeal the judge's decision, Education News Colorado reported. Then just days after Hickenlooper's announcement, the Colorado State Board of Education also voted 4-3 to appeal the judge's decision.

For a more detailed view into the Lobato case, visit Education News Colorado's Lobato Case Coverage.

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[onwisconsin]

07:55 PM on 01/24/2012

TABOR caused Colorado to shortchange schoolchildren and services everywhere. It is an excuse for bad behavior that has cost children their chances at a quality education.

Shame on you for appealing. You should be out explaining to voters how they're going to have to pay for their children's education and all other vital services.

[craneman]

01:02 PM on 01/24/2012

TABOR should be locked up with Doug Bruce--

[Hlynn]

11:51 AM on 01/24/2012

It's astounding the level of nonacademic services the public expects from schools, and yet they balk at having to pay for them.

Want to pay less for school? Eliminate everything except basic academics and only in pared down classes--just like decades ago. That means no more classroom aides; no more speech therapy; no more occupational therapy; no more physical therapy; no more alternative classrooms or schools for students with disabilities, behavior problems, or students who have children who need school-based child care; no more anything at all that doesn't directly connect to state testing. It can be done, but are those the kind of schools we want to have?

[craneman]

01:03 PM on 01/24/2012

AMEN !!!

[Samcat604]

02:40 PM on 01/24/2012

What about the costs that are not directly related to schooling?

Bloated administrations
Teacher pensions
Union costs
Local, state and federal boards that all try to influence policy

[Hlynn]

04:46 PM on 01/24/2012

Many state politicians have been raiding teacher pension accounts for years--perhaps you think that's a-ok. Teachers in our state pay into retirement plans like everyone else. How about the pensions of politicians and their generous benefit packages? We all pay for those. Union costs come from the teachers' paychecks; those are paid by the dues and, if teachers choose, donate to PACs--and most teachers have had cuts in salaries. No one in the general public pays for anything in a teachers' union. School boards determine adminstrators' salaries, so voters decide who is on school boards. Don't be naive--everyone tries to influence policy--that is what lobbyists do, that's why politicians have dinners for X dollars a plate; that's why everyone is always talking about campaign finance reform laws, as Stephen Colbert is so brilliantly bringing to light. Any one person can influence politics--look at all the money Gingrich is now getting from one family of casino multimillionaires. You think that hasn't influenced what happened in South Carolina?