Editorial
April 8, 2007
Americans - Coloradans included - talk proudly of the local control that underlies public pre-K-12 education in this country, and they practice that control with zeal. School board decisions can be among the most contentious issues in a community. Ask how these locally controlled schools are paid for - the schools they care for so much - and we expect that Coloradans will say that they pay for them through their property taxes, with the poorer school districts aided by the state.
That is true, but surprisingly less and less so, even in districts with high property values.
Because of an unpredicted inconsistency between the state's 1994 School Finance Act and Amendment 23 to the state's Constitution, the state is being forced to pick up more and more of the cost of pre-K-12 education. With the 1994 act, a uniform 40.08 mill levy was set statewide, and the state-local split was 53 percent and 47 percent. Now, the state bears 64 percent of the burden, and unless the legislature acts, that percentage will climb into the 70s and 80s in coming years.
Local school tax increases permitted by the school finance act do not equal the higher amounts mandated by Amendment 23.
We do not believe that that is what Coloradans expected under the principles of shared funding, and when the mix of state and local school revenue was formalized years ago.
And with 175 of 178 school districts "de-Bruced" by their voters, which allows districts to keep all of their tax collections and grants, Coloradans have shown that they want their schools to have more adequate funding.
The problem is the 1994 School Finance Act is behaving like a targeted TABOR, reducing school mill levies across the state as property valuations climb, while Amendment 23 mandates higher funding. The difference between the two - what is locally generated and the inflation-plus-growth-in-student-enrollment (plus 1 percent through 2012) that the amendment requires - is growing, and the state is struggling to make up the difference. This year, the state will have to cover a $64 million shortfall.
Returning the funding ratio to closer to 50-50 may now be impossible. The disparity has grown too great, and new money from property owners would be required. But at least the gap can be prevented from growing larger, which is what the proposed legislation would do. That legislation would stop the slow decrease in mill levies, district by district, freezing them at their current levels.
Stabilizing school mill levies makes good sense, and we support the legislature's efforts.
Opponents will argue that preventing a property owner from saving a small amount of money is a tax increase. In this case, we disagree. The shortfall in public school funding must be covered, and that is being done with taxes collected at another step, the state level. In this case, some income-tax revenue is being used.
Coloradans want to be involved in managing their schools, and we believe they expect to pay at the local level their share of school costs.
April 8, 2007
Americans - Coloradans included - talk proudly of the local control that underlies public pre-K-12 education in this country, and they practice that control with zeal. School board decisions can be among the most contentious issues in a community. Ask how these locally controlled schools are paid for - the schools they care for so much - and we expect that Coloradans will say that they pay for them through their property taxes, with the poorer school districts aided by the state.
That is true, but surprisingly less and less so, even in districts with high property values.
Because of an unpredicted inconsistency between the state's 1994 School Finance Act and Amendment 23 to the state's Constitution, the state is being forced to pick up more and more of the cost of pre-K-12 education. With the 1994 act, a uniform 40.08 mill levy was set statewide, and the state-local split was 53 percent and 47 percent. Now, the state bears 64 percent of the burden, and unless the legislature acts, that percentage will climb into the 70s and 80s in coming years.
Local school tax increases permitted by the school finance act do not equal the higher amounts mandated by Amendment 23.
We do not believe that that is what Coloradans expected under the principles of shared funding, and when the mix of state and local school revenue was formalized years ago.
And with 175 of 178 school districts "de-Bruced" by their voters, which allows districts to keep all of their tax collections and grants, Coloradans have shown that they want their schools to have more adequate funding.
The problem is the 1994 School Finance Act is behaving like a targeted TABOR, reducing school mill levies across the state as property valuations climb, while Amendment 23 mandates higher funding. The difference between the two - what is locally generated and the inflation-plus-growth-in-student-enrollment (plus 1 percent through 2012) that the amendment requires - is growing, and the state is struggling to make up the difference. This year, the state will have to cover a $64 million shortfall.
Returning the funding ratio to closer to 50-50 may now be impossible. The disparity has grown too great, and new money from property owners would be required. But at least the gap can be prevented from growing larger, which is what the proposed legislation would do. That legislation would stop the slow decrease in mill levies, district by district, freezing them at their current levels.
Stabilizing school mill levies makes good sense, and we support the legislature's efforts.
Opponents will argue that preventing a property owner from saving a small amount of money is a tax increase. In this case, we disagree. The shortfall in public school funding must be covered, and that is being done with taxes collected at another step, the state level. In this case, some income-tax revenue is being used.
Coloradans want to be involved in managing their schools, and we believe they expect to pay at the local level their share of school costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment