Lawyers sparred over Douglas County’s contentious, groundbreaking school voucher program Wednesday before the state’s highest court in oral arguments that veered into broader discussions about the shifting definition of public education and how to pay for it.
After more than three years of court fights, attorneys for and against the suburban school district’s Choice Scholarship Program had an hour before the Colorado Supreme Court.
The court’s ruling, expected in a few months, will determine the fate of not just Douglas County’s pilot voucher program but whether other districts will try to start similar initiatives.
Lawyers on Wednesday argued over whether the state constitution allows funneling of money to religious schools chosen by parents of public school students and whether opponents can make a claim under a state school finance law.
The voucher program, which would use taxpayer money to send children to private schools, was put on hold in 2011 just as the first 304 students were about to enroll. Most planned to attend religious schools.
“Parents are free to choose religious education for their children,” Matthew Douglas, a lawyer for voucher opponents, said in court.”But under the plain language of the Colorado Constitution, public taxpayer money cannot fund that choice.”
James Lyons, an attorney for the school district, said court precedents support such programs designed to benefit students.
“These are public school students that are being given a private choice to use, frankly, less money than they otherwise would get the benefit of if they stayed in the public school system,” Lyons said.
The voucher program allows for parents to receive 75 percent of per-pupil revenue to attend participating district-approved private schools.
Douglas contended the program does aid schools, noting one school leader testified it would help in weathering a debt crisis.
Justice Gregory Hobbs asked more than once about the impact on public schools. Hobbs raised concerns about “free, universal public education and its ability to survive” efforts to divert resources from it.
Chief Justice Nancy Rice said voucher proponents seemed to suggest a “paradigm shift,” defining public education as a funding mechanism.
Lyons said the voucher program will not rob resources from either Douglas County schools or other districts. Board members, he said, wanted to see if competition can improve the quality of education.
Opponents prevailed in Denver District Court in their initial legal challenge. In February 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the program in a 2-1 vote, with the majority ruling finding it was neutral toward religion.
Michael McCarthy, another lawyer for voucher opponents, argued parents and students should be allowed to challenge the program under a school finance law. The Court of Appeals denied that avenue.
McCarthy suggested the Colorado Department of Education might not enforce that law because it indicated support for the program.
The program received national attention for its unusual circumstances.
Nearly all voucher programs around the country focus on low-achieving students in poor urban areas. Douglas County is among the most affluent in the country, with high-performing public schools.
Eric Gorski: 303-954-1971, egorski@denverpost.com or twitter.com/egorski
