K-12 education has been the favorite child of Colorado’s state budget the past four years – cursed by some, envied by all.
While the rest of the budget was being whacked, K-12, kindergarten through high school, has been protected by the state constitution and has, mostly, continued to grow.
Yet, as thousands of children return to Colorado classrooms this month to learn the three Rs, state lawmakers and education officials are fretting over the ABCs of school finance.
The most pressing issues facing education this year won’t be addressed in the classroom, but rather the ballot box. If Referendums C and D, two budget reform measures, aren’t approved by voters in November, K-12 will no longer be untouchable.
Even though its funding is constitutionally protected, the little-known secret making its way through the halls of education and the state Capitol is that everything – K-12 included – will be on the table for cuts.
“I know how to cut K-12,” says Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, not by way of bragging. “I’ve already done it.”
It’s a scenario few want to see.
“We won’t fund pre-school. We won’t have any all-day kindergarten. I’ll increase the at-risk multiplier [in the School Finance Act]. I can take the factor that we use on [school] size and reduce it. That really hurts the rural schools.”
It’s not a threat from Anderson, who’s campaigning in support of Referendums C and D, it’s inevitable.
Supporters of the referendums often talk about the impact Colorado’s budget woes have had on higher education. And it’s true. Higher education is not constitutionally protected, so it’s been subjected to more than $100 million in cuts since 2001.
If Referendum C fails, legislators will be forced to cut another $400 million from the state’s $5.8 billion budget, while handing out nearly $600 million in refunds. Some 65 percent of the budget is mandated spending for Medicaid and, thanks to Amendment 23, K-12. The other 35 percent, including higher education, has been cut to the bone, lawmakers say, so a chunk of that $400 million could very well come from K-12.”In the end, if you don’t have the money, I don’t care what the law says you have to do, they may not be able to do it,” says Evie Hudak, member of the State Board of Education. “Nothing is going to be sacred. Education can’t even rely on Amendment 23, I fear, just because if there isn’t money there isn’t money.”
The two measures before voters in November would lift provisions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and allow the state to keep $3.1 billion in revenue over five years, freeing up some money for higher education and possibly allowing K-12 to keep its Amendment 23 spending levels, among other things.
Amendment 23, approved by voters in 2000, pegs annual spending increases to the rate of inflation plus 1 percentage point. It has been the envy of state agencies shouldering most of the cuts. (However, education officials point to cuts over the years and to the state’s raid of the State Education Fund as a rainy-day fund as proof that officials have found ways to draw blood from K-12.)
But with inflation at an amazingly low 0.1 percent, K-12 grew just 1.1 percent this year. That’s more than other departments, of course, but with skyrocketing energy and other costs, schools are hardly swimming in cash. In terms of a percentage increase, it was K-12’s lowest in 10 years.
“We’ll have a real donnybrook on our hands,” says Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards. “Everything will be on the table. Even though there’s a mandate to fund it, I don’t think legislators will be in the mood to cut higher education (further) … or social programs that have been so devastated.”
Here’s how K-12 likely would be cut:
Right now, the state provides 60 percent of the money that goes into schools, and every district gets a base amount.
That base is then modified using three factors: the number of at-risk students, the size of the school district and the cost of living for that area.
“The Constitution says we have to add inflation plus 1 percent to the base, it doesn’t say anything about the factors,” Sen. Anderson says.
So those factors provide a fudge factor, so to speak, for cutting.
Each district’s per-pupil funding is then further adjusted by the number of students eligible for a fully subsidized school lunch – these are considered at-risk kids – and the number of students enrolled in online programs. More wiggle room.
Districts also can get more money to serve specific groups of students or specific needs, such as kids who aren’t proficient in English. That money was cut when the state began paring its budget a few years back, but was recently restored.
Rep. Tom Plant, D-Boulder, who sits on the Joint Budget Committee, doesn’t think lawmakers should tinker with constitutionally protected funding. If they do, he knows they’ll be sued – and he figures it won’t be the only court challenge next year if TABOR restrictions aren’t addressed.
The state could face “a whole bunch of lawsuits for not funding people’s programs. Are we meeting our constitutional obligation with respect to funding human services, funding federally mandated programs – even something as basic as a timely hearing?” Plant asks.
Referendum C frees up more state revenue, while Referendum D authorizes long-term bonding for state highways and school capital improvement projects, including $147 million for K-12 school construction and upgrades and $50 million for Colorado universities, colleges and community colleges.
Yet that $147 million only makes good on the state’s pledge, prompted by a lawsuit, to provide $190 million over 11 years on the government’s most serious capital needs. Higher ed alone has a $550 million backlog of unmet construction needs.
“If (the Referendum C and D package) passes, we’ll still be treading water, but it’s better than going under,” Urschel said.
