Federal appeals court: Colorado didn’t violate rights of Catholic preschools – Chalkbeat

Report on Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program and its Intersection with Sustainable Development Goals

A legal dispute concerning Colorado’s state-funded universal preschool program highlights a significant conflict between the provision of public services and non-discrimination principles, directly impacting the advancement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Context: Universal Preschool Initiative and SDG 4

Colorado’s universal preschool program was established to advance early childhood education, a key target of SDG 4.

• SDG 4 – Quality Education: The initiative directly addresses Target 4.2, which aims to ensure all children have access to quality early childhood development, care, and pre-primary education.
• Program Structure: The state employs a “mixed delivery” model, inviting both public and private preschools, including religious institutions, to participate. This model is designed to maximize access and availability, serving approximately 41,000 4-year-olds.
• Participation Requirement: A mandatory condition for participation is adherence to the state’s non-discrimination agreement, which includes protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Legal Challenge and Implications for Equality-Focused SDGs

The core of the issue is a lawsuit filed by two Catholic preschools, St. Mary Catholic Virtue School and Wellspring Catholic Academy of St. Bernadette, seeking exemptions from the state’s non-discrimination rules. This legal challenge directly contests the principles of SDG 5 and SDG 10.

The Nature of the Dispute

1. Exemption Request: The parishes operating the preschools sued for the right to deny admission to LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families while still receiving state funds.
2. Conflict with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The request for exemptions opposes Target 10.3, which calls for ensuring equal opportunity and eliminating discriminatory policies and practices. The lawsuit could potentially exclude children from publicly funded education based on their or their parents’ identity.
3. Conflict with SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The case specifically targets protections for gender identity, undermining the broader goal of ending all forms of discrimination as outlined in SDG 5.

Judicial Proceedings and SDG 16

The legal proceedings test the strength and inclusivity of public institutions, a central theme of SDG 16.

• Initial Ruling: A federal judge largely ruled in favor of the state, upholding the non-discrimination requirements. The ruling affirmed that the purpose of the state’s policy is to implement a public value of inclusivity, aligning with SDG 16.b, which promotes and enforces non-discriminatory laws for sustainable development.
• Ongoing Appeal: The preschools are appealing the decision, indicating the case could escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court. This places it among several national cases examining the obligations of religious schools that accept public funding.
• Contrasting Injunction: A separate lawsuit involving an evangelical Christian preschool, Busy Bees, resulted in a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its rules against the school, highlighting the judicial complexities in balancing religious freedom with non-discrimination mandates.

Human Impact and the Principle of Inclusive Education

The outcome of this legal battle has direct consequences for families and the state’s ability to provide a truly inclusive educational environment as envisioned by the SDGs.

Impact on Families

• The case creates uncertainty and distress for families with LGBTQ members, who could be denied access to local, state-funded preschools.
• The potential for discrimination directly contradicts the “leave no one behind” principle that underpins the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Broader Implications for Non-Discrimination and Public Funding

The Colorado case is a key indicator of a national trend with significant implications for the future of public education and civil rights.

1. National Precedent: A Supreme Court decision could set a nationwide precedent on whether religious institutions receiving public funds must comply with state non-discrimination laws.
2. Erosion of Non-Discrimination Principles: A ruling in favor of the preschools could weaken non-discrimination protections across public programs, hindering progress on SDG 10 and SDG 16.
3. Future of Public Education: The case raises fundamental questions about the nature of public funding and whether it can be used to support institutions that practice discrimination, with potential spillover effects into K-12 education and school choice programs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article’s central theme is Colorado’s “free preschool initiative” and “state-funded preschool program,” which directly relates to providing access to early childhood education. The goal is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all children.
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The legal conflict revolves around “non-discrimination rules based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” This connects to SDG 5’s aim to end all forms of discrimination, which includes discrimination based on gender identity, and to ensure equal rights and opportunities for all.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The core issue is the potential exclusion of a specific group—”LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families”—from a publicly funded service. This directly addresses SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries by empowering and promoting the social inclusion of all, irrespective of “other status” like sexual orientation.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article details a legal battle, including a “federal judge” ruling, an appeal that “could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court,” and the enforcement of state law. This pertains to SDG 16’s focus on promoting the rule of law, ensuring equal access to justice, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions that enforce non-discriminatory policies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.2: “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.”
     • The article focuses on Colorado’s “universal preschool” program, which provides “tuition-free preschool” for 4-year-olds, directly aligning with the goal of providing access to pre-primary education.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.”
     • While the target specifically mentions women and girls, its principle extends to ending discrimination based on gender identity. The lawsuit’s focus on protections for “gender identity” and the potential for a transgender girl to be excluded from a school directly relates to this anti-discrimination principle.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.”
     • The legal case questions whether preschools can exclude children based on their or their parents’ identities (“sexual orientation and gender identity”), which falls under “other status.” The state’s program aims for inclusion, while the lawsuit challenges it.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…”
     • The article discusses Colorado’s effort to enforce its “non-discrimination agreement” as a condition for receiving public funds. This is a direct attempt to use policy to ensure equal opportunity and prevent discriminatory practices in education.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.”
     • The entire conflict described in the article is an example of this target in action. The state of Colorado is enforcing its “non-discrimination rules” for a public program, and the judiciary is tasked with interpreting whether this enforcement is lawful. The state’s refusal to grant exemptions is a clear act of enforcing its non-discriminatory policies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Target 4.2 (Access to pre-primary education)

   • Indicator 4.2.2: “Participation rate in organized learning (one year before the official primary entry age), by sex.”
     • The article explicitly mentions a quantitative measure related to this indicator: “This year, about 41,000 4-year-olds are getting half- or full-day tuition-free preschool through the program.” This number serves as a direct indicator of participation.

2. Target 10.3 (Eliminating discriminatory policies)

   • Implied Indicator: Existence and enforcement of non-discriminatory legal frameworks.
     • The article repeatedly refers to the “state’s non-discrimination agreement” and “state non-discrimination rules” as a mandatory requirement for preschools to receive public funding. The legal ruling that “it is constitutional and unproblematic for states and local governments to apply LGBTQ non-discrimination provisions to recipients of state funds” is a measure of the strength and enforcement of these policies.

3. Target 16.b (Enforce non-discriminatory laws)

   • Implied Indicator: Number of institutions adhering to non-discriminatory policies.
     • The article provides data points that can be used as an indicator. It states that “Dozens of religious preschools have joined Colorado’s universal preschool program,” implying their acceptance of the non-discrimination agreement. Conversely, it notes that the “Archdiocese of Denver wouldn’t let most of the 36 preschools it oversees sign off,” indicating a challenge to enforcement.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: chalkbeat.org