PROPOSAL NUMBER: 005-06
1. Date proposed 9/12/06. Sponsor: Legislative Committee
2. TITLE:
Recommended position on Initiative 39 & Referendum J, School District Spending Requirements
3. FULL PROPOSAL:
Oppose both the initiative and the referendum. Forcing all districts to spend their budgets based on a statewide concept regardless of local conditions (minority enrollment, % free lunch status, rural busing costs, special ed needs, etc.) could be detrimental to many districts. Referendum J, being less restrictive, is a second choice after None Of The Above.
4. BACKGROUND:
Proponents claim this will force school districts to spend more money in the classroom and force them to trim waste elsewhere. There are two ballot issues due to the legislature presenting a less restrictive version as opposed to the petition initiative.
5. Justification/Goals:
Ballot issue in November.
6. PROS:
1) Amendment 39 increases funding for classroom instruction, without increasing taxes. It requires that school districts focus their resources on educating students in the classroom and be more efficient with other spending. As a result, more money may be available for teaching professionals. The most recent data available indicate that spending in the classroom could increase by as much as $278 million.
2) Amendment 39 establishes a constitutional standard for school district spending. School district taxpayers across the state will know that at least 65 percent of the district’s budget is being spent in the classroom without having to examine each district’s financial documents. School boards in each district will decide how to meet the requirement, which may result in new spending priorities.
1) By including all school functions in the 65-percent spending requirement, Referendum J recognizes that students and teachers benefit from the support provided by principals, guidance counselors, nurses, bus drivers and many others who are outside the classroom.
2) Referendum J establishes a standard for school district spending that can be changed in the future by the state legislature as the delivery of education services changes. And, it preserves the flexibility of locally elected school boards to respond to the needs and desires of the community. School boards in each district can still decide whether school spending should be for teachers, counselors, classroom materials, technology, transportation, or hot lunches.
Committee comment: The relevant KVs would be Social Justice (by making all school districts equal in classroom expenditures) and Future Focus as these proposals strive to improve classroom conditions.
Cons:
1) Amendment 39 fails to account for the important differences among the 178 school districts across Colorado and does not necessarily improve student achievement. School districts vary greatly in the characteristics of their pupil population, geography, and community values. These differences should be addressed by locally elected school boards with input from parents, teachers, taxpayers, and others in the district rather than by an amendment to the state constitution.
2) School districts not meeting the new requirement may have to divert money from support functions and positions that help teachers to teach and students to learn. Nurses, guidance counselors, and principals are essential to a well-run school but do not count toward the 65-percent spending requirement. In addition, costs for student transportation, utilities, and hot lunches, which are often beyond a district’s control, do not count toward the 65-percent requirement.
1) Referendum J is unnecessary because nearly all school districts in the state already meet the 65-percent requirement. It also creates new data and budget reporting requirements for school districts without necessarily improving student achievement.
2) Referendum J fails to account for the important differences among the 178 school districts across Colorado. School districts vary greatly in the characteristics of their pupil population, geography, and community values. These differences should be addressed by locally elected school boards with input from parents, teachers, taxpayers, and others in the district.
Committee comment: The relevant KVs would be Grassroots Democracy, Community-based Economics (both relevant to local control of schools, a basic Colorado education principle), Decentralization (local conditions driving local decisions), and Future Focus.
7. Alternatives to the proposal:
Not taking a position on this issue.
8. Supporting statements:
Legislative Committee Report:
Initiative 39 & Referendum J, School District Spending Requirements
Internet Link http://www.leg.state.co.us/lcs/0506initrefr.nsf/89fb842d0401c52087256cbc00650696/570ef8fde282b79d87257168005fe3d7/$FILE/HB%2006-1283fsr.pdf (Includes both issues)
Referendum/Initiative Summary: Decisions on how to spend money to operate public schools are made by locally elected school boards in each school district, with certain exceptions. Under current law, districts have to set aside money for school supplies and books, buildings and insurance, and services for at-risk students. On average, these earmarked purposes accounted for roughly $600 per pupil in school year 2004-05, or nearly 8 percent of school district operating budgets. Both Amendment 39 and Referendum J propose to add a new requirement: that each school district spend at least 65 percent of its operating budget on the items listed in the two proposed issues.
Committee comment: This is a very complex subject made more so by having two disparate plans for similar objectives. We suggest going to the link above for the many details involved including the cost analyses.
Background: Proponents claim this will force school districts to spend more money in the classroom and force them to trim waste elsewhere. There are two ballot issues due to the legislature presenting a less restrictive version as opposed to the petition initiative. PROS: 1) Amendment 39 increases funding for classroom instruction, without increasing taxes. It requires that school districts focus their resources on educating students in the classroom and be more efficient with other spending. As a result, more money may be available for teaching professionals. The most recent data available indicate that spending in the classroom could increase by as much as $278 million. 2) Amendment 39 establishes a constitutional standard for school district spending. School district taxpayers across the state will know that at least 65 percent of the district’s budget is being spent in the classroom without having to examine each district’s financial documents. School boards in each district will decide how to meet the requirement, which may result in new spending priorities.
1) By including all school functions in the 65-percent spending requirement, Referendum J recognizes that students and teachers benefit from the support provided by principals, guidance counselors, nurses, bus drivers and many others who are outside the classroom.
2) Referendum J establishes a standard for school district spending that can be changed in the future by the state legislature as the delivery of education services changes. And, it preserves the flexibility of locally elected school boards to respond to the needs and desires of the community. School boards in each district can still decide whether school spending should be for teachers, counselors, classroom materials, technology, transportation, or hot lunches.
Committee comment: The relevant KVs would be Social Justice (by making all school districts equal in classroom expenditures) and Future Focus as these proposals strive to improve classroom conditions. CONS: 1) Amendment 39 fails to account for the important differences among the 178 school districts across Colorado and does not necessarily improve student achievement. School districts vary greatly in the characteristics of their pupil population, geography, and community values. These differences should be addressed by locally elected school boards with input from parents, teachers, taxpayers, and others in the district rather than by an amendment to the state constitution.
2) School districts not meeting the new requirement may have to divert money from support functions and positions that help teachers to teach and students to learn. Nurses, guidance counselors, and principals are essential to a well-run school but do not count toward the 65-percent spending requirement. In addition, costs for student transportation, utilities, and hot lunches, which are often beyond a district’s control, do not count toward the 65-percent requirement.
1) Referendum J is unnecessary because nearly all school districts in the state already meet the 65-percent requirement. It also creates new data and budget reporting requirements for school districts without necessarily improving student achievement.
2) Referendum J fails to account for the important differences among the 178 school districts across Colorado. School districts vary greatly in the characteristics of their pupil population, geography, and community values. These differences should be addressed by locally elected school boards with input from parents, teachers, taxpayers, and others in the district.
Committee comment: The relevant KVs would be Grassroots Democracy , Community-based Economics (both relevant to local control of schools, a basic Colorado education principle), Decentralization (local conditions driving local decisions), and Future Focus.
Sponsor Position: Oppose both the initiative and the referendum. Forcing all districts to spend their budgets based on a statewide concept regardless of local conditions (minority enrollment, % free lunch status, rural busing costs, special ed needs, etc.) could be detrimental to many districts. Referendum J, being less restrictive, is a second choice after None Of The Above.
