Posted under Courts & Parents & Rural Schools & School Finance
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.
Tim Latham has been teaching history and U.S. Government for over 19 years. But after teaching for just one year in the Lawrence School District in Lawrence, Kansas, Latham says his contract was not renewed because school officials did not like his conservative views — particularly a teacher website that Latham hosted and paid for himself. A teacher coach confronted him on that issue.
Still, the President’s message yesterday was largely on the right track. Among the less traditionally Democratic education reform ideas
The author of the newly-released 