School Finance

Compact model of school finance plan still in the shop

A stripped-down version of last year’s school finance overhaul may soon join the growing line of bills that hope to tap a one-time surplus of K-12 funding.

But that proposal may face resistance from groups that want to increase basic school funding, not pay for new programs, and it may conflict with plans to save some surplus funds for the future.

Sen. Mike Johnston’s Senate Bill 13-213 didn’t go into effect because voters subsequently defeated Amendment 66, the ballot measure that would have paid for it. So the Denver Democrat now is scavenging parts of that plan to build a smaller model he hopes to sell to the 2014 legislature.

Johnston said last week that the bill could be introduced within a few weeks, but the timetable likely depends on how much support Johnston can gather. The bill’s contents are a moving target, and some influential interest groups that have kicked the tires aren’t impressed. Negotiations are continuing.

On the other hand, taking the bill public soon may be necessary to give Johnston’s ideas visibility in the discussion over how to use what could be as much as $1 billion available in the State Education Fund (SEF), an account that’s dedicated to K-12 spending.

“We need to make our case in the midst of all the other education debate,” said Johnston, who is working on the bill with Rep. Millie Hamner, D-Dillon, and Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock.

Six bills with a combined draw on the SEF of $40 million already have been introduced. Another 10 bills without specific price tags also are in the mix, including potentially expensive plans to expand full-day kindergarten and broaden services for English language learners.

The 2013 coalition is fraying

Johnston’s SB 13-213 and A66 were a big political compromise intended to unite various education interests, from reform groups to school districts, because the $1 billion in new income tax revenue would have paid for some initiatives reformers wanted and for partial restoration of recent years’ budget cuts, something districts wanted. (Refresh your memory on the details in this story from the Chalkbeat Colorado archives.)

Since there’s now no new money for anybody, jockeying for what funding is available has intensified competition among interest groups, and all eyes are focused on the SEF.

The fund is more flush than it’s been in years, primarily because a 2012 law put $1.1 billion in state surpluses into the SEF. Legislative economists project the SEF will contain about $2 billion when the 2014-15 budget year starts next July 1. Some $850 million already is scheduled to be spent, leaving a balance of just under $1.2 billion when the 2014-15 year ends.

Executive branch economists in the Office of State Planning and Budgeting take a more conservative view, estimating there will be $1.6 billion in the SEF at start of 2014-15, $887 million in planned spending and a $712 million ending balance.

Whatever the number, it’s a tempting target for lawmakers, even it’s one-time money, unlike the $1 billion-plus that A66 would have generated for schools every year.

Johnston-Hamner bill would combine key initiatives

While other legislators are proposing individual dips into that pot, Johnston is working to assemble a plan that would combine several spending programs in a single bill.

Those ideas are downsized versions of some programs and spending proposed in SB 13-213, leading some statehouse observers to dub the new measure “Son of 213.” Its reported formal working title is the Student Success Act.

“We have some concepts out there,” Johnston said, without going into details. He noted he’s looking for Republican support for the bill. (Republican lawmakers, Johnston allies on previous education bills, abandoned him last year over SB 13-213 because they opposed the tax increase.)

According to several people familiar with the discussions, the following elements are being considered for inclusion in the bill. The cost is estimated at $230 to $250 million, about half in one-time spending and half in recurring annual costs. As with the elements, the cost is a moving target.

  • Increased kindergarten funding – The bill may include $100 million to increase state reimbursement for kindergarten students as an incentive to expand full-day programs. (Kindergarten reportedly has replaced increased preschool funding as a priority in an effort to gain GOP support.)
  • Reform implementation – Also under consideration is $100 million for districts to help them pay for implementation of new standards, tests and educator evaluations.
  • Early literacy – Districts also could receive $20 million to help fund implementation of the 2012 READ, which requires students to be reading at grade level by the time they enter fourth grade.
  • English language learners – The measure may include $15 million for expansion of services to these students.
  • Enrollment counting – Conversion to the average daily membership method of counting enrollment could get $10 million for technology costs.
  • Financial transparency – Districts also could receive $5 million for the costs of improved spending reporting to the public.
  • Charter school construction – Also under consideration is providing an additional $20-$25 million to charter schools for facilities needs.

Republican lawmakers already have introduced individual bills related to kindergarten funding, English language learners, enrollment counting, financial transparency and charter construction needs. While those bills are unlikely to pass on their own in the Democratic-majority General Assembly, including those issues in his bill could give Johnston a lever to gain some GOP support.

Districts push back on earmarked funding

Plans to dip into the SEF face two big hurdles.

The first is the push by the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Association of School Executives and the Colorado Education Association to reduce the “negative factor,” the formula used by the legislature to reduce annual school funding from how the state funding formula otherwise would have calculated it. It’s a device used to balance the overall state budget.

Wish list for SEFVarious bills propose to tap the fund to pay for such things as:
  • Data upgrades
  • ECE quality improvement
  • Charter facilities
  • Teacher bonuses
  • Gifted & talented
  • Financial transparency
  • Full-day kindergarten
  • School meals
  • Enrollment count system
  • ELL program expansion

Gov. John Hickenlooper’s revised 2014-15 budget proposal calls for $5.7 billion in K-12 spending, including $3.78 billion in state funds. That would be a $241.1 million increase over this school year. On top of that districts would receive $276.7 million in what’s called categorical funding, money that’s earmarked for ELL students, special education, transportation and certain other costs.

The current negative factor is estimated at $1.004 billion. The governor’s budget would take it to about $1.002 billion next year.

In the wake of A66’s defeat, district interests are pushing hard to use any extra money to “buy down” the negative factor and not to fund new programs like Johnston is proposing.

The school boards group is pushing for a buy down of at least $100 million, and the Denver Area Superintendents Council is suggesting a $275 million increase in school spending, most of it to reduce the negative factor and some of it to increase support for at-risk students. A newly formed group of high-poverty districts also may push for additional at-risk funding.

Without some movement on the negative factor, key education interest groups are highly skeptical about Johnston’s bill-in-progress. District lobbyists say they aren’t getting much sympathy about the negative factor from Democratic leaders, at least in the House.

Spend now or spend later?

The second hurdle to big raids on the SEF is the desire by the Hickenlooper administration and legislative budget writers to maintain a healthy balance in the fund as a cushion against education spending needs in future years, especially if the economy takes a downturn.

K-12 schools are funded by a combination of money from the SEF and the state’s main General Fund. If the schools spending base is increased, even if that initially comes from the education fund, the General Fund bears most of the burden in future budget years. That’s because the state constitution requires base funding to increase by enrollment and inflation every year.

SEF primer

The administration would like to leave a balance of about $700 million in the SEF at the end of 2014-15, letting it decline to $400 million at the end of 2017-18. (In addition to the one-time infusion of cash, the SEF receives an annual share of income tax revenues totaling more than $500 million a year.) Keeping a healthy balance in the education fund allows budget writers to reduce the pressure of K-12 spending on the General Fund.

So lawmakers face a three competing interests when they consider school funding this session – new programs, reducing the negative factor and saving for future education costs.

The riddle likely won’t be answered until April, after new state revenue forecasts are issued in late March, after the main state budget bill firms up and after legislative leaders choose the winners from among all the new spending bills proposed by lawmakers, both for education and other state programs.

Amendment 73

Here’s how some districts would spend their share of a $1.6 billion tax hike for education

PHOTO: Katie Wood/The Denver Post
Teacher Mandy Rees talks to her middle school students at Bruce Randolph School on Wednesday, March 1, 2017.

If Colorado voters this November approve a $1.6 billion tax increase to benefit schools, several metro-area districts are pledging to spend part of their share to boost teacher pay.

Raising teacher salaries is an idea that’s gaining political popularity, fueled by teacher protests around the country and here in Colorado, where education funding is below the national average and several recent studies have found teachers are dramatically underpaid.

School boards in at least 70 of the state’s 178 school districts – including Denver, Aurora, Jeffco, Adams 14, Westminster, and Sheridan – have passed resolutions in support of the statewide tax increase, called Amendment 73. Some have also specified what their districts would spend the money on.

Amendment 73 would raise personal income taxes for residents making more than $150,000 per year. It would also raise the corporate income tax and make adjustments to property taxes. In separate ballot measures, districts across Colorado – including Aurora, Jeffco, and Westminster – are asking voters to raise local taxes to support education, as well.

In addition to teacher pay, all three large metro districts named expanding preschool as a priority if Amendment 73 passes. Aurora listed decreasing student-to-teacher ratios, while Denver listed reducing class sizes. Denver and Jeffco said they’d also spend more on mental health support for students.

Click the links below to read the resolutions in their entirety. We’ve also included bulleted summaries of the spending priorities in Denver, Jeffco, and Aurora.

A Denver teacher gave an evocative example to the school board Thursday of why the district should prioritize support for students’ mental health by hiring more psychologists and social workers, something it has already begun doing with money from local tax increases.

Here is what the teacher, Michelle Garrison, had to say.

There’s all kinds of facts and figures about the types of trauma students go through in their daily lives. … But when I really thought about how to tell this story, I wanted to share with you some things about how this manifests and looks in a school. … Here’s some things that have happened in the past three days.

Three different third-grade girls crying on three different days because one student with severe emotional needs keeps hitting them and pulling their hair.

Five first-graders crying because another student was sprinting around the room grabbing and crumpling everyone’s art project, ruining their work.

One seventh-grade boy who sleeps soundly, drool and all, every day this week and tells me he can’t sleep at night because he’s afraid someone is going to take his little sister.

Attending a meeting in which we were told to offer coloring sheets as our sole intervention for a boy who has been hitting students with blunt objects and jabbing at their throats.

Attending a trauma-informed practice (training) of which the thesis was, “Don’t yell at kids because they might have really messed-up things going on at home.” I’m not really sure what else to do about what they do, though.

The police have been called to our building three times.

Over 20 middle school students running in the halls, sprinting in and out of classrooms, running and sliding on the floor, blaring music over a Bluetooth speaker. It took 15 minutes and five adults to get them back into classrooms.

I could go on. This is half of what I wrote down. I think you get the point.

This is despite a school full of wonderful adults, wonderful administration, and really wonderful students. But this is the reality of what happens.

I was trained as an art teacher. I do not know what to do to help these students.

Click here to read Denver Public Schools’ resolution on Amendment 73. The $1.6 billion in revenue that the tax increase would generate would be divvied up between school districts, and Denver officials said they expect the district’s share will be $150 million each year.

The resolution says the district will prioritize spending the money on:

  • Increasing pay to attract and retain high-quality teachers and staff
  • Better supporting student mental health needs
  • “Targeted funding and strategies to better support student groups with higher needs, including efforts to reduce class sizes”
  • Expanding early childhood education opportunities

The resolution notes that the largest portion of the funds should be spent on teacher pay, though it doesn’t specify a dollar amount or percentage.

Click here to read Aurora Public Schools’ resolution. It says the district will prioritize:

  • Adding school-based instructional supports, reducing student-teacher ratios, and establishing a clear career ladder to recruit and retain high-quality teachers
  • Enhancing preschool by increasing access, expanding quality programming, and increasing compensation for preschool staff
  • Increasing compensation and benefits to maintain a competitive place in the market

Click here to read Jeffco Public Schools’ resolution. In addition to naming priorities, it specifies what percentage of the district’s share of the funding it would spend on each one.

  • 50 percent to attract and retain quality teachers and staff
  • 15 percent to lower class sizes and staffing shortages
  • 10 percent to add mental health support and counseling, and school security
  • 10 percent to expand early childhood education
  • 7.5 percent to expand career and technical options, as well as science, technology, engineering, and math options
  • 7.5 percent to buy classroom learning materials, technology, and supplies, and offset student fees

Click here to read Westminster’s resolution, here to read Adams 14’s resolution, and here to read Sheridan’s resolution.

Westminster and Adams 14 didn’t suggest how the funds should be used. Sheridan included some commitments, but they aren’t very specific. They include spending on strategies to close gaps in test scores between different groups of students, and maintaining “adequate district operational functions.”

The Colorado Association of School Boards is collecting district resolutions, and you can find more of them here.

Colorado voters have twice before rejected statewide tax increases for education. At both the school and municipal level, voters are much more receptive to local tax increases. The Colorado Association of School Boards, which supports Amendment 73, is urging its members around the state to be as specific as possible about how they’ll spend additional funds. An online guide encourages school boards to “engage stakeholders” and “hold public discussions.”

Opponents of the tax increase have criticized the lack of specificity in how new resources will be spent. They say that spending more money doesn’t guarantee students will do better in school.

But Lisa Weil, head of Great Education Colorado, a major backer of Amendment 73, said school districts had to decide on their own how to cut during the Great Recession, and they should get to decide now how to restore the money.

“In 10 and 20 and 30 years of cuts, the legislature has never said how to cut,” Weil said. “They’ve left that to local communities, and local communities have done what they can to keep cuts out of the classroom and keep serving kids. There is no better way to ensure accountability than to put these decisions in the hands of people who are accountable to voters. They know the community, and it’s where advocates have the most opportunity to make a difference.”

Chalkbeat staffers Yesenia Robles and Erica Meltzer contributed to this report.

School Finance

The race is on to convince voters to give more money to Indianapolis Public Schools

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy/Chalkbeat
Lexus Balanzar, a campaign worker for Stand for Children, is making the case for voters to increase funding for Indianapolis Public Schools.

With less than two months until Election Day, the effort to pass two referendums to increase funding for Indianapolis Public Schools is gaining momentum. Almost every day, campaign workers are fanning out across Indianapolis to seek support from voters. And Superintendent Lewis Ferebee is stopping by community meetings across the district to make his case that the district needs taxpayers’ help.

This multi-pronged approach illustrates how high the stakes are for the district, which aims to raise $272 million to prevent an even more dire financial situation.

The district first announced plans to ask voters for nearly $1 billion from taxpayers 10 months ago. Since then, the request was cut down, then the vote was delayed to rally more support. The district ultimately came to a final reduced request, which appears to be more palatable to community leaders and has won the support of the Indy Chamber. There is no organized opposition to the referendums, and a previous critic, the MIBOR Realtor Association, now supports them.

But the district ultimately needs the support of voters in addition to power brokers. The key to a successful referendum campaign is reaching out to both hyper-engaged voters and those who are less tuned in to local issues, said Andrew Downs, an associate professor of political science at Purdue University Fort Wayne.

When Ferebee presented last Tuesday to the Rotary Club of Indianapolis, for example, he was reaching members of the community who will likely tell friends and neighbors about the referendums, said Downs.

“They’re voters who will reach out to other people,” he said. “They are voters who typically have a network that will be activated in this case in support of the referendums.”

During the campaign for the planned May referendums, district leaders were juggling other initiatives that drew attention from the tax measures. But Ferebee is now front and center in the effort to win over voters. In a crowded banquet hall last week, Ferebee made the case for increasing funding to a group of Rotarians who appeared largely sympathetic. His low-key jokes drew friendly laughter. But the core of his argument was that the district needs more money to pay for safety improvements at schools and increase teacher pay.

When teacher pay is low, Ferebee said, the district struggles to retain and recruit teachers. It’s forced to rely on substitutes, and students suffer. “We know that our educators are so impactful in our lives,” he said. “We’ve got to do better with compensating them accordingly.”

The hard-won endorsement of the chamber has also gotten some voters’ attention. Tom Schneider, who works for Alpha Tau Omega National Fraternity, did not closely follow the referendums in the early months of the campaign. But as a chamber member, Schneider has learned more about it recently, and he has become an advocate.

“I’m really glad the chamber and the school district got together, they talked about it, and they figured out something that would work,” said Schneider, who rents downtown.

However, after months of political jockeying over the price tag, both behind closed doors and in the media, some voters have concerns over how much the request has changed and whether the district has shown that it needs the money.

Jefferson Shreve, a Republican on the Indianapolis City-County Council, said that even the reduced request is a significant amount of money.

Shreve was appointed to fill a vacancy on the council just last week, and he said he will continue to learn more about the referendums. But Indianapolis Public Schools leaders need to show how they arrived at the final request and how they will use the money.

“If you’re a citizen, and you’re just trying to keep up with this from the sidelines, the number is jumping around by hundreds of millions of bucks,” said Shreve in a phone interview last week. “That just doesn’t instill a whole lot of confidence.”

Reaching people who aren’t involved in groups like Rotary, such as low-income voters who work hourly wage jobs or busy parents of young children, takes other campaign tactics, said Downs, the political scientist.

The Indianapolis effort will include radio ads and direct mail, organizers say. The campaign is also relying on door-to-door canvassing, which the group Stand for Children Indiana has already begun. On a Friday afternoon in early September, three canvassers from the group traversed a neighborhood near Crown Hill Cemetery, before their day was cut short by torrential rain.

When a campaign worker knocked on Michael Bateman’s door, his Maltese Shih Tzu burst into high pitched barks. Bateman, for his part, was friendly if skeptical as he stood on the porch in the misty rain.

Lexus Balanzar got straight to the point: Would Bateman be willing to increase his own property taxes to raise money for school security and higher pay for teachers? The tax hike would cost just $3 more per month for homes at the district’s median value, she said.

The taxes on his home were already unaffordable, Bateman, an Indianapolis public school parent and alumnus, said with a dry laugh. “But if it’s for the teachers raises — if we can guarantee that they are for the raises, yeah.”

It’s an argument that could have broad appeal. A recent poll from Ipsos/USA Today found that 59 percent of Americans do not believe teachers are paid fairly, and even more say teachers spend too much of their own money on supplies.

Most of the year, Stand works directly with parents by training them to advocate for their children. But when election season comes around, the group takes on another, controversial role. The local branch of a national organization, Stand has been influential in helping elect school board members who favor partnerships with charter school.

Vote Yes for IPS, a political action committee supporting the referendums, is leaning on Stand for canvassing because the group has roots in the community, said Robert Vane, the lead consultant for the PAC. “Quite frankly, it would be political malpractice not to partner with them when appropriate,” he said.

When it comes to the referendums, Stand’s support could prove pivotal to success. In addition to canvassing, Stand donated $100,000 to Vote Yes for IPS. Stand officials declined to say how much the group is spending on canvassing, but the group said that its spending would be included on the Vote Yes for IPS financial disclosures.

The group has about 20 full-time, paid canvassers across Indianapolis, said Joel Williams, the Stand field director. The canvassers will continue door knocking and performing voter outreach until Election Day.

“We work as much as we humanly can,” Williams added.