You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Ruling a clean sweep for Lobato plaintiffs”.
Ruling a clean sweep for Lobato plaintiffs
Written by Todd Engdahl on Dec 12th, 2011. | Copyright © EdNewsColorado.org
It’s nice to finally see somebody with some authority point out the hypocrisy of Hanushek. Essentially you have a conservative economist (Hoover Institute) who rakes in over half a million per year providing “expert” testimony, employed by a university (Stanford) that charges over $50,000/year, arguing that money doesn’t matter in education. Or more bluntly, he’s arguing that money in education doesn’t matter for poor kids, since it obviously matters to Hanushek and Stanford…
Todd Engdahl is congratulated for his blow-by-blow coverage of the trial. Wonderfully succinct, yet thorough, with great color analysis, too!
Let’s hope that the political left and right don’t collude next year to eliminate the “thorough and uniform” requirement from Colorado’s constitution. There’s an advantage for each side to get rid of this “troublesome and wasteful” provision. Eliminating it gives political cover to both parties in the name of so-called tax savings, something that will devastate education in Colorado.
Maybe the trade off will be this: Rollie Heath’s 5-year tax increase will be resurrected with a provision that “thorough and uniform” be stricken from the Constitution. The Dems will appear to support education (for awhile, at least), and the GOP (and the Dems, to some extent) will get their tax breaks to tout to the voters. Everybody (yeah, right) wins, and Colorado suffers for years to come.
Where will this ruling leave higher education? Does this simply mean robbing Peter to pay Paul? I anticipate an acceleration of scheduled cuts to higher ed so that the limited funds available can be directed to cover K-12 shortfalls. Hopefully, the K12 system will improve but will there be anywhere to go if you cannot afford to pay private college tuition rates?
Why will it take a ruling of the State Supreme court to make the legislature get its house in order? Wyoming is providing some of the most generous school funding in the country based on having a reasonable severance tax. Why can’t Colorado follow the Wyoming model?
Well, John, I’d say that after a generation of TABOR, the chickens have come home to roost. Conservatives in Colorado have had their way with fiscal policy all this time, living in a kind of magical reality. I’m not really sure why everyone is all surprised about this ruling.
Thank you for the fair, factual, and dare I say calm coverage of the case and the Ruling. As advocates for public education we have our work cut out for us regarding public opinion and trying to convince the legislature to enact meaningful reforms and spending levels so we can put this issue behind us. Hopefully it will also have enough foresight and flexibility to grow and adapt.
I’ve listened to the rants and raves on the one hand about greed and the indifference of Colorado citizens to fund education, especially for those who are disadvantaged. Kathleen Gebhardt was then interviewed and she gave an excellent overview on what the ruling said, it’s implications, and what we hope the ruling will achieve. The answer from the host was to rant and rave about greed and the indifference of Colorado citizens to fund education, especially for those who are disadvantaged.
On the other hand, I listened to countless statements about activist judges and the sins of the judiciary trying to dictate to the legislature their responsibilities. When I tried to contact them privately to remind them that the Sate lost this case on it’s merits and Judge Rappaport had no choice but to rule for the Plaintiffs based on a fair and comprehensive trial, I received no response. I can’t help but conclude they do not want to be confused by the facts.
Again our sincere thanks to every one for their support.