Tribune Opinion
March 29, 2007
Tinkering with school funding without first taking some feel-out political laps is about as fruitful as getting under the hood of a NASCAR racer without the pit crew's permission.
That appears to be the lesson of Gov. Bill Ritter's recent foray into school funding, the state's largest annual expense.
With fanfare at a mid-March press conference, Ritter announced his support for a measure that would provide $84 million annually to K-12 education. Most of the money from the proposal -- $65 million -- would be generated by stabilizing local mill-levy rates used to determine property taxes. That amount would be spent on full-day kindergarten and would help prevent the State Education Fund from slipping toward insolvency, Ritter said.
The measure, of course, is controversial. Many lawmakers view the stabilization of mill levies as essentially a tax increase. As property values rise, regardless of a frozen mill rate, taxes will correspondingly go higher, they argue.
So when the proposal came before the Senate last week, lawmakers booted it out of the School Finance Act. Senate Bill 199, without the property tax measure, passed the Senate on a 34-0 vote last week.
It's unfortunate the proposal appears headed from stall to fall -- before it moves to the House, lawmakers are awaiting an opinion from legislative counsel about the legality of the measure -- because it's clear the school funding system is in need of a fix.
The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which sets spending caps, and the Gallagher Amendment, which limits the amount of burden that can be put on residential property owners, combine to lower the amount of property tax that goes to school financing, leaving the state to cover the gap. Where the local share of school district funding was about 60 percent in the early 1980s, it's now only about 30 percent. That shift has played a role in crimping the State Education Fund, which is projected to run into a $100 million deficit by 2011.
"Without a comprehensive plan such as this amendment, the state's general fund -- which also pays for higher education, health care and human services -- would be forced to subsidize the State Ed Fund, and that would have harmed those other services," Ritter said.
Were it not for Amendment 23, which mandates a 1 percent annual increase in funding on top of inflationary adjustments, school districts could well see their budgets battered by Gallagher-TABOR and a legislature looking for ways to fund other services.
But Amendment 23 sunsets in a few years, making local school district officials anxious for a funding formula revamp -- and soon.
"A full review of the finance formula ... needs to be considered," said Karen Trusler, superin-tendent of the Windsor Re-4 School District.
Trusler's school district is among a small group of districts statewide that would benefit from the Ritter-supported measure, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, and Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.
Part of the measure provides 11 school districts now at the state funding floor with $6.3 million, which would come from the State Education Fund. Windsor is among the floor-funded districts, joining Johnstown/Milliken Re-5J, Poudre School District and Thompson R2-J in Loveland as four regional members of the list.
"The funding gap is getting wider, and these funds would help keep the gap from increasing," Trusler said. Windsor stands to get an additional $140 per pupil under the measure, while Johnstown/Milliken would get about $20 per pupil.
Colorado ranked 24th nationally in per-pupil operating expenditures, according to National Center of Education Statistics. In 2004, the last year figures are available, Colorado spent $7,478 per pupil, compared to the national average of $8,310.
As pressures rise for schools to meet the high standards of state assessments and the federal No Child Left Behind Act, adequate resources must be made available.
So we believe the measure promoted by Ritter makes sense. It helps stabilize cash flow to schools before they become swamped further by unfunded mandates. It would bring some relief to four northern Colorado school districts on the bottom of the current funding curve.
But it appears it's going to take time for Ritter and other supporters to allay the mounting political concerns. Some laps around the educational track -- getting the message out to residents and lawmakers as to why this is important -- is necessary before this forward-thinking proposal will gain traction.
March 29, 2007
Tinkering with school funding without first taking some feel-out political laps is about as fruitful as getting under the hood of a NASCAR racer without the pit crew's permission.
That appears to be the lesson of Gov. Bill Ritter's recent foray into school funding, the state's largest annual expense.
With fanfare at a mid-March press conference, Ritter announced his support for a measure that would provide $84 million annually to K-12 education. Most of the money from the proposal -- $65 million -- would be generated by stabilizing local mill-levy rates used to determine property taxes. That amount would be spent on full-day kindergarten and would help prevent the State Education Fund from slipping toward insolvency, Ritter said.
The measure, of course, is controversial. Many lawmakers view the stabilization of mill levies as essentially a tax increase. As property values rise, regardless of a frozen mill rate, taxes will correspondingly go higher, they argue.
So when the proposal came before the Senate last week, lawmakers booted it out of the School Finance Act. Senate Bill 199, without the property tax measure, passed the Senate on a 34-0 vote last week.
It's unfortunate the proposal appears headed from stall to fall -- before it moves to the House, lawmakers are awaiting an opinion from legislative counsel about the legality of the measure -- because it's clear the school funding system is in need of a fix.
The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which sets spending caps, and the Gallagher Amendment, which limits the amount of burden that can be put on residential property owners, combine to lower the amount of property tax that goes to school financing, leaving the state to cover the gap. Where the local share of school district funding was about 60 percent in the early 1980s, it's now only about 30 percent. That shift has played a role in crimping the State Education Fund, which is projected to run into a $100 million deficit by 2011.
"Without a comprehensive plan such as this amendment, the state's general fund -- which also pays for higher education, health care and human services -- would be forced to subsidize the State Ed Fund, and that would have harmed those other services," Ritter said.
Were it not for Amendment 23, which mandates a 1 percent annual increase in funding on top of inflationary adjustments, school districts could well see their budgets battered by Gallagher-TABOR and a legislature looking for ways to fund other services.
But Amendment 23 sunsets in a few years, making local school district officials anxious for a funding formula revamp -- and soon.
"A full review of the finance formula ... needs to be considered," said Karen Trusler, superin-tendent of the Windsor Re-4 School District.
Trusler's school district is among a small group of districts statewide that would benefit from the Ritter-supported measure, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, and Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.
Part of the measure provides 11 school districts now at the state funding floor with $6.3 million, which would come from the State Education Fund. Windsor is among the floor-funded districts, joining Johnstown/Milliken Re-5J, Poudre School District and Thompson R2-J in Loveland as four regional members of the list.
"The funding gap is getting wider, and these funds would help keep the gap from increasing," Trusler said. Windsor stands to get an additional $140 per pupil under the measure, while Johnstown/Milliken would get about $20 per pupil.
Colorado ranked 24th nationally in per-pupil operating expenditures, according to National Center of Education Statistics. In 2004, the last year figures are available, Colorado spent $7,478 per pupil, compared to the national average of $8,310.
As pressures rise for schools to meet the high standards of state assessments and the federal No Child Left Behind Act, adequate resources must be made available.
So we believe the measure promoted by Ritter makes sense. It helps stabilize cash flow to schools before they become swamped further by unfunded mandates. It would bring some relief to four northern Colorado school districts on the bottom of the current funding curve.
But it appears it's going to take time for Ritter and other supporters to allay the mounting political concerns. Some laps around the educational track -- getting the message out to residents and lawmakers as to why this is important -- is necessary before this forward-thinking proposal will gain traction.
No comments:
Post a Comment