'fault lines'

Bill to equally fund Colorado charter schools earns first OK from Senate with changes giving districts more time

PHOTO: Nicholas Garcia
Students at the AXL Academy charter school in Aurora work on math problems in 2015.

Colorado senators gave initial support to a bill that would require the state’s school districts to equally share voter-approved tax increases with their charter schools, but not before making substantial changes that would ease in the new mandate.

The bipartisan approval came after two days of intense debate that rehashed longstanding arguments over the role of charter schools.

The local tax increases, known as mill levy overrides, have become a popular way to supplement school districts’ budgets as the state has not made headway in closing a $830 million school funding shortfall. These tax increases may only be used to fund specific programs, such as full-day kindergarten.

Under current law, school boards must consider the needs of their charter schools, but are not required to share any of the new revenue. Charter schools receive state tax dollars but are run independently, outside of the traditional school district system.

The bill would apply to all previously approved tax increases, and those going forward.

Districts won’t be obligated to back pay charters retroactively. But going forward, school districts would be required to send a combined $33 million to their charter schools to make up current inequities, according to a legislative estimate.

Districts will only be required to share tax dollars if charter schools offer comparable programs voters approved funding for.

But districts wouldn’t need to share all that money at once. An amendment to the bill would allow districts to phase in the new sharing requirement.

Under a second amendment, school boards could ask voters this fall — and only this fall — for approval to keep the status quo from previously approved tax increases, meaning charters would not get an equal share if they didn’t have one earlier.

Democrats who opposed the bill proposed 10 amendments that were inspired in part by longstanding criticism of charter schools.

Failed amendments included one that would have limited sharing money with only those charter schools that serve an equal percentage of students with disabilities as their authorizing district. Another failed amendment would have forbid sharing with charters that operate under one of the 17 automatic waivers from state law — effectively neutering the bill.

During debate, supporters of the legislation framed the push to equalize funding as an equity issue. According to a recent report by the state education department, charter schools in Colorado are increasingly serving an at-risk student population.

“These kids are receiving unequal funding and they’re disadvantaged from the point they walk into the classroom,” said state Sen. Angela Williams, a Denver Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors. “It’s about ensuring students of color, undeserved students and students with disabilities have equal funding.”

The bill falls short in equalizing funding for all charter schools. Earlier, the Senate Appropriations Committee striked the requirement that the legislature send $17 million to charter schools authorized by the state through the Charter School Institute.

Opponents of the bill argued that local school boards are best positioned to decide how to spend local tax revenue.

“I trust the parents, I trust the teachers, I trust the administrators to do the right thing and do what’s best for all of our children,” said Don Coram, a Montrose Republican.

The Senate is expected to hold a final vote on the bill Tuesday. Then the state House will take up the matter. A similar bill died in that chamber last year, and some Capitol observers expect this bill will suffer the same fate.

Update: This post has been updated to clarify that voters approve funding for specific programs when they vote for mill levy overrides, and that districts will only be required to share tax dollars with charters with comparable programs. This post has also been updated to clarify that the bill applies to past and present mill levies, but districts aren’t required to retroactively pay charters. 

The perennial debate

How the heck does Colorado fund its schools? (And six other money questions you might be embarrassed to ask.)

PHOTO: Nicholas Garcia
A high school student at Vista Peak Preparatory works on a computer during an engineering class.

Since public schools were founded, arguments have raged over how to pay for them.

In Colorado, it’s one of the perennial debates that gets the best of lawmakers, lobbyists, school leaders and advocates every year. Further frustrating things, lawmakers can only do so much because constitutional amendments lock in much of the state’s budget.

It’s no chump change: More than $6 billion in Colorado tax money goes toward schools.

As Colorado lawmakers get to work on crafting the state budget, here are some questions and answers about how the school funding system works in the Centennial state.

How the heck does Colorado fund its schools?

Colorado funds its schools from two major sources of revenue.

The first pool of revenue is called the “local share.” This money comes from local property taxes on homes and businesses. The second pool is the “state share.” This revenue comes from income and sales taxes.

PHOTO: Sarah Glen
Over time, the state has had to increase its contribution to the state’s schools.

Historically, schools received about an equal share of their funding from the local and state shares. However, for a variety of reasons, the state has had to dramatically increase its contribution to schools during the last two decades.

Many schools, especially those that serve large populations of at-risk students, also receive federal money.

What about marijuana taxes? Aren’t schools seeing a windfall from recreational sales?

No.

The first $40 million of tax revenue collected from marijuana excise taxes — a wholesale tax — goes to a special fund to help school construction. That doesn’t go very far.

However, given a tightening state budget, Gov. John Hickenlooper has suggested increasing taxes on pot to help fund school operations. Lawmakers haven’t been keen on that idea.

Does every school district get the same amount from the state?

No. Lawmakers use a funding formula to determine how much money each school district gets. The formula, which was written in 1994, takes in a variety of factors including student enrollment, the district’s cost of living and how many at-risk students the district serves.

The large suburban district in Douglas County received $7,050 per student this year. Thirty-four percent came from local taxes, while the state picked up 66 percent of the cost.

The smaller Mapleton school district in Adams County, which serves a large Latino population, got $7,303 per student. But only 24 percent came from local property taxes, while the state kicked in 76 percent of the cost.

The tiny Aguilar school district in southeastern Colorado received $13,600 per student. The locals pitched in 25 percent and the state took care of the rest.

What determines the size of the local share?

School boards have no say in how much local property taxes contribute to their funding. That’s left to a complicated constellation of constitutional amendments and state law.

First there’s the Gallagher Amendment. Adopted in 1982, the amendment requires the state to maintain a 45 percent to 55 percent ratio ratio between the revenue collected from personal property and business property. When home values go up, the state is required to drop the percent on which property can be taxed. In 1980, the rate was 21 percent. In 2013, it was 7.98 percent. That means a smaller proportion of a home’s actual value can be taxed by school districts.

The second constitutional amendment in play is the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR. Approved by voters in 1992, TABOR puts a cap on how much revenue the state and local governments can collect from taxpayers. It also requires governing bodies to seek permission from voters before increasing taxes.

While all but four school districts have received voter approval to keep excess tax revenue, lawmakers have put two key restrictions on school districts.

First, school district property taxes can only increase by inflation and enrollment growth. When that revenue exceeds the limit, school districts must reduce their tax rates. And because of TABOR, once the tax rate is lowered by statute, it can’t be raised without voter approval.

(If you want to sound super-smart at your next PTA or school board meeting, this is known as the “ratchet effect.”)

Lawmakers put an additional check on school districts in 2007 when they put a statewide cap on school districts’ tax rates.

What determines how much the state is supposed to kick in?

While there are two amendments that put restrictions on how the state can generate revenue to fund its schools, there is another Constitutional amendment that spells out how the state is supposed to spend that money.

Amendment 23, approved by voters in 2000, did a few things, but two points are still relevant today.

First, Amendment 23 requires the state to increase funding based on population growth and inflation. Second, it created the State Education Fund, an account lawmakers are relying on more heavily to pay for schools. It is financed by one-third of 1 percent of federal taxable income that is exempt from TABOR limits.

Wait, if lawmakers are required to increase funding each year, why does the state have an education funding shortfall?

During the Great Recession, when lawmakers were forced to slash hundreds of millions from the state budget, they argued that Amendment 23 only covers “base funding,” or the average every school district receives per pupil.

The amendment, they argued, doesn’t govern the additional money districts receive to compensate for size, at-risk students and other factors.

So in 2010, lawmakers created “the negative factor,” a new tool they could use to make across- the-board cuts to school funding after all other factors (size, at-risk students, cost-of-living) are taken into consideration.

As part of a compromise, lawmakers are required to report how much money they’re not giving to schools based on that legislative tool.

A lawsuit challenged the negative factor. But the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of lawmakers.

So while a large portion of funding must increase every year, lawmakers have places to cut education in a pinch. The current shortfall is at $828 million, down from a $1.01 billion in 2013.

Didn’t a bunch of school districts just pass tax increases?

Yes, and according to some, that’s making the situation worse.

As the state’s finances have squeezed, some school districts have turned to local voters to ask for more local revenue. These tax increases, known as mill levy overrides, exist outside of the state’s school funding system. The more voters approve doesn’t lessen the state’s burden.

There are some school districts like Boulder, Denver and Cherry Creek that have generated millions of local revenue but are still getting their equal share from the state. Meanwhile, districts like Greeley, Pueblo and Sheridan have never been able to convince their voters to approve a tax increase. That means they have to get by with whatever the state gives them.

Not ready for prime time

Lawmaker kills bill that would have allowed unlicensed teachers in rural Colorado classrooms

A bill that would have allowed understaffed rural Colorado school districts to hire unlicensed teachers was spiked by its sponsor after he was unable to find enough support.

“I’ve gotten a lot of flack over it, and it’s not ready for prime time,” said Rep. Jim Wilson, a Salida Republican. “If your troops are still arguing, I’m not dumb enough to lead the charge.”

Along with providing flexibility on hiring unlicensed teachers, House Bill 1178 would have created a process for rural schools to receive waivers from state law.

The State Board of Education, which is responsible for granting waivers, and the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, criticized the bill.

The union is a stalwart defender of the state’s licensure policies and objects to allowing unlicensed teachers in the classroom.

Wilson took a shot at the objections.

“My question is: Who is going to be concerned between unlicensed educators versus no educators?” he said. “There’s no easy simple solution to going out and finding (licensed teachers). They’re not there. I’ve never seen this kind of crisis — ever.”

State lawmakers are considering two other bills to address the shortage of teachers, which is concentrated in certain geographic areas and subjects.

On Monday, the House Education Committee on a party-line vote approved a bill that calls for the state’s education and higher education departments to create a strategic plan on the issue.

Lawmakers are also considering a bill that would grant rural school districts more flexibility in hiring retired teachers.