Opinion ID: 2521572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Historical Background to Article IX of the Colorado Constitution

Text: Article IX, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution states: The general assembly shall, by law, provide for organization of school districts of convenient size, in each of which shall be established a board of education, to consist of three or more directors to be elected by the qualified electors of the district. Said directors shall have control of instruction in the public schools of their respective districts. Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15 (emphasis added). All parties agree that the outcome of today's case turns on our interpretation of the emphasized language. I think it is also true that all parties agree that the language of the constitution itself does not, on its face, preclude the Pilot Program. In attempting to apply the dispositive constitutional article, we must also take into account article IX, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution. That provision states in relevant part that [t]he general supervision of the public schools of the state shall be vested in a board of education whose powers and duties shall be as now or hereafter prescribed by law. Colo. Const. art. IX, § 1 (emphasis added). Like the majority, I view the historical context as somewhat instructive. However, I find a different emphasis in that context than does the majority. To my reading, the drafters of our constitution intended to protect local schools from the political influences of the state legislature by assuring that local districts were able to retain the right to decide which textbooks to purchase, and which courses of instruction to offer. As the majority notes, an initial draft of article IX, section 1 provided that [t]he supervision of instruction in the public schools of this State shall be vested in a board of education, whose powers and duties shall be prescribed by law. Proceedings of the Colorado Constitutional Convention for the State of Colorado 185 (1907) (emphasis added). The majority holds that because delegates of the Colorado Constitutional Convention (the convention) considered and rejected vesting the state board with supervisory authority over instruction, and instead granted authority over instruction to local school boards by way of article IX, section 15, there is to be no role for a state-level power, including the general assembly, to have any effect over the instruction funded by dollars raised by the local school district. My review of the history suggests a different goal. As originally proposed, section 1 provided that all public schools would be managed by the state board of education (the state board). In that initial version as well, the state board was to consist of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. [1] Id. One convention delegate opined that vesting the supervision of instruction in the state board placed too much power in the hands of three politicians who may or may not have adequate knowledge regarding the appropriate instruction of students. Constitutional Convention, Denver Daily Times, Feb. 12, 1876. That delegate was of the opinion that school teachers and [local] superintendents ought to have a voice in the matter. Id. He argued that the supervision of instruction should be left with the Teachers' Institutes of the Territory. Id. Another delegate agreed and explained that the supervision of instruction should rest with the Teachers' Institutes or the local School Boards. The Constitutional Convention, Denver Daily Tribune, Feb. 14, 1876. The majority acknowledges that various convention delegates were concerned that permitting the state board to supervise instruction would inevitably lead to corruption in the process of choosing textbooks. Maj. op. at 938-939. One delegate expressed grave concerns that the section as proposed gave unlimited power to fix the matter of text-books to a body that was purely political. The Constitutional Convention, Denver Daily Tribune, Feb. 14, 1876. While the state board was a necessary entity in the uniform oversight of public schools, many delegates believed that permitting it to control instruction would lead to inappropriate lobbying by textbook publishers. Id. Some delegates were surprised by the fact that other delegates read the phrase supervision of instruction as a potential mine of bribery. Id. It did not occur to them that the Board of Education would have anything to do with the fixing of text books, but that [the state board] should have a general supervision of the public schools, ... assuming somewhat the powers of the General Superintendent of schools. Id. [T]o harmonize these conflicting sentiments, [one delegate] offered an amendment, making the first line of section 1 to read as follows: `The general supervision of the public schools shall be vested in a Board of Education.' Id. Stating his approval of the changed line, one delegate exclaimed that [t]he principle [of removing the power of textbook selection from the authority of the state board] should be to distribute those [voting] majorities to as small a degree as possible, and bring it home to each district. Id. To this day, that line remains, nearly verbatim, in the constitution. Unlike section 1, section 15 of article IX passed the convention without amendment. Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Colorado 360, 362-63 (1907) (then codified at section 16). Thus, the history surrounding these sections suggests that the delegates to the convention were interested in securing to the local school boards the right to choose and buy textbooks, and the associated right to oversee the course of instruction offered in the local schools. They were willing to assign an oversight role to the state board, but not a day-to-day control of curriculum. It is against this historical backdrop that I view article IX, section 15 and the cases interpreting it.