|
A group of parents and school districts have sued the State of Colorado for
severely under-funding its schools and depriving students a "thorough
and uniform" education under the State’s constitution. Plaintiffs in Labato
v. State of Colorado are challenging the Colorado school finance
system, alleging that it is insufficient and "not based on a valid determination
of the actual costs to provide every student with an opportunity for a constitutionally
adequate, quality education." Plaintiffs are also challenging funding
for programs and services for at-risk students, English language learners,
students with disabilities, gifted and talented students, transportation and
capital construction.
Plaintiffs have also made prekindergarten an important component of their
case, alleging the State has failed to adequately fund the Colorado Preschool
Program (CPP). Enacted in 1988, the CPP is intended to serve children ages
three through five who either lack overall learning readiness due to family
risk factors, are in need of language development, or are neglected or dependent
children. The state provides funding to school districts through the school
funding formula by adding each eligible CPP child as a half-day pupil to a
school district’s funded pupil count. However, CPP funding covers only a fraction
of the state’s preschool population. According to the complaint, Colorado enrolled
56,000 children in public kindergarten programs in 2003-04, yet CPP funding
that year supported only 9,000 children, including both preschool and full-day kindergarten children.
A 2005 Colorado Department of Education report supports plaintiffs’ pre-k claim. The Department reports that school
districts
identified an additional 6,336 children in 2004-05 who were eligible for the
CPP but not served because of lack of funds. The report adds support to plaintiffs’
claim that preschool education is an essential component of a quality education.
It summarizes the findings of a longitudinal records review from four cohorts
of children who had participated in the CPP that found that program participants
had a lower incidence of special education placement and grade retention and
a higher rate of high school graduation. The Department also reported that
children participating in the CPP performed at a level similar to their peers
on the state’s third grade reading assessment, and significantly outperformed
Title 1 and other low-income students who did not participate in the CPP.
Plaintiffs claim that "[p]reschool and full-day kindergarten programs
are necessary to assure all at-risk students an opportunity for quality education" under
the State constitution, state school reform laws, and the federal No Child
Left Behind Act. Because of insufficient state funding, school districts are
unable to offer the preschool program to all students who "require it
to succeed academically and socially, in violation of those children’s rights."
According to Plaintiffs’ attorney Kathleen Gebhardt, "from an educational
perspective, it is beyond dispute that high quality prekindergarten is the
way to prepare all children to meet the educational standards mandated statewide;
from a funding perspective, the state has never adequately funded this essential
program, a fact which it readily acknowledges."
Plaintiffs have asked the court to declare the school finance system unconstitutional
and to enter an injunction requiring the state to "design, enact, fund,
and implement a system of public school finance that provides and assures that
adequate, necessary, and sufficient funds are available to accomplish the purposes
of the Education Clause."
The "Starting at 3" project is assisting Plaintiffs in developing the preschool claim.
For information about the project, contact Ellen Boylan, at eboylan@edlawcenter.org.
Prepared: August 2, 2005
|
