SPECIAL EDITION:

District Court Issues Ruling on School Finance Case

On January 31, the Laramie County District Court issued its findings in the latest round of the school finance lawsuit.  Judge Nicholas Kalokathis’ decision included mixed findings, but overall, it was about what we expected, says WEA attorney Pat Hacker.  The lengthy document released by the court will take some time to fully dissect, but our initial review points to the following findings that will all lead to substantial improvements that will be positive for our students and that will continue for future years. At this point it is difficult to quantify the dollar impact, but it is undoubtedly very positive, both in terms of overall funding and in terms of correction of inequities which affect particular districts.

Ü     The judge found these items to be unconstitutional:

·        The model’s 20-year cap on teacher salary schedules, which the judge called arbitrary.  Many of our school districts’ schedules go past the 20-year point.

·        External Cost Adjustment (ECA).  The court held that the State failed to properly adjust the funding model for inflation in the areas of salaries and benefits, nor did it adjust other areas of the model, such as utilities, on an annual basis as required.

·        The Routine Maintenance and Operations cap on square footage.

·        The Major Maintenance cap on square footage.

·        Vocational Education funding.

·        Failure to fully fund utility costs.

·        Capital Construction:

o        The State cannot refuse to pay the costs for bringing utilities and roads to the sites of school facilities;

o        Facilities are inadequate for technology needs;

o        Facilities are inadequate for distance learning; and

o        Failure to fund co-curricular facilities.

Ü     The judge found these areas of funding to be insufficient or inadequate:

·        Regional Cost Adjustment (RCA).  Kalokathis ruled that the RCA is inadequate and districts are not paid what it costs to hire new teachers.

·        Health insurance funding has not kept up with the actual costs of inflation.

·        At-risk funding does not provide for all the types of at-risk students, and the funding provided bears no relationship to the actual costs incurred by districts.

Ü     The judge also found that the State failed to comply with the Campbell II deadlines for repairing school facilities.

Ü     In making his ruling, the District Judge failed to apply:

1.      The correct burden of proof, which is known as “strict scrutiny.”  Under that standard, it is the State's burden, not the challengers’, to demonstrate that the finance system meets the constitutional standards in every respect.

2.      The education standard.  The Supreme Court has said that the system has to be the best we can do; it must be a high-quality educational system.

WEA and its attorneys are continuing to review and analyze in detail the 143-page, complex decision.  We will keep you informed of additional information and developments as the more comprehensive review progresses.