Garfield Re-2 School District And Aspen

The recent opinion column by Garfield RE 2 Superintendent Kirk Banghart attempts to frame the district’s legal threat against Two Rivers Community School as a matter of “protecting resources” and enforcing “fairness.” What is missing from that narrative is any acknowledgment of the students and families who are the true subject of this issue. Instead of placing student outcomes at the center of the conversation, the superintendent has made it clear that the primary concern is not education, but money. Colorado law does not support the position that RE 2 is now aggressively advancing. Under the Colorado Public Schools of Choice Act, C.R.S. § 22 36 101, every parent in Colorado has the legal right to enroll a child in any public school in the state, regardless of district residence. That includes charter schools. The per pupil funding follows the student by statute, because the law recognizes that students are not geographically confined to the district where they live. RE 2 has cited C.R.S. § 22 30.5 106(1)(m) in its demand letter to TRCS, claiming that the charter school is “illegally” transporting students across district lines. That statute does not prohibit interdistrict transportation. It requires a charter school to include a transportation plan in its charter application and to comply with state and federal transportation rules. TRCS has complied with those requirements for nearly a decade and has transported RE 2 resident students since 2015 without objection from RE 2, RFSD, or the State of Colorado. A lawful practice does not become unlawful simply because a superintendent discovers that students are choosing a better educational option. The superintendent’s column also suggests that TRCS is “taking advantage” of RE 2 resources. That is a misleading argument. Families who live inside RE 2 pay property and sales taxes inside RE 2. Nothing about a child’s lawful enrollment at a charter school erases that taxpayer obligation. Per pupil revenue follows the student because the legislature decided long ago that funding belongs to the child’s education, not to a district’s balance sheet. If RE 2 is losing students to a higher performing school, the remedy is not to threaten litigation. The remedy is to provide a better education. This brings us to what the district will not admit openly. TRCS is in high demand because families believe it offers stronger academics and better outcomes than what they are receiving in RE 2. Rather than respond to that message by improving instruction, RE 2 is now trying to block access to the school that parents have chosen. That is not educational leadership. It is territorial control dressed up as concern for taxpayers. The students who ride those buses are not harming RE 2. TRCS is not harming RE 2 or RE 1. What is being harmed is the right of families to seek the best possible education available within the framework of Colorado law. Threatening litigation against a school that is succeeding is not “momentum.” It is an admission of failure. It says to every parent in western Garfield County that instead of competing by raising academic standards, the district will instead attempt to restrict opportunity. If the superintendent truly believes in “creating opportunities and efficiencies,” then he should not be trying to take away access to a school that is already providing both. If he believes in “doing what is right for families,” he would not be preparing to spend taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit designed to force children back into schools they intentionally left. No school district should punish children for seeking a stronger education. No school district should threaten another public school because families recognize quality. And no superintendent should equate student success with lost revenue. That is not stewardship. That is scarcity politics, and it has no place in public education. The question is simple. If RE 2 is worried about losing students, why not give families a reason to stay, instead of trying to deny their legal right to leave. Donald J Kaufman, Attorney at Law