*1 al., LUJAN, et Theodore
Plaintiffs-Appellees, BOARD OF
COLORADO STATE
EDUCATION, al., et
Defendants-Appellants,
Adams-Arapahoe-Aurora District al., Intervenors-Appellants.
28-J, et
No. 79SA276. ,
Supreme Court Colorado
En Banc.
May 1982.
Rehearing Aug. Denied
1008 *5 Jr., Boulder, Sandstead,
Morris W. for American Un- amicus curiae Civil Liberties ion. Cockrell, Quinn
Henry, Creighton, Ben- & Denver, jamin Craig, L. for amici curiae Douglas County Dist. Re. School School County, Dist. No. in Adams and School County. 11 in El Paso Dist. No. HODGES, Chief Justice.
The trial court declared Colorado’s
elementary
system financing public
secondary education unconstitutional. This
system encompassed
finance
with
provisions
of the Public
Fi
section 22-50-101 et
nance Act
Stubbs,
Davis,
Richard
&
L.
Graham
seq.,
Cum.Supp.,
and 1981
and is
C.R.S.1973
Denver,
Freese, Jr., Joseph
Bellipanni,
J.
relat
statutory provisions
affected
C.,
E.
Long, Washington, D.
John
David C.
fund,
to the
reserve
sections
McDermott,
Cal.,
City,
plaintiffs-
Studio
22-40-102(4)
22-45-103(l)(c),
C.R.S.
appellees.
Cum.Supp.,
provi
1973 and 1981
and those
Galindo, Denver,
plaintiff-ap-
Israel
pertaining
redemption
to the bond
sions
Legal
pellee Colorado Rural
Services.
fund,
22-42-104(l)(a) and 22-45-
sections
n
Gen.,
MacFarlane,
F.
Atty.
Richard
J. D.
103(l)(b),
Cum.Supp.1
and 1981
C.R.S.1973
Gen., Mary J.
Hennessey, Deputy Atty.
Appellants are the Colorado
Board of
State
Gen., Stephen
Kaplan,
H.
Mullarkey, Sol.
its
Intervenors-
Education and
members.
Hickman,
Gen., Deanna E.
Atty.
Asst.
First
*6
within
Appellants are 26 school districts
Gen., Denver, for defendants-
Atty.
Asst.
challenge the trial
Colorado who
court’s
appellants.
appellees
declaration. The
are school chil
Earnest,
Caplan,
A.
Al-
Caplan &
Gerald
residing
dren
in 16 of the 181 school dis
Boulder,
Halpern,
for intervenors-
exander
state, who,
tricts located within the
appellants.
below,
ruling
plaintiffs
sought a
the
Dufford,
Lennahan,
Philip
Rebecca C.
G.
system
school finance
was unconstitutional.
Denver,
Brown,
Douglas
for the General
G.
The trial court determined that the school
Assembly
of Colo.
State
system,
approximate-
finance
which derives
Jacobs,
C.,
&
P.
John C.
McClure
ly forty-seven percent
operating
of its
in-
Alamosa,
McClure,
Bosa,
J.
for ami-
Gordon
levies,
property
come from local
tax
violates
Centennial,
Alamosa, Brighton,
ci curiae
provisions
equal protection
of the Unit-
Huerfano,
Norte, Elizabeth,
Monte Vis-
Del
Constitutions,
ed States and the Colorado
ta,
Conejos,
Valley, North
Sierra
Mountain
violates the
and also
Colorado constitutional
Grande,
Conejos and Trinidad School
South
“thorough
uniform”
mandate that a
Districts.
99,
1980,
558-560;
appeal
obligation
Laws
at
ch.
it is our
to decide this
ch.
22-50-105
1. While
stands,
97,
551-553;
presently
as it
Hall v.
22-50-103
at
Colo.Sess.Laws
based on the law
1979,
200,
797;
199,
Beals,
45,
200,
at
ch.
22-
By Enabling section 7 of the Colorado Act, the Congress currently set There are United States 181 school districts township providing aside certain in each Colorado a kindergarten through lands of Col- support “for grade 535,085 orado common twelfth education for stu- L., pt. PSFA, schools.” 18 at U.S.Stat. dents. Under the school (1875). local, primarily state, financed federal example, revenues. As an statehood, public schools in Since Colora- generated local taxes forty-seven percent locally have been do financed levied funds, general the state fund property taxes contributions. provided forty-three percent, federal reve- initially state’s contribution was limit- percent, nues accounted six for and miscel- generated through ed to the revenue the remaining laneous sources contributed interest, rentals, and leases on the state- percent. four di- owned lands. first support rect state of local school districts statutory provisions Under levying challenged enacted. was was It and found purposes, taxes each school Annear, to be constitutional Wilmore v. certify county district shall to the commis- P.2d 1433 Colo. Since sioners the amount revenue needed for 1935, a combination local tax operating system. county its school *7 levies and direct state contributions has place levy against commissioners then sup- the principal been source of financial valuation of taxable within the port public system. Colorado’s district’s boundaries to raise desired 22-40-102(1) (2), revenue. Sections and 1952, following of the study (1978 Supp. committee, C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Cum. system by a finance Governor’s Supp.). may Each all expend school district Assembly passed the first General Pub- such revenue collected its Leg- lic Act. within bounda- School Finance See Colorado ries, Council, Report strictly provided islative to the Colorado it is used for educa- Assembly: purposes. General State Aid Schools tional ages twenty-one years,' 2. Article section of the tween the may of six Colorado Constitu- and gratuitously. tion states: be educated One or more public schools shall be maintained in each public “Establishment maintenance of state, school district within the at least three shall, assembly general schools. The soon year; any months each school district fail- practicable, provide as and maintenance of a for the establishment ing to have such school shall not be entitled thorough and uniform any portion to receive of the school fund for throughout of free schools year.” state, state, wherein all be- residents section, raising capacity. creates four The school finance Under this a dis- provide funding generating capacity for the trict with low revenue components main will general bridge efforts of a school dis- receive aid to the difference generated by components prop- These authorized between revenues local trict. aid, base, equalization guar- erty statutorily guaran- tax levies and the revenue state 1977, capital outlay example, financ- teed amount. yield plan, anteed For Assembly passed ing. General S.B. 138 amend- ing equalization program the state in order Base A. Authorized Revenue per pupil guaranteed would be $35.00 (ARB) revenue base is a authorized general for each mill levied for the fund of specified dollar amount established annual- a school district. ch. Colo.Sess.Laws district, ly for each and is the maximum 264, 22-50-105. may spend gen- annual amount a district operating expenses per pupil. eral whether a determining A formula used ARB for each amount was first established aid can be equalization is entitled to district part district in was based on by applying it to the South Cone- illustrated spending the amount each district was then District, receiving con- jos a district per pupil. spending figure This was used equalization aid: siderable state by Assembly as an estimate General (AV)3.$4,772,260.00 V what the educational costs were for each Assessed aluation (ARB) 1,181.08 Authorized Revenue Base . . $ However, district. the ARB has been ad- (AE) Attendance Entitlement .... 782 students justed upwards, especially spend- in the low districts, accurately reflect the more Then it is necessary apply figures these educational needs of the districts. Under to the formula to determine the local share 1980, ch. S.B. Colo.Sess.Laws 22-50- per per mill4 pupil: 105 at the minimum ARB in 1982 will $2,000 per pupil, or the 1981 ARB level $160, plus greater. whichever amount State Guarantee.$35.00 Compare, ch. S.B. Colo.Sess.Laws 6.10 Local Share.$ 69, 22-50-106 at 371-372. State Equalization Aid.$28.90/mill/pupil may A school district increase its by ARB To determine the mill levy: First, ways. one of two by requesting an ARB increase from the Dis- State School Budget Second, trict Review Board. if this 33.75, With the mill levy being the state whole, request part is refused in or in equalization aid student X is $28.90
holding an election so that the electorate = Thus, 33.75 the total $975.38. State aid may decide on the increase. 22- Sections Conejos to the South School District in 1978 50-107 and C.R.S.1973. When an ARB = 782(AE) $762,844.00. X was $975.38 granted procedure, increase is either under Accordingly, provided State responsible the district funding Conejos South School District with the dif- Thereafter, year. increase for the first it is ference between the guaranteed state determining included in the formula amount and the revenue raised a 1 mill equalization aid. levy. contrast, In stark a 1 mill levy in B. Equalization State Aid *8 Rangely District, School a district with statutory The equalization program, higher sec- values, taxable property raised 22-50-105, tion C.R.S.1973 and 1981 per pupil during Cum. period. $326.27 this same provides Supp., support financial Rangely for dis- The School District was therefore lacking high tricts a tax clearly base or revenue ineligible equalization for State aid. monetary frequently 3. Assessed valuation is the sum of the total 4. A mill is a unit used in assigned property value to all taxable real with- taxation which has the value of one-tenth of a taxing in the district. cent. any year. Yield Plan four mills in given C. Guaranteed 22- Section 40-102(4), Expenditures C.R.S.1973. ability Regardless of a school district’s to this fund are to long-range limited future taxes to meet or the raise local exceed programs with such purposes acquisition as of equalization $35/mill/pupil, State’s aid of and the buildings land construction of guaranteed yield provides the each district thereon or the construction of additions to grant per pupil per a mill. Sec- with flat existing structures. Section 22-45- 22-50-105(2)(d), (1978 Supp. tion C.R.S.1973 103(l)(c)(I), C.R.S.1973. a in Cum.Supp.). and 1981 If district levied The trial present court found that mills, the guarantee excess the minimum of capital operates reserve fund high- so that per pupil mill in per was $11.35 $13.35 wealth districts can raise more revenue will $14.41 $15.53 statutory from the maximum of four mills 1982. If the district levied at less than 20 than a low-wealth district can. The facts mills, guarantee the set minimum $11.35 support finding. In example, for through 1979 remains in effect the Frisco School District was able to raise effect, gives the act a the district benefit per pupil the levy, $386.52 under four mill either the the share as calculated State’s Conejos while the South School District was equalization formula or the minimum guar- only able generate per pupil. $23.60 antee, greater. whichever is As an exam- ple, applied the finance formula (2) Redemption Bond Fund. This fund is Englewood for School District result- major building projects used for and is sub- following guaranteed yield: ed in the ject approval by It oper- electorate. a statutorily imposed ates under debt ceil- Valuation.$105,870,300.00 Assessed ing equal 20% of district’s assessed 1,720.85 .$ Base Authorized Revenue 4,201.80 property Attendance Entitlement. valuation. Section 22-42- 104(l)(a), C.R.S.1973. $105,870,300 x 0.001 = $25.20/mill/pupil trial high- court thus found that 4,201.80 wealth generate districts were able to far aid, Accordingly, equalization under State greater statutory revenue within the debt Englewood re- School District would ceiling than were the low-wealth districts. $25.20). $9.80/mill/pupil ($35.00 ceive minus at Evidence trial revealed that in However, guaran- because of the minimum top school districts in the 10% of assessed yield, teed the minimum this district actual- property average an valuation had bond Thus, ly $11.35/mill/pupil. was received mills, redemption generating rate of 4.74 Englewood District had yield average per pupil, while $184.50 budget $36.35/mill/pupil financial school districts in the lowest 10%levied at a $1.35/mill/pupil guaranteed $35.00 over the mills, 12.56 yielding pupil. rate of $98.44 yield. redemption that, operated bond fund so Financing5 Outlay Capital D. example, Conejos the South $954,- School District had debt ceiling There two primary methods 452 while the Granby School District’s debt may capital school districts con- finance $8,173,380. ceiling was fund, projects: capital struction reserve 22-45-103(l)(c), section C.R.S.1973 and 1981 III. Statement of Positions Supp., redemption fund, bond sec- summary, overall scheme fund- 22-45-103(l)(b), tion C.R.S.1973. Both part Colorado’s schools rests in entirely funds are financed out of local upon values within each dis- property tax revenues. trict. Because of the in as- differences
(1) Capital districts, Reserve Fund. The levy sessed valuations of may spent reserve not exceed per pupil vary fund amounts raised and Groshek, Kramer, generally 5. See Colorado Munici- Bondholders M. W. Schoolchildren— *9 pal Revolution, Lawyer Bonds—A The Effect of the Serrano Rule on School Bond 4 Colorado Financing, 1055, (1975). Hodgman Lawyer, (1972). See also D. 4 Urban among Appellants “suspect” the several districts. establishes a wealth-based classi- fication, system rationally requiring system that this is both thus contend to be purpose subject judicial legitimate scrutiny. related to a to strict State Conse- fostering quently, local control within the trial essential to court ruled that both of Appellees, on the other these equal protection each schooldistrict. effects violated the hand, system guarantee Constitution, argue that the school finance under the Colorado equal protection they supported by violates the clause in- since were not a “com- interest,” terfering right pelling with their fundamental judi- state the strict under by creating “suspect issue, scrutiny addressing education and a classi- cial test. They argue fication” based on wealth. that we will look to the effect of the school form, system subject system the school finance becomes finance as well as to its be- judicial scrutiny, requires legislation may impermissible to strict cause create system finance be shown to through application classifications its necessary compelling govern- See, be to serve a though language. e.g., not its Yick Appellees then mental interest. submit Hopkins, Wo v. U.S. S.Ct. holding that the trial court was correct in (1886). L.Ed. system the school finance failed to Appellants contend that education is not satisfy judicial scrutiny the strict test. right” a “fundamental in Colorado and that us,
With those facts before
we must first wealth-based classifications do not create a
determine whether Colorado’s school fi-
“suspect”
They
class.
argue the school fi-
system impinges
nance
aon
fundamental
system
nance
need
satisfy
higher
not
operates
disadvantage
to the
of a
“compelling
interest,”
standard of a
state
suspect
equal protection
class
under
only
but rather need
rationally
related to
guarantees found in the United
States
legitimate
purpose. Appellants
state
then
so,
Colorado Constitutions.
If
the school
submit that
the latter
clearly
standard is
system subject
judicial
finance
to strict
met as the
Assembly responded
General
scrutiny, which was the view of the trial
rationally in enacting
system
this finance
not,
court.
If
we need to then examine
purpose
allowing
for the
local control
system
whether the
finance
rational-
over the educational and financial needs of
ly
legitimate
purpose
furthers some
each school district in Colorado.
thereby satisfying
equal
the dictates of the
The Fourteenth Amendment
protection guarantee. Lastly, we must de-
the United States Constitution declares that
termine whether the
system
school finance
deny
person
no state shall
equal protec
complies with the state’s constitutional
tion of the law. Although the Colorado
provide
“thorough
mandate to
and uni-
Constitution does not contain an identical
form”
of free
schools.
provision, it is well-established that a like
Equal
Analysis
IV.
Protection
guarantee exists within the constitution’s
presented
The first issue
clause,
II,
in this case is
process
due
Colo.Const.Art.
Sec.
whether
or not Colorado’s school finance
and that
its
application
substantive
system violates the
guaran-
constitutional
equal protection
same insofar as
analy
equal protection
provid-
tees of
Charnes,
laws
sis is
Heninger
concerned. See
v.
Colo.,
ed in the United States and the Colorado
(1980); People
1015
Green,
People
25,
v.
guarantee insures that all individuals
183 Colo.
low-wealth
example,
For
evidence at trial shows
people. We disa-
composed of low-income
greatest
Denver has the
concentration of
in this case does not
gree. The evidence
families.
school children from low-income
that the school finance
demonstrate
Yet, Denver, by comparison,
relatively
ais
peculiar disadvantage of
operates to the
*15
Thus,
high property
it is
wealth district.
identifiable,
class.
any
recognized
suggest
poor persons,
incorrect to
that
as a
class,
First,
suspect
discriminatory
the criteria for a
receive
treatment
Secondly,
Department
a
by
met
a school district
PSFA.
Colorado
class cannot be
supreme
study
the
shows that
there is no
the merits. As
of Education
regardless of
Kramer,
Shelly
low-property
334 correlation between
wealth
emphasized in
v.
court
1161,
836,
In-
92 L.Ed.
3 A.L. districts and low-income residents.17
68 S.Ct.
U.S.
deed,
study suggests
it is
(1948),
equal protection clause
the
that
more
the
R.2d
rights,
by
very
and
its
accurate to state that a correlation exists
personal
embodies
property
We
a
wealth and
to individuals.
find
between
district’s
terms is limited
apply
pupil population.
example,
study
in Colorado’s
For
that
restriction to
same
defining “poor” persons
possibly find wealth to be a sus-
16. We are
as those
would
15.We
“poverty
pect
if the
to attend
below the Bureau of Census
level.”
classification
secondary
supra,
elementary
Rodriguez,
schools was made de-
or
See
at 411 U.S. at
pupil
pendent upon
or his
the net worth of
S.Ct. at 1291.
Assembly
parents,
if the
mandated
or
General
expendi-
government limit its current
that local
Analysis
A
17. See also Note:
Statistical
of the
property valuations.
on its taxable
tures based
However,
Winning
School Finance Decisions: On
Battles
(1972);
most,
not the case here. At
such is
Wars,
Losing
81 Yale L.J. 1303
expenditures
influenced
are
local
supra
Rodriguez,
at
U.S. 27 N.
93 S.Ct.
base, along with other considera-
size of the tax
(Serra-
at 1293 N. 64. But see Serrano v. Priest
tions,
judgment
e.g.,
offi-
of local
collective
I), supra.
no
respect,
handled sim-
this
education is
cials. In
ilarly
services,
like fire and
essential
to other
police protection.
Arapahoe
Rodriguez,
that
reports
School
the court reiterated the
Cheyenne County
had an as-
District
suspectness:
traditional features of
namely,
$3,785,-
taxable
valuation of
sessed
(1)
subjected
that
either
class is
a
to
270, while
Conejos
South
School District’s
history
purposeful unequal
treatment
Yet,
$4,675,100.
was
due to dis-
valuation
disabilities,
with its
(2)
attendant
it is
pupil
Arapahoe’s
as-
paraties
population,
relegated to
position
political
such a
pow-
$52,940.84,
per pupil
valuation
was
sessed
erlessness as to
extraordinary
command
Conejos’
per pupil
valuation
while South
protection
majoritarian political
from the
$5,897.69.
Department of
was
Colorado
Ed-
process.
It
evident
this case that
ucation,
Impact
the Public
School
appellees
satisfy
do not
either of these indi-
Analysis
Act —Fifth
Finance
Year
suspectness.
cia of
(1978).
Budget
Act —1978
Year
Appellees present no evidence to show
Appellees
prove
to
have failed
that
they
subjected
have
history
to a
been
they compose
identifiably
a class which is
purposeful
unequal
Indeed,
treatment.
a
and insular.
Massachusetts Bd.
distinct
See
review of Colorado’s school finance system
Murgia,
v.
of Retirement
U.S.
96 presents a contrary position. Colorado has
There is
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
historically sought equality between the
satisfactory
evidence showing
no
statisti
districts,
making a concerted effort
poor persons
cal correlation between
within
any
impact
avoid
disparate
upon the
low-spending
school districts.
poor. As this
noted in
early
court
case
find that such
We
a correlation
essential
McCartey
Dist. No.
School
75 Colo.
judicial
are
apply
scrutiny
if we
strict
305, 309,
(1924):
225 P.
“suspect
an invidious discrimination of a
“It is perfectly
from an
clear
examination
class.”
of this
[providing
entire act
minimum
Additionally,
though appellees
even
do
salaries for
its
pur-
chief
Teachers]
constitute
recognized
equal
not
class for
pose is to raise the education
standard
protection purposes, we find that even if
[financially]
weaker districts of the
did,
they
wealth alone would not create a
place
state and
burden
incident there-
suspect classification in Colorado.
upon
[financially]
stronger districts
suspect
Traditionally,
classifica
and, in
necessity,
the case
upon
have been
to those groups
tions
restricted
state itself.”
readily
are
identifiable
common
development
historical
of public edu-
explanation
or lineal
racial
trait. One
cation in
been
Colorado has
centered on the
is that
lineage
congenital,
race
philosophy of local control. See Colo.Const.
unalterable characteristics. See 82 Harv.L.
15;
Art.
Sec.
Dist.
No. 16 v.
supra
Rev.
at 1126-1127. Another view
*16
1,
High
292,
Union
No.
60
School
Colo.
152
points
against
out that discrimination
indi
(1915);
Barr,
87,
P. 1149
v.
Merrill
73 Colo.
within suspect
viduals
classes has been ha
(1923); People
Belier v.
59
147 P.
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 491
We
Colo.
355
25
reaf-
(1915), where this court held that under
firm
principle today.
our adherence to that
Article
Section 15 of the Colorado Con-
we
Accordingly,
appellees
find that
fail to
stitution,
County
the Otero
Commissioners
satisfy
requisite
constituting
elements
levy a
upon property
could not
tax
located
“class”;
they
identifiable
that
do not
within
District No. 9 for
their School
the meet
suspect-
of
traditional
features
support
No.
of their School District
11. To
ness; and that wealth alone will not create
otherwise,
do
would sever the link connect-
suspect
classification in Colorado.
ing
citizenry
the local
to their school dis-
,C.
Basis
of
Rational
Standard
Review
trict.
-
Having
suspect
concluded that no
class or
short,
appellees
we find that
have
involved,
fundamental
is
remain-
they
subjected
failed to show
have been
ing step
equal protection analysis
is to
purposeful unequal
history
of
treatment.
determine whether
the Colorado
Accord, Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v.
system rationally
school finance
furthers a
Murgia,
supra.
supra;
Rodriguez,
legitimate
purpose.
state
See Maher v.
We also find no
to show
evidence
that Roe,
464,
2376,
432
97
53
U.S.
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
appellees
been relegated
position
have
to a
(1977).20
484
powerlessness.19
political
Appellees
as-
this,
In instances such
statuto
political
sert
powerlessness
ap-
that their
ry classification is
pre
entitled to the usual
parent by
passage
of the PSFA which
sumption
validity
with the individual
operates against
them. This
a circular
bringing
having
the attack
burden
argument
adopt;
which we refuse to
to do
showing
rationally
that
it fails to
further
otherwise, would
“politically
extend the
any legitimate state purpose. Harding v.
powerless” designation
any group alleg-
Commission,
Industrial
supra. Additional
legislation
that certain
disfavors them.
ly,
test,
under the rational basis
we are
Lastly, we
find
wealth
obligated
any
to uphold
classification based
a suspect
alone is not
classification in Colo
on facts which can reasonably be conceived
rado. The Colorado Constitution does not
as supporting the
Rodriguez,
action. See
wealth,
disparities in
forbid
nor does it for
supra; Village
Boraas,
of Belle Terre v.
416
persons residing
bid
district
one
1,
U.S.
94
(1974);
S.Ct.
39
797
L.Ed.2d
taxing
higher
themselves at a rate
than
Henninger
Charnes, supra;
v.
Fritz v. Re
persons in another
As a primary
district.
gents
Colorado,
University
supra.
this, we
steadfastly
result of
have
refused
impose
identify
first
task is
scrutiny
strict
review to
actions
legitimate
purpose
implementing
policy.
legisla
economic or social
purportedly
Here,
tion
Employment,
See
v. Division
furthers.
Johnson
the Gen
eral
(1976);
Assembly
Colo.
P.2d 334
has not
Harding
expressly
v.
declared
Commission,
what
objective
Industrial
183 Colo.
of the school finance
is;
however,
P.2d 95
See also
appellants
United States v.
and interve-
Kras,
Belcher,
supra;
nor-appellants
Richardson v.
advance
argument
(1971);
objective
U.S.
S.Ct.
1024
Colo,
177,
prop-
Id. 136
are tied to the taxable
at
31
325
P.2d
Appellees’ argument
essentially
City
Haxby,
of Trinidad v.
136 Colo.
“thorough
and uniform”
requires
clause
168,
(1957),
1025
glean
general
background
guidance
(insuring
availability
re- C.R.S.1973
historical
public
and,
of the
garding
program);
the intention of
framers.
school
section
seq.,
22-50-101 et
(establishing
C.R.S.1973
a
Nonetheless,
previously
has
this court
system
finance).
uniform
of school
“thorough
that
the term
and uni-
found
complete
require
equality
form” does not
clearly
province
While it is
free
providing
the sense of
textbooks to all
duty
and
judiciary
of the
to determine what
students.
v. School District RE
Marshall
is,
Nixon,
the law
United
v.
418
States
U.S.
Morgan County,
# 3
191 Colo.
553 P.2d
94
(1974),
S.Ct.
We
that Colorado’s
As the
hold
Colo-
does
financing system
system
not violate the
rado school finance
is not without
“thorough
mandate.23 We
fault and should be revised
the General
and uniform”
Assembly
disparity
particularly
note that
this
im
to correct
in the
mandate
following
opportunities
which are
plemented by the
statutes.
availa-
Sec
(one
in the
tion
et
class
ble
different counties and school dis-
seq.,
22-30-101
C.R.S.1973
created);
22-
tricts in Colorado. The fact
that a bare
of school districts is
section
(creating
majority
justices reviewing
a uni
seq.,
32-101 et
case
C.R.S.1973
present
has
governance
form
for those dis
concluded
tricts);
equal
et
meets the
seq.,
pro-
section 22-60-101
minimum standards
C.R.S.
tection under the
(creating
a uniform teacher certifica
United States
Colora-
program);
seq.,
interpreted
22-33-101 et
do Constitutions
not be
tion
section
should
“thorough
(1893); People
v.
identical to Colorado’s
uniform”
Colo.
sioners,
P. 422
Commis
requirement,
Kelley,
Pauley
P. 892
12 Colo.
see
S.E.2d
(W.Va.1979).
thorough presentation
23. For a
of the educa-
tion
which are similar or
clauses
other states
*20
statutory
and
as
approval
plan.
appel-
an
of the
control
would follow from
financing plan
It
simply
issue of whether the school
lees’ contentions.
has
never
squares
require-
with
more definitive
been within the constitutional preroga-
IX,
ments
2 of the Colora-
nullify
of Article
section
tive of
Court
to
this
statewide
do
is even
difficult.
Constitution
more
financing public
measures
for
services
merely
because
burdens or benefits
findings
and
of the trial
conclusions
unevenly
upon
thereof fall
depending
judge, which Justice
reviewed in
Lohr has
relative
of
political
wealth
subdivi-
opinion,
dissenting
arguably support
his
his
sions in which citizens
live.”
U.S. at
present
conclusion that Colorado’s
school fi-
54,
1307-08,
at
S.Ct.
among expenditures provide Art. 2 that the the districts because state a “thor- § per pupil vary, Uniformity too. of size ough and uniform of free among dis- and values school schools.”
tricts is not . ..
general
n
and uniform
¡ n
#
essential,
system.”
n
we
n think,
[*]
to a
penses of school districts not included in
day-to-day operating
Capital expenditures
costs
large-scale
encompass
ex-
general
expenditures
system,
“A
we
such one-time
and uniform
construction
think,
is,
time,
schools,
present
improve-
at
new
one
alterations and
every
structures,
free
existing
child
has
ments to
and the
access
certain minimum and reason-
purchase of classroom furniture
ably
in-
standardized
buses. School districts finance
ex-
opportunities to
structional facilities and
penditures
two
principally
ways.
One is
grade
least the 12th
at
admin-
through
levy,
special
tax
the funds from
—a
degree
uniformity
istered with that
placed
which are
in a capital reserve fund
which enables
child to transfer
22-45-103(l)(c),
authorized under section
same
one district
to another within the
40-102(4),
C.R.S.1973. Under section 22—
*22
grade
loss
without substantial
of credit
C.R.S.1973,
special levy may
this
not exceed
by
standing
with access
each
and
student
any year.
mills in
four
The other method
grade
acquire
of whatever
to
those skills
capital outlays
financing
through
of
reasonably
training
and
that
under-
bonded indebtedness.
22-
Under section
to
and
a
stood
be fundamental
basic to
42-104(l)(a), C.R.S.1973,the bonded indebt-
(Emphasis
original.)
sound
in
education.”
edness of
may
each school district
not ex-
Kinnear,
Northshore
District v.
of
property
ceed 20% the value of taxable
in
For the above
I would not over-
present system
turn the
used in
to
Colorado
The district court
majority
found
the
finance
education on constitutional
recognizes
high-wealth
that
districts can
grounds,
urge
Gen-
strongly
but would
the
raise more
levying
revenue from
the statu-
Assembly
eral
to review the school financ-
tory maximum of four mills than low-
eye
ing system
correcting
with an
to
the
Similarly,
wealth districts can.
higher tax-
plan
which have
so
weaknesses
been
high-wealth
able
value enables
dis-
the dissenting opinions.
well-described in
money
tricts
raise more
for
im-
I do
Since
not believe that
defects
provements
exceeding
without
the 20% in-
funding system
legislative
cause
ceiling.
debtedness
majority
The
finds that
plan
unconstitutional,
I
to be
concur with
capital outlay financing scheme,
includ-
majority opinion
of the Court.
levy
the four-mill
limitation
ceiling,
debt
equal
20%
does not violate
DUBOFSKY, Justice, dissenting:
protection
components
because the
of the
separately to'
out
rationally
I write
set
in some
scheme are
legiti-
related to the
my
that
the state
purpose
detail
conclusion
limita- mate state
of “controlling
pub-
funding
on
district capital
tions
lic debt.”
majority
The
also finds
equal
expenditures
protection
violate
IX,
scheme does not violate Colo.Const. Art.
.
requirement
and the
I disagree.
laws
Colo.Const.
the levy
§
Because
and debt
Illinois,
poorer
appeal);
dis-
direct
Griffin v.
effectively prevent
U.S.
limitations
capi-
raising adequate
(1956) (indi-
funds
mills, it has no means of funding additional purpose declared and asserts that these lim- *24 capital expenditures. part itations “are an important of the Capital financing represented by system limits financing public state’s of services levy the the . four-mill limitation and 20% and . . are rationally goals related to the ceiling debt inhibit low-wealth dis- to sought school be the achieved.” To extent that providing adequate replace- limit, tricts provisions directly from both indirectly, aging meeting levies, ments facilities or annual tax the majority changes emphasis. analogizes in educational More- these levy to the limitations re- over, rising ability alone threaten 32-l-1101(l)(a), costs the strictions in section C.R.S. provide of adequate capi- (1981 these districts to Supp.) protection, on hospi- fire outlays. capital tal, tal the average park and recreation districts. The My capital analysis independent the limita- conclusion that finance His of this state.” riguez Rod- deprivation ability tions work an absolute of educa- and is founded Court’s on this to opportunity poorer equal interpret protection rights tional on students in under the Col- to differently districts leads me conclude that even under orado Constitution from the U. S. analysis Supreme Court’s Rodri- Supreme analysis the U. S. guez, Court’s under the U. S. Con- not accord the which would education analysis, 1 concur in stitution. Justice Lohr’s capital right, status of a these fundamental independent which would constitute an basis scru- limitations would tiny. entitled to enhanced invalidating capital provisions. the finance Lohr, dissent, Justice his agree well-reasoned aspects I also with his that all conclusion subject aspects financing would all of school to of Colorado’s school finance scheme would fail scrutiny of on the enhanced level based satisfy heightened scrutiny. level explicitly “favored accorded status education majority voters. Yet “controlling by a of the district’s concludes majority then provision preclude limitation would taxing au- the debt any agency’s limits of outer the the issuance of bonds in excess of 20% of purpose preventing to the thority” is tied property, taxable re- the value of the district’s public of future present pledging “the majority ap- even if a of the electorate not relate to This rationale does serves.” This limitation, proved the bond issue. cannot be which involves levy the four-mill revenues, goal majority with the which the squared not the present the collection of ones, financing majority asserts is furthered the state’s and the of future pledging affording “a school district the levy justification for provides no other money freedom to devote more toward edu- limitation. cating its children than is otherwise availa- seeking supply a rationale for [by] guaranteed the state minimum ble limitation, majori- indebtedness bonded amount,” enabling citizenry “the local limi- concerning debt ty merely cites cases greater participation influence and municipalities. See the state and tations on making process” regarding educa- decision Senate, Interrogatories by Colo. State In re Maj. op. at 1023. expenditures. tional (1977); City of 566 P.2d 193 Colo. majority opinion articulated no 315 P.2d Since Haxby, 136 Colo. Trinidad explain legitimate levy basis for the limitation and of the cases cited None limitation, ceiling, capital debt I conclude that nor does the school district debt satisfy even the reasoning expense limitations fail to majority explain how the employed by justify lenient rational relation test generalized to these cases can be course, majority. were a more strin- Of this limitation. scrutiny pro- these gent employed, level of guarantee equal protection If the as well. visions would fail that test anything, it must mean that the law means majority’s arbitrary disagree I also with the conclu- protected from citizens are to be provisions important capital outlay inter- sion that do which affect classifications Article 2 of the Colorado majority supplies no basis for not violate § ests. The to amelio- limitations The state’s failure asserting levy that the and debt Constitution. disparity ability in the of different wholly arbitrary. The limits on the rate are not capital districts to raise funds for ability tax and incur debt are districts’ the effect of district, outlays, exacerbating on while of a but based not on the needs through levy and debt disparities in the these amount of assessed valuation districts, limitations, re- Thus, violates the constitutional wealthy whose district. “provide the state for the adequate satisfy quirement spending is more than of a thor- needs, rais- establishment and maintenance precluded are not from capital districts, of free funds, ough and uniform poorer while additional ” ... throughout schools the state. may only the barest of funds to have items, precluded spend on capital outlay disparities The wide *25 raising money. additional funding are manifest from the trial court’s In school districts in Moreover, levy findings. those the limitations subvert per pupil top con- 10% of assessed valuation purported state’s interest in local levy 3.51 imposed capital a reserve fund of majority found as the under- trol which the mills, average yielded which an of legitimate $254.79 end achieved lying state By pupil per pupil per or mill. operat- per current provisions $72.59 school finance contrast, in the 10% in as- districts bottom ing expenditures. Clearly, the state-im- per pupil levied at a rate of sessed valuation prevents limit localities posed four-mill average an of $28.68 3.50 mills and raised determination of from an unrestricted per pupil per mill. Simi- per pupil, or necessary $8.01 to further de- level of taxation higher bond larly, low-wealth districts have goals. respect With sired educational high-wealth than dis- indebtedness, 22-42-102(1) redemption tax rates section bonded tricts, per pu- produce far less revenue approved but any school bond be requires that system. addition, top financing in the I pil. the school districts concur per pupil imposed assessed Lohr’s 10% of valuation with Justice conclusion that the Col- average levy redemption public financing bond of 3.33 orado school scheme as a yield average per mills for an of whole violates the Constitution. $206.81 Colorado pupil pupil, per per n.l, or mill. School p. $62.11 at supra See in the districts bottom 10% levied at an LOHR, Justice,
average yield dissenting: rate of 8.04 mills for of per pupil per pupil mill. $61.62 $7.66 majority flaw finds no constitutional states, dispari- with statutorily-created system Other faced similar Colorado’s ties, equalize capaci- elementary have intervened financing public secondary ty capital expendi- education, of districts to finance judgment and reverses the of the one of only tures. Colorado is states My trial court. analysis the relevant capital funding provide which no to local statutes leads me to the conclusion that Expert testimony school districts. at trial they protection fail equal to accord agreement general indicated that there is schoolchildren, contrary laws to all Colorado financing among experts school that states II, to Colo.Const. Art. and do not § be in assessing should involved districts’ establish “thorough and uniform” needs, capital funding needs and these ef- Colorado, throughout schools fectuating a distribution of the burden for IX, mandated Colo.Const. Art. 2.§ financing capital outlays across dis- Therefore, I dissent. respectfully York, example, trict For lines. in New expenditures provides capital 49% I. average propor- for districts of wealth and system, Colorado’s finance as rele- aid, up tionately more to a limit of 90% of here, vant comprised Public School particular the cost of a to low- facility, (PSFA), Finance ofAct section 22-50- districts. wealth 101 et and 1981 seq., Cum.Supp., C.R.S.1973 Again, no rational basis exists for the provisions relating capital and those to the state's failure to intervene. cannot It fund, 22-40-102(4) reserve sections 22- justified enhancing on the basis of local 45-103(l)(c), C.R.S.1973 and 1981 Cum. control, levy since ceilings and debt fund, Supp., and to the redemption bond autonomy limit local this area of school 22-42-104(l)(a) sections 22-45- finance. The financing scheme and 103(l)(b), Cum.Supp. C.R.S.1973 and 1981 remedy existing the state’s failure ineq- An analysis of those statutes and of their majority’s uities violate even the formula- that, operation persuades effect in me col- the requirement tion of of Art. § lectively, they requirement violate the finds constitution satisfied “if equal protection of laws under Colo. thorough and opportu- uniform educational II, Const. Art. inquiry 25. An § into through nities are available state action in appropriate equal protection to be standard each school Maj. (em- district.” op. at 1025 applied, by summary followed of the stat- added). phasis only Not has the state failed utory framework for Colorado’s school fi- obligation to meet its to insure this level of nancing system practical opera- and of the opportunity, through but and levy debt tion of that will demonstrate the limitations, it has made its attainment im- reasons conclusion. possible in some districts. A. my Because of the capital conclusion that *26 financing provisions violate the constitu- The Supreme United States has Court equal guarantee protection tional of and the held that education not a is fundamental thorough guarantee right and uniform of Article for purpose equal the protection of Constitution, 2 of the Colorado I under § the Fourteenth Amendment to the ruling would affirm the trial court’s strik- Constitution of the United States. An- San portion this down of the Colorado school tonio Independent School District v. Rodri-
1033
1278,
1,
opinion
five-jus-
411
93
36 L.Ed.2d
Justice Powell’s
for the
guez,
U.S.
S.Ct.
majority
Rodriguez
tice
focuses on the
16,
denied,
1919,
93
reh.
U.S.
S.Ct.
959.
importance
adoption
principled
of
of a
(1973)(Rodriguez). In
The
of
were
ago
§§
framers
our constitution
three
this
acutely
explicitly
the
of
court
importance
acknowledged
impor-
aware of
educa-
the
society,
by
tion in a
as evidenced
tance which the
democratic
Colorado Constitution as-
IX,
signs
in
origi-
the inclusion Article
2
our
to
in an opinion upholding
of
education
a
§
section,
compulsory
nal state constitution. That
school attendance statute. Peo-
unchanged
provides
ple
Y.D.M.,
day,
remains
to this
the Interest of
197 Colo.
part:
(1979).
pertinent
P.2d 1356
shall,
general assembly
as soon as
Notwithstanding the
constitu-
Colorado
practicable, provide for the establishment
provisions establishing
tional
the impor-
thorough
and maintenance of a
and uni-
education,
tance
majority assigns
of
the
public
form
of
free
schools
right
to education no enhanced status for
state,
throughout
all
wherein
resi-
equal protection
Thus,
purposes.
it holds
state,
ages
dents of the
between
of
right
may
that the
to
subject-
education
twenty-one
may
years,
six and
be educat-
legislative
ed to differential
treatment on a
gratuitously.
ed
showing
only
of
a
relationship
rational
to a
legitimate
purpose.
state
I disagree.
balance
Article
of
IX is devoted to
While we must exercise caution in charac-
aspects
various
of the
of a
establishment
terizing rights
“fundamental,”
and so
Colorado,
public
including
triggering
by
examination
scrutiny,
strict
a
(§ 1),
creation of a state board of education
test most
satisfy, my
difficult to
view the
public
of the
administration
fund
majority
give
to
fails
the effect due to the
3, 5),
(§§
compulsory school attendance
language of the
by
Colorado Constitution
11),
(§
(§ 15),
of
creation
school districts
not according
right
degree
impor-
of
any power
general
and denial of
to
greater
tance
ordinary
than an
interest for
assembly
and the state board
education
equal protection purposes.4
(§
sense,
prescribe
16). In a
textbooks
recognition
importance
of the
Equal protection analysis
not
rigid
so
implicit
school was
birth as a
Colorado’s
as to
only
categories
establish
two
union,
of the
state
federal
for in
§
rights
fundamental,
that are
—those
Enabling
authorizing
Act
the formation of
those that are
bring
not —and to
to bear
government
in Colorado
United
only two
scrutiny,
tests —strict
and mini-
granted
Congress
sections
States
two
in mum scrutiny
determine
constitu-
—to
every
township
support
state “for the
tionality of laws impinging unequally on
3, 1875,
of common
Act
schools.”
of March
rights
exercise of
by
those
different classes
pt.
(1875).
ch.
Stat.
A
dealing
suspect
of citizens.
with
classifi-
cations,
framework for administration
these
Supreme
the United States
Court
properties
resulting
and funds
from their
has
legislative
concluded that
classification
sale is established
Art.
on the
gender,
Colo.Const.
basis of
while not mandating
govern-
right
Constitution is the source of federal
4. Some state courts have found the
powers,
majority apparently
mental
purpose
which the
education to be fundamental
for
characterizing rights
protections
considering
basis
concludes is the
explicitly
to be accorded this
implicitly recognized
right
in that docu-
under their own constitutions. See Serra
fundamental,
Priest,
584, Cal.Rptr. 601,
ment as
the Colorado Constitu-
no v.
5 Cal.3d
(1971); Pauley Kelly,
tion extends to matters not deemed fundamen-
P.2d 1241
v.
255 S.E.2d
reason,
rejects
majority
(W.Va.1979);
County
tal. For that
Washakie
School
“Rodriguez
fundamentality.
Herschler,
test” of
It does
District
No. One
mate
The level of
Mohammed,
441 U.S.
S.Ct.
directly
ability
related to the
of a school
ban
(1979), that Court held
L.Ed.2d 297
a
of educa-
provide
district
to
measure
can sur
overall
gender-based
quality
classification
tional
in its curricula and
that
only if it
protection challenge
quality
op-
of educational
equal
program.
an
vive
objectives
to
important governmental
portunity provided by school districts
serves
significantly improved by an in-
substantially
pupils
related to achievement
and
Boren,
Be-
per pupil expenditures..
.
objectives.
Craig v.
crease
those
See
(1976),
disparities
educational
cause of
B.
Although
majority
these
fails to note
findings
appears
deny the truth of
that one measure of
The trial court found
content,
legitimate ap-
program is
their
it abandons its
quality of an educational
be,
pellate
doing
may
function in
so.
It
money per pupil spent
“the amount of
asserts,
offerings
majority
that a “fundamental
on’ educational
school district
Rodriguez, ostensibly applying
Rodriguez
a test of mere
Justice Marshall
In his dissent in
rigor
rationality,
convincingly
an
argues
States Su-
introduces
unaccustomed
that the United
sup-
approach
preme
even more
test and serves as an exhibit to
has been
into that
Court’s
reading
“spectrum
principled
port
of what
Marshall’s
stan-
flexible: “A
Justice
applied
reading
reveals that
it has
has done
dards”
Court’s decisions.
Court
spectrum
reviewing
discrimina-
of standards in
Oregon
adopted
approach
similar to
has
Equal
allegedly violative of the
Protection
tion
suggested by Justice Marshall in evaluat-
clearly comprehends
spectrum
This
Clause.
ing impairment
rights
of educational
under the
degree
with which the
in the
of care
variations
equal protection clause of its constitution. Ol-
classifications,
particular
will scrutinize
Court
depending,
State,
(1976);
276 Or.
each school certify district must to the In addition to the plan for financing county board of commissioners of the coun- school operational district expenses, the Col- ty in which the school district is located the orado statutes impose limitations on the necessary judgment amount in its to be ability of school spend districts to capi- for general defray raised for funds to operating improvements. tal Capital expenditures during costs for education the next fiscal are not limited the ARB but are con- year. separately. They sidered are funded entire-
The assessed property valuations of ly through property taxation on within each the assessed valuations property per pu- respective district, supplementation without pil vary greatly among school districts. Capital state aid. expenditures are fi- recognition difficulty presents of the to nanced through capital funds, reserve sec- property-poor school in trying districts 22-45-103(l)(c), tion C.R.S.1973 and 1981 necessary schools, raise public funds for Supp., funds, and bond redemption section provided state has two forms of aid: state 22-45-103(l)(b), levy C.R.S.1973. The aid, equalization guarantee. and a minimum capital reserve funds is limited to four mills per year. 22-40-102(4). Section The bond equalization State aid is a method to redemption funds are financed from local equalize among power districts the of a one 22-42-118, tax revenues. Sections levy per pupil up mill tax to raise revenue 22-45-103(l)(b), C.R.S.1973. Bonded in- guaranteed level. In 1977 the state debtedness is limited to 20% latest guarantee per per was pupil. mill $31.92 valuation for assessment of the taxable 22-50-105(l)(a)(IV), Section C.R.S.1973 property in the district. 22-42- Section (1981 Thus, Supp.). levy if a one mill on 104(l)(a), (1981 Supp.). C.R.S.1973 As the assessed valuation a school district would found, trial court these severely limitations produce not per pupil in $31.92 ability curtail the of property-poor districts provided equalization aid necessary to money to raise for necessary im- school supplement the amount which the one mill provements. levy produce up would to the guaran- $31.92
teed amount. The equalization total aid to complexities interrelationships dependent a school district was on the mill financing components are such that levy necessary generate for that district to only when the effects of the are assigned its pupil. ARB for each great studied can disparities per pupil contribution, spending
A minimum state public the mini- school education in Col- guarantee, mum completes the state aid be brought orado into focus. The trial picture. Every year pays the state each findings court made of fact which expose relief, guarantee (e.g., disparities these in harsh and I now mum per $31.92 pupil per pupil mill minus findings. per per $10.85 turn to those
mill, pupil a difference per $21.07 mill). D. findings
The trial court made extensive Property-poor school districts are inhibit- respect of fact manner in increasing through with to the which ed from their ARBs budget state school district review Colorado school finance board approval by authorization or voter operated. findings need has Those are attached to finance the total authorized increase in part appendix. They as an substantial year the first without the assistance of large disparities among detail the found, state aid. As the trial court ability districts in the to finance education Although money amount of raised correspondingly large because of the varia- locally is to extent product some per pupil. tions in assessed valuation willingness of local residents tax points large trial court also out varia- themselves, practical as a matter school produced by tions in ARBs have been districts with small simply tax base they the statutory formulas and shows that raise mill cannot their rates the level rooted, part, at least in substantial *31 necessary to match the authorized reve- spending historical levels each district. by nue bases wealthy attainable the more Historical in turn in- spending district was districts with less onerous tax efforts on widely varying fluenced the assessed part the of wealthy these districts.... per pupil valuations the In within districts. practical consequence The requiring of sum, the trial court that: found low-wealth to pay district for an increase statutory The fi- scheme of solely its authorized revenue base out permitted nance has with rela- districts tax year local revenue in the first tively high per pupil assessed valuations such increase is that the low-wealth dis- generate high relatively authorized curtailed, is trict if not outrightly pre- expenditure revenue bases and levels. vented, pursuing from a higher quality hand, On the other districts with relative- program educational for its students and ly per pupil low assessed valuations have making significant choices in its relatively low authorized revenue bases curriculum total pro- and educational per pupil and low expenditure levels. gram. It ranking also found that the relative Likewise, property-poor districts are se- changed school districts not ARBs has verely limited in ability their to construct significantly since 1973. capital improvements by reason of four explored The district court then ef- levy capital mill limitation on fund reserve equalization fect of state aid minimum accumulations and the 20%of assessed valu- guarantee money aon school district’s fiscal ation limitation on bonded indebtedness. ability. equalization It found that state District, for example, Frisco School aid, prescribed per with its pupil maximum mills, with tax levy of 4 per raised $386.52 levels, per mill simply incapable pupil fund, “is for its reserve while Conejos District, equalizing raising potential the revenue of South for the same levy, only mill [i.e., per pupil. low-wealth low raised $23.60 assessed valuation appendix gives examples other pupil] with and sta- high-wealth districts districts.” vividly illustrating tistics the differences in Moreover, it found that guar- the minimum the abilities of school districts to construct antee money disparity increases the capital improvements dispari- as a result of ability fiscal of school districts to raise reve- ties in the assessed valuation of purposes nue for educational is because it within districts. regard awarded to districts without to need. Thus, the true measure of the state’s equali- Finally, the trial court reviewed zation efforts the difference between and 1978 amendments to the Public School equalization aid limit and the mini- Finance Act of 1973 and that found disparities program revenue will not within authorized base the school dis- trict, mitigated by (2) control, i.e., substantially be erased or local fiscal control legislation. over the amount of money new that will be spent purposes for educational within the
E.
school district. Local administrative con-
indisputably
trol is
important govern-
matter
fact
The trial court found as a
objective
mental
much so that it finds
expenditures per pupil
that
level of
“[t]he
—so
recognition
in Colo.Const. Art.
directly
ability
§§15
related to the
of a school
and 16.9 The assertion that
local fiscal
provide a measure
district to
of educational
important governmental objec
control is an
quality
pro-
in its curricula and overall
given
credence,
tive also must
par
some
gram.” It went
dis-
on
find
“[t]he
ticularly in view
relationship
of its
to local
among
parities
expenditures
in educational
administrative control.
the 181 school districts in Colorado are to a
product
great extent
random
equal protection
defect
the PSFA
fortuity
historical
of local taxable wealth.”
capital expenditure
associated
limita-
This establishes the fact
that Colorado’s
apparent, however,
tion statutes is
-when
treat
school finance laws do not
schoolchil-
those statutes are tested to determine
through-
dren in
various school districts
they
whether
are substantially related to
equally
the state
in the exercise of their
out
objectives.
achievement of local control
heightened
to education. Under the
The trial court found as a fact
scrutiny
appro-
standard which I consider
operation the ARBs in low assessed valua-
priate, this
treatment can sur-
differential
tion school districts are so low as to make
equal protection challenge only if it
vive an
empty concept.
local control an
It stated:
important governmental objectives
serves
many
districts,
low-wealth
including
substantially
and is
related to the achieve-
*32
the sixteen districts
plaintiff
school-
objectives.
ment of those
Whether it does
children,
any
there is a lack of
meaning-
inquiry.
so is the next
degree
control,
ful
of local fiscal
with a
governmental
The
interest which the ma-
concomitant lack of local administrative
jority
justify
unequal
practical
finds sufficient to
control. The
consequence of re-
opportunities
quiring
educational
accorded Colorado
a district lacking in local taxable
is local control.8 Local con-
pay
schoolchildren
wealth to
for an increase in its autho-
to
at the
solely
trol refers
control
school district
rized revenue base
out of local tax
observed,
the trial
year
level. As
court
local
revenue in the first
of such increase
(1)
components:
hindered,
control has two
local ad-
is that the low-wealth district is
control, i.e.,
forestalled,
ministrative
control over the
if not
in its choice of curricu-
appellants
urge
among
The
that
8.
also
educational
differentials
school districts and the
vary among
majority
needs
districts.
satisfaction of variant educational needs.
justify
financing plan
does not
school
on
Both the Public School
Act
Finance
of 1973
reasonably
this basis. Nor could it
do so in
statutory
pertaining
and the related
structure
findings
following
view of the
of the trial court:
capital
redemption
to the
funding
reserve and bond
vary
The educational needs of schoolchildren
any
fail to define or formulate
overt
degree among school districts be-
to some
program substantially related to the satisfac-
social,
geographical, ecological,
cause of
and
to and
tion of the variant needs of school children
However, prior
factors.
economic
since the enactment of the Public School
nance Act of
throughout the state.
Fi-
1973, neither the
As-
General
IX,
provides
perti-
Art.
§
Colo.Const.
sembly
Department of Edu-
nor the Colorado
part,
nent
local boards of
“[The
education]
ingre-
has undertaken to formulate the
cation
dients of a
public
shall have
of instruction in the
control
thorough
education
and uniform
respective
By nega-
of their
schools
districts.”
state,
throughout the
either
for all students
implication,
tive
§
Colo.Const. Art.
16 also
independent of local needs.
as related to or
aspect
treats one
of local administrative con-
any analysis
Nor has there been undertaken
of what are the variant educational
school children
quently, gross
general assembly
trol: “Neither the
nor the
needs of
power
state board of education shall have
to
throughout the state. Conse-
prescribe
public
textbooks to be used in the
uncertainty
respect
exists with
schools.”
relationship between educational cost
to the
pursuit
qualitative
improvidently incurring public
and in
of a
le-
lum
its
debt is a
program.
gitimate
City
state purpose.
educational
See
of Trini-
Haxby,
dad v.
Colo.
As
control instruction in its own schools is dif-
upon
called
to determine what
fore been
ficult
necessary,
at best.
It is not at all
by “thorough
and uniform”
however,
meant
appropriate
to determine the
con-
public schools.11
legislative
stitutional
limits on.
and local
powers
present purposes.
school district
majority appears
to hold
enough
impli-
It is
to note the constitutional
standard is satisfied if the
constitutional
finding, quoted
cations of the trial court’s
unspecified
that some
mini-
state insures
earlier,
here,
bearing repetition
but
that:
opportunities
is availa-
mum of
districts,
many
including
low wealth
ble in each school district.12 Even overlook-
found,
that,
plaintiff
the sixteen districts of
court
school-
ing the fact
trial
children,
any meaning-
there is a lack of
Assembly
the General
has not addressed
control,
degree
ful
of local fiscal
with a
question of the nature of those educational
concomitant lack of local
comprise
which would
a con-
administrative
opportunities
minimum,
stitutionally
practical consequence
I believe
control. The
of re-
sufficient
given
quiring
lacking
to the “thor-
a district
more content should
local taxable
ough
pay
and uniform” clause.
wealth to
for an increase in its autho-
solely
rized revenue base
out of local tax
“uniform,” recog-
construing
thé word
year
revenue in the first
of such increase
given
Art.
nition must be
to Colo.Const.
hindered,
is that the low-wealth district is
16, placing
15 and
control of instruction
§§
forestalled,
if not
in its choice of curricu-
forbidding the
in local school boards and
pursuit
qualitative
lum and in its
of a
Assembly and state board of educa-
General
*34
program.
in
prescribing
from
textbooks for use
tion
provisions dispel The trial court
public
the
schools. These
has found as a fact that the
any
establishing
financing
that in
a “uniform”
result of the state
notion
scheme
constitutionality
majority
finance
12. The
11. The
of school
states:
require-
state constitutional
schemes under
IX,
. .. Article
Section 2 of the Colorado
degrees
similarity
ments of various
of
to Colo.
thorough
Constitution is satisfied if
and uni-
IX, 2
been tested in
§
Const. Art.
has
numerous
opportunities
form educational
are available
Pauley
differing
with
results. See
state courts
through state action in each school district.
(W.Va.1979).
Kelly,
System Operation each district an authorized revenue base determined on the basis of the district’s The Relationship A. Between Assessed per pupil 1973 revenues from state and local Valuation and a District’s Fis- sources. Ability cal authorized vary widely ranged Colorado school districts revenue bases *35 $3,101 per the amount of taxable high per wealth from a pupil to a low of possible partial right power per pupil equal 13. A formulation to obtain revenues give that would effect both state and local those obtainable in other local school districts.” responsibilities require might is “the that the This standard be refined to reflect differ- among school district in which the child lives have the ences in costs districts.
1043 highest authorized revenue bases in the state median all were above $1,004 of three to one. per pupil, a ratio 45 per pupil. Of the dis- assessed wealth ends, Eliminating at both the extremes revenue authorized tricts with the lowest revenue bases between range in authorized all but six were below bases in percentile the'90th and school districts at per pu- in assessed valuation state median at a ratio percentile still remained the 10th Only the 45 wealthiest districts pil. two of average two to one. The state of almost revenue in the state in 1977 had authorized $1,446. in which The sixteen districts was the other below the state median. On bases reside were below plaintiff schoolchildren hand, poorest the 45 districts in only five of average, among and themselves the state in 1977 had authorized revenue the state $1,138 was more averaged per pupil, which the state median. bases above than the state per pupil than lower $300 strength The measure of the of the rela- average. tionship between variables of authoriz- expenditures school district total ed revenue and bases assessed valuations $4,888 ranged high per pupil from a to a per pupil is indicated the correlation $1,212 per pupil, low of a ratio of about coefficient.1 The correlation coefficient be- Eliminating four to one. the terminal ex- tween per pupil authorized revenue bases tremes, range expenditures per total per pupil 1977 and assessed valuations pupil percentile for districts at the 90th 1977 was + .5548. The correlation coeffi- percentile the 10th was still over two to expenditures cient between total per pupil $2,020 average per pu- one. The state was per in 1977 and assessed pupil valuations pil. The in which sixteen districts exceptions, 1977 was + With few .4959. plaintiff reside were schoolchildren below positive relationship between local average, among the state themselves wealth and school spend- district authorized $1,597, averaged which was more than $400 ing permeates levels school districts of per pupil average. below the state varying pupil size. ranking school fi- The relative of school districts statutory scheme of permitted signifi- with relative- revenue has not nance has districts authorized bases gen- cantly changed since 1973. The correlation high per pupil to ly assessed valuations for 1973 and 1977 authorized relatively high authorized revenue coefficient erate + Districts which had levels. On the other revenue bases is .9. expenditure bases revenue bases in rela- hand, relatively low assessed low authorized with districts districts, relatively equally au- tive had low au- pupil have low to other per valuations pupil revenue bases in relative to and low thorized thorized revenue bases the sixteen Conejos other districts. In the case of expenditure levels. South schoolchildren, their plaintiff districts of spend itself 35 mills to District taxed School unchanged ranking low carries relatively Dis- $1,057 per pupil, while Summit School apparent from the spend mills to over into only itself 18 trict taxed following with table: $1,896 the 45 districts per pupil. Of 1973 1973 1974 1974 1977 1977 1978 1978 Plaintiff ARB Rank ARB Rank ARB Rank District ARB Rank 1163.04 148 1347.50 132 727.00 158 814.95 159 Alamosa 151 1111.54 163 1234.69 163 743.00 150 831.25 Center 1239.92 835.18 1117.14 745.00 Del Norte 1087.05 1216.83 726.00 812.29 Delta relationship imply correlation would no A zero meas- statistical coefficient 1. A correlation Generally the two variables. at all between degree two between of association ure ranging -1.0, speaking, positive from 0.0 may range correlations Correlations variables. moderate, low, (meaning 0.3 to 0.6 to 0.3 are considered negative that as perfect correlation part (This high. decreases), is not increases, footnote and 0.6 to 0.9 the other variable one findings.) (meaning the trial court’s 1.0, perfect positive correlation + increases, other). so does variable as one *36 1044 1978 1977 1977 1978 1973 1973 1974 1974 Plaintiff ' ARB ARB Rank Rank Rank ARB ARB Rank District
School 149 1285.57 151 157 1161.63 734.00 157 821.93 Otero East 150 152 129 1159.51 1284.86 128 883.96 790.00 Granada 171* 180 1168.00 179 750.00 1042.66 552.00 181 Ignacio 109 131 1399.37 114 941.81 1211.06 849.00 108 Johnstown 159 159 145 1124.78 1252.54 841.50 751.00 144 Manzanola 164 160 164 1100.93 1246.55 778.06 694.00 164 Vista Monte 168* 1042.71 179 1168.23 178 750.00 655.00 170 Cortez Montezuma 147 129 1351.11 131 839.14 1219.95 749.00 146 Montrose 115 154 1259.74 1381.60 827.29 738.00 153 Pueblo 146 1287.74 150 1165.69 694.00 165 821.93 Rocky Ford 174* 1057.44 1181.08 750.00 614.00 178 Conejos South 1184.44 137 1308.13 828.43 740.00 151 Trinidad * ranking, ARBs of which had identical several school districts the 1974 ARB In $750.00 of Education. in the Colorado from 166-181 sequence by Department ranked alphabetical many cases the revenue producing potential authorized revenue of a one wealthy bases of districts have increased However, levy. equalization aid, mill state more, amounts, in terms of actual dollar which is limited to per pupil-per mill than of prop- the authorized revenue bases levels of in $31.92 $35.00 in districts, erty-poor thereby resulting in a in in simply $42.25 $45.85 is greater disparity net dollar in 1977 and incapable of equalizing raising the revenue than in thereafter existed 1973. Further- potential of high- low-wealth districts with more, tax mill rates in several property- wealth districts. poor greater have districts increased at a Furthermore, statutory minimum districts, in property-rich spite rate than in guarantee per pupil many per actually that in mill in- fact cases the authoriz- ed revenue bases in overall dollar amounts creases disparity ability fiscal property-rich have increased districts at a school districts to raise revenue for educa- pace greater prop- than dollar increases purposes tional due to the fact erty-poor districts. money given is fully capable districts
A persuasively explanato- raising factor than guaranteed more level of ry disparities in school districts’ authoriz- equalization aid from their own local ed in 1977 revenue bases is the assessed taxable wealth. The minimum guarantee per pupil valuation in these districts 1973. per pupil per mill was $10.85 $11.35 The correlation coefficient between 1977 for and will $11.35 authorized revenue bases 1973 assessed through the true measure of per + pupil valuations This .7630. cor- the state’s efforts equalize school dis- relation coefficient indicates that local tax- tricts’ fiscal abilities was not the state able spending wealth and wealth-related equalization $31.92, level of but rather was disparities, as they prior existed to and in- per pupil per mill—the $21.07 result of sub- cluding continued to exert influ- tracting the minimum guarantee per pupil spending pub- ence on authorized levels per ($10.85) mill from the level of state lic education in the state of Colorado as late equalization per per ($31.92). aid pupil mill as 1977. Only incapable those school districts of rais- Equalization per
C. The Effect of or more pupil $21.07 State Aid mill Money and Minimum Guarantee on a “equalized” were fully with other districts Ability District’s Fiscal capable more, raising that amount or “equalization” the extent only up was equalization State aid does increase the level capacity fully by raising capable $21.07. district’s fiscal Districts *37 year solely the first out of local revenue sources. the extent To that school districts raising per pupil per of more mill $21.07 vary widely in their local taxable wealth guaran- nevertheless received the minimum per pupil, they to that same extent vary in and, money per pupil per tee of mill $10.85 ability their fiscal to fund increases in au- extent, disparity to that inter-district fiscal thorized revenue bases. example, For in proportion was exacerbated in inverse per pupil per 1977 the amount of revenue Likewise, actual need. in the true prop- mill obtained from tax levies on local measure equalization of the state’s effort erty among varied districts from per pupil per was mill —the result of $23.65 in Fountain School District to $4.20 $326.27 subtracting guarantee per pu- the minimum Rangely in high-wealth School District. A pil per ($11.35) inmill from the level Rangely, district such as with an assessed equalization of state pupil per aid mill $326,269 per pupil valuation of in 1977 and ($35.00). in 1978 $339,677 per pupil in is able to fund a vary widely Colorado school districts in per pupil increase its authorized $100 per pupil per amount of revenue mill revenue base with an levy additional mill rate, generated by the same mill even with mills, district, only 0.3 while a low-wealth assistance, posi- and this variation is Conejos such as with South an assessed tively related to district wealth or assessed $5,898 per pupil valuation 1977 and per pupil. valuation While state financial $6,012 required would be to in- property-poor assistance to school districts levy by approximately crease its mill to some extent disparities alleviates the mills to per pupil. raise same $100 which result from wide variations in as- Subsequent high-wealth to 1973 districts per pupil among sessed wealth the school larger have received increases in dollar districts, substantial differentials remain in amounts in revenue authorized bases from and, the revenue available in districts conse- Budget the State District Review School quently, in the level of expendi- educational Board than low-wealth districts. Addition- tures. financial simply State assistance is ally, high-wealth experienced districts have inadequate inequalities to offset inherent in equally greater obtaining success in elector- financing system widely based on varying approval ate of increases in authorized rev- local tax bases. Variations in local assessa- enue Although bases. the amount of mon- caused, ble wealth have and are ey locally prod- raised is to some extent the cause, continuing to disparities substantial willingness uct of the of local residents to expenditures per pupil among school dis- themselves, practical tax as a matter school tricts, including the sixteen school districts simply districts with a small tax base can- plaintiff which the schoolchildren reside. not raise their mill rates to the level neces- fact, the sixteen school districts of the sary to match the authorized revenue bases plaintiff spend schoolchildren substantially wealthy attainable the more districts money per less pupil many than other part with less onerous tax efforts on the school districts in the state. Conejos wealthy these districts. South Relationship Between D. The School District, example, School for the first Expendi- Ability District to Increase year of an increase would have had to raise Taxable Wealth tures and Local its mill rate of 35 mills 142 additional state, in the includ- school districts Some mills in order to raise its 1977 authorized plaintiff $1,057 the sixteen school districts of $1,897 revenue base of to the level schoolchildren, signifi- ability lack the fiscal enjoyed by School District at a mill Summit revenue cantly to exceed their authorized only practical rate of 18 mills. The conse- if District quence requiring bases even the State School a low-wealth district to might authorize an Budget pay Review Board for an increase in its authorized reve- statutory system of solely increase. Under the nue base out of local tax revenue in finance, year an increase in au- the first of such increase is that curtailed, if out- must be funded in low-wealth district not thorized revenue base $935,020 $954,- ceiling for 1977 and debt Granby District while rightly prevented, higher pursuing from ceiling students had a debt quality with 838 program for its students $8,833,818 $8,173,380 making for 1977 and significant choices in its *38 program. curriculum and to nine. approximately total educational —a ratio of one significantly district also Local wealth high- Generally, low-wealth districts have impacts primary on the two methods of high- tax redemption er rates than bond funding capital outlay, capital the reserve reve- produce districts but far less wealth redemption funds and bond funds. Both 1977, pupil levy. mill In per nue for each entirely of local reve- financed out tax highest the the school districts at decile capital subject nues. The reserve fund is per pupil of levied terms assessed valuation statutory levy a maximum tax of 4 mills. average redemption rate of 3.33 at an bond High-wealth reve- districts can raise more average yield per pupil, or $206.81 for an of statutory nue maximum of 4 mills for contrast, per pupil per By mill. $62.11 districts, than low-wealth even can with lowest terms districts at the decile in 1977, capital same reserve tax rate. In per at an pupil valuation levied of assessed District, with a tax of 4 levy Frisco School yield per rate of average 8.04 for of $61.62 mills, per pupil capital for $386.52 raised its per per pupil, pupil or mill. Eliminat- $7.66 fund, Conejos reserve while South extremes, high low those dis- and District, for the 4 mill levy, same raised aver- tricts in the second decile levied at an 1977, only per pupil. ten top $23.60 age redemption tax rate of 3.53 for a bond districts, percent the school of terms of yield per pupil, per or $130.41 of $36.94 per pupil, assessed valuation at an levied pupil per mill. Those districts in the ninth capital 3.51, average reserve tax rate of average redemption at an decile levied bond yielded average per which an of $254.79 yield per tax of 8.44 for a of rate $91.96 pupil per pupil per or mill. By $72.59 con- per pupil per or mill. pupil, $10.90 trast, percent the bottom ten of dis- tricts, per in terms of assessed valuation pupil, average at capital levied an reserve F. The Effect Subsequent of Amend- tax rate of 3.50 average and raised an of ments to the Public School Finance pupil, per per per which is pupil $28.68 $8.01 (Senate Act 25) Bills 138 and on the Eliminating extremely high mill. and System of Educational Finance for extremely low in terms districts of assessed Colorado’s Schoolchildren per pupil,
valuation districts at Bill Senate Colo.Sess.Laws capital an Vol. average second decile levied at I, 1063-69, ch. 264 at was enacted in 1977 average yield reserve of 3.01 an of rate for and was directed to school pupil, funding is district per per pupil $117.76 $39.12 for 1978. It equalization increased state per at the aid mill. districts ninth decile per pupil per mill average capital $35.00 levied at reserve rate tax and increased the yield guarantee an average per 3.67 for minimum $40.16 to $11.35 per pupil, per pupil pupil which is mill per mill. $10.95 1978. The bill also granted high districts with concentrations redemption bond fund is utilized to of children from low-income pay families addi- off a districts bonded indebtedness for tional aid $125.00 for every long-term capital low-income needs. Bonded indebted- child in excess percent of fifteen ness approved by must be the electorate in total district entitlement, each attendance district and is limited statute to this extent twenty percent implicitly recognized of a district’s nega- valu- assessed tive statutory personal ation. effect of structure, Under high- poverty on educa- wealth capable However, districts are tional more low- achievement. than since the bill wealth assuming primarily districts of financing addressed funding greater level of indebtedness it a stopgap only and does not improvements. example, For significantly South Cone- affect the overall framework jos School District with students had a school finance. per pupil. all districts will $50 increase, receive same so that no reduc- Bill ch.
Senate Colo.Sess.Laws spending disparities tion absolute will 369-74, scope than at is much broader in year. occur in that equalization Beginning in 1983 and Bill 138. It raises state Senate thereafter, permits Bill per pupil per aid to mill Senate authoriz- $42.25 guarantee in 1980. The minimum ed revenue bases for all districts to increase $45.85 there- raised to in 1979 and percent. point $13.35 seven At this of imple- $12.35 after, mill at except for districts with rates mentation authorized revenue bases actual- less, twenty in which case the minimum ly will disparate become more for the obvi- per pupil per guarantee remains at $11.35 ous reason percent seven increase respect mill. With to authorized revenue larger will result in a dollar increase for a bases, permits, Bill 25 but does not *39 Senate high-spending district than for a lower- specified lev- require, each district to attain spending district. example, For a district in through els for 1979 1981: $1400 with an authorized revenue base of in $3000 permitted with a increase of at least $130 increase, 1983 would receive a while a $210 including those with authorized all districts district with an authorized revenue base of $1400; in excess in $1600 revenue bases only would receive $2000 increase. $140 1980, with an increase of at least for $140 Thus, beginning in it can reasonably including those with authorized all districts that, expected countervailing leg- be absent $1600; revenue in excess of and $1800 bases islation, spending disparities again will once in with an increase of at least for $150 increase thereby disparity vitiate the including with all districts those authorized wrought by reduction Bill in Senate In 1982 revenue bases in excess of $1800. preceding years. will to increase permitted all districts Furthermore, Senate Bill 25 does not re- by per their revenue base $160 authorized quire spend school districts to at the autho- pupil, and after 1982 an annual increase of authorized, rized revenue base percent the law levels established for the seven is unless by years through in changed the interim General 1983. School districts Assembly. spend are free to at a lower level and rev- in authorized
Assuming no increases consequently enjoy a lower mill rate than by the State permitted enue bases required would be permitted for the statu- by Board or Budget Review District tory level. If low-wealth districts choose to electorate, assuming and further the local spend at levels lower than those authorized spend districts choose that all low-wealth by Senate Bill any then reduction in Bill by Senate at the levels authorized spending current disparities by achieved fund- the bill to current application of neutralized, Bill 25 Senate will be at least a reduction in patterns will result in to the extent of the difference between the with disparities between districts spending spending by level authorized statute and bases of authorized revenue high and low spending the lower level selected Under pupil from 1979 to 1982. per $246 district. range of in- funding conditions the present current While Bill 25 will reduce Senate in 1979 in authorized revenue bases crease by a maximum of spending disparities $246 per Bill 25 from $130 varies under Senate 1983, one cannot pupil from 1979 tc per per high-spending districts pupil $266 revenue bases accurately predict authorized lowest-spending district for the pupil present statutory 1980. Under after results in a range of increase 1978. This scheme, aid funding equalization for state per pupil. disparity of $136 net reduction in after at least will remain constant permit an in- Bill 25 will Senate If legislation. further any the absence per pupil, a net to $200 crease from $140 aid does re- equalization funding for per pupil. disparity of $60 reduction constant, districts then low-wealth main revenue bases increases in authorized their mill rates required to raise will be range will from $150 Bill 25 under Senate permitted to receive substantially order $200, disparity net reduction further Additionally, Senate Bill does not change requirement school dis- that a If low- revenue base increases. authorized their mill pay any do raise rates trict must authorized revenue wealth districts not permit- necessary to reach to the level solely base increase out of local bases, then the max- authorized revenue ted year tax revenues in the first of such in- spend- in current possible imum reduction creases. The maximum reduction in cur- pupil will not ing disparities per of $246 spending disparities rent affected Senate Senate Bill 25. occur under Bill years per 25 for the 1979 to $196 1980— Assessment extent to Senate pupil may high-wealth, never occur if — spending disparities Bill 25 current reduces high-spending districts increase their autho- accurately gauged when the can be more rized at a rate revenue bases faster than years to the period of assessment limited low-wealth districts. Bill 25 Senate does years During these 1979 and 1980. prohibit not high-wealth districts from in- possible in current reduction maximum bases, creasing their authorized revenue spending disparities highest between the if wealthy districts their au- increase spending in the state and lowest districts bases, dispar- thorized the spending revenue ($136 pupil will in 1979 and $60 be $196 1980). This calculation assumes that no ities currently existing high- between bases are in authorized revenue increases wealth and low-wealth districts will be fur- *40 approved by Budg- District State School ther widened. electorate, by et Review Board or the local practical all low-wealth On a and further assumes that level a formidable incen- spend choose to at authorized districts tive wealthy exists for districts to seek in- permitted revenue levels Senate base creases in their authorized revenue bases However, while Bill 25 in 1979 and 1980. for years. the next few pro- increases might Bill well achieve reduc- Senate vided in Bill probably Senate 25 most will disparities spending in current tion of $196 fall below threadbare inflationary increases 1979-80, period during nevertheless gauged by current economic trends. For spending significant differences in actual example, in per 1980 the pupil $140 increase among to exist school districts. will continue in authorized revenue bases will amount to spite of the ameliorative effects of For in a seven percent increase district disparity, reducing 25 in local Senate Bill $2,000 spending per However, at pupil. remain taxable wealth will unaf- district spending $2,500 district at the per level of strongly will fected and continue to be cor- pupil, per pupil $140 increase will potential relative to school district fiscal only amount spending ability. percent increase, to a 5.6 thereby highest forcing at district school districts either to cut valuation of assessed programs in terms back decile or to seek an increase in its revenue average authorized an pupil had authorized revenue base from the State hand, school the other On base of $1950. Budget District Review Board or its in terms of decile at lowest districts local electorate. average per pupil had valuation assessed The dif- base of revenue $1153. authorized The long and short of the matter of levels of dis- these two ference between school district funding under Senate Bill 25 per pupil. $797 tricts was is that the spending patterns of school dis- bases be- authorized revenue difference tricts after 1980 are conjectural at best. deciles of highest and lowest tween patterns Those dependent legislative on a net per pupil, reduc- be $750 districts will action or inaction with respect to state Thus, considered per pupil. only $47 tion of equalization aid, the rate of increase in as- themselves, autho- in minimum increases sessed valuation, the chosen response of dis- Bill 25 bases under Senate rized revenue tricts to the post-1980 status of statutory spend- the wealth-related will not eliminate equalization aid, and the continuation or among exist presently ing disparities cessation of present inflationary trends. districts.