Standing with Two Rivers Community School

As a parent of both a Garfield Re-2 and Two Rivers Community School student, I’m deeply disappointed and frustrated by the recent letter from Re-2 Superintendent Kirk Banghart demanding that Two Rivers cease providing transportation to students who live within the Re-2 district.

For more than a decade, Two Rivers has gone above and beyond to make education accessible to families across our valley — families who simply want the right to choose the school that best fits their children. The school’s independent bus system has made that possible. It’s not just a convenience — it’s a lifeline. Without it, many students would lose access to a community that has supported and nurtured them for years.

Two Rivers’ buses represent more than logistics. They represent inclusion, opportunity and the belief that public education should serve all children, not just those who happen to live within a certain economic or physical boundary. The school has operated these routes for 11 years with full transparency and even support from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office back in 2018.

To suddenly challenge this now, under new leadership, feels less about legality and more about control. I stand with Two Rivers because it’s a school that has poured its heart, time and resources into creating equal access for every student — regardless of where they live. Instead of attacking that effort, we should be celebrating and learning from it.

Superintendent Banghart’s energy would be far better spent building bridges between our districts, not tearing them down. Our children deserve leaders who put their needs before politics and pride.

I urge our community to rally behind Two Rivers — to speak up for school choice, for accessibility, and for the kind of education that unites rather than divides.

Emily Hodge, New Castle

Who saved Spring Valley?

For the past five years, the Roaring Fork Valley has seen at least four incompatible development proposals — Ascendigo Ranch, The Fields, Twin Acres and Spring Valley — that were ultimately denied or withdrawn. These outcomes were achieved only after local residents invested tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours successfully opposing these projects.

Their concerns consistently highlighted incompatibility, inadequate infrastructure, limited water resources and a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of developing on the proposed parcels.

This success is particularly noteworthy given the inherent imbalance in the public hearing process. Local governments grant developers ample time and a platform for their hired experts to present their case to decision-makers. In stark contrast, the public is typically limited to three to five minutes per person to voice concerns — and even their donation-funded experts face time constraints.

It’s the public that funds these decision-makers’ salaries, pays property taxes, builds the community and ultimately bears the consequences of incompatible development.

The recent denials demonstrate that the public possesses a clear understanding of these issues. They should not be forced to engage water attorneys and land planners to advocate for their communities, nor should their voices be time-restricted. Instead, local governments should be responsible for hiring the necessary experts to conduct thorough due diligence on all land-use applications, rather than placing this burden on the public.

It’s time for local governments to afford the public the time and respect they deserve in the decision-making processes of this valley.

Susan Sullivan, Carbondale

Law supports choice for Re-2 families

Garfield Re-2’s attempt to block families from sending their children to Two Rivers Community School is not supported by Colorado law — and it’s not in the best interest of students.

Under the Colorado Public Schools of Choice Act (C.R.S. § 22-36-101), every parent has the right to enroll a child in any public school in the state, including a charter school, regardless of district residence. That means students in Re-2 may legally attend Two Rivers, just as thousands of Colorado students lawfully attend schools outside their home districts every year.

Re-2 now argues that Two Rivers is violating C.R.S. § 22-30.5-106(1)(m) by transporting students across district lines. That statute does not prohibit transportation across districts — it simply requires a charter school to include a transportation plan and follow state and federal rules.

Two Rivers has transported Re-2 students since 2015 without objection from Re-2, the Roaring Fork School District or the State of Colorado. A practice cannot be lawful for nearly a decade and suddenly become illegal because a superintendent dislikes the result.

The real issue is funding. Colorado law requires per-pupil revenue to follow the student. That is not exploitation — that is the structure of the School Finance Act. Parents in Re-2 already pay taxes in Re-2. What the district is really objecting to is that families are choosing a higher-performing school, and the funding is following that choice.

Instead of strengthening its own schools, Re-2 is threatening litigation. That does nothing to improve education for a single child. It only protects a budget line, not a student. If the district believes it’s losing students, the solution isn’t to restrict access to a better option — it’s to provide a reason for families to stay.

Two Rivers is not harming Re-2. Two Rivers is providing what families want: strong academics, proven results and a school culture they believe in. No district should punish children for seeking the best education available to them inside a lawful framework.

If Re-2 wants to claim it’s “creating opportunities,” it should not be trying to take them away.

Donald Kaufman, Glenwood Springs