Education Week - October 23, 2013 - 16

Colorado Voters to Decide on K-12 Funding, Tax-Hike Measure
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
a $950 million increase in income
taxes, would raise the state's perstudent
spending on public schools,
but also fundamentally alter how
the state money is spent. With its
emphasis on low-income, special
education, and English-languagelearner
students, the plan resembles
a "weighted" funding system
approved in California
this year.
Altogether, the plan
would cost the average
Colorado household just
$133 more a year in taxes, proponents
of Amendment 66 say.
"This is a model for the rest of the
country, if Colorado can pull it off,"
said state Sen. Mike Johnston, a
Democrat representing Denver, who
wrote the school finance legislation.
But in a state with a Taxpayers
Bill of Rights, or TABOR-a law that
essentially requires voters to approve
statewide tax increases-Amendment
66's success is no sure thing,
especially in an off-year election.
Opponents stress that there's no
legal requirement that much of the
additional money be spent on needy
students in classrooms. They also say
the plan would create "winners and
losers" among districts, at the same
time that it would deny real educational
choice, since the new state
funds wouldn't truly follow students
to schools and courses they want.
"This is going to be a big drag on
the economy, but it also has no way
that it's going to guarantee better
student results," said opponent Laura
Boggs, a school board member in Jefferson
County, the state's secondlargest
district, with 84,000 students.
Nuts and Bolts
If approved by voters, Amendment
66 would codify into law Senate Bill
213, written by Sen. Johnston and
signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper,
a Democrat, earlier this year. The
amendment would create a progressive
income-tax scale in the state (the
state currently uses a 4.6 percent flat
rate), with a new top marginal rate
of 5.9 percent on annual income over
$75,000, and a 5 percent tax on income
under that amount.
Under TABOR, the tax changes can't
become law without voters' say-so,
even with the governor's signature.
The fiscal impact of the measure
would stretch far beyond the $950
million tax increase, since Sen. Johnston's
bill also reconfigures the way
the state's funding formula works. Altogether,
the plan would affect $1.7
billion in state K-12 spending. Under
the new formula, which would go into
effect for the 2015-16 school year, the
state's per-pupil spending would rise
to $5,140, from $4,270.
The new formula would guarantee
full-day kindergarten statewide and
pay for 25,500 new prekindergarten
slots for 3- and 4-year-olds.
The Colorado School Finance Proj-
ect, a Denver-based group that researches
and distributes K-12 funding
information, reported that $492
million would be designated for "at
risk" students, including children
qualifying for subsidized meals at
school. And $170 million would be directed
to English-language learners.
In part, funding would be apportioned
based on how "concentrated"
at-risk and ELL students are by district.
In a system similar to California's
new K-12 funding formula,
districts' additional money from the
state would vary from 20 percent to
40 percent of base per-pupil funding,
depending on how a district's share
of such students compares with the
statewide average.
For Eagle County, in the Rocky
Mountains two hours west of Denver,
the amendment's success would
mean $4.3 million in additional revenue.
Although that wouldn't match
the $30 million in district budget cuts
over the last three years, Jason Glass,
the superintendent of the Eagle
County schools and a former state
schools chiefs in Iowa, said it would
give significant aid to the 40 percent
of the district's 6,500 students who
are English-learners.
It would mean, for example, additional
English-as-a-second-language
teachers and more dual-language
programs.
"Without Amendment 66, we're
not going to be able to recapture
the revenue that was lost," said Mr.
Glass, who supports the amendment
but can't campaign for it because of
his position. "It clarifies and resolves
some of the issues."
The proposal also would allow the
public to track detailed spending by
individual schools, which supporters
say would strengthen transparency
and accountability.
Debating the Impact
The new formula would allow the
state to achieve funding adequacy
and more equity, supporters say,
while improving Colorado's relatively
low level of K-12 financial support
compared with those of other
16 | EDUCATION WEEK | October 23, 2013 | www.edweek.org
CLOCKWISE FROM TOP:
Montez Woodruff, 3, a student
at Educare Denver at Clayton
Early Learning, plays on the
northeast Denver campus,
which supports infant,
toddler, and preschool
education. An amendment on
next month's state ballot
raising taxes for education
would pave the way for a
major investment in earlychildhood
education.
Supporters of Amendment 66
review campaign materials
at a rally in Wheat Ridge,
one of the Denver suburbs
considered crucial to the
plan's success.
Former state Sen. Bob
Hagedorn, a Democrat,
opposes the amendment and
warns that there's no
guarantee the money raised
by the tax will find its way
into the classroom.
states. They also argue that it would
allow Colorado to pay for the state's
recent policy changes, such as Senate
Bill 191, a law that changes how
teachers and principals are evaluated,
and which goes into effect for
the current school year.
"It's based really deeply on what
we've learned in different parts of
the state, and different parts of the
country," Sen. Johnston said.
But some say there's a glaring gap
in the plan between what's intended
and what's required.
Although pro-amendment TV ads
have claimed the plan means more
money for classrooms, there's no
legal language in the proposal that
directly ties much of the additional
revenue to classroom services.
That flaw weakens the entire
amendment, said former state Sen.
Bob Hagedorn, a Democrat who opposes
the plan and submitted a legal
challenge to the signature-gathering
process that put the amendment on
the ballot. (A court dismissed the
challenge last week.)
The plan would require principals
to submit budgets to superintendents
for review and comment
detailing how the additional tar-
geted aid for needy students would
be used. But that won't satisfy
critics like Mr. Hagedorn, who dismissed
what he called "grandiose"
claims from Amendment 66 supporters:
"You can't guarantee the
classroom reforms. That's the bottom
line."
Ultimately, support for or opposi-
tion to the amendment may hinge
on whether constituents trust their
local school boards and principals
to direct the resources the way the
plan intends.
"You trust them with your child for
six hours a day," said Mary Shopnitz,
a Jefferson County resident and retired
teacher who supports Amendment
66. "Most of them, I would trust
to make child-based decisions."
Extortion or Equity?
Not everyone trusts that the plan
is fair, however. On Oct. 1, the school
board in Douglas County, south
of Denver, unanimously passed a
resolution opposing Amendment
66. Board members for the district
stressed that county residents
would have to pay up to $100 million
in new state taxes to obtain
Ed Andrieski/AP-File
Nathan Armes for Education Week
Nathan Armes for Education Week
2013
ELECTION
http://www.edweek.org
Education Week - October 23, 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - October 23, 2013
