There’s been one surefire way to halt the progress of school-choice reform in Colorado: Avoid the ballot box and litigate.
A couple of years back, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the state’s school-voucher law was in violation of the state constitution. It found a technicality with a distinct political purpose.
Lesson learned.
Not content with stopping the voucher programs alone, the Poudre School District has joined the Boulder and Westminster districts in spending taxpayer money on a frivolous lawsuit to abolish the Colorado Charter School Institute.
Their expectation is that another judge will ferret out a similar technicality to declare this semi-independent board unconstitutional. This would revert full control back to the local school boards.
This time, however, it seems unlikely they’ll succeed.
The Charter School Institute was created in a bill sponsored by two Denver Democrats – Sen. Peter Groff and Rep. Terrance Carroll – who took pains to ensure that the money spent on charter schools came from the state rather than local property taxes.
So what’s the motivation for the suit? That’s easy: antagonism to any choice.
“The primary reason they are against reform is because like any large bureaucracy the first impetus is to protect their own and maintain the status quo,” explains Carroll.
You know what? The status quo stinks. Especially for poor kids.
But times are changing. While many Democrats are traditionally opposed to choice in education – online, charter, voucher or any you can think of – for ideological reasons, it’s significant to take note of the ones who do support reform.
In 2004, almost every Democrat who voted for the bill instituting the Charter School Institute represented urban areas with a high minority and underprivileged population. Apparently, these legislators don’t have the luxury of clinging to failed policies as another generation of kids is abandoned.
“I think it’s a question of perception,” said Carroll, who believes growing up in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., gave him a unique understanding of why kids in similar areas need educational choice. “People who represent districts like mine can’t hide from the devastating cost of failing schools.”
Carroll says he’s also a strong supporter of public education. The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive.
But the real lesson of this lawsuit is just how imperative the Charter School Institute’s existence has become. Who else is going to protect charter schools from hostile school boards?
And who can ever trust the Poudre, Boulder and Westminster school boards to do the right thing when it comes to charter schools?
“I think it varies; in general there is an inherent reluctance to charters,” explains Nina Lopez, director of public affairs for the Colorado League of Charter Schools. “I don’t think districts tend, in general, to welcome someone else coming in and, in fact or in perception, taking away some of their ability to control what happens in their districts. I think that is a very natural tendency.”
Their tendencies are also rather transparent. The last time Boulder had full control of charter schools, it issued a moratorium on all new charters until a judge told them to knock it off and follow the law.
Boulder, incidentally, also was recently granted exclusive chartering authority, giving it the power to authorize new charters. Still, the district refuses to withdraw its suit. Another illustration of how this is about turf and funding.
Kids, sadly, come in third.
In fact, parents might be curious to know how many textbooks or computers these schools could buy with the money they’re spending on this case.
The trial is scheduled for October before Judge Joseph Meyer.
You may remember Meyer as the judge who initially found the school voucher law unconstitutional.
Don’t bet on it this time.
David Harsanyi’s column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
