Opinion ID: 2521572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lujan

Text: In Lujan we held that the local control provision of section 15 protects school districts against legislative efforts to require them to spend locally-raised funds on instruction that the district does not control, and preserves the districts' democratic framework. In that case, we considered whether the Public School Finance Act violates the equal protection provisions of the Colorado Constitution or the mandate of article IX, section 2 that the state provide a thorough and uniform system of public schools. See Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1010. Under the Finance Act, the public schools derive a significant percentage of their operating income from local property tax revenues. [6] Because assessed property values vary from district to district, property-rich school districts are able to generate substantially more income from property tax revenues than property-poor school districts, which results in a disparity among the income the districts receive. Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1013. Thus, for example, at the time Lujan was decided the Frisco School District was able to raise $386.52 per student, while the South Conejos School District raised only $23.60 per student. Id. at 1038 (Lohr, J., dissenting). Applying rational basis review, we held that this disparity among districts in the amounts raised and spent per pupil does not violate the equal protection guarantees of our state constitution because the financing scheme achieves the important governmental purpose of fostering local control of education, as is required by article IX, section 15. Id. at 1023. Our interpretation of article IX, section 15 in Belier was essential to this holding. First, we applied rational basis review, rather than strict scrutiny, to our analysis of the financing scheme in part because we rejected the argument that residents of poor school districts had been subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment as a result of disparate funding. [7] Relying on Belier, we noted that [t]he historical development of public education in Colorado has been centered on the philosophy of local control, and that local taxation has traditionally been the means by which taxpayers in the individual districts participate in the management of public school education. See id. at 1021. Thus, we made explicit what was implicit in Belier: control over instruction is meaningless without control over local funding because local funding provides the link connecting the local citizenry to their school district. Id. at 1022. With this interpretation in place, we explained how our public school finance system achieves the important government interest of fostering local control. Allowing a district to raise and disburse its own funds enables the district to determine its own educational policy, free from restrictions imposed by the state or any other entity: The use of local taxes affords a school district the freedom to devote more money toward educating its children than is otherwise available in the state-guaranteed minimum amount. It also enables the local citizenry greater influence and participation in the decision making process as to how these local tax dollars are spent. Some communities might place heavy emphasis on schools, while others may desire greater police or fire protection, or improved streets or public transportation. Finally, local control provides each district with the opportunity for experimentation, innovation, and a healthy competition for educational excellence. Id. at 1023; see also Booth, 984 P.2d at 648 (holding that local control over instruction means substantial discretion regarding the character of instruction that students will receive at the district's expense ) (emphasis added). In Lujan we made clear that control over instruction is inextricably linked to control over locally-raised funds. The representative structure created in article IX, section 15 functions by entrusting locally-elected district board members with the discretion to disburse locally-raised tax revenues on education. In this way, district residents are able to tailor educational policy to meet the needs of the individual districts, without state interference. [8] Given our analysis in Lujan, which relies and builds upon Belier, if we were now to hold that the constitutional local control requirement does not require control over locally-raised funds, we would undermine the rationale of our state-wide system of public school finance. Such a conclusion would force a reexamination of our public school finance policy and could result in a disruption of the present system.