Chalkbeat

Inside a Colorado bill to provide extra funding to school districts serving migrant students

2024-03-16T00:37:32+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Colorado’s free daily newsletter to get the latest reporting from us, plus curated news from other Colorado outlets, delivered to your inbox.

All Colorado school districts that have enrolled any migrant students since the Oct. 1 school funding cutoff date would get extra money — between $15,000 and $750,000 per district — under a draft bill approved unanimously on Friday by the powerful Joint Budget Committee.

But districts where the new arrivals have caused a net increase in students — meaning the district has more students now than on Oct. 1 — would get the most extra money. Those districts could get as much as an additional $4,500 for every newly arrived student.

The bill allocates $24 million to be distributed by May 31 to districts that have enrolled what it calls “new arrival students,” or students who moved to the United States less than a year ago, are not proficient in English, and are attending a U.S. school for the first time.

The city of Denver alone has served more than 39,000 new arrivals from Venezuela and other South American countries since it began keeping track more than a year ago, including families with children who have enrolled in public schools.

The details of how the $24 million would be doled out are somewhat complicated. First, there is a tiered system of lump sum payments to school districts based on the number of new arrival students they’ve enrolled since the October count. Districts would get:

$15,000 if they’ve enrolled between one and five new arrival students
$30,000 if they’ve enrolled between six and 10 new arrival students
$75,000 if they’ve enrolled between 11 and 30 new arrival students
$125,000 if they’ve enrolled between 31 and 50 new arrival students
$200,000 if they’ve enrolled between 51 and 100 new arrival students
$400,000 if they’ve enrolled between 101 and 200 new arrival students
$550,000 if they’ve enrolled between 201 and 500 new arrival students
$750,000 if they’ve enrolled 500 or more new arrival students

On top of that, districts with a net increase in enrollment would get $4,500 per student. Here’s where it gets complicated: Districts with a net increase would either get $4,500 for each migrant student they’ve enrolled or $4,500 per student based on the net increase, whichever is lesser.

If the $24 million isn’t enough to cover the costs, the bill says state officials can reduce the $4,500 per student to a lower dollar amount. If calculations show there will be leftover money, state officials could increase the $4,500 to a higher dollar amount.

State Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who sits on the budget committee, said in a text message that she’s happy that the bill could provide relief for districts statewide that are dealing with a “very out of the ordinary influx of new to country students arriving.”

Lawmakers have been working on the bill for over a month, debating various ways to dole out the $24 million. Sirota said the tiered funding proposal acknowledges districts incur fixed costs to educate any and all newly arrived students.

Friday’s vote by the budget committee finalized the language of the bill, but it has yet to be filed for consideration by the full Colorado General Assembly.

“I know my colleagues, our school districts, and our educators are going to be very excited to shepherd this bill across the finish line in the coming weeks,” Sirota said.

The funding is less than what school districts get for each student enrolled on Oct. 1: $11,319 on average. However, budget committee members wanted to earmark the $24 million to provide some relief for districts struggling with the extraordinary influx — money the districts would never get otherwise. (Students who stay enrolled next year will be factored into the school funding formula, and school districts will get money for those students.)

“This sudden influx has strained existing school infrastructure and staffing, led to overcrowded classrooms, stretched resources, and increased complexity to the student learning environment,” the bill says.

The bill also acknowledges that newly arrived students may need extra services, including English language development classes, mental health support, and more. Some may have been out of school for long stretches of time and need help catching up academically.

“New arrival students face unique challenges, including language barriers, cultural adjustments, and various academic backgrounds,” the bill says. “These unique challenges require specialized resources and support services.”

How much funding districts might get under the bill

Denver Public Schools and Aurora Public Schools have enrolled the most migrant students since the October count, according to data obtained through open records requests.

Denver has enrolled an additional 2,340 newcomer students, and Aurora has enrolled an additional 1,366 migrant students. Denver’s numbers were as of March 4, while Aurora’s were as of Feb. 29. The bill uses Feb. 29 as the date to calculate the difference between October count enrollment and how many students districts are serving now.

Accounting for students who left the districts between the October count and those dates, Denver had a net increase of 1,025 students, while Aurora had a net increase of 727 students.

Under the legislation, Denver Public Schools would get a lump sum of $750,000 for the 2,340 newcomers it has enrolled. The district would also get $4.6 million for the 1,025 net increase based on the $4,500 per student formula.

In Aurora’s case, the district would also get $750,000. And the district would get about $3.3 million for its total increase of students since the October count.

Most other districts that have enrolled more than 100 migrant students since the October count had either a much smaller net increase or a net decrease.

For instance, as of Feb. 29, the suburban Cherry Creek School District had enrolled an additional 532 newly arrived students since the October count. But the district has had a net decrease of 41 kindergarten through 12th grade students since Oct. 1.

Greeley-Evans School District 6 had enrolled 488 more migrant students, but only had a net increase of eight K-12 students. Adams 12 Five Star Schools had enrolled 389 additional students, but its school population only grew by 42 students.

And Jeffco Public Schools and Mapleton Public Schools had net decreases, despite enrolling 382 and 140 more new arrivals, respectively.

The student influx creates financial challenges for schools across the state, Brett Johnson, chief financial officer for Aurora Public Schools, said in an interview before the bill text was approved.

“There’s a real and specific impact of these 1,200 kids who have enrolled in our schools in terms of hiring new staff, repurposing classrooms for those schools,” Johnson said. “And those are real costs that are being incurred in real time.”

The challenges remain even in districts that have net decreases in overall enrollment.

A Cherry Creek spokesperson said the district has hired six staff members since January to support the new arrivals. Three of those hires are in newcomer classes and three are cultural liaisons who provide interpretation and other support to families who do not speak English.

Melanie Asmar is the bureau chief for Chalkbeat Colorado. Contact Melanie at masmar@chalkbeat.org.

Jason Gonzales is a reporter covering higher education and the Colorado legislature. Chalkbeat Colorado partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Contact Jason at jgonzales@chalkbeat.org.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

With more Colorado students eating free meals at school, state may cut back the program

2024-03-06T00:22:37+00:00

In the first year that Colorado is paying districts to give students free meals at school, more kids are eating than expected.

That has left the program $56.1 million short this year. And lawmakers are working on how to close the funding gap.

Colorado voters in 2022 supported creating limits on tax deductions for the state’s highest earners as a way to fund free school meals for all students. Advocates at the time said that there were families in Colorado who, due to the state’s high cost of living, were struggling financially even though they didn’t qualify for subsidized meals under federal poverty guidelines.

In calculating the cost of the program, analysts expected that about 25% more children would eat a school meal, including students who would have qualified for free meals already and those who wouldn’t.

Instead, schools this year have seen a more than 35% increase in breakfast participation, and a more than 31% increase for lunch compared with last year.

The higher-than-expected participation — and program cost — is due largely to students who previously had to pay for a school meal. In most cases, the federal government doesn’t reimburse the districts for any part of those children’s meals, leaving the state to cover those costs alone.

In the Cherry Creek School District, district leaders said they are serving about 32,262 meals a day on average, up from 23,317 a day last year — a 38% increase.

The state legislature’s Joint Budget Committee this week agreed to fill the $56.1 million gap this year. About $31.5 million can be covered with additional revenue that has come in from the new tax provision, but the rest will likely need to come from the state’s general fund.

The committee is also providing $100,000 this year, and $150,000 next year, for the Colorado Department of Education to hire a consultant to help come up with solutions that might keep the program on budget next school year. That effort could involve figuring out how to maximize how much money districts get from the federal government.

But lawmakers said the state will consider all options. That includes cutting the program, changing the eligibility rules for free meals, or finding new ways to pay for it, such as pulling money from the education budget.

Committee lawmakers said that changing the eligibility rules would be a last resort.

“There are a lot of families that technically don’t qualify for free or reduced lunch, but man is it a huge help to them making rent,” said Sen. Jeff Bridges, a Democrat from Greenwood Village. “I would be really uncomfortable with anything that puts a means test back into this program.”

Bridges also said a goal of the program was to remove the stigma of eating free school meals by making them available to everyone, not just to students from low-income families.

Advocacy groups are also working on possible solutions. Anya Rose, director of public policy for Hunger Free Colorado, said the group is considering how to make the program more sustainable, including the possibility of a new ballot measure.

Without any changes to the meal program, state analysts predict Colorado will come up short by $27.8 million next year.

In addition to the universal free school meals, voters approved three grant programs that were supposed to be rolled out in the coming school years. The grants were meant to help districts with things like buying Colorado-grown food for meals, providing stipends for kitchen employees, and paying for training or equipment.

For now, those grant programs will be on hold.

Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee debated this week over whether they had a responsibility to keep the voter-approved program going, regardless of the additional cost to the state.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican, said that cost calculations have changed and the state has to deal with that.

“All of these warnings were given to us before, and we ignored them,” she said.

Before the plan was put to voters, lawmakers defeated a plan to offer free school meals to all, in part because of concerns about the cost.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Teacher pay: Adams 12 may give raises for mentoring rather than graduate degrees

2024-02-29T01:22:05+00:00

Teachers in at least two Adams 12 schools could earn higher pay in a pilot program – through district-provided training and taking on new school responsibilities – instead of by completing graduate credits, the more traditional route.

Removing pay incentives for college credits is rare, but not unheard of. About 90% of districts pay teachers more for earning graduate degrees, according to one survey of large districts.

“You don’t have to go out and spend $10,000 on a graduate degree,” said Dave Lockley, president of the teachers union in Adams 12. “We believe in continuing development. We don’t know that graduate credits are the best way.”

The pilot, designed by a team of teachers, union leaders, and district leaders, would likely take place at Thornton Elementary School and Thornton Middle School, two schools that have struggled. One goal of the pilot would be to incentivize more teachers to work in and stay at the low-performing schools with high percentages of high-risk students. The pilot also incentivizes teachers to collaborate to see if it helps with raising student achievement.

The team that designed the salary pilot had considered it for years. They moved forward with plans this year after the district committed $4.5 million to try it out. If approved, it is expected to start this fall and last three to four years, but the final agreement could change those details.

As teachers have been informed, there has been some pushback.

Lockley and district leaders said teachers’ main concerns are about what new responsibilities the higher pay requires, whether that money could do more good for more schools in another way, and whether the changes devalue graduate degrees some teachers already earned.

Union and district leaders are discussing the feedback to possibly adjust the plan or decide whether to move forward with it. If they agree in negotiations to the pilot in the next couple of weeks, the school board and the full union membership will have to vote to approve it.

Myla Shepherd, chief human resources officer for Adams 12, said the team that designed the pilot recommended Thornton Elementary and Middle schools for the pilot after the district ranked all schools using five criteria the subcommittee chose, including a three-year teacher turnover average, mobility of students, and how many students qualify for subsidized lunches.

Thornton Elementary has a three-year teacher turnover rate of 38.8%. At Thornton Middle School, that rate is 33.2%. Both schools have more than 40% of their students identified as English learners, and more than 83% qualify for subsidized meals.

But, Shepherd said, the district is open to running the pilot with more schools if possible.

None of the teachers at the pilot schools would see a decrease in their salary. Most will see a raise.

The district estimates the program will cost about $500,000 to $600,000 per school, at the start, Shepherd said, because of those salary increases, and because raises might be more accessible tied to professional development instead of college credit.

“Over time that would decrease as people earn more and turn over less,” Shepherd said the district estimates.

Ultimately, part of the goal is for schools to build a staff that’s a mix of new teachers, intermediate career teachers, and some veterans collaborating and helping each other.

“That’s when a school is at its best,” Lockley said.

Salary raises will also be flattened, so that teachers can reach the maximum earlier in their careers, even though the maximum would be a lower salary than the current schedule.

But Lockley said that under Adams 12′s current salary plan, only one teacher in the district is currently at the maximum, and for most teachers, it’s unattainable. Allowing more teachers to reach a maximum salary earlier can increase their lifetime earnings, even if that maximum is smaller, he said.

Typically, Lockley said, it is white men who are more likely to climb the salary ladder in traditional schedules, because they’re more likely to have money and time to earn higher degrees.

“It just always seemed baffling to me that we force teachers to go into debt in order to see a decent pay raise,” Lockley said. “Some of our teachers can’t afford the time or the money to go get a master’s degree. My hope would be that the things we learned from this pilot, we could use to help fix these long-term inequities.”

Researchers say studies have shown that many master’s degrees earned by teachers don’t lead to better student outcomes. However, there are cases where they do, such as a math teacher in a middle or high school, who earns a master’s degree in math, or special education teachers with specialized degrees for their field.

Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the Learning Policy Institute and a Stanford University professor, said that there are downfalls with district-provided training, too. They must be well-designed and closely tied to the work teachers do.

“And you can end up with the same inequities if they have to find their own time,” she said.

But the idea of incentivizing a system where veteran teachers would mentor and work with newer teachers can be promising, she said.

“There’s a lot to be said positively about the idea of having veteran teachers mentor younger educators,” Darling-Hammond said. “That does increase retention and effectiveness for the beginner teachers if you do it right.”

Heather Peske, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, said that districts typically aren’t using money strategically when they pay more for graduate degrees that usually aren’t tied to better student outcomes.

“We need to pay teachers more for working where they’re most needed,” Peske said.

One measure that wasn’t considered by the group to choose the pilot schools, was a school’s state performance rating. Still, one of the two schools recommended, Thornton Middle School, is one of six in the district with a low rating that landed on the state’s watchlist for persistently low student test scores and other achievement deficits.

Ideally, Lockley said, he’d like to see a school improve performance in ways that show in better state ratings.

The subcommittee is still considering how to measure success, depending on the pilot’s length. Some version of student success, and teacher retention will be a part of it, Shepherd said.

“We’re trying something different to really honor and recognize the work of educators,” Shepherd said. “It will allow for attracting and retaining people in those challenging environments. And improved student achievement.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

An existing program for migrant students can’t help schools with the current influx of new students. Here’s why.

2024-02-22T18:59:22+00:00

Some of Colorado’s most diverse school districts, including Aurora and Greeley, are used to waves of immigration bringing in new students in the middle of the year.

Recently, families from Burma have moved into Greeley, and Aurora officials recall hundreds of new students from Afghanistan after U.S. troops pulled out.

But this year, the midyear wave is even bigger, with most students arriving from Venezuela and other South American countries. And it is overwhelming some district systems.

“We’re running at 300% our normal typical average for the school year,” said Brett Johnson, chief financial officer for Aurora Public Schools, referring to the number of midyear enrollments, which are up from the typical 500 to 800 in a year.

Schools need everything from new desks and more classroom space, to more teachers, bilingual staff, and specialized teachers who can administer screening tests to determine students’ levels of English proficiency and help them learn English.

But many of the new students from South America arrived after the Oct. 1 cutoff that determines how much per-student state funding each district will get. And although government officials refer to this new group of immigrants as “migrants,” the students do not qualify for money from the federal Migrant Education Program.

What does the Migrant Education Program do?

The Migrant Education Program began in 1966 and was designed to support the children of farmworker families. To qualify for the program, students must have parents who work in agriculture, or work in the field themselves, usually in temporary or seasonal positions, and must have moved between school districts within the last three years.

Some of the children might belong to families who travel around the country following the seasonal availability of farm work. They aren’t necessarily new to the country, and many already are fluent in English. Immigration status doesn’t matter, just as it doesn’t for the students who arrived this semester. By law, all children can access free public education.

In Colorado, there were about 4,500 agricultural migrant children aged 1 through 21 this year — fewer than the thousands of new students from South America. The $7.5 million federal allocation for the state helps younger children succeed in school and focuses on keeping teens and young adults up to age 22 in school instead of dropping out to work full time.

Advocates from the program travel to farms or worksites to enroll children in the program and convince older students up to age 22 to stay in school. The program works with families, visiting their homes, supporting their mental health, and figuring out what other barriers might exist for the students to learn. The funding also pays for school supplies, tutoring, and summer programming.

“A lot of our families have needs that are pretty basic, if we just try to push education on them they’re not ready a lot of times,” said Tomás Mejia, Colorado’s director for the Migrant Education Program. “If we help them be well enough, help the parents and adults be well enough to help the kids, that can really help a lot more.”

The new South American students also need the same types of support. For both groups of students, educators say there’s a need to build trust and provide help that goes beyond the classroom.

The Greeley school district usually enrolls the largest number of agricultural migrant students in the state, and Greeley also is seeing a wave of non-agricultural migrant students. One school recently enrolled 19 new students in one day. An elementary school is now so full that teachers are starting to operate out of mobile carts, moving from room to room, instead of having a classroom.

School districts are addressing student needs

The Greeley district’s existing welcome center, which has always helped the community’s immigrant population, is playing a big role in helping the district welcome and make families feel like they belong, said Brian Lemos, director of instruction and English language development.

But the district is also relying on community partners to help families learn to use technology, learn English, and to offer help with housing or employment.

“There’s definitely unique needs,” Lemos said. “They’re new to the country. All of them have needs as far as language acquisition.”

“A lot of these students are coming to us with severe trauma,” said Theresa Myers, a spokesperson for the Greeley district. “Some of the families from Venezuela, they’ve been trying to travel for months. Our impact on our mental health services is real.”

Right now, the district has a mental health counselor at every school. But 35 counselor and social worker positions in the district were funded by ESSER dollars that won’t be available after September. Now the district is trying to figure out how to keep the much-needed positions.

Although Colorado gives school districts extra money to assist students who are learning English, most school districts say they have to use money from their general fund to cover the services they provide because that specific money isn’t enough.

And since so many of these students arrived after October 1, the districts didn’t get the money for them this year. (If students are still enrolled next fall, the districts will get money then.) In the meantime, school districts are having to hire new staff including paraprofessionals to help teachers with larger-than-normal class sizes. In Aurora, “We have several instances in which elementary schools came back from Christmas break with almost 100 more kids than before,” Johnson said.

Legislators in Colorado are drafting a $24 million proposal to give districts some funding for these midyear enrollees. It won’t be the total funding that districts usually get per student, but it might help.

State lawmakers haven’t filed the proposal, but there are promising signs it’ll pass once they do. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has said he supports sending extra funding to districts enrolling new students, and the proposal is coming from lawmakers on the powerful Joint Budget Committee, which plays a major role in how the state spends its money.

Johnson said that Aurora isn’t waiting to see that money transferred before hiring needed positions or addressing needs. He hopes the state will reimburse some of the expenses if the money does come.

While leaders say they aren’t cutting budgets or making adjustments, they are starting to think ahead. Maybe that will mean having roaming teams that can go to the schools most impacted on a short term basis to deal with the work of helping students new to the country.

“The hard part is no one knows how long this phenomenon will last,” Johnson said. “We are trying to start putting in some thought in the long-term, if there’s a better system.”

For now, schools are helping new students from South America adapt.

“When a new student enrolls who is new to the country it’s also a matter of the daily school routines — it’s also teaching them the routines of a typical school day,” Johnson said.

That can take up a lot of time for school staff. But not all schools are receiving high numbers of new students. Schools near shelters, apartments or housing where agencies have helped migrants get settled are enrolling more students.

Educators say they aren’t currently thinking about transferring students to different schools to avoid overcrowded classrooms, but Greeley leaders say they have changed enrollment boundaries when schools were getting too full in previous situations. They might consider it if the enrollment boom continues.

School educators say, still, they want kids in school, they understand that children must learn and the faster they can connect them to educators, the better.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

‘Growing our readers’: How the Sheridan district has revived its once-closed high school library

2024-02-16T20:05:03+00:00

For years, the Sheridan district’s high school library was just empty space — a few shelves, no books, no staff.

Now, the library is thriving. Students hang out there during lunch or other free periods. They read, play games, and can even take a literature class.

The space has transformed from bare to buzzing.

“We just had old tables and chairs,” said Jenn Alevy, the digital teacher librarian. “Throughout the five years, our space has changed so much.”

Among the changes: new furniture, including a puzzle table hand-built by a student in the school’s former woodshop class.

While some schools are having to cut librarians or letting libraries languish as school budgets are strained and others are grappling with book bans, the Sheridan library continues to grow because of voter-approved funds passed in 2018.

Trenity Briscoe, 16, works on her book project during a class in the library at Sheridan High School.

Pat Sandos, the outgoing superintendent, had just been hired in 2018 when he decided to put the promise of school librarians into the proposed mill levy tax request. Before the tax measure, the district used about $40,000 from reserves to get the space ready.

“I just couldn’t believe we didn’t have a library at the high school,” Sandos said. “It’s the hub of the school. So much goes on there.”

When Sandos talked to people in the community, many didn’t know the 300-student high school had been left without a library after the county library pulled out of the school into its own building.

Having the county library in the district was complicated, leaders said, because it was difficult to control who was in the school building just for the public library. And, Sandos said, having the library nearby was not the same as having an in-house teacher librarian who could collaborate with teachers and build relationships with students.

That’s what Alevy has done.

“There’s so much opportunity, it’s critical,” Sandos said.

Leticia Salazar, a senior at Sheridan High School, said Alevy has helped her through many rough times, including a recent death in her family. Last semester, she was a library assistant. Now, she just hangs out at the library because she finds it a safe and peaceful place.

“She’s awesome,” Salazar said, of Alevy. “And she got me into reading.”

When Alevy was hired in 2019 after voters approved the tax request, she started reviving the library by ordering books and working on a three-year plan to create more integration between technology and learning.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, schools went to remote learning, the library shut down – and Alevy’s plan to incorporate more digital learning became a plan she had to integrate right away.

She was the go-to for teachers on any technology questions, and helped many navigate remote learning software.

Now that schools have gone back to in-person learning, she still tries to collaborate with teachers, recommending books for various lessons they plan and suggesting ways to incorporate reading or digital learning when appropriate.

Students hang out at the Sheridan High School library during lunch or other free periods, including to play games.

Maegan Daigler, the district’s executive director of assessment & technology, said the mill levy funds pay for the salaries of librarians at the district schools and funds each year are also used to help grow the library’s collection.

The goal is to grow the book collection about 10% each year as funds allow, she said.

“It’s a priority,” Daigler said.

During the time the library was closed due to remote learning, Alevy ordered digital books for students to check out, but has since found that students prefer physical copies of books to read.

The library now has more than 4,500 books, including a few hundred Spanish books, many Stephen King novels, the popular Colleen Hoover titles, and lots of manga.

For many of the Spanish books, Alevy likes to get the English and Spanish versions so students can read them side-by-side if they like. She also gets some audiobooks that can be a helpful addition when students are trying to learn English.

From left to right Students Aidan Cordova, 17, Rock Himebaugh, 17, and Isaac Rosales, 16, play the card game UNO in the library during their lunch break at Sheridan High School.

The students in newcomer classes check out lots of books, she said. About a third of the school’s 300 students are English learners.

“Students will challenge themselves when they’re picking up a book,” Alevy said. “If it gets them to read, I will buy them.”

This year Alevy started offering a new elective class, Introduction to Literature, where students read, write about what they read, and then will promote the books they read in the library.

“We’re growing our readers,” Alevy said. “It’s slowly working.”

Each of the 10 students in the class picked a theme and planned out which books they would read this semester to fit that theme.

One of the school’s most avid readers, Kaitlyn Miller, a 15-year-old sophomore, has already read six books for the class this semester. She’s focusing her project on two themes: mystical creatures, and how people feel when they lose someone they love.

As Miller described her project, she noted: “I probably need to get some more books.”

Correction: This story has been updated to correct the last names of Leticia Salazar and Rock Himebaugh, and to reflect that the Sheridan library has more than 4,500 books in its collection now.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado budget committee plans aid for schools enrolling more migrant students

2024-02-14T22:25:39+00:00

This story has been updated to include a comment from the governor.

Colorado lawmakers on the powerful Joint Budget Committee want to provide some financial assistance to schools grappling with educating an influx of migrant students this year.

The idea from state Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who sits on the committee, would allocate up to $24 million, to be split among school districts that have enrolled newly arrived students after the October cutoff date that determines districts’ per-pupil funding. But the funding would be far less than what the state provides to educate a student.

The budget committee, which plays a major role in how the state spends its money, voted unanimously earlier this month to draft a bill allocating the funds.

Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and vice chair of the committee, said she plans to co-sponsor the bill once it’s ready. The bill has not yet been introduced.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis said he’s working with the legislature on a proposal to provide additional funding for school districts that have new arrivals after the October count date.

Public school enrollment in Colorado: Here’s what you need to know

The state annually adjusts districts’ education funding up or down during the legislative session based on each district’s student enrollment on Oct. 1. But the surge in migrant students since the official count has overwhelmed many districts and prompted calls from school leaders for more aid to teach recent arrivals.

Sirota said while the state doesn’t have an exact tally, she’s heard estimates of up to 8,000 new student arrivals statewide since October. Some schools have needed to increase class sizes and have a greater need for services that help English learners, she said.

“This crisis is being felt across our cities, counties, and the state,” she said.

The state money would be a one-time infusion for districts. Joint Budget Committee members have said they want to ensure school districts wouldn’t need to apply for the money, but instead would have to provide the state with a tally of eligible students.

How much money districts would get likely will depend on whether the committee decides to allocate the full $24 million Sirota has proposed and how many newly arrived students have enrolled statewide since the October count.

The $24 million sum is not a calculation of how much it costs to fully educate the migrant students in Colorado. Rather, it is money the state would otherwise put in its savings account for education. Increasing local tax revenue means the state needs to spend $24 million less on schools this year than anticipated.

The proposed bill would reallocate those funds, but committee members have said they want to also find other funding sources.

The extra money would help districts, but it would be less than the $11,319 per student, on average, they get for students who are enrolled during the October count.

Sirota said funding is tight this year, especially when there are many competing budget priorities. But the extra funding would help districts bearing the brunt of the costs.

“I want to help our districts better absorb the costs that they are incurring with so many new students who are new to the country that they have taken on since October,” she said.

States across the country have seen a spike in recent migrant arrivals. The Denver area has dealt with the brunt of those arrivals.

In Denver Public Schools, migrant student enrollment has ballooned by more than 3,200 of these young people since the start of the school year. Many arrived after the October count that determined state per-student funding sent by the state.

The impact has also been uneven within the district. New students are concentrated in about two dozen of Denver’s schools.

But schools and cities across the metro area and state are reporting more students arriving every day, either from families moving to find work or recently coming to the state. The influx has caused financial shortfalls and pushback from some communities.

Why some Colorado lawmakers say funding for K-12 schools is at 1989 levels

2024-02-05T21:26:48+00:00

Sign up for our free monthly newsletter Beyond High School to get the latest news about college and career paths for Colorado’s high school grads.

Colorado is nearing the end of the Budget Stabilization Factor era.

Since 2009, Colorado lawmakers have channeled over $10 billion from schools to other priorities, a policy called the “BS Factor.” Gov. Jared Polis and lawmakers want to stop diverting money from schools to “fully fund” the state’s obligation in the proposed 2024-25 budget.

But, some Democratic lawmakers argue Colorado won’t be spending at 2024-25 levels. Instead, they point to 1989. And no, not the Taylor Swift album.

“Just because we’ve paid off the budget stabilization factor and we are finally fully funding our schools, we are actually fully funding them at 1989 levels,” said state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and vice chair of the powerful Joint Budget Committee, at Chalkbeat’s Legislative Preview event last month. “So we still have some more work to do.”

Here’s why, they say: When you adjust for inflation, Colorado’s spending next year would be about the same as 34 years ago.

I’m proud that we're finally paying off the BS factor for K-12 funding. But, eliminating the BS just gets us back to 1989 funding levels. That's a pretty far cry from "fully funding." #copolitics pic.twitter.com/7UtbSWQCWB
— Rep. Chris deGruy Kennedy (@Kennedy4CO) January 11, 2024

In 1989, Colorado spent $4,629 per student. Next year, the state projects to spend $11,319 per student.

Schools need to stretch the money further than in 1989, according to Tracie Rainey, Colorado School Finance Project executive director, a school funding advocate.

Because how much we spend on education doesn’t account for the changes that the nation, the state, and their communities now hold districts accountable for, such as more testing and higher standards, Rainey said.

School funding (Colorado’s version)

For nearly 30 years, Colorado has ranked below most of the country in school funding, Rainey said.

Coloradans have created tax policies that lowered their property tax bills, and decreased what was spent for statewide services — including education, she said.

Voters adopted the Gallagher Amendment in 1982 to reduce housing assessment rates. Then in 1992, voters approved the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, otherwise known as TABOR. The constitutional amendment limits government spending and requires voter approval for certain taxes. Any excess dollars collected above the TABOR cap must be returned to taxpayers.

With less money going toward schools, voters in 2000 approved Amendment 23 to return education spending to 1989 levels. The provision required per-student spending to increase by inflation plus 1% each year until 2011. After that, per-student spending would increase each year by at least the rate of inflation.

As Colorado neared its goal, the Great Recession hit. A year later in 2009, Colorado lawmakers began to funnel money away from K-12 education through the Budget Stabilization Factor, known at the time as the “negative factor,” to fund other crucial obligations.

That’s why, with the factor’s end, Colorado is now back to 1989.

It’s almost over now. But what’s next?

Last week, the state received recommendations from a School Finance Task Force on a new formula to fund schools. The formula hasn’t seen a major update since 1994.

The new formula will require the state to spend $474 million more dollars on schools, although the task force recommends phasing in the new formula starting this year. Lawmakers say money will be tight if they want to eliminate the BS Factor and fund other priorities.

The school funding formula answers the question of how to divvy up state dollars. But there’s another question, too: what’s an “adequate” level of funding?

What do schools need to account for the years of shifting expectations, including providing Information Technology services, required testing, student mental health care and an increase in English learning students?

Additionally, teachers statewide have called for salary increases, with the state struggling to keep many educators in the classroom, and districts facing other challenges, like the rising cost of health care and benefits.

Colorado has for years used grant programs to offset some costs for school districts, Rainey said. But there are haves and have nots — many large school districts have grant writers but some small districts have superintendents filling in on bus routes, she said. And, grants also expire.

Now, the state will await two adequacy studies, due by January 2025, that will give lawmakers a better idea of what districts need financially to teach students.

It’s important work, because what’s adequate for a district changes based on the community, Rainey said. For instance, Cherry Creek has high schools with thousands of students, while 100 districts have less than 1,000 total students.

“I would hope that when this analysis is done, lawmakers see what that base level of funding should be so that every student, no matter what district they’re in, has an amount that reflects what they need in order to meet the expectations that the state is holding them to,” Rainey said. “And I think that’s going to be a really important benchmark.”

Even then, Colorado lawmakers could still face funding challenges.

If the adequacy studies say the state must spend a lot more on education, lawmakers would then need to debate how to raise revenue, Rainey said. A referendum sent to voters would be the fastest way to increase state funding, but tax increases are unpopular with voters.

“We would need state level leadership from the governor to legislators on down to support this so voters would say, ‘Yes,’ " she said.

New recommendations would overhaul Colorado’s school funding formula. Now, lawmakers have to figure out how to pay for it.

2024-02-03T01:20:17+00:00

Sign up for our free monthly newsletter Beyond High School to get the latest news about college and career paths for Colorado’s high school grads.

A proposed overhaul of Colorado’s school funding formula is being hailed as long overdue, though lawmakers are wondering how they’ll pay for it and some education advocates say it’s only a partial answer to decades of underfunding.

Under the proposal, Colorado schools would get more money to meet the needs of English learners and students with disabilities, and rural districts would get more funding to address their challenges.

If adopted, it would be the first major change in 30 years to how Colorado divvies up funding to schools. The proposal, released this week, is the work of a 17-member task force that managed to reach agreement on thorny issues that have tanked previous efforts to reform the current formula, which is widely viewed as out-of-date and unfair.

“With the formula change, the state can really target those resources to the kids who need the most,” said task force member Brenda Dickhoner, CEO of the conservative education advocacy group Ready Colorado. “We are really moving away from a one-size-fits-all educational model to a really individualized model that takes place in a variety of different types of educational settings. And I think that is what’s going to close our achievement gaps.”

But the new formula would require about $474 million to implement — a roughly 8.9% increase in state education funding — when lawmakers already expect a tight budget year and want to spend money on other priorities, including higher education.

And some proposed changes could get pushback. Even task force members disagreed on some details, such as how to fairly account for higher costs in different parts of the state. State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat who will co-sponsor the school finance act, said she’s open to the recommendations. But she also wants to better understand how the new formula — which would permanently increase education funding — would affect spending in future years, especially because the state would need to use its savings to pay for the changes.

“I originally thought that we should definitely not do anything this year,” said Zenzinger, vice chair of the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee. “Now having read the report, I’m more open to contemplating changes that we can make this year.”

What does the formula do?

In a letter from the task force, Chair Chuck Carpenter, who also serves as Denver Public Schools chief financial officer, said the legislature charged the group with creating a “simpler, less regressive, more adequate, understandable, transparent, equitable, and student-centered” school finance formula. The task force brought together a bipartisan collective of advocacy groups and educators from across the state.

Carpenter said the state’s formula was created before the current understanding of what public schools should be, including greater expectations involving standards, testing, and curriculum.

The task force report said it expects the legislature to consider the recommendations as a whole.

“Hopefully the work of this task force will lead to substantive changes or at least incremental improvement,” he said in the letter. “Our work need not and will not be the final word.”

This is the latest of many efforts to rewrite the school finance formula over the last decade. The current formula gives far more weight to district characteristics, such as district size and whether the cost of living is high, than it does to factors like how many students live in poverty. The result is that some wealthy districts end up with more state funding than poor ones.

But efforts to change the formula have faced stiff political headwinds because no district wants to get less money. Lawmakers created the task force after a previous school finance committee disbanded without recommending a formula rewrite.

The new formula would increase base student funding, so nearly every district would get more money. It also would dramatically increase how much more districts get for each student from a low-income household, each English learner, each student with a disability, and each gifted student.

Overall, districts serving students with higher needs, districts with low property wealth, and small, rural districts would come out ahead.

Districts with a higher cost of living still would get more money, but not as much as in the current formula. How to account for those differences could see more debate. Thirteen of the state’s 178 districts are projected to lose money under the recommended formula, including Douglas County, Boulder Valley, Littleton, Cheyenne Mountain, Academy 20, Poudre, and Aspen. These districts all serve more affluent communities, though for years they have pointed out they have to pay teachers more to live there and spend more on basic services.

Task force member Riley Kitts, Democrats for Education Reform’s senior director of policy and government affairs, said the group reached a strong consensus on most of the changes, which he called long overdue.

The task force is also working on studies to determine how much Colorado should spend on K-12 schools if it wants to see better outcomes. Those studies are due by January 2025.

Kitts said he believes the studies shouldn’t hold up a formula change this year.

Lawmakers and education leaders are reviewing the report

The recommendations come as lawmakers have committed to “fully fund” K-12 education for the first time since the Great Recession. That means ending the practice of holding back money — more than $10 billion in the last decade — to pay for other budget priorities.

Even doing that requires dipping into education reserves. At the same time, federal pandemic aid is expiring, revenue is down slightly, and lawmakers are struggling to pay for behavioral health, affordable housing, and a slew of other priorities.

Ultimately, lawmakers, especially the powerful six-member Joint Budget Committee, will decide whether they can afford to start the phase-in this year.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis said districts serving students with higher needs have been short changed for years, and the governor looks forward to conversations with legislators, school districts, and others about the best way to make a difference for students through the formula this year.

Senate President Stephen Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat, said in a statement he is grateful for the recommendations and members will dig in to see what’s feasible for implementation this year.

House Education Chair state Rep. Barbara McLachlan, a Durango Democrat, said her initial read left her pleased because it tries to address funding issues for rural schools. If it can’t be adopted this year, she hopes to at least see a plan for when it would be.

“Let’s use the work and not ignore it,” she said.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, called the work an “incremental — miniscule — step in the right direction.”

Lundeen said he’d prefer to see money fund students at the school level, instead of left to districts to distribute. And he would have liked to see money for schools that are getting strong results educating students.

Lundeen wouldn’t commit to supporting the formula changes.

“I’m working diligently to make it better,” he said. “I’m not going to say yes to something that is subpar to where I think it can get.”

Some education advocates have reservations. Tracie Rainey, Colorado School Finance Project executive director, said she wants to see the results of the adequacy studies first. Those might suggest different funding levels than those in the current recommendations.

Analyses that account for regional cost differences put Colorado about $2,000 below the national average in per-student spending. Rainey said half a billion dollars more won’t get Colorado to the national benchmark.

“If they can wait to do things until they get the adequacy study, then the state can really build out a roadmap and a plan because you have all the information,” Rainey said. “You still don’t have a lot of information.”

And Amie Baca-Oehlert, Colorado Education Association president, said that the formula illustrates statewide underfunding of K-12 schools. She wants Colorado lawmakers to talk about how to increase revenue for schools, “because the state needs the right revenue to do this.”

“Our hope is that this just continues to build the momentum to help voters understand and stand with us when we go to the ballot for a revenue fix for education,” she said.

Padres comparten lo que ayudó a sus hijos durante los cierres escolares

2022-09-12T11:05:00+00:00

Read in English.

Escuchar, ser paciente con las emociones de los niños, y asegurar que no sientan que es por culpa de ellos: Ofrecer ese tipo de apoyo ayudará a los niños a adaptarse a un cierre de escuela, según los padres de Jeffco que ya han pasado por uno.

“Yo traté de que supiera que ‘sabemos que los cambios no te gustan, pero esta escuela se convertirá en tu hogar’”, nos contó Jamie Camp. Eso fue lo que ella le dijo a su hijo de tercer grado cuando su escuela, la Escuela Primaria Fitzmorris, iba a ser cerrada en la primavera de 2021 y él tendría que cambiar a una escuela nueva. “Hay que ser paciente. Ellos van a expresar su frustración. Eso hizo nuestro hijo. Son ellos tratando de procesarlo todo.”

El distrito escolar Jeffco se está preparando para ayudar a miles de estudiantes a despedirse de sus escuelas primarias cuando termine este año escolar. Se espera que en noviembre la junta apruebe una recomendación de cerrar 16 escuelas, casi una de cada cinco sus escuelas primarias

En los últimos dos años, el distrito de repente cerró dos escuelas primarias que los líderes dijeron que ya no eran sostenibles. Ahora, siguiendo un plan más extenso, los líderes del distrito quieren reducir l cantidad de escuelas pequeñas dándoles más aviso previo a los padres.

Chalkbeat habló con los padres de niños que asistieron a las dos escuelas cerradas anteriormente para saber qué cosas funcionaron, qué no funcionó, y qué consejos tienen para las familias que ahora están enfrentando un cierre. A continuación, puedes leer lo que ellos piensan, y también las respuestas a algunas preguntas de los padres.

¿Por qué el distrito está cerrando escuelas?

¿A dónde irán los estudiantes?

¿Algún consejo sobre cómo despedirse y luego prepararse para la escuela nueva?

¿Qué fue difícil en la transición, y cómo pueden los padres manejar los retos?

¿Qué cosas fueron positivas durante el cambio a una escuela nueva?

¿Por qué el distrito está cerrando escuelas?

Al igual que muchos otros distritos escolares, Jeffco lleva muchos años con cada vez menos estudiantes. Esto ha resultado en que muchas escuelas tienen muy pocos estudiantes. Los distritos escolares, y por ende las escuelas, reciben dinero del estado según la matrícula. La mayoría de las escuelas que están en la recomendación de cierre tienen menos de 220 estudiantes o están usando menos de un 45% del espacio en su edificio. El distrito dice que les está proporcionando a estas escuelas dinero adicional a la asignación por estudiante, pero que de todos modos no pueden ofrecer los mismos programas que otras escuelas más grandes y con más estudiantes pueden costear.

¿A dónde irán los estudiantes?

Por cada escuela que va a cerrar, el distrito ha designado otra que cubrirá su área geográfica y se convertirá en la nueva escuela de esa comunidad. No obstante, las leyes de Colorado permiten que los padres puedan seleccionar otras escuelas. Jeffco abrirá la matrícula en diciembre para los padres que quieran matricular a sus hijos en otras escuelas fuera de su área geográfica.

El hijo de Rosa Melaragno asistió a la Escuela Primaria Allendale hasta que cerró en 2021. En vez de matricularlo en la escuela que el distrito sugirió, ella optó por hacerlo en la Escuela Primar Fitzmorris porque quedaba más cerca de su hogar. En la primavera, el distrito cerró esa escuela también. Ahora ella piensa que va a ser mejor seguir la recomendación del distrito.

“Aunque creas que va a ser terrible, a la larga podría ser mejor para el estudiante”, dijo Melaragno.

Otros padres que matricularon a sus hijos en la escuela sugerida por el distrito dijeron que lo hicieron porque vieron otros beneficios. Por ejemplo, algunos de los maestros se fueron a esa misma escuela. Otros querían que sus hijos tuvieran compañeros de clase conocidos o que pudieran recibir el apoyo del distrito para los estudiantes transferidos.

Lara Wiant, directora de la Escuela Primaria Campbell, dijo que cuando recibió estudiantes de Allendale, creó el título de ‘estudiantes embajadores’ y les asignó uno a cada estudiante desplazado para ayudarles a navegar la escuela y tener con quien sentarse a comer al mediodía.

Christopher Benisch, director de la Escuela Primaria Lawrence (que recibió a muchos de los estudiantes de Fitzmorris) dijo que él asignó los salones de clase este año de manera que cada estudiante proveniente de Fitzmorris tuviera en su salón por lo menos otro estudiante de la misma escuela.

Benisch sugirió que, al momento de evaluar sus opciones, los padres piensen en qué oportunidades desean para sus hijos y que dediquen tiempo para aprender acerca de los diferentes programas ofrecidos por las escuelas. Eso significa preguntar, por ejemplo, si las escuelas tienen programas después de clases, laboratorios del programa STEM, o apoyos de salud mental.

¿Algún consejo sobre cómo despedirse y luego prepararse para la escuela nueva?

Cuando Fitzmorris estaba cerrando, la escuela hizo una barbacoa e invitó a los empleados de Lawrence, la escuela que iba a recibir a la mayoría de los estudiantes.

Los padres dicen que eso les ayudó a despedirse de su comunidad. Sin embargo, a algunos les hubiese gustado tener oportunidad para también conocer a las familias de la escuela nueva.

Michelle Miley, cuyo hijo estaba en Fitzmorris pero se transfirió a la Escuela Primaria Stott para aprovechar su programa para estudiantes autistas, dice que le hubiese gustado que los eventos de ese tipo incluyeran a las familias como la de ella.

Este año, como en el pasado, el distrito moverá a los estudiantes de muchos de los programas especiales de las escuelas que cerrarán a otras escuelas diferentes a las que asistirán los estudiantes del programa regular. El distrito dice que esto se debe, en parte, a problemas de espacio. Para ofrecerles estabilidad a esos estudiantes, el distrito va a mover el personal del programa junto con los estudiantes.

Pero para estudiantes como el hijo de Miley, que pasaba tres cuartas partes de su día en los salones de educación general, separarse de esos compañeros hizo que la familia se sintiera excluida.

Cuando su hijo empezó la escuela este otoño, sintieron que ni él ni la familia conocía a nadie.

“Sentimos que simplemente nos tiraron ahí”, dijo Miley. “Ahora espero que traten de juntar a las comunidades escolares antes de cerrar las escuelas. Solo para que la gente se familiarice”.

Muchos padres dicen que algo que les pareció útil fue que sus hijos visitaran los patios de las escuelas.

Maureen Bricker cuida a sus dos nietas, una de cuarto y otra de primer grado, y ambas eran estudiantes de la Primaria Fitzmorris. Después de que la escuela cerró, Bricker hizo arreglos para que las niñas jugaran con sus amigas en el patio un par de veces.

“Pensé que era buena idea dejar que jugaran como antes, y lo haremos otra vez mientras nos lo permitan”, dijo Bricker.

Melaragno dijo que ella trató de coordinar un día de juego durante el verano para su hijo, a quien le toma mucho tiempo acercarse a otras personas, pero que no obtuvo respuesta de los demás padres. Ella opina que quizás hubiese sido más fácil si el distrito ayudaba.

Por lo tanto, ella empacó una merienda y llevó a su hijo a la escuela nueva durante el verano y le permitió que jugara en el patio nuevo.

“Lo hice simplemente para que se familiarizara físicamente con la escuela, para que la conociera”, dijo Melaragno. “Que se acostumbrara al viaje en auto y al paisaje. Y también para yo dedicarle ese tiempo”.

¿Qué fue difícil en la transición, y cómo pueden los padres manejar los retos?

Los padres dijeron que batallaron para ajustarse al horario de comienzo, que era bastante diferente, y a los puntos de dejar y recoger a los estudiantes porque el tráfico era mucho más pesado. Los padres esperan que, con más tiempo para planificar, los líderes escolares pueden reducir el estrés asociado con esos cambios.

Ellos indicaron que una de las cosas más útiles fue comunicarse claramente con sus hijos y decirles que no es su culpa que tengan que cambiar de escuela.

Melaragno dijo que su esposo notó que el niño había sentido que era culpa suya que dos de sus escuelas cerraran.

“Tomen la iniciativa y explíquenles a sus hijos que no es culpa de ellos”, dijeron los Melaragno. “Sobre todo a los niños que quizás no expresen lo que sienten. Mi hijo es así. Si está triste por algo, a veces llora, pero luego dice ‘estoy bien’, aunque no lo esté”.

Camp dijo que su hijo sintió que sus padres no hicieron nada por salvar su escuela. Ella nos dijo que no sabe a ciencia cierta cómo los padres podrían comunicarles a sus hijos que abogaron por ellos, y a la vez reconocer que no hay nada que puedan hacer para detener los cierres.

Sobre todo, dijo ella, los padres necesitan escuchar lo que sus hijos necesitan y cómo se están sintiendo.

¿Qué cosas fueron positivas durante el cambio a una escuela nueva?

Muchos padres dijeron que sí hubo beneficios en las escuelas nuevas, entre ellos más amigos, programas más variados, y salones de clase de un tamaño más apropiado.

En la Fitzmorris, el hijo de Miley estaba en un salón combinado con más de 30 estudiantes. En la escuela nueva hay suficientes fondos para dos maestras, y por eso casa salón tiene unos 18 estudiantes.

En la escuela anterior, el hijo de Melaragno había sido uno de solo dos varones en su grado. Ahora puede interactuar y aprender con muchos más varones.

Los padres también dicen que es importante pedir ayuda.

Por ejemplo, Brickner dijo que un día el mes pasado, cuando su nieta menor estaba teniendo dificultades en la mañana (lloraba y no quería ir a la escuela nueva), ella le pidió a la escuela que enviaran un especialista en aprendizaje social y emocional a evaluarla. También fue de ayuda que el especialista ya conocía a la niña porque había trabajado en Fitzmorris antes de que la escuela cerrara.

“Traten de mantenerse positivos por ellos”, dijo ella. “Y pidan ayuda”.

Yesenia Robles es reportera para Chalkbeat Colorado y cubre asuntos relacionados con los distritos escolares K-12 y la educación multilingüe. Para comunicarte con Yesenia, envíale un mensaje a yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Estos datos ayudarán a la junta escolar de Jeffco a decidir cuáles escuelas cerrar

2022-07-22T16:36:18+00:00

Read in English.

Más de la mitad de las escuelas primarias de Jeffco están perdiendo estudiantes, un cambio que está aumentando el costo para educar a los que quedan, y obligando a las escuelas a combinar salones de clase y optar por otras estrategias.

Esto es de acuerdo con los datos a nivel de escuela publicados por las Escuelas Públicas de Jeffco mientras los miembros de la junta inician la conversación sobre una de las decisiones más difíciles que enfrentan: cuáles escuelas cerrar o consolidar.

Jeffco ha estado lidiando con una baja en matrícula por años, y como muchos otros distritos de áreas metropolitanas, estará cerrando las escuelas pequeñas. Citando una emergencia causada por una matrícula críticamente baja, el distrito cerró dos escuelas en los últimos dos años sin darle mucho aviso a los padres. Ahora Jeffco está tratando de pensar más a futuro.

La junta escolar les pidió a los administradores que reunieran estadísticas sobre todas las escuelas primarias para poder fijarse en factores aparte del tamaño de la escuela. Los miembros de la junta tienen planificado discutir ese informe el martes.

Hasta ahora, los líderes del distrito han dicho que planifican fijarse en la matrícula y en el uso del edificio (cuánto espacio se está usando activamente) como los factores principales para decidir qué escuelas cerrar.

Los miembros de la junta han pensado en considerar otros factores como demográfica de los estudiantes, si la escuela tiene salones de clase combinados o con varios grados, o si el edificio es usado con frecuencia por la comunidad o para otros propósitos.

Se espera que la superintendente Tracy Dorland le presente recomendaciones sobre los cierres a la junta al final de agosto.

Chalkbeat analizó los datos que el distrito publicó en línea el mes pasado para cada una de las 84 escuelas primarias operadas por el distrito.

Estos son algunos datos clave.

1. Más de una docena de las escuelas usan menos de un 60% del edificio, y también anticipan tener menos de 250 estudiantes el próximo año.

De 84 escuelas primarias, se proyecta que 30 tendrán menos de 250 estudiantes este próximo otoño. De esas, 16 ya usan menos de un 60% de la capacidad del edificio.

El distrito incluye a los estudiantes de preescolar al calcular cuánto se está usando de un edificio, pero no los incluye en las cifras de matrícula. El número de estudiantes matriculados se basa solamente en los estudiantes mayores. Los distritos reciben una cantidad diferente de fondos para los estudiantes de primaria y de preescolar.

Las 16 escuelas que tienen poco uso están mayormente concentradas en las comunidades del distrito más cercanas a Denver. Seis de las escuelas están en Arvada, donde Jeffco ya cerró dos escuelas recientemente. Otras cuatro están en Lakewood, y tres tienen una dirección en Westminster.

Los líderes del distrito no han decidido qué cantidad de estudiantes o cuál nivel de uso se considerará como demasiado bajo para que el distrito lo pueda sostener.

Al analizar cuántas escuelas esperan tener menos de 200 estudiantes el próximo año, encontramos que son 11, lo cual incluye ocho que están usando menos de un 60% de su campus: Slater, Campbell, Thomson, Colorow, Glennon Heights, Peck, Molholm y New Classical en Vivian.

Es probable que las escuelas que están exhibiendo estos factores enfrenten un mayor riesgo de cierre. No obstante, los líderes del distrito también han dicho que, para apoyar a las familias que cambiarán a escuelas nuevas, el distrito tendrá que limitar la cantidad de escuelas cerradas en 2023.

2. Las escuelas con poca matrícula y poco uso también tienen más probabilidad de tener una alta concentración de estudiantes en pobreza.

Aparte de estar mayormente aglomeradas en tres ciudades cerca de Denver, otro factor que define a estas escuelas con poca matrícula y poco uso es que una mayor porción de sus estudiantes es de hogares en pobreza. En las 16 escuelas con poco uso del edificio, un promedio de 50% de sus estudiantes provienen de familias de pocos ingresos, lo cual se define porque califican para comidas gratuitas o a precio reducido. En las escuelas con más matrícula y uso, el promedio del estudiantado que califica como de bajos ingresos es solo un 23%.

3. Más escuelas primarias de Jeffco perderán estudiantes que las que los ganarán.

En términos generales, Jeffco espera que la matrícula en las escuelas primarias se mantenga estable en el otoño, ya que solamente se ha matriculado un estudiante adicional. Sin embargo, el cambio varía entre las escuelas.

De hecho, se proyecta que la matrícula está bajando en 43 de las 84 escuelas. De esas escuelas, se espera que más de dos terceras partes pierdan más de 10 estudiantes.

Mientras tanto, se espera que la matrícula aumente en 38 escuelas, y aproximadamente dos terceras partes de ellas recibirán más de 10 estudiantes nuevos.

Ganar o perder estudiantes, aunque sean pocos, puede afectar grandemente los presupuestos de las escuelas pequeñas. Perder estudiantes puede hacer más difícil contratar suficiente personal, manejar el tamaño de los salones, y ofrecer programas especializados, todos factores que afectan la calidad de la educación.

4. 37 escuelas primarias tienen un costo por estudiante más alto que el promedio.

Los costos del distrito por cada estudiante de primaria varían entre $13,870 en la Primaria Kyffin, que tuvo 441 menos estudiantes el último año, hasta $19,197 en la Primaria Thompson, que tuvo 194 estudiantes.

El distrito les otorga dinero a las escuelas según la matrícula y otros factores, entre ellos cuántos estudiantes califican para obtener comida gratis o a precio reducido. Las escuelas que tienen muy pocos estudiantes no pueden cubrir sus gastos y requieren dinero adicional del distrito.

Los líderes de Jeffco han dicho que los cierres de escuelas no se tratan solamente de ahorrar dinero, sino también de ofrecer una educación equitativa y robusta en cada escuela.

Es menos sustentable tener escuelas que cuestan más y de todos modos carecen de los programas disponibles en las demás escuelas. El distrito contrató este año a un consultor para auditar cómo el distrito asigna el dinero a las escuelas para reevaluar los presupuestos que se basan en la cantidad de estudiantes.

5. Se proyecta que 16 escuelas tendrán más salones combinados el próximo año.

Al hablar sobre cómo entienden que la educación ha sufrido en las escuelas que cerraron en los últimos dos años por tener demasiado pocos estudiantes, los líderes de Jeffco señalaron que había salones que combinaban dos grados.

Eso representaba una carga adicional para los maestros y redujo el aprendizaje, dijeron, en parte porque los maestros no tenían colegas del mismo grado para planificar la enseñanza, recibir la capacitación, o discutir asuntos.

El año pasado el distrito tuvo 53 salones de clase que combinaban múltiples grados. El próximo año el distrito anticipa tener 72 salones combinados. Solamente cuatro de las escuelas que tuvieron salones combinados en 2021-22 esperan poder eliminarlos en el otoño.

Hay 16 escuelas primarias que anticipan un aumento en los salones de este tipo, lo cual incluye seis escuelas en las que no se usaron el año anterior.

Loading…

Por qué la escuela de tus hijos quiere que solicites las comidas gratis

2022-07-20T16:59:00+00:00

Read in English.

Agrega otro pendiente antes de que empiece la escuela: solicitar las comidas gratis o a precio reducido.

Este año, los líderes del distrito escolar están nuevamente recordándoles a los padres que llenen este formulario. Durante los últimos dos años, los estudiantes podían recibir comidas gratis en la escuela sin que los padres tuvieran que llenar el formulario — pero eso ya no será posible este otoño.

Beth Wallace, directora ejecutiva de servicios de alimentos y nutrición de las Escuelas Públicas de Jeffco, dijo que su distrito sirvió aproximadamente un 30% más comidas que antes de la pandemia.

Al mismo tiempo, ya que no se requirió llenar formularios de elegibilidad, los distritos notaron una reducción en la población identificada como elegible para recibir comidas con subsidio. En Jeffco, la elegibilidad bajó un 10% a aproximadamente un 28% de la población estudiantil en comparación con el año escolar 2019-20. En todo el país, los distritos han reportado situaciones similares.

Los líderes del distrito y defensores de los niños querían que el gobierno federal permitiera que las escuelas continuaran ofreciendo comidas gratis a todos los estudiantes, pero el gobierno volvió a activar el requisito de comprobar la elegibilidad de cada estudiante.

Los electores de Colorado votarán en noviembre por una medida para ofrecerles comidas gratuitas a todos los estudiantes, pero eso no cambiará nada para este próximo año escolar. Este otoño se requerirá que los estudiantes tengan un formulario nuevo completado en el distrito escolar a fin de determinar si son elegibles para recibir comidas gratuitas o a precio reducido.

“Va a ser un reto”, dijo Wallace. “Ahora tenemos niños de segundo grado que nunca han tenido que pasar por este proceso”.

Con la ayuda de algunos directores de los programas de comedores escolares del distrito, Chalkbeat obtuvo respuestas a algunas de las respuestas básicas sobre cómo todo funciona.

¿Quién tiene que llenar el formulario y cuándo necesita hacerlo?

Todo padre o madre que siente que necesita ayuda para cubrir el costo de las comidas en la escuela debe llenar el formulario. Este formulario pide la información sobre tus ingresos y el tamaño de la familia, y eso se usará para determinar si calificas. Una familia de cuatro personas califica para las comidas gratuitas si los ingresos del hogar son $36,075 o menos. El formulario también pide los últimos cuatro dígitos de un número de Seguro Social, pero no es requisito para recibir asistencia.

No hay fecha límite para llenar el formulario. En realidad, se puede llenar en cualquier momento durante el año escolar, pero los beneficios no son retroactivos. Si esperas hasta octubre para llenar el formulario, y se determina que eras elegible para recibir las comidas gratuitamente, de todos modos tendrás que haber pagado por las comidas que tus hijos consumieron desde el comienzo del año escolar hasta que el distrito aprobó tu solicitud.

Y haber llenado un formulario en el pasado no tiene ningún efecto. Los formularios nunca son válidos después del 30 de junio, y por eso si llenas uno en mayo (por ejemplo), se vencerá al final de junio. Es decir, cada familia tiene que llenar el formulario nuevamente después del 1 de julio.

Si una familia tiene un cambio a mitad del año escolar — por ejemplo, nace un bebé o se pierden ingresos — ellos pueden solicitar para cambiar de estatus ese año. Además, si cambias de distrito escolar a mitad de año, necesitarás llenar un formulario nuevo otra vez porque los distritos no comparten los formularios.

¿Hay diferentes opciones para llenar el formulario?

¡Sí! Muchos padres llenan los formularios en línea, pero tu distrito debe tener copias en papel disponibles también. Además, algunos distritos (como Jeffco) han preparado computadoras en las que los padres pueden llenar estos formularios y recibir orientación.

Muchos distritos también ofrecen los formularios en varios idiomas. Si necesitas ayuda para llenar el formulario, o quieres pedir una copia en papel o en otro idioma, llama al departamento de servicios de comida de tu distrito.

¿Quién puede ver la información que incluiré en mi formulario?

Dependiendo del distrito escolar, usualmente una o dos personas son quienes leen y procesan los formularios, dijeron los líderes.

Los líderes escolares tienen que reportar cuántos estudiantes solicitaron y cuántos son elegibles para que el gobierno federal pague por sus comidas, pero esa información se le envía al gobierno de manera colectiva. Los departamentos federales no reciben copias de los formularios llenados por los padres. Los directores de distritos dicen que las escuelas no comparten los formularios con los funcionarios de inmigración tampoco.

Aparte de eso, los auditores del estado a veces piden ver algunos formularios de un distrito solo para verificar que los esté procesando correctamente. “No se fijan en ninguna otra información”, dijo Tony Jorstad, director de servicios de nutrición del distrito escolar 27J.

Si no califico para comidas gratis, o si mi hijo no consume la comida de la escuela, ¿por qué debo llenar el formulario?

Los líderes del distrito señalan que aparte del costo reducido por comidas escolares, hay otros beneficios para las familias y para las escuelas.

Por ejemplo, una familia que califica para comidas gratuitas o a precio reducido podría también calificar para waivers o descuentos en varios servicios de la escuela o el distrito, y para actividades como deporte, transporte y tecnología. Fuera de la escuela, las compañías de internet también ofrecen acceso a internet con descuento si los niños califican para comidas gratuitas o a precio reducido.

La cantidad de fondos que las escuelas reciben del gobierno federal, el estado y el distrito puede depender de cuántos estudiantes califican para comidas con subsidio. Los formularios también se usan para medir el índice de pobreza, que podría hacer que las escuelas reciban más recursos para los estudiantes.

Y hasta sin el programa federal que permitió que todas las comidas fueran gratis para todos los estudiantes, cuando una escuela tiene un nivel particularmente alto de estudiantes en pobreza, podría de todos modos ofrecer desayunos y comidas gratis para todos los estudiantes.

Si los departamentos de comida de las escuelas están recibiendo menos dinero, ¿habrá una diferencia en las comidas que ofrecerán?

Los directores de comedores escolares dicen que no. Aunque todos los distritos están anticipando que menos estudiantes comerán al mediodía porque menos de ellos calificarán para un subsidio, los funcionarios también esperan un aumento en el reembolso por cada comida (en comparación con la cantidad de antes de la pandemia).

No obstante, es posible que los menús se vean afectados por problemas en la cadena de suministro y el aumento en el costo de los alimentos.

“Realmente tratamos de planear nuestros menús según el reembolso que esperamos recibir”, dijo Jorstad. “Ahora mismo no estamos contemplando cambiar ninguna de las opciones de frutas y verduras de nuestro menú. Estamos bastante orgullosos de las frutas y verduras frescas que ofrecemos diariamente”.

Si las familias no califican para recibir comidas gratis o a precio reducido, pero de todos modos no pueden darles dinero a sus hijos para comer en la escuela, ¿las escuelas tienen alguna otra ayuda?

Los directores de comedores escolares del distrito dicen que es una pregunta difícil de contestar. Los padres deben acudir a las escuelas para hablar acerca de otras opciones. Las reglas federales previenen que los distritos escolares puedan dar comidas gratis.

A menudo una escuela puede permitir que un estudiante coma sin pagar en ese momento, pero le enviará una factura a la familia después. Antes de comenzar la pandemia, a muchos distritos escolares les preocupaba la cantidad de deudas que las familias estaban acumulando. Algunas escuelas cuentan con un presupuesto específico para estas situaciones. En otros casos, los distritos han recibido donativos para ayudar a saldar las deudas acumuladas por los estudiantes que no podían pagar.

“No tengan miedo de preguntar”, dijo Jorstad. “Pero lo primero, y lo más importante, es llenar ese formulario y dar la información para nosotros poder determinar si son elegibles”.

Jeffco is spending $45 million at schools that have welcomed students from closed buildings

2023-12-07T00:09:44+00:00

The Jeffco district spent more than $45 million on upgrades to schools taking in students from the 16 elementary schools that closed at the end of last school year.

That cost includes projects that were specifically designed to accommodate the new students, but also projects that were in the works before.

Last December, district staff told the board they expected to spend up to $32 million to expand classrooms, buy new furniture, retrofit buildings that needed to accommodate students with disabilities, or create preschool classrooms.

Figures obtained by Chalkbeat through an open records request this month show the district ultimately ended up spending $45.3 million at 22 welcoming schools. But the district could not say how much of that difference is because of higher than anticipated costs, or covering the projects already in the works and not related to the school closures.

The figure includes $7.5 million specifically used to add preschool classrooms as the state rolled out universal preschool. Campbell Elementary, for instance, one of the 16 closed schools, was turned into a preschool center for the area, and had more than $3 million in upgrades. Preschool classrooms are regulated to require certain building accommodations for preschool-age children.

Jeffco schools have had declining enrollment for years. After a few sudden school closures, the district started a comprehensive plan to close several schools. The district said it would help its budget, but also was concerned about the limitations of what small schools offered students and the inequities growing from school to school. The school closures are estimated to save the district $12 million a year in ongoing operating expenses, but renovating other schools to receive those students has proved more expensive than the district expected.

Seanin Rosario, Jeffco’s executive director of finance, planning, and analysis, said the costs specifically related to accommodating more students are “most likely closer” to the $32 million estimated a year ago. “Our system was not able to track only welcoming schools’ projects because there are instances where the projects overlapped,” she wrote in an email.

Some schools that received upgrades had not initially been designated as welcoming schools. Students weren’t forced to go to any one school, and still could participate in open enrollment. So, after many students from closed schools chose a particular school, the district had to designate it as a welcoming school to provide support, including capital upgrades.

Rosario said funding for the projects came from the district’s capital reserve fund. The expenditures are one-time costs. The district is also beginning the process of deciding what to do with the closed buildings, including selling or leasing them.

Look up how much the district spent at each of the 22 schools that took in students from closed elementary schools:

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Hoping to boost math scores, Colorado invests in second year of Zearn online learning program

2023-12-01T01:32:21+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Colorado’s free daily newsletter to get the latest reporting from us, plus curated news from other Colorado outlets, delivered to your inbox.

As camera shutters clicked and politicians and policymakers huddled in the back of a Denver classroom Thursday, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis walked between the desks of sixth graders whose eyes and ears were glued to their computer screens, multiplying fractions.

The program the students were using, Zearn Math, is a key part of Polis’ plan to boost math scores in Colorado and help students recover from the pandemic. Just 1 in 3 students scored at grade-level in math on state tests last spring.

Polis was at Marie L. Greenwood Early-8 in far northeast Denver to hype Zearn in the hopes that more school districts will adopt the program, which the state is offering to schools for free this year. About 65% of Colorado districts are already using it, Polis said.

“We want to really take this opportunity to get the message out across the state: We would love that other 35% of schools to also take advantage of what the state is supporting,” he said.

And districts will have another year to do so. Polis announced Thursday that the state is investing an additional $3 million in federal COVID relief, on top of the $6 million in COVID aid it already set aside, to extend to the 2024-25 school year the offer to pay for Zearn licenses. The state has also been paying to train teachers to use the digital platform.

“We know this will lead to major improvements in math achievement,” Polis said, “which is so important for success in today’s world. Whether you go to college or not, no matter what field you enter, basic math skills — numeracy — is so incredibly important.”

Noire Lin, the teacher whose classroom Polis visited, said in an interview that Zearn has helped students “take more charge of how they’re learning.” Lin’s students — and all students at Greenwood — use Zearn for 30 minutes a day, three times per week.

“It’s aligned to what I teach in class,” Lin said. “But sometimes they’ll go home and be like, ‘I really don’t know if the teacher was teaching it correctly to me.’ So they go home [and] they do Zearn. They get to watch a video. They get to have step-by-step breaking down the problems.”

Colorado Department of Education officials said the state doesn’t yet have data showing whether Zearn is making a difference since schools started using it this fall. The governor’s team chose Zearn without running a competitive bidding process, based on studies provided by the company that showed students who used Zearn regularly made more progress than those who didn’t.

After Polis left, several of the 11-year-olds in Lin’s class gave Zearn mostly positive reviews.

Kevin Villalba said he likes “the sprint,” which is when Zearn gives students a limited amount of time to answer as many math questions as they can. Mia Villa likes the practice questions, and how, if she gets an answer wrong, Zearn explains why and shows her the right steps.

“I sometimes have trouble with math,” Villa said. “Before I had a D or a C, and now I have a B or an A in math.” Zearn, she added, “helps a lot of kids get better in their math.”

But across the table, Valeria Sierra said she’s “not that big of a fan.”

“It could be stressful,” Sierra said, especially a Zearn feature called “the tower of power.”

“If you do a mistake, it removes all your progress,” Sierra said. “And at the same time, it’s kind of hard because it’s a little bit different [from] how our teachers teach us math. And it’s sometimes difficult because the videos they show us doesn’t explain that much.”

Melanie Asmar is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado, covering Denver Public Schools. Contact Melanie at masmar@chalkbeat.org.

Many school district tax measures on November ballot would pay for teacher salaries

2023-11-02T21:54:53+00:00

Many of the more than a dozen tax measures Colorado school districts put on the ballot for the Nov. 7 election are intended to fund teacher and staff salary increases that officials say are urgently needed.

District leaders say they are facing budget crunches from various factors such as drops in enrollment and an end to federal COVID-relief funding. Some districts say they’re having a hard time hiring enough teachers and keeping them.

Alan Kaylor, superintendent of the Weld Re-8 school district in Fort Lupton, said his district started this school year with 18 vacancies out of about 210 certified teachers.

That’s more than in the past, he said.

“It used to be in special education, math, science, but it’s kind of across the board right now,” Kaylor said. “It’s hard to recruit teachers.”

School districts around the metro area have been raising salaries. In Westminster, the school district raised starting pay to $61,000 this year. According to the Colorado Education Association, 30 unions have won an 8% or higher raise this year. A few districts, including Aurora and Sheridan, have struggled to negotiate raises.

Weld Re-8 is asking voters to approve a $4 million mill levy override and a $70 million bond request. For at least the first year, the measures would not cost homeowners any more in property taxes. The bond issue would go to funding building upgrades, but the mill levy override would help raise the starting salary for teachers from $45,000 to $52,000.

Kaylor said that even though Re-8 is considered a rural district, with about 2,500 students, it borders larger urban districts including St. Vrain Valley School District, where the starting salary for teachers is $56,000. On top of that, he said, houses in the community are priced in the $500,000 range, similar to the metro areas.

“My teachers are locked out from that market,” Kaylor said. “We don’t have many multifamily units either. Those tend to be filled. Most of my teachers live out on that I-25 corridor. They drive right through St. Vrain to get here.”

Re-8 is growing in enrollment, one of few districts in the state that is. But Kaylor said other budget issues coming up are related to the end of COVID relief funding.

The relief money wasn’t used in his district to fund teacher salaries, but he did use it to pay for new support positions such as instructional coaches that may not have funding to continue next year.

Kaylor is also concerned about the upcoming cost of renewing licenses for online programs purchased during the pandemic that teachers still use and whether he’ll be able to find funding to maintain an online program the district still offers as an option for about 50 students who preferred the model.

In Englewood, another small district requesting a $4 million mill levy override, the district has had to spend down reserves, or savings, in order to increase salaries for teachers over the past few years.

The Englewood district, south of Denver, has had a drop of more than 11% in enrollment in the last five years.

If the measure is approved, the district already negotiated an increase of 5% for teachers and a minimum increase of 7.5% for classified staff, both effective Jan. 1.

Englewood’s tax request would not increase property taxes for homeowners because the measure would simultaneously lower the taxes for the bond approved in 2016.

In Douglas County, the district is trying a second year in a row to ask voters for a mill levy tax measure. The $66 million mill levy override would pay for teacher raises. Last year, the same measure failed by less than 1% of the vote.

Superintendent Erin Kane said average salaries for teachers in the Douglas County school district are $19,000 less than in neighboring districts. It has meant more vacancies at the start of the school year.

At one elementary school, a teacher who took another job elsewhere over the summer was not able to be replaced in time for the school year to start. The school had to combine three second grade classrooms into two, with 33 students each.

“That’s the very real impact,” she said.

In talking to the community about the need for the measure this year, Kane said that voters understand that teachers deserve a raise, and that a teacher hired at $45,209 — the current starting salary — can’t afford living in Douglas County.

“It’s a shift in our community,” Kane said, of having more teachers commuting into the district for work.

But the challenge, she said, is helping voters understand how Colorado school districts are funded.

“Our community is under the impression that since their local property taxes are going up that their schools would be benefiting from that,” Kane said. “Higher local property taxes just means less money from the state.”

Colorado runs a formula that dictates how much money each district should have per student. The money comes first from local property taxes, and then the state fills in the gap, to get the funding to what the formula says it should be. Districts get more money than the formula says they should only when voters approve local tax measures that are on top of the regular property taxes.

In Douglas County, Kane tells voters the district is getting $2,000 less per student than neighboring districts because of those local measures, meaning the salaries she can offer are less competitive.

“I would have told you last year it was urgent,” Kane said. “This year it’s a crisis.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Proposed Colorado budget would fully fund K-12 schools for first time since Great Recession

2023-11-02T00:08:46+00:00

Sign up for our free monthly newsletter Beyond High School to get the latest news about college and career paths for Colorado’s high school grads.

Next year’s Colorado budget could mark the first time since the Great Recession that the state meets its constitutional obligations to fund K-12 schools.

Gov. Jared Polis released his proposed budget on Wednesday. It includes an additional $564.1 million for K-12 education and brings an end to what has been known as the budget stabilization factor, a mechanism that allows lawmakers to divert K-12 funding to other priorities.

Polis said the money would allow school districts to lower class size and pay teachers more. His budget also includes $42.7 million more for higher education institutions, financial aid, and student support.

Amendment 23 requires that K-12 funding increase every year by the rate of population growth plus inflation. But since 2009, through the budget stabilization factor, lawmakers have diverted over $10 billion that should go to K-12 schools. When they set this year’s budget, they promised to end the practice altogether next year.

Polis’ proposed budget sticks with that promise, though he warned that nothing is set in stone.

“It’s not a done deal in that sense because previous legislators can’t force the funding,” Polis said.

Polis is required to craft a budget proposal every year by Nov. 1. But the budget lawmakers adopt in March or April is actually written by the six legislators on the Joint Budget Committee.

Polis’ budget would bring total state spending to $43.5 billion and calls for new investments in housing, health care, renewable energy, and public safety in addition to education.

Polis’ 2024-25 fiscal year budget would increase K-12 funding to about $9.67 billion, or about 6% more than this year. The budget earmarks $705 more per student in funding, or an about 6.6% increase. Statewide, that would bring per pupil spending to $11,319.

The budget doesn’t factor in the effects of Proposition HH. If voters approve the complex property tax relief measure, school districts would have less money from local property taxes and the state would have to increase its own schools funding to make up the difference. However, there should be enough money in the state education fund, a sort of savings account, to cover that obligation.

If Proposition HH doesn’t pass, lawmakers could be debating property taxes again, with uncertain impacts.

The governor also wants $39.7 million more for college and university budgets and financial aid for students. Another $3 million would be used to support the college attendance of youth who have experienced homelessness.

Colleges and universities would also be allowed to increase tuition 2% for in-state and 6% for out-of-state students.

In previous years, college and university leaders have banded together to request more funding. Last year, higher education leaders said the governor’s budget didn’t include enough to cover inflationary increases, increased student services, and increased wages.

“Everybody always wants more money and institutions of higher education are no exception, but we’re confident that we can meet these goals,” Polis said.

Other K-12 and higher education highlights include:

$15 million to fully fund the state’s Charter School Mill Levy Equalization fund, bringing the total to $42 million. This money would provide state-authorized charter schools with similar funding to district-authorized charter schools, which benefit from additional local property taxes.
$8 million more focused on science, technology, engineering, and math grants to fund after-school enrichment and programming.
$4.3 million for universal preschool. About $3.3 million go to better the state’s technology systems after a rocky rollout. Another $1 million would go toward improving quality among providers.
$7.8 million to boost work-based learning in K-12 schools, $5 million to address statewide veterinary shortages, and $3.1 million for educational talent mentorship programs to help support teachers.
$2 million in grant funding and $30 million in tax credits to expand apprenticeship programs. Polis also wants $2 million and $30 million in tax credits to support Opportunity Now grants, or a program that helps develop public-private partnerships focused on workforce development.

For the last several years, Republicans have pushed for more school funding and accused the Democrats who control the legislature of expanding other government programs at the expense of schools. Democrats have said they want to increase school funding responsibly and sustainably — and the state only now has the resources to meet its constitutional obligations.

In a press release in response to Polis’ budget, Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, referred back to that history.

“After years of Republican demands that we fully fund students — instead of growing state government, we are glad to see Governor Polis chose to follow our leadership and prioritize funding for students and teachers,” Lundeen said. “It is critically important that the budget proposal acknowledges that charter school students are public school students and deserve equal funding support.”

Polis’ budget was met with praise by the Colorado Education Association.

In a news release, the association, which represents nearly 40,000 educators, said the governor’s budget underscores the attentiveness to their concerns and an unwavering commitment to strengthening public education.

“We are ready to move into our fully funded era,” said Amie Baca-Oehlert, a high school counselor and president of the association. “We applaud Governor Polis for taking swift action to address the long-standing funding challenges faced by Colorado’s public schools.”

Polis will need to update his budget in January. That budget will then head to the Joint Budget Committee, which will craft a budget that will be voted on by the House and Senate. During that time, House and Senate members can propose amendments that will then be considered by the budget committee before the final budget is approved.

Aurora school district and teachers union deadlock on pay, call for outside help

2023-10-11T00:48:56+00:00

Negotiations between the Aurora school district and its teacher union have failed to produce an agreement on this year’s pay, and now the groups are again calling on an outside party to help them, using a step called fact-finding.

In this step, an outside investigator researches arguments from both sides and then provides an opinion and possible recommendations. It’s part of a series of steps laid out in the teachers union contract to resolve disputes when an agreement can’t be reached. In Aurora, the results of the fact-finding report are not binding.

The two sides already went through a previous step in the process, a negotiation session with an arbitrator. That happened earlier this summer after months of negotiations produced no agreement. But it didn’t help.

It could take a few months for a fact finder to complete the investigation and submit a report. In the meantime, teachers in Aurora have not received any raise this year, and don’t know if they will.

“Our teachers aren’t feeling valued or respected,” said Linnea Reed-Ellis, president of the Aurora teachers union. “It’s definitely having an effect on morale.”

Salaries and distribution of raises at issue in Aurora

The master contract for the union in Aurora is in effect through 2028, but each year, certain issues can be renegotiated in addition to salaries. The contract bars teachers from striking while the contract is in effect, but protracted negotiations raise the risk that teachers will leave the district.

In some cases, Reed-Ellis said, teachers who recently completed a higher education credential like a master’s degree expected a pay bump as laid out in the past salary agreements, but haven’t gotten it, pending a new salary agreement.

Requesting fact-finding during union negotiations isn’t common. Jeffco went to fact finding in negotiations with support staff in 2021. According to the Colorado Educators Association, that’s been the only one in recent years. But now, besides Aurora, Sheridan is also scheduled for fact-finding in December, and Lake County in January.

According to CEA, 30 unions won an 8% or higher raise for their licensed staff this year. That includes Aurora’s neighbors, Denver and Cherry Creek.

“We have seen more activity, not just in the education sector,” said Amie Baca-Oehlert, president of CEA. “People are really at a point, and especially in education, we’re just so intensely feeling the ramifications of decades of underfunding, and we’ve been talking about it for a while, about how people are having to work two to three jobs just to make ends meet.”

“Different districts are approaching that differently,” she said.

In Aurora, part of the issue is how raises might be distributed.

The Aurora school district set aside $21.5 million in its budget to cover raises for this current school year, but wants to devote most of that to raising the district’s starting salary, which district leaders say has fallen behind neighboring districts.

In Aurora, the current starting salary for a new teacher with just a bachelor’s degree is $46,894. In Cherry Creek, by comparison, it’s $58,710, and in Denver, it’s $54,141.

Brett Johnson, chief financial officer for the Aurora school district, said that over the past 10 years, the district’s raises for veteran teachers have been double those for starting teachers. Experienced teachers — those with at least 10 years but less than 25 years in the classroom — have seen their salaries go up between $18,000 and $19,000 over the last decade, Johnson said, while the district’s starting salary has increased by just $9,500.

“I would argue that’s in part why we’re here, and why it is hard for us to fill vacancies,” Johnson said.

The district said that from 2019 through 2021, each first day of school, the district started with more than 98% of positions filled. In fall of 2022, that dropped to 94.88%, and this fall school started with 95.92% of positions filled.

Both proposals would allow teachers to get a raise for a gaining an additional year of experience and for having completed more education,

The teachers union proposal would also bump up all salaries in the salary schedule by another $5,500 per year.

Reed-Ellis, the president of the local teachers union, said that surveys of their members show that teachers don’t want uneven raises.

“The proposal from the district came back as incredibly disrespectful to our members,” Reed-Ellis said. “Veteran educators, these are the people who have stuck it out through COVID and the Great Recession and remained dedicated to our district.”

Aurora school district cites last year’s raises

Johnson, the district CFO, believes that the union proposal would cost the district four times what it has budgeted.

Johnson said that while the district does have an increase in revenue, half of it was already factored into covering the nearly 8.5% raises teachers got last year.

“School finance has a one-year lag in terms of how it applies inflation,” Johnson said. “We didn’t want to wait. We wanted to give relief for our staff one year early, so we spent one-time money of our reserves to do that.”

The district was counting on this year’s increase in revenue to maintain those increases moving forward, he said, meaning only the $21.5 million that has been budgeted is available for raises.

That is one of the factors that the union and the district disagree on.

Aurora Superintendent Michael Giles said the district is “extremely motivated to appropriately compensate our educators.”

“My greatest hope is that we’re able to sooner rather than later,” he added.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Sheridan teacher pay negotiations stall amid tight budgets, sinking enrollment

2023-06-22T20:00:48+00:00

Teachers in the Sheridan school district south of Denver are concerned about pay. While neighboring districts are offering double-digit percentage salary increases to their educators, Sheridan teachers have been offered just 2%.

District officials are concerned about declining enrollment, which they say is affecting district revenues. Last year alone, the district, which served 1,125 students, lost 476 students to other districts.

The teachers union sees it all as part of the same cycle: Low pay prompts teachers to leave, creating turnover and instability. Frustrated families leave the district for schools that can provide more stability. Enrollment declines, the district loses revenue, budgets get tighter, and raises require tough trade-offs.

But the two sides aren’t talking anymore. Negotiations stalled over the pay issue, and the district and the union are headed for mediation beginning July 28, a schedule that leaves teachers uncertain about their pay well into the summer.

“It’s causing me a bit of anxiety,” said Kate Biester, a high school teacher and union leader.

The stalemate over teacher pay points to a larger question for districts like Sheridan: What happens when a district that’s already small keeps shrinking?

Other Denver metro districts facing enrollment and revenue declines are closing or consolidating schools, which creates disruption but helps free up some money for the students and schools that remain.

But in Sheridan and other small districts, the limited number of schools leaves fewer options for closing buildings.

Sheridan district leaders declined to talk about the negotiations or the impact of enrollment declines on district finances. They said that there were no documents about the salary offer that they could release as public records, and that they don’t have recorded video of the negotiations. Under Colorado law, negotiations between teachers unions and school districts are public.

Biester said the teachers’ position in the negotiations was met with a lack of compassion.

“We did not feel that our story was listened to,” she said. “We were told several times to hurry up and stop being repetitive about things that are really close to home. I work 16-hour days often, and I might not be able to afford my rent next year.”

Enrollment declines are accelerating

The enrollment declines in Sheridan are real: The district had 1,125 students enrolled in the fall of 2022, down nearly 20% since 2017. The overall population of children in Sheridan has dropped as well, census data shows, but not as fast.

Arapahoe County’s birth rates have dropped since 2000 but are projected to rise in 2025.

According to district budget presentations, the district is projected to receive about $13.5 million in funding for the 2023-24 school year, up from last year. The district presentation states that last year, the district received about $12.8 million, although state calculations put last year’s revenue at closer to $13.4 million.

The district has five schools: an early childhood center, a K-2 elementary school, a middle school for grades 3-8, a high school, and an alternative secondary school.

Merging those schools hasn’t been a part of discussions, district leaders say.

“I don’t know the physical space would allow it,” said Superintendent Pat Sandos, who retired, but will return in July for a one-year transition. “It probably would cost us money to do that.”

Instead, district documents show the board had pressed the superintendent and district leaders to come up with a marketing plan to keep students from leaving the district.

Sandos, who received a 17% raise in 2021, said the district has focused on developing a training program that partners with trade unions in the area to create a path for students to work in the trades. The district has spent millions in remodeling a building for that program.

The district has offered teachers a 2% raise. The school board president said raising pay beyond that would require cutting staff.

With high turnover, students are ‘used to their teachers leaving’

Even with the threat to revenues, teachers say the district can do better. They started out wanting a 12% raise, in line with a projected increase in state per-pupil funding to districts.

By the end of negotiations this spring, they had come down to requesting a 10% increase.

Teachers say the district needs to focus on what they see as the cause of the accelerating enrollment declines: Families are tired of long-term substitutes, a decrease in program offerings, and staff turnover.

Sheridan teachers say it’s easy to make more money by moving to nearby districts that have been giving teachers larger raises.

Currently the starting salary for teachers in Sheridan is $50,991, and the average is $64,813. Both of those figures are lower than in neighboring districts. In Denver, the average salary is $66,141, and in Littleton, it’s $75,434.

In the last school year, teacher turnover in Sheridan was at almost 40% — one of the highest in the state. The number of teachers in the district has dropped from about 100 in 2017 to 75 in 2022.

“I had a kid say to me on my first day, ‘Mrs., you’re not going to be here next year. That’s just how it goes here.’” Biester said. “They’re just used to their teachers leaving.”

Teachers also say offerings for extracurricular activities and electives like music, art, and shop are being cut.

Sandos said that’s not a district decision, but said he allows principals to make program cuts to fit their budget, as they see fit.

Sharena Del Brocco, a middle school teacher who has worked in Sheridan about 10 years, said it all contributes to why students leave the district.

“Kids are getting subs, we’re not retaining high quality teachers, and people keep leaving,” Del Brocco said. “So the kids feel abandoned.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

$9 billion Colorado education budget signed, but still doesn’t meet obligations for full funding

2023-05-16T00:02:49+00:00

Gov. Jared Polis on Monday signed into law Colorado’s school finance act, laying the path toward eliminating a state practice used since the Great Recession that holds back money from schools.

In the 2023-24 school year, the state will spend more than $9 billion on education and withhold $141 million from schools. Statewide, spending per student next year will increase to $10,614, $1,000 more per student than this year.

The school finance bill also will fund state-authorized charter schools at a level similar to other schools starting in 2023-24, adding more than $42 million for those schools. State-authorized charter schools don’t get a cut of locally raised tax dollars as district schools do.

Rural schools will get $30 million more to help with their higher costs related to smaller student populations. Colorado rural schools have gotten similar state aid since 2017.

Polis, surrounded by lawmakers, educators, and students at Thornton Elementary School, also signed two bills on Monday that will boost special education funding and provide statewide support for math instruction.

Together, the bills represent a significant investment in K-12 education statewide and a promise to fully meet the constitutionally set minimum for education spending by the 2024-25 school year.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis sits ready to sign the 2023 school finance bill as Lt. Gov. Diane Primavera stands behind him and state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat, talks about the bill on Monday at Thornton Elementary School.

Polis said the school finance bill means a stronger education system for Colorado, including better teacher pay, smaller class sizes, and more funding for the arts.

“We are catching up to where we should be for all public schools next year, and that’s very exciting news for Colorado kids,” he said during the bill signing.

Since 2009, lawmakers have diverted money that should go to K-12 schools to fund other priorities, a practice known as the Budget Stabilization Factor. This year’s school finance law, however, aims to eliminate that practice by the next budget year. The state has withheld over $10 billion from schools since 2009.

The constitution requires Colorado to increase funding yearly by the rate of student population growth plus inflation. The state withholding, however, has meant schools haven’t gotten what’s required by its school finance formula.

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat who chairs the Joint Budget Committee that helps craft the budget and school finance act, said the state will also meet its obligation to fully fund its share of special education.

The state will spend $40.2 million more next year on special education, increasing total spending to about $340 million, or a 13% increase.

Polis also signed a bill that will invest more in teaching math after state and national tests showed students lost ground in that subject during the pandemic. The state will spend $25 million via three-year grants for after-school math tutoring programs that will be run by school districts, charter schools, and community groups.

The bill also will provide optional training for teachers and parents, offer evidence-based resources for math programs, and require teacher preparation programs to train prospective educators in math instruction.

Zenzinger said now that the state is on track to fully fund schools within the next budget cycle, she wants lawmakers to rethink what it costs to fully educate a student.

“It’s going to be really, really important that once we have established full funding, whether that is then adequate,” Zenzinger said.

Colorado legislature delivers on school funding, math tutoring, free college despite drama

2023-05-12T12:00:00+00:00

Colorado’s K-12 schools got a major funding increase. Younger students should get more help with math learning, and older students should have more ways to get a free college education.

And long-standing areas of education policy debate — how to more fairly distribute money among schools and how to determine what makes a good school — will get the focused attention of dedicated task forces that could recommend changes to future lawmakers.

When the 2023 Colorado General Assembly concluded its work this week, education stood out as an area of relative consensus and modest progress, in sharp contrast to heated debates over gun control, crime, housing, and tax policy that saw progressives frustrated and conservatives alike disappointed and disillusioned.

Education had its contentious moments as well. Republicans argued that a bill to expand mental health assessments in schools risked trampling on parental rights. Legislators scaled back a bill to give far more protections to students facing expulsion. A bill to promote universal screening for dyslexia, a common learning disability, never even got a hearing.

But overall, advocates across the spectrum rated education a bright spot this session.

“It is pretty remarkable when you can peel away the drama of the session,” said Jen Walmer, Colorado state director of Democrats for Education Reform. “There were real wins for kids.”

State Rep. Don Wilson, a freshman Monument Republican, said that education issues felt less politically charged.

“We did have a bunch of party-line votes, but there was good discussion about them and I really appreciate that from my fellow committee members,” he said.

With so many bills convening task forces — there also will be groups working on transportation and student discipline — the 2023 session could tee up bigger debates ahead or see the status quo win out.

“We have all these opportunities to talk about where we want our education system to go,” said Brenda Dickhoner, president and CEO of the conservative education group Ready Colorado. “We have this moment where we could choose to do better for our kids, but I’m also worried we’ll keep doing the same things.”

Here are some of the big education issues lawmakers tackled during this year’s session.

School funding

Lawmakers approved a budget and school finance act for 2023-24 that raises per-pupil spending to $10,614, up by more than $1,000 from this year. Legislators also wrote into law a promise to fund education according to constitutional requirements starting in the 2024-25 budget year. That would mark the end of the 13-year practice known as the budget stabilization factor, under which lawmakers held back more than $10 billion from K-12 schools to pay for other budget priorities.

At the same time, a last-minute property tax relief measure contains provisions that Democrats say will shore up school funding over the long-term.

“We made huge progress this year,” said Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno, a Commerce City Democrat. “Buying off the B.S. factor completely is within striking distance. I think we’re going to be able to do that next year.”

Moreno said Proposition HH also would allow the state to better fund higher education by relieving budget pressures to cover K-12.

The tax package came together in the final days of the session, and Republicans balked at what they described as an excuse to undermine the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. In the House, the entire GOP caucus walked out rather than vote on the measure.

House Minority Leader Mike Lynch, in cowboy hat, gives an impromtu press conference with other House Republicans on the west steps of the Colorado Capitol after walking out of the chamber in protest.

State Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican, said Democrats need to prioritize education first, rather than one priority among many, and that it will be easier to hold schools accountable for outcomes when they have more resources.

“When we have 60% of our third graders not being able to read at the third grade level, 70% or so of our eighth graders, not being able to do math at the eighth grade level, we need some accountability here, and we need to start to figuring out how we’re going to get our kids educated so that they can succeed,” she said.

Lawmakers raised special education funding to meet promises made in 2006, put aside money for capital construction grants in cash-strapped districts, and promised an extra $30 million just for rural districts.

Legislators also increased funding for state-authorized charter schools and promised to fund them next year at the same level as their district-authorized counterparts, which benefit from local revenue sharing.

Amie Baca-Oehlert, president of the Colorado Education Association, the state teachers union, said she hopes additional funding translates into higher teacher pay, smaller class sizes, and more mental health support for students.

Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie started the session with high hopes, including for big changes to school finance that didn’t materialize.

But lawmakers put off any major changes to the school funding formula — how the state distributes money to schools.

Some advocacy groups lamented that Colorado missed an opportunity to send more money to districts that serve more students in poverty, but Bret Miles, who leads the Colorado Association of School Executives, said the proposed changes were coming too fast and presented too many complications.

“It’s a big ship to turn,” Miles said. “It doesn’t turn on a dime.”

There’s always next year. The school finance act commissions a study to determine at what level Colorado should fund its schools and a task force to determine how that money should be distributed.

Walmer said she is optimistic the task force will be less political than a previous legislative committee. Miles said he also expects the state to be able to increase funding in future years — and a larger pie is always easier to divide in new ways.

School safety and student discipline

Lawmakers faced pressures this session to address gun violence and school safety after the horrific shooting in Uvalde and, closer to home, the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, which raised questions about the effectiveness of Colorado’s new “red flag” law.

Two shootings outside Denver’s East High School and another inside the school building that wounded two deans and ended with the death by suicide of a student highlighted the steady toll of community gun violence.

Students repeatedly walked out of East High and rallied at the Capitol for better gun control.

East High School students rally in support of gun control at the Colorado Capitol in March after student Luis Garcia was shot and killed just outside school.

Lawmakers banned ghost guns, raised the age to purchase firearms to 21, created a three-day waiting period before gun purchasers can take possession, and added educators to the list of people who can ask that someone’s guns be temporarily removed in response to a safety threat.

Lawmakers also created an Office of School Safety to bring various services under one roof and improve coordination and communication among state agencies and school districts.

Concerns about rising youth violence hampered efforts to reform school discipline, as some educators and administrators pointed to the shooting at East as an example of why traditional schools should exclude some students. Lawmakers also decided to continue to allow children as young as 10 to be arrested and prosecuted.

Nonetheless, lawmakers passed some protections for students facing expulsion. Under House Bill 1291, hearing officers would have to learn about trauma and disability and how those can affect student behavior, and school districts will have to adopt policies that consider alternatives to expulsion.

And Senate Bill 29 would convene a task force to make recommendations to reduce disproportionate discipline.

Colorado lawmakers also banned corporal punishment in schools. The practice did not seem to be widespread in the state, but lawmakers and advocates wanted to send a message that it’s never OK to hit a child.

Student mental health

Colorado would provide more funding and support for schools to implement universal mental health screening in schools under House Bill 1003. The goal is to identify problems and provide support early, before children are in crisis.

Colorado had a high youth suicide rate before the pandemic. In 2021, doctors at Children’s Hospital Colorado declared a youth mental health emergency, and educators consistently report mental health as a top concern for students.

Lawmakers also took steps to ease severe shortages of counselors, social workers, and other mental health professionals. Senate Bill 4 will expedite licensing to work in schools.

Math instruction

House Bill 1231 would invest more than $27 million in math learning, which saw particularly concerning declines in the wake of pandemic learning disruptions. Most of the money will go to teacher training and afterschool tutoring.

Teacher training programs will be asked to make sure teachers understand best practices and recent research in math instruction, preschool teachers will be asked to do more to build early foundations, and schools facing state intervention for low academic performance will have to show what steps they’re taking to improve math learning.

Schools will be encouraged to talk to parents more and make training available to them so they can better support students at home.

But the bill stops short of the widespread mandates that have characterized Colorado’s approach to improving reading instruction.

Some advocates said they would have liked Colorado to go further, but most said they hope a voluntary approach builds buy-in and puts resources toward teachers and schools eager to do better.

College access

Few issues brought lawmakers together this session like college access.

In a bipartisan rollout in March led by Gov. Jared Polis, lawmakers outlined proposals to expand free training to students for in-demand fields at the state’s community colleges and scholarships for graduates of the Class of 2024.

House Bill 1246 opens free college for students training in early childhood, education, law enforcement, firefighting, forestry, construction, and nursing.

The $45 million program targets careers with high social value but not necessarily high salaries.

Senate Bill 205 would spend $25 million for scholarships for up to $1,500 for students in the Class of 2024 who attend college, join an apprenticeship, or train in an in-demand job.

Democrats and Republicans agreed to allow universities to enroll more out-of-state students if the institutions provide more merit aid to Colorado students.

Nursing students, Jade Prophet, left, and Cami Gardetto, work at a nursing station simulation classroom at Colorado Northwestern Community College.

Senate Bill 96 primarily impacts the University of Colorado Boulder and the Colorado School of Mines, which enroll more out-of-state students. The state requires schools to enroll 55% of their students from Colorado. Schools get to count some of those students twice if they get certain institutional aid, allowing schools to enroll more out-of-state students. The bill already signed by the governor allows schools to now double count up to 15% of its students who get more institutional aid toward the in-state enrollment cap.

Lawmakers voted mostly in lockstep to increase options for adults who never finished high school, ensuring they have a path to continue their education or get better jobs.

Senate Bill 7 would triple state spending on adult education programs to $3 million a year and will add a digital literacy requirement. The bill also would allow colleges to award high school diplomas to adults.

Senate Bill 3 would create the state’s first high school for adults. The $5 million program will support students, including paying for courses, child care, and transportation.

Teacher shortages

Lawmakers passed three laws addressing teacher shortages.

Last school year, about 440 of the 5,700 open teaching positions went unfilled for the entire year. The number of positions that end up without a teacher has also grown.

The laws this year expanded on work in 2022, when lawmakers expanded loan forgiveness programs and made it easier for retired teachers to get back into the classroom.

House Bill 1001 broadens the state’s loan forgiveness program to include principals and special service providers to apply. The state also has a shortage of special service providers.

The bill also raises the income levels eligible for the $52 million program. The program provides up to $22,000 in stipends to student teachers and $5,000 in loan forgiveness to those who stick it out. Student teachers who work in other states in some circumstances now are allowed to apply to the program.

The state also created an apprenticeship program for teacher candidates. Senate Bill 87, which has been sent to the governor, would cost more than $120,000 a year and allow undergraduate education majors to work as student teachers or substitutes while they earn their bachelor’s degree.

Kira Badberg works as a student teacher at Lowry Elementary School in Denver in 2022.

House Bill 1064 will allow teachers licensed in another state to more easily obtain a Colorado license. The Interstate Mobility Compact will allow states to share disciplinary information and require background checks. The compact only goes into place if 10 states agree to join the compact. In January, seven other states were working to approve an agreement to join the compact.

Baca-Oehlert said Senate Bill 111, which provides some workplace protections for teachers, would also help with hiring and retention. Fear of retaliation and political interference is a major reason teachers consider leaving the profession, she said.

School accountability and testing

Groups along the education politics spectrum united to support House Bill 1241, which would create a task force to recommend changes to Colorado’s school accountability system.

The school accountability system rates schools largely based on test scores, and schools that report low performance for five years or more face state intervention. Education reform advocates believe the system is imperfect but provides critical insight into how schools are serving students and where improvement is needed. Many school administrators and educators see it as punitive and overly simplistic and say it pushes schools away from art, music, career, and other educational experiences.

Bills to scale back standardized testing failed. Facing opposition, the sponsors withdrew House Bill 1239, which would have ordered the state to seek federal waivers to testing requirements and encouraged more local experimentation in assessment.

In the final days of the session, a bill to eliminate the social studies standardized test given to fourth and seventh graders also died without a vote, despite seemingly widespread support. Advocates said the release of national test scores that showed concerning drops in students’ social studies and civics knowledge led lawmakers to hesitate to end the state’s own tests in those subjects.

Jason Gonzales is a reporter covering higher education and the Colorado legislature. Chalkbeat Colorado partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Contact Jason at jgonzales@chalkbeat.org.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

The Colorado General Assembly met from Jan. 9 and May 8, 2023, and now it’s done. Next year, there’ll be another one.

Proposition HH could boost Colorado school funding while slowing property tax hikes — or not

2023-05-12T02:50:40+00:00

Democratic lawmakers say their last-minute property-tax relief package will also go a long way toward shoring up school funding after the legislature committed to finally meet its financial obligations to Colorado students starting next year.

Republicans — some of whom were so upset about the tax proposal they walked out rather than vote on it on the session’s final day Monday— say it’s an excuse to undermine the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights rather than make tough decisions about which government programs to prioritize.

The ballot measure’s impact on the money available for school funding would be complex — swapping locally generated property tax revenue for increased state funding in the future — and a lot would depend on future economic growth. District leaders and school finance experts say they’re watching carefully and trying to understand the effects.

The voters ultimately will decide if Proposition HH becomes law — if it survives a legal challenge to make it on the November ballot.

The proposal would cap the growth of assessed values to limit property tax increases if voters also agree to let the state keep more revenue generated by other sources. In other words, all taxpayers would give up a portion of future tax refunds in exchange for owners of homes and businesses getting some relief.

Most of the additional money would be set aside for schools and replace lost property tax revenue at the local level. Instead of growing at the rate of population plus inflation, state government could grow at the rate of population plus inflation plus 1%. That would allow the state to reap the benefits of a growing economy and ease pressure from spending caps.

If approved, the extra money the state could retain is estimated to add up to more than $500 million over the next two years. State projections are not available past the 2024-25 year, but a fiscal analysis of the bill says by 2031-32, Proposition HH would potentially allow the state to keep up to $2.2 billion over the state cap that triggers refunds to Coloradans.

“If Proposition HH passes, that is a real opportunity to increase funding to schools and a historic one at that,” said Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno, a Commerce City Democrat. “We have been underfunding schools for decades. And Proposition HH is a key piece of the solution and addressing that issue.”

State Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican, had pushed hard for lawmakers to fully fund schools this year instead of waiting, and she now believes Democrats resisted in part to justify the tax package.

“Then they wouldn’t have a reason to say why they needed your TABOR refunds,” she said.

Chris Brown, the Common Sense Institute’s vice president for policy and research, argued in a Twitter thread that Proposition HH is more of an education funding measure than a tax relief bill because over time, it would generate far more money than needed just to backfill lost local revenue.

Tracie Rainey of the Colorado School Finance Project sees it differently. She said lawmakers wanted to offer limited property tax relief to head off potential ballot measures from conservative activists but knew they would need to protect school funding, she said. The result is a cobbled-together policy whose long-term impact is unclear.

The proposal could provide important new revenue for school funding at the state level, she said, but if the campaign focuses a lot on the benefits to education, it could be harder to win support for a larger school funding measure in a year or two, she said.

Rainey is among many education advocates who think that meeting constitutional school funding requirements isn’t nearly enough. She also noted that Coloradans pay less in property taxes than do most of the rest of the nation.

Bret Miles, executive director of the Colorado Association of School Executives, said his members aren’t sure yet what the proposal will mean.

On the one hand, large property tax increases affect school employees and families just as they affect other members of the public — and make voters less likely to approve requests for new taxes.

“School districts don’t need to give people another reason to say no,” Miles said.

At the same time, property taxes are the most stable source of school revenue, so district chief financial officers worry about seeing them reduced.

Legislature sets a date for full education funding

Proposition HH was proposed in the final week of a contentious session that produced major gains for school funding that were hailed across the political spectrum.

Lawmakers approved a budget and school finance act for 2023-24 that raises per-pupil spending to $10,614, up more than $1,000 from this year. Legislators also wrote into law a promise to fund education according to constitutional requirements starting in the 2024-25 budget year. That would mark the end of the 13-year practice known as the budget stabilization factor, under which lawmakers held back more than $10 billion from K-12 schools to pay for other budget priorities.

“We made huge progress this year,” Moreno said. “Buying off the B.S. factor completely is within striking distance. I think we’re going to be able to do that next year.”

Lawmakers also increased funding for charter schools, special education, and school construction projects, and set aside an extra $30 million for rural schools.

But much of the increase in education funding over the last several years has come from rising local property tax revenues. Colorado sets a base budget for education funding and a per-pupil amount for each district. Whatever local taxes don’t generate, the state makes up the difference.

In recent years, the combination of a hot housing market, the repeal of the Gallagher Amendment limit on residential value growth, and a legal change that allowed the state to increase some local taxes have added hundreds of millions of locally generated dollars to school funding.

More in local tax revenue has meant less in state obligations toward that base budget. That could change if Proposition HH limits local property taxes and puts more of the burden of covering that base education budget back on the state. In turn, that raises questions about a permanent increase in school funding.

The state fiscal analysis estimates that should Proposition HH pass, Colorado would be able put an extra $124.9 million in the state education fund and would obligated to backfill $278.2 million, more than double. In 2025-26, Colorado would put $269 million in the state education fund and be obligated to backfill $350.7 million, just 30% more.

Over time, the revenue the state could keep and spend on schools would increase and could be more than the amount needed to backfill lost property taxes, the fiscal analysis says. An economic downturn could change that, as income tax and sales tax are more likely to decline than property values.

Lawmakers also worry that if they do nothing, school funding obligations will run up against TABOR caps, creating major budget problems.

Voters have rejected other requests to forego TABOR refunds to fund education. Tying it to property tax relief could sweeten the deal. To give renters a reason to vote yes, lawmakers also promised every taxpayer roughly $661 in TABOR refunds next year — but only if Proposition HH passes.

Conservatives promise to challenge Proposition HH

Michael Fields, Advance Colorado president, said his organization plans to challenge the ballot measure. He said he believes Proposition HH violates single-subject ballot rules and that the ballot’s language will need changes.

Fields’ organization has filed a ballot measure currently being challenged in the courts that would cap property tax increases at 3% and backfills revenue to fire departments, he said. The organization plans to propose other tax cut measures next year, he said. Fields already has run two successful measures cutting Colorado’s income tax rates.

Fields said Proposition HH sponsors want more money for education but are pairing that with an unpopular tax policy.

“The only reason that they’re going to the ballot is to take TABOR refunds. They don’t need to go to the ballot at all to deal with property taxes,” Fields said.

Fields said his anti-Prop HH campaign — if he can’t block it from the ballot — will focus heavily on the government asking voters to give up refunds.

“We are very much going to ask that the legislature and the governor call a special session to cap property taxes, and voters should not give up TABOR refunds,” he said.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado Democrats unveil property tax relief proposal with promise to protect school funding

2023-05-01T22:19:11+00:00

Gov. Jared Polis and Colorado legislative leaders announced a deal Monday to provide property tax relief to homeowners and businesses while limiting the hit to school funding.

Lawmakers have exactly a week to move the bill through both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly, where Republicans have slowed the movement of bills to a crawl with extended floor debates.

That bill would place Proposition HH on the November ballot. Then Colorado voters would need to give their approval.

“What really makes this proposal special is that while we can save Coloradans money on property taxes in the short and the long term, we can also at the same time protect the funding for our schools or fire districts or local governments that we all rely on every day,” said Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat.

The governor’s office provided reporters with a two-page summary of the proposal. However, neither the actual bill nor the fiscal analysis was available Monday afternoon.

Proposition HH would reduce the assessment rate for both primary residences and commercial and agricultural properties. The assessment rate determines how much of a property’s value is subject to taxation.

It also would limit the annual growth of property tax collections to roughly the rate of inflation — except for school districts, which could continue to benefit from rising home values.

The proposal also would not tax the first $40,000 of home value for most homeowners. People 65 and older and disabled veterans who qualify for the so-called homestead exemption would get $140,000 of home value tax free and could retain that tax break even if they move, potentially making it easier for some people to downsize. The current homestead exemption exempts half of the first $200,000 of home value and requires the owner to have lived in their home for at least 10 years.

Without any property tax relief, the average Colorado homeowner is likely to pay about $1,068 more this year, roughly $89 more each month if they pay their taxes with their mortgage. Under the proposal, that increase would be just $401 this year, closer to $33 a month.

At the same time, voters would be asked to let the state keep some revenue above the limit set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Under current law, state government cannot grow by more than the rate of inflation plus population, and any tax collections above that from Colorado’s strong economy must be returned to the taxpayers.

Proposition HH would let the state keep an additional 1% above that cap and use that money to backfill local governments — such as school districts, fire districts, water districts, and hospital districts — that stand to lose some property tax revenue. Voters have rejected past efforts to eliminate TABOR refunds, though this proposal is more modest than previous attempts.

In 2024-25, that would add about $167 million more to a state budget of about $40 billion. The state’s TABOR surplus — the amount that needs to be returned to taxpayers as additional refunds — would shrink from $2 billion to $1.8 billion.

This system would be in place for the next 10 years if Proposition HH were to pass.

Colorado schools are funded with a mix of local property taxes and state money. After determining how much money per student each school district should get according to a formula, the state is supposed to backfill whatever local taxes don’t generate.

But when state lawmakers decide they can’t afford to meet that obligation and still pay for other budget priorities, they have withheld money — $10 billion over the last 13 years — in a move known as the budget stabilization factor.

Voters in many school districts have also approved additional property taxes to make up for lost state revenue and cover programs like counselors, arts and music, school nurses, or higher teacher pay.

That means any discussion of property tax relief has the potential to hit school district budgets hard, even as many families and school employees struggle to keep up with rising costs. (Renters won’t be getting any relief this session after a bill to allow cities to adopt rent control or rent stabilization died in committee, though Polis said his proposal would prevent property tax increases from being passed on to renters.)

Homeowners across the state are receiving updated property valuations this week that average 33% more than they did two years ago — and as high as 60 to 70% more in some mountain communities. These valuations are based on market snapshots from summer 2022, when the state’s real estate market was at its peak. Since then, with higher interest rates, home sales have dropped and home prices have declined slightly.

In anticipation of significant increases in property values, Polis promised relief in his State of the State address. Lawmakers are also hoping to fend off a number of competing ballot measures.

By reducing assessment rates, lawmakers would reduce the amount of property value subject to local taxes.

But by exempting school districts from caps on how much tax collections can increase year over year — and by increasing the amount of money the state can use to backfill lost local dollars — the measure would soften the impact on school funding.

Polis, Fenberg, and state Sen. Chris Hansen were flanked by advocates for education and progressive fiscal policies in support of the proposal, as well as several homeowners and small business people who talked about how they were feeling the pinch of higher taxes.

Jen Walmer of Democrats for Education Reform called the proposal a “win-win for schools and communities” and Amie Baca-Oehlert, president of the Colorado Education Association, said it would help teachers and school staff whether they own or rent.

Also present were business groups such as Colorado Concern and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

No Republican lawmakers attended the announcement. In a press release, Republicans blasted the “eleventh hour” plan and questioned why their Democratic colleagues had killed or slow-walked Republican-sponsored property tax relief plans.

“The Democrats cannot treat TABOR like an ATM machine to resolve the state’s financial issues, most of which are self-inflicted,” House Minority Leader Mike Lynch said in the press release. “The people of Colorado should be skeptical of the Governor’s hastily introduced plan with only one week left in the session.”

Lynch, a Wellington Republican, called it a “sugar-coated plan” and said it is “concerning the Governor has no PLAN B if it fails.”

Scott Wasserman, executive director of the progressive Bell Policy Center, said the proposal doesn’t solve school funding, but it does address two major concerns his organization had with other property tax relief proposals. People who own homes with lower values would benefit more than those whose homes are worth more, and funding for key services is maintained.

Leaders of the groups that represent school boards and superintendents said they appreciated that the proposal calls out the need to protect school funding, but said they’re waiting to see the actual bill before taking a position.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado special education gets long-awaited funding boost

2023-04-22T00:30:55+00:00

Tammy Johnson oversees special education services in five rural school districts in southwest Colorado as the executive director of the Uncompahgre Board of Cooperative Educational Services.

And she also puts in time as a preschool special education teacher — doing assessments, writing student education plans, supervising classroom aides — because there’s no one else to do the job.

Administrators in the districts she serves “know that I’m not available in my office to put out fires now that I have to leave my office to work in Norwood with preschool kids,” she said.

A long overdue boost to Colorado special education funding is buying Johnson some relief soon. By pooling their share of new state funding, the UnBOCES and the five school districts plan to hire an experienced preschool special education teacher at $56,000 a year.

“And oh my gosh, we might be able to pay our folks a little salary increase, enough for them to stay,” Johnson said.

The additional funding comes from the 2023-24 state budget and a related special education funding bill and enables Colorado to meet funding commitments it made in 2006 but never honored.

The formula developed back then proposed that school districts get $1,250 for every student with an individualized education plan and another $6,000 for students whose needs cost more to meet, such as students with autism or specific learning disabilities, students who are deaf or blind, those with traumatic brain injuries or who have significant emotional disabilities.

But instead of meeting that obligation, Colorado lawmakers essentially funded special education out of budgetary leftovers. As recently as 2018, Colorado was paying school districts less than a third of what lawmakers had promised for special education students.

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger has pushed to steadily increase special education funding each of the last five years. In 2019, she argued that increasing special education funding was even more important than paying for full-day kindergarten. (Kindergarten, a top priority for Gov. Jared Polis, won out.)

Last year, Zenzinger and state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Weld County Republican, secured the first inflationary increase since 2006 for all special education students, for whom districts were reimbursed $1,750 this budget year, a 40% increase.

This year’s budget pledges $6,000 for each higher-needs student, the amount set in 2006 but never met. All told, special education funding is increasing about 13.4% to $340 million.

Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and the chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said securing funding was a matter of political will.

“Once we exposed this problem, it was really hard to not fix it,” she said. “Our children are entitled to this, and in order to be successful, we need to provide them resources.”

Colorado also has a lot more money to work with thanks to a strong economy, one-time federal dollars, and rising local property values that have taken pressure off the state education budget.

The special education funding bill passed the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support and awaits Polis’ signature. It’s sponsored by Zenzinger, Kirkmeyer, state Rep. Cathy Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat, and state Rep. Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican.

The extra funding still leaves school districts on the hook for about two-thirds of more than $1 billion in total costs to educate students with disabilities. The federal government promised back in the 1970s to pick up 40% of the cost but only reimburses school districts about 14% of their real costs, with the state picking up about 20%.

Lucinda Hundley, who heads the Consortium of Directors of Special Education, said school districts are grateful for the additional money, but they also need lawmakers to understand it’s a fraction of the cost. School districts are legally required to provide special education services, so unreimbursed costs come out of the general education budget.

A study group last year decided against making major changes to how Colorado funds special education, but Hundley said she hopes the state takes another look at how much it invests in special education and considers what a fair share would be between the state and districts.

Rob Gould, a Denver special education teacher and president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, said low funding has exacerbated a shortage of special education teachers and special service providers such as speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, and school psychologists.

“We do not have enough teachers or support staff to serve our students the way they deserve. At every turn, special education educators rise to the occasion, but the state’s lack of investment has exacerbated the educator shortage,” he told lawmakers this month.

Gould described one teacher who quit after her caseload rose to 40 students because she was the only special education teacher in her building.

“She left the profession entirely so she could spend time with her kids on the weekend,” he said.

Staffing shortages and high workloads sometimes mean students don’t get the services they’re owed. In just one recent example, the Colorado Department of Education found that Denver violated federal requirements by failing to provide speech therapy to more than 1,000 young students.

Colorado’s educator shortage survey found that 17% of open special service provider positions went unfilled last school year, compared to just 8% of classroom teacher openings. Year after year, special education teachers are among the hardest to hire.

Johnson, the BOCES director, cobbles together services uses independent contractors and virtual appointments. If money were no object and she could offer competitive salaries to go with sweeping views of the San Juan Mountains, services would look a little different.

“I would have a psychologist in every building,” she said. “I would have a social worker in every building. I would have a speech pathologist in person. I would have release time for my teams to plan. If we could meet some of our students’ needs proactively rather than reactively, it would make a difference.”

In voting to move the bill out of the House Education Committee, state Rep. Mary Young, a Greeley Democrat, said she started working as a special education teacher before there was even a federal law requiring that schools serve students with disabilities. In all those decades, special education had never been adequately funded, she said.

“The people who do special ed do it because their heart is in it,” Johnson said. “Growing up, my brother couldn’t come to school with us because they didn’t have a program for him. That’s why I’m doing this.

“But I’m in my 27th year and funding hasn’t come close to catching up, and it’s a travesty that we have to do it on the backs of general education students who are also struggling.”

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Amended Colorado school finance bill promises to fully fund K-12 within two years

2023-04-20T04:21:40+00:00

This might be the last year that Colorado lawmakers hold back money from K-12 schools to fund other budget priorities.

Legislators have toyed with the idea of fully funding Colorado schools several times in recent years, but always held back amid economic uncertainty. While Colorado’s constitution requires school funding to go up each year by the rate of population and inflation, lawmakers haven’t met that requirement since the start of the Great Recession.

Since 2009, Colorado has withheld more than $10 billion from its schools.

Now the school finance act that passed unanimously out of the Senate Education Committee Wednesday includes a provision that would require the state to fully fund K-12 schools starting in the 2024-25 budget year.

The bill also contains a provision to fund state-authorized charter schools at a level similar to other schools starting in 2024-5. District-authorized charter schools get a cut of locally raised tax dollars. State-authorized charter schools do not.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican and bill sponsor, called these provisions the “within-striking-distance amendments.” Lawmakers could still abandon these promises next year — particularly if economic conditions change — but moving to write them into law is a significant step.

The school finance act also will include even more money for 2023-24 than originally proposed after an impassioned appeal from Weld County Republican state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer.

“It’s time for the state Senate and this General Assembly to let the governor and the rest of the state know, no more B.S., no more balancing the budget on the backs of students,” she said. “We’re going to set a priority, and it’s called education.”

Kirkmeyer, who serves on the Joint Budget Committee, pointed out that the state education fund has nearly $1.3 billion, and that Democrats have funded a host of new programs since they took control of the legislature in 2018.

“We pay for people’s bus passes, we pay for people’s utility bills, we pay for people’s rent, we pay for hygiene products, we pay for business licenses, we pay for health insurance,” she said. “We darn well ought to pay for education and put our children first.”

The money to fully fund K-12 education would come from a mix of savings in the state education fund and new revenue. Colorado has so much money in the state education fund because lawmakers slashed school funding in 2020 in anticipation of a COVID-related recession that never materialized. When revenues came in above projections, lawmakers socked much of the money away.

State Sen. Janice Marchman, a Loveland Democrat and teacher, found Kirkmeyer’s argument persuasive. She pointed to widespread teacher shortages, salaries that haven’t kept pace with inflation, students still recovering from learning disruptions, unmet mental health needs in schools, and safety fears. Meanwhile, federal pandemic funding will expire in 2024.

“There is no reason for our state to have a rainy day fund if we don’t recognize that we’re in a rainy day,” she said.

The additional money means the withholding for 2023-24 — known as the budget stabilization factor — would be just $141 million or 1.5% out of a more than $9 billion K-12 budget.

A decade ago, lawmakers withheld 18% of the money that should have gone to schools.

State Sen. Rhonda Fields, an Aurora Democrat, recalled that early in her legislative service, funding was so limited schools were talking about charging students to ride the bus. The prospect of eliminating the budget stabilization factor feels like entering a final frontier.

“I’m looking at Star Trek,” she said. “We can go to places we’ve never gone before. We can meet new people. We can fund our schools.”

At the same time, she said state government has a lot of responsibilities beyond education.

Joint Budget Committee Chair Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and bill sponsor, cautioned lawmakers that education funding commitments will continue to rise and that covering costs next year could require drawing as much as $415 million from the state education fund.

Analysts warn of a looming structural deficit, when growth in state spending, including on mandatory programs, will run up against caps imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights or against a recession.

Colorado is also in the process of developing a new way to measure student poverty and may change how it distributes money among schools, changes that may require more funding to avoid hurting some districts.

Meanwhile, funding Charter School Institute schools similarly to other schools is expected to cost more than $42 million. Lundeen said it’s an issue of fundamental fairness. State-authorized charter school students include new immigrants, pregnant and parenting teens, and other students who need significant support, yet these schools have had less money per-pupil.

But unlike the local revenue that districts share with their charters, there’s no dedicated funding source for state-authorized charters.

The school finance act still needs to pass the full Senate and the House and could see yet more changes. It’s the only bill other than the budget that lawmakers must pass before they adjourn May 8.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado school finance act boosts K-12 spending, steers clear of formula changes

2023-04-19T12:00:00+00:00

Colorado’s school finance act would boost K-12 funding next year to more than $9 billion — $150 million more than described in the recently finalized 2023-24 budget and a 7.5% increase from this year.

“The change to school finance is historic,” said Joint Budget Committee Chair Rachel Zenzinger. Average per-pupil spending is proposed to reach $10,579, a 10% increase from this year.

The bill could set Colorado on the path to fully funding its schools according to constitutional requirements by the 2024-25 school year. Zenzinger said an amendment will lay out a two-year process to eliminate the practice of diverting K-12 dollars to other priorities, known as the budget stabilization factor.

The school finance act would also set aside money for rural districts and those with limited property wealth and give more assistance to charter schools authorized by the state, which miss out on local revenue-sharing.

But the school finance act also kicks the can down the road — for at least one more year — on any bigger changes to how Colorado distributes money to K-12 schools.

Lawmakers on a special school finance committee had proposed in November to take on a major rewrite of Colorado’s school funding formula. Instead, the committee concluded its work after five years without recommending changes to the General Assembly.

Most districts opposed changing how the state distributes money to schools without significantly increasing the overall education budget. That made a formula rewrite a heavy political lift in a session already consumed with contentious fights over gun control, housing policy, and access to abortion and gender-affirming care.

But Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat who also served on the school finance committee, saw another opportunity in the school finance act — an annual bill separate from the budget that dictates how education money gets distributed.

Zenzinger had proposed using the school finance act to tweak the formula to send more money to rural districts and small urban and suburban districts and to send less money to large districts serving better-off communities.

By taking money from the state education fund, which functions somewhat like a savings account, lawmakers could have ensured every district saw an increase, Zenzinger said. But districts that traditionally have been disadvantaged by the current funding formula would have come out ahead.

“That was a proposal we put on the table, but the K-12 lobby rejected it,” Zenzinger said. “They were just really nervous about making a permanent change.”

Instead, the school finance act proposes to keep the existing funding formula and convene a new task force to take on the unfinished work of the school finance committee.

School funding formula widely seen as unfair

Colorado’s 1994 school funding formula sets a base for per-pupil funding and then makes adjustments based on factors such as how many students live in poverty or are learning English, the size of a district, and the cost of living.

But the formula gives far more weight to cost of living than it does to student needs, with the effect that wealthier districts often get more money than those serving high-poverty communities.

There is widespread agreement that this formula is unfair — and also widespread resistance to change.

“Everyone is dealing with staff shortages, everyone is dealing with inflation and the impact of that on our staff,” said Bret Miles, executive director of the Colorado Association of School Executives. “This was not the time to say it would be OK to have some districts not get as much of an increase.”

While per-pupil spending is going up, many school districts are losing students and face tough budget decisions even with more state funding. Districts like Jeffco Public Schools, which Zenzinger represents, benefit from the cost-of-living factor and are using those dollars to ease the budget hit from lower enrollment.

Miles praised Zenzinger and the other bill sponsors for hearing the concerns of school districts and changing course. There’s less than three weeks to go before the legislature adjourns, not enough to work through the implications of any changes, he said. Meanwhile, lawmakers still may take up property tax changes this session that would leave districts with fewer local dollars.

Some advocates, though, see a missed opportunity.

“I was hoping they would do something more interesting with $150 million than pump it into a formula that everyone knows is bad,” said Leslie Colwell of the Colorado Children’s Campaign.

Both Miles and Colwell said the task force may make progress where the committee could not.

The committee was made up of legislators, while the task force would be made up of school administrators, educators, advocates, and finance experts. And it would have a narrow charge, to recommend specific changes to the funding formula and to study how much Colorado should spend on K-12 education, known as an adequacy study.

“It’s a scary question to ask because you may get back a number that says, ‘Wow, we have a long way to go,’” Miles said.

Budget stabilization factor could be be phased out

Colorado’s constitution requires that school funding increase every year by the rate of inflation plus population. But every year since the Great Recession, lawmakers have withheld money to pay for other budget priorities. This withholding, known as the budget stabilization factor, adds up to more than $10 billion.

This budget year, lawmakers withheld $321 million, about 3.7% of base K-12 spending. The school finance act proposes a $171 million withholding for the 2023-24 budget year, less than 2% of K-12 spending.

Zenzinger said she plans to ask for an amendment that would eliminate the withholding entirely next year. Gov. Jared Polis had called for a three-year plan.

The school finance act also would set aside $30 million for rural schools to mitigate their higher costs and smaller student populations. Colorado rural schools have received similar annual payments since 2017.

Zenzinger said her intention is for this to be the last year with a “one-time” rural allowance and that going forward rural schools will get more through the funding formula.

The school finance act would put $23.4 million into a matching fund to help school districts with low property wealth get more benefit from local property tax increases known as mill levy override. The fund was created last year and seeded with $10 million.

The school finance act also allocates:

$2.5 million to charter schools authorized by the state Charter School Institute to make up for local tax revenue that isn’t shared. Coupled with money pledged in the budget, these schools will get an extra $27 million next year.
$1.1 million for universal screening to identify gifted and talented students
$500,000 for school districts to translate draft versions of individualized education plans or IEPs into parents’ home languages.
$300,000 to reimburse school districts for costs associated with replacing Native American mascots.

The school finance act gets its first hearing Wednesday in the Senate Education Committee.

The school finance act and the budget are the only two pieces of legislation the Colorado General Assembly must pass before adjournment.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

State budget clears Colorado Senate, school funding TBD

2023-03-30T22:00:00+00:00

Chalkbeat subscribers got this story early in their inboxes as part of Capitol Report. To get more legislative updates, plus education news from around the state delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday, sign up for our free email newsletter.

Thursday morning the Colorado State Senate signed off on a nearly $39 billion state budget without answering the big question Colorado educators and advocates want to know.

How much money will K-12 schools get?

Colorado’s constitution requires that K-12 spending increase every year by the rate of population plus inflation, but since the Great Recession, lawmakers have clawed back money for other priorities. This is the infamous budget stabilization factor, or B.S. factor.

This year the withholding was $321 million out of more than $8 billion in education spending. The proposed budget holds that constant for the next fiscal year. Another $321 million that won’t go to Colorado classrooms.

But that’s not the end of the story.

Joint Budget Committee Chair Rachel Zenzinger said the B.S. factor almost certainly will be smaller than outlined in the budget, but the changes will happen in the school finance act.

The state budget and the school finance act are the only two pieces of legislation the General Assembly must pass before adjournment.

In past years, lawmakers have left a placeholder in the budget to reduce the B.S. factor. This year that’s not necessary because lawmakers likely will draw from the state education fund. Right now there’s a lot of money in this fund, but that money won’t be replenished easily once it’s spent, especially if there’s a recession.

Using the state education fund is like using a savings account to pay for a new monthly bill. Short-term, it works. But the state’s obligated to keep funding education at whatever level it sets this year, plus inflation. Lawmakers will be weighing their risk tolerance against the urgency of increasing school funding, especially as federal pandemic relief money is running out.

Meanwhile, Republicans have kept up the pressure on Democrats.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen offered four unsuccessful amendments on the Senate floor to eliminate the B.S. factor entirely in this year’s budget using different combinations of reserves and expected new tax money.

Lundeen said lawmakers have failed to fully fund schools even as the state budget has nearly doubled since 2009.

“We’ve added 167 additional state programs,” he said. And unlike education, he said, “they’re not constitutionally mandated. They’re just good ideas that we show up to the party with as legislators.”

Zenzinger called Lundeen’s amendments “smoke and mirrors,” and said budget committee members are working on how to fund schools responsibly.

“It’s not because we don’t care about education, it’s not because we don’t want to properly fund education, it’s not because we don’t like teachers, and it’s not because we don’t see this as an essential function of government,” she said.

As written, Colorado’s $38.5 billion proposed budget would increase per student K-12 spending by 8.4% — an increase that barely keeps pace with inflation — and gives a boost to higher education while also allowing public colleges and universities to increase tuition by as much as 5%, the highest increase in the last five years.

The Senate did adopt a few amendments this week that touch on education, including $14 million for two grant programs that would pay for behavioral health care professionals and school counselors.

What’s next? Those amendments will get stripped out before the budget goes to the House, where representatives will start fresh and put their own stamp on the budget next week.

Then the Joint Budget Committee decides the actual form of the budget before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote. Charged with producing a balanced budget, they usually reject all amendments but occasionally include a few that have widespread support.

Four-day school week hurt housing market, academics in the 27J district, study suggests

2023-02-07T17:48:11+00:00

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news organization covering public education in communities across America. Subscribe to our free Colorado newsletter to keep up with education news from around the state: ckbe.at/subscribe-colorado

Homeowners in the 27J school district might have been better off paying a higher property tax rather than allowing the district to adopt a four-day school week, a new study suggests.

Preliminary results of the study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, suggest that home prices suffered and student achievement in the district may have dropped. Teacher retention, which the district cited as the main reason for moving to the four-day school week, may also have decreased, according to the study.

The 27J school district, which serves more than 22,600 students this year, is based north of Denver, covering Brighton and parts of Commerce City and Thornton. Leaders rolled out the four-day school week in the fall of 2018, after having failed a sixth time to pass a local tax increase to pay teachers more.

District Superintendent Chris Fiedler disputes the findings, citing higher-than-ever graduation rates and lower overall teacher turnover.

The authors of the study acknowledge there were limitations in the way they examined student achievement and teacher retention pieces. They didn’t want to look at years affected by COVID, so they only examined student achievement data through the 2019-20 school year. For teacher retention data they examined data through the 2020-21 school year. So it’s possible the findings were short-term impacts, said Frank James Perrone, one of the study’s authors.

When it comes to student achievement, research would ideally track individual students, said Perrone, assistant professor of educational leadership at Indiana University. Since the researchers couldn’t access that level of data, it’s unknown if some of the findings could have been a result of higher-performing students leaving the district.

The research is more comprehensive and based on more data when it comes to the housing findings. While housing prices in 27J haven’t dropped, home values stopped growing at the same rate relative to its most comparable neighboring district. Therefore, homeowners lost out on growth that they likely would have seen without the change, according to the study.

The researchers calculated those losses compared to the cost of paying for the mill levy override and found that, financially, conservative estimates suggest homeowners would have been better off approving the tax measure.

“These results suggest the decision to adopt a 4-day school week in a metropolitan setting should not be taken lightly,” the study states.

Voters should be aware of possible tradeoffs when voting against local tax measures that can drive a district to switch to a four-day school week, Perrone said.

Teacher retention was goal of shorter school week

In years past, 27J has made other drastic changes as a result of the failure to pass local tax measures to increase its revenue. For instance, when the district faced overcrowding and was unable to build new schools, it had to move the high schools to a split schedule from 2015 to 2018. Some students were on campus in the mornings and some attended school later in the day to reduce the amount of people in the school buildings at one time.

This past November, in the eighth attempt to pass a mill levy override, 27J finally succeeded. The measure will allow the district to raise teacher salaries starting this fall. That, together with more funding from the governor’s proposed budget, could get starting pay to $50,000, Fiedler said, but that’s still lower than in many metro area districts.

Fiedler believes that the four-day school week, while an effective incentive for some teachers, is not as effective when the pay gap with other districts grows too wide. He said he hopes next year’s raises will make his district attractive again.

“It is a total tradeoff,” Fiedler said. “That gap eventually becomes so large that it’s not worth the tradeoff.”

Kathey Ruybal, president of the teachers union in the district, said teachers and staff overwhelmingly support the four-day school week. Some staff members opposed to the change left in the first year, but staff who leave now leave because of low pay, she said

According to state data, turnover rates for teachers in 27J have dropped to 14.6% — a lower rate than many neighboring districts. And when compared to the nearly 17% rate in 2017, it’s a drop of 14%. But other nearby districts had steeper drops in turnover rates in the same time period.

For the study, the researchers went deeper, using staff-level data from the state to look at years of experience, salary, and whether teachers had advanced degrees. Teachers with between 5 and 15 years of experience were 5% less likely to return to the district after the four-day switch.

“We can only see experience level, but we don’t have effectiveness ratings,” Perrone said. “It’s possible they kept the best teachers.”

Perrone, who worked on the study with Adam D. Nowak of West Virginia University and Patrick S. Smith of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, said he hopes other researchers will take another look in the future at how the four-day switch changes the workforce in the long term. How districts use the fifth off day for professional development or whether that gives teachers more planning time might change the culture of the workplace or encourage more effectiveness, he said.

In 27J, teachers have training on one free Monday each month. A second Monday each month is used for principal training and district meetings. That means principals and school leaders rarely have to leave schools for meetings when students are in class, Fiedler said.

Ruybal said she doesn’t think the four-day school week has had much impact on culture or planning time. However, additional planning time during the four-day school week that her union won in negotiations is helpful, she said.

Findings match other research on 4-day school weeks

Traditionally, most four-day school districts have served rural communities. Recently, more large, urban districts have made the switch, including the 14,000-student Independence School District neighboring Kansas City, Missouri. But research that isn’t focused on rural districts is limited — making this study significant as researchers look to better understand the impacts.

Paul Thompson, an associate professor of economics at Oregon State University who reviewed the study, said the academic findings echo what research has found elsewhere: Academic achievement generally declines when schools switch to a four-day week.

The finding, he says, seems related to how much time is actually lost. In districts that make up most of the instructional time, the decline is smaller or not there.

In 27J, Superintendent Fiedler said, the district continued to meet the state’s instructional time requirements by lengthening the school day and eliminating early release or other time off for planning.

Research on four-day school weeks has started looking at impacts beyond test scores, Thompson said.

“Most educational interventions are happening within the schools,” Thompson said. “But there’s many more outcomes that can be affected by this choice.”

Previous research, for example, found an increase in juvenile delinquency in Colorado communities with four-day school weeks, perhaps because teenagers spent more time unsupervised. Looking at the impact on housing makes sense, Thompson said.

Oded Gurantz, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, said other research finds that educational policies can have a quick and observable impact on the local housing market.

In the case of 27J’s four-day school week, families may have to consider the cost of child care on the fifth day. Local realtors, including Alan Strange, said they haven’t noticed potential home buyers talking about the four-day week recently, but did notice it when the district rolled out a split schedule for the high school.

With more families working from home since the start of COVID, Strange said, the impact may have since dissipated.

Fiedler said that when the district first moved to four-day weeks, about 1,000 families signed up for the district’s child care option for about $30 per day. Now, only about 300 families use the child care option. In 2020, after the start of COVID, some government agencies including the Adams County government offices, moved to a matching four-day work schedule.

Fiedler agrees that moving to a four-day school week is not a decision to be made lightly.

It was the necessary and right thing to do for his district, he said to Chalkbeat. “We had to do something,” Fiedler said.

But when other school district leaders ask whether he would still make the switch if he had the money to just pay teachers more, his answer is no.

Read the full paper here:

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado school finance committee backs special ed increase, won’t vote on new formula

2023-01-27T19:44:18+00:00

Colorado would fund special education at the levels lawmakers promised back in 2006 under legislation recommended unanimously Friday by a special committee on school finance.

The special education bill was the only one recommended this year by the school finance committee, which originally convened six years ago with the goal of rewriting Colorado’s decades-old school funding formula. House Speaker Julie McCluskie said she’s still hoping to present a new formula to lawmakers outside the committee process.

The special education bill would reimburse districts $6,000 for every student with what’s known as a Tier B disability that requires more intensive support for students to be successful in school. These include dyslexia, autism spectrum disorders, developmental delays, deafness, blindness, emotional disabilities, and traumatic brain injuries, among others.

The bill also calls for Tier B funding to increase every year by the rate of inflation.

Both the federal and state governments require school districts to provide a “free and appropriate” education to all students, including those with disabilities, but they pay just a fraction of the cost. That won’t change with this bill.

School districts would still bear about two-thirds of the additional cost of providing special education services, but a few years ago, the state was paying less than half of what it had promised.

Pushed by state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, state funding for special education has increased dramatically. A bill last year raised the amount provided to all special education students to $1,750 from $1,250 and required funding to increase by inflation, along with increasing Tier B reimbursements.

This money is on top of the average of $9,559 that goes to schools for each Colorado student.

Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat who chairs the Joint Budget Committee and serves on the interim committee on school finance, sounded a note of caution even as she signed on as a prime sponsor of the funding increase bill.

“We’ll put it out there as what we’d like to see, and we’ll see what’s available to us in the budget,” she said.

Lawmakers said increasing special education funding reduces the amount districts have to divert from general education needs to meet their legal obligations to students with disabilities.

“You don’t want to pit students against each other,” state Rep. Cathy Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat, said. “When you provide more funding for special education, it helps all students.”

The bill would add $40.2 million in special education funding to next year’s budget, bringing the total to at least $340 million, a 13% increase. The amount could be more, depending on how lawmakers handle requirements to respond to inflation, or the bill could get scaled back in budget negotiations.

Colorado schools spend more than $1 billion a year on special education services.

Colorado lawmakers are also under pressure to increase base operational budgets for school districts and provide more for transportation, gifted and talented students, and other needs. And once they commit to more spending, state law obligates them to maintain that level and increase it by inflation.

Legislative analysts and lawmakers alike have raised concerns about the long-term sustainability of education spending — even as Colorado funds its schools below the national average and withholds constitutionally required school funding for other budget purposes.

The special education bill, sponsored by state Sens. Zenzinger and Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican, along with state Reps. Kipp and Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican, will be the only bill to come out of the Interim Committee on School Finance this session.

With its charter expiring, the committee met for the last time Friday after six years of operating in various iterations. The committee was not presented with a new school funding formula as envisioned back in November or as envisioned when the committee was conceived back in 2017.

McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat who also chairs the school finance committee, said she still hopes to bring forward a formula rewrite this year, but the issue was too complex to work out by the end of the month, the deadline for special committees to propose legislation.

There is broad agreement that Colorado’s school funding formula is unfair and out of date, but settling on a new formula without a substantial increase in school funding has proved politically challenging. No school district wants to get less money than it gets now.

Polis has called for $100 million to be set aside in the state budget to ease the transition to a new funding formula.

Zenzinger said the many changes the committee has made over the years set the stage for a larger rewrite. Lawmakers previously increased special education funding, added funding for English learners to the existing finance formula, and convened a group to develop a new at-risk measure to better identify students living in poverty and facing other challenges outside of school.

House Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican who has worked on school finance issues for years, said the special education bill was a step in the right direction, but he called for lawmakers to go further and create a formula that addresses student needs according to a wide range of characteristics.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Gov. Jared Polis promises to fully fund Colorado schools within four years

2023-01-17T23:33:57+00:00

In Tuesday’s State of the State speech, Gov. Jared Polis promised to fully fund K-12 schools within four years — something Colorado hasn’t done since the Great Recession — even as he also promised major property tax relief and further reductions in the state income tax rate.

Polis also touted the launch of universal preschool this coming August, asked lawmakers to ask voters to keep more money from nicotine sales to expand preschool, pledged support to help high school students earn college credit, and highlighted efforts to boost students’ math skills.

The speech was Polis’ first State of the State of his second term as governor. Colorado will celebrate 150 years as a state in 2026, the last full year of his second term.

In a speech that leaned heavier on housing and health care than on education, Polis framed his goals as creating more opportunity for all by the time the state marks that milestone.

“At 150, I want to see an education system that prepares every child and learners of all ages for success,” Polis said.

In an interview, Polis said he would only support tax cuts that wouldn’t reduce overall state revenue and that his proposals depend on an ongoing strong economy.

“If we’re going to fund our schools and cut taxes at the same time, the overall economy needs to do well,” he said.

Polis included many of the education policies described in the speech in his recent budget requests, including new training opportunities to help workers get in-demand jobs and more money for afterschool tutoring.

Here are a few education highlights from the State of the State speech.

Polis promises to fully fund K-12 schools

What he said: “I am proud to submit a proposal to buy down the budget stabilization factor to its lowest level ever and set our state on a path to finally eliminate it altogether during my second term, fulfilling our state’s commitment to our schools.”

What it means: Colorado’s constitution requires school funding to go up every year by the rate of population growth and inflation, but every year, lawmakers withhold hundreds of millions that should go to schools to help fund other priorities. The practice known as the budget stabilization factor started in 2009-10 and added up to more than $10 billion.

Eliminating the budget stabilization factor is a longtime priority for the state’s education advocates. Lawmakers have reduced the annual withholding but never eliminated it. Last year they held back $321 million out of more than $5 billion in state K-12 funding.

In a budget letter sent Tuesday, Polis proposed a $201 million withholding and saving money to allow for more so-called buy-downs in future years.

In an interview, Polis acknowledged doing so depends on a continuing strong economy. Republicans believe schools could be funded at a higher level if Democrats scaled back other programs.

Colorado schools would get more money per student

What Polis said: “For K-12 learners, I’m proposing in my supplemental and budget amendment package today that we raise per pupil funding by an additional $925 — or an additional $20,000 for [individual] Colorado classrooms every year … Districts can use these funds to increase pay, like the Lake County School District that raised teacher pay by 16% in just one year with a major bump for staff … Or how Colorado’s two largest school districts are starting their teachers at just over $50,000 per year. That would have been unheard of a decade ago.

“These new funds can also support smaller class sizes, revive extracurriculars, or fund mental health support for our students.”

What it means: The governor said in November he wants $861 more per student. Now he’s calling for an additional $64. That money would bring per-pupil allocations to $10,485.

Many Colorado school districts are losing enrollment, so the bottom line would vary from district to district. The legislature could also send more — or less — money to schools than called for in Polis’ budget request.

In the budget letter, Polis said higher per-pupil funding is possible in part because Colorado has 1,600 fewer students this year than expected and is likely to have 2,700 fewer next school year.

School districts can spend the money how they choose, and many Colorado school districts have raised pay. At the same time, inflation has eaten into the value of those raises. A recent study found the price of housing — another priority for Polis and lawmakers — has risen far faster than educator wages.

Property tax relief is a top priority

What Polis said: “We must work together to pass a long-term property tax relief package that reduces residential and commercial property taxes and creates a long-term mechanism to protect homeowners from being priced out of their homes, while protecting school funding.”

What it means: Property taxes, school funding, and the state budget are closely related. Colorado sets per-pupil funding at the state level and backfills whatever local property tax revenues don’t cover. Higher local property taxes means K-12 school funding can go up without putting as much pressure on the state budget.

Last year’s $700 million property tax relief deal was one reason lawmakers held back from fully funding schools then. The deal meant the state needed to backfill more dollars for districts.

Senate President Stephen Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat, said he doesn’t expect a cut to property tax rates to conflict with the governor’s call to increase school funding. Property values have soared and it leaves room for the state to make cuts while still bringing in enough for K-12.

Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, said lawmakers need to find ways to both fund education and provide property tax relief.

“We rank in the bottom of the United States, depending on how you slice that metric, as far as funding, and yes, we have to provide property tax relief,” she said. “We have to be talking about both and what that path is forward.”

Free preschool program could serve more children

What he said: “Free preschool will save families at least $6,000 per year and give our children the best possible start in life. This is a monumental achievement and today is the first day families can apply to enroll their children. I’m so excited to share that more than 4,300 Colorado families have already started applying …

“I’m calling for the legislature to refer a ballot measure that would allow Colorado to utilize excess Prop EE funds for preschool, just as the legislature did on a bipartisan basis for excess marijuana funds in 2015. This would give voters the choice to support more services for more children and help lower-income families enroll their child in full-day preschool.”

What it means: The parent application for Colorado’s new free preschool program opened just hours before Polis’ speech.

The program uses money from Proposition EE, a voter-approved nicotine tax, to pay for at least 10 to 15 hours a week of tuition-free preschool for all 4-year-olds statewide, with many students eligible for 30 hours of free preschool. Some 3-year-olds will be eligible for 10 hours as well.

But excess tax collection must be sent back to taxpayers. A ballot measure would ask voters to ensure all of the money the state collects, even above the limit of the 2020 ballot measure, would go to preschool. That could allow the state to pay for more hours and open seats to more 3-year-olds.

Student math skills suffered during pandemic learning

What he said: “The last few years have been tough for our K-12 learners and educators, and those challenges are reflected in test scores, particularly math. To help improve achievement, we are proposing new investments in high-quality math curricula and training to ensure that our educators have the support they need to help all our students thrive. And we are increasing our commitment to high-quality before- and after-school programming.”

What it means: Student math scores declined since before the pandemic, showing bigger decreases than reading. The governor has proposed a one-time $25 million for after-school math tutoring and $3 million for new curriculum. Legislators have also proposed improving teacher training and educating parents on how to help kids with math.

The state has made a long-term effort to boost reading skills, but no such effort exists for math. And so far, no one has proposed that kind of systemic reform or tracking of student skill in math.

Polis proposes more training for workers, free college credit

What Polis said: “The reality is that today’s economy demands access to quick skill acquisition, whether that is a one-, two- or four-year degree, professional training, an apprenticeship, or on-the-job training. We are going to jump-start access to training to help more Coloradans be career ready, earn more, and power our economy.”

What it means: Colorado has a worker shortage. For every two jobs available, there’s only one qualified worker. Colorado also has many adults who could benefit from workforce training and fill those in-demand jobs.

The governor would spend about $70 million to provide free career training in in-demand fields and scholarships to students. The money would help about 35,000 recent graduates and older adults get training in the most in-demand fields like advanced manufacturing, education, law enforcement, and nursing fields.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado higher ed leaders to lawmakers: Funding isn’t keeping up with inflation

2023-01-13T00:41:41+00:00

Get the latest reporting from Chalkbeat Colorado on college and career paths for Colorado high school grads in our free monthly newsletter Beyond High School.

Colorado’s college and university leaders said their schools need more money than proposed by the governor, and pleaded with the legislature Thursday to boost spending on higher education.

In a joint letter, the 15 higher education leaders said they need at least $144 million more to keep up with inflation, pay competitive wages, and provide crucial support to students.

It’s the second year in a row that college and university presidents have banded together to demand more funding. It represents a new, more vocal approach in a state where higher education often takes a back seat to K-12 advocacy — and one that was successful last year.

The Monday letter asks for double what Gov. Jared Polis requested for their operations in the 2023-24 year. They also want to keep the ability to raise tuition by up to 4%. College and university leaders said the additional funding would help cover inflation and support students of color and those who are low-income.

Polis has proposed increasing college and university budgets by $70 million for operations and $16 million for student financial aid. College leaders say that amount is not enough to keep up with inflation.

Colorado ranks 49th, down from 45th, in spending per student, according to a State Higher Education Executive Officers Association report from last year. The letter to the state says that “Colorado is still approximately $900 million below the average funding of our national peers.”

The association report looks at the 2021 budget year, when the state slashed higher education funding and backfilled those cuts with federal funding. The state increased funding this budget year, but Colorado continues to trail the majority of states.

“Greater state investment in higher education has never been more important as we seek to meet critical state workforce shortages, while also keeping tuition in check and addressing inflationary pressures on our operations,” the letter from the state’s university and college leaders says.

During the Thursday Joint Budget Hearing on higher education budgets, state lawmakers asked how tuition increases would impact students. Colorado Mesa University President John Marshall said that when schools increase tuition, they also increase financial support for students who need it the most. Colorado public university students already carry one of the highest tuition burdens in the nation and also face rising inflation.

Marshall said schools risk losing administrative and instructional staff if the state doesn’t provide more aid.

“We’ve dealt with double-digit increases in utilities, diesel gas, and all the various challenges you’re dealing with both in your personal budgets and here in the state budget,” Marshall said to lawmakers.

While the governor crafts a budget that reflects his priorities, the six lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee write the budget presented to lawmakers for approval each spring.

In asking for more money, colleges and university leaders outlined their role in training workers for in-demand jobs.

More and more, state leaders have expressed worry that the state isn’t keeping up. Colorado has two job openings for every qualified worker, according to state economic data. The state’s colleges and universities train those workers to meet the demand, the letter says.

In addition to operational funding for colleges, Polis has proposed $70 million to provide free training, mostly at community colleges, and financial aid for schooling and apprenticeships to connect students to high-demand fields such as health care, teaching, law enforcement, fire fighting, construction, and advanced manufacturing. The governor wants the money to help educate more than 35,000 students.

Colorado Mountain College President Carrie Besnette Hauser told the Joint Budget Committee the state should allow students to use money from the governor’s training program for housing, especially in expensive mountain areas.

Joe Garcia, Colorado Community College System chancellor, said he’s grateful the governor is recommending more money to support job training programs, but more is needed.

Fewer older adults and students of color have enrolled at two-year colleges since the start of the pandemic. They’re groups in need of training.

“We have gained a lot of ground in this state over the last decade. We’re losing ground now,” Garcia said. “We think that by working together, and when supported by the state, we can again begin to reach those students — and those students will ultimately help our state’s economy.”

Two Democratic lawmakers propose ending TABOR refunds to fund Colorado schools

2023-01-12T02:26:27+00:00

Colorado voters would be asked to give up tax refunds when state revenue exceeds constitutional caps and instead send the extra money to the state’s K-12 schools, under a proposal being developed by two Democratic lawmakers.

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights limits the growth of state government according to population growth and inflation. Money collected above that cap when the economy is strong must be returned to taxpayers. These refunds are separate from income tax refunds for people who withheld too much from their paychecks. In some years, there are no refunds. Last year, every person who filed income taxes received a $750 check — refunds celebrated at the time by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis and Democratic lawmakers.

Meanwhile, Colorado funds its schools below the national average, and teacher salaries have not kept pace with the rising price of housing or wage growth in other sectors.

A bill expected to be introduced this week in the Colorado House would ask voters to agree to end the practice of giving TABOR refunds and put the money into school budgets for the purpose of hiring and retaining teachers.

“We need to figure out how to fund our public schools, and salaries are 85% of school district budgets,” said state Rep. Cathy Kipp, a former school board member from Fort Collins who is co-sponsoring the bill with state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat who chairs the powerful Joint Budget Committee. “We think this could have a huge impact and really help with our teacher shortage.”

The most recent state economic forecasts predict Colorado will have more than $2 billion above the cap this fiscal year, and between $469 million and $1.5 billion above the cap in 2023-24. An economic downturn could change those numbers.

State revenue exceeding the TABOR cap goes first to property tax exemptions for seniors and then to a new voter-approved affordable housing fund. Kipp and Zenzinger’s proposal would not change that. Education would be third in line for excess funding.

Colorado Politics first reported the proposal Tuesday.

Both Kipp and Zenzinger said the proposal would not change the state’s underlying school funding challenges because it would not provide a steady source of money.

“It’s not a sustainable solution,” Zenzinger said. “It’s more in keeping with what we have done in the last couple of years, which is to prop up education through one-time funding.”

But Zenzinger said it would put an end to funding schools below constitutional requirements while returning money to taxpayers.

“Last year in particular, we saw unprecedented excess revenue, and it was just so frustrating to not be able to fully cover public education,” she said.

Colorado lawmakers have increased school funding significantly in recent years but it still doesn’t meet constitutional requirements. Since the Great Recession, Colorado lawmakers have held back more than $10 billion under what’s known as the budget stabilization factor.

And there are major questions about whether current state funding levels are sustainable.

In the 2022-23 budget, Colorado lawmakers held back $321 million from a more than $5 billion in state K-12 funding in the face of high inflation and a Polis-backed deal to limit property tax increases, which would have helped support school funding as well.

Republicans — who have said Democrats could fully fund schools now if they reconsidered their other priorities — are expected to fight this new proposal.

Michael Fields, president of the conservative Advance Colorado Institute, who has led successful efforts to reduce the state income tax and kill proposals to raise taxes for education, said in a press release that Coloradans value their tax refunds and want more accountability for how schools spend the money they get now.

In 2019, Colorado voters rejected Proposition CC, a referred measure that would have ended TABOR refunds and divided that revenue among K-12, higher education, and transportation projects. They’ve also rejected statewide income tax increases to fund schools. Last year, a proposal to dedicate one-third of 1% of income tax revenue to K-12 schools failed to make the ballot despite polling well.

“In 2019, Coloradans made it clear that they want to keep their refunds,” Fields said. “After receiving their $750 refunds last year, we imagine that voters will be even more willing to defend TABOR, and the same coalition that was assembled to defeat the last proposal will be prepared to defeat this one.”

Kipp said she thinks voters will be more receptive to forgoing tax refunds to fund schools now.

“Since the pandemic, people are much more aware of the issue facing our schools, and people are more aware that our teachers are very underpaid,” she said.

Colorado voters have approved tax increases to fund preschool and free school lunch.

The bill is designed as a statutory measure, which only requires a simple majority to place on the ballot, not the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional measure. The governor does not need to sign off.

Democrats have a large majority in both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly, and Kipp said she already has 36 co-sponsors. At the same time, she doesn’t expect the proposal to race through the legislature. Instead, she expects it to be one idea amid larger negotiations related to school funding and tax policy.

Democratic leaders have made affordability — especially in health care and housing — the theme of this session, and Polis has pledged more property tax relief. Some Democrats may balk at ending tax refunds when Coloradans face rising costs for daily goods and have supported tax cuts on the ballot.

In a legislative preview held by the Colorado Sun Wednesday, House Speaker Julie McCluskie said it may be time to talk about how the TABOR cap is calculated to help the state pay for education and health needs and noted that voters have allowed many cites and school districts to remove their own TABOR-imposed and keep all revenue raised by existing taxes.

Zenzinger called the proposal a conversation starter and one that’s within the bounds of TABOR.

“If we want to do something different with those revenues, we have to ask the voters,” she said. “That’s the whole point: to ask voters. They may say yes, and they may say no.”

Melanie Asmar contributed reporting.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

First day: Colorado lawmakers pledge ‘thoughtful’ school funding debate amid budget constraints

2023-01-09T23:12:38+00:00

Colorado lawmakers convened Monday for the 2023 legislative session with promises to invest more in public education and address the cost of both college and child care.

“For our students, teachers, and parents who want higher pay for educators and more resources in their classrooms, your Colorado dream will be our focus,” Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie said at the conclusion of a speech that also pledged to focus on expanding civil rights, protecting clean air and water, and advancing affordable housing and health care.

But lawmakers also sounded notes of caution about the state’s capacity to spend more.

Senate President Stephen Fenberg called for a “mature and thoughtful debate” on school funding levels.

“Let’s make another historic investment that isn’t just a one-year windfall, but instead is done in a way that is a sustainable and long-term promise to our teachers, students, and parents,” he said.

Senate President Stephen Fenberg of Boulder presides over an expanded Democratic majority.

Last year lawmakers came close to meeting their constitutional obligations to fully fund K-12 education, with Republicans saying the state could have spent more if Democrats had reconsidered their priorities. This year, the budget forecast suggests Colorado may not be able to sustain much larger education spending for more than a few years.

In November, Colorado Democrats expanded their majorities in both chambers, and Gov. Jared Polis easily won reelection. Colorado is entering its fifth year with Democrats controlling all the levers of state government. The legislature is diverse, with women for the first time holding all Democratic leadership positions in the House. Nearly 40% of lawmakers are new to their jobs, potentially introducing new dynamics.

In the last four years the legislature passed free full-day kindergarten and a universal preschool program set to open to families this fall. The state endured a historic pandemic from which Colorado schools and higher education institutions are still trying to recover.

In her opening-day remarks, McCluskie noted policy achievements from the previous term, including the launch of iMatter, a free online counseling service for children and teens, and $85 million to develop partnerships to connect education and job training.

“Our expanded Democratic majority is a recognition that Coloradans agree with the path we’ve charted and support a policy agenda and approach to governance that reflects our and their priorities,” she said.

Two of the first bills introduced in the House give an indication of those priorities. One would expand access to student loan forgiveness for teachers, while another would create an assessment program to identify students with mental health challenges early and assist them in getting help.

McCluskie promised additional investments without going into details. In an interview, she said she’s committed to making progress on rewriting the formula that distributes funding to school districts — one of the thorniest policy problems in education — but that it might take time to find the right approach. McCluskie also chairs the committee that’s spent years considering school finance issues.

House Minority Leader Mike Lynch, a Wellington Republican, acknowledged his party’s reduced representation and asked that the majority let other voices be heard. He said Republicans would work with the majority but also be vocal about advocating for their perspective.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, also recognized how small his caucus is with only 12 members, but said they would play a strong role in this year’s deliberations. He also called for lawmakers to come together to improve education for all students.

Lundeen especially wants to see lawmakers tackle the problem of teachers leaving the profession, a complex challenge fueled by low pay, low prestige, and heavy workloads.

Colorado Democrats have long cast themselves as the party of public education, but now with a large majority, they are grappling with the implications of high inflation, the cost of other budget priorities, and questions about whether more K-12 funding is sustainable.

Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno, a Commerce City Democrat, said in an interview that legislators may be able to pay down the budget stabilization factor, the technical term for the money lawmakers withhold from K-12 education to pay for other budget priorities. But lawmakers are cautious to spend more given the budget uncertainty.

“I think the challenge is that it would require a concerted effort and for that to be the only thing that we do,” Moreno said.

He will push for more funding for higher education. Polis has called for $86 million more for higher education institution budgets and student financial aid, and for colleges to be able to raise tuition by up to 4%.

“That is difficult in this environment for students and families to absorb,” Moreno said. “I think anything we could do to limit those tuition increases as much as possible is something that I think we’re all interested in doing.”

House and Senate leaders already have plenty of competing priorities.

Both chambers’ leaders called for investments in public safety, especially after the deadly Colorado Springs Club Q shooting and in light of an ongoing fentanyl crisis. They hope to tackle affordability, including housing and health care. Both Republican and Democratic leaders promised bipartisanship in their deliberations.

Lundeen asked lawmakers to first listen and understand each other before launching into partisan debates. Fenberg said he also believes the Senate can “authentically deliberate” to solve problems.

In the House, the session opened with some friction as some Republicans nominated one of their own, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, to serve as speaker. That move went against the tradition of the House voting unanimously for a speaker from the majority party.

But ultimately more than half of the Republican caucus, including Lynch, joined Democrats to support McCluskie for speaker.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Jason Gonzales is a reporter covering higher education and the Colorado legislature. Chalkbeat Colorado partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Contact Jason at jgonzales@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie received the support of 55 representatives, including 11 Republicans.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis budget update: money for workforce development and math instruction

2023-01-04T00:37:47+00:00

Colorado residents could get access to free training for jobs in education, health care, construction trades, and other sectors that have more openings than qualified workers, under an updated budget proposal from Gov. Jared Polis.

Expanded workforce training — including some free college — was among several education proposals from Polis. He also proposed a major expansion of after-school tutoring focused on math and science skills and state money to help employers offer on-site child care.

Polis announced the proposals at a press conference Tuesday. They expand on his November budget request and address areas of growing concern for employers, workers, parents, and education advocates.

Polis, who will be sworn in for his second term next week, said there are more job openings in the state than people qualified to fill them, part of a growing skills gap. Polis wants to spend $70 million over two years providing free training primarily at community colleges to get residents the skills they need for in-demand jobs.

In math, Colorado faces a worsening trend of students falling behind. Polis’ proposal would provide a short-term fix, with $25 million to expand after-school programs focused on science, technology, engineering, and math. The budget would also set aside $3 million in state and federal money for math instructional materials and teacher training — a step toward a longer-term solution.

Tuesday’s announcement adds to the $42.7 billion budget Polis proposed in November. He also proposed updates that include property tax changes, housing relief, and clean energy tax credits.

The November budget included $9 billion next year for K-12 education and $86 million more for student financial aid and college and university operations. Polis’ budget serves as a starting point. Six lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee will craft a budget proposal for their colleagues in the House and Senate to vote on.

Money would help address a growing crisis

In prioritizing workforce development, Polis hopes to expand on work last year to train more qualified workers.

“Price is a barrier, especially in these challenging professions,” Polis said.

Lauren Larson, Polis’ budget director, said the money would go to address an “arising crisis.” Even doubling the number of high school students with the necessary training wouldn’t meet workforce needs, she said.

And the state has a large pool of older adults who could benefit from training. Colorado is a highly educated state, but many of its low-income residents have trouble getting the education and training they need to get in-demand jobs that pay well. The pandemic has caused fewer residents to attend college or get training, worsening the problem.

To address the labor shortages, lawmakers, education, nonprofit, and business leaders last year released a report on how to spend $100 million in one-time federal pandemic relief money to boost workforce training. Colorado leaders noted that the state would also need to continue investments over the long term.

The $70 million in new state money that would be spent over the next two years would provide free training in early childhood education, teaching, law enforcement, fire and forestry, construction trades, advanced manufacturing, and nursing fields — all experiencing shortages, Polis said.

The governor wants the money to help educate more than 35,000 students and expand short-term community college programs to train more than 250 additional nurses annually, according to a Polis spokeswoman.

The proposal builds off $61 million the state invested last year to train and support health care workers, with about $26 million going to the Colorado Community College System.

The free training has paid for tuition, fees, and books, but students can also use federal and state grants and scholarships to offset living costs like day care, transportation, and other life expenses, Larson said.

Polis wants $25 million to improve math skills

State and national test data shows K-12 students lagging in math skills.

Colorado has made a concerted effort in recent years to improve reading instruction: making sure all early elementary teachers have special training, requiring school districts to update their curriculum, and pushing university programs to give teacher candidates the best practices for teaching reading.

But the state has made no similar push on math instruction — and evidence shows math skills suffered more during remote learning than did language arts. State and national test scores show larger declines in math and slower recovery, with the declines more significant among older students.

Polis’ $28 million for after-school programs and math resources is not on the same scale as the effort Colorado mounted in reading.

Still, he said, “We want to make sure we turn around this trend in Colorado.”.

Polis offers a preschool update

Polis also included $10.5 million to expand work-place child care initiatives. He added that the state will be able to provide more hours of free preschool than originally expected.

The state should be able to provide at least 15 hours of free preschool for families, he said. Low-income families will be eligible for more, he said. The original goal was 10 hours.

Polis included $10 million in his November budget to help with the rollout of universal preschool.

“There could of course be a few areas where because of capacity there’s still 10-hour programs, but in general, most families will be able to benefit from 15 hours of free preschool for their 4-year-olds next fall,” he said. “We’re very excited about getting that right.”

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Seven issues we’re watching in the 2023 Colorado legislative session

2022-12-21T23:24:34+00:00

How to fund Colorado schools in ways that reflect student needs. How to open college opportunities to more students. How to narrow pandemic learning gaps, especially in math.

When Colorado lawmakers convene Jan. 9, they’ll have pressing education issues to address, competing needs to balance, and a tricky budget to navigate.

Expect bills that seek to address youth mental health, school safety, and teacher shortages. Lawmakers could find bipartisan agreement on efforts to improve math instruction and better connect higher education and job opportunities. But debates over rewriting the school finance formula and overhauling the school accountability system could divide Democrats.

For a fifth session, Democrats will control both chambers and the governor’s office. They grew their majorities in November’s election. The Colorado General Assembly will be full of new members, many from the progressive wing of the party, potentially introducing new political dynamics.

At the same time, lawmakers with a long history of engagement on education issues have moved into leadership positions. Members of a special committee on school finance, for example, now lead the House Democrats, the Senate Republicans, and the powerful Joint Budget Committee. The House Education Committee has at least four former teachers, a former school board member, and members with experience in mental health and higher education administration.

Colorado economists expect the state to have more money in its 2023-24 budget, but inflation will play an outsize role controlling spending. And the risk of a recession could diminish revenue. Questions of short-term uncertainty and long-term sustainability will affect K-12 and higher education.

Here are seven issues we’ll be watching in the 2023 legislative session:

Colorado could get a new school funding formula — or not

Is this the year? The interim committee on school finance has been trying for five years to rewrite a decades-old school finance formula that nearly everyone agrees is unfair.

In November, the bipartisan committee voted unanimously to begin reworking the formula to better account for student needs and educational changes like fifth-year high school students taking college classes.

The chair of the school finance committee, state Rep. Julie McCluskie, is also the incoming speaker of the House and has the power to marshal support for a new approach. But rewriting the school finance formula will be politically challenging.

The current formula sometimes sends more money to well-off districts than to ones serving more students in poverty, and no school district wants to get less than they get now. Bret Miles, head of the Colorado Association of School Executives, said his members would object to a formula rewrite that “takes from one school district to give it to another.”

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said one of her priorities will be developing a “hold-harmless” provision for the new formula. Fewer students and higher local property tax revenues take some pressure off state education funding obligations. Lawmakers could use that cushion, she said, then phase in a new formula to ensure no district gets less than it does now.

Brenda Dickhoner, president and CEO of the conservative education advocacy group Ready Colorado, expects Republicans to push their own priorities for school finance, which means more focus on money following students and less concern for the impact on district budgets.

Dickhoner said she hopes all sides are “at the table thinking about how we can more equitably fund our students and really get to a student-focused formula.”

Colorado could make a push on math instruction

State and national test data show that students’ math skills took a bigger hit from pandemic learning disruptions than did reading. Right now, Colorado doesn’t have the tools to address it.

House Education Chair Barbara McLachlan said she’s working with Gov. Jared Polis’ office on legislation that would better train teachers on best practices in math instruction and make training available to parents so they can better support their children.

In his November budget letter, Polis called on lawmakers to ensure that every school district adopts high-quality instructional materials and training and gets all students back on track in math.

How to improve math skills also remains a priority for conservatives. Dickhoner said her organization is looking to higher-performing states for ideas.

The push comes after years of intense focus on improving reading scores. Expect the debate over the math bills to mirror ones about reading instruction, including how much the state should be involved in setting curriculum.

There’s never enough money for either K-12 or higher ed

Last year Colorado flirted with fully funding its K-12 system after years of holding back money for other budget priorities. But a last-minute deal to reduce property tax increases would have reduced state revenues, and Democrat lawmakers held back.

Getting more funding for schools is always a top priority for the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, but wiping out the withholding known as the budget stabilization factor and fully funding Colorado schools are unlikely to happen this year.

Colorado will have less money overall after voters approved two ballot measures — one lowering the income tax rate and the other setting aside money for affordable housing. That shouldn’t cut into budgetary spending, but will reduce the buffer the state has in case of an emergency.

Zenzinger said it’s important to increase K-12 spending and that lawmakers hope to do better than the $9.1 billion proposed by Polis in his budget recommendation.

But budget writers also have their eye on long-term sustainability and any future recession.

The picture is different for higher education, which has to fight for scraps. Polis wants to increase university budgets and financial aid by 6.8%. Schools are expected to make a case for more funding, especially to keep tuition low and because inflation exceeds that.

Metropolitan State University of Denver President Janine Davidson said the school will seek more investment from lawmakers. Programs to help students from low-income backgrounds or who are the first to go to college in their family are costly, she said. And the state funds schools with a lower share than it did 30 years ago.

College access could be increased

Lawmakers also may address how to ensure students can get to and stay in college.

Elaine Berman, Colorado Trustees Network chair, said college board members want more support for students who need skills or credentials for in-demand jobs. School trustees want more funds to build partnerships with businesses and communities to better connect college degrees to jobs, she said.

Lawmakers also may explore how to make it easier for students to get college and workforce skills earlier, including extending opportunities in college and vocational schools.

The Colorado Community College System also wants more college options for incarcerated people. The federal government will begin to allow those students access to federal grants, and the system wants the state to prepare for the changes. It’s also a priority for Representative-elect Matthew Martinez, D-Monte Vista, who led Adams State University’s prison education program.

“I think it’s time that we really boost up education for this population,” Martinez said.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Department of Higher Education has a small agenda starting with removing military draft questions from college enrollment applications, which colleges report stops some students from enrolling.

Students are leaving financial aid on the table

Advocacy groups plan to ask lawmakers to make filling out the FAFSA a requirement to graduate. That’s the federal application for financial aid, and each year Colorado students who don’t finish the form leave behind almost $30 million in federal grants. Plus students who fill out the FAFSA are more likely to go to college, according to research.

“We want to make sure that we get it right,” said Kyra DeGruy Kennedy, Rocky Mountain region director for the advocacy group Young Invincibles. “And so if that means we have to wait another year, we’ll totally wait another year, but we are hopeful that this is a year that we’ll be able to make some progress on it.”

Superintendents want to rework the school accountability system

The top priority of CASE, the school executives group, is convening a task force to consider changes to the school accountability system. They will press this even though a recent audit found that the system is largely “reasonable and appropriate” and that most schools receiving state intervention improve.

Miles said the system still hurts school districts that receive low ratings called turnaround and priority improvement, even if the intentions are good.

“It’s terrific that they make a difference,” he said of the state teams that work with schools with low test scores. “It doesn’t change the fact that it’s harder to hire in a turnaround school than a performance school” — the schools that meet state academic goals.

Jen Walmer, state director of Democrats for Education Reform, said she expects any reform to be contentious, with debate about the makeup of the task force and the scope of its work — as well as whether Colorado needs a change at all.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Jeffco proposes $32 million in building upgrades to accommodate students from closing schools

2022-12-16T23:40:51+00:00

Jeffco Public Schools is beginning work on up to $32 million of projects to prepare buildings to receive as many as 2,600 displaced students from 16 schools closing.

The more than a dozen projects planned include renovating buildings to accommodate preschoolers and students with disabilities or adding more space for the increase in students.

The price tag is equivalent to about 2 1/2 years of savings from closing the under-enrolled elementary schools at the end of the school year. Most of the work is expected to be completed this summer.

Last week, school board members expressed shock at hearing the $32 million price tag, and Thursday decided they might downsize some of the larger projects once they have more accurate enrollment projections for the next school year.

The district assured the school board that it expects to be able to cover the cost of those projects with $12 million the board had already agreed to set aside from bond money for such work, and with the savings of about $17 million in bond projects that will no longer happen at schools that are closing. The district also expects the projects to likely come in under the estimated $32 million, which includes conservative contingency costs.

District leaders told the board that the project costs are onetime expenditures, and that the district will still see ongoing savings from closing those 16 schools.

“The consolidation decisions that this board had the courage to make are ongoing and cumulative savings that we will be able to eventually, once we get things settled with the budget, apply to our kids’ extraordinary experiences,” superintendent Tracy Dorland told the board at last week’s board meeting.

The district expects to save $12 million in operating expenses every year after those 16 schools close.

“This decision pays for itself and then some,” chief financial officer Brenna Copeland said.

The school board Thursday night considered pausing some of the work due to the cost and uncertainty about the need, but decided that it didn’t want to risk not having enough space for students when school starts next fall.

Instead, it approved contracts to begin the first project: an addition at Prospect Valley, which is receiving new students from Kullerstrand, including a special needs program. The board plans to revisit the scope of the contract early next year, when it has enrollment numbers from the first round of choice applications.

Currently, Prospect Valley is slated to get an addition that includes eight new classrooms, including two classrooms designed for the affective needs program. The addition is expected to increase the building capacity to 650 students, but currently the district projects the school will enroll around 560 students next year.

If the projection is correct, the current building’s capacity might already be enough, though district leaders cautioned that letting a school reach near full capacity limits how effectively principals can manage class sizes, especially when the number of students isn’t distributed evenly per grade level.

Still, some board members weren’t convinced the school needs eight new classrooms.

“Why are we even going that high right now for 650?” said board member Danielle Varda.

Board members also questioned how the district might examine costs to renovate receiving schools when it considers recommendations to close secondary schools next year. At the secondary level, the district has almost finished the planned projects.

Copeland said that although the district has limited funds, officials already have some ideas where it might get the money for retrofitting secondary schools after possible closures. By then, the district might have started selling or leasing some of the empty elementary buildings, making some capital funds available. The district also could use leftover unallocated bond dollars.

District leaders say they don’t yet know what factors they might consider when deciding which secondary schools to close.

With elementary schools, the district closed schools that had fewer than 220 students or were using less than 45% of their building’s capacity, as long as there was another elementary school within 3.5 miles that could absorb the students. Costs of renovations weren’t calculated until after the 16 schools were identified.

The district doesn’t yet know what enrollment or capacity thresholds it would set to close secondary schools, or if it would use different factors. Leaders said it was too early to say if building renovation costs could play into the decision.

But Copeland said the district is not interested in making the decisions primarily about money. District leaders have said that the problem with small schools is that education suffers when teachers have to be responsible for students of multiple grade levels within one classroom, when teachers can’t collaborate with colleagues who teach the same grade level, and when schools can’t offer after-school programs and other enrichment.

“Very consistently, parents told us ‘My student is not a number; please don’t make these decisions based on that,’” Copeland said. “I very much don’t want the financial calculation to be a primary driver.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado lawmakers want to craft a new school funding formula. Details TBD.

2022-11-16T02:56:19+00:00

Colorado lawmakers could make fundamental changes this year to how the state funds its schools, targeting more money to serve students in poverty, English learners, and gifted students. They also might better fund programs that help high school students earn college credit and industry credentials.

But many details still need to be worked out, and the proposal will have to overcome political hurdles that have doomed past efforts.

On Tuesday, the members of a special committee on school finance unanimously backed a call for a new school funding formula.

Colorado’s current system gives far more consideration to district factors like size and how expensive it is to live there and far less consideration to how many students live in poverty or are learning English, with the effect that sometimes school districts serving better-off students get more money than those serving more students in need. Many education advocacy groups consider the status quo unacceptable.

The new formula, proposed by committee Chair Julie McCluskie, the incoming speaker of the Colorado House, would:

Use a “student-centered” approach to address the needs of students in poverty, English learners, and gifted learners.
Address the needs of rural, remote, and small school districts.
Use a more targeted approach to support districts with high cost of living
Address issues related to declining enrollment.
Review charter school funding.
Consider programs that allow high school students to remain a fifth or sixth year as they earn college credits or workforce certificates.
Be phased in over time to avoid shocks to the system.

But nearly all the details still need to be worked out. McCluskie said lawmakers will be working with education groups and using a sophisticated modeling tool to examine the impact and trade-offs of giving more or less weight to various factors.

The goal is to have a more specific proposal for the committee to vote on in January, one that can win the backing of five Democrats and five Republicans who can then make the case to the full legislature that it’s time for a big change.

“We need to modernize an antiquated school finance system,” said McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican who has long been active in school finance debates, said doing nothing is not an option.

“The pandemic showed parents, showed teachers, showed policymakers the weaknesses in our system, and the foundation of all of it is in how we spend our money,” he said.

The school finance committee has been meeting in the legislative off-season for five years, and members came close to voting on a new formula three years ago. The proposal did not move forward in large part because Colorado doesn’t have an extra $1 billion to put into its K-12 schools.

Without more funding, formula changes would have meant some districts got less so that others could get more. No school administrator in Colorado wanted to make do with less, even if most agree the current system is unfair.

“Should we rob from one group of districts and students to give it to another group of districts and students?” is how Bret Miles, executive director of the Colorado Association of School Executives, described the debate in a recent interview.

Colorado taxpayers have repeatedly voted down efforts to increase statewide education funding. The most recent effort didn’t even make it on the ballot.

In the meantime, Colorado lawmakers have made a number of incremental changes to school funding. They added English learners to the weighted formula, guaranteeing districts would get more money as that student population grows. They changed how they counted students in poverty, moving away from unreliable free lunch applications. They increased funding for special education. And they required certain school districts to gradually raise local property taxes to levels that voters had previously agreed to.

McCluskie sees these steps as important precursors to a larger formula overhaul.

The call for a new formula comes as Democrats have expanded their majorities in both chambers and as lawmakers deeply involved in the school finance debate ascend to new leadership positions.

Will this year be different? McCluskie said Colorado schools are underfunded, period, and she doesn’t want any school district to get less. She promised to work closely with education interest groups to understand the impact of changes and to take a careful, phased approach so that no district is harmed.

The modeling tool isn’t available to the general public, but McCluskie said she’s working on ways to create a transparent process with public participation, including from parents.

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and incoming chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said there may be ways to find money that don’t depend on new taxes.

The recent changes to local tax policy, alongside rising property values, mean school districts are raising more money locally, easing pressure on the state portion of K-12 funding. High inflation coupled with declining enrollment means Colorado is spending more on fewer students. That opens up wiggle room to reallocate dollars.

The state could also change how it counts enrollment, Zenzinger said. Districts that are losing students can use their five-year average enrollment to ease the budget blow. Moving from a five-year student average to a three-year average would reduce the amount the state spends for students who don’t exist anymore, for example.

But some changes may not move forward, Zenzinger said, if the state can’t afford to do them without hurting some districts.

Lundeen said everyone in education needs to find the will to make big changes.

“You can’t tinker in a marginal way and get a fundamental change,” Lundeen said.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado school district tax requests would pay for pay raises, security, building upgrades

2022-10-31T20:53:53+00:00

More than a dozen Colorado school districts are asking local voters this year to pass tax measures that would pay for salary increases, enhanced security, and building upgrades.

Local tax requests from school districts often highlight inequities, as some districts — those with lots of property wealth or tax-friendly voters — often pass tax requests easily, while others have to try repeatedly to get a modest increase. The success or failure of a tax request can reflect a community’s trust in district leaders or their economic concerns.

According to the Colorado School Finance Project, which tracks school district tax requests, 19 school districts have a tax question on their local ballot this year. The majority are asking for either a bond or a mill levy override. Two districts are asking for both.

Both measures can affect property taxes, but there are different ways schools can use the money. Bond money is for one-time expenses, often capital projects or other infrastructure purchases, while mill levy money is more open and can be used for ongoing expenses such as salaries.

Among this year’s requests, the most common uses of tax measure money are to increase staff pay, hire more mental health or security professionals, boost career programming, and upgrade facilities.

Construction, architecture, and other development companies that stand to benefit from the money often bankroll campaigns urging voters to pass the measures.

Read more about what’s on the ballot for three school districts below:

Mapleton Issue 4A

4A $9 million mill levy override

What it means for property taxpayers: $64.85 per year, per $100,000 of home value

Largest Contribution: $5,000 from Sampson Construction

The Mapleton school district is asking for a mill levy override to cover a pay increase approved last year for teachers and other staff, the replacement of four school buildings, added career and technical programming for its high schools, and mental health and security upgrades.

The district’s updated salary agreement for teachers increased starting pay to $54,000 and honors more years for teachers coming in with experience from other districts. But as the plan works to attract and retain more educators, district officials say, it gets more expensive to fund because more teachers get to the higher end of the scale.

“There’s several things that would happen without this mill levy override,” said Mallory Boyce, a Mapleton school board member. “One is we would have to be cutting a lot of corners to meet our salary schedule.”

In addition, said Senior Deputy Superintendent Mike Crawford, while the district has several new buildings, there are still four that are more than 60 years old.

“It’s made for some interesting inequities that we’d like to address,” Crawford said.

The district applied for a state BEST grant for one of the four aging buildings, Meadow Community School Prek-8. The grants, funded in part by marijuana revenue, help districts pay for building upgrades. Mapleton’s project was listed as a backup. That means if one of the districts awarded a grant isn’t able to secure their matching portion or otherwise able to complete their project, Mapleton may receive its grant request.

The revenue from the tax measure would help Mapleton pay for its matching portion of the grant.

It’s not yet clear how the tax increase would contribute to more career education opportunities for students. Crawford said there would be community conversations about how the district might incorporate career pathways at the various high schools.

The district last passed a bond and a mill levy override in 2016.

27J School District Issue 5B

5B $17.74 million mill levy override

What it means for property taxpayers: $55.60 per year per $100,000 of home value

Largest contributions: $10,000 from LC Fulenwider; $10,000 from Clayton Properties Group Oakwood Homes; $10,000 from RBC Capital Markets

The 27J school district has only had voters approve a mill levy override once – in 2000. Since then, the district has tried seven times to ask voters for additional funds for school operations, but has not succeeded. Voters did narrowly approve a bond request last year to allow the district — one of just two in the metro area that is growing — to build new classrooms.

After failing to get mill levy overrides in the past, the district has cut funding to various programs, and moved to a four-day school week in an effort to recruit teachers.

Superintendent Chris Fiedler said he hopes the eighth time is the charm.

But this year, he’s clear that without the additional money, he is likely to cut school bus routes and some middle school sports.

Fiedler said the district needs about $6.5 million to increase salaries for teachers and other staff. Teacher starting salaries in 27J were raised recently to $43,077.

“Half the metro districts are at $50,000 and we’re seven grand behind that,” Fiedler said. “We’re in this dog fight for people to work with our kids.”

Dozens of staff have quit after having committed to working this school year, with some leaving after the start of the school year.

After failing to pass a tax measure many times before, Fiedler said he’s learned some lessons about what is important to his community. The ballot language, for example, explicitly states that “no revenue from this tax will be used for administration salary increases.”

In addition to increasing salaries, 27J’s tax increase would also pay for armed guards at elementary schools, something Fiedler said the community wanted in the wake of the Uvalde massacre. The money would also pay for additional staff and resources to expand career and technical education options at the high schools. The space for the career programming is already being built at the high schools with money approved in the bond last year.

Commerce City’s city council passed a tax cut in early October to help offset most of the increase that homeowners within the 27J boundaries would see if the district’s request is approved.

Douglas County Issues 5A and 5B

5A and 5B $60 million mill levy override and $450 million bond

What it means for property taxpayers: If both are approved, $52 per year, per $100,000 of home value

Largest contribution: $25,000 from developer Eric Garrett

In Douglas County, where the school district has been divided on many issues in recent years, board members unanimously agreed to put the tax measures on this year’s ballot.

The mill levy override would be used for teacher and staff pay increases, which have already been approved by the school board and would kick in if the measure is approved. The district has explored various pay systems for teachers and staff over the last decade, but this spring moved back to a traditional pay system that takes into account education level and years of experience.

Superintendent Erin Kane said the district’s pay still isn’t keeping up with nearby districts, and is affecting hiring and retention of staff. On average, teachers would get a 9% raise.

The bond measure would be used to make upgrades to school buildings, as well as to build three new schools in areas of the district that are growing, to expand career and technical programming, and to begin a long-term plan for potential school closures or mergers in areas that are seeing a decline in enrollment.

While the long-term planning will inform bond projects and building investments, it’s possible that some bond upgrades may occur at buildings that eventually have to close. Kane said that some upgrades can’t wait, and buildings are still a district asset that need to be maintained.

“That’s exactly why it’s important to be proactive and plan ahead,” Kane said. If a building is converted to another use such as a preschool or for other community services, “in any case the building would need to continue to heat and cool and be safe.”

If voters don’t approve the measures, Kane said she’ll be looking at how many voters support the measure anyway. She believes that with more time, she might get more voters on board to try again another year.

A committee raising money to support the Douglas County tax measures is under investigation by the state after complaints that the group may have accepted prohibited contributions, made improper contributions to candidates, and not used required disclosures on communications.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

What’s a bond measure? How do mill levy overrides work? We explain.

2022-10-29T14:00:00+00:00

Every November, somewhere in Colorado, voters are deciding on school tax measures.

Some districts request money to pay bond debt, some request what are called mill levy overrides, and some do both.

Although both bond measures and mill levy overrides can impact property taxes, they each have different purposes.

Here’s how they work:

What does a school bond measure do?

A bond request on a Colorado ballot is usually asking two things: Can the district take on more debt, and can the district increase your property taxes to pay off that debt?

If approved, school districts will hire underwriters to sell bonds and to get the district a good rate on the interest payments. When districts sell bonds, they usually enter into 20- to 30-year deals to pay off the debt with interest. The debt can be refinanced during that time if a chance to lower interest rates comes up.

Sometimes districts have a bond request that won’t raise the tax rate. This happens when the school district can collect more money from the same tax rate because property values have gone up or because the school district has lowered its existing debt payments and created room to take on more debt.

Bonds are usually used to build new school buildings or facilities or do major repairs and upgrades.

Sometimes school districts ask voters to approve a bond that will help the district qualify for matching state funds. The state’s Building Excellent Schools Today or BEST Program helps pay for new schools and major improvements in districts that struggle to pay the full cost. If voters reject the bond measure, the school district doesn’t get any state money.

What is a mill levy override request?

The mill levy refers to the rate charged for property taxes. The state sets the mill levy in each school district and that money pays for a portion of schools’ base operating budget, with the state covering the rest of the cost, according to Colorado’s school funding formula.

Districts that want to collect more money on top of that rate must ask voters for approval first. This is called a mill levy override.

The money generated from this tax stays in the community and goes directly to the school district. School districts have to tell voters how they’ll use the money, such as to raise teacher pay.

There is a limit on how much districts can raise their mill levies, even with voter approval. That’s based on a percentage of their total state funding.

Why do some districts ask for both a bond and a mill levy override?

The money generated from selling bonds can only be used for one-time expenses such as construction, maintenance, or infrastructure needs.

But if a school is looking for more money to increase teacher pay, buy new books, or create a new arts program, they would ask voters for a mill levy override because that money isn’t restricted. Mill levy overrides generate money every year that can be used for ongoing expenses.

Depending on what local leaders think students need — and what they think voters will agree to — school boards might put a bond measure and a mill levy override on the ballot in the same year or ask voters to approve a bond one year and a mill levy override a different year.

So if my district says they are at 20 mills, what does that mean?

That is the rate charged on your home’s assessed value to come up with the amount you owe in property taxes.

One mill means $1 is charged for each $1,000 of assessed value. In a district charging 20 mills, $20 would be charged for each $1,000 of assessed value.

How different is the mill levy rate across the state?

“It’s dramatically different,” said Tracie Rainey, executive director of the Colorado School Finance Project, a nonprofit group researching and collecting data on how schools are funded.

The mill levy rates set by the state vary a lot to begin with. Then some communities are more successful than others at getting voters to approve mill levy overrides.

This funding method also produces different results based on the property mix in a district — residential, commercial, agricultural, oil and gas — and its value.

A mill levy override that would generate $235 per student in Denver would raise just $58 per student in property-poor Center. Starting in 2022, the state is offering some matching funds to boost mill levy overrides in districts with low property wealth.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Online enrollment grows in Colorado but some say more accountability is needed

2022-10-11T21:30:52+00:00

When the pandemic first sent Colorado students home from school, Rachael Sheetz worried about the chaos of remote learning, but as the caretaker for her elderly grandmother, she also worried about COVID.

In her search for options for her two teenagers, she landed on Colorado Connections Academy, an online school. She figured they’d been doing online learning for a while and would be better prepared than traditional schools had been.

Today, 2½ years later, her son has returned to brick-and-mortar schooling at a popular local charter with high vaccination rates. But her daughter has stayed online, where she’s getting lots of teacher support and doing work that to Sheetz seems several grade levels ahead.

“I found that kids excel better when they can achieve academics at a pace that is comfortable for them,” Sheetz said. “My daughter has always been a decent student, but giving her more flexibility has helped her excel even more.”

Enrollment in online schools in Colorado grew steadily before the pandemic, then surged as schools shut down in spring 2020, despite overall enrollment in public schools dropping.

In fall 2021, the most recent complete data available, Colorado enrolled 30,803 students in online schools, 50% more than the 20,603 enrolled in fall 2018. Online students now represent about 3.5% of public school enrollment.

Although online enrollment declined slightly from 2020-21 to 2021-22, officials expect more steady growth over time.

School districts, aware of families’ interest, are opening their own new online schools to meet the demand.

Yet much remains unknown about how online schools perform and how they’re managed.

One small district, Byers 32J, has increased its enrollment tenfold in the last decade by opening online charters. It now runs eight of them. That has increased its budget because the district keeps a portion of the state’s per student funds. Some of Byers’ schools posted the state’s biggest surges in enrollment and are the least transparent in data.

Statewide, seven in 10 online schools did not have enough data for the state to issue them a 2022 performance rating.

“It absolutely should be a concern,” said Van Schoales, senior policy director for the Keystone Policy Center. “The unfortunate irony is that online schools claim to be more connected to folks and yet a measure of connectedness is test participation and so it would suggest and reinforce a lot of the national research that online schools aren’t living up to advertising around personalizing instruction for kids.”

Schools meeting the demand

This fall, online school leaders say preliminary enrollment figures seem to show a slight dip again, but numbers still will be well above pre-pandemic levels.

Jeffco set up an online program last school year for families who weren’t ready to return to in-person classrooms, creating flexibility so that students could switch back and forth between remote learning during the year. This year, that program has converted into its own online school, here to stay.

Unlike the district’s Jeffco Virtual Academy, which has long existed, the new Jeffco Remote Learning Program school serves elementary age students too, and requires students to log in to receive live, real-time instruction from about 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

At its peak last school year, the remote school had more than 1,300 students. This year, Principal Kala Munguia expects to have around 700 students. She said last year approximately 60% of students were enrolled because of pandemic health concerns, but this year students are more likely to prefer the learning model. Students who choose her school still want the live interactions every day.

“Our students tend to need or want that collaboration amongst other students,” Munguia said. She thinks more families will be interested in the model, once they learn it’s an option.

Adams 12 also set up a districtwide online program during the pandemic that now has turned into a new school, Five Star Online Academy.

Principal Adria Moersen said that the school was started in real time, or what’s called synchronous, but has since shifted to have more flexibility. Students can choose to be fully synchronous just for the mornings, or for certain days of the week, and now have more in-person opportunities for tutoring and other activities.

The school has about 520 students in grades 2 to 12, down from about 700 last year.

“This year these are students who are choosing online because it works for them,” Moersen said.

The district’s other online option is through Pathways, an alternative education school for older students off track to graduate. Before the pandemic, Pathways was a blended learning program that required most students to attend a few hours in person.

During the pandemic, the school tried allowing all students to be fully online, but found that it didn’t work for most students.

“Ours are students who really need that extra support,” said Principal Matt Schmidt. Still, this year, about 15% of students have been allowed to choose to stay fully online. The school’s model of six-week courses allows the students to opt to be online or in person for each six-week period.

District staff tout that flexibility as they try to reengage students who have left school. Moersen and Schmidt said that for some of their students, having to work or take care of family members means the online options work best.

When Sheetz chose an online school for her kids, she wasn’t sure it was going to work, but being a stay-at-home mom, she knew she’d be around to help them.

Sheetz was thrilled at the flexibility of being able to let her kids wake up later or take a break in the middle of the day to spend time together or run an errand. Still, she encouraged them to participate in some live classes at least once a week.

These are some of the same reasons families for years have chosen online learning. Bernie Zercher’s daughter’s social anxiety made it hard for her to participate in even the limited in-person programming that her siblings used as part of their home-schooling course. The biggest draw from GOAL Academy was more flexibility for her to participate live only as much as she wanted to, and that counselors and other available services could help her through her anxiety.

In four years in high school at GOAL, she’s become more comfortable with in-person activities and interactions, and now takes concurrent college classes in person, has an internship at the school’s multimedia department, and participates in a school music group.

“The GOAL setting was just so much more accommodating for her,” Zercher said. “I don’t know that that’s typical of online schools. I think it’s kind of unique to GOAL. They really were meant as a safety net for a lot of kids that had experienced childhood traumas or other issues.”

Growth makes accountability more important

National data shows that online schools in general have lower student outcomes, including test scores and graduation rates, than do traditional in-person models. Studies of online learning during the pandemic also show students falling behind when they were learning virtually.

Of Colorado schools that tested enough students to report composite SAT scores publicly this year, online schools tested on average 25 points lower than brick-and-mortar schools, out of a 1,600-point maximum.

Of schools that tested enough students to report state CMAS scores publicly this year, online schools tested on average 5 points lower than brick-and-mortar schools on English and 21 points lower on mathematics, out of a 850-point maximum.

Advocates for online schools say that many students who seek an online education weren’t doing well in traditional settings, and may already be starting behind or facing other challenges.

But there also have been questions about the quality of education and how engaged online students are. Back in 2016, an Education Week investigation of GOAL Academy, which at the time was the largest online school in the state, cited internal school data that nearly half of students didn’t log in at all during a typical week.

Zercher isn’t just a parent. As a local business owner, he was tapped to serve on the board of GOAL as the school made much-needed reforms. He agrees with the need for more oversight.

“The whole charter school world is the wild, Wild West of education,” Zercher said. “I have seen some crazy stuff, and crazy disregard for regulations.”

Renee Martinez, supervisor for the state Education Department’s office of online and blended learning, says the state does its best to provide oversight, but has been limited by multiple changes in the law. Some issues are just relayed back to authorizers.

As it does for all schools, the Education Department audits student course loads and credits to ensure districts receive the right amount of money for students, and to ensure that students aren’t being counted as enrolled in more than one school.

There’s never been reason to believe that any school is falsely inflating their enrollment counts, she said.

But, “of course we operate on best intentions, thinking they wouldn’t do that,” she said.

Martinez said her department was also disappointed in how little data on performance there was for online schools this year. This year, online schools were more likely than brick-and-mortar schools to have insufficient data to earn a state performance rating — a growing problem among online schools.

Zercher agrees schools can do something about this and should be held accountable for it.

For example, he thinks that test participation reflects on the relationship of the school with its students.

In his daughter’s case, he said, she was willing to be at the state fairgrounds at 7:30 a.m. for testing because of the relationship with her counselor.

“She loves her counselor and doesn’t want to disappoint them,” Zercher said.

The elementary school affiliated with Colorado Preparatory Academy, an online school run by K12, a for-profit national provider, this year fell to the state’s lowest rating, known as turnaround status. Before the pandemic it had received the highest rating. But the principal cautioned that this year’s rating was based on 18% of students testing.

“This was the lowest participation I’ve seen,” said Nicole Tiley, executive director for Colorado Preparatory Academy.

She surveyed families who opted out and found the main reason families cited for not testing was concern about health and safety. “We are very proactively thinking about how to improve that,” she said.

The schools that have grown the most are the ones we know the least about

The school with the biggest enrollment increase since 2018, Astravo Online Academy High School, is one of eight schools under three brands, all under the umbrella of Colorado Education Solutions and authorized by the Byers 32J school district.

The Eastern Plains school district has made a business of authorizing online charter schools. Less than 10% of its 5,352 student enrollment attend its brick and mortar schools, while the other 90% attend one of its online charters. The district keeps 3% of state per-pupil money before passing on the rest to the schools.

Back in 2014, when the Education Department questioned Byers’ capacity to effectively manage so many online charter schools, Superintendent Tom Turrell wrote in a letter that his district was experienced, and that breaking up big K-12 schools into multiple schools would better help them evaluate how the schools were doing.

Years later, Turrell continues to defend the schools and deny that the large information gaps are problems.

The schools and their operator have existed under several names and brands since they first opened in the fall of 2012. The schools that have websites don’t list their principals or other staff or provide much information about the educational models. There’s just a phone number for a call center and a place to enter your email for more information.

According to a 2016 law, when schools change names, if they aren’t changing authorizers, meaning the district that oversees them, then they aren’t required to seek new state approval, even if they’re making significant changes to their management or learning model.

Since 2019, enrollment in Byers-authorized online schools has nearly tripled and those students now account for 16% of all the online students in the state.

In response to a public records request for the charter application and agreement between Byers and Astravo, Turrell initially said there was no contract. When the contract was provided by the state, Turrell said it had been a miscommunication. When asked again about the original charter applications, Turrell said he believed the application and the contract were one and the same. His school board did vote to approve the schools, he said.

Turrell said as an authorizer of eight multidistrict online schools, he’s not worried about the low participation rates on state tests and doesn’t feel there’s a lack of performance data.

Of the eight online schools authorized in Byers, none had enough data for state performance ratings this year, up from five of nine that didn’t have ratings in 2018. Colorado law requires state education officials to intervene in schools that have low ratings for five years or more, but the state cannot take any action when schools have insufficient data for years on end.

The district’s Astravo Online Academy High School, which experienced the state’s largest increase in enrollment among online schools from 2018 to 2021, hasn’t been issued a performance rating since 2016, in part because of low test participation. The school now has about 1,600 students.

“My kiddos are going to college, they are taking the SAT and PSAT very seriously,” Turrell said.

In fact, only 29% of Byers students pursued postsecondary education or the military after high school in 2021, compared with 55% statewide. Byers has lower-than-average test participation even among other online schools. Each of its online high schools had fewer than 10% of its eligible students take the SAT this year. Turrell said that he’s frustrated that students aren’t allowed to take state tests online.

“It really comes back to that opportunity to utilize an online platform,” he said.

Officials for Colorado’s Department of Education said that they’ve noticed that more schools overall this year had insufficient data to receive a performance rating, but officials haven’t looked into why online schools may struggle most with this, although they may in the coming months as ratings are finalized.

Turrell also doesn’t worry about Astravo Online Academy High School’s high withdrawal rate of 48.3%. In 2019-20, it was the highest in the state. These are students who leave school after the October count day. The school district still collects the money for these students but no longer has the expense of educating them.

The same state report shows that Astravo Online Academy High School also enrolls a lot of students after the state’s count day, even if the school doesn’t receive funding for them. In 2019-20, the school had 231 students withdraw and 622 enroll after count day.

“The data throughout the CDE mobility report are informed by the impact of those late-enrolling students,” Turrell said. “A thorough review of these facts is essential to consider when drawing conclusions.”

The Astravo schools in particular have high enrollment after count day, but most online schools, according to the report, also show enrollment after count day, and it’s also common among other schools.

Colorado Education Solutions has a limited public profile. A lawyer and a consultant for the group answered some questions, but could not point to where the charter network’s school board agendas, members, or meeting dates are posted online for the public.

The group, a charter network, is registered by attorney Brad Miller as a state nonprofit in good standing with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. The charter network is not a federal nonprofit and doesn’t have to file a Form 990 that would disclose more information about its structure and finances, according to Mary Gifford, a consultant advising the charter network.

Open questions about online schools prompted lawmakers to pass Senate Bill 129 in 2019. The law aims to increase accountability for online schools by requiring that performance ratings follow a school even if it closes and reopens with a new name. It also requires the state to submit annual reports on how often students leave a school after count day, when enrollment for funding purposes is made official.

Martinez said the reports ensure State Board of Education members are more informed about online schools, but they haven’t led to much change.

“We implement the legislation and sometimes when there’s certain things like [Senate Bill] 129, it seemed like it was going to be maybe a game changer,” Martinez said. “In reality the impact wasn’t as significant.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Kae Petrin is a data & graphics reporter for Chalkbeat. Contact Kae at kpetrin@chalkbeat.org.

COVID relief money helps Colorado schools pay for math and reading curriculum

2022-09-21T23:50:25+00:00

Dozens of Colorado school districts and charter schools are buying new math and reading curriculum with help from $10 million in federal pandemic relief.

State officials announced Wednesday that 42 districts and 28 charter schools will receive grants to purchase reading curriculum for early elementary grades and math curriculum for elementary and middle school.

The $10 million is a small chunk of the $180 million set aside for state-level efforts to help schools with COVID recovery. More than $1.5 billion in additional federal relief funding went directly to school districts.

The curriculum grants come at a time when many Colorado districts are adopting new K-3 reading curriculum to comply with a 2019 state law that requires them to use programs backed by research on how children learn to read. While there’s no similar law covering math curriculum, education department rules say the grants can only be used for certain math programs — specifically, those that earned top “green” ratings from EdReports, a national curriculum reviewer.

In addition to Colorado’s reading law, efforts to reverse pandemic learning loss have fed the push to replace old or ineffective curriculum. Such programs can be pricey and districts typically can afford to replace them only every six or seven years.

State curriculum grants went to a variety of large and small districts that serve larger numbers of students with high needs, for example those who come from low-income families, are dual language learners, or spent a lot of time in remote learning during the pandemic. Among the large districts receiving the grants are Jeffco Public Schools, Adams 12 Five Star Schools, Colorado Springs District 11, and Greeley-Evans District 6.

Ann Schimke is a senior reporter at Chalkbeat, covering early childhood issues and early literacy. Contact Ann at aschimke@chalkbeat.org.

Parents share advice on what helped their kids during past school closures

2022-09-12T11:06:00+00:00

Leer en español.

Lending an ear, being patient with kids’ emotions, and ensuring kids don’t feel they’re at fault: Offering support like that will help children cope with school closures, according to Jeffco parents who have already been through them.

“I was trying to let him know, ‘we know you don’t like change but this new school is going to become home,’” Jamie Camp said she told her third grader as his school, Fitzmorris Elementary, faced closure in spring 2021 and he would have to move to a new school. “Be patient. They’re going to lash out. Our son did. That’s just them trying to process.”

The Jeffco school district is preparing to help thousands of students say goodbye to their elementary schools at the end of this school year. The board in November is expected to approve a recommendation to close 16 schools, nearly one in five of its elementaries.

In the past two years, the district suddenly closed two small elementary schools that leaders said were no longer sustainable. Now, in a more comprehensive plan, district leaders want to provide more advance notice as they reduce the number of small schools.

Chalkbeat talked to parents of children who attended the two previously closed schools about what worked, what didn’t work, and what advice they had for families facing closures now. Below read their thoughts, and answers to questions on parents’ minds.

Why does the district close schools?

Where will students go?

Any advice on how to say goodbye and then prepare for a new school?

What was difficult in the transition and how can parents manage challenges?

What were some of the positive things about moving to a new school?

Why does the district close schools?

Jeffco, like many other districts, has had fewer and fewer students for many years. That has left many schools with very few students. School districts, and in turn schools, get state funding based on enrollment. Most of the schools recommended for closure have either fewer than 220 students or use less than 45% of their building’s space. The district says it provides these schools more money than their per-student allocation, but they still can’t offer the same programs that bigger schools with more students can afford.

Where will students go?

For every school that is closing, the district has designated another to cover its attendance boundary area and become the new neighborhood school. But Colorado law allows parents to choose other schools, too. Jeffco opens choice enrollment in December for parents wanting to enroll outside their neighborhood.

Rosa Melaragno’s son attended Allendale Elementary until it closed in 2021. Instead of sending him to the district’s suggested school, she chose to send him to Fitzmorris Elementary because it was closer to her home. In the spring, the district closed that school too. Now she believes going with the district’s recommendation would be a safer idea.

“Even if you think it’s going to suck, it might be better for the child in the long run,” Melaragno said.

Other parents who did send their children to the district’s suggested school said they did so because they saw other benefits. Some of their teachers moved to the same school. Others wanted their children to have more familiar classmates or benefit from district support measures for the transferred students.

Lara Wiant, the principal of Campbell Elementary, said that when she took in students from Allendale, she created and assigned student ambassadors to every displaced student to help them navigate the school and to have someone to sit with at lunch.

Christopher Benisch, the principal of Lawrence Elementary School, which received many of the Fitzmorris students, said he designed this year’s classrooms so that every former Fitzmorris student had at least one former classmate in their room this year.

Benisch suggested that as parents look at their choices, they think about what opportunities they want for their children, and they take time to learn about what different programs schools offer. That means asking things like do schools have after-school programs, STEM labs, full-day preschool, or mental health supports?

Any advice on how to say goodbye and then prepare for a new school?

When Fitzmorris was closing, the school hosted a barbecue and invited staff from Lawrence, the school that would be receiving most of Fitzmorris’ students.

Parents say that was helpful for saying goodbye to their community. But looking back, some wish they could have had an opportunity to also meet families of the school they were going to.

And Michelle Miley, whose son was at Fitzmorris but went to Stott Elementary, following his center program for students with autism, wishes that events like that had included families like hers.

This year, as in the past, the district will move students in many of the center programs at closing schools to different receiving schools from the general education students. The district says that’s in part because of space issues. The district is trying to offer stability for those students by moving program staff with the students.

But for children like Miley’s son, who spent about three-quarters of his school day in general education classrooms, getting split away from those students made the family feel left out.

As her son started school this fall, she felt like neither he nor the family knew anyone.

“I feel like I was just kind of thrown in,” Miley said. “Now I hope they try to get the school communities together before schools close. Just to get people more familiar with each other.”

One thing many parents say they’ve found helpful for their children is visiting school playgrounds.

Maureen Bricker cares for her two granddaughters, a fourth and a first grader, who both were displaced from Fitzmorris Elementary. After the school closed, Bricker arranged for the girls to play with other former classmates at their old playground a couple of times.

“I thought let’s let them play like old times, and we’ll do that again as long as it’s open,” Bricker said.

Melaragno said she tried to arrange a play date over the summer for her son, who takes a long time to warm up to people, but got no responses. She thinks it might have helped if the district helped facilitate that.

So she packed a lunch and took her son to his new school over the summer and let him play on the new playground.

“It was just to let him get physically familiar with the school, let him scope it out,” Melaragno said. “Even getting used to the drive and looking at the landmarks. It’s just about taking the time with him.”

What was difficult in the transition and how can parents manage challenges?

Parents said they struggled to adjust to drastically different start times, and much busier drop-off and pickup locations. Parents hope that with more time to plan, school leaders can reduce the stress around those changes.

Parents said one of the most helpful things was clear communication with their kids and letting them know that it’s not their fault they have to change schools.

Melaragno said her husband noticed that their son had felt like he was to blame for having two of his schools shut down.

“Take the lead in explaining to the kids it’s not their fault,” both the Melaragnos said. “Especially those who may not be forthright about their feelings. My son is like that. If he’s sad about something, sometimes he’ll cry but then he’s like ‘I’m fine,’ even though he’s not.”

Camp said her son felt like his parents didn’t try to save his school. She said she hasn’t figured out how parents might let their kids feel like they advocated for them, while acknowledging that nothing parents could do now will stop the coming closures.

Above all, she said, parents need to listen to what their kids need and feel.

What were some of the positive things about moving to a new school?

Many parents said that they did experience benefits at the new schools in various cases including more friends, more varied programs, more appropriate class sizes.

Miley’s son was in a combined classroom that had more than 30 students at Fitzmorris. At the new school, there’s funding for two teachers so that each classroom is split into about 18 students.

Melaragno’s son had been one of just two boys in his grade at his previous school. Now he has lots more boys to interact and learn with.

Parents also say asking for help is important.

As an example, Bricker said that one day last month when her younger granddaughter was having a tough morning, crying and not wanting to go into her new school, she asked the school to send its social and emotional learning specialist to check on her. It also helped that the specialist had known the girl from working at Fitzmorris before the school closed.

“Just try to stay positive for them,” she said. “And ask for help.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Jeffco recommends closing 16 elementary schools

2022-08-25T23:00:00+00:00

Update: The Jeffco school board on Thursday voted unanimously to approve Superintendent Tracy Dorland’s recommendation to close 16 elementary schools at the end of this school year. Read the most current story here.

Jeffco has selected 16 elementary schools to recommend closing at the end of this school year.

All the schools have fewer students than they did a few years ago, and all but one had fewer than 220 students as of Aug. 15. All but one of the schools have a higher percentage than the district average of students from low-income families.

The district announced its recommendations Thursday and the school board will vote on the recommendations as a package on Nov. 10.

In the meantime, the district will host community listening sessions, but has made clear that the goal isn’t to hear which communities can best persuade the board to save their schools, but rather to talk about what families want to see in their new schools.

“I really am hopeful that our community will shift from wanting to fight the decision to wanting to be partners with us,” Jeffco Superintendent Tracy Dorland said.

In total, the district said the closures will displace almost 2,600 students and affect the equivalent of about 422 full-time jobs. The student numbers include the children of 27 families displaced when Allendale and Fitzmorris elementary schools closed in the past two years and who again will have to relocate. The district is assigning staff to work directly with those families.

Each of the schools identified Wednesday has fewer than 220 students, excluding preschool students, or uses less than 45% of their building’s capacity. And each of them is located less than 3.5 miles from another school with the capacity to absorb their students and still feed to the same middle and high schools.

So, along with every school proposed for closure, the district has named a nearby school that will absorb the boundary area and students of the closing school. In some cases, a third school will receive displaced students from programs for children with specific disabilities. All together, the closures will directly affect 38 schools, nearly half of the district’s 84 district-run elementary schools.

As far as staff, the district will help place teachers who are non-probationary, and will offer help to all others. For certified staff, the district is also offering to pay for them to get endorsements in hard-to-staff areas to make them more competitive for positions the following school year.

As before, parents may apply to enroll their children in schools other than the one assigned them.

District leaders want disappointed families to think of the transition as an opportunity for school communities to reshape the receiving schools to welcome new students and serve them and their families.

If the school board approves the closures, the district will form committees at each school to hear ideas from families and staff.

In the case of Emory Elementary, the principal already has pushed for its dual language program to move to Lasley, which is absorbing Emory students, though the type of dual language model could change.

Even if approved, the school closures will leave the district with 16 schools with fewer than 250 students or less than 60% of a building in use in 2023-24. That’s one-third the current number of schools that fit that criteria.

The district expects savings of up to $12 million may help reduce its budget deficit. This year, the district is drawing $28 million from its reserves to cover expenses.

The district has used $16.3 million from its 2018 bond to upgrade schools now identified for closure, but more recently put on hold $12.2 million in projects planned for small schools.

District says small schools are affecting learning opportunities

Still, district leaders have emphasized that closures aren’t just about the money, but about the quality of learning.

“We knew we were spending more money to support our small schools, but the amount of money is not leading to more robust programming,” Dorland said.

Lisa Mahannah, principal of Emory Elementary School, said that the recommendation to close her school didn’t surprise her, but was still hard to hear. The district has named principals who will lead the receiving schools. In Emory’s case, Mahannah’s assistant principal will move with the students, but not Mahannah.

Still, she said she’s had time to say her piece and knows that the district isn’t making these decisions lightly, so she’s focused on helping her families understand. She’s also a parent of a high school student in the district.

“This is impactful for everyone,” Mahannah said.

At Emory, with declining enrollment, she can’t provide everything her students need.

The school has students in dual language programming and students in English programming. But Mahannah said the school has been unable to pay for bilingual mental health or special education staff.

“The budget really drives how much support you are going to have for students,” Mahannah said.

And as dual language enrollment has decreased, classes split between two teachers per grade level have become smaller, while non-bilingual classes may have up to 30 students.

Emory has about 385 students on a former middle school campus with capacity to hold nearly 900 students.

Now, she plans to work the school year with Lauren LeMarinel, principal of Lasley Elementary, to plan how the merged campuses can serve students.

Lasley, about a mile from Emory, has about 291 students and uses about half of its school building.

As Lasley enrollment has declined, LeMarinel said, it has had fewer resources for students. Lasley shares art, music, and physical education teachers with three other schools. And this year, Lasley lost its after-school care program run by the Boys & Girls Club, which needed more students to support its work. The group decided to operate at just one school, Emory, in the region.

LeMarinel and Mahannah plan to ask if Lasley may bus students to Emory to participate in the after-school programming, as the two schools work on merging their support for students. They plan to find ways to share other partnerships too.

“We will do our best to make sure our community understands and we grow together as one,” LeMarinel said.

Enrollment was top of mind as Dorland took the job

A year and a half ago, Dorland had scant time to ease into her job. The board approved her contract in the same meeting right after discussing an emergency measure to close Allendale with little notice, because its dwindling student body made the school unsustainable.

Dorland immediately began examining enrollment and other problems behind abrupt closures.

“I was extremely concerned and shocked,” Dorland said. “I knew we had some issues. I had no idea the magnitude of the issue.”

Since 2017-18, the district’s total enrollment dropped more than 8% to about 78,473 last school year. At just district-run schools, the decline has been faster, about 11%. From 2019 to now, the district estimates it lost about 5,000 students.

While families sending their children to charter schools or other districts may play a small role, the major driver of falling enrollment is the decline in the number of school-age children in the county and the declining birth rate.

“We are very concerned that if we do not take action at this scope, we run the risk of having emergency closures in the next couple of years,” Dorland said. “It also leaves small school communities in a place of fear and anxiety wondering if they’re going to be next. We need to not be in a place of fear and anxiety.”

Dorland wants the district to address the enrollment challenges so that schools can focus on accelerating student learning and have more resources to do that.

Next steps include a look at secondary schools

After the vote in November, the district will begin examining enrollment and capacity at secondary schools, and possibly identify some for closure in the coming years. The district also is working on reevaluating the formula it uses to fund schools. Leaders want to hire experts to examine attendance boundaries and feeder patterns for elementary schools to middle and high schools.

Staff, like families throughout Jeffco, have experienced school closures in the past.

In Arvada, Principal Lara Wiant offered ideas on integrating campuses. Her school, Campbell, recently received students from Allendale and Fitzmorris when those schools closed.

She created a student ambassador program pairing each new student with a Campbell classmate who would offer a tour of the school, tips about who to go to for help, and who could sit with them during lunch.

Tara Peña, the district’s chief of family, school, and community partnerships, was an assistant principal of a school in Arvada that closed in 2010. She learned about her school’s closure at the same board meeting when her students and families heard the news.

She keeps that bad experience in mind as she helps the district shape its engagement and communication to families and staff that are affected. This year, principals were informed a few days ahead of everyone else, and instructional superintendents are helping them be prepared to support students and staff when they learn the news.

Mahannah said as a principal, she primarily wants parents to know that despite everything, her teachers are already working hard with students two weeks into the school year, and that won’t change. Just as most teachers worked through the difficulties of the pandemic, they will now too, she said.

“We’re going to go through a grieving process, but we’re going to show up every day,” Mahannah said. “Our teachers are amazing. They’re going to show up.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Are Colorado teachers the nation’s most underpaid?

2022-08-19T19:01:26+00:00

Colorado teachers earn almost 36% less than other workers with college degrees, the widest such gap in the nation and a full 3 percentage points worse than the next closest state, Virginia.

That finding comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a union-backed progressive think tank, that for years has studied the teacher wage penalty, meaning the earnings that teachers forego by not going into another profession that requires similar training and education.

There’s no state where teachers earn more than other college-educated workers, but they come close in Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Wyoming, Colorado’s neighbor to the north.

But this doesn’t mean Colorado teachers are the lowest paid in the nation. Colorado teachers earn below the national average, according to annual data collected by the National Education Association, but they’re roughly in the middle of the pack.

In 2021, the average Colorado teacher earned a little more than $60,000, according to the Colorado Department of Education. But districts vary widely and starting pay can be quite low. The median Colorado teacher earned closer to $45,000 in 2021.

Colorado’s gap is a combination of low teacher wages, particularly starting pay, and more highly paid workers in other fields, said economist Sylvia Allegretto, the study author.

“There are two moving parts,” Allegretto said. “There is what is happening to the pay of other college graduates and what is happening to teacher pay.”

This gives Phyllis Resnick, an economist at the Colorado Futures Center at Colorado State University, some hesitation about turning Colorado’s most-underpaid status into a “bumper sticker.” Resnick wasn’t involved in the wage penalty study and reviewed it at Chalkbeat’s request. She described the methodology as “very sound and appropriate.”

But the margin of error on a complex statistical analysis means Colorado may be one of several states with very large gaps, rather than dead last. And the variation in the jobs mix in each state serves as a major driver of the gap.

Despite a wage penalty of only 4%, Wyoming teachers on average earn only $2,000 more per year than Colorado teachers do, and they’re both below the national average.

“Maybe in State One everyone with a bachelor’s degree is a bank teller and in State Two everyone with a bachelor’s degree is a nuclear physicist,” Resnick said. “I’m not saying teachers aren’t underpaid in Colorado. They very probably are. But that gap is driven by the other types of jobs we’ve got in Colorado.”

For Allegretto, that’s a strength of her approach. Fewer people are going into teacher preparation programs, with one reason being that young people see they can earn more in other professions. Comparing teachers with other workers in their state, who face similar cost of living, rather than with teachers in other states, gives a better sense of what people are giving up to go into education.

“It has everything to do with recruitment and retention,” she said.

Allegretto said expecting teachers to accept lower wages as part of the deal is a choice society makes. Policymakers could choose to spend more and pay teachers similar to lucrative professions.

Nationally, this gap has gotten worse over time and is the highest it’s ever been. The average teacher earns 23.5% less than other workers with similar education levels, and even accounting for more generous public sector benefits, total compensation for teachers is 14.2% less, the study found.

When adjusted for inflation, average teacher weekly earnings have increased just $29 since 1996, according to the Economic Policy Institute, while weekly wages for other college-educated workers have gone up $445 in the same time period.

The analysis, which controls for factors like race, gender, and age, draws on data from the past five years. Many Colorado school districts have raised pay significantly in the last two years, but Allegretto said that’s unlikely to change the gap in the short term.

“They would have to be very high increases, year over year, sustained for quite a while to make up these large gaps,” Allegretto said. “There’s no indication wages in other professions are falling off. You have to make up the difference to make it an attractive profession compared to other options.”

Resnick recently did an analysis for the Keystone Policy Center that compared Colorado teacher salaries and affordability of home ownership and found that owning a home was getting harder even as teacher salaries were rising.

Resnick noted the labor market for teachers doesn’t operate freely.

“Teachers are public sector employees, and there has been pressure for 40 years to cut public sector expenditures relative to private sector pay,” she said. “We had a 40-year tax revolt in this country and that has contributed to holding down teacher salaries.”

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado teacher salaries went up, but housing prices went up even more

2022-08-16T15:54:38+00:00

Colorado teachers earning average salaries can afford to buy fewer than a fifth of the homes in their school districts — and homeownership is more out of reach in districts with higher wages.

But raising wages alone won’t fix the problem, according to a new report from the Keystone Policy Center that says the government needs to consider new housing policies to help teachers and other middle-income public sector workers live where they work. Potential solutions include downpayment assistance, access to lower interest rates, and community partnerships to build more housing.

The report looks at the relationship between teacher salaries and home prices across Colorado’s 178 school districts. While teacher wages have increased dramatically since 2015, after stagnating for many years after the Great Recession, they’ve been far outpaced by the increase in housing prices and higher interest rates. In many parts of the state, more housing was affordable on a teacher’s salary seven years ago, when wages were lower.

The median teacher salary in St. Vrain Valley School School District north of Denver is $65,000 a year, and just 9% of housing is affordable. Seven years ago, when the median teacher salary was $53,000, almost half the homes in the district were affordable. Teachers fell behind even as the supply of housing in the district increased 13%.

Some districts with lower wages had more affordable housing because the cost of housing was lower too. The majority of housing in school districts on the eastern plains, in the San Luis Valley, and in Pueblo and the Raton Basin is affordable on a teacher’s earnings. In the East Otero school district, average teacher salaries are $45,000 a year and 97% of housing could be considered affordable.

The study draws on Colorado Department of Education teacher salary data, county property assessment records, and interest rates going back to 2007 to look at whether teachers could afford to buy a home in the district where they work. Housing was deemed affordable if a teacher earning the median salary would spend no more than 30% of their income on a mortgage payment, after putting 20% down.

An interactive map allows users to see the median salary and available affordable housing in every Colorado school district for 2007, 2015, and 2021. Users can also set a custom salary and see how much teachers would have to earn to afford most housing.

Van Schoales, senior policy director at the Keystone Policy Center, said he increasingly hears from school districts that the high price of housing is making it harder to hire and hang onto teachers. But most of the focus of the conversation is on teacher salaries, rather than housing policy.

“You need to think about both,” he said. “Even with the increase in salary, it’s not keeping pace.”

Schoales said that if teachers need a high-earning spouse or intergenerational wealth to afford a home, that makes it even harder to attract potential teachers of color or those from low-income families.

The study doesn’t capture all the challenges of buying a home. Market prices might be higher than an assessor’s valuation. Many people struggle to save up for a down payment. Some communities have very little housing at any price.

Nor did the study look at the cost of renting. Phyllis Resnick, who worked on the analysis as the lead economist at the Colorado Futures Center at Colorado State University, said researchers couldn’t find accurate rental data in every school district. That said, she thinks it’s important to highlight the barriers to homeownership, which is a marker of middle-class stability and a key way people build wealth.

“In a lot of these squarely middle-class professions — teachers, nurses, the higher-paid trades, medical technicians — it is pretty much impossible without a second or even third income to afford a home,” Resnick said.

Amanda Cook teaches music in an elementary school in Crested Butte. A full-time single parent to two children, she earns $53,000 a year and pays $2,400 a month in rent. She’d like to make more money but says the district needs to invest in teacher housing too.

“Most of us are hanging on by a thread,” she said. “We definitely need to subsidize housing because we’re not going to get our salaries up to $120,000.”

In the neighboring Roaring Fork school district, district officials and community members arrived at the same conclusion. Five years ago, voters approved a bond that allowed the district to build 66 units of staff housing. The high price of housing and limited supply deters job applicants and contributes to teacher turnover in the mountain district.

In the program’s first years, the district would get a few applicants for each open unit, spokeswoman Kelsy Been said. More recently, it’s been 12 or 13 applicants per unit, even though the district recently raised wages an average of 14%.

“We live in a resort community where even though we just gave big raises, it’s not enough,” Been said. “And that’s depressing. If we can expand housing, both by the school district and in the community, that’s great.”

The district is working to add more housing and has extended the time employees can stay in district-owned housing from five to seven years. The original plan envisioned employees saving money for a down payment while paying lower rent, but that has proved challenging.

The report says employer-owned housing like that in Roaring Fork can’t be the only solution and urges policymakers to support homeownership for teachers and other middle-income public sector workers. School districts don’t have to get into the housing business, Schoales said, but they can push the conversation forward or serve as partners. They also often have significant land holdings that could be used for housing.

“There are no silver bullets, but there are a suite of things we could do that would make a meaningful difference,” Schoales said.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado hopes cash infusion spurs electric school bus adoption

2022-08-12T16:44:27+00:00

No motor. No noise. No tailpipe. No exhaust.

Aurora Public Schools’ seven new electric school buses look like other yellow buses in the district’s 151-vehicle fleet, but they don’t drive like the other buses and don’t pollute like the other buses.

Environmental advocates and government officials hope a major infusion of state and federal money can jumpstart widespread fleet replacement that would have most Colorado students transported on cleaner, quieter buses within the decade.

But achieving that likely would require technological advances to extend the range of electric buses and enough demand to bring down upfront costs.

Last year’s federal infrastructure bill included $5 billion for the Clean School Bus program. The first round of school district applications are due Aug. 19. Rebates can go toward electric school buses and charging infrastructure, as well as buses that run on compressed natural gas or propane in rural communities that need longer range. Money will continue to be distributed over the next five years.

Schools that don’t make the cut can apply in a future round or apply for a grant through Colorado’s $65 million electric school bus program adopted this year. While the federal program gives higher priority to rural and tribal schools, the state program gives higher priority to high-poverty schools.

Republicans criticized the state program as typical of Democratic overspending on low-priority pet projects, but Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said money saved on fuel and maintenance will go back into classrooms.

Polis and EPA Region 8 Director KC Becker recently joined lawmakers, school officials, and activists at a demonstration of Aurora’s electric school buses to encourage school districts to apply for funding.

“We all have a right to clear air. The children, the drivers, everyone,” said Ean Tafoya, Colorado state director for Green Latinos, who noted that Latino communities are heavily affected by air pollution. “It’s important to advocate with our school districts for these programs.”

Sabrina Pacha, director of Healthy Air and Water Colorado, said she works with a pediatrician who knows she’ll see more children with respiratory issues in her clinic on days when Denver’s brown cloud appears more prominent on her commute.

“That’s what transportation pollution is doing to our kids,” Pacha said. “It’s exacerbating underlying health conditions, and it’s putting them at greater risk of developing asthma and other respiratory issues.”

Aurora purchased its buses this spring with a $2.2 million grant from the regional air quality council to replace diesel buses bought in 2009. The district plans to use the buses on its longest routes for maximum savings and add more as more funds become available.

Right now, electric school buses cost about twice as much as diesel buses, though they’re cheaper to operate on a daily basis.

“Schools have to replace buses at some point anyway, so this is a great program,” Becker said. “There’s an equity piece, there’s a cost savings piece, and there’s an environmental piece.”

The most immediate benefit will be felt in neighborhoods, when diesel buses aren’t idling in front of schools and on bus lots, she said.

Between the two funding sources, Polis said he hopes to see a fully electric school bus fleet within 10 to 12 years. It’s not clear how many buses might be purchased or what percentage of the current fleet might get replaced with existing funding streams.

Polis predicted that federal funding would transform the market for electric school buses and charging infrastructure. The state money is enough to help school districts buy a bus, while the federal money is enough to push manufacturers to step up production and bring costs down, he said.

Aurora Fleet Manager Omar Espinal said he plans to monitor metrics ranging from energy use to student behavior during the first 90 days the buses are on the road. He’s optimistic the quieter ride will encourage calmer behavior from students, in addition to the buses’ other benefits.

Aurora Public Schools Fleet Manager Omar Espinal plans to track the performance of the districts’ seven electric buses to measure cost savings and other benefits.

Some 350 miles away in Durango, Transportation Director Daniel Blythe generally agrees.

The district’s electric school bus, purchased last year in a partnership with the La Plata Electric Association, doubles as a battery that can feed back into the grid during times of high-demand.

It’s “freaky quiet,” Blythe said. “You can hear the tires on the concrete. You can hear anything that’s being said front to back.”

Blythe says he would recommend any district pursue the technology. The bus easily covers its daily route, even in winter when heaters draw more power from the battery, and it can charge in the middle of the day in between longer runs.

Blythe hopes to have four electric buses out of a fleet of 35, at least until the travel range improves. Trips to sporting events can reach 300 miles or more, so he still needs some diesel buses.

“We don’t like to push it to the limit because it would be a bad look to be on the side of the road,” he said.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Aurora students disembark from an electric school bus after a ride around the Edna and John W. Mosley P-8 campus.

Colorado schools’ hardest jobs to fill: Bus drivers and special education

2022-08-12T00:19:40+00:00

For Lacey Nelson, the weeks leading up to the start of school are a blur of spreadsheets, meetings, and calls from principals about last-minute teacher resignations.

With less than two weeks to go, Denver Public Schools’ director of talent acquisition is still looking to hire 150 teachers, 275 paraprofessionals, and up to 45 bus drivers. Priorities get reevaluated daily based on reports from the field. A school that was “fine” two days ago suddenly needs two more teachers.

It’s all completely normal.

“In general, we are not seeing anything different this school year than past school years, and I’m not seeing anything that is majorly off,” Nelson said. “It’s a pretty calm year.”

Even as Colorado school districts are holding hire-on-the-spot job fairs and offering signing bonuses, many education leaders told Chalkbeat the challenges are nothing new and that vacancies and hiring are similar to those of years past.

Nikki Jost, executive director of human resources for Mesa County Valley District 51 in western Colorado, said hiring is actually going better this year.

“COVID protocols are different than in years past, we had a 9.1% increase in wages for returning employees, we increased starting salaries across the board, we increased our social media presence, and we have some amazing recruiters,” she wrote in response to a Chalkbeat survey.

But normal doesn’t mean fully staffed.

According to the 2021-22 educator shortage report, Colorado schools couldn’t fill 8% of their open teaching positions last year nor 17% of their special service provider positions. Roughly 9% of paraprofessional or classroom aide positions went unfilled. The number of unfilled positions, as well as the share filled through shortage mechanisms like bringing back retired educators or hiring teachers with an emergency license, has gone up over the past three years, even as the total number of openings has gone down, the report said.

Firm data on this year’s vacancies is hard to come by, both locally and nationally. In the weeks before the start of school, the numbers change daily. Across 10 Colorado districts large and small that responded to Chalkbeat information requests, superintendents and human resources directors said they’ve raised pay, improved benefits, and made other changes in an effort to be competitive.

Denver is touting its health insurance plan, entirely free to employees. The Brighton-based 27J district tells job candidates about its four-day week and investments in mental health supports that take some of the load off teachers. Many districts are offering on-the-job training and help with licensure.

Bus drivers and special education jobs — teachers, special service providers and especially classroom assistants — remain among the hardest positions to fill, officials said. And those vacancies hit children and families hard.

School districts face stiff competition for bus drivers

Many Colorado districts are consolidating bus routes and cutting service in response to driver shortages.

“Last year, we consolidated bus routes and added a non-CDL position, allowing employees in that position to drive smaller vans on many routes,” said Myla Shepherd, chief human resources officer for Adams 12 Five Star Schools serving north Denver suburbs. ”These two measures greatly helped us maintain adequate transportation staffing levels.”

In 27J, transportation office employees and mechanics have to drive bus routes in addition to their other job duties, and students have been placed on wait lists for bus service. About 10% of 100 bus driver positions are open there.

In Jeffco Public Schools, nearly a third of 283 bus driver positions were open less than two weeks before the start of the school year. In a July email to families, Jeffco Chief Operating Officer Steve Bell laid out a plan to gradually restore bus routes as more drivers are hired and trained. In the meantime, students with disabilities would continue to get the highest priority.

Trevor Byrne, a Jeffco bus driver and president of Jefferson County Transportation Association, the union representing drivers, said the bottom line is pay. Even with a recent pay increase to $21.70 an hour, drivers have a lot of options that pay more. Byrne said he stays because he loves working with kids.

“I’m not disparaging sanitation workers, but you can make $35 an hour driving a garbage truck,” Byrne said. “How important is it to transport our special needs kids versus taking garbage away from someone’s house?”

Nelson, of Denver Public Schools, agreed.

“You think about Amazon, they need drivers,” she said. “The post office, FedEx, UPS, they all need drivers.”

Denver has raised pay and like many districts pays for driver training and offers signing bonuses. Dropping a vaccine mandate that led some workers to quit last year has helped too, Nelson said.

Special education jobs have seen shortages for years

Superintendents and human resources directors said jobs working with students with disabilities continue to be among the hardest to fill. Special service providers like occupational therapists and speech language pathologists can make more money in private practice. Classroom aides can make more money in retail. And there simply aren’t enough special education teachers for all the open positions.

In a bid for experienced educators, Adams 12 now offers unlimited credit for years of service in other districts to special education teachers and special service providers.

Special education paraprofessionals have been particularly hard to hire. These educators provide one-on-one and small group support to students with a variety of disabilities, including students with complex physical and emotional needs. Often these jobs combine low pay with major responsibilities.

Lori Williams, a special education para in Jeffco, said low staffing makes it harder to give students the support they deserve.

“We’re supposed to push them into a general ed classroom and sometimes we can’t do that because we’re short-staffed,” she said. “And other times students that are in a general ed classroom don’t get the support that they need.”

Denver just raised pay for special education paras from $16.50 an hour to $21 an hour and has seen hiring pick up. As of Tuesday, the district had 137 special education para positions still to fill.

“Often they are working one-on-one with a student with really high needs, and they need additional training and qualifications,” Nelson said. “Finding someone with the qualifications — not just the on-paper qualifications but the skills to do that job — can be really challenging.

“When you earn $16.50, it’s easy on that bad day to turn around and apply to something else.”

Even a few vacancies can make a difference

Staffing challenges vary by community and even within districts. One school might be operating as normal while another has parent volunteers serving cold lunches.

Marty Gutierrez, a middle school math teacher in Adams 12, said there are four open teaching positions out of 40 in his building, including teachers who gave notice in August to take better paid or less stressful jobs, often still within education.

“People can go where they want to because there are so many openings,” he said.

That means he’s starting the year unsure who his planning partners will be, if he’ll get his planning periods, or if he’ll have to pick up extra classes. And he worries it will be harder to set expectations and norms for students and establish a strong school culture if there’s a rotating cast of substitutes across multiple classes.

In addition to two science teachers, a math teacher, and a special education teacher, his school lost its head custodian over the summer. These are all positions where districts report hiring challenges.

“It’s affecting us top to bottom,” Gutierrez said.

Chris Selle, superintendent of the 681-student Meeker district in northwestern Colorado, said until this year, he’d always been fully staffed by August. But this summer, three teachers backed out of contracts and the elementary school principal resigned. In a small district, losing one teacher can mean doubling class sizes for that grade or subject.

This week, Selle and the school board decided not to try to fill the elementary principal job this school year. Instead, Selle will lead the elementary school along with handling his superintendent duties.

“Some things just won’t get done,” he said.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado school funding measure won’t be on the ballot

2022-08-08T19:18:35+00:00

Colorado voters won’t get to decide this November whether to forego a portion of future state tax refunds to better fund K-12 schools.

Supporters of a ballot measure that would have dedicated an estimated $984 million in future income tax revenue to help school districts recruit and retain educators announced Monday that they had fallen short of the nearly 125,000 signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot this fall.

Tracie Rainey of the Colorado School Finance Project said the failure was particularly frustrating because the measure had polled well and seemed to have a better chance of passing than previous attempts to increase school funding.

“It’s unfortunate that the voters won’t be given a chance to vote on something that they value,” she said.

Colorado funds its schools at lower rates than many other states and for more than a decade has failed to comply with a constitutional requirement to increase school funding each year by the rate of population growth plus inflation. Meanwhile, in good economic times, the state must return money to taxpayers if state revenues exceed a cap similarly determined by population and inflation.

This year, taxpayers are getting refunds of $750 each while lawmakers held back $321 million in state funds that could have gone to schools.

Initiative 63 would have dedicated an additional one-third of 1 percent of state income tax revenue to education and exempted that money from the cap imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights or TABOR. The measure would have raised almost $1 billion a year for schools, with the money going toward salary increases and other efforts to hire and keep more workers.

Standing outside a Mexican restaurant on Denver’s Colfax Avenue on a broiling August afternoon a few days before the deadline, Joyce Brooks said she rarely heard no while gathering signatures for Initiative 63.

“It’s easier this time,” said Brooks, a longtime education activist and NAACP member. “They realize what schools, kids, families, and especially teachers have gone through. And they know about the need for more paraprofessionals, and they know that the issue is pay.

“Because of what’s happened, people want to help.”

Polling conducted for the campaign by Tulchin Research found 64% of respondents were a definite or a probable yes on the measure after they were informed about it. Independent polling done by Magellan Strategies found a similarly high level of support, with more than half of Republicans inclined to vote yes.

That was substantially higher than pre-election polling in 2018 on Amendment 73, a tax increase on high earners that ultimately failed with just 45% of the vote.

“That’s what’s painful,” said Lisa Weil, executive director of Great Education Colorado. “This would win. How much power does the Colorado voter have if things they really want to vote on can’t make it on the ballot?”

Due to high participation in 2018, supporters needed almost 125,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot, compared to 98,492 in 2018. Despite the lower bar, backers of Amendment 73 turned in roughly 130,000 valid signatures after a coordinated campaign.

Weil said people and organizations who had funded past signature-gathering efforts held back, prioritizing other races and promising money for a general election campaign if the measure made the ballot.

“Nobody wanted to write a big check for the 123,674th signature and then we still don’t make it,” Weil said.

Ballot measure campaigns in Colorado frequently use paid signature gatherers, but Weil said money also pays for postage, for field managers to coordinate volunteers, and for information campaigns to make sure people know where and when they can sign. All of that was lacking this year.

Rainey said supporters are considering all their options, including trying again another year or persuading legislators to refer a measure to voters. Lawmakers did just that with a proposal to fund school lunch for all students by reducing deductions for high earners.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Denver classroom aides earn pay increase to $20 an hour

2022-07-28T23:11:24+00:00

Starting pay for Denver classroom aides is going up to $20 an hour, and the minimum wage for all school district employees will reach $20 an hour by 2024-25 under agreements reached between the district and four employee labor unions.

The agreements come as school districts around the state are grappling with staffing shortages and competing with rising pay in the private sector.

Many Denver Public Schools positions had offered a starting salary of $15.87, the minimum wage within the city of Denver. This spring, union leaders argued workers would need to make twice that to earn a true livable wage, given rising costs of living in the city.

In a press release, Denver Public Schools Chief of Talent Edwin Hudson said the agreements balance budgetary constraints with a commitment to the district’s employees.

Starting pay for classroom aides known as paraprofessionals will increase to $20 an hour starting Aug. 1, and to $21 by the 2024-25 school year.

Starting pay for custodians and food service workers will increase to $18 an hour and go up by $1 each year to $20 an hour in 2024-25.

Starting pay for bus drivers will increase to $24.40 an hour, for transportation maintenance workers to $22.42 an hour, and for security patrol officers to $27.50.

The pay raises are laid out in separate three-year contracts with the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Colorado Federation of School Safety Professionals, the Communications Workers of America, which represents custodians, and the Denver Federation for Paraprofessionals & Nutrition Service Employees.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

5 takeaways from the data that will shape Jeffco school closure decisions

2022-07-22T16:36:22+00:00

Leer en español.

More than half of Jeffco elementary schools are losing students, a change that’s leading to higher costs to educate those who remain and forcing schools to combine classrooms and make other compromises.

That’s according to school-level data published by Jeffco Public Schools as board members kick off a conversation about one of the hardest decisions they face: which schools to close or consolidate.

Jeffco has been dealing with declining enrollment for years, and like many other metro area districts is closing small schools. Citing an emergency caused by critically low enrollment, the district closed two schools in the past two years, giving little notice to parents. Now Jeffco is trying to think further ahead.

The school board asked administrators to compile statistics about all elementary schools, to look at factors beyond school size. Board members plan to discuss the report Tuesday.

So far, district leaders have said they plan to use enrollment and building utilization, or how much of its space is actively used, as the main factors in deciding which schools to close.

School board members have wondered about considering other factors such as student demographics, whether the school has combined, mixed-grade classrooms, or whether the building is used a lot by the community for other purposes.

Superintendent Tracy Dorland is expected to present recommendations for school closures to the board at the end of August.

Chalkbeat analyzed data the district published online last month on each of the 84 district-run elementary schools.

Here are some key takeaways.

1. More than a dozen schools use less than 60% of their building capacity and are also expected to serve fewer than 250 students next year.

Of 84 elementary schools, 30 are projected to have fewer than 250 students this fall. Of those, 16 already use less than 60% of their building’s capacity.

The district’s public dashboard includes preschool students in calculating how much of a building is used but doesn’t include preschool students in the enrollment number. The enrollment number is based just on older students. Districts get different funding for elementary and preschool students.

The 16 low-usage schools are mostly concentrated in the district’s communities that are closer to Denver. Six of the schools are in Arvada, where Jeffco already recently closed two schools. Four more are in Lakewood, and three have a Westminster address.

District leaders haven’t decided how few students or what utilization level is too low for the district to sustain.

When looking at how many schools are expected to have fewer than 200 students next school year, there are 11 schools, including eight using less than 60% of their campus: Slater, Campbell, Thomson, Colorow, Glennon Heights, Peck, Molholm, and New Classical at Vivian.

It’s likely schools with these overlapping factors face a higher risk for closure. But district leaders also have said that to provide support for families transitioning to new buildings, the district will have to limit how many schools it closes in 2023.

2. Schools with low enrollment and utilization are also more likely to have a high concentration of students living in poverty.

Besides being mostly clustered in three cities bordering Denver, another factor that defines the schools with low enrollment and low utilization is having higher portions of students living in poverty. The 16 low-usage schools have an average of 50% of their students from low-income families, as defined by qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. At schools with higher enrollment and utilization rates, the average student body includes just 23% qualifying as low income.

3. More Jeffco elementary schools will lose rather than gain students.

Overall, Jeffco expects elementary school enrollment to remain steady in the fall, with just a one-student increase. But change will vary among schools.

Projections show enrollment declining at 43 of 84 schools. Of those, more than two-thirds are expected to lose more than 10 students.

Meanwhile, enrollment is expected to grow at 38 schools, and about two-thirds of them will gain more than 10 students.

The gain or loss of even a few students can greatly affect budgets of small schools. Losing students can make it harder to hire enough staff, manage classroom size, and offer specialized programming, all factors that affect the quality of education.

4. Thirty-seven elementary schools have higher-than-average per-student costs.

District spending per elementary student ranges from $13,870 at Kyffin Elementary which had 441 students last school year, to $19,197 at Thompson Elementary which had 194 students.

The district gives money to schools based on enrollment and a few other factors including how many students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. Schools with too few students can’t cover their costs and must get additional money from the district.

Jeffco leaders have said school closures aren’t just about saving money, but also about providing an equitable and robust education at every school.

Schools that cost more to run and still lack the programs that other schools offer are less sustainable. The district this year has hired a consultant to audit how the district allocates dollars to schools to re-examine student-based budgeting.

5. Sixteen schools are projected to have more combined classrooms next year.

In discussing how they believed education has suffered at schools they closed because of too few students in the past two years, Jeffco leaders pointed to classes combining two grades.

That burdens the teacher and diminishes student learning, they said, in part because teachers didn’t have grade-level colleagues to plan, train, or discuss with.

Last school year, the district had 53 classrooms combining multiple grade levels. Next year, the district expects to have 72 combination classes. Just four of the schools using combined classrooms in 2021-22 expect to be able to eliminate them in the fall.

There are 16 elementary schools that expect to have an increase in the use of these classrooms, including six schools where they haven’t been used in the previous year.

If you are having trouble viewing this form, go here.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Why your child’s school really wants you to apply for free lunch

2022-07-20T17:00:00+00:00

Leer en español.

Add one more thing to your to-do list before school starts: an application for free and reduced-price lunch.

This year, school district leaders are renewing the push reminding parents to fill out this form. For the past two years, students could get school meals for free whether their parents filled out the form or not — but that won’t be the case this fall.

Beth Wallace, the executive director for food and nutrition services for Jeffco Public Schools, said her district served about 30% more meals than before the pandemic.

At the same time, as the eligibility forms weren’t required, districts saw a drop in the population identified as eligible for subsidized lunches. In Jeffco, eligibility dropped 10% to about 28% of the student population from the 2019-20 school year. Across the country, districts reported similar patterns.

District leaders and child advocates wanted the federal government to allow schools to continue offering free lunches to all students, but the government has reinstated the requirement to prove a student’s eligibility.

Colorado voters will consider a ballot measure in November to offer free school meals for all students, but that won’t change anything for this coming school year. This fall, students must have a new form on file with their school district to determine if they’re eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

“It’s going to be a challenge,” Wallace said. “Now we have second graders who have never gone into this process.”

With the help of some district directors of school meal programs, Chalkbeat got answers to some basic questions about how it all works.

Who has to fill out the form and when does it need to be filled out?

Any parent who feels they need help covering the cost of school meals should fill out the form. The form asks for information about your income and household size that will be used to figure out if you qualify. A family of four would qualify for free lunch if the household income was $36,075 or less. The form also asks for the last four digits of a Social Security number, but that is not required to receive assistance.

There isn’t a strict deadline for when to fill it out. Really, you could fill it out anytime during the school year, but the forms aren’t retroactive. If you wait until October to fill it out, even if you are deemed eligible for free lunch, you would still be charged for meals that your children take from the start of the school year, until whenever the school district approves your form.

And just because you’ve filled out a form in the past, that doesn’t exempt you. The forms are never valid past June 30, so even if you fill one out in May, for example, it expires at the end of June. After July 1, every family needs to fill out the form again.

If a family experiences a change in the middle of the school year — like a new baby, or a loss of income — they can apply to change their status that year. Also, if you change school districts in the middle of the school year, you’ll need to fill out a new form again because districts don’t share the forms with each other.

Are there options for how to fill it out?

Yes! Many parents fill out the forms online, but your district should have paper copies available as well. Additionally, some districts, like Jeffco, set up computer cubicles where parents can come in and fill out these forms while receiving guidance.

Many districts also provide the forms in different languages. If you need help filling out the form or want to request a paper or translated copy, call your district’s lunch services department.

Who sees the information I put on my form?

Usually only one or two people read and process forms, depending on the school district, leaders say.

The school districts have to report how many students applied and were deemed eligible for the federal government to pay for the lunches those students receive, but that information is given to the government in aggregate. The federal departments don’t get copies of the forms parents fill out. District directors say schools never share these forms with immigration officials either.

Other than that, state auditors sometimes request to look at some of the forms from a district to verify that the district is processing forms correctly. “They don’t look at any information beyond that,” said Tony Jorstad, director of nutrition services for the 27J school district.

If I don’t qualify for free lunch, or my child doesn’t eat school food, why should I fill it out?

District leaders point out that there are other benefits to families, and to schools, other than the reduced cost of school meals.

For example, a family that qualifies for free or reduced-price meals might also qualify for waivers or fee reductions for various school or district services and activities like sports, transportation, and technology. Outside of school, internet providers also offer households a reduced price for internet access if children qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

The amount of funding schools get from the federal government, the state, and the district can depend on how many of their students qualify for the subsidized meals. The forms are used to measure poverty, which may qualify schools to receive more resources for students.

And even without the federal government waiver that allowed all meals to be free for all students, when a school has a particularly high level of students living in poverty, it may still be able to offer free breakfasts and lunches to all students.

If school lunch departments have less money coming in, will students see a difference in the meals that are offered?

School lunch directors say no. Although all districts are expecting fewer students to eat school lunches, because fewer will qualify for subsidies, officials also expect a bump in reimbursement per meal, compared with pre-pandemic levels.

However, supply chain difficulties and increased costs of food could affect what foods show up on menus.

“We really try to plan our menus to work within the reimbursement that we think we’re going to be getting,” Jorstad said. “Right now we’re not looking at changing any menu products of fruit and veggie choices that we offer. We’re pretty proud of the fresh fruit and veggie choices that we offer each day.”

If families don’t qualify for free or reduced-price meals, but still can’t send their child with lunch or money for a school meal, can schools offer other help?

District lunch directors said this is a tough question. Parents should talk to their school about other options. Federal rules prevent school districts from giving school meals away for free.

Often, a school may allow a student to take meals without paying, but will bill the families for the meals. Before the pandemic began, many school districts worried about how much debt families were accumulating. Some schools have a discretionary budget specifically for these situations. In other cases, districts have received donations to help clear debt that students may accumulate for school meals.

“Don’t be afraid to ask,” Jorstad said. “But the first thing, the most important thing, is filling out that form, that information, to figure out that determination.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Aurora teachers could get an average 8.5% raise, if agreement is approved

2022-07-08T00:42:01+00:00

Teachers and other school staff in Aurora will get an average 8.5% raise this coming school year, district leaders announced this week.

District and union leaders agreed on the salary increases, which still need approval by a vote of union members, and the district’s school board next month.

If approved as expected, leaders believe the raises will be among the highest in the metro area this school year.

Classified and administrative staff will get a commensurate raise as is practice in the district.

“We want to make sure we recognize the need to stay competitive,” Superintendent Rico Munn said. “We have prioritized that over many years.”

The increases are estimated to cost the district about $30 million annually.

Negotiations for salaries continue in the Denver and Jeffco school districts. In Littleton, the school board approved giving teachers and other licensed staff raises of about 7%, including steps and lanes — compensation for longevity and additional degrees or training. The Adams 14 district and teachers union reached an agreement last month to give teachers a 3.5% cost of living raise, separate from step increases and retention bonuses.

Aurora Public School officials are touting that they’ve given raises ranging from 4.86% to 8.8% each of the last five years, which they say that adds up to 34% in average increases.

As of early last month, Aurora staff retention for next year was 87.92% — slightly lower than usual, but still within a normal range, and not concerningly low, Munn said.

The challenge, he said, is in finding new hires.

“Where you had a vacancy before, you had 10 people applying. Today we have two,” Munn said.

Linnea Reed-Ellis, president of the Aurora teachers union, said that she hopes the salary increases will help the district hire and retain more staff, as well as making the profession “more sustainable.”

“Anecdotally, I hear from a lot of teachers who are struggling and trying to decide whether or not to stay in the profession,” Reed-Ellis said. “I know that compensation is always one of the top priorities for educators, so we’re hopeful this will support our educators in making the decision to stay.”

But with the rising cost of living, she said, “It’s still hard to be an educator in Colorado.”

In addition to the salary increases, the union and the district renegotiated their entire contract. Reed-Ellis said teachers are also excited about new limits on class size.

“Basically all or the majority of my site visits the first semester this school year, class size was a common theme, regardless of age of students,” Reed-Ellis said. “It really gets to the sustainability of the careers.”

The contract lays out thresholds, and also a process to review each case when a class size ends up larger than the guidelines.

Both leaders said that they were proud of the negotiating teams.

“We didn’t hit an impasse, we didn’t have a big fight, we were able to work through these issues,” Munn said. “That kind of stability is important for people these days.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado will pay for two ways for Adams 14 students to go to different schools

2022-07-06T00:46:14+00:00

Colorado will pay about $3 million over two years to transport some Adams 14 students to schools outside the district.

The state will award funds to a charter school group and a pair of nonprofit organizations that applied for money from a new state grant to transport Adams 14 students away from low-performing schools.

The charter school group proposes to take Adams 14 students to its schools, Community Leadership Academy and Victory Prep.

The nonprofit groups would pay for rides from HopSkipDrive, a ride-share company, to take students to high-rated charter or district-run schools in Denver.

The state asked both applicants to modify their applications, which group leaders said would not be a problem.

The charter school group requested slightly more than $100,000 in each of two years to pay for existing bus service for about 50 more students. Together, the two charter schools, which have the same leaders, serve students in kindergarten through 12th grade in Commerce City.

“It just opens up so many options for families,” said Terry Croy-Lewis, executive director of the Charter School Institute, supporting the charter school application.

The state asked two non-profit groups applying together, RootEd and Transform Education Now, to cut their budget request by 10% to about $2.7 million for two years, to justify why their per-student cost of more than $5,000 exceeds predetermined state estimates, and to have a way to track the grant dollars, among other things.

Nicholas Martinez, the executive director of Transform Education Now, said the groups could make the changes.

Although families in Colorado have long been able to send their children to schools outside their neighborhood, they’ve usually had to arrange their own transportation.

Even then, many Adams 14 families have enrolled their children in neighboring districts. Last school year about 3,000 students attended non-district schools, leaving slightly more than 6,100 students in Adams 14.

As Adams 14 faced state pressure over its academics, State Board of Education members wanted to find a way to pay for transportation to make it easier for students to attend a higher-rated school. The state board discussed those options even before it ordered the district to reorganize and possibly face dissolution.

The district, meanwhile, is working on recruiting and retaining students. Last school year, it paid for billboards to advertise new programs at Adams 14 schools, and is working to make it easier for families to re-enroll.

In a lawsuit filed last week, the district’s lawyer wrote that the state’s orders requiring reorganization have harmed the district and prompted more students to plan to leave Adams 14 schools.

Colorado funds school districts based on the number of students enrolled. As districts lose students, they face the prospect of losing funds as well.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Adams 14 finalizes 3-year contract with new manager

2022-06-27T23:28:53+00:00

Adams 14 officials signed a $5 million, three-year contract with the school district’s new external manager, the New-York-based nonprofit TNTP.

The contract, effective July 1, will run through June 30, 2025.

TNTP, formerly known as The New Teacher Project, submitted the only response to a request for proposals from organizations to manage the district, as required by the state. Both the district and the nonprofit group spent months figuring out if they were the right match.

This is the second time the district has entered into an external management agreement to raise student achievement after years of low performance.

The state in 2018 ordered the Adams 14 school district, north of Denver, to hand over management to a third party. The district signed a contract in 2019 with MGT Consulting, a for-profit based company, but that partnership fell apart this past school year. The district terminated the contract early in 2022.

This time, the district proposed that the selected group would only be partial managers, citing among other things a lack of research backing full management by private or consultant groups. That means the superintendent and local board will keep more authority than they did under MGT.

At the same time that the State Board of Education asked the district to hire a new manager, the board also ordered that Adams 14 reorganize — which may result in school closures or district dissolution.

Under the contract approved by the school board last week, TNTP’s responsibilities fall under five categories. Among other things, they will be responsible for co-designing a strategic plan, coaching leaders, and conducting an analysis of the root causes of problems in the district, identifying priorities for improvement and giving the district recommendations.

TNTP also will be responsible for recommending new personnel policies to improve recruitment and retention and for recommending curriculum changes.

Additionally, TNTP “will have authority … [over] hiring, firing, performance evaluations, compensation decisions, and other employment decisions,” as the district’s board delegated, according to the contract. TNTP will not oversee district day-to-day operations, the contract states.

Adams 14 school board member Maria Zubia said just before the vote that this contract was different from the last one with MGT, and that the board is looking for checks and balances.

To address a concern the school board had with the last manager, the contract will not allow TNTP to subcontract without prior district approval. If a subcontractor is doing the same work as TNTP is hired to do, the money already paid to TNTP must cover it.

The contract lays out a proposed payment schedule for the $4,995,553 cost over three years. District and community leaders had raised concerns about the cost of the last management contract, in which MGT received more than $7 million in the first two school years.

The cost to the district for this contract would be higher, but the Oak Foundation is subsidizing the services with a grant to TNTP. The contract doesn’t specify which services are covered by the grant or how large it is. A spokesperson for TNTP did not respond to a request for additional information.

The contract allows the district or TNTP to end the contract for any reason. Good cause reasons to terminate the contract include a decrease in student performance on state tests, an increase in state ratings for two consecutive years — which would pull the district out of state oversight — the state changing its orders, or the district’s inability to pay.

The district also will be able to renegotiate the cost and services, in case schools are closed and the amount of help required from TNTP changes.

Read the full contract here:

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Two applicants seek state money for Adams 14 student transportation

2022-06-23T22:22:20+00:00

A charter school group and a pair of nonprofit organizations submitted applications to the state’s new grant program for transportation of Adams 14 students who choose to leave low-performing schools.

The charter school’s plan would transport students to its own charter and the nonprofit groups’ plan would take students to Denver schools.

The Colorado State Board of Education asked the department to look into ways the state could pay for transportation in order to remove one barrier for Adams 14 students who want to enroll elsewhere at a higher-performing school.

The state Department of Education is reviewing the two applications and will announce awards by July 1.

The Adams 14 school district is the only one identified as chronically low performing by the state’s rating system, and is the only one the state grant will target. Adams 14 has received the state’s lowest ratings since 2010. Neither previous district-run nor state-ordered improvement plans have improved its rating so far.

The state this year directed the district to begin reorganizing — a process that could eventually lead to neighboring districts absorbing parts of Adams 14, though leaders of those districts have stated they support the district’s autonomy and its own improvement plans.

In the meantime, the state wants the district to start its own improvement plan and wants to help students who choose to attend other schools.

The Adams 14 district has long had many students attend schools in nearby districts. Charter schools and Mapleton Public Schools have at times marketed specifically to attract Adams 14 students. In the past school year, Adams 14 enrolled about 6,100 students, and lost about 3,000 students who live in the district to other schools.

Details of what the support would look like have been limited, however, the grant applications provide some insight.

The charter school application is from the leaders of Victory Prep and Community Leadership Academy, long-standing partner charter schools located in the Adams 14 boundaries.

The schools are authorized under the Charter School Institute, although leaders recently asked Adams 14 to authorize them instead, but were denied.

Under their application, the charter school would use the money to pay for up to six traditional school bus routes through Adams 14, aiming to cover the transportation cost of about 50 eligible students. The application requests a little more than $100,000 each of the two years.

The other application was submitted by RootEd and Transform Education Now, two nonprofits that have supported charter schools. Transform Education Now has worked with Adams 14 parents for several years. That application seeks a little more than $3 million dollars over the two years, to pay for rides for students in the low-performing Adams 14 schools who want to go to a school in Denver.

The nonprofit groups would use the third party, HopSkipDrive, and estimates they would pay for daily rides for 150 students the first year and 250 students the second year. Their budget request estimates more than $5,000 cost per student, significantly higher than the state’s cost estimate of between $1,200 and $2,800 per student.

Both applications describe how they will market to students in Adams 14 over the next few months to make families aware of the option. The nonprofit groups also plan to help families navigate choice enrollment by identifying where open spots are available in higher-performing Denver schools and creating a guide highlighting options available with academic data for the schools.

The state has allocated about $3 million from the state’s ESSER COVID relief dollars to fund the transportation grants for two years. If the program is successful, state board members said they may consider finding other sources to keep it going in the future.

Read the grant applications in full.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Jeffco school district planning multiple elementary school closures

2022-06-14T23:57:48+00:00

Leer en español.

The Jeffco school district is preparing to make recommendations this fall to close multiple elementary schools, kicking off its long-term plan to downsize its number of schools.

Jeffco district leaders say 49, or 58% of district elementary schools, currently have fewer than 250 students, and/or use less than 60% building capacity. Six elementary schools, in six different areas of the district, have fewer than 200 students, and also utilize less than 60% of their building’s capacity.

“While we have a large issue in this district, there are a few schools that are really facing dire situations with how small they are going into next school year and we must confront those,” said Lisa Relou, Jeffco’s chief of strategy and communications, who is overseeing the plan’s creation.

Jeffco, like many districts throughout the country and the metro area, has seen a steady decline in enrollment for years, which was aggravated by the pandemic. The district in 2021-22 served approximately 78,000 students, down from a peak of more than 86,700 in the fall of 2015. Districts say student populations have decreased due to lower birth rates, as well as higher costs of living in metropolitan areas pushing families out. Projections show the number of students in the next few years likely will continue to drop.

With fewer students, the district gets less money from the state, and then schools get less money from the district. While parents often value small classroom sizes, districts argue having multiple small schools is stretching resources too thin, and making for less adequate educational programming.

Jeffco leaders closed two elementary schools in the past two years, calling them emergency closures, citing problems maintaining programs, and giving little notice to parents. The district’s new plan, Regional Opportunities for Thriving Schools, was launched after the closure of Fitzmorris this year as a way to try to prevent emergency closures in the spring and provide parents more notice.

The district hasn’t said how many schools will be recommended for closure in the first round of the plan. But, the district is drafting a report that will detail factors the school board wants to consider in deciding whether to close a school.

That report, to be completed by June 30 on the status of all elementary schools, will include the school’s enrollment and staffing numbers, programming, and the building’s condition, among other details.

By August 31, the superintendent will make recommendations on which elementary school to close at the end of the 2022-23 school year. The board will vote on those recommendations before the end of November.

This fall’s recommendations will be based largely on enrollment and building utilization, but other factors might play a bigger role in future decisions such as whether the school hosts a unique program or what transportation options exist if students must go elsewhere.

“The approach is still evolving,” Relou said. “They’re all things we need to look at. They are all important components, but I think some things will stick out more than other things.”

In addition to district recommendations, district leaders are also planning to support principals who are working on plans of their own to merge schools. Those voluntary school mergers could be considered at the same time.

Relou said the district wants to limit how many schools are closed in one year so that district staff can support displaced families and students.

The other issue that hasn’t been decided is whether the district at some point will create a “bright line” – a number that would trigger closure. Some school board members said that having more clear benchmarks for what is considered “too few” students, might help parents.

But having such strict rules also might remove some of a district’s ability to consider other factors.

In Jeffco, for instance, Relou has said that some school buildings were made for small student populations, meaning that while they may have few students, they may be at or above building capacity. Regardless, Jeffco school board members and leaders want the focus to be on whether schools can provide good programs.

In the case of the last two emergency closures in Jeffco, district leaders said that the schools had to combine grade levels causing teachers to deal with different standards, and sometimes different curriculum resources, for students in one class. And in those cases, teachers didn’t have co-workers to plan and collaborate with for their grade levels. Before closing, Fitzmorris school leaders also described having a hard time offering after-school programming because even private providers were reluctant to offer services for so few students.

Now Jeffco is trying to define what it takes for a school to be what the district calls “thriving.”

One measure being discussed is ensuring a school is big enough to have two to three classes per grade level, so teachers can collaborate with co-workers. District leaders also have discussed that each school needs to have full-time art, music, and physical education teachers, so that students can have those classes consistently, rather than once every few weeks as is the case in some schools with shared teachers.

Board members also told district staff they want the district to track students who have been displaced by closures, in hopes of preventing the same students from being impacted more than once.

After November, the plan’s focus will become more broad, looking at middle and high schools as well. That means looking at how elementary schools feed into secondary schools, but also considering closing schools in higher grade levels.

Jeffco leaders say that this is one of many steps needed to eventually manage the district’s budget problems.

Enrollment has decreased faster than staffing levels, Relou said. And, as the district negotiates to increase staff salaries, likely using reserves for now, the district is going to have to cut expenditures to afford higher salaries in coming years.

As the district is working on the plan for school closures, Jeffco also has hired a consultant to evaluate how it spends its dollars. The district, like most others, allocates dollars to schools based on enrollment, called student-based budgeting, which began in Jeffco in the 2015-16 school year.

The method of funding gives principals flexibility to decide how to use their budgets. But as schools have had less enrollment, the district has had to step in to help schools pay for essentials. To help do that, Jeffco created a system where, if a school has more than a set level of enrollment, those schools must give back some of their per-student funding, to subsidize schools with too few students. Superintendent Tracy Dorland said the process is causing frustration for principals, as leaders must navigate confusing funding rules.

The consultant hired by the district will analyze the district’s spending, help district staff create a new formula for student-based budgeting, and help train principals so they are better prepared for creating their school budgets.

The district also will hire a consultant to run community engagement before the November vote on closures. The district plans to form committees in each affected articulation area, but stressed that the engagement would not be focused on whether a school should or should not close, but rather on how boundaries would shift, and how to support students in a transition.

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado Gov. Polis signs school finance act, other funding measures

2022-05-27T04:25:14+00:00

Per-pupil spending will increase 6% from this year, special education funding will increase nearly 40%, more high school students will have access to free college courses, and school districts with low property wealth will get more state money under a series of education bills signed by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis Thursday.

The most significant of the bills is also the most mundane. The school finance act is the only bill — other than the budget — that Colorado legislators are required to pass. It lays out how money already allocated in the budget will be distributed to schools. In recent years, lawmakers have used the school finance to set in motion complex property tax changes, give districts more money for English learners, and wade into disputes about school governance.

This year’s school finance act sets what’s known as total program, the base budget for Colorado K-12 schools, at $8.4 billion. The state is responsible for a little more than $5 billion, a 7.6% increase, and local school districts for roughly $3.3 billion, a 2.3% increase. Average per-pupil spending for 2022-23 will be $9,559, up 6% from this year, though the actual amount varies considerably by district.

This represents a record investment by Colorado lawmakers just two years after they made drastic cuts during the depths of pandemic-related business shutdowns.

“I’m so grateful that our economy recovered more quickly than expected,” said state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and co-sponsor of the school finance act. “I’m grateful that the federal government stepped up. But what I’m most grateful for is that our legislature chose to prioritize education, mental health, and housing.”

Colorado lawmakers held back $321 million that should have gone to schools, according to a constitutional formula. That’s the smallest the so-called budget stabilization factor has been since it was implemented during the Great Recession.

State Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat and chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said she’s optimistic lawmakers can fund schools to the level required in law in the next year or two.

This year’s school finance act also extends the time school districts have to participate in pilot programs to identify more students with dyslexia and deploy social workers in elementary schools. These programs were established in law in 2019 but have not been fully implemented during the last two disrupted years.

The school finance act also expands access to free college courses for high school students who stay in school for a fifth year. A group of lawmakers had hoped to do away entirely with caps on how many students can participate in the ASCENT program and get rid of requirements that students repay tuition money if they fail or drop out of courses. That bill stalled out due to concerns about cost, but the idea was incorporated into the school finance act.

The law includes funding for an additional 350 students on top of the 500 slots that were funded in recent years, with participation open to more students in 2023-24. Meanwhile, lawmakers have commissioned a study of extended high school programs.

Polis also signed legislation increasing special education funding and putting the state on a path to meet unfulfilled obligations set in 2006. Districts will get an additional $1,750 for each student with a specialized education plan, a 40% increase, and an additional $4,530 for each student with a more significant disability, a 33% increase. Going forward, funding will increase by inflation annually.

But even with an additional $80 million, school districts will still be responsible for the majority of the additional cost of educating students with disabilities. In signing the bill, Polis called on Congress to fully fund federal special education obligations, a demand that was met with applause.

A third bill related to school funding creates a dedicated matching fund for districts with low property wealth where voters agree to tax themselves extra. Low assessed value means that tax increases don’t generate as much revenue as they would in wealthier districts. Advocates have fought for years to address this unfairness, but solutions have proved politically challenging.

The program is starting with just $10 million, far less than the $165 million that would be necessary to fully implement the idea. Nonetheless, supporters are excited to get the program into law and say even modest increases will make a difference for small rural districts.

Other education bills signed into law Thursday:

protect teachers from doxxing, which is the practice of posting personal information online to encourage harassment
give charter schools more authority and responsibility to serve students with disabilities
waive college tuition costs for youth coming out of the foster system
and allocate $91 million to encourage regional partnerships between colleges, employers, and K-12 school systems to better connect students with good-paying jobs.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Denver schools superintendent cuts dozens of jobs from central office

2022-05-04T19:58:38+00:00

Denver’s superintendent is cutting dozens of positions from the central office in a reduction that will save Denver Public Schools $9 million, according to an email obtained by Chalkbeat.

Superintendent Alex Marrero described the cuts in an email sent to district staff Tuesday. They total at least 76 positions and include 15 executive-level jobs.

The cuts are part of a reorganization Marrero announced in February. With districtwide enrollment expected to decline by 6% in the next three years and the district considering closing some schools, Marrero has said the central office was targeted for proportional cuts.

Marrero’s email doesn’t list the specific positions that were cut. But it says they include two of four deputy superintendents, one of eight chiefs, one of five associate chiefs, six of eight deputies or division chiefs of staff, and five of 30 executive directors. That’s a 27% reduction in those positions. Marrero said he “intently focused” on executive-level leadership during the reorganization process.

The other positions being cut are what Marrero described as central support personnel who support schools but don’t work directly with students. No members of the teachers or principals unions were laid off in the reorganization, he said in his email, and he implied that the cuts also spared paraprofessionals, bus drivers, and food service and facilities workers.

As part of the reorganization, many senior district leaders have had to reapply for their jobs. Marrero drew up a new organizational structure that will go into effect July 1. He said he’ll share recommendations at a school board meeting Thursday for how to use the $9 million in savings.

Marrero started as superintendent last July. Five months into his tenure, in December, the school board extended his original two-year contract. He’s now contracted to lead the 90,000-student district until June 2026.

Critics have long complained that Denver’s central office is bloated. Marrero’s predecessor, Susana Cordova, cut more than 220 positions from the central office in 2019 and added new ones for a net reduction of 150 positions. Those cuts reportedly freed up $17 million.

In his email, Marrero said that the latest cuts are difficult but necessary.

“Navigating change can evoke a range of emotions,” he wrote. “Recognizing that we will continue to be in a state of transition in the weeks that follow, we also know that worry, guilt and anxiety may still be part of our workplace after this recent loss of coworkers. We will continue to support each other. We will still focus on being Students First. And we will close out the 2021-22 school year on a strong note. Our scholars are counting on it.”

In recognition of Teacher Appreciation Week this week, Marrero sent a separate email last week listing ways the district planned to recognize its central office employees, who were deployed to schools several times during the pandemic to act as substitute teachers.

On Monday, central office employees were allowed to work from home. On Thursday, the district will provide breakfast burritos. On Friday, employees will be allowed to leave at 2 p.m.

Melanie Asmar is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado, covering Denver Public Schools. Contact Melanie at masmar@chalkbeat.org.

Fully fund K-12 schools? Colorado lawmakers say maybe next year.

2022-05-03T23:20:26+00:00

Colorado lawmakers this year came closer to fully funding the state’s schools than at any time since the Great Recession. But rattled by rising inflation and the threat of a ballot measure that would slash anticipated growth in property tax revenue legislators stopped short of constitutionally mandated K-12 spending.

Democrats say they’re proud of the $36.4 billion budget signed by Gov. Jared Polis last week. The budget dedicates more than $5 billion in state money to base K-12 spending, a 7.5% increase over this year. Average per-student funding will go up 6% to $9,560. Lawmakers are also putting $80 million more into special education, getting closer to funding a formula established back in 2006.

But despite a reserve in the state education fund that tops $800 million, lawmakers still held back $321 million through a recurring mechanism known as the budget stabilization factor.

Democrats, who control both chambers, said there’s too much uncertainty on the horizon. Higher state spending is only sustainable, they said, if local property taxes rise enough to take over some of the burden in future years.

A few months ago that seemed almost guaranteed, thanks to rising property values and recent tax policy changes. But a combination of dramatic inflation and potential property tax limits would sharply increase the state’s school funding obligations, which lawmakers could struggle to meet in 2023.

The only thing worse than not giving schools enough money, Democratic lawmakers believe, would be giving them more money one year only to roll it back the following year.

“That is not predictable,” said state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and Joint Budget Committee member. “That does not help our districts.”

Hoping to head off the ballot measure, Polis and a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Monday rolled out their own version of property tax relief, one they say would still allow the state to fully fund K-12 schools in the next two years while providing $700 million in property tax breaks. Lawmakers have until May 11 to pass a bill. Until then, proponents of the ballot measure, who include Republican lawmakers and business interests, are keeping it alive to influence the legislative process.

Meanwhile, in Colorado classrooms, those calculations can feel like an abstraction.

Salaries start at $36,000 a year in the Lake County School District, and the cost of living is high in mountain communities. Staffing shortages have left student teachers and aides covering classrooms on their own, said Cody Jump, a high school social studies teacher and parent. He’s not sure who will teach his own children when they enter kindergarten and fifth grade next year because half the teachers in those grades have quit.

When Jump got a piece of metal in his eye during a recent home repair, his wife drove him to the hospital, where they got in a fight in the parking lot about whether they could afford an emergency room visit.

“We stay because we care about our children and the families in the community where we teach,” he said. “I want to be part of a community that supports its children. But I don’t know how much longer I’m going to be able to afford to stay here.”

Colorado school funding challenges built up over time

Colorado funds its schools with a combination of state and local tax revenue. The state uses a formula to determine how much money each school district gets per student. The state makes up for whatever local taxes don’t generate.

Amendment 23, passed in 2000, requires total school funding to go up every year by the rate of inflation plus population growth. But two earlier constitutional amendments, Gallagher and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, combined to push down local property tax revenue, forcing the state to take on more and more responsibility. Starting with the Great Recession, lawmakers decided they simply couldn’t afford it and started spending less than Amendment 23 requires. (See timeline below.)

This unpaid obligation adds up to nearly $10 billion since 2010 and serves as a potent symbol of Colorado underfunding its schools. When lawmakers talk about “buying down” or “paying down” the budget stabilization factor, they mean reducing the withholding for current and future years, not paying off past years’ debts.

The $503 million state withholding this school year meant Denver Public Schools lost out on almost $60 million, Aurora Public Schools lost $27 million, Mesa Valley 51 lost $13.4 million, and Lake County Schools lost $675,000.

“When I look at our salaries, we could hire another 10 to 15 certified teachers with that money,” Jump said. “We have a lot of positions staffed with long-term subs, we have paraeducators doing the work that a certified teacher might do. We could provide those folks with a pathway to being a certified educator without going into debt.”

In Aurora, middle school math teacher Lalita Coatsee wishes her school had more counselors. Students need more help than ever due to pandemic stresses, more than can be provided by the additional counselors hired through a local tax increase. Aurora schools are also facing budget cuts due to declining enrollment.

“In the beginning of the year, I could go to the office for dry erase markers, pens, but after we heard about the budget cuts, I don’t want to ask,” Coatsee said.

Lawmakers laid groundwork for more funding amid twin crises.

In 2020, lawmakers wrote the budget as most of the population was under stay-at-home orders and businesses were shuttered. Fearing economic devastation and counting on federal relief money to soften the blow, they cut more than $1 billion from education. The recession failed to materialize, and in 2021, they were able to put $480 million in excess revenue in reserve just for schools. This year, the state has even more one-time money.

Also in 2020, the Gallagher Amendment and TABOR pushed property tax collections so low the survival of rural fire and hospital districts was threatened, along with school funding. Voters agreed to repeal Gallagher to preserve hundreds of millions in local property tax revenue. At same time, lawmakers used a novel legal argument to start slowly increasing local school taxes without getting new voter approval.

Two years later, those changes have paid off. The state’s share of school spending accounted for 67% of the total in 2014-15, but just 56% in next year’s budget, even though the state share will be 7.5% higher than this year and represents the highest total amount the state has ever put into K-12.

Total program for 2022-23, the amount that describes combined state and local funding for base education needs, is set at $8.7 billion.

Meanwhile, in the 2022-23 school year, Denver Public Schools will miss out on just $33.6 million in state withholding, Aurora will lose out on $15 million, and Lake County will lose out on $380,000.

Getting local taxpayers to cover more of the cost makes it easier for the state to meet its own obligations. With properties set to be reassessed next year, home values skyrocketing, and local tax rates rising under the previous policy changes, state analysts predicted even better local tax collections going forward.

Joint Budget Committee members this spring talked about eliminating the annual withholding in either a year or over the next two years. Flush with one-time money, the state could spend down its savings for a few years until local tax collections caught up and then maintain higher spending going forward.

Inflation and property tax uncertainty prompt new plans

But the March economic forecast and the proposed ballot measure threw cold water on those plans.

With inflation at 7.5%, the state would be on the hook for more education spending. And the proposed ballot measure backed by GOP lawmakers and others would cap growth in assessed values to 3%. A fiscal analysis estimated the measure would cut statewide local property tax collections by $1.3 billion in 2023-24 and leave the state on the hook for $360 million more in school funding than previously anticipated. Another conservative-backed ballot measure with a 2% cap would cost local governments even more money.

“Reductions in local revenues would threaten the sustainability of any given option, as every decrease in the local share has to be offset with state funds,” a budget analyst wrote in a March memo.

But Joint Budget Committee member state Sen. Bob Rankin, a Carbondale Republican, believes the state could have spent more this year.

“This is a question of risk versus reward, and I argued that the risk is worth taking in order to help our teachers,” Rankin said.

State Rep. Colin Larson, a Littleton Republican and backer of the property tax ballot measure, said dramatic increases in property taxes would wreak economic havoc and hurt revenue more than tax limits. He also challenged the idea that more funding will fix schools on its own.

“I look back at the reading levels when I was in school and they weren’t better,” he said.

Rankin has signed onto the compromise bill along with Democratic JBC member state Sen. Chris Hansen. Both said the proposal will give taxpayers a break in the short-term while still creating the conditions for better school funding down the road. Local taxes would still go up, but more gradually than if lawmakers do nothing.

When it comes to funding schools, “we don’t think this sets us back at all,” Hansen said.

Other ballot measures, meanwhile, could also affect next year’s school funding picture. One proposal would cut income tax rates, while another would increase school funding by dedicating more of existing income tax revenue.

New funding sources are necessary, said Tracie Rainey of the Colorado School Finance Project, because even meeting existing obligations would still leave Colorado well behind the national average for school funding.

“That’s still a long way to go,” she said.

Key decisions in Colorado school finance

1982 Colorado voters pass the Gallagher Amendment to limit growth in residential property taxes. It has the effect of shifting costs to non-residential property owners.

1988 Colorado adopts its system of state and local share. School districts all collect 40 mills, which covers about two-thirds of K-12 costs. The state pays for the rest.

1992 Voters pass the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, limiting government revenue and spending and requiring voter approval for new taxes. The interaction of TABOR and Gallagher start forcing down property tax rates and assessment rates.

1994 Colorado adopts the current school finance formula. The state interprets the law to require school district tax rates to go down further.

2000 Colorado voters pass state constitutional Amendment 23, which says K-12 funding must increase according to inflation and population change. It sets aside one-third of 1% of income tax revenue for education.

2005 A Center High School graduate named Taylor Lobato challenges Colorado’s school funding system, charging it fails to provide a “thorough and uniform” education.

2007 Colorado lawmakers freeze local tax rates. Local mills range from less than 1 in some districts to 27 in others. The state now covers two-thirds of K-12 costs.

2009 Blaming the Great Recession, legislature begins siphoning education funds for other uses in a tactic dubbed the negative factor. Later this is called the budget stabilization factor.

Colorado Supreme Court upholds the mill levy freeze in the Mesa decision.

2013 Colorado Supreme Court decides against Lobato and reaffirms an earlier decision that leaves school funding up to the legislature.

2015 Colorado Supreme Court finds that the negative factor is constitutional in the Dwyer case.

2020 Facing pandemic uncertainty, Colorado lawmakers slash school funding by more than $1 billion alongside other budget cuts. They also adopt a way to gradually increase local property tax rates in districts without new voter approval.

Voters repeal the Gallagher Amendment to prevent further declines in local property tax revenue.

2021 Colorado Supreme Court upholds the Colorado General Assembly’s 2020 tax changes.

Colorado legislature restores 2020 education cuts and places $480 million saved by the previous year’s cuts into the state education fund as a reserve.

2022 Colorado lawmakers approve a budget with a $321 million budget stabilization factor, the smallest in 12 years.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

The $3,500-per-student difference between two Denver schools

2022-04-28T18:41:59+00:00

Smith Elementary and Carson Elementary are about 4 miles apart in east Denver. Named after longtime educators, both schools opened in the 1950s and serve about 400 students today.

But Carson and Smith couldn’t be more different when it comes to student demographics and school funding. Carson, which serves a largely white and middle-class population, gets $8,084 per student from Denver Public Schools, according to district data. Smith, where most students are Latino and Black and come from low-income families, gets $11,540 per student.

Denver adopted its weighted funding formula — which the district calls student-based budgeting — in 2009. The system is meant to promote equity by directing more money to students with higher needs, such as those who qualify for subsidized lunches or those learning English.

It’s also meant to give principals more autonomy. Instead of every school having one assistant principal and one psychologist, for example, a principal can choose to hire one assistant principal, a part-time psychologist, and a part-time dean.

Smith Elementary uses its higher funding — $1.15 million more this year than Carson — to hire more staff to keep class sizes small so teachers can give more attention to students who are often several grade levels behind, said Principal Emily El Moudaffar. The school buys supplemental reading curriculum to help students catch up and pays for field trips, an after-school soccer club, and every single pencil and crayon.

“Our students don’t bring any classroom supplies at all,” El Moudaffar said. “We purchase every classroom material. We tell parents, ‘Your job is to get your child to school on time every day.’”

At Carson, meanwhile, Principal Mirriah Elliott said it’s not possible to run the school on her allotment. Carson’s PTA raised $140,000 this year, but even with extra dollars, Elliott is making cuts due to declining enrollment. A significant number of Carson students transferred to private schools during the pandemic, and Carson may lose an assistant principal, a third grade teacher, an interventionist, and two teacher coaches.

“A lot of times it’s having to get rid of things our students really do need,” Elliott said.

El Moudaffar is making cuts for next year too, as school improvement funds for Smith taper off, but the high-poverty school will still have more staff than Carson.

“Yes, we get more money per pupil,” El Moudaffar said, “and we have students who need more intensive supports and that takes more manpower, so that’s where the money goes.”

Denver Public Schools prides itself on equity, and giving more money to students with higher needs hasn’t been controversial in the past. But with enrollment declining and the district moving to close schools, the concept of funding schools per student is increasingly coming under fire.

Neither Carson nor Smith are likely on the chopping block, but several smaller schools could be.

“If we fund schools based on enrollment, we will continue to have these dying schools,” said Radhika Nath, a parent who serves on a district committee tasked with developing criteria for when to close or consolidate under-enrolled schools. “It’s a vicious cycle.”

The district recently commissioned a study from Education Resource Strategies, a national nonprofit consulting firm, about how its systems are set up to respond to declining enrollment.

Student-based budgeting is not the cause of Denver’s school closure woes, ERS Partner Kristen Ferris said. However, many districts with student-based budgeting do it differently than Denver in that they provide a baseline of funding to each school to cover the basics. Weighted student funding is on top of that. But there are tradeoffs to that model, Ferris said.

“If you have a fixed pie, then any differentiation you do for student groups takes away from the baseline that every student gets,” she said. “You’re always trading off between maximizing differentiation and funding your baseline.”

Denver’s current model maximizes differentiation. While the average per-student funding this year was $9,614, some schools got as little as $6,500 per student while others got nearly $14,000, according to district data. A few of the district’s small high schools that serve students at risk of dropping out received more than $20,000 per student.

That difference is not entirely due to weighted student funding. Extra money goes to Title I schools where a majority of students qualify for subsidized lunches. Denver also gives out “tiered support” to schools with low test scores to help boost achievement, a strategy that one study found was working. And it offers one-time budget assistance to schools that request it, as Carson and others did this year, and subsidies to schools with fewer than 215 students.

This multilayered system has been criticized by principals and parents at schools that don’t qualify for as much extra funding and struggle to afford the staff they need.

“Our system is critically flawed,” said Principal Sonia Geerdes. “McKinley-Thatcher [Elementary School] can’t afford a full-time school psychologist or a full-time school nurse without additional budget assistance. These are resources that DPS has promised to our families, our community, and our taxpayers — and these roles should be guaranteed for all schools.”

Calls for changing Denver’s student-based budgeting model tend to be loudest every two years during school board elections. But despite some board members’ vocal criticism of the system — member Scott Baldermann recently said underfunding some schools is “a choice” and “not something we have to do” — the board as a whole has not taken up the issue.

Board Treasurer Scott Esserman, who chairs the finance committee, said that under the board’s new governance structure, that kind of operational decision rests with Superintendent Alex Marrero, who started last July and is in the midst of developing a strategic plan. But, Esserman said, “as an individual board member, I am certainly open to having discussions about alternative school budgeting.”

At Carson and Smith, principals Elliott and El Moudaffar recognize the challenges of the district’s funding model. Schools that serve students with high needs whose PTAs raise $100 in a good year need that extra funding and more. And yet schools on the opposite end of the spectrum have to scrimp to afford mental health workers and hold auctions to buy smart boards.

Either way, said Smith’s El Moudaffar, “it’s never enough.”

Melanie Asmar is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado, covering Denver Public Schools. Contact Melanie at masmar@chalkbeat.org.

Lawmakers propose matching fund to help property-poor Colorado school districts

2022-04-27T05:22:37+00:00

Located in the San Luis Valley, the Center school district serves nearly 600 students, most from families that don’t earn much money. The valley’s farmland doesn’t generate much in the way of property tax revenue, either.

Center struggles to pay for extras like band instruments and essentials like a secondary math teacher or a teacher trained to support the more than 40% of students who are learning English. Key staff positions sit open for years.

Colorado school districts with more property wealth often get voters to approve extra taxes to raise teacher pay, support art and music programs, or hire more counselors and nurses. But a property tax increase known as a mill levy override that would generate $235 per student in Denver would raise just $58 per student in property-poor Center.

A bill in the Colorado legislature seeks to address one of the most vexing inequalities in school finance by creating a state matching program to boost local tax efforts in districts with low assessed values and low median incomes. Supporters compare it to the popular and successful BEST program that provides matching grants for school construction in districts that couldn’t raise enough money on their own.

“A student’s ZIP Code should not determine their educational opportunity, and right now, because of the mill levy override opportunity, funding really depends on the local property tax wealth,” said state Sen. Bob Rankin, a Carbondale Republican and member of the Joint Budget Committee who has called for reforms for years.

Colorado actually seeks to prevent this kind of inequality by setting a minimum per-pupil funding level and backfilling whatever base property taxes don’t cover.

The mill levy override or MLO system exists outside the main school finance system — that’s why they’re called overrides — providing extra dollars on top of base funding. School districts can raise as much as 25% more than their base funding — 30% more in rural districts.

More districts passing overrides

The use of overrides has grown over the last decade as Colorado lawmakers have withheld school funding to pay for other budget priorities, from $580 million in 2010 to $1.4 billion in 2021. But the override money isn’t distributed evenly.

One mill — $1 for every $1,000 of assessed value — might generate anywhere from $21 per student to more than $5,000 depending on the property wealth in a given community. Districts with a lot of commercial or industrial property or a lot of oil and gas activity have higher assessed value.

Districts that are primarily agricultural or residential — including some suburban districts that have relatively high incomes — have lower assessed values. Colorado taxes a much smaller portion of the market value of residential and agricultural properties.

In turn, school districts tend to have an easier time selling voters on small tax increases that generate a lot of money than on large tax increases that generate little money. The state’s matching fund proposal seeks to change that calculation.

If voters in low property wealth districts agree to a tax increase, the state would match a portion of the money based on a formula that takes into account assessed value and median income.

If Center voters raised taxes by 1 mill, the state would provide more than $2 for every $1 in local taxes.

In District 49 outside Colorado Springs, where the median income is nearly twice as high but the dominance of residential property keeps total assessed value low, the state would provide about 50 cents for every dollar in local taxes.

A plan to help districts with less taxable wealth

The formula was developed by a working group of school district financial officers. District 49 Chief Business Officer Brett Ridgway said it was important to create a model that accounted for how much communities could reasonably afford to contribute to their own schools. The model neither penalizes districts where voters have opted for higher taxes nor rewards ones where voters simply aren’t politically inclined to support taxes.

A special committee on school finance declined to endorse the bill earlier this year in a party-line split, but two Democratic members, state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger of Arvada and committee Chair Julie McCluskie of Dillon, joined Rankin to sponsor the legislation late in the session.

“I could have cast a tie-breaking vote, but I thought the more prudent approach was to continue the conversation,” McCluskie said. “We have been talking about the mill levy problems for years. This solution comes from school leaders. That’s really important.”

Republicans have raised questions about whether state dollars should incentivize local tax increases and whether this is a sustainable solution to small districts with high costs.

“I’m not bought into the idea that creating a state match so that if an economically impoverished area taxes themselves more and we take that money out of the economy, it will help students,” said state Rep. Colin Larson, a Littleton Republican who serves on the special committee, in an interview.

And state Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, asked backers during the committee hearing whether this would become another Band-Aid on a broken school finance system.

“How many programs have we created?” he asked. “How many are fully funded? How many are partially funded? How many are unfunded?”

Leslie Colwell of the Colorado Children’s Campaign has pushed for mill levy reform for years. She said the bill represents a meaningful change.

“This is really one of the most glaring inequities that we have in our school system, and it’s grown over time,” she said. “In terms of targeted investments that would make a real difference for students, this would be my top priority.”

Funding remains in doubt

Rankin said the status quo is immoral and should be unconstitutional in a state that promises a “thorough and uniform” education to its students.

Emotional supporters congratulated each other in the hallway after the Senate Education Committee voted 5-2 Thursday to advance the proposal, but it still needs to be funded. If all 72 eligible school district took full advantage, it would cost about $165 million a year. Funding 30 eligible districts that have already passed extra taxes would cost $65 million, according to an analysis developed by the school district working group.

But despite the co-sponsors all sitting on the Joint Budget Committee, funding for the plan was not included in the budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed Tuesday to allocate $20 million for a pilot program. McCluskie said it would be worthwhile to write the program into law even if it doesn’t get funded until later.

Ridgway said districts would gain more from the mill levy match than they would from lawmakers fully funding K-12 education.

“The districts that are affected by this are affected by it more than they are by the negative factor,” he said, referring to the state’s annual budget withholding. “That’s the mathematically true answer. They could use this to go to their community and say, we’ll get a good match from the state if you help us out.”

Center Superintendent Carrie Zimmerman said if the bill passes, she would urge her school board to ask voters for a tax increase to take advantage of the match.

She would use extra money to hire and keep more highly qualified teachers, including by supporting a local effort to build teacher housing. She’s used a combination of long-term substitutes, retired teachers, and online programs to fill her staffing gaps, but those aren’t permanent solutions or, in the case of the online programs, even effective, she said.

“The funding would allow us to do things like offer housing or pay travel stipends or provide some of those perks that would attract people to wanting to work in the profession,” she said.

Zimmerman supports the bill and thinks a mill levy override would stand a decent chance, but she still wishes the state would increase funding without requiring cash-strapped households to dig deeper.

“The community was very supportive of our bond, and that was because we received BEST funds and they saw the value of those dollars,” she said. “It’s just frustrating that the burden is always placed on our community, which is already working so hard.”

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

$36.4 billion Colorado budget boosts K-12, higher ed spending

2022-03-29T01:11:43+00:00

Colorado’s proposed $36.4 billion 2022-23 budget places significantly more money into K-12 classrooms and higher education while avoiding steep tuition hikes. But facing inflationary pressures and economic uncertainty, lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee stopped short of developing a plan to reach full funding for K-12.

Colorado’s coffers are currently full with federal relief money and tax revenue from a strong economic recovery, but that only helps the budget so much. Federal funds won’t be replenished, and under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, the state can’t keep money above a cap determined by inflation and population growth. Taxpayers are expecting refunds of $2 billion this year and $1.6 billion next fiscal year.

Introduced in the House Monday, the budget calls for a 3% raise for state employees and sets aside 15% of appropriations or roughly $2 billion in a rainy day reserve. General fund spending is up 12.7% to $13.6 billion. After two weeks of amendments and lengthy debates in both chambers, the budget goes back to the Joint Budget Committee, where the six members usually reject most of the amendments before sending the budget back to the legislature for final approval. Approving the budget is the only action the legislature is required to take before adjourning May 11.

The budget allocates $7.2 billion for K-12 education, an 11.7% increase from this year. That amount includes more than $5 billion for school districts, as well as grant programs, the operating budget of the Colorado Department of Education, and other programs outside the core education budget.

Including local property tax revenue, total base spending for K-12 classrooms is estimated to be $8.4 billion, a 5.4% increase from this year. Average per-pupil spending would be $9,560, $545 more than this year, a 6% increase.

Colorado’s constitution requires that education funding increase every year by population and inflation, but since the Great Recession, lawmakers have withheld money to pay for other budget priorities. This amount, known as the budget stabilization factor, has totaled more than $10 billion over the last decade.

The budget proposal sets next year’s withholding at $321 million, down from $503 million this year, the lowest it’s been since 2010. This represents a dramatic improvement for schools from two years ago, when lawmakers withheld more than $1 billion at the depths of a pandemic-related economic downturn.

However, lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee had hoped to come up with a plan to fully fund schools by 2024 or sooner. The March economic forecast dashed those plans by predicting average annual inflation of 7.1% through this year, along with the potential for a ballot measure that would reduce property tax revenue. Without rising local revenue, increasing state funding over time becomes less sustainable, state budget analysts said.

Many details of school funding get worked out in a separate school finance act, but the budget includes a placeholder for a 38% increase in special education funding. Another $262 million in general fund money is set aside for potential education legislation making its way through the legislature.

The budget also sets aside $16 million, a 77% increase, for charter schools authorized by the state. School districts have to share a portion of voter-approved tax increases with the charter schools they authorize, but state-authorized schools don’t get that money, leaving them with less per-pupil revenue. New money in the state budget makes up for some of that difference.

The budget also includes an additional $2 million in grants to improve instruction. These will be available to a wider group of schools as the state transitions back to the school accountability system.

The budget allocates $8.2 million to get a new Department of Early Childhood off the ground in preparation for launching universal preschool in 2023.

Colleges and universities secure more funding

The state budget for higher education would grow to about $5.4 billion next fiscal year, or a 4.3% increase over this year. The funding includes state and federal spending, as well as tuition revenue.

The budget would send about $129.6 million in state money to colleges and universities for operating and financial aid increases.

The state would grant colleges and universities $105.3 million in general funding, 11.4% more than this year. The state would also increase financial aid by $24.3 million.

Gov. Jared Polis pitched in November a $52.5 million increase for colleges and financial aid.

But 15 college and university presidents issued a warning in a January letter that his proposal wouldn’t meet the cost of pay raises for public employees outlined in the budget, as well as the rising costs of health care, goods, and services. School leaders said they’d need nearly 3.5 times as much. The letter said to meet those obligations, they’d need to make cuts that would hurt students, especially those most at risk of not graduating, or steeply raise tuition.

Despite the better outlook for colleges and universities in next year’s budget, tuition will still increase.

Under the proposed budget, the state assumes tuition at most institutions for resident undergraduate students would increase 2%. For out-of-state students, tuition would rise by 3%. The University of Colorado System would increase tuition by 4.3% for freshmen and then freeze tuition for them for four years.

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Jeffco votes to close another small school while looking ahead to long-term plans

2022-03-18T22:52:08+00:00

Jeffco’s school district will close another Arvada elementary school at the end of this school year after learning the school likely would have less than 100 students next fall.

Fitzmorris Elementary currently has about 114 students. After choice enrollment in the district closed, district leaders estimated the school would have just 88 students next school year.

The school board voted 4 to 1 Thursday to approve the superintendent’s recommendation to close the school.

Jeffco also closed Allendale Elementary last year. That school’s boundaries were adjacent to the Fitzmorris boundary areas. The district was criticized for closing Allendale without first engaging the community or asking the school board to vote on the decision. The district was also criticized for its timeline, which possibly violates district policy, giving parents only months to plan before the closure.

Tracy Dorland, who started as superintendent shortly after that decision, told the school board Thursday she tried to make this process different, but the short time frame couldn’t be avoided.

“We are smarter today than we were yesterday and we’re going to be smarter tomorrow than we are today,” Dorland said. “I have done what I can on the timeline that I’ve had to take lessons learned about what didn’t work … and try to make it better and more honorable of the Fitzmorris community.”

Jeffco, currently the second largest school district in the state, has had declining enrollment for years. Among the causes: An aging population, declining birth rates, and rising housing costs that have driven some families away. But even though school closure discussions have been ongoing, the district has yet to create a comprehensive plan to address how to support or choose closure for the increasing number of small schools.

District leaders are concerned that the quality of education at small schools has been declining as schools receive less funding for fewer students. At Fitzmorris, it had reached a point, Dorland said, that the opportunities for students were no longer going to be adequate.

Per pupil expenses at Fitzmorris are nearly 30% higher than at an average Jeffco elementary school, and with the loss of an additional 23% of its enrollment, the district expects the cost would have increased even further.

However, the money isn’t the real problem, Dorland said, but rather the quality of the education.

“We want to provide students a high-quality program and for the amount of investment that we’re making, the program is struggling and that’s the bottom line,” Dorland said. “We want to offer students a robust learning experience and we’re really struggling to do that at Fitzmorris.”

For example, the school cannot afford to have one teacher per grade level, Dorland said. The school has just five second graders this year so teachers work with students who are in multiple grade levels and take on extra roles. The school has tried to find community organizations that could help offer enrichment or afterschool activities the school can’t afford, but attracting an interested partner has been difficult with so few students, she said.

Fitzmorris families have been speaking to the school board for months seeking help for their school, and asking to be a part of the conversations around its fate. In February, the board held a special study session when Fitzmorris school leaders and parents were invited to present about their challenges, and what they still thought was going well.

By Thursday, when the board was scheduled to vote on the recommendations, just two parents spoke to the board. Both were resigned to the idea that the school would close, but thanked the district for the communication, and asked for a quick decision and for help keeping together the program for students with autism.

“We’re just too small anymore to give our kids an enriching environment,” said Michelle Miley, a parent of a third grader in the school’s autism program. “Although I love Fitzmorris and will miss the connections that my son has made…we need a determination as quick as possible to allow us time to adjust and prepare our kids.”

In her recommendation, Dorland said just 48 of the 224 elementary students who live in the school’s boundary attend Fitzmorris. The school has attracted students from other areas, but still loses more students than it gains.

Most students next year will go to Lawrence Elementary nearby, while the autism center program will move to Stott Elementary.

Some board members said hearing from the principals at the schools receiving the Fitzmorris students helped them to accept the recommendation.

Board members and Dorland also said Thursday that they hope the district will be able to have a finalized plan before another school needs to be closed due to low enrollment. The district has started conversations about a plan it’s calling Regional Opportunities for Thriving Schools, and has begun discussions about how to define “thriving schools.” The plan would consider regional solutions instead of waiting for individual schools to have such low enrollment they must close independent of other factors.

“The ability for us to collaborate and share resources across these areas — it’s going to be awesome at some point,” said board member Danielle Varda. “I am sorry we haven’t been able to do that with Fitzmorris as part of that broader project.”

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

Ballot measure would steer part of TABOR tax refunds to Colorado schools

2022-03-05T00:52:01+00:00

Colorado voters could be asked to forgo a portion of expected tax refunds in order to steer more money to the state’s schools.

Advocates filed paperwork Thursday to place an initiative on the November ballot that could generate somewhere between $820 million and $1.1 billion for K-12 schools without raising taxes. It would be the fifth attempt since 2011 to secure significant new funding for Colorado schools.

Colorado voters have consistently voted against statewide education funding measures, rejecting new taxes and holding onto their ability to get tax refunds when the economy is strong. An exception was Proposition EE, a nicotine tax for preschool approved in 2020.

Members of the coalition backing the measure hope the pandemic gives voters a new perspective.

“The needs are greater,” said Lisa Weil, executive director of Great Education Colorado. “People know that, because of COVID, because of the teacher shortage. At the same time, the economy has come roaring back. We can harness that.”

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requires voter approval for any tax increase and limits how much government can grow, which means taxpayers get money back when existing taxes bring in revenue above the limit.

State economists currently expect the state to return $4.7 billion to taxpayers between now and 2025. Meanwhile, the state funds its schools below the national average, with lawmakers holding back more than $10 billion from K-12 education since the Great Recession to pay for other priorities.

This latest effort would take a portion of income tax revenue, exempt it from the TABOR cap, and send it to the state education fund.

Backers have drafted four versions of the initiative. They alternately designate 0.33% or 0.5% of income tax revenue and either leave the money unrestricted or dictate that it go to certain purposes, such as addressing staffing shortages and student mental health needs. Each version represents a balancing act between bringing in more money and crafting something voters might accept.

Pending approval from the title board, which reviews all initiatives for legal compliance, supporters will choose their preferred version and circulate petitions to get on the ballot.

In 2019, voters rejected Proposition CC, which would have done away with TABOR refunds and sent money above the limit to K-12 schools, universities, and roads. That was pitched as raising money for schools without raising taxes after voters rejected statewide tax increases for education in 2011, 2013, and 2018.

The new proposal would reduce the amount available for refunds, but taxpayers would still get money back in boom years.

“I think voters really do value education,” Weil said. “They’ve shown that time and again at the local level. This is a unique once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture the economic boom. People will get rebates and be able to fund schools.”

David Flaherty, founder of the polling firm Magellan Strategies, said efforts to pass statewide school funding measures have always run up against voter mistrust that the money will really go to the stated purpose. Advocates for this measure will have to overcome that to be successful.

Only 35% to 40% of voters are parents of school-aged children, and supporters of more school funding need to make the case to the broader electorate, he said.

Conservatives already plan to ask voters to reduce the income tax rate this November, potentially reducing the money available for the schools proposal, and are likely to fight any effort to reduce TABOR refunds.

Tracie Rainey of the Colorado School Finance Project said coalition members aren’t afraid to be on the same ballot.

“It’s important to have another narrative,” she said. “People can make a decision based on their values.”

Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer covers education policy and politics and oversees Chalkbeat Colorado’s education coverage. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado schools got more money for English learners. Where is it going?

2022-02-23T12:00:00+00:00

New staff, extra training for teachers, and some money going directly to schools.

Those are some of the things some Colorado districts have planned with new state money intended to better serve students who are learning English.

But other districts that also received those funds and that serve tens of thousands of English learners are not planning to add any new services at all.

The state is neither monitoring how districts are deploying the funds nor forcing them to use the money for its intended purpose.

When Colorado lawmakers decided last year to give districts more money to better serve English learners, the idea was that those students require extra services to enable them to access the same level of education as their peers. Legislators acknowledged that poor internet access and language barriers had made it harder for some students to participate in remote learning, and they wanted districts to have resources to help those students in particular.

According to state figures, the state provided approximately $16.8 million in additional money for English learners. Despite good intentions, advocates say the funds are not enough for districts to adequately serve English learners, and some worry that the state didn’t create ways to ensure schools and districts are using the money toward services the students require.

“It is a good step to do more, but then what does it look like when they get it?” asked Cynthia Trinidad-Sheahan, president of the nonprofit advocacy group Colorado Association for Bilingual Education. “How are you going to educate districts, and support them and then hold them accountable? That’s the piece the state forgets to think about.”

Many districts not adding services

Of a dozen districts that responded to Chalkbeat questions about their use of the increased funds, just five described changes to their services.

Most districts said that because they’ve always spent more money on services for English learners than the state has provided, the additional money just helps cover what the district spent in the past. In most cases increased funding still doesn’t cover services for English learners, officials said.

Among those districts are the Denver and Jeffco school districts, the state’s largest. Both said they have not added services with the new funding.

The Denver district, which serves the most English learners, though does not have not the highest proportion, this year received more than $9 million specifically for the approximately 30% of its students who are identified as English learners, up from about $5.9 million in previous years, according to state numbers. But district officials said they allocate approximately $30 million every year to services for English learners.

“The money the district allocates from our general fund in support of our multilingual learners far exceeds the allocation of funding received from the state, even when taking into account the additional funding provided in the current school year,” officials said in a written statement.

Trinidad-Sheahan said that part of the problem is that budgets for departments serving students have remained stagnant for years, even despite districts seeing changing demographics, which may mean different needs, or despite any new funds available.

“Many of those budgets have not increased; they’ve remained the same for years,” she said. “When that money comes in, it’s never looked at as additional funds.”

Adding new programs

Districts that have used this year’s increased state funding to increase the services they provide also spend more on English learners than what the state provides them for those services. Still, they decided to use state funds to augment those services.

The school district in Eagle, which has approximately 30% of its students identified as English learners, received almost double what it previously received in state funds for those students. Still, its $864,000 from the state covers less than 29% of its more than $3 million annual spending on English learners.

This school year, the district added staff to grow the district’s dual language program in middle schools, and also paid for new training for program leaders. Eagle schools has been growing its dual language programming since 2012-13 and this year offers it at five of eight elementary schools and all four of its middle schools.

“Districts, ours and others, do what we need to do when we see the needs,” said Melisa Rewold-Thuon, the district’s assistant superintendent. “There’s of course never enough.”

The dual language program serves students who are learning English as a second language, as well as students who come from English-speaking households and want to become bilingual.

“By giving both populations the opportunity to learn language and learn culture, we think it’s bringing our students together,” Rewold-Thuon said.

While not necessarily covered by the new money, the district also hired bilingual teachers from abroad because it can’t find enough qualified staff for its dual language programs. Previously, the district hired about five teachers annually from abroad, but this year is sponsoring 30.

Eagle’s high schools added teachers in English language development. The last year or so has brought a new wave of teenage immigrant students, including unaccompanied minors, arriving with gaps in their education, in part because of the pandemic disruption.

One day, Eagle officials want to develop a program for new immigrant students, but for now, without such a program, Eagle’s English language development teachers take on the role of social workers to guide new immigrant students in adjusting to and finding resources to navigate their new community.

“Our district is very, very dedicated to meeting the needs of all of our students,” Rewold-Thuon said. “Some students, when we look at equity, just need additional support to even be able to meet that basic educational level. That’s why this funding is so important for us.”

Giving schools flexibility

Anita Pizzo, a high school English language development teacher in Aurora, said in the last two weeks her school has had 15 new students who are new to the country. They come from Congo, Afghanistan, Latin America and elsewhere.

Increasingly, as educators in Eagle are seeing, many of those new students in Aurora arrive never having been in a high school, because of pandemic interruptions to schooling. Pizzo said that those students often have learned to rely on Google Translate, and now have to be taught to stop using it, in favor of learning English.

All teachers need more training to be able to re-engage those students, Pizzo said.

As many districts do, Aurora gives each school a budget based on the number of students they have. Right now, Aurora’s formula for its schools doesn’t take into account if students are English learners, though it does consider other at-risk factors. Next school year, each school will get an additional $195 per English learner, and principals will have flexibility to use that money as they see fit.

For some schools, the increased English learner allocation will not amount to much, but for other schools, it could be enough to hire an additional staff person, for instance.

Aurora, one of the districts with the highest proportions of English learners, went from receiving $3.6 million from the state, to now receiving $6.3 million. Chief Financial Officer Brett Johnson said the district has already been spending more than $6.1 million every year for teacher leaders like Pizzo for all schools. The new money from the state, so far, has helped offset what the district was already paying for.

Next school year, the district will divide up $1.2 million for schools to spend as they choose.

Some teachers and advocates say they would like more transparency on how their schools and districts are spending state money and other funds meant to support English learners.

Pizzo says she has other ideas of support students need, such as curriculum or paraprofessionals to support students when they’re in their English-only classes. Other teachers also say they would like to see more training, tutoring, or more specialists who can help teachers adjust their lessons for students learning English in their classrooms.

Trinidad-Sheahan said that one idea for holding districts accountable would be to ask them how the funds they spend directly support students in each level of English proficiency. She said the newest students, such as newcomers, or those who test in the lowest levels of English proficiency, need the most support.

But sometimes, she said, she has seen districts prioritize spending on programming or materials that will support a larger number of students, such as curriculum for a literacy class that may have a couple of English learners who are more advanced in their journey to being bilingual — even if newcomer students can’t even enroll in that class until they’ve become more proficient in English.

“Can districts actually prove they’re benefiting each level of language learners? That would be difficult for them to prove,” Trinidad-Sheahan said. “These funds should be in addition to. Kids should be getting more.”

Look up how much your district received, below:

District	2021-22	2020-21	Difference
ACADEMY 20	$268,253	$187,886	$80,367
ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR SCHOOLS	$2,563,226	$1,464,004	$1,099,222
ADAMS COUNTY 14	$1,070,210	$582,303	$487,907
ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28J (Aurora Public Schools)	$6,329,582	$3,638,677	$2,690,905
AGATE 300	$7,580	*	*
AGUILAR REORGANIZED 6	$1,333	*	*
AKRON R-1	$5,088	*	*
ALAMOSA RE-11J	$115,199	$71,354	$43,845
ARCHULETA COUNTY 50 JT	$29,794	$21,872	$7,921
ARICKAREE R-2	$6,959	*	*
ARRIBA-FLAGLER C-20	$1,242	*	*
ASPEN 1	$50,971	$22,231	$28,740
AULT-HIGHLAND RE-9	$40,615	$27,968	$12,648
BAYFIELD 10 JT-R	$22,206	$10,040	$12,166
BENNETT 29J	$75,992	$34,422	$41,570
BETHUNE R-5	$13,305	*	*
BIG SANDY 100J	$8,008	*	*
BOULDER VALLEY RE 2	$935,597	$607,761	$327,836
BRANSON REORGANIZED 82	$3,599	*	*
BRIGGSDALE RE-10	$0	*	*
BRUSH RE-2(J)	$65,729	$49,123	$16,606
BUENA VISTA R-31	$17,164	*	*
BUFFALO RE-4J	$3,862	*	*
BURLINGTON RE-6J	$50,354	$29,761	$20,594
BYERS 32J	$41,754	$10,398	$31,356
CALHAN RJ-1	$6,809	*	*
CAMPO RE-6	$0	*	*
CANON CITY RE-1	$14,266	$7,530	$6,736
CENTENNIAL R-1	$1,103	*	*
CENTER 26 JT	$75,709	$46,613	$29,096
CHERAW 31	$1,106	*	*
CHERRY CREEK 5	$2,815,364	$1,614,242	$1,201,123
CHEYENNE COUNTY RE-5	$4,858	*	*
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 12	$34,700	$40,159	-$5,459
CLEAR CREEK RE-1	$6,492	*	*
COLORADO SPRINGS 11	$758,199	$530,670	$227,528
COTOPAXI RE-3	$0	*	*
CREEDE SCHOOL DISTRICT	$0	*	*
CRIPPLE CREEK-VICTOR RE-1	$0	*	*
CROWLEY COUNTY RE-1-J	$0	*	*
CUSTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT C-1	$0	*	*
DE BEQUE 49JT	$2,509	*	*
DEER TRAIL 26J	$17,941	$7,171	$10,770
DEL NORTE C-7	$1,642	*	*
DELTA COUNTY 50(J)	$94,755	$67,409	$27,345
DENVER COUNTY 1	$9,180,371	$5,917,332	$3,263,039
DOLORES COUNTY RE NO.2	$0	*	*
DOLORES RE-4A	$9,373	*	*
DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1	$1,193,994	$920,785	$273,209
DURANGO 9-R	$102,147	$56,294	$45,853
EADS RE-1	$0	*	*
EAGLE COUNTY RE 50	$864,578	$437,086	$427,493
EAST GRAND 2	$46,049	$23,306	$22,743
EAST OTERO R-1	$14,267	$10,040	$4,227
EATON RE-2	$51,435	$23,665	$27,770
EDISON 54 JT	$3,770	*	*
ELBERT 200	$1,085	*	*
ELIZABETH SCHOOL DISTRICT	$17,024	$7,530	$9,495
ELLICOTT 22	$49,768	$32,270	$17,497
ENGLEWOOD 1	$88,947	$52,350	$36,598
ESTES PARK R-3	$69,248	$37,649	$31,599
FALCON 49	$441,179	$255,295	$185,884
FORT MORGAN RE-3	$375,975	$256,013	$119,963
FOUNTAIN 8	$159,680	$119,759	$39,921
FOWLER R-4J	$1,741	*	*
FREMONT RE-2	$9,252	*	*
FRENCHMAN RE-3	$0	*	*
GARFIELD 16	$110,039	$52,350	$57,689
GARFIELD RE-2	$450,202	$266,411	$183,791
GENOA-HUGO C113	$1,161	*	*
GILPIN COUNTY RE-1	$3,510	*	*
GRANADA RE-1	$18,438	$7,171	$11,267
GREELEY 6	$1,853,240	$1,264,645	$588,595
GUNNISON WATERSHED RE1J	$79,093	$32,988	$46,106
HANOVER 28	$9,407	*	*
HARRISON 2	$618,589	$401,588	$217,001
HAXTUN RE-2J	$2,708	*	*
HAYDEN RE-1	$4,619	*	*
HI-PLAINS R-23	$0	*	*
HINSDALE COUNTY RE 1	$0	*	*
HOEHNE REORGANIZED 3	$3,612	*	*
HOLLY RE-3	$28,387	$16,135	$12,251
HOLYOKE RE-1J	$60,607	$31,912	$28,695
HUERFANO RE-1	$2,273	*	*
IDALIA RJ-3	$8,451	$6,454	$1,997
IGNACIO 11 JT	$11,204	$13,625	-$2,421
JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1	$1,917,037	$1,308,748	$608,290
JOHNSTOWN-MILLIKEN RE-5J	$44,865	$28,685	$16,180
JULESBURG RE-1	$8,906	*	*
KARVAL RE-23	$0	*	*
KIM REORGANIZED 88	$0	*	*
KIOWA C-2	$8,632	*	*
KIT CARSON R-1	$0	*	*
LA VETA RE-2	$0	*	*
LAKE COUNTY R-1	$117,141	$65,617	$51,524
LAMAR RE-2	$33,145	$21,872	$11,273
LAS ANIMAS RE-1	$0	*	*
LEWIS-PALMER 38	$62,975	$45,179	$17,796
LIBERTY J-4	$0	*	*
LIMON RE-4J	$19,190	$11,115	$8,074
LITTLETON 6	$223,138	$149,520	$73,618
LONE STAR 101	$1,346	*	*
MANCOS RE-6	$16,836	$8,247	$8,589
MANITOU SPRINGS 14	$3,003	*	*
MANZANOLA 3J	$5,064	*	*
MAPLETON 1	$854,435	$457,524	$396,911
MC CLAVE RE-2	$3,089	*	*
MEEKER RE1	$9,119	$7,888	$1,231
MESA COUNTY VALLEY 51	$324,481	$165,297	$159,185
MIAMI/YODER 60 JT	$5,941	*	*
MOFFAT 2	$2,425	*	*
MOFFAT COUNTY RE:NO 1	$64,588	$39,442	$25,146
MONTE VISTA C-8	$12,841	$12,550	$291
MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1	$31,462	$33,346	-$1,884
MONTROSE COUNTY RE-1J	$214,822	$130,516	$84,306
MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE 1	$2,435	*	*
NORTH CONEJOS RE-1J	$0	*	*
NORTH PARK R-1	$3,882	*	*
NORWOOD R-2J	$0	*	*
OTIS R-3	$0	*	*
OURAY R-1	$17,962	*	*
PARK COUNTY RE-2	$4,924	*	*
PAWNEE RE-12	$0	*	*
PEYTON 23 JT	$10,647	*	*
PLAINVIEW RE-2	$4,044	*	*
PLATEAU RE-5	$0	*	*
PLATEAU VALLEY 50	$0	*	*
PLATTE CANYON 1	$1,613	*	*
PLATTE VALLEY RE-7	$27,403	$25,458	$1,946
POUDRE R-1	$746,257	$480,830	$265,427
PRAIRIE RE-11	$1,173	*	*
PRIMERO REORGANIZED 2	$1,108	*	*
PRITCHETT RE-3	$0	*	*
PUEBLO CITY 60	$260,310	$177,846	$82,464
PUEBLO COUNTY 70	$120,675	$70,278	$50,397
RANGELY RE-4	$776	*	*
REVERE SCHOOL DISTRICT	$0	*	*
RIDGWAY R-2	$2,084	*	*
ROARING FORK RE-1	$830,970	$414,855	$416,115
ROCKY FORD R-2	$14,299	$10,398	$3,900
SALIDA R-32	$14,423	$7,888	$6,534
SANFORD 6J	$0	*	*
SANGRE DE CRISTO RE-22J	$4,963	*	*
SARGENT RE-33J	$0	*	*
SCHOOL DISTRICT 27J	$1,304,816	$631,426	$673,391
SHERIDAN 2	$105,325	$78,525	$26,800
SIERRA GRANDE R-30	$6,766	*	*
SILVERTON 1	$14,940	*	*
SOUTH CONEJOS RE-10	$1,247	*	*
SOUTH ROUTT RE 3	$7,221	*	*
SPRINGFIELD RE-4	$0	*	*
ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J	$1,431,273	$878,474	$552,799
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS RE-2	$103,767	$59,521	$44,246
STRASBURG 31J	$50,066	$20,079	$29,986
STRATTON R-4	$16,304	$6,096	$10,208
SUMMIT RE-1	$444,659	$199,360	$245,299
SWINK 33	$0	*	*
TELLURIDE R-1	$74,479	$27,968	$46,512
THOMPSON R2-J	$224,128	$133,743	$90,385
TRINIDAD 1	$4,501	*	*
VALLEY RE-1	$27,353	$28,685	-$1,332
VILAS RE-5	$1,246	*	*
WALSH RE-1	$1,252	*	*
WELD COUNTY RE-1	$121,672	$76,015	$45,658
WELD COUNTY S/D RE-8	$198,308	$112,588	$85,719
WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-3J	$170,411	$105,417	$64,995
WELDON VALLEY RE-20(J)	$0	*	*
WEST END RE-2	$0	*	*
WEST GRAND 1-JT	$30,553	$17,211	$13,342
WESTMINSTER 50	$1,053,139	$622,103	$431,036
WIDEFIELD 3	$91,649	$55,218	$36,430
WIGGINS RE-50(J)	$40,916	$14,342	$26,574
WILEY RE-13 JT	$1,978	*	*
WINDSOR RE-4	$81,736	$43,744	$37,991
WOODLAND PARK RE-2	$24,394	$16,135	$8,259
WOODLIN R-104	$0	*	*
WRAY RD-2	$58,409	$27,609	$30,800
YUMA 1	$101,155	$59,880	$41,275

State funding for English learners by district

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Credit: Thomas Wilburn

Yesenia Robles is a reporter for Chalkbeat Colorado covering K-12 school districts and multilingual education. Contact Yesenia at yrobles@chalkbeat.org.

School finance committee: Spend more on special ed, redefine ‘at-risk’

2022-01-28T00:47:08+00:00

Colorado lawmakers will take up three bills this session recommended by a special committee charged with re-examining how Colorado funds its schools, including one to significantly increase special education funding.

If passed by both chambers of the legislature and signed by the governor, the bills would:

change how Colorado identifies students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
increase funding for students with disabilities by more than 40%.
develop new investment guidelines for the state land fund, which generates money for public schools.

The Interim Committee on School Finance recommended all three bills with unanimous, bipartisan support Thursday after six months of meetings that saw sometimes significant disagreement over the best way forward.

But a fourth proposal that would have sent more money to districts that struggle to raise money from local property taxes was withdrawn due to lack of support among committee members.

Committee Chair Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, said supporters would keep working on the solution and that she was optimistic that one would be found. The most recent proposal would have created a state matching fund for districts whose voters agree to raise their own property taxes but don’t generate much money from those higher rates.

Colorado distributes money among school districts using a 1994 formula. School district officials, education advocates, and state policymakers broadly agree the 28-year-old formula needs an update and is inequitable. For example, it sends more money to wealthy districts with high cost of living than to districts serving a lot of students living in poverty. However, changing the formula has been politically challenging.

The special committee is supposed to come up with a new formula that shares money more fairly and that provides districts with more money for students who need more support to be successful. The bills recommended by the committee for this legislative session don’t address the larger issues with the formula, but committee members say they are important first steps or address problems outside the distribution formula.

Colorado already provides more per-student funding for at-risk students, currently defined as students who participate in the federal free lunch program or who are in the early stages of learning English. However, this way of counting students has broken down during the pandemic, as fewer families fill out the necessary forms. Even before then, advocates worried a lot of students were getting missed, and school districts hesitated to adopt universal lunch programs for fear of losing state funding.

The first bill recommended by the special committee would change how Colorado counts at-risk students by using socioeconomic factors, including eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, and other government assistance, along with data from the U.S. Census about community poverty.

On its own, the bill wouldn’t send more money to school districts serving those students, but policymakers see this change as a necessary step before the formula can be revised. The changes would take effect in the 2023-24 school year, with a task force to work out the details of the transition.

The second bill would spend more on special education students, starting next school year. This proposal would have the most immediate effect on school budgets.

Colorado allocates this money independent of the main funding formula, but the state has never met its obligations since the current system was established in 2006. The bill calls for increasing funding to $1,750, a 40% increase, for each student who receives special education services.

Districts are also supposed to get $6,000 for each student with a more serious disability. The state has never come close to that amount, but the bill calls for funding of at least $5,088 next year and for funding to increase with inflation going forward. A fiscal analysis estimates the cost of both changes to be $93 million, a 44% increase over this school year’s $210 million state allocation.

Districts collectively spend an additional $700 million a year educating students with disabilities on top of what the state provides, with most of that money coming from their general operating budget. The special education bill would create a committee to look at how other states fund special education, what’s working and what isn’t about Colorado’s system, and how the state and districts should share costs. Those recommendations would be due by the end of the year.

The third bill would set up a group to make recommendations about how the state land board makes and invests money from state trust lands. State trust lands are supposed to generate money for public schools, but the lands aren’t earning as much money as they could with more flexible investment strategies, officials who manage the trust told the committee.

At the same, current rules endanger long-term sustainability of the trust. The bill aims to come up with new guidelines that will shore up the trust for future generations.

Colorado projects student enrollment won’t recoup pandemic losses

2021-12-21T00:54:20+00:00

Colorado school enrollment is essentially flat this year, with far fewer students showing up to class now than before the pandemic.

School leaders had hoped enrollment would rebound after the highly disrupted 2020-21 school year, when more than 20,000 students failed to show up in the state’s K-12 schools. But preliminary enrollment numbers shared with lawmakers show that isn’t happening.

Instead, 843,264 students enrolled in Colorado’s public schools this year, a 0.3% decrease from last year, according to documents presented Friday to lawmakers during a Joint Budget Committee hearing. More detailed information from the state’s October student count will be released in January.

State analysts expect that the mostly flat enrollment could turn into a long-term trend. Their projections for the next two school years now foresee a slight increase cancelled out by a slight decrease the following year.

The causes seem to be complex. Some families may have put their children in private schools or decided to home school them, but that’s not the only reason. State analysts attribute a mix of lower birth rates, less economic opportunity, and high housing prices pushing people out as reasons for lower school enrollment.

Metro Denver, the Southwest Mountain, San Luis Valley, Pueblo, and the Eastern Plains regions have seen the biggest percentage decline in student populations.

Statewide, kindergarten enrollment increased this year by 6% as parents enrolled some of the 6-year-olds they kept home last year. As a result, the state expects kindergarten enrollment to decline next year. This year, the proportion of students not enrolling in grades 1 through 12 declined about 0.8%, or about 6,250 students.

With enrollment projected to increase slightly next school year, the state expects to send schools about $186 million in the 2022-23 school year to account for inflation and enrollment growth, according to the committee documents. Local governments also will need to cover a greater share of educating students, an estimated $77 million increase.

But much will depend on whether lawmakers offer further pandemic relief. Last year, Democrats ensured enrollment dips wouldn’t mean less state funding for school districts.

Last school year enrollment declined sharply from 2019-20. Colorado school districts reported a 3.3% overall enrollment decline, as well as decreases in the number of students eligible for subsidized lunches, a measure of poverty. Both the numbers impact school funding.

The Democrats who control the state legislature may once again seek to prevent funding cuts based on enrollment declines. Republicans have raised concerns, though, about paying for students who don’t exist.

Record-high education funding in Gov. Polis 2022-23 budget proposal

2021-11-02T01:01:04+00:00

Gov. Jared Polis would make significant investments in education in 2022-23, including increasing the funding schools receive per student to a “record amount” and putting funds aside for future years.

Polis’ $40 billion proposed budget, a 3.9% increase over this fiscal year’s budget, would put more money into schools, colleges and universities, and early childhood programs.

“Education is the best investment as a state that we make. It’s one of the reasons I ran for governor — to fix the systemic underfunding of our public schools and to pay teachers better,” he said. “It’s why I’m extremely proud to put forward a budget that invests a historic level of funding in our public schools.”

Polis’ budget is intended to help propel education budgets past the pandemic downturn.

In 2020, lawmakers cut large sums from education and other department after tax revenues plummeted due to coronavirus shutdowns. Last spring, they restored funding for education and other priorities as the state began to bounce back from the downturn.

Now Polis would like to invest even more in education and other areas.

Polis’ budget proposes to increase spending on basic education by 5.9% to $9,383 per student. By law, local taxpayers would pick up a portion of the costs. Total state spending on K-12 education would go up 3% to $6.6 billion.

Colorado’s constitution ties annual K-12 spending to the rate of population growth plus inflation. Despite that, each year lawmakers hold back money for other budget priorities in a move known as the budget stabilization factor. This year, that factor was $572 million, and since the Great Recession, it’s totaled nearly $10 billion.

Polis’ budget reduces the annual withholding to $422 million, a $150 million “buy down” and the lowest it’s been in the past 13 years.

Polis also wants to infuse $300 million in one-time money into the state education fund to maintain the level of budget stabilization factor level for several years. This prepayment would allow the state to prepare for economic uncertainty as it emerges from the coronavirus economic downturn.

Polis’ budget presentation argues that the one-time money would be better used in preparing for the future rather than increasing funding for programs this year.

Among other investments:

Higher education

Total higher education department funding would increase by 1% to $5.18 billion. Polis’ budget calls for an increase of 4.6% in college and university operational support. Polis also wants $9.8 million more to increase student financial aid and help keep tuition flat. Polis also would direct $139.8 million to help schools with maintenance and building upgrades.
The governor also wants to spend $7 million to help Coloradans enroll and succeed in higher education and job training. The money will underwrite training in in-demand job fields at the state’s community and technical colleges.

Early childhood education

Polis proposes $13 million to help prepare to launch the state’s universal preschool program in 2023. The program will provide at least 10 hours per week of free preschool for all 4-year-olds.
The governor would direct $30 million to create more child care facilities across the state by renovating existing state buildings for child care centers. The state will then partner with private operators to manage the facilities and increase child care capacity..

By law the governor must release his proposed budget for the next fiscal year on the first Monday in November.

The budget will help guide legislative conversations early next year when the six-member Joint Budget Committee crafts its own budget priorities.

Joint Budget Committee members applauded the governor’s budget. The committee, rather than the governor, writes the budget that the legislature votes on in the spring.

Committee member Rep. Leslie Herod, a Denver Democrat, in a statement praised proposed investments toward “an equitable recovery for Colorado.”

And committee Chairperson Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, said in a statement, “I appreciate the governor’s dedication to saving money for future buying down of the budget stabilization factor.”

Education and children’s advocacy groups also welcomed the proposal, and expressed hope lawmakers would invest more in the state’s teachers and students.

Colorado Education Association President Amie Baca-Oehlert issued a statement praising Polis’ proposal but worrying about what happens after one-time money runs out. She said the union wants “to stress to all Coloradans how important it is to get serious about providing long-term, sustainable funding for the public schools we all value.”

And the Colorado Children’s Campaign in a statement said the organization is encouraged but still calls for additional investments in the well-being of children, including health insurance, suicide prevention programs, school health counselors, and protection from eviction.

Colorado proposal aims to increase teacher pay for over 6,000 rural teachers

2021-10-04T22:50:26+00:00

Malcolm Lovejoy’s high school in Campo hasn’t had a math teacher since he was a freshman.

The rural school was able to finally hire a math teacher this school year, Lovejoy said. But the 17-year-old senior feels very behind in his math skills. And adding to concerns about his education, this year the high school’s English teacher left, moving away from the remote Plains town near the Oklahoma border.

In rural Colorado towns like Campo, finding and keeping teachers who want to stay and can survive on the low pay can be difficult. Campo School District RE-6 starts beginning teachers at $27,500 a year but even those with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience make just $34,600.

Lovejoy said most Campo teachers could make more working at a local grocery or convenience store.

“There’s not really many reasons for teachers to live in this area,” Lovejoy said. “And if our school really can’t pay them anything, then what’s their reason to be there?”

In an attempt to change how much teachers get paid in Campo and rural areas across the state, Lovejoy and two other rural high school students, along with a University of Colorado Colorado Springs professor and graduate student, crafted legislation they hope will set a new bar for salaries.

The proposal would raise the minimum salary for Colorado rural teachers to $40,000 a year, with the state supplementing local funds for those salaries. The group hopes the extra money would encourage rural teachers to stay in the state’s smallest communities.

Altogether, the bill could benefit 6,000 teachers and cost the state an estimated $35 million a year to supplement salaries.

The legislation doesn’t have sponsors yet, but the group is hoping to secure backing from members of both parties. State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat who leads the Senate Education Committee, said she hasn’t seen the draft legislation, but she expects the proposal to face an uphill battle.

About half of U.S. states set a minimum teacher salary. Colorado does not, and leaves it to each district to set pay schedules. Rural schools, however, lack the tax base to raise money for teacher salaries. And the Colorado legislature already can’t cover its financial obligations to schools under the state constitution.

Last year, a new law created a special fund from which districts could request money to raise salaries — but there’s no money in the fund.

Robert Mitchell, a CU Colorado Springs assistant professor, said rural teachers often say that pay determines whether they stay in a community.

Mitchell, who also teaches part-time in Campo, said educators in rural areas often teach because they love the job.

But they also are forced to make hard decisions. Teachers will work long hours and then work their ranch or farm. Others work a second job to stay afloat. Neither group can survive on only a teacher’s salary, he said.

“We need to do something about it,” Mitchell said. “I mean, we’re getting outpaced in salary by places like Loaf ’N Jug and 7-Eleven.”

In Colorado, teachers make on average about $51,000 a year. Among just rural districts, Mitchell said, the average salary dips dramatically.

Some rural school districts start teachers at about $25,000 a year. In Campo, it can take over 20 years of experience to earn $40,000 a year, according to the district salary schedule.

Colorado lawmakers have tried to help attract teachers through laws that give thousands of dollars in student loan forgiveness to educators relocating to rural areas. But Campo, with its yearslong search for a math teacher, illustrates how difficult it can be to attract teachers despite incentives.

Campo Superintendent Nikki Johnson said no qualified applicants applied for the math teacher job for several years. The district eventually hired a teacher who teaches on campus part time and remotely part time, Johnson said.

Campo School in southeastern Colorado is located near the Colorado-Oklahoma border.

The Campo school board has asked the Colorado Association of School Boards to support the bill because of how difficult it has been to attract teachers. Johnson said the passage of the law wouldn’t necessarily level the playing field because of the district’s location, but could at least allow teachers, especially those just starting out in their career, to consider a move to rural Colorado.

“It’s going to continue to be a challenge,” Johnson said. “But at least it will get people to consider rural options. Once they’re willing to consider it, then I think we can sell the community and the school district.”

Kristi McCann, a CU Colorado Springs instructor, said teacher pay needs more attention and resources. She noted Colorado lawmakers last year created the educator pay fund without any revenue sources.

McCann said the bill to create a minimum salary would help provide actual funding to address what she sees as a dire situation. She hopes the bill can represent the start of a larger conversation about how much teachers need to live in rural areas.

“Without this bill being passed, we’re going to continue to hear stories of students who had to rely on remote learning from people that they’ve never met or who have lost teachers,” she said. “And what happens to those students if they’re looking for social mobility, if they’re wanting to go to a university?”

Other rural Colorado students also share in the concerns.

Last school year, half of Elbert High School’s teaching staff resigned, said senior Elizabeth Petersen, who helped craft the bill. The seven teachers who left the rural high school about an hour northeast of Colorado Springs included a mentor who helped Petersen through her most trying moments.

“He was a teacher who offered me a room in his house when I was going through rough times,” Petersen said. “I don’t think I’ll ever find another teacher like that.”

The turnover, Petersen said, could have been avoided. The pay at rural schools forces teachers to struggle and causes students to worry about their future, she said.

“We will get a better education if we pay our teachers,” Petersen said. “You can’t have future employees out of my generation if we don’t have a good education.”

Bucking metro area trends, Mapleton schools grow by attracting out-of-district students

2021-08-05T23:34:59+00:00

When Jennifer Velez was unhappy with her kids’ schools, she didn’t know that in Colorado she could take them across district boundaries.

Then, a friend who was coaching her son’s youth football team said he was moving his son to Mapleton. If she sent her son, too, the kids would at least have each other in the new school. She was convinced.

“It was super easy,” Velez said. The Mapleton school was only four miles from her home in the Adams 12 district. “I thought, if it doesn’t work, I can always move him back to our district.”

But she liked the new Mapleton schools, and a year later, she moved her daughter there, too. Mapleton Public Schools, a district of almost 9,000 students north of Denver, every year attracts thousands of families like Velez’s who cross district boundaries to send their kids to schools there.

Their choices have helped keep up Mapleton’s enrollment during a time when most other metro area districts are losing students. Colorado’s open enrollment system allows parents to enroll their children in any district that has room for them. Mapleton has taken advantage of that system, sometimes referring to itself as a “destination district” with small, specialized schools tailored to students’ needs. The district provides transportation to all students once within the district boundaries, removing part of the barrier that limits parents’ ability to exercise school choice in other districts. Mapleton also builds schools near its boundaries with other districts and operates an online school that enrolls students from around the state.

Among 15 metro area districts, the only other district with an upward enrollment trend over the last five years is the Brighton-based School District 27J where development is booming. Maintaining or growing enrollment helps districts avoid budget cuts as Colorado’s school funding is tied to student counts.

Even in the last year, when most districts saw large pandemic-related declines, the district’s official student count only dropped by nine students while the number of students who chose to come into the district from outside saw a significant jump, according to a Chalkbeat analysis of state data.

In the 2020-21 school year, about half of Mapleton’s students came from other districts. Excluding Colorado Connections Academy, Mapleton’s online academy which takes students from across the state, district data shows that more than a third of the district’s students are choice enrollments from outside the district. That’s a higher proportion than for any other metro area district.

Mapleton’s out-of-district enrollment numbers grew by 1,600 students in 2020 to 4,521; Colorado Connections Academy grew by 258 students.

“We maintained our normal trajectory,” said Superintendent Charlotte Ciancio. “We’ve had steady growth.”

Mapleton is a unique district because it is an all-choice district. It has several specialized small schools, but does not assign students to any of them based on where they live. Instead, families choose the school that suits them best. The district provides transportation through a shuttle system so students can walk to their closest school and take the bus to any school in the district. Some of this works because of the district’s size.

“When parents make a deliberate and intentional choice,” Ciancio said, “they are more committed to the success of our schools.”

District officials credit the district’s geographic location as one of the biggest reasons for enrollment from outside the district. Mapleton has uneven boundaries that don’t match city or county boundaries. Mapleton schools have Thornton and Denver addresses. For some families that live in the Westminster or Adams 12 district boundaries, Mapleton schools can be closer than their own district’s neighborhood school.

The majority of Mapleton’s out-of-district students come from the Adams 12, Adams 14, and Westminster districts that border it. Those communities are generally similar — working class suburbs, with a high percentage of Hispanic families — but the districts also have pockets of more affluent neighborhoods.

Other factors that may play a role include Mapleton’s 100% choice culture, the transportation shuttle system that allows out-of-district students to catch the bus from one of the district’s existing stops, and new school construction. In the past, the district has also marketed in certain areas.

One of Mapleton’s newest schools, Explore Prek-8, sits near the intersection of York and E. 104th streets, on the edge of Mapleton’s boundary with Adams 12.

Mapleton board member Cindy Croisant said that at the school’s opening, she met parents who were from just across the street and interested in the new Mapleton school.

But, she said, it wasn’t planned that way.

“What we thought about was the community we were serving,” Croisant said. Board members heard from community members who said they wanted a school in that area, she said.

Recruiting students from other districts is rare, but not prohibited by law.

Croisant emphasizes that the board’s goal, despite sometimes using the phrase “destination district” to describe Mapleton, is to be welcoming and to be a model for others.

“The ‘why’ behind the work was about our students, and keeping our students because we had students leaving the district back then,” Croisant said. “We want to stay a small-schools-by-design district.”

Ciancio said she still would like to improve academics to help make Mapleton a better, and more attractive district. “We have everything else in place,” she said.

Parker Baxter, the director of the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver, has studied choice more generally and believes that another factor is the legal ability to make the choice, along with a possible higher awareness of that ability in the Mapleton communities.

“Just the district’s attitude can be playing a role, but it’s hard to measure that, ” Baxter said. “The difference between a district that’s open to choice and one that literally does not advertise it at all, is really significant. That Mapleton outwardly promotes its schools outside of its community and purposefully talks about them as open enrollment schools, that likely plays a role.”

Relying on out-of-district enrollments can also be considered risky for district leaders, Baxter said. It can make tracking enrollment more challenging, as those families can suddenly pull out. If they are already making sacrifices to make the drive, schedule changes or other life changes might make the situation too difficult. In other districts, promoting choice can be a political risk as some people are opposed to choice and its effects on schools.

Ciancio said Mapleton has not spent money on advertising its schools lately, but said that when they do send mailers, they go to zip codes that are part of the district, except because boundaries don’t line up, some of the homes that receive Mapleton materials are actually outside the district’s boundaries.

In 2019, Mapleton did spend money to specifically let Adams 14 families know that they would get preferential enrollment that year. Ciancio said she believes most families that find Mapleton do so through word of mouth.

For Jennifer Trujillo who lives in the Adams 14 district and has two daughters in Mapleton schools, that was the case. And, distance wasn’t a factor. Her district school is just two blocks away, but she chose to drive the eight miles to a Mapleton school.

Her oldest daughter, Isabella, was in third grade, and despite having tested as gifted since preschool, had not been given any different accommodations, Trujillo said. She wasn’t being challenged.

“They asked me if I wanted to skip her from preschool to first grade, and I said that’s a little much,” Trujillo said. “They said OK, so they just kept her in regular classes. When I put her in Mapleton, it took her one time to test and they put her in the [gifted] program.”

Trujillo, who was a single mom, said she found a way to make the drive work, and Mapleton helped. Before the pandemic, she dropped her daughters at one of the district buildings where they participated in choir and band as part of an early morning “zero hour.” Mapleton then put the girls on buses to each of their schools.

Isabella just graduated and is heading to the School of Mines in a couple of weeks with a full scholarship.

“It was a conscious choice I made,” Trujillo said. “I just really wanted them to be in a quality school and to give them the best I can.”

Jeffco paid for a report on school closure, then shelved it. Four years later, the district faces the same challenges.

2021-08-04T17:24:05+00:00

When Jeffco leaders saved four out of five schools from closure in 2017, they knew they were just kicking the problem down the road. They said so at the time.

They even paid an education consulting firm $170,000 to look at how other districts handle school closures and make recommendations, but the report was shelved and never acted on. It wasn’t presented to the school board or the community, and no policies changed.

Instead, administrators worked on other priorities, even as enrollment continued to drop.

This spring, Jeffco Public Schools closed another small school, Allendale Elementary, with little warning for parents and no board vote. At one meeting, parents and teachers who wanted to talk about their school were turned away.

Another 28 Jeffco schools have enrollment below 200 students, a level that threatens their financial viability, and district leaders again are launching a conversation about what to do.

It’s unclear if the previous work will be used or need to be updated.

Steve Bell, Jeffco’s chief operating officer, points out that the district has different board members, a new superintendent, and even new administrators who all need to discuss the issue.

“It’s incumbent upon us to draft and implement a certain set of criteria so we can address those things,” Bell said. “So that there is a very clear awareness both internally and externally in the district about how we do this.”

Since the 2017 proposal to close five Jeffco schools, several things interrupted the work of planning for school closure, Bell said.

When Bell and his team first hired MGT Consulting to do the outside review, they thought more school closures were imminent. But just months later, new Superintendent Jason Glass issued a two-year moratorium on any school closures.

Bell said the district decided MGT’s findings would still be relevant long-term and continued the project.

Then in 2018, Jeffco voters approved local tax increases to fund a slew of capital improvements. That again put school closures farther away.

When MGT presented its recommendations to Jeffco’s leadership team in 2019, Bell said that the district was occupied with bond projects and other work and didn’t immediately pick up on the difficult task of creating a long-term plan for school closures.

And the moratorium was still in place.

In August 2020, Superintendent Jason Glass left the district to serve as Kentucky’s education commissioner. He could not be reached for comment.

Mike Raisor, senior vice president of the education solutions group for MGT, said he reached out to the district months later and even had a meeting scheduled in March of 2020. It was canceled as the pandemic shut down schools and pushed districts into emergency response mode across the country

“We did an extensive, extensive amount of work,” Raisor said. That included reviewing similar-sized districts across the country and researching their policies, practices, and procedures around school closures. Consultants also interviewed administrators from some of those districts.

Chalkbeat submitted a public records request for MGT’s report and received only a 17-page document labeled as a draft.

The report, dated January 2019, laid out recommendations for monitoring school capacity on an annual basis, creating clear thresholds that would trigger decisions, and developing timelines that would allow for community feedback.

MGT compared Jeffco to 13 other districts across the country, including some that had more or fewer students, but none had more schools than Jeffco.

Although the report is labeled a draft, MGT officials say the report was final and just waiting on district input to be formally reprinted as a final report.

MGT officials say they also submitted an 800-page appendix with more details about research, other district’s practices, and an analysis of Jeffco’s school enrollment and building conditions. Chalkbeat requested the appendix but has not yet received it. Bell said he just learned about the existence of that appendix this week after Chalkbeat asked about it.

After learning about the MGT report, Amanda Duran, an Arvada mom of two Jeffco students who has been concerned about the district’s approach to school closures, said she was disappointed the review didn’t include parent input.

“These decisions are affecting so many families,” Duran said. “They should definitely start including us as parents that do have kids in Jeffco. Community involvement is huge. That should be one of the main priorities.”

Some of the first contract documents with MGT mention a possibility of doing community outreach as part of the review and recommendations, but that didn’t happen.

Raisor said that he wasn’t with MGT during the entire Jeffco project and doesn’t know some of the details. The people who led the project are no longer with MGT.

Joel Newton, for his part, isn’t waiting for the district.

Newton, who runs the nonprofit Edgewater Collective, said families he works with are afraid of school closure. While he thinks it’s important to have a clear understanding of how the district decides which schools to close, he also wishes the district would come up with a plan to help make schools more attractive to parents, before they are facing dire enrollment problems.

Newton is starting to do focus groups this summer to talk to families who leave their neighborhood or their district to find out what they look for in schools.

“We’re not waiting on the district, we’re taking it on to ask families, ‘what goes into your choice?’” Newton said. “For the stroller families, ‘what type of programs do you want to see when your kids become school age?’ You have to start there. That’s a more preventative measure.”

Bell said that Jeffco never stopped talking about school needs and facilities. The pyramid, or decision tree, that guides school closure decisions encompasses several factors, including building capacity, educational offerings, and “inherent community benefits,” such as a school being high-performing.

Bell acknowledged that process isn’t well known to the community, and the conversations now might need to be broader. He and board members have raised other issues. Should the district encourage more school choice? Should schools still be funded based on student counts? Does closing schools hurt disadvantaged students the most? Are district policies making schools more segregated?

“We need additional conversations,” Bell said.

Newton has seen the district discuss changes before. He participated in a committee the district convened in 2014 to look at choice and where programs across the district were located.

“But the district’s never taken that next step to say how do we do this well,” Newton said. “By sitting on it, COVID and the pandemic has ramped up demographic changes and the enrollment drop, and they missed doing something.”

“It’s really hard work,” he said. “But it’s hard work that’s important in terms of equity and funding for schools.”

Update: Jeffco Public Schools made the appendix available after this story published.

Colorado agrees to fully fund emerging online learning but wants proof that programs are succeeding

2021-07-29T23:55:51+00:00

To give schools room to experiment, the State Board of Education passed new rules this summer that give Colorado districts full funding this year and next for students enrolled in any type of online program. In exchange, districts must share data showing that those students are actually learning.

Members of the State Board acknowledge they’re taking a risk with students’ education and that it will take time to know what is and isn’t working, but they believe it’s worth it.

“I guess I’m willing to take the risk as opposed to snuffing out the innovation,” State Board member Steve Durham said.

Like most states, Colorado has seen an increase in the number of students learning online since the pandemic began. But the emergency programs created during COVID varied widely and didn’t follow all of the state’s pre-pandemic rules for online programs. Some students worked on paper packets from their schools, while others learned on alternate days. In some districts, students worked online for part of the day and in-person for another part of the day. The amount of interaction students had with teachers varied significantly.

Some teachers, parents, and students complained that efforts to re-create the classroom online were leading to Zoom fatigue and hurting student learning. Some students, including older ones who might be caring for siblings or working a job, valued the flexibility of asynchronous instruction.

As districts look to integrate online learning and technology into their post-pandemic school days, the state wants to know which programs are working before setting the rules for future learning models.

State rules mandate a certain amount of teacher-student contact time so that a student could be counted as enrolled. Student schedules are audited to make sure they meet the minimum amount of contact time to be considered full time or part time students, and then districts receive funding according to how many students they have.

But in the remote settings set up during the pandemic, there are more questions than answers about how to count that contact time.

Before the pandemic, online students in most programs garnered the same amount of money as in person students. But students who were engaged in off-site independent study could not count that independent time towards the hours required for instructional time when it came to funding.

And in some cases, the remote learning offered during the pandemic looked more like independent study.

“Old assumptions about teacher pupil instruction and contact and funding do not apply as neatly or as cleanly as they might have even in the recent past,’’ said Bill Kottenstette, the state’s director of schools of choice.

Board members were clear that while those issues need to be resolved, they shouldn’t stifle innovative programs that work.

“We’re likely, post-pandemic, going to be seeing students and parents with expectations regarding their flexible options that are different than what they had prior to the pandemic,” said State Board member Rebecca McClellan. “My hope is that we can make adjustments that allow students and families to be the drivers of this, because if there are students that are doing better with blended or online or asynchronous learning, I don’t want our auditing process to get in the way of delivering what works best for students.”

State writes new rules

State officials have laid out requirements for various categories of online programs.

For example, districts will be able to set up 100% remote learning models for one more school year to accommodate families with health concerns, similar to last school year, but now students in these programs need to spend at least 20% of each class, each week, learning in real time. If districts want to continue those programs into the future, they would need to get formal state approval.

There are different rules for students taking online supplemental courses, such as a more advanced math class that their school doesn’t offer. No more than 40% of their schedule can be made up of such courses if they’re learning from home. However, for the next two school years, state education officials will grant waivers to these program rules for any district that requests it, so long as districts are willing to share additional student performance data. For example, they want to make sure students taking a larger course load online stay engaged and learn as well as their peers.

During the next year or two, the state will track student attendance and performance data by the model in which they are enrolled. If they seem to serve students well, the state will rewrite rules as needed to make sure the programs are allowed and that districts receive funding for students in those programs. The state could stop districts from using models that don’t meet students’ needs.

In the meantime, waivers ensure funding won’t be cut off if districts do something that doesn’t quite fit the rules.

Reassuring worried districts

Earlier this year, as state officials drafted the guidance, several district and school leaders raised concerns about how the proposed rules would affect their programs and sought clarity about whether they had to change things right away.

The State Board prompted education officials to assure districts that programs would get full funding for two years, rather than one, but also made sharing performance data with the state a requirement, not just a request.

Board members asked state officials to be thoughtful about what data they actually needed to collect. Board members also said data wouldn’t be used to penalize districts, just to inform future decision-making.

Christie Imholt, the director of policy advisement for Aurora Public Schools, raised concerns earlier this year that the state wanted far too much detail on student attendance and engagement. For example, if a student was asked to quarantine and participated in remote learning for a short time, the school would have had to report that.

That was a challenge, she said, because the district’s attendance wasn’t designed to track that. Several districts said they would have the same problem.

The state resolved concerns by not requesting that level of detail. Education officials want to know what learning model students are enrolled in and whether they are in attendance, but not whether they had to attend in a different way on a particular day. They also want to see performance data so they can compare whether students learning in a particular online program were more or less engaged, or showed more or less academic improvement than their peers in traditional in-person classes.

Aurora is offering several learning models next year. Online options for elementary and middle school students will include a mix of live instruction and independent work. High school students will mostly do independent, asynchronous work, though the district will require students to participate in tutoring if they are not completing their work.

As of last week, 364 K-8 Aurora students have signed up to stay in fully remote learning, which next year will have dedicated online teachers. At the high school level, 360 students will learn fully remotely through APS Avenues, which existed before the pandemic.

An additional 319 K-8 Aurora students signed up for a flex model that will allow students to stay connected to their neighborhood schools. They’ll tune in virtually, while teachers work with both the in-person and online students. The flex students will have several chances to switch to in-person instruction if they’re comfortable doing so.

In Hayden, a small district in the mountains east of Steamboat Springs, Superintendent Christy Sinner said her district isn’t planning on having a fully online option this coming school year, but other rural districts are.

She’s concerned that for districts outside of Colorado’s Front Range, internet connectivity could make it hard to offer synchronous live, instruction, and that the 20% rule for how much time should be synchronous, was arbitrary. It’s an example that speaks to a larger issue.

“Truly bottom-line is we need to look at alternatives to seat time, something that’s more competency-based,” Sinner said.

Michael Barbour, associate professor of instructional design at Touro University California, has spent decades studying online learning programs and says the 20% rule doesn’t make much sense. Some students may need more time interacting live with teachers, and others will need less.

Barbour said that he’s found that online programs that are designed to target a specific group of students are more successful than programs that “try to be everything for everyone,” and he worries district models will more likely fall into the latter category.

But as states look for ways to hold online programs more accountable, they should be held to the same student outcomes as brick-and-mortar schools, even if those measures aren’t great either, he said.

Traditionally, corporate providers, sometimes for-profit ones, have been more vocal in driving policies about how online programs are held accountable, he said, but that could change.

“The fact that the school districts are at the table now in a greater capacity, I think, is going to help,” he said.

Five takeaways from Colorado’s choice enrollment numbers

2021-06-30T21:58:48+00:00

Students in Colorado crossed school district boundaries a little more than usual during the pandemic school year, according to enrollment data.

Colorado’s open enrollment laws enable students to enroll in any school or district, even if they don’t live within that school’s attendance boundaries — although that choice can be subject to space available.

In a school year with many students working remotely and wide variability in the amount and quality of classroom and remote learning, enrollment trends changed. Many students never enrolled in schools and some who did, did not show up for classes.

Were more of Colorado’s families willing to cross district lines this year? Chalkbeat analyzed state enrollment data to learn more.

Here are the main takeaways from our analysis:

Slightly more students enrolled across district lines this school year than previously, but they mostly followed previous trends of movement.

In the past five years statewide, about 10% of students enrolled in a district that wasn’t their own, although that proportion slowly had been increasing. In the 2020-21 school year, it jumped to 12%. That represented a 9% increase, which was a bigger increase than in previous years.

Where students went didn’t change much, though. The districts that already had high numbers of out-of-district students had even more this school year, and those districts that typically lost a lot of students to other districts continued to see that.

Check out the map below to see the percentage of students in a district that are coming in from out of bounds, and the percentage of those leaving. The map also allows you to toggle to see the change from the previous school year to identify the districts that saw bigger changes during the pandemic.

Multi-district online schools have been big magnets

After the pandemic began, most school districts created versions of online or virtual learning, but a handful of districts already hosted large online schools that drew students from across the state. Overall, 13 of the 18 districts with those schools, known as multi-district online schools, experienced growth in choice in students as a percentage of their total enrollment.

The average percentage of students exercising their choice to attend districts with multi-district online schools was 33.1% this school year, up from 29.5% the previous year. That’s a bigger jump than the average “choice in” to districts without multi-district online schools. Among districts with those online schools, some of the largest jumps were in the Durango, Mapleton, and Byers districts.

Colorado Department of Education staff also has told the State Board of Education that applications to open those types of schools have increased.

The top 10 districts with the biggest increase in out-of-district students

The 10 districts that had the biggest growth in students coming in from out of district are spread across the state, but only one district, Mapleton, is in the Denver metro area. Mapleton officials point out that a large number of their outside students are those enrolled in the district’s multi-district online school, Connections Academy. But even without those numbers, the district has a high percentage of students from other districts.

District	Percent increase
Mountain Valley	55.47%
Mapleton	17.67%
Durango	17.67%
Vilas	72%
Byers	12.39%
Julesburg	9.60%
Bethune	8.11%
Primero Reorganized	7.82%
Pritchett	6.67%
Dolores	5.30%

District, Annual increase in percent of students entering from outside:

The top 10 districts with biggest increase in students leaving for other districts

One of the districts whose percent of students leaving grew the most, Mountain Valley School District, also tallied one of the biggest jumps in the percent of students entering from outside. The district began the school year remotely, and pushed back its hybrid plan at least once, eventually returning to in-person learning by late fall.

District	Percent increase
Sangre de Cristo School District	18.93%
Moffat County School District	16.03%
Bethune School District	15.46%
Mountain Valley School District	12.20%
Hoehne Reorganized School District	10.39%
Primero Reorganized School District	8.01%
Weld County School District RE-1	7.91%
Garfield County School District	7.67%
Pritchett School District	7.55%
North Park School District	7.11%

Untitled

Among the metro area districts:

Among the 15 metro area school districts, only two saw significant changes to the percentage of students coming in from out of district. One was Mapleton, where enrollment from outside districts jumped, and Sheridan, where students enrolling from outside decreased. The percentage of students leaving to attend school elsewhere changed slightly more than those who “choiced” into the 15 districts.

District	Change in choice in	Change in choice out
Adams 12 Five Star Schools	0.53%	2.27%
Adams County School District 14	0.32%	0.39%
Aurora Public Schools	-0.31%	0.21%
Boulder Valley School District	0.42%	0.57%
Cherry Creek School District	-0.94%	0.49%
Denver County School District	0.34%	0.39%
Douglas County School District	-0.97%	1.94%
Englewood School District	-0.40%	0.42%
Jefferson County School District	-0.22%	1.04%
Littleton School District	-0.63%	1.96%
Mapleton School District	17.67%	4.31%
School District 27J	0.35%	1.61%
Sheridan School District	-3.60%	0.89%
St. Vrain Valley School District	-0.03%	1.30%
Westminster Public School District	0.35%	1.00%

One year changes in choice enrollment in metro area districts

Colorado schools are getting more money. Bigger changes could be on the way.

2021-06-29T12:58:49+00:00

When Colorado schools reopen in the fall, most of them will have a lot more money to work with — between 10% and 12% more per student for the typical district — and schools that serve large numbers of students who live in poverty and English learners will be the biggest beneficiaries.

The pandemic forced lawmakers to reexamine which students need the most help. With the economy doing better than expected and lawmakers using a new legal interpretation to raise local taxes, Colorado is investing nearly $500 million more in K-12 education, with $91 million alone from mill changes in 2021-22.

“In a nutshell, it’s a huge step forward for kids,” said Leslie Colwell of the Colorado Children’s Campaign, which has called for sweeping changes to school funding. “We saw the biggest movement for school finance on both the revenue and the formula side in 25 years.”

This year’s legislative session saw a series of key changes to how Colorado funds its schools, just one year after lawmakers made deep cuts to all areas of state government. As painful as it was, the pandemic paved the way for major changes, some of which advocates have sought for years.

Taxpayers in school districts with low property tax rates will start paying more, thanks to a Colorado Supreme Court decision that lets the state undo past tax cuts.
Lawmakers restored past funding cuts to K-12 education and added even more money into the system, partly on the basis of this new local revenue. The state’s base education budget now approaches $8 billion.
Instead of putting that new money into the previous school finance formula, lawmakers increased the number of students considered at-risk and, for the first time, promised extra money for every student learning English.

These changes are significant because Colorado has constitutional restrictions on raising and spending money. With limited money in the system, past efforts to change how Colorado funds schools have foundered on rocky political shores.

This year, lawmakers found a way past one constitutional barrier — the requirement that voters approve any new tax increase — to bring in more money. Then they agreed to share that money differently with school districts to help students with greater needs.

“We always get stuck in ‘we can’t change the formula unless we have new revenue’ and ‘we don’t want to put more money into the same broken formula,’” Colwell said. While a significantly improved budget outlook helped move the conversation forward, “the pandemic forced a look at the inequities in our system, and legislators seemed motivated to think differently.”

There’s still a lot to do, though. Colorado’s school funding distribution formula changes were limited to areas of broad agreement, and several thornier topics were kicked to a special committee that will meet over the next two years to recommend more changes.

Increasing funding for students in poverty and those learning English “were the low-hanging fruit of all the changes we were planning to make,” said state Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat who serves on the Joint Budget Committee and headed up a previous effort to rework the school finance formula. What’s left will be more challenging, she said.

There are also the critical questions of whether Colorado can sustain its new investment in students and whether the new money will lead to better student outcomes.

“Money that is not focused on student achievement is not money well-spent,” said state Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican active in school funding debates.

Here’s a closer look at what changed this year and the work that remains.

Mill levy change will bring in more than $91 million

In Colorado, school funding is shared by the state and local districts. Once total school funding is established by a formula, the state pays for whatever local taxes don’t cover. Over the last few decades, due to the complex interaction of constitutional provisions, more of that burden shifted to the state, crowding out other needs in the state budget. Meanwhile, taxpayers in different districts paid wildly different tax rates, from 4 mills in wealthy Aspen to 27 mills in Cañon City and Alamosa. One mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value.

This year's change in state law gradually increases local property taxes in districts with rates below the cap of 27 mills. The Colorado Supreme Court signed off on the change, agreeing with an argument that voters didn’t need to approve the increase because tax rates had been lowered in the past despite voters at the time agreeing to hold rates constant.

This change is expected to bring in $91 million in new school revenue for 2021-22 and more than $288 million a year when it’s fully implemented. It’s the first time in years that Colorado schools have had a new revenue source, and it means that taxpayers in different districts eventually will pay similar rates.

Matt Richmond, an independent consultant who previously advised Colorado lawmakers on school funding issues as the chief program officer at Ed Build, said the money produced by this change is significant and “worth the work that was put in,” but it’s even more valuable that it creates a fairer funding system. Previously, some wealthy districts paid lower taxes while collecting more state money than poorer districts.

“Anytime you have a statewide system, especially something as important as education, you want people to feel that it’s fair and that they’re bought in,” he said.

Most districts are getting more state money

If the mill levy change were the only change this year, it would have meant more spending overall on K-12 education, but many districts, including some serving working-class communities such as Denver and Commerce City-based Adams 14, would have seen less state money as they covered more of their own costs with local taxes.

Instead, the majority of school districts are seeing increases in state money and paying a smaller share of their total costs, according to a Chalkbeat analysis. Why? The deep cuts lawmakers made in 2020 turned out to be unnecessary because the economy performed better than expected, and the forecast for 2021 also was strong. That meant the legislature had plenty of money to work with and could restore past cuts, invest new money in schools, and save money in the state education fund as a reserve against a future downturn.

According to estimates from state analysts, Denver taxpayers will pay 5% more toward schools in 2021-22, while the state will pay almost 33% more. In the Adams 14 district, which serves one of the highest percentages of English language learners in state, local taxpayers will pay less than 0.2% more while the state will pay almost 20% more.

There are a few exceptions. The Aspen school district, a poster child for the unfairness of the previous tax system, will see a 75% decrease in state aid and cover more than 96% of its own costs next year through a local tax increase of about three-quarters of a mill.

Formula changes will help at-risk students

Colorado’s school funding formula starts with a base amount per student and then adds weights based on student factors such as poverty and district factors, including size and cost of living. These weights end up steering more money to expensive districts than to ones serving large numbers of students in poverty. Rather than run all the new money through the old school funding formula, which could have exacerbated those inequities, lawmakers made two important changes.

They decided to count more students living in low-income households, adding those who qualify for reduced-price lunch to those who qualify for free lunch to the at-risk calculation. And for the first time, districts will get 8% more for each student learning English. Colorado previously set aside some extra money for English learners, but that amount hasn’t grown with the population.

“If the new money had not come in, I’m not sure we would have had the support for these formula changes,” McCluskie said. “If we had made these changes without the new money, then wealthier districts with fewer students in poverty would have seen a decrease in funding.

“Our school districts are very willing to engage in formula changes as long as the pie is expanding. I hate to use the phrase winners and losers, but if we shift resources to districts with more need [without new money], some districts that were winners would lose money, and that has been a challenge.”

Colorado’s constitution complicates school funding changes

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, known as TABOR, requires voters to approve any tax increases and limits how much the government can grow year over year. If the economy does well, and revenues grow faster than inflation, the state has to give money back to taxpayers, something state economic forecasts predict will be required for each of the next three years.

Tracie Rainey, director of the Colorado School Finance Project, worries that TABOR refunds will eat into the general fund money available to support education.

This year’s changes have “the potential to help if the state can sustain it for the next five years, but if we get in a situation where we seesaw back and forth, have money one year, next year it goes away or is reduced, then you cannot put it into people and programs,” she said. “You’ll have this constant upheaval.”

Richmond said Colorado’s constitution makes it a uniquely challenging state.

“The state can have as many great ideas as they please, and with the number of restrictions that come from the constitution related to funding, it’s very difficult to implement them,” he said.

Next steps include bipartisan discussion

Colorado lawmakers plan to convene a special bipartisan committee to look at further school finance reform. This is the second such effort in five years. The topics include how the state counts students in poverty, how it pays for special education, how it funds rural districts, how to account for cost differences around the state, and how to make up for some districts’ ability to pass special tax increases called mill levy overrides that let them provide additional services that less well-off — or more tax-averse — districts cannot.

Richmond said changing how the state thinks about poverty is critical, a sentiment echoed by local education advocates. With the federal government extending universal free lunch during the pandemic, families increasingly aren’t filling out applications for subsidized lunch and not showing up in at-risk student counts, even though many families are struggling more than ever. Other ways of measuring poverty include looking at community income levels or how many children take advantage of certain services.

After a disrupted school year, lawmakers hope additional funding will make a difference for students.

Changing the cost-of-living factor, which often sends more money to communities with high property wealth and fewer students in poverty, will likely be contentious. With this year’s changes, that factor now directs a smaller share of state money, but districts that have benefited aren’t seeing cuts.

But if Colorado wants to spend more on special education or other student needs, the money will have to come from somewhere. That will mean hard decisions.

“I keep feeling like people are looking for this magic moment where it won’t take any political courage to make these changes,” said Luke Ragland, who heads up the conservative education advocacy group Ready Colorado. “It’s never going to be easy. It’s never going to be palatable or convenient to all these traditional interest groups to take money from a system that benefits institutions and invest it in ways that benefit kids.”

But Ragland and Lundeen, the senator, both said they are encouraged to see broad agreement that Colorado’s school finance formula should be built around the needs of kids.

“A formula that honors student achievement is still alive in the building,” Lundeen said. “If we don’t focus on that, if we don’t honor that, then we have failed the students of Colorado.”

Many Republicans don’t think Colorado schools need more money so much as that money needs to be spent differently and with more leadership and commitment.

“I always ask: What is the number? It’s always ‘more,’” Ragland said. “That’s not a real discussion. That’s a talking point.”

A growing body of research finds that spending more money on education improves outcomes for low-income students, though not necessarily for their better-off peers.

Colwell, of the Colorado Children’s Campaign, said the public should expect even this year’s investments to make a difference, if not immediately in test scores than in other ways.

“The public should expect investments made in things that will directly address the lost learning opportunities from the pandemic, and we should see some acceleration of student learning in the next year because students have more access to the supports and interventions that they need,” she said.

Ragland said the public should also watch to see if teacher salaries go up or if new money goes toward administrative costs.

Rainey said the first question for the special committee needs to be what kind of education system Colorado wants, the second how much that would cost, and only the third how to distribute the money.

For example, the additional 8% for English learners doesn’t reflect the full extra cost of teaching students a new language — it’s just what lawmakers felt they could afford.

Colorado spends a smaller share of its total economic capacity on education than most other states, according to an analysis by Bruce Baker, a school finance expert from the Rutgers Graduate School of Education. Neighbors like Kansas spend more because its state constitution requires the legislature to provide funds to meet goals set by the state’s board of education.

“Colorado is one of the least well-funded school systems in the country, especially for as wealthy as it is,” Baker said. “Colorado has been willing to try anything but money. Let’s dramatically expand charter schools, let’s do teacher evaluations, let’s do portfolio model, let’s do anything but fund schools.”

District	FY 20-21 Total Funding per Pupil	FY 21-22 Total Funding per Pupil	% Change in Total Funding per Pupil
Adams 12 Five Star Schools	$7,961.10	$8,861.23	11.31%
Bennett School District 29-J	$8,437.03	$9,330.53	10.59%
School District 27J	$7,827.51	$8,636.30	10.33%
Adams County School District 14	$8,275.42	$9,529.51	15.15%
Mapleton School District 1	$8,069.76	$9,043.46	12.07%
Strasburg School District 31J	$8,318.13	$9,160.73	10.13%
Westminster Public School District	$8,261.02	$9,371.17	13.44%
Alamosa School District RE-11J	$7,989.64	$8,893.94	11.32%
Sangre de Cristo School District RE-22J	$10,846.77	$12,265.39	13.08%
Adams-Arapahoe School District 28J	$8,593.45	$9,660.12	12.41%
Byers School District 32J	$7,745.18	$8,491.33	9.63%
Cherry Creek School District 5	$8,109.43	$8,965.63	10.56%
Deer Trail School District 26J	$13,034.86	$13,955.92	7.07%
Englewood School District 1	$8,402.42	$9,339.23	11.15%
Littleton School District 6	$7,839.73	$8,612.51	9.86%
Sheridan School District 2	$9,281.09	$10,464.55	12.75%
Archuleta County School District 50-JT	$8,255.50	$9,131.24	10.61%
Campo School District RE-6	$16,544.79	$18,217.94	10.11%
Pritchett School District RE-3	$16,356.45	$18,422.21	12.63%
Springfield School District RE-4	$10,550.39	$11,670.97	10.62%
Vilas School District RE-5	$14,288.49	$16,066.75	12.45%
Walsh School District RE-1	$13,999.86	$15,690.42	12.08%
Las Animas School District RE-1	$8,021.22	$8,832.83	10.12%
McClave School District RE-2	$11,286.13	$12,711.97	12.63%
Boulder Valley School District RE-2	$8,031.79	$8,832.91	9.97%
St. Vrain Valley School District RE 1J	$7,951.51	$8,792.44	10.58%
Buena Vista School District R-31	$8,184.84	$9,048.57	10.55%
Salida School District R-32	$7,996.10	$8,787.19	9.89%
Cheyenne County School District RE-5	$13,443.83	$14,971.43	11.36%
Kit Carson School District R-1	$14,656.62	$16,169.73	10.32%
Clear Creek School District RE-1	$8,819.80	$9,695.99	9.93%
North Conejos School District RE-1J	$7,953.53	$8,795.77	10.59%
Sanford School District 6J	$9,910.69	$11,093.25	11.93%
South Conejos School District RE-10	$13,866.49	$15,724.19	13.40%
Centennial School District R-1	$12,703.47	$13,958.75	9.88%
Sierra Grande School District R-30	$11,275.07	$12,432.09	10.26%
Crowley County School District RE-1-J	$8,985.13	$9,957.11	10.82%
Custer County School District C-1	$10,195.26	$11,101.13	8.89%
Delta County School District 50J	$7,889.78	$8,799.83	11.53%
Denver County School District 1	$8,352.63	$9,341.10	11.83%
Dolores County School District RE-2	$12,651.60	$14,122.93	11.63%
Douglas County School District RE-1	$7,850.49	$8,606.81	9.63%
Eagle County School District RE 50	$8,426.86	$9,407.16	11.63%
Academy School District 20	$7,715.52	$8,488.85	10.02%
Calhan School District RJ-1	$9,470.44	$10,604.38	11.97%
Cheyenne Mountain School District 12	$7,717.72	$8,501.65	10.16%
Colorado Springs School District 11	$8,008.23	$8,884.88	10.95%
Edison School District 54-JT	$13,459.14	$14,975.84	11.27%
Ellicott School District 22	$8,505.22	$9,476.82	11.42%
El Paso County School District 49	$7,776.78	$8,561.31	10.09%
Fountain School District 8	$7,717.70	$8,562.73	10.95%
Hanover School District 28	$12,247.28	$13,366.80	9.14%
Harrison School District 2	$8,395.72	$9,240.95	10.07%
Lewis-Palmer School District 38	$7,730.28	$8,501.45	9.98%
Manitou Springs School District 14	$8,275.60	$9,101.88	9.98%
Miami-Yoder School District 60-JT	$11,338.70	$12,696.91	11.98%
Peyton School District 23-JT	$8,928.57	$9,810.60	9.88%
Widefield School District 3	$7,717.72	$8,505.09	10.20%
Proposed Funding per Pupil	$17,314.67	$19,387.16	11.97%
Big Sandy School District 100J	$11,309.06	$12,482.84	10.38%
Elbert School District 200	$12,045.85	$13,113.49	8.86%
Elizabeth School District	$8,039.87	$8,843.87	10.00%
Kiowa School District C-2	$12,388.55	$13,235.92	6.84%
Canon City School District RE-1	$7,717.35	$8,546.40	10.74%
Cotopaxi School District RE-3	$13,031.58	$14,433.24	10.76%
Fremont RE-2	$7,960.44	$8,735.75	9.74%
Garfield County School District 16	$8,640.88	$9,708.08	12.35%
Garfield School District RE-2	$7,868.41	$8,745.19	11.14%
Roaring Fork School District RE-1	$8,346.68	$9,316.93	11.62%
Gilpin County School District RE-1	$9,571.36	$10,480.73	9.50%
East Grand School District 2	$8,141.21	$8,967.11	10.14%
West Grand School District 1-JT	$9,771.46	$10,889.87	11.45%
Gunnison Watershed School District RE-1J	$7,999.97	$8,782.68	9.78%
Hinsdale County School District RE-1	$16,826.60	$18,216.10	8.26%
Huerfano School District RE-1	$9,067.37	$9,998.15	10.27%
La Veta School District RE-2	$12,103.45	$12,700.58	4.93%
North Park School District R-1	$16,299.25	$15,927.12	-2.28%
Jefferson County School District R-1	$7,943.90	$8,758.05	10.25%
Eads School District RE-1	$12,563.88	$13,829.91	10.08%
Plainview School District RE-2	$16,339.61	$18,403.00	12.63%
Arriba-Flagler School District C-20	$13,549.85	$15,304.88	12.95%
Bethune School District R-5	$15,054.26	$16,978.52	12.78%
Burlington School District RE-6J	$8,246.85	$9,262.98	12.32%
Hi-Plains School District R-23	$13,686.04	$15,233.54	11.31%
Stratton School District R-4	$12,154.32	$13,533.37	11.35%
Bayfield School District 10 JT-R	$8,417.19	$9,286.86	10.33%
Durango School District 9-R	$7,947.61	$8,722.56	9.75%
Ignacio School District 11-JT	$8,986.09	$10,010.98	11.41%
Lake County School District R-1	$8,472.45	$9,551.34	12.73%
Estes Park School District R-3	$9,139.98	$10,030.39	9.74%
Poudre School District R-1	$7,715.03	$8,498.12	10.15%
Thompson School District R-2J	$7,717.33	$8,501.11	10.16%
Aguilar Reorganized School District 6	$15,226.00	$16,907.50	11.04%
Branson Reorganized School District 82	$7,675.60	$8,427.93	9.80%
Hoehne Reorganized School District 3	$9,852.94	$10,950.66	11.14%
Kim Reorganized School District 88	$15,350.24	$16,997.18	10.73%
Primero Reorganized School District 2	$12,962.10	$14,370.60	10.87%
Trinidad School District 1	$8,887.71	$9,962.95	12.10%
Genoa-Hugo School District C-113	$12,842.48	$14,114.07	9.90%
Karval School District RE-23	$16,530.34	$18,451.96	11.62%
Limon School District RE-4J	$8,948.38	$9,935.84	11.04%
Buffalo School District RE-4	$10,590.05	$11,661.68	10.12%
Frenchman School District RE-3	$12,936.60	$14,364.84	11.04%
Plateau School District RE-5	$14,018.31	$15,637.15	11.55%
Valley School District RE-1	$7,819.79	$8,677.82	10.97%
De Beque School District 49-JT	$13,955.96	$15,350.17	9.99%
Mesa County Valley School District 51	$7,717.45	$8,501.28	10.16%
Plateau Valley School District 50	$9,479.27	$10,565.96	11.46%
Creede School District	$16,055.80	$17,729.14	10.42%
Moffat County School District RE-1	$7,717.59	$8,514.85	10.33%
Dolores School District RE-4A	$8,813.87	$9,670.11	9.71%
Mancos School District RE-6	$9,005.77	$9,944.11	10.42%
Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1	$7,810.14	$8,599.21	10.10%
Montrose County School District RE-1J	$8,078.79	$8,969.89	11.03%
West End School District RE-2	$12,754.05	$14,304.89	12.16%
Brush School District RE-2J	$8,257.53	$9,289.89	12.50%
Fort Morgan School District RE-3	$7,992.07	$8,880.38	11.11%
Weldon Valley School District RE-20J	$13,206.86	$14,581.22	10.41%
Wiggins School District RE-50J	$9,872.67	$9,527.16	-3.50%
Cheraw School District 31	$12,293.80	$13,615.31	10.75%
East Otero School District R-1	$8,528.74	$9,411.41	10.35%
Fowler School District R-4J	$9,759.02	$10,910.05	11.79%
Manzanola School District 3J	$14,520.41	$16,120.70	11.02%
Rocky Ford School District R-2	$8,877.20	$9,961.39	12.21%
Swink School District 33	$10,257.68	$11,443.91	11.56%
Ouray School District R-1	$15,320.49	$16,985.95	10.87%
Ridgway School District R-2	$11,231.19	$12,339.55	9.87%
Park County School District RE-2	$9,045.99	$9,995.59	10.50%
Platte Canyon School District 1	$8,778.05	$9,682.14	10.30%
Haxtun School District RE-2J	$9,939.62	$11,017.29	10.84%
Holyoke School District RE-1J	$8,700.29	$9,773.36	12.33%
Aspen School District 1	$10,507.30	$11,512.60	9.57%
Granada School District RE-1	$12,985.67	$14,540.12	11.97%
Holly School District RE-3	$10,265.91	$11,634.14	13.33%
Lamar School District RE-2	$8,155.17	$8,994.43	10.29%
Wiley School District RE-13-JT	$11,014.15	$12,289.39	11.58%
Pueblo City School District 60	$8,281.74	$9,145.15	10.43%
Pueblo County School District 70	$7,711.39	$8,493.41	10.14%
Meeker School District RE1	$8,382.22	$9,235.04	10.17%
Rangely School District RE-4	$8,609.38	$9,459.86	9.88%
Del Norte School District C-7	$9,104.30	$10,140.16	11.38%
Monte Vista School District C-8	$8,294.10	$9,213.35	11.08%
Sargent School District RE-33J	$9,752.50	$10,708.91	9.81%
Hayden School District RE-1	$10,245.91	$11,400.06	11.26%
South Routt School District RE-3	$11,247.41	$12,573.48	11.79%
Steamboat Springs School District RE-2	$8,107.31	$8,883.06	9.57%
Center School District 26-JT	$9,298.61	$10,327.01	11.06%
Moffat School District 2	$13,972.83	$15,516.50	11.05%
Mountain Valley School District RE-1	$14,123.66	$15,609.79	10.52%
Silverton School District 1	$16,870.28	$18,894.79	12.00%
Norwood School District R-2J	$13,691.94	$15,519.40	13.35%
Telluride School District R-1	$10,783.54	$11,901.65	10.37%
Julesburg School District RE-1	$7,888.67	$8,751.09	10.93%
Revere School District	$14,187.29	$15,702.08	10.68%
N/A	$8,122.76	$8,991.17	10.69%
Summit School District RE-1	$8,440.63	$9,422.24	11.63%
Cripple Creek-Victor School District RE-1	$11,850.44	$11,414.02	-3.68%
Woodland Park School District RE-2	$7,836.01	$8,660.49	10.52%
Akron School District R-1	$9,647.76	$10,689.05	10.79%
Arickaree School District R-2	$15,572.22	$17,424.20	11.89%
Lone Star School District 101	$14,855.20	$16,505.72	11.11%
Otis School District R-3	$12,457.21	$13,872.05	11.36%
Woodlin School District R-104	$15,839.25	$17,741.03	12.01%
Ault-Highland School District RE-9	$8,369.84	$9,291.78	11.01%
Briggsdale School District RE-10	$13,608.29	$15,015.28	10.34%
Eaton School District RE-2	$7,737.80	$8,512.83	10.02%
Weld County School District RE-8	$8,297.28	$9,269.99	11.72%
Weld County School District RE-1	$8,072.20	$9,001.23	11.51%
Greeley School District 6	$8,023.09	$9,013.37	12.34%
Johnstown-Milliken School District RE-5J	$7,717.72	$8,501.65	10.16%
Weld County School District RE-3J	$8,609.50	$8,732.65	1.43%
Pawnee School District RE-12	$19,012.57	$19,613.93	3.16%
Platte Valley School District RE-7	$9,471.97	$9,155.57	-3.34%
Prairie School District RE-11	$12,634.25	$13,824.27	9.42%
Windsor School District RE-4	$7,717.72	$8,501.65	10.16%
Idalia School District RJ-3	$13,261.40	$14,975.15	12.92%
Liberty School District J-4	$17,598.55	$19,273.80	9.52%
Wray School District RD-2	$8,586.31	$9,596.23	11.76%
Yuma School District 1	$8,938.84	$10,062.80	12.57%

Impact of School Finance Changes on Per Pupil Funding

Source: Colorado Legislative Council

Annie Fu/Chalkbeat

Correction: The map showing district contributions to state funding has been updated to correct the information for the Littleton school district. Local contributions expected to decline by -1.0411%.

Overhaul of Colorado school funding may be in the works

2021-06-03T18:56:33+00:00

Hoping to succeed where its predecessors failed, a special legislative committee would examine Colorado’s public school funding system and recommend improvements under a bill that received unanimous approval in the House Education Committee Thursday.

The legislative committee would meet for two years and recommend changes on everything from how to best identify students in poverty to how to make up for vast differences in property wealth and taxing capacity among school districts.

A previous special committee met for three years without producing legislation. Nonetheless, state Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat who served as chair of the previous committee and sponsored this bill, said the earlier debates helped build agreement on key topics, such as targeting more money toward students with more needs.

Now the pandemic has motivated legislators to make real change, she said.

“Because of COVID, there is such strong evidence that we need to make changes to our school funding system to make it more transparent, more student-centered, and more equitable,” McCluskie said.

The legislature already has moved to expand the definition of students in poverty and increase funding for students learning English by 8% per student starting next school year. Those provisions — originally part of the same bill that would create the special committee — instead were added to the School Finance Act this week. That change consolidates funding changes for the 2021-22 school year in a single bill that passed the House, also on Thursday. The legislature is set to wrap up the session next week.

The changes in the school funding formula will give districts an extra $118 million next school year and guarantee additional funding going forward. Colorado has more money to put toward education because separate legislation gradually raises local property taxes. The Colorado Supreme Court signed off on the plan late last month.

A more controversial provision of the original bill would have created a state matching fund to encourage school districts with low property wealth to pass modest local tax increases to support their schools.

Differences in property wealth mean a mill — one dollar for every $1,000 of assessed value — can generate anywhere from $20,000 to $19 million depending on the district. It can be harder to pass tax increases in poor districts — and when they do pass, they don’t make as much difference for students.

Now, the local tax question will be one of several that the special committee is charged with studying and making recommendations.

The other questions include:

whether Colorado should find a new ways to count how many students live in poverty instead of relying on applications for subsidized lunches
whether school districts should get additional money for every student with a disability
how to account for factors like high cost of living or the unique challenges of rural districts
how to fund state-authorized charter schools and multi-district online schools.

House Bill 1325 would create an eight-member committee, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, representatives and senators. Lawmakers will also aim for representation of urban, suburban, and rural school districts. If successful, the committee would recommend changes in the 2023 legislative session.

“We have the opportunity to make a difference in how we fund our schools,” McCluskie said. “With this bill, we have two years to get it right.”

While Democrats control both chambers of the legislature, the committee could end up recommending legislation in a different political environment. McCluskie said a bipartisan approach is critical to crafting legislation that provides the best solutions. And the school funding debate also doesn’t always break along neat partisan lines. Lawmakers listen to local school leaders in their legislative districts, and depending on what changes are proposed, some districts will do better than others.

The bill sets aside $90 million the state education fund to help with the transition to a new formula.

The proposal to form a new special committee received an enthusiastic bipartisan reception in the House Education Committee. The bill goes next to the appropriations committee before going to the full House.

Colorado’s education pie just got bigger. Now lawmakers want to give a larger slice to higher-needs students.

2021-06-02T00:51:39+00:00

Expecting a cash infusion after the Colorado Supreme Court gave its blessing to raising local school district taxes, lawmakers are proposing major changes to how the state spends its education dollars.

House Bill 1325 would expand the definition of children living in poverty and qualifying for additional funding and, for the first time, give districts more money for every English language learner enrolled in their schools.

The bill also proposes a matching fund to help districts that have struggled to pass special property tax increases for schools, known as mill levy overrides. By offering state dollars, proponents hope to create an incentive for voters in districts with low property wealth and high tax rates to put more local money into the pot.

Lastly, it proposes a new special committee on school finance — a previous committee met for three years without producing legislation — to work on more changes.

The legislature has about two weeks left in the session and a long backlog of major bills. The bill is set for its first hearing in the House Education Committee this week. A fiscal analysis that would show the impact on individual districts had not been completed as of late Tuesday afternoon.

Lawmakers for years have debated how Colorado funds its schools. In particular, many education advocates say the current system sends too much money to wealthier districts and not enough to those serving the students with the highest needs.

But making big changes had proved too politically challenging until now. Without new revenue, the only way to send more money to districts serving large numbers of students in poverty or with a lot of English language learners would have been to send less to other districts. And no school leader in Colorado wanted to give up resources.

But now, Colorado lawmakers expect to have an additional $91 million to put toward K-12 education in 2021-22 and even more in future years after the state Supreme Court ruled that a proposal to raise district property taxes without getting new voter approval was constitutional.

Education advocates hailed the ruling as a game-changer for Colorado students. New revenue has been hard to come by as voters have repeatedly rejected statewide tax increases for schools.

Bill sponsor state Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat and former chair of the special committee on school finance, said the impact of disrupted learning over the last year was the greatest on Colorado’s low-income and immigrant communities, where many parents are frontline workers and families have limited internet access.

While it ultimately will be up to local leaders how to spend new money, she hopes having more resources will help districts make up for lost learning time.

“We’re putting more resources into those populations where we anticipate there would be the most learning loss,” said McCluskie, who also serves on the Joint Budget Committee. “I don’t think there has ever been a more important time for us to invest resources into the communities that have been most affected by the pandemic.”

And with the passage of the property tax changes, “we have new money to put into the school finance formula and make sure we’re covering these expenses,” McCluskie said. “We’re able to do this without taking money from elsewhere in the formula.”

Instead of distributing this new revenue evenly among districts, the bill would target it toward needier students. Some districts would get less than they would have if the formula remained unchanged.

The new legislation takes several ideas from the previous special committee but leaves behind the most controversial changes. For example, the legislation doesn’t make any changes to the cost-of-living factor, which has had the effect of giving more money to districts that serve wealthy communities and have a strong property tax base.

The current system sets a base dollar amount for each student and then adds extra money based on a number of factors, including district size, cost of living, and how many students qualify for free lunch. A separate pot of money known as categoricals provides more money for students with disabilities and those learning English, among other groups, but that money hasn’t kept pace with growth in the student population.

The new bill would also count students who qualify for subsidized lunch toward the number of students who live in poverty, giving districts more money to support students from low-income families. And districts would get 8% more per-pupil funding for students who are learning English as a new language — about $118 million next school year, according to McCluskie.

These changes would be permanent and on top of one-time money to help these same students that was set aside in the School Finance Act.

The special committee proposed by the legislation would look at whether counting students enrolled in the federal lunch program is actually the best way to measure child poverty and might propose additional changes.

The matching fund to encourage local tax increases proposed in the legislation could prove more controversial than the formula changes.

State Rep. Colin Larson, a Littleton Republican who sits on the House Education Committee, said he has concerns about rewarding communities that have held off on taxing themselves. With the mill levy override matching provision, he’ll likely vote no on the bill. Without it, he’d be an enthusiastic yes.

“This is probably the most significant thing we could do for education,” he said. “The formula has been out of date for at least the last decade if not longer.”

Bill sponsor state Sen. Bob Rankin, a Carbondale Republican and member of the Joint Budget Committee, for years has raised concerns that districts with low property wealth struggle to pass additional school taxes, known as mill levy overrides. These taxes generate an additional $1.5 billion for K-12 education but are concentrated in districts with higher property wealth.

He said putting $10 million to $20 million in a special fund could create an incentive for voters to approve modest local property tax increases, whereas that same money wouldn’t make much difference if added to the $7.8 billion Colorado spends on K-12 public education each year.

“I represent rural and small districts,” he said. “This is an attempt to have equal opportunity for all students no matter what district they live in.”

Colorado law would limit 529 plan tax deductions

2021-05-28T03:59:59+00:00

Update: The bill received approval during the legislative session from the House and Senate.

A major tax reform bill proposes to cap how much Colorado parents can deduct on contributions to college savings accounts.

Supporters of the bill say a planned $15,000 yearly cap on tax-free contributions to what’s known as 529 college savings plans would rein in tax breaks for wealthier families and place Colorado college savings accounts in line with other states’ and their intended purpose — to help low-income and middle-class families save and invest for their children’s higher education.

Unlike most other states, Colorado doesn’t tax 529 plans. Backers of the tax change say it wouldn’t affect the vast majority of Colorado families who contribute to the accounts.

The proponents say the cap would close a loophole and make the system fairer.

House Bill 1311 passed the House and is scheduled to be heard Wednesday evening in the Senate Finance Committee.

The bill’s change to 529 plans are just one of the provisions within the complex tax legislation, which would also limit itemized deductions for those that make over $400,000 a year and reduce certain business expenses. The changes would generate $57.2 million a year for the state by 2023-24. The bill is a top priority for Democrats.

Colorado Fiscal Institute communications director Elliot Goldbaum said 32 of the 36 states that run 529 accounts have contribution limits. The change to 529 accounts would raise $11 million annually, according to a legislative analysis.

Goldbaum said the system will begin to work as intended if the change is approved.

“We think that making sure that the one part of our tax code that really is designed to help working-class and middle-class families pay for college could be a little bit fairer,” Goldbaum said.

The 529 plans act like savings accounts. Taxpayers can deduct 529 plan contributions, which then also grow tax-free. They can later withdraw money from the account, without paying state taxes, to pay for their children’s college expenses

A 2015 analysis by the Bell Policy Center of Colorado’s 529 Plans showed Coloradans earning over $500,000 make up 6% of users of the accounts, but contribute about 24% of funds saved.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute says on average those wealthy individuals contribute about $28,000 annually to the accounts.

Goldbaum said the current tax code allows the rich to not pay taxes.

“A lot of those folks don’t need to put their money into a 529,” Goldbaum said.

CollegeInvest, which runs the state’s 529 plans, hasn’t taken a position on the legislation. During a recent House committee meeting, the organization’s Chief Executive Officer Angela Baier said the majority of users of the account earn between $75,000 to $150,000. The average account size is only a few thousand dollars per family, which doesn’t cover even one semester at Colorado colleges.

The Education Commission of the States, which reviews education policies across the country, says annual caps on deductible contributions range anywhere from a few hundred dollars to $100,000 depending on whether a person files individually or jointly. The majority of states have caps ranging from $5,000 to $10,000.

University of Denver Professor Christine Nelson, who has studied 529 plans across the country, said the accounts alone don’t help make college more affordable to families, especially those who are low income. Over several decades, the cost to attend college at a public Colorado four-year university has spiked as the state has reduced its support for public colleges.

“Seeing 529 plans as a viable access point for middle- to low-income families to access college feels as if it may be misplaced,” Nelson said. “The investments are so low that families wouldn’t really benefit in the long run in terms of being able to cover college costs.”

The state should instead focus on policies that tackle college affordability, like services that connect families to scholarships and that teach about college and finances, she said.

“With those, there seems to be more community buy-in,” Nelson said. “Whereas with just the 529 plans, families would make small investments and, again, it was not enough to cover even one semester of tuition.”

University of Colorado labor union calls on the system to rethink its budget priorities. But will its report foster the debate it’s seeking?

2021-05-25T00:16:59+00:00

A University of Colorado labor union has questioned the university system’s priorities, pandemic cutbacks, and business model, and urges more spending on students and employees.

The United Campus Workers Colorado/Communications Workers of America Local 7799, which represents workers at the system’s four campuses, said in a report released Monday that the University of Colorado has prioritized building up its finances over employees and students, especially during the coronavirus pandemic.

Tracy Berger, a CU employee who helped write the report, said she wants the University of Colorado System to continue managing its finances while better caring for its employees and students. The union also has called on the system to be more transparent in budgeting, pay living wages, and pause debt-financed construction.

Colorado runs its public colleges as enterprise funds, or government services that run similar to private businesses. But Berger stressed that the University of Colorado also has a mission to educate Coloradans. She said that the system prioritizes out-of-state students who make up 30% of full-time students and who pay higher tuition, and that it unnecessarily pads its investment portfolio.

“We want what public education was originally intended to do as opposed to what it’s currently doing,” she said, “which is acting as a business.”

The union intends for its report to sway the $4.5 billion university as it budgets for next fiscal year.

Chief Financial Officer Todd Saliman said the system must maintain its finances to keep tuition affordable to students from different backgrounds.

“Our business model is structured to support our role. And our role, our mission, is to educate students, do research, and the medical resources we provide to the state of Colorado,” Saliman said.

Cuts to employee pay

The union’s report presses for higher employee pay.

Pay records show that the lowest-paid 8.5% of full-time workers at CU make less than a living wage, which can exceed $17 an hour depending on where you live in Colorado, as do the vast majority of hourly and student workers, the report said.

During the pandemic, the university temporarily cut pay for some and has hinted at more cuts, according to the report. It noted that at the same time, the school will increase undergraduate tuition by 3% next year, but will effectively delay the increase a year by tapping into federal coronavirus relief funds.

Kylen Solvik, a CU Boulder doctoral student, said the low pay for students working on campus, combined with high tuition, can be difficult. Many working students are among the most financially strained.

“Ultimately, the employees and students are suffering,” he said.

Saliman said the school plans to increase pay for workers in July.

The school’s business model and students

The union report repeatedly assails university decisions that prioritize its fiscal health, including its credit rating, over students’ education.

Helen Besset, a recent University of Colorado Boulder graduate, said the school’s decision to view itself as a business hurts students, especially those from Colorado.

Instead, Besset said the university should consider how to better teach and attract students. That means spending more to recruit and graduate Colorado students, and less to erect buildings, she said.

At CU Boulder, “there’s a running joke that we have this beautiful pool, but it’s closed half of the year,” she said.

But Saliman said keeping a high credit rating helps lower costs by ensuring the university can access the lowest interest rates. Letting the school’s business standing slip would result in higher costs overall that would then be transferred to students, he said.

The coronavirus pandemic and the system’s financial health

The report also calls out several decisions the school made following the coronavirus pandemic.

When its annual operating budget fell by 5% this year, the university made temporary salary cuts and imposed furloughs. At the same time, tuition stayed the same even as classes shifted online.

The union also questioned why the university issued almost $500 million in new bond debt in 2020 and maintained the size of its investment portfolio.

“There is a path that involves selling investments or refusing to make full payments on debt,” the report says. “This might impact CU’s credit rating and ability to take out future debt, but it would allow the university’s educational and public mission to continue unabated.”

Saliman said the bond debt partly included refinancing, which helped reduce interest rates and save money. The university spent $250 million on new buildings at several campuses.

At the same time, he noted that the school increased spending on student mental health and issued about 55,000 emergency grants to students using federal, internal and foundation funds.

Saliman also noted the school did tap its reserves to mitigate impacts of the pandemic.

Colorado Supreme Court clears way for property tax increases, more school funding

2021-05-24T21:54:21+00:00

Legislators can raise school district property taxes without getting new voter approval, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The decision marks a major victory for supporters of school finance reform who have watched Colorado struggle to fund its schools, even as K-12 education takes up a growing share of the state budget.

With news of the Supreme Court’s blessing, state senators Monday approved a bill that would gradually increase local taxes in many school districts, generating more than $91 million for schools next year and more than $288 million a year when fully implemented.

The extra money will come from local taxpayers, not state coffers. Republicans Sens. Kevin Priola of Brighton, Bob Rankin of Carbondale, and Don Coram of Montrose joined Democrats in what was otherwise a party-line vote.

The immediate impact will be a relatively modest 1.2% increase in the $7.8 billion Colorado planned to spend on schools next year. But the new revenue is expected to ramp up quickly.

Supporters expect that with this change, Colorado will get close to funding its schools as the constitution requires in the next five years. Advocates hope the extra money makes it more politically feasible to increase funding for students living in poverty, those learning English, and those with disabilities.

“This is a major win for Colorado kids,” said Leslie Colwell of the Colorado Children’s Campaign, which has called for school finance reform for years. “For decades the educational opportunities that have been available to students have been largely determined by ZIP Codes and local property wealth. The Supreme Court decision affirms that the legislature can begin to solve this problem and moves us closer to serving all kids.”

The Colorado Supreme Court decision comes in response to a formal inquiry that the legislature sent to the high court. Legislators wanted to know if they could return local school district taxes to levels that voters had previously agreed to without holding a new election. Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights typically requires a vote of the people to raise taxes, but in this case, tax rates had been reduced in error, supporters of the change said.

The Supreme Court agreed.

“The voters have previously approved what the General Assembly is attempting to implement, and we have made clear that, in such circumstances, corrections like these are permissible without additional voter approval,” Justice Richard Gabriel wrote for the majority.

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, chair of the Senate Education Committee and a sponsor of the bill, said she was “overjoyed” at the ruling after spending many years working on school finance.

“This is very exciting because it’s going to allow us to insert some fairness back into the system,” she said. “This is going to allow us to address some long-standing inequities, and it’s going to go a long way toward rebalancing the state and local share.”

The legislation, which heads now to the desk of Gov. Jared Polis, proposes to return mill levies, or property tax rates, to the levels they were at in the 1990s. At that time, most school districts got voter permission to keep revenue from existing taxes. That should have led to tax rates remaining flat, but the Colorado Department of Education instead interpreted the 1994 School Finance Act to require property tax rates to go down, until the legislature froze mill levies in 2007.

Rates would go up by no more than one mill a year until they get back to the previous level. One mill is the equivalent of $1 for every $1,000 of taxable home value.

Taxpayers in school districts that already collect the maximum 27 mills would not see any change. Nor would those whose local taxes already cover the full cost for schools.

Chief Justice Brian Boatright dissented. He argued that just because voters agreed to let their school districts keep revenue from existing taxes several decades ago, that doesn’t mean they intended to lock in those tax rates indefinitely.

“Put simply, due to the mill levy increase, property owners will pay more taxes from one year to the next,” he wrote. “That is the very definition of a tax increase under our constitution.”

The impact for taxpayers will depend on how home values change.

The owner of a $400,000 home in Englewood, for example, currently pays about $626 a year to support the school district. Next year, with the levy one mill higher, that same homeowner would pay closer to $655, a 4.6% increase, or more if their home value increased as well. Once Englewood reached the maximum of 27 mills, school district taxes on a $400,000 home would be $772 a year.

Conservative group Colorado Rising State Action is working to place a measure on the ballot that would reduce assessment rates, which would reduce how much property value is taxable. If successful, that could reduce the revenue from the mill levy increases. Executive Director Michael Fields predicted the court decision would only help his cause.

The impact of the court ruling on school districts depends on many factors. Denver, for example, will get an extra $9.5 million overall but lose state funding, according to a legislative analysis. The suburban Adams 12 district will get an extra $4.2 million, all of it from the state, because its taxpayers already pay the maximum.

Advocates hope that over time, the mill levy change will reduce the amount the state holds back and restore balance by shifting some costs back to school districts. They also believe it’s fairer for school districts to pay similar tax rates.

“The decision handed down today will help us start to make up for years of deeply inequitable funding processes that have hamstrung certain districts like mine in Pueblo and held our schools back,” state Rep. Daneya Esgar, one of the bill’s Democratic sponsors, said in a statement. “It’s long past time to make fair and robust investments in our children and the future of Colorado.”

Most Republicans opposed the effort. Along with conservative advocacy groups, they argued that the proposal would undermine TABOR and open the door to other tax increase maneuvers.

The court majority rejected that argument, but the justices also emphasized that their decision applied only to the specific circumstances of the case. They said it should not be taken as a rejection of TABOR.

“Allowing the mill levy corrections before us will not open the door to ‘trickery’ by the General Assembly,” they wrote. “Nor may the General Assembly simply label any past mill levy as ‘incorrect’ as a cover for raising taxes without prior voter approval.”

“Rather, we simply conclude, in the unique circumstances presented, that the General Assembly may act to effectuate mill levies that voters have previously approved but that, due to an error, were not given full effect.”

Colwell said she hopes the new money allows for progress on changing Colorado’s school funding formula.

Because districts get credit for factors like cost of living, the current formula sometimes sends more state money to well-off districts than to ones serving lots of students in poverty, but changing that has been challenging because no district wants to get less than it currently receives.

But now the school funding pie will be larger.

“I’m hopeful that the next phase of this conversation will be about how we can spend new revenue differently,” Colwell said.

Gov. Jared Polis just signed Colorado’s next budget into law. Here’s what it does for education.

2021-05-18T00:07:12+00:00

After a hard year, Colorado schools and universities will get a big boost in the budget Gov. Jared Polis signed into law Monday.

The $34.1 billion budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1 represents a nearly 11% increase from this year’s budget, which involved deep cuts made at the height of COVID restrictions. The state economy turned out to fare much better than feared, and lawmakers could roll forward savings from this year to bolster next fiscal year’s budget.

“I’m proud to be signing a bill that will safeguard Colorado’s fiscal future,” Polis said at a signing ceremony. “We’re also making a significant investment in schools … It’s an investment in our children and an investment in their future.”

The budget includes an $800 million state stimulus plan called Colorado Comeback, as well as new funding for Medicaid, transportation needs, and the state pension system on which retired school employees rely. It also creates a 13.5% reserve, nearly double the previous reserve, a recognition that Colorado’s economy isn’t out of the woods yet.

Significantly, the 2021-22 budget restores cuts made to both K-12 and higher education and provides new money to programs that support students who need more help.

“There is so much good in this budget that will help Colorado recover, that will prioritize communities that were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, and set Colorado onto a more fiscally sustainable future,” state Sen. Dominick Moreno, chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said at the signing.

Here’s a look at what next year’s budget does for schools, colleges, and universities.

Higher education

The budget almost doubles higher education spending by restoring $494 million that was cut last year. That money shores up the operating budgets of Colorado’s public colleges and universities. Tuition increases are capped at 3%, with the exception of the University of Northern Colorado, which can raise tuition 7%.

Opportunity for college students

The budget also includes another $100.3 million to help students who come from low-income families and who are first-generation college students, who were more likely to have deferred college or dropped out due to the economic pressures of the pandemic. Of that, about $41.8 million will go toward retention and recruitment efforts, $40 million will be distributed through a new funding formula that takes into account how well higher ed institutions are serving students, and the rest will be distributed as grants, financial aid, and scholarships.

The budget also includes $125,000 for the Colorado Department of Higher Education to hire a chief equity officer to work on breaking down barriers for students who traditionally have not attended or graduated from college at the same rate as students from middle-class backgrounds.

K-12 spending

The budget calls for $7.8 billion in spending on K-12 education, an 8.7% increase from 2020-21. Almost $5 billion would come from the state, with the rest covered by school districts. School districts would get $8,857 per pupil on average, a 9.7% increase.

The 2021-22 budget withholds $572 million from K-12 schools to meet other priorities, despite a constitutional requirement that education spending increase every year by population and inflation. This makes the annual withholding the same as it was in 2019-20. The withholding, known as the budget stabilization factor, has been in place since the Great Recession.

Lawmakers had been steadily reducing the withholding — and increasing education spending — but the budget stabilization factor surged to $1.2 billion last year. Democrats in the legislature said reducing the factor even more this year would not be responsible in light of future economic uncertainty.

The budget also includes for $361 million, a 2% increase, to partially cover extra costs districts incur to educate students with disabilities, those learning English, and gifted and talented students, among others. For the first time, state funding for students with disabilities will cover half of its obligation.

The budget also allows the School Finance Act, which passed the state Senate today and heads now to the House, to allocate an extra $77 million for students deemed to be at risk, meaning they are learning English or come from low-income families.

The budget leaves more than $480 million in the state education fund as a reserve.

State funding will be supplemented over the next several years by federal coronavirus relief packages.

Infrastructure

Lawmakers dedicated $160 million to the Building Excellent Schools Today or BEST program, which supports improvements to school buildings in cash-strapped districts. The pandemic put more attention on the poor physical condition of many Colorado school buildings, particularly ventilation. The money allows the state to maintain a matching grant program for districts.

Student achievement and well-being

The budget sets aside $7.2 million to fund grant programs that were cut last year. Those would fund social workers and other behavioral health professionals, dropout prevention programs aimed at ninth graders, programs that encourage more students of color to enroll in advanced courses, and subsidies for Advanced Placement exam fees, among others.

The budget also includes $1 million to support bullying prevention programs and $250,000 to support suicide prevention programs.

Workforce

The budget sets aside $13.4 million for the development of a teacher recruitment toolkit. Even before the pandemic, districts struggled to hire enough teachers, especially in rural areas and in specialities like math, science, and special education. The money will also support the educator loan forgiveness program that was put on hold last year.

Colorado school finance bill sends more money to students in poverty, English learners

2021-05-13T01:42:00+00:00

Colorado school districts will get an additional $77 million to help students whose families are living in poverty or who are learning English under legislation introduced this week.

The one-time money would help some of the students hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic — without the state reworking its complicated school finance formula, a larger and more contentious conversation.

“It’s finally an attempt to invest resources where they can make a big difference to kids,” said Leslie Colwell of the Colorado Children’s Campaign, which has advocated for larger changes to the formula. “We would love to see a full rewrite of the school finance formula, but this is a really challenging year. It’s good to see how we can make a difference with targeted adjustments.”

The School Finance Act, scheduled for its first hearing Thursday in Senate Education Committee, also restores money for a host of grant programs that were cut last year and addresses technical fixes and policy changes on everything from teacher licensure to school governance.

One provision gives the State Board of Education the authority to review changes to what are known as innovation schools, district-run schools with charter-like autonomy, and another puts a moratorium on educational cooperatives opening brick-and-mortar schools without permission of the school district in which the campus is located.

Colorado lawmakers have already passed a $34.1 billion state budget with $7.8 billion in spending on K-12 education, an 8.7% increase from 2020-21. The School Finance Act, a separate piece of legislation, describes how education dollars in the budget will be distributed to schools, among other provisions.

The school finance formula starts with a base of $7,225 per student, a 2% increase from this year, but average per-pupil spending in the 2021-22 budget will be closer to $8,857, a 9.7% increase. That’s because funding for each school district is affected by a number of factors, including how many at-risk students it serves, the cost of living, district size, and remoteness.

Education advocates for years have called for changes to the formula to give more money to districts whose students have greater educational needs. Districts get additional money for students who qualify for free lunches and students who are beginning to learn English, but other factors get more weight, with the effect, in some cases, of sending more money to districts that serve well-off students.

The extra $77 million would be distributed to districts based on how many students qualify for reduced lunch, counting them for the first time, and how many students are early English language learners. Denver Public Schools would get an extra $10 million, Jefferson County schools would get an extra $6 million, while Adams 14 would get an extra $1.3 million, according to a legislative analysis.

“I really made a commitment to the districts that we were not going to make huge dramatic changes to the formula this year because this has been such a difficult year full of change and drama,” said state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, chair of the Senate Education Committee and co-sponsor of the School Finance Act. “There is stability in predictability.”

“However, it has been an extremely difficult year because of the pandemic. Because of that, we are trying to get more resources to the districts to support our most vulnerable students.”

Colorado’s constitution requires that K-12 spending increase by population and inflation each year, but lawmakers withhold funds to pay for other priorities. This amount, known as the budget stabilization factor, ballooned to $1.2 billion last year, but this school finance bill holds back only $572 million, the same amount as in 2019-20.

“The return of the B.S. factor back to the pre-pandemic level is huge, but there is a significant piece that is not being sent to classrooms,” said Matt Cook of the Colorado Association of School Boards.

The School Finance Act also sets aside $2 million to hire more school counselors, $800,000 for dropout prevention programs targeted at ninth graders, $280,000 to cover Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exam fees, and $250,000 to increase enrollment in advanced coursework, all programs that were cut during the pandemic.

Colorado legislation is supposed to cover one subject, described in the title of the bill. The School Finance Act includes other provisions that Zenzinger said were requested by either the Colorado Department of Education or individual legislators and that have some relationship to school funding or budgets. For example, the bill lets schools roll over a portion of the state money they get to help struggling readers and extends the deadline for school boards to adopt their own budgets.

The bill also gives new oversight powers to the State Board of Education. The State Board already signs off on the creation of new innovation schools, district-run schools that are exempt from some rules and regulations and have more discretion over their budgets. The School Finance Act would require the State Board to review and either approve or reject changes to innovation plans made by local school boards.

The change was included at the request of state Sen. James Coleman, a Denver Democrat with close connections to leaders of innovation schools in that district. The Denver school board recently rejected the requests of two schools to join innovation zones because the district is in the midst of a “pause-and-reflect” period that could end in policy changes. Supporters of innovation schools worry about the potential impacts down the road.

Coleman said the change wouldn’t have affected what happened in Denver. Instead, he wanted to address what he saw as a gap. The State Board can review charter renewals but not innovation school renewals.

“Innovation schools are doing transformational work in my district,” he said. “I want to provide governance and accountability assurance to those families.”

Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments over school finance tax change

2021-04-21T01:48:46+00:00

The plain language of Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights says that to raise taxes from one year to the next requires a vote of the people.

But what if voters agreed to keep school property taxes steady more than 20 years ago and state officials lowered them instead? Does it take another vote of the people to return tax rates to the previous level — or does increasing them simply correct an error?

That’s the question the Colorado Supreme Court took up Tuesday as lawmakers seek a solution to a vexing problem in school funding.

Colorado lawmakers sent the court a formal question — known as an interrogatory — last month seeking a constitutional ruling before they give final approval to a bill that would gradually increase local property taxes over 19 years.

If approved, the change would generate more than $90 million in new revenue for schools next year and more than $288 million a year when fully implemented. That would take a big bite out of the funding gap that Colorado schools experience when lawmakers hold back education dollars to pay for other priorities — but the money would come from local taxpayers, not state coffers.

The premise of the bill is that local tax rates are much lower than they should be due to incorrect application of the law by past state officials.

Back in the 1990s, most school districts got voter permission to keep revenue generated by existing property taxes. That should have led to tax rates remaining flat, but the Colorado Department of Education instead interpreted the 1994 School Finance Act to require property tax rates to go down, regardless of what local voters decided, so that revenue from those taxes didn’t increase too much.

In 2007, the legislature froze mill levy rates to stop further decreases, a decision the Colorado Supreme Court upheld in the 2009 Mesa decision.

The bill proposes to return mill levies, or property tax rates, to the same level they were at when voters chose to maintain them decades ago.

In briefs filed with the high court, supporters of the mill levy change said the reduction of rates in the past was illegal and should be considered void. During oral arguments, the justices asked questions about how long voter intent remains valid.

“I am a little concerned that we want to give effect in 2021 to voter decisions from 1996,” Justice Richard Gabriel said. “That doesn’t feel right.”

“There is no shot clock on voter intent,” responded attorney Mark Grueskin, who represented the legislature.

The basketball analogy refers to a rule that one team can only hold the ball for so long without shooting. In contrast, election results remain valid indefinitely, he argued.

Grueskin pointed to numerous other court rulings that government bodies can correct errors without triggering requirements under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, to get voter approval. Rejecting this change would endanger the basic functioning of government, he said.

The offices of Attorney General Phil Weiser and Governor Jared Polis filed briefs in support of the mill levy change.

Republican lawmakers who object to the change filed their own brief, as did conservative groups Colorado Rising State Action and the TABOR Foundation.

They argued the mill levy change is a tax increase by another name. Taxes will be lower one year and higher the next, and “no amount of tax-policy presto chango is going to alter that simple truth,” attorney Dan Burrows wrote in a brief on behalf of legislators who oppose the bill.

And in Colorado, he said, that requires a vote. Allowing anything else would “swallow” TABOR, he said.

Opponents also argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t take up the question at all, an argument that also prompted skeptical questions from the justices. Opponents described the issue as a political disagreement, with mostly Democrats on one side and mostly Republicans on the other, not a true constitutional issue.

“The legislature is not trying to get the right answer there,” Burrows said. “They’re trying to get political cover for a tax increase.”

If Democratic lawmakers believe they’re in the right, they should pass the bill, implement the changes, and then deal with any lawsuits that might arise in district courts, opponents argued.

Having trials around the state would allow more evidence to come out about whether the state education department was actually wrong to lower tax rates and whether the wording of different ballot measures in 127 school districts fits with the legislature’s theories.

Colorado Supreme Court rulings on interrogatories can create precedent or be treated like advisory opinions, depending on circumstances.

It’s not known when the justices will rule. Lawmakers hope to get a response before the end of the legislative session so they know whether they can account for new revenue in the school finance act.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t give its blessing to this fix, the path to school funding reform becomes even narrower.

In Colorado, the state and school districts share the cost of K-12 education, with the state picking up whatever local taxes don’t cover. School districts used to pay for two-thirds of the cost, but the reduction in local property taxes means the state now pays for two-thirds.

Unable to pass statewide tax increases for K-12 education, advocates of school funding reform have increasingly focused on trying to repair the patchwork of local property taxes and to restore some balance to school finance.

A previous proposal would have asked local school districts to hold elections to raise taxes and withheld state money from those that didn’t. But it was so politically unappealing it was never introduced as legislation.

Colorado House advances 2022 budget with extra money for special ed, chief equity officer

2021-04-29T23:39:54+00:00

Update: During a Thursday conference committee, lawmakers made several changes to the budget. Lawmakers reduced funding for a higher education chief equity officer to $125,000, halved funding for school bullying prevention programs to $1 million and cut funding for suicide prevention programs to $250,000. Lawmakers also removed an amendment that would have added funding for mental health screenings. The committee members retained an additional $10 million for special education programs.

After a marathon session Wednesday in which lawmakers debated more than 90 amendments, the Colorado House gave its initial approval to the state’s $34.1 billion spending bill for the 2022 fiscal year.

The state House will give final approval to the budget on Thursday before sending it back to the Joint Budget Committee, which has final say on the bill. The Senate approved the proposed 2021-22 budget last week.

Lawmakers heard 79 amendments filed by House members, mostly from Republicans, along with 14 amendments previously approved by the Senate.

Of the 79 House amendments, 15, all backed by Republicans, focused on K-12 education. They failed to gain traction in the Democratic-controlled chamber.

And of the five education-related Senate amendments, the House gave support to three. The amendments would add:

$10 million for special education, bringing dedicated funding to $220 million, a 6.7% increase;
$2 million for student mental health screenings;
And $160,000 to create a chief equity officer position in the state higher ed department.

The House didn’t give its approval to Senate amendments that would have added money to school bullying and suicide prevention programs.

The Joint Budget Committee could still decide to include the Senate amendments that failed in the House. Joint Budget Committee Chair Sen. Dominick Moreno, a Commerce City Democrat, however, has said the committee will give more consideration to amendments approved by both chambers.

Overall, the proposed budget restores many cuts made last year in response to the pandemic, resulting in big increases for K-12 and higher education. Colorado has more money this year because lawmakers cut deeply last year, but tax revenues were better than expected. That allowed unspent money to be rolled over.

The proposed budget calls for $7.8 billion in spending on K-12 education, an 8.7% increase from 2020-21.

Lawmakers also plan to restore $494 million in state funding to higher education after pandemic cuts last year and want to send another $100.3 million more to support colleges and their students. In total, the proposed $1.2 billion for colleges and universities will almost double spending over this year.

Republicans argued their amendments would increase funds for key education priorities, such as restoring long-withheld funds and supporting literacy instruction.

Republicans filed numerous amendments that promised to pay down what’s called the budget stabilization factor. Colorado’s constitution requires that K-12 education funding increase every year based on population plus inflation. However, lawmakers withhold funding to pay for other budget priorities. This year, the budget stabilization factor is $572 million.

Republicans proposed completely eliminating the withholding and fully funding K-12 education by using the extra money rolled over from the 2020-21 budget.

“I think this is a great opportunity for us to get to a good place and just pay the thing off,” said state Rep. Dave Williams, a Colorado Springs Republican who sponsored several amendments focused on the budget stabilization factor.

But Democrats argued only recurring funds should be used to make up the difference in education funding. Otherwise, funding might be restored this year only to be cut again next year.

And budget committee members have said they want excess funds to be placed into reserves in case of long-term fallout from the pandemic.

Joint Budget Committee Vice Chair Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, said the amendments wouldn’t be fiscally responsible.

“Do I hope we find an ongoing funding stream for our public schools? You’re darn right,” she said. “We need to make that happen. It has to be a priority for the state and we’ve put it off for far too long. But spending this money today is not fiscally sound.”

Colorado Senate adds special ed funding, chief equity officer position to 2022 budget

2021-04-09T00:56:07+00:00

The Colorado Senate gave initial approval to a $34.1 billion budget that boosts funding for K-12 and higher education with only modest changes.

The Senate will hold a final vote on Friday before sending the budget to the state House, where the proposal could undergo further changes next week. The Joint Budget Committee, which crafts the state’s spending plan, will then get final say over which amendments from either chamber make it into the 2021-22 budget.

Senate members on Thursday introduced 38 amendments, with only a few focused on education. The majority of amendments sought to increase funds for public health, human services, and transportation. Legislators spent just a few hours debating the changes, a contrast from previous years when budget votes went late into the night.

Of the seven amendments focused on education, five were approved in the upper chamber, including a funding increase for special education and a new chief equity officer position for the state higher education department who will tackle gaps in who graduates college.

Senators approved an additional $10 million from the state education fund for special education programs for children with disabilities.

Special education is particularly poorly funded in Colorado, with legislators consistently failing to allocate enough money to meet guidelines that call for schools to get at least $1,200 for every student with a disability and more than $6,000 for each student with more significant challenges.

While state spending for special education increases every year, those increases don’t keep pace with the growth in the number of students identified as having special needs.

The budget already included a 1.9% increase for special education students. The additional $10 million increases special education to $220 million, a 6.7% increase, and means the state will fund half of its special education obligation.

“Don’t these students deserve to be at least 50% of what we say we want to support them?” said state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and Senate Education Committee chair.

Zenzinger sponsored the amendment with Senate Minority Leader Chris Holbert, a Parker Republican.

The Senate also approved a trio of amendments filed by state Sen. Jim Smallwood, a Parker Republican, focused on student mental health. While all three initially were voted down, the Senate later voted to approve the amendments.

The amendments propose another $2 million for school bullying prevention, $2 million for school-based health centers, and $500,000 for suicide prevention programs.

And the Senate approved spending $160,000 to create a new chief educational equity officer position within the Colorado Department of Higher Education. State Sen. James Coleman, a Denver Democrat, said the position will help Colorado focus on ensuring students of color and those who are low-income earn degrees. The state has a goal to get 66% of its residents with a degree or credential by 2025.

The position was cut last year due to the pandemic’s impact on the state budget. Funding for the position wasn’t reintroduced into the higher education budget this year despite lawmakers targeting funding increases for college and universities.

Zenzinger said increasing degree attainment among diverse Coloradans is part of the state’s goals.

“It’s just common sense that if you actually want to achieve your goals, you need to be able to put the right resources into supporting those goals,” she said.

The proposed budget calls for $7.8 billion in spending on K-12 education, an 8.7% increase from 2020-21. Almost $5 billion would come from the state, with the rest covered by school districts. School districts would get $8,857 per pupil on average, a 9.7% increase.

The budget also puts $100 million into a fund that helps cash-strapped districts pay for construction projects, restores grant programs that were cut last year, and builds up a substantial reserve in the state education fund in case tax revenues decline in the next few years.

The other education amendments, all backed by Republicans, failed to gain traction.

State Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, proposed sending $60 million more to schools in the form of grants for tutoring and summer school to combat pandemic learning loss. He argued the funds would provide necessary support for struggling students. Democrats said the budget already includes funding for struggling students through state and federal dollars, with schools required to spend 20% of the most recent round of federal aid on combating learning loss.

An amendment to change capital spending for colleges and universities also failed.

The bulk of the Republican amendments dealt with transportation funding, another long-neglected area in the state budget. All of the amendments were unsuccessful, with Democrats unified against them.

The Biden administration is working on a plan that would send $2 trillion to improve infrastructure, including roads, and aid in the economic recovery. Republicans argued the road projects include immediate needs to better life for Coloradans, especially in rural areas, and there’s no guarantee that the Biden administration’s plan will come to fruition.

Chalkbeat Colorado Bureau Chief Erica Meltzer contributed to this report.

Colorado’s 2022 budget boosts K-12 spending, restores higher ed cuts

2021-04-06T02:02:20+00:00

Colorado’s $34.1 billion proposed state budget restores deep cuts made last year to K-12 and higher education, provides more money to help students who have traditionally struggled to complete college, and creates a substantial reserve for K-12 schools that could lay the groundwork for future reforms — if it’s not needed to weather a prolonged recovery.

The proposed fiscal year 2021-22 state budget, introduced in the Colorado General Assembly Monday, stands in stark contrast to the severe austerity of last year’s budget document. A year ago, Colorado was under stay-at-home orders as it battled the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, and lawmakers had to fill a $3 billion budget hole.

But while the economic impacts of COVID have been severe, Colorado collected much more tax revenue than budget writers had expected. Much of that money was rolled over and is now available for the coming fiscal year.

The proposed budget, a 10.7% increase from this year, includes new funding for Medicaid, transportation needs, and the state pension system on which retired school employees rely. It also creates a 13.5% reserve, nearly double the previous reserve, a recognition that Colorado’s economy isn’t out of the woods yet.

For both K-12 schools and higher education, the budget returns spending to pre-COVID levels.

“This is largely bringing us back to 2019-20, where we were before the pandemic hit,” said Joint Budget Committee Chair Sen. Dominick Moreno, a Commerce City Democrat. “I wouldn’t say this is significantly moving the ball down the court.”

But Moreno noted two important exceptions: $100.3 million targeted at college students from low-income and first-generation backgrounds and a proposed $560 million reserve in the state education fund.

Students who are the first in their families to attend college have been more likely to put their plans on hold during the pandemic due to family responsibilities and economic hardships, and lawmakers and college leaders want to do more to help them stay on track.

The reserve in the state education fund, meanwhile, has two potential uses. It could prevent cuts if revenue declines in coming years, given that the 2021-22 budget is supported largely by money rolled over from this year. It could also be used to facilitate long-sought changes to Colorado’s school finance formula.

Many legislators, education advocates, and even district leaders agree that the way the state distributes money to K-12 schools is unfair and doesn’t provide enough aid to districts with large numbers of students in poverty. But efforts to change the formula have foundered because some districts would get less money if the formula is changed without a big increase in overall K-12 spending.

The state education fund typically ends the year with about $100 million left over, but this budget and a companion bill would result in $560 million left over in the fund. That money could smooth the transition to a new school finance formula.

Moreno called the discussions about a new formula “very early and preliminary” — and dependent on the bigger economic picture — but the move is in line with priorities named by Gov. Jared Polis in his State of the State address.

State Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat who serves on the Joint Budget Committee and previously chaired a special committee on school finance reform, said any effort to change the formula would happen slowly and with care and only if overall school funding were secure.

“It’s just as important that we protect the investments we’ve made so far as anything else,” she said.

Colorado’s constitution requires that K-12 spending increase by population and inflation each year, but lawmakers withhold funds to pay for other priorities. This amount, known as the budget stabilization factor, ballooned to $1.2 billion last year, but the 2021-22 budget would hold back only $572 million, the same amount as in 2019-20.

The budget also calls for $351 million, a 2% increase, to partially cover extra costs districts incur to educate students with disabilities, those learning English, and gifted and talented students, among others.

In addition, it returns $100 million to a fund that helps cash-strapped districts with construction projects and restores $6.9 million for other grant programs that were defunded last year to prevent even deeper cuts to base school budgets.

“We were devastated last year,” McCluskie said. “This year was a bit of a redeeming moment to restore those cuts and make some investments in the future of Colorado. I think it’s exactly the right next step.”

Lawmakers will look to almost double the money sent to higher education institutions next year, restoring $494 million cut last year from higher education and adding $100.3 million more to support colleges and their students. The state also targeted funding for other miscellaneous items under the state’s higher education budgets, such as the restoration of funding for History Colorado and more money for the Fort Lewis College Native American tuition waiver.

In total, the budget calls for $1.2 billion in higher education spending for next year.

The large increase makes up for a 58% cut last year, though federal aid offset most of the reductions. Lawmakers said the decision was a one-time pandemic maneuver necessary to balance the budget.

The bill not only restores the cuts, keeping the promises made last year, but adds $100.3 million to increase higher education budgets statewide. About $41.8 million will be used to support the retention and recruitment of students of color and those who are low-income and first-generation. Another $40 million will be sent to governing boards based on the state’s funding formula, which looks at how well colleges and universities serve different populations of students. The rest will be allocated for grants, financial aid and scholarships.

The state will allow those institutions to raise tuition by 3%, with the exception of the University of Northern Colorado, which will be allowed to increase its tuition by up to 7%.

Total tuition revenue next year is projected to be well above this year. Many colleges across the state saw pandemic-related enrollment declines. The tuition hikes could help some higher education institutions recoup operational budget losses from decreased enrollment, although it will come at a cost to students who already pay high tuition.

Community College System Chancellor Joe Garcia said in a statement he’s “pleasantly surprised that the governor and the Joint Budget Committee not only restored the higher education funding level to the 2019-20 level but added significant new dollars, with a focus on the students who were most negatively affected by the pandemic.”

Community colleges across the state have been the hardest hit during the pandemic because low-income student enrollment dipped during the pandemic. Low-income students represent a larger base of community college enrollment than of the state’s four-year institutions.

Lawmakers also plan to allocate millions for infrastructure at community colleges, including for maintenance and information technology upgrades, Garcia said.

The restoration of operational funding is intended to help community colleges weather any lasting dips in enrollment from the pandemic.

“While our needs remain substantial and fall enrollments are far from certain,” Garcia said. “We are pleased with the state’s demonstrated commitment to higher education quality, access, and affordability.”

The budget will be debated in the state Senate this week and in the state House next week. Typically, lawmakers of both parties bring numerous amendments, and they are likely to be tempted to reallocate portions of the spending proposal backed by the six-member Joint Budget Committee, including the substantial education reserves.

In particular, Moreno said he expects to see calls to further increase K-12 spending.

“The entire budget is going to be an exercise in fending off unsustainable spending,” he said. “The struggle will be explaining to our colleagues that we did as much as we can handle, but the more you commit to ongoing programs now, the more you jeopardize the structural integrity of the budget.”

Millions more for Colorado K-12 schools? Lawmakers seek court opinion first.

2021-03-20T00:12:51+00:00

Democratic lawmakers are asking the Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether a proposed tax change that could generate millions for K-12 education is constitutional.

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights typically requires voter approval for tax increases. This proposal would gradually increase local school district property taxes without a vote under the premise that voters a generation ago agreed to higher rates and that state officials improperly lowered them.

On Friday, after giving initial approval to a bill to phase in higher local tax rates over 19 years, senators took the unusual step of sending what’s called an interrogatory seeking the opinion of the state’s highest court. Republicans Sen. Kevin Priola of Brighton and Bob Rankin of Carbondale joined Democrats in what was otherwise a party-line vote on the resolution.

“Don’t we want to know? Don’t we want to know the answer to this question?” Senate Education Committee Chair Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and bill sponsor, asked her fellow lawmakers.

Supporters hope to get a clear answer before the end of the legislative session and include the prospect of additional revenue in the 2021-22 budget. New local taxes would generate more than $90 million next year and could bring in the equivalent of around $288 million a year when they’re fully implemented.

Supporters believe previous case law indicates the court would agree with their interpretation. Legal experts have said the decision could go either way.

If the court agrees the proposed change is constitutional, it could help solve a long-standing problem in Colorado school funding, shifting some of the burden of paying for K-12 education from the state to local taxpayers, reducing wide differences in tax rates between districts, and increasing total education funding.

If the court says the legislature cannot raise local taxes without a vote, advocates of tax reform will face a much harder path. A previous idea called for the state to withhold state funding from districts where voters don’t agree to raise taxes, an even more politically challenging proposition.

But the court is not required to take up the question and could send it back to the legislature. If that happens, Democrats could still move forward with the bill, but school districts would have more uncertainty and might not feel safe spending the extra money.

Absent a decision, raising taxes without a vote would likely generate lawsuits that would ultimately send the case back to the high court. If those challenges are successful, districts might have to return the new money.

The state and school districts share the cost of K-12 education, with the state picking up whatever local taxes don’t cover. When voters adopted TABOR in 1992, the average school district collected 38 mills in property tax, and districts covered two-thirds of the cost of education. A mill represents $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value.

Today, the average is 19 mills, with a cap at 27 mills, and the state picks up two-thirds of the $7.2 billion cost of K-12 education. Meanwhile, tax rates have little relationship to property wealth. In some cases, poor districts pay higher tax rates and a larger share of school costs than do wealthier districts, even as the state cannot keep up with constitutional spending requirements.

One provision of TABOR pushed down local tax rates when property values went up to prevent revenue from increasing too much. In most Colorado districts, voters agreed to hold tax rates steady rather than see funding continue to decline, but state education officials, following their own interpretation of the law, continued to reduce tax rates.

Supporters of the change say they’re correcting a historical mistake. The bill would gradually increase local tax rates until they reach the point at which past voters decided to hold them steady.

“We used to have relative consistency across districts when it comes to mill levies, and now it is all over the place,” said Senate Majority Leader Stephen Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat. “It is a patchwork. This is something that needs to be corrected for a fairer and more equitable system of funding education across our state.”

Republicans object on two accounts. They believe the bill is unconstitutional because the plain language of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights always requires a vote to increase taxes.

They also argue that increased funding should be contingent on larger changes to how money gets shared among districts.

There is broad agreement that Colorado’s funding formula is unfair and gives more weight to factors like district size and cost of living than to whether students live in poverty or are learning English or have a learning disability. But efforts to change the formula have foundered because no district wants to get less than they get now.

Democrats say it will be easier to talk about changing the formula once Colorado adequately funds its schools, but state Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, said the mill levy change represents a lost opportunity to have a larger conversation.

“This bill at its heart is an effort to protect a system and resist changes that are so necessary for our students,” he said. “Does this bill do anything about the disequity in our funding formula? Does it do anything for our at-risk students? For our special needs students? That will not happen if we do not strike a grand bargain that brings the students into the conversation in a way this bill does not.”

Colorado: Cuéntanos cómo debe usar tu distrito su porción de $1.2 billones de apoyo federal para las escuelas

2021-03-18T23:27:58+00:00

Las escuelas de Colorado están por recibir casi $1.2 billones de dólares en pagos de estímulo bajo el Plan de Rescate Estadounidense, y la mayoría del dinero irá directo a los distritos.

Los superintendentes y sus mesas directivas tendrán mucha flexibilidad para decidir cómo dirigir el dinero, aunque el gobierno federal ha dicho que tienen que usar por lo menos 20% para responder a las brechas de aprendizaje que se han desarrollado durante la pandemia.

¿Cómo te gustaría ver que tu distrito use el dinero? ¿Qué prioridades deben tener en cuenta los líderes de los distritos? Cuéntanos en esta encuesta.

Loading…

Gov. Jared Polis signs bill maintaining school funding amid pandemic challenges

2021-03-16T00:57:13+00:00

Colorado school districts will get some financial relief under a bill signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis Monday.

Under normal conditions, Colorado schools are funded based on enrollment. The legislation approved by Polis ensures Colorado school districts will receive the money they originally expected for the 2020-21 school year despite about 30,000 fewer students showing up, a 3.3% decline in enrollment.

The law also sends millions to rural school districts to meet the unique needs of small and isolated schools.

Lawmakers quickly approved the bill this year, which represents one of the first major pieces of education legislation to see Polis’ signature. Bill sponsor and Joint Budget Committee Vice Chair Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, said legislators are doing everything they can to put students, teachers, and parents at the center of the pandemic recovery.

“This funding boost protects schools across our state from catastrophic budget cuts at the worst possible time,” McCluskie said in a news release.

Every year, Colorado withholds millions from schools to pay for other priorities. Known as the budget stabilization factor, this amount grew to $1.2 billion this budget year due to major economic uncertainty last spring. The bill reduces that amount by $121 million. Colorado’s K-12 budget is about $7.2 billion.

Colorado will also send an extra $60 million to school districts — $41 million to make up for lost local tax revenue and another $19 million to districts that saw particularly large enrollment declines or that experienced a notable decrease in the number of students living in poverty.

Education officials don’t believe child poverty really declined. Instead, they think fewer families filled out paperwork for federal lunch subsidies because schools didn’t require them this year. For that reason, lawmakers decided to maintain funding based on previous student counts.

Rural districts will receive an additional $25 million from a new nicotine tax approved by voters in November.

House Education Chair Barbara McLachlan, a Durango Democrat, said in the news release that lawmakers recognized that teachers and students have been some of the hardest hit by the pandemic.

“Building back stronger means making sizable investments in education and working to give our schools the funding they need to get back on track and start bridging the COVID education gap,” McLachlan said.

Colorado lawmakers are also working on complex tax changes that could bring in more money for K-12 over time. Meanwhile, Colorado schools also expect to see a major infusion of money from the American Rescue Plan, 20% of which must be used to make up for lost learning time during the pandemic.

Colorado lawmakers advance bill that would raise local taxes to support school districts

2021-03-11T01:41:15+00:00

In an attempt to generate millions of dollars more for K-12 education, Colorado lawmakers took a first step on Wednesday to equalize the varied tax rates that state residents pay to support school districts.

The bill, advanced on a 6-3 party-line vote out of the House Education Committee, would shift more of the cost to local taxpayers and free up state money, potentially allowing total education funding to increase.

Over the years, K-12 education has become the largest portion of the state’s general fund, limiting the state’s ability to invest in other priorities such as higher education, roads, and human services.

Democrats applauded the proposal’s goal to fix what they say is a longstanding issue, while Republicans held back support amid questions about whether the maneuver is constitutional.

State Rep. Tony Exum, a Colorado Springs Democrat, said House Bill 21-1164 tries to right a decades-old wrong.

“This is a question about fairness,” he said. “And fairness shouldn’t have a time limit.”

The bill would gradually increase property tax rates over the next 19 years in school districts where the Colorado Department of Education has previously reduced tax rates, even after voters said they could stay the same.

In the past, the state Education Department interpreted the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and 1994 school finance law as requiring tax rates to go down. But subsequent court decisions cast doubt on that interpretation.

The tax rate is based on mills. A mill is worth $1 for every $1,000 of taxable home value.

In school districts that pay less than the maximum tax rate of 27 mills, the bill would increase property tax rates by no more than one mill a year until they returned to the rate previously approved by voters.

This change would generate an additional $91 million for K-12 education in the first year, according to legislative analysts, and could produce as much as $288 million a year in current dollars by the time it is fully implemented.

Most districts would see an increase to their total program funding next year, and would take on a greater share of funding schools, according to a legislative analysis. For example, Englewood Schools would see an increase of about $263,000 in its funding although the state would reduce appropriations by about $374,000.

The owner of a $400,000 home in Englewood currently pays about $626 a year to support the school district. Next year, with the mill levy a mill higher at 22.895, that same homeowner would pay closer to $655 — or more if their home value increased as well. Once Englewood reached the maximum of 27 mills, school district taxes on a $400,000 home would be $772 a year.

The Colorado Supreme Court must first rule on whether this proposal is constitutional. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, requires voters to approve any new taxes, and this bill would raise taxes without a new vote.

Colorado lawmakers hope the state Supreme Court rules on the bill’s constitutionality before it gets final approval in the Senate, which would mean the new revenue would be included in this year’s budget deliberations.

Supporters say the same reasoning that led the court to uphold a 2007 mill levy freeze will lead justices to conclude this new mill levy proposal corrects a mistake and doesn’t represent a new tax. But opponents believe TABOR requires a new vote.

Wednesday’s committee hearing provides a preview of the debate to come.

Rep. Colin Larson, a Littleton Republican, said he wants the state Supreme Court to weigh in on the debate. He said he has a problem approving tax rate increases without taxpayer consent.

“This will have a tangible effect of increasing property taxes, and I think in our state people are used to voting on those property tax increases,” Larson said. “So I think while it might be by the letter of the law correct, I don’t know that it’s really in the spirit of what we’re used to.”

Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Alec Garnett, a Denver Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said school district mill levies were not properly applied in the past and don’t comply with the will of the voters to invest in schools.

“Year after year, this error has forced the state to backfill disproportionately more funding to our wealthiest districts while many districts struggle to appropriately fund education,” he said. “By fixing this mistake, we can slowly make school district funding more fair and bring it in line with what voters have approved.”

The bill has support from prominent education groups and districts across the state.

Representatives of Stand for Children, the Colorado Children’s Campaign and the Colorado Association of School Boards spoke in favor of the bill. And many school districts across the state support the bill.

“The bill offers an opportunity to revamp the constitutional tax code,” said Matt Cook, the school board association’s policy and advocacy director, “and fix our pack patchwork quilt of educational mill levies.”

Groups such as conservative education advocacy group Ready Colorado, however, have questioned the bill’s constitutionality. The group also said the bill doesn’t solve the larger problem of how Colorado shares money with local districts. The state’s formula sometimes sends more money to well-off districts than to poorer ones.

Nonetheless, House Majority Leader Daneya Esgar, a Pueblo Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said that the change is overdue.

“By passing this bill, we can correct an error that reversed the will of voters and which led to enormous inequities in how we fund public schools,” Esgar said. “This bill sets us on a long overdue path to ensure that every school district has the resources they need to offer the quality education every student deserves.”

Taking on TABOR, Colorado school funding proposal would raise local taxes in some districts

2021-03-09T01:42:05+00:00

Property owners in some Colorado school districts would see gradual tax increases over the next two decades, ultimately generating hundreds of millions more each year for K-12 education, under a bill backed by Democrats in the state legislature.

The bill is an effort to correct a longstanding problem in Colorado school funding, that taxpayers in different school districts pay wildly different rates and the state is on the hook for making up the difference.

The result is that K-12 education now takes up more than a third of the general fund, crowding out other priorities from roads to human services even as Colorado funds schools well below the national average. The bill would shift more of the cost to local taxpayers and free up state money, potentially allowing total education funding to increase.

“The end goal is to make sure we’re fixing the broken system we have where some school districts have a lot of local support and others do not,” said House Majority Leader Daneya Esgar, a Pueblo Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill. “The whole idea is to provide a more equitable way to fund schools.”

Superintendent George Welsh of the Cañon City school district in southern Colorado said the proposal would create a more even playing field for districts. Taxpayers in his district already pay the maximum.

“It’s hard to look over the fence at a house in a neighboring school district paying half the mills,” he said. “It’s easier for that district to pass bonds and overrides [a voter-approved tax increase for a specific purpose], and that leads to some major inequities.”

It took Cañon City multiple tries to pass a mill levy override because voters asked, “How come you have to do this when we already pay so much in taxes?” Welsh said.

Before the bill can become law, the Colorado Supreme Court will need to weigh in on whether it’s constitutional.

The bill, HB21-1164, is scheduled for its first hearing Wednesday in the House Education Committee. Before the bill gets a final vote in the state Senate, lawmakers plan to send an inquiry to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requires voters to approve any tax increase, and this new bill would gradually increase local property tax rates without a vote. Supporters say they’re correcting a past mistake that caused property tax rates to go down even after voters said they wanted them to remain constant, while opponents see the bill as an end run around TABOR that skirts other big problems in school finance.

To understand what the bill would do, it helps to understand how Colorado funds its schools.

Colorado’s school finance system uses state money to equalize per-student funding across the state’s 178 school districts. When this system was put in place in 1988, local taxpayers covered about two-thirds of the cost of education, while the state picked up the remaining third.

Over time, that ratio has flipped, with the state now picking up two-thirds of the cost of public education. That happened because TABOR also capped how much tax revenue could grow year over year. If a school district expected to bring in money above that cap because property values had increased, it had to reduce its mill levy — or tax rate — to bring in less money. Mills dropped, and districts were left with a patchwork of local taxes.

This year’s bill is based on the theory that local tax rates should never have declined so much in the first place. Yet another provision of TABOR lets school districts keep all revenue generated by existing taxes, rather than reduce rates or give a refund, if voters agree. All but four of the state’s 178 school districts held such elections — known as de-brucing, after TABOR author Douglas Bruce.

But their tax rates continued to go down because the Colorado Department of Education interpreted the 1994 school finance law as requiring it, regardless of local election results.

In 2007, the legislature froze school district tax rates, with the highest at 27 mills, to prevent further erosion of the local share. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld this mill levy freeze in its 2009 Mesa decision. A mill represents $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value of a home or business.

Supporters of the new mill levy proposal believe the court’s reasoning in Mesa supports returning tax rates to levels approved by a previous generation of voters.

The mill levy bill would return tax rates to what they were when each district de-bruced. Property owners who already pay the maximum rate won’t see a change. To avoid a shock to taxpayers, the bill calls for the state to provide a credit offsetting most of the value of those new, higher taxes — but to gradually withdraw that credit over the next 19 years.

The Colorado Department of Education would have to create a schedule for returning each district to its old tax rate as soon as possible but with taxes going up by no more than one mill per year.

According to estimates by legislative analysts, this change could bring in more than $90 million the first year and possibly $288 million in current dollars by the time it’s fully phased in. Having more money from local taxes could reduce the burden on the state budget. Even if state education funding held steady, total funding would increase.

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, chair of the Senate Education Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, wants the state to stop taking money the state constitution says should go to schools and instead using it for other purposes — a move known as the budget stabilization factor. Amid pandemic budget uncertainty, this amount grew to $1.2 billion, but even before that, the budget stabilization factor was more than $500 million.

“We keep trying to buy it down, but unless we do something about local property taxes, we’re never going to make progress,” said Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat.

But Luke Ragland, president of the conservative education advocacy group Ready Colorado, said the proposal is “almost certainly unconstitutional under TABOR.” He also said it fails to solve the larger problem of how Colorado shares money with local districts. A complex formula sometimes sends more money to well-off districts than to poor ones.

“There’s a major focus on how the school funding system can bring in more revenue, but that’s missing the point,” Ragland said. “The way we distribute resources is much more important to kids and teachers. The state should focus on reforming the inequitable school finance formula first.”

Past efforts to fix the school funding formula have foundered, though, because some school districts would lose money if the state redivided a pie of the same size. School districts have called for the state to increase total funding before changing the distribution formula, but efforts to raise statewide taxes have failed to win voter approval.

The proposal to raise local property taxes represents a new approach. Earlier proposals to fix this same problem would have required local school districts to go to their voters and would have withheld state money if they didn’t raise their own taxes.

Chris Selle, superintendent of the Meeker district in western Colorado, said the new approach represents an improvement over previous proposals. There was “no way” conservative voters in his community would have approved such a tax increase, and then the district would have lost state funding.

Selle understands the reasoning behind the proposal, but there is little direct benefit for his schools.

Selle calls Meeker “a poster child, if you will, for this legislation” because it has relatively high property values and collects less than 6 mills from property owners. The state provides roughly half of Meeker’s $6 million budget. Under the bill, Meeker property owners would pay higher taxes over time to cover what used to be the state’s share. The increase in school funding — an estimated $74,000 in the first year — will be born by local taxpayers.

“It makes sense from a state school finance standpoint,” Selle said. “It doesn’t make sense from a local taxpayer standpoint.”

Correction: This article has been changed to reflect that districts like Meeker will get more money overall under the proposal, as well as that state Rep. Daneya Esgar is currently the House Majority Leader and no longer the chair of the Joint Budget Committee.

Bill to maintain Colorado school funding passes Senate

2021-03-06T19:21:38+00:00

Update: The mid-year school funding bill passed the state House on Friday, March 5.

A bill that holds funding steady for Colorado schools despite a pandemic-related drop in enrollment passed the state Senate unanimously Friday.

Colorado funds its schools on a per-pupil basis, and lawmakers could have held back millions promised to schools after the October student tally recorded nearly 30,000 fewer students this year, a 3% decline.

Instead, Colorado lawmakers said they would maintain school funding in recognition that schools have incurred additional costs to educate students in a pandemic, whether in person or online, and on the premise that some students who sat out the fall could return to their home districts this winter and spring.

Senate Republicans had suggested earlier in the session that they had concerns about the bill because they want state education dollars to follow students, rather than go to districts that might be educating fewer children. But on Friday, they said they would vote for the bill with the “asterisk” that a larger conversation about school funding is needed.

State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, chair of the Senate Education Committee and a sponsor of the bill to maintain school funding, agreed. The Arvada Democrat said that alongside issues raised by Republicans, the pandemic revealed problems with how districts identify students in poverty — a count that also affects state funding.

Despite widespread job losses, many districts actually saw a decrease in students qualifying for subsidized lunches. This almost certainly doesn’t mean fewer students live in struggling households. Rather, the federal government waived the paperwork normally required to provide free lunches, so districts don’t have an exact count of qualifying students.

The bill on this year’s funding sends an extra $60 million to school districts — $41 million to make up for lost local tax revenue and another $19 million to districts that saw particularly large enrollment declines or that experienced a notable decrease in the number of students living in poverty.

Rural districts will share another $25 million from a new nicotine tax approved by voters in November.

According to the school finance formula, the full hit to school districts should have been almost $121 million. But Colorado lawmakers already hold back hundreds of millions every year that the state constitution says should go to K-12 schools to pay for other priorities. The withholding reached $1.2 billion this school year, as lawmakers struggled to balance the budget during the height of business restrictions and job losses. Colorado’s K-12 budget is about $7.2 billion.

Rather than claw back $121 million for the state, the school funding adjustment bill essentially treats it as part of the amount that was already withheld.

The bill goes next to the state House, where Democrats hold a large majority and the bill is expected to pass easily.

As Colorado House and Senate reconvene, leaders pledge funds for K-12, higher education

2021-02-16T20:17:42+00:00

Colorado lawmakers returned to work Tuesday with Democratic leaders pledging to restore cuts made to K-12 and higher education during the early months of the pandemic last year and to invest more in education.

“The uphill recovery and the many daunting tasks before us may be mighty, but if we keep our hand steady on the tiller, they are no match for us,” said Colorado Speaker of the House Alec Garnett, a Denver Democrat, during his opening speech.

The Colorado legislature technically opened the 2021 session in mid-January but quickly recessed after swearing in new members to wait for coronavirus cases to decline. Tuesday’s convening launches lawmakers’ substantive work.

Leaders in both chambers said earlier that they plan to triage pandemic problems and hope to get back on track after a tumultuous 2020. For education, that means replacing money cut to balance the budget last year.

Specifically, Gov. Jared Polis has proposed restoring K-12 and higher education budgets, although some lawmakers have said much will depend on budget forecasts. In 2020, the state cut K-12 allocations by 5% per pupil and slashed grant programs on which schools rely.

Colorado cut higher education budgets by 58%. Polis partially backfilled some of those cuts with roughly $1 billion in federal money.

“This year, let’s listen to our teachers and commit together to restoring the cuts from last year’s budget,” Garnett said.

Garnett further called for investment in higher education, which has suffered numerous cuts during previous downturns.

“We need to grow our talented workforce by training Coloradans for the jobs of the future instead of importing talent from other states,” Garnett said. “We need to step up and ensure the colleges and universities who serve our Latinx, Native American, and Black students are equitably funded. It’s long overdue.”

In the Senate, President Leroy Garcia, a Pueblo Democrat, praised teachers and child care staff as some of the frontline workers “putting the well-being of others before their own and pressing forward even in their darkest hours.”

Garcia said this session should be a time of restitution but also reimagining how the state’s institutions work.

“Where some see only devastation, we see opportunity for compassion, for forming tighter bonds, because we write our own story and create our own destiny,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Chris Holbert, a Parker Republican, said that his party would join in that work but also ask hard questions. He predicted many 20-15 votes, reflecting the partisan divide in that chamber, and that Republicans would force extended debate on some proposals.

In particular, he singled out a proposal from Senate Education Committee Chair Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat, and the Joint Budget Committee to hold K-12 school funding steady for this budget year, even though schools reported almost 30,000 fewer students than in the 2019-20 school year.

“Where did those students go?” he asked. “Did they move to a different state? Are they in private school? Are they being home-schooled?”

If those students aren’t in Colorado schools, the money the state had pledged to educate them could go to other worthy needs, Holbert said, even as he also noted that legislators have held back money from K-12 for the past decade — $1.2 billion this budget year alone — and should pay down that IOU.

Republicans also have called for the state to make some money directly available to parents to spend on their children’s education during extended remote learning.

Some issues likely will divide the Democrats who control both chambers, in particular a call to suspend standardized testing this year. Bigger-picture school funding reforms could also prove contentious.

Leaders also emphasized that the state will need to look past the pandemic and build a sense of normalcy. To that end, lawmakers will likely take up bills that they put off last year in the midst of the crisis.

“We’re going to try to accomplish as much as we can,” Garcia said in an interview.

Colorado school finance bill would spare districts from impact of enrollment declines

2021-02-05T01:40:32+00:00

Colorado school districts would avoid the worst budget hits from losing 30,000 students this school year under a bill that received initial support from the Joint Budget Committee Thursday.

The bill sends an extra $60 million to school districts — $41 million to make up for lost local tax revenue and another $19 million to districts that saw particularly large enrollment declines or that experienced a notable decrease in the number of students living in poverty.

Rural districts will share another $25 million from a new nicotine tax approved by voters in November.

Colorado funds districts based on how many students they have, as well as other factors like district size and student poverty, with the state and school districts sharing the costs. With the state budget set in the spring, lawmakers always adjust school funding midway through the year to account for changes in enrollment and local tax collections from the previous year’s estimates.

Many school districts were bracing for significant cuts this year — on top of cuts the legislature already made last year in response to a pandemic-related economic slump — because 3% fewer students have showed up to school.

Rather than claw back $121 million for the state, the school funding adjustment bill essentially treats it as part of the amount that was already withheld.

The additional $19 million in the bill will benefit districts that saw more than a 2% decrease in enrollment or that saw a big decrease in students deemed “at-risk.” These are students who qualify for free lunch or food stamps under federal guidelines or who are learning English, and districts get more money to serve these students. That means that decreases in this student population have a bigger financial impact.

Officials believe the drop in low-income students comes from families not filling out paperwork, rather than fewer families struggling amid historic job losses.

“I think the at-risk students are there, and we didn’t effectively count them,” legislative budget analyst Craig Harper told the Joint Budget Committee.

Districts like Aurora, Westminster, Adams 14, and Sheridan, all working-class Denver suburbs with large immigrant populations, faced particularly large cuts related to students in poverty not showing up in the count.

With Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Colorado legislature, the bill is likely to pass easily, but Republicans still could raise objections.

State Sen. Bob Rankin, a Carbondale Republican, said he supported the financial adjustment bill in committee so that it can move forward, but he has concerns about effectively paying for students that districts are not educating.

“We have 30,000 fewer students and we’re going to increase funding?” he said. “I’ll vote for this [today] but I’m going to have a lot to say about it going forward.”

State Rep. Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, said the bill maintains funding that districts were counting on and need now more than ever.

“I really do think this solution is the right solution for our school districts and our students,” she said.

Colorado RISE grants to support career training, literacy programs, Indigenous curriculum

2021-01-26T00:01:50+00:00

Colorado awarded $27 million in education grants to 19 programs aimed at helping students in communities hit hard by the pandemic, Gov. Jared Polis and state officials announced Monday.

The announcement represents the second round of funding under the RISE grant program, which emphasizes cooperative programs between school districts, charter schools, and higher education institutions to help students who are more likely to suffer long-term impacts from learning disruption caused by the pandemic. Colorado distributed $13 million in the first round.

“One thing we know from the pandemic is that it highlighted some of the preexisting gaps that we have in education,” Polis said. “That’s not a short-term fix or something you can change in one school year.”

This round of RISE grant recipients include the Adams 14 school district, which will get more than $2 million to help high school students graduate with credentials that allow them to get a head start on college or land a good-paying job.

The Ute Mountain Ute tribe in southwest Colorado will get $2.7 million to develop science, math, and engineering curriculum that is integrated with Ute language, arts, and culture for a new school launching there.

And the rural Park County school district will get $343,091 to expand an outdoor science school and provide mobile early intervention services for families in remote areas.

“We know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone equally,” Polis said, citing English language learners, teenage parents, homeless students, and the children of low-income front-line workers among others.

The grant program is just a small portion of the federal coronavirus relief for Colorado schools. In addition to money for more immediate needs such as internet hot spots, cleaning supplies, and personal protective equipment, Polis set aside federal money that went to a governor’s discretionary fund for longer-term recovery and closing academic gaps among Colorado students. That fund is providing the money for the RISE grants announced Monday.

For example, the Adams 14 school district based in the working-class Denver suburb of Commerce City is currently under the management of a private company as part of a four-year process to improve academic performance. Most students in the district come from low-income families, and many are also learning English. Even before COVID-19, district officials and members of the external management company had identified a need for more career training and work opportunities for high school students.

Superintendent Don Rangel said the $2 million grant will allow the district to further develop a partnership with Front Range Community College and area businesses so that all students have the chance to learn about different fields and graduate with either an associate’s degree or an industry credential. The district would struggle to raise that money locally, he added.

Rangel said he hopes that by better connecting education with job opportunities, the district can increase its graduation rate and give students a better start in life.

“This is meaningful for us because Adams 14 is loaded with very talented students who are full of potential,” he said. “When you have a high school that has a lower graduation rate than it should have, educators need to look at how relevant those students think their education is to their current needs and their future needs. By allowing our students to graduate with a certificate or an associate’s degree, not only are we setting our students up for better success after they graduate, we’re increasing the chances that they will graduate.”

Ute Mountain Ute Chairman Manuel Heart said that students who are tribal members generally attend school in neighboring communities and even at boarding schools in other states. In the past, Indigenous students were pressured to assimilate into mainstream culture as the price of getting an education.

The tribe has been working for several years to develop its own school. The RISE grant will support the development of a comprehensive science, technology, engineering, arts, and math curriculum integrated with Ute language, culture, and arts, as well as providing wraparound services to support students’ social and emotional development.

“We must continue to strive every day to educate our children in our rich history but also look to the future and the future endeavors they will face,” Heart said.

The state plans to monitor each of the programs and report back on their successes and challenges. The hope is that these programs form models for other communities.

Other grant recipients for this round include:

St. Vrain Valley Schools: $2.8 million for the development of a full-time summer literacy program for kindergarten through fifth graders at schools with lower performance in the Cheraw, Estes Park, Las Animas, Montezuma-Cortez, and Sheridan school districts.
Plateau Valley High School: $283,485 for an internship and capstone program that teaches students the basics of coding, crop sensor use, data analysis, and comprehensive skills associated with agriculture production.
Adams State University: $2.6 million to create a robust program across all 14 San Luis Valley School Districts, in partnership with the Boys and Girls Club of San Luis Valley. The goal is to prepare San Luis Valley students to meet rapidly changing industry demands that fuel the region’s economic growth and vitality.
Hayden School District: $1 million for a cross-district program between Hayden and South Routt school districts to develop hands-on curriculum related to the local food system and agricultural and energy production sustainability.
Montezuma Cortez School District RE-1: $257,138 to expand and improve counseling and academic advising services, with particular attention to students who are most at risk of academic failure. Students will get access to flexible schedules, internships, and personal pathways, in collaboration with local employers.
Northeastern Junior College: $1.9 million to enable the institution to better meet the needs and demands of its community by expanding Spanish-language programs, outreach, and adult basic education, and career programs in nursing and solar energy, and helping to remove barriers for nontraditional students.
West Grand School District: $792,998 to support families by expanding early childhood education and programming, growing the early childhood education workforce through high school initiatives, and supporting families who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.
Bennett School District 29J: $2.2 million to create a cross-district program for Bennett, Strasburg, and Weld to improve student mental health across the region.
Academy 360 Charter School: $595,700 for 11 charter schools in the Denver metro area to extend the school year to address learning loss for high-needs students.
Charter School Innovation Consortium: $1.4 million for a cohort of 13 charter and innovation schools to create the IDLEA (Increase Diverse Learner Engagement and Achievement) Project, which will deliver strategies and tools to increase engagement for students with disabilities, English-language learners, gifted and talented students, and students eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and to share resources.
Campo School District RE-6: $295,000 to provide entrepreneurship and service learning for students in areas such as commercial sewing, jewelry manufacturing, engineering, photography and metal/wood manufacturing.
Colorado Mountain College: $2.9 million to rework and dramatically increase concurrent enrollment opportunities for high schools and local institutions of higher education in rural communities.
Cripple Creek-Victor School District: $1.5 million to create a “skills to employment” program for both youth and adults that combines classroom instruction with paid workforce training linked to immediate employment opportunities. The goal is to connect people with jobs in high-demand fields that pay a livable wage.
New Legacy Charter School: $250,000 to expand programming that addresses the social-emotional needs and trauma of students who are young parents and ensure students graduate with credentials that help them get jobs.
Santa Fe Trail BOCES: $365,000 to create a Pathways to Prosperity program in Cheraw, East Otero/LaJunta, Las Animas, Rocky Ford, Swink, and Wiley.
Pueblo Community College: $2 million to partner with rural school districts to improve distance learning and create more opportunities for high school students to take college-level classes. The proposal calls for training more high school teachers and course-sharing across institutions.

Colorado lawmakers promise enrollment drop won’t hurt school funding

2020-12-21T23:08:05+00:00

Democratic leaders in Colorado’s legislature promise to hold school funding steady despite enrollment drops that typically would cost school districts millions of dollars.

“School districts are doing so much more than we have ever asked them to do before,” said state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and incoming chair of the Senate Education Committee. “Now is not the time to claw back money and introduce more uncertainty.”

The reassurances come as Congress is set to approve a new federal coronavirus relief package that would send more than $50 billion to school districts nationwide. Colorado school leaders have said they will need more money to safely reopen and to maintain remote learning options through the spring.

Colorado school districts reported a 3.3% overall enrollment decline this year, as well as decreases in the number of students eligible for subsidized lunches, a measure of poverty. Both numbers influence school funding.

Colorado lawmakers set school funding levels in the spring based on estimates and then adjust them early in the following calendar year based on actual enrollment and local property tax collections. This can mean more or less money for school districts in the middle of a school year.

This year, legislative analysts say the state owes school districts $121 million less than budgeted based on the enrollment decline, though some of that cut is offset by a reduction in local property tax revenue that the state backfills. Taken together, Colorado would send $83 million less to Colorado school districts for the 2020-21 school year — a 2% reduction — if lawmakers take the standard approach.

School leaders have raised concerns about the accuracy of this year’s count, which is based on student attendance in early October. Some superintendents said they’ve seen students who tried online options or home schooling return after what’s known as count day. In particular, despite the state numbers, officials don’t believe that fewer students are living in poverty, given widespread job losses. Instead, they believe fewer families filled out necessary forms.

Regardless, midyear budget changes would have been hard for school districts to absorb, said Bret Miles, head of the Colorado Association of School Executives, which represents superintendents.

“At this point in the year, you’ve already locked in many of your ongoing costs and you’ve already made many of your larger one-time purchases. There is not much flexibility,” Miles said. “It would have meant deficit spending. They’re not going to cut personnel when everyone feels shorthanded and is having to step away from their regular duties to do contact tracing and find students.”

Zenzinger said there’s every reason to believe school districts will be serving more students in January than were counted in October and that it will cost more to educate them than in normal years. She plans to introduce legislation that would hold school funding steady for this fiscal year.

Incoming Speaker of the House Alec Garnett, a Denver Democrat, said he believes the bill will get widespread support.

“Changing course midyear is always challenging, but it’s even more challenging in the midst of a 100-year health pandemic,” Garnett said. “Districts are having to deal with more things than they ever have before.”

Republicans introduced a similar measure during the recent special session. Democrats rejected it as outside the narrow purview of the special session. Garnett said the timing is better now that lawmakers have access to enrollment figures and a more optimistic December forecast.

School districts this year are already operating with constrained budgets. Facing dire economic forecasts in the midst of the spring lockdown, lawmakers cut K-12 spending about 15% and per-pupil spending about 5%. Gov. Jared Polis gave schools more than $500 million in extra federal coronavirus relief money, but it had to be spent by the end of this month on needs directly related to the pandemic.

While the long-term economic fallout of the pandemic response remains to be seen, the short-term impact turned out to be less severe than anticipated. Both the September and December forecast prepared by state economists found higher-than-expected tax revenues.

Based on the strength of those forecasts, Polis’ proposed 2021-22 budget would restore all the cuts made this school year, though some lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee have raised concerns about the sustainability of increased school spending.

“We’ve heard that K-12 is a priority, that keeping schools open for in-person learning is a priority,” Miles said. “There is no reason that K-12 schools shouldn’t be a priority in the budget.”

Report warns against higher education cuts to balance state budget

2020-11-23T19:44:42+00:00

As Colorado faces multi-billion-dollar budget deficits in coming years due to the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, a new report warns that indiscriminate cuts to higher education will make it harder to get people trained and back to work, and disproportionately impact students of color.

Dr. Angie Paccione, executive director for the Colorado Department of Higher Education, said while the concept of sharing the pain equally sounds fair, it’s not.

“Because across-the-board cuts disproportionately impact some of our small, rural comprehensive four-year institutions who depend more heavily on state funds,” Paccione explained.

The University of Colorado Boulder receives roughly 5% of its budget from the state, but Adams State University in Alamosa gets 40% from the state.

Budget experts predict Colorado will see revenues decline by $2.1 billion in the fiscal year that starts in July 2021, with losses of $1.5 billion the following year.

Paccione noted the report’s recommendations that colleges make certificate and degree completion a priority is in sync with Gov. Jared Polis’ policy goals to prepare students for the workforce of the future.

“It’s not for the sake of the credential, it’s for the sake of them being able to maximize their earning potential and make the economic contributions to our community,” Paccione said. “The individual, the state and the economy really benefit when students complete their credential, their degree.”

The report also calls for a “students-first” approach and offers principles for policymakers to consider to support lower-income students of color and adult learners who are retraining after losing their jobs.

That means protecting financial aid and prioritizing the community-college systems that serve vulnerable populations.

Support for this reporting was provided by Lumina Foundation.

Voters say yes to Colorado school tax measures despite pandemic and economic uncertainty

2020-11-05T23:13:25+00:00

The vast majority of local school district tax measures passed on Tuesday, good news at a time when many Colorado districts are facing an uncertain funding future.

Of 28 local school tax measures, 26, or 93%, passed, while measures in the small Rocky Ford and Gilpin County districts failed. Voters in a wide range of districts — plus the City of Aspen — approved taxes for schools, including in Denver and Cherry Creek, and small rural districts such as Huerfano in southern Colorado and Julesburg along the Nebraska border.

The measures in Denver and Cherry Creek will go toward staff raises and building maintenance projects. Cherry Creek and District 11 in Colorado Springs also passed measures to remove a cap on how much revenue the district can collect from existing taxes. The district’s “de-Bruce” move refers to Douglas Bruce, author of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which in addition to requiring voter approval for tax increases, limits increases in government budgets unless voters give them permission to grow. Only two school districts in the state have not yet passed such a measure.

Tracie Rainey, who leads the Colorado School Finance Project, said the approval rate for local measures was higher than usual this year, but the number of asks was lower than usual for a presidential election cycle. In 2016, there were 59 school tax measures on the ballot, and about 60% passed.

Rainey said the passage of so many ballot issues this year is encouraging given that many district leaders “were unsure about how their communities were feeling” in light of economic hardship brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

That was true in the Pueblo 70 district, where voters approved a $75 million bond for infrastructure projects in all its 22 buildings.

“It’s awesome,” said Superintendent Ed Smith. “We had no idea when we thought about putting this bond out there … during a pandemic, when we’ve had schools closed and people angry and frustrated and scared. We didn’t know how that would work.”

The key this time around — one year after district voters rejected a smaller bond issue — was a restructuring of district debt that allowed district officials to seek the money without asking for a tax increase.

Projects to improve indoor air quality are first up when work starts next year, Smith said. Many were already on the list before COVID-19 hit, but the district added more such upgrades and sped up the timeline as the pandemic put new focus on the importance of good ventilation to reduce viral spread.

In Strasburg, a 1,080-student district in Adams County, voters also turned down a local tax measure last year. Superintendent Monica Johnson said she was encouraged that voters approved the measure this year, despite the pandemic and some economic uncertainty.

“It’s an optimistic look at how people are feeling,” Johnson said. “They aren’t feeling like they can’t spend money. That spoke a lot to where people think they are. I was really glad to see that.”

She said she was worried about how rising COVID cases are moving many counties to a higher level of state restrictions, and peoples’ emotional struggles.

“Even with that looming over us, people still stay hopeful,” Johnson said.

In Strasburg, the district also talked to voters after last year’s tax measure loss. It readjusted the ask this time to focus only on what the community said was important such as adding seven classrooms to the elementary school to relieve overcrowding, changing traffic patterns to make it safer for kids to walk to school, and improving the schools’ ventilation and safety systems. The district left out a new auditorium this time around.

In the 2,450-student Weld RE-8 district, based in Fort Lupton, voters also approved a tax measure after rejecting a larger one one last year. District leaders will use its new $1.4 million mill levy override to purchase new technology and offer competitive salaries to teachers, bus drivers, and other staff — many who commute in, driving past districts where they would be paid more.

“I’m ecstatic about it,” Superintendent Alan Kaylor said about voters’ support of the tax measure.

He said he spent Tuesday night refreshing the vote results on his computer, thinking, “Please let this be accurate.”

He got his wish. On Wednesday morning, he ordered 350 internet hotspots for students who don’t have broadband access. While the district has held in-person classes most of the fall, Kaylor said outbreaks at two schools and possibly at two others this week prompted a pivot to remote learning until Nov. 30. He estimates that 30% of students don’t have internet access at home.

Voters in Rocky Ford, home of Colorado’s famous cantaloupes, rejected a $7.5 million bond issue that would have supplied matching funds required for a state grant for school construction and repairs.

“There was quite a bit of opposition,” Superintendent Kermit Snyder said.

Beyond just a no-new-taxes mindset in the community, he said the measure likely stumbled because of the disproportionate property tax burden that agricultural landowners shoulder compared with residential property owners. Before the election, he worked with one local farm family to calculate their tax liability if the bond proposal’s passed and came up with a $10,000-a-year property tax increase.

It was an extreme case, Snyder said, but reflects a major tax rate imbalance that makes school ballot measures a hard sell. He’s hopeful Tuesday’s repeal of the Gallagher Amendment might pave the way for a more fairly distributed tax burden, and perhaps better luck getting tax measures passed.

Snyder said the district sought the bond and state grant to replace or repair its aging school buildings, which have become so costly to maintain he worries they will eat into the district’s instruction budget. When one school’s six-decade-old boiler failed a couple years ago, new parts had to be custom made, one by one, forcing the school to close for four days.

“In all likelihood, we’ll be back here again next year going for another bond,” he said.

Colorado voters approve Gallagher repeal, preserve local school funding

2020-11-04T19:45:10+00:00

Colorado voters gave strong approval to a constitutional change that preserves local school funding and spares the state budget a massive new obligation.

With more than 2.7 million votes counted, Amendment B received more than 57% of the vote. In approving Amendment B and repealing the Gallagher Amendment, voters headed off a fiscal crisis for schools but removed protections from homeowners.

“Having the Gallagher repeal pass takes a lot of pressure off the state for school finance and for backfilling [local district budgets],” said Tracie Rainey, director of the Colorado School Finance Project. Property tax revenue won’t decline dramatically. “That helps next year, and it helps into the future.”

At the same time, voters approved an income tax cut that will result in reduced state revenue and appeared likely to make it harder for lawmakers to establish new fees. Education advocates say the passage of Propositions 116 and 117 will make an already tight budget situation more challenging.

Voters approved Proposition 116 by a similar margin as the Gallagher repeal, while Proposition 117 had a narrower but steady lead.

“We still have a lot of work to do as Coloradans to get to that structural fix where we can say through our budget that we value and support public education,” said Amie Baca-Oehlert, president of the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union.

Michael Fields, executive director of the conservative group Colorado Rising State Action, which opposed Amendment B and backed Propositions 116 and 117, said the split votes create an “offset,” with school districts avoiding a hit even as state government will be more constrained. He downplayed concerns that schools funding would be affected.

“I’m not worried the governor and the legislature won’t prioritize education,” he said.

The Gallagher Amendment was a 1982 state constitutional provision that determined what share of property taxes were paid by residential and commercial property owners, respectively.

Over time, this ratio, which is based on statewide averages, has driven down property tax collections for rural school districts, fire districts, hospital districts and other taxing entities. Commercial property owners now pay taxes on a much larger percentage of their property value than do homeowners, and the state has had to cover a larger share of school funding. These were the problems that a bipartisan group of lawmakers wanted to address by placing Amendment B on the ballot.

Colorado’s school finance system requires the state to make up whatever money is not covered by local taxes. Every year, growing education costs crowd out other needs in the state budget, from transportation to human services to higher education. And even then, lawmakers can’t meet their constitutional obligations for school funding, instead holding back money every year.

This problem would have gotten dramatically worse if Amendment B had failed.

Last year, lawmakers slashed spending in response to expected revenue shortfalls due to the pandemic. Gov. Jared Polis on Monday introduced a proposed budget for 2021-22 that would restore many of those cuts. He believes the state can afford to do so because the economic downturn has been less severe than anticipated.

The passage of Proposition 116 means lawmakers have less money to work with as they create the 2021-22 budget. Proposition 117 requires voters to approve major new fee increases, just as they have to approve all tax increases. That would make it harder for lawmakers to turn to new fees to make up lost revenue.

Polis, a Democrat, supported the tax cut, as well as the Gallagher repeal. In an emailed statement Wednesday, he praised Colorado voters.

“Colorado solidified itself as one of the best places in the country to live, work, and play, or to start and run a business,” he said. “Coloradans overwhelmingly supported a measure to provide free preschool to every 4-year-old in our state. We voted in support of our firefighters, small businesses, and local communities. Voters provided tax relief for every Coloradan and paved the way for broader fiscal and tax reform.”

Carol Hedges, director of the left-leaning advocacy group the Colorado Fiscal Institute, expressed relief that voters had repealed the Gallagher Amendment, but said the Colorado tax code had become more regressive, with the passage of Proposition EE, a tax on nicotine products to support preschool, alongside an income tax cut that will benefit well-off Coloradans more.

“Despite this setback, we are hopeful about one thing: This result should give Gov. Polis the tax cut he’s been pushing for since he took office,” she said in an emailed statement. “We hope this result allows the governor to move on from income tax cuts and focus on ways to work with the legislature to make our tax code fair.”

With the passage of Amendment B, residential property assessments will stay roughly where they are today, and school districts get to keep $490 million in local property tax revenue they had been counting on. Homeowners, though, lose some protections against future property tax increases.

Lawmakers, rural fire chiefs, business interest groups, and others have been working on a Gallagher reform or repeal for years, but the issue reached a crisis point due to the economic downturn associated with the coronavirus pandemic. If nothing had changed, falling commercial property values would have forced down the assessment rate applied to residential property in order to maintain the ratio required by Gallagher.

Supporters pitched Amendment B as a way to support firefighters, health care workers, and teachers during a time of unprecedented crisis. Opponents said the repeal is a tax increase in disguise.

Baca-Oehlert attributed the passage of Amendment B to the broad coalition that supported it. Recent years have seen the failure of several tax measures aimed at increasing school funding.

“We’ve not solved our problems,” she said. “I have hope that this is a door opening to a future where we could work together on solutions.”

Voter guide: What the Gallagher repeal means for school funding

2020-10-20T12:00:00+00:00

A fiscal crisis nearly 40 years in the making — exacerbated by a historic pandemic — prompted lawmakers to put Amendment B on November’s ballot.

The measure would repeal the 1982 Gallagher Amendment, which set ratios for how much property tax is paid by residential and commercial property owners. Over time, this ratio, which is based on statewide averages, has driven down property tax collections for rural school districts, fire districts, and other taxing entities.

If Amendment B passes, it wouldn’t solve many of the problems in Colorado’s school finance system, but it would spare districts from steep budget cuts next year. If it fails, lawmakers won’t have the money to meet even current school funding levels.

At stake is roughly $490 million in property tax collections for school districts.

If Amendment B passes, residential assessment rates would be frozen, and school districts would get more property tax revenue. Residential homeowners would lose some protection against the impact of rising property values on their tax bill, while business property owners would get relief from taxes that had increasingly shifted to their shoulders.

If the measure fails, residential assessment rates will continue to fall while commercial assessment rates hold steady. Schools are likely to see additional funding cuts during a time of increased need.

“When you lose additional local revenue, you decrease the tax base that supports the system,” said Tracie Rainey of the Colorado School Finance Project, who supports Amendment B. “The idea behind school finance is you want to have a combination of income tax, sales tax, and property tax. And property tax is your most stable revenue source.

“By reducing the amount of property tax in the system, you are weakening that stability, in addition to putting pressure on the state to backfill.”

The measure is not technically a tax increase, but opponents say it will function like one because if it passes, residential property owners will pay more than they otherwise would have.

“The key thing is that property taxes go up every year no matter what,” said opponent Michael Fields, executive director of Colorado Rising State Action, a conservative issues committee. “Even when the assessment rate goes down, values are going up and people pay more. … You don’t want people taxed out of their homes.”

How we got here

The Gallagher Amendment requires that residential property owners contribute no more than 45% of total property tax collections and that non-residential property — offices, shopping centers, farms, oil and gas fields, and so on — contribute the other 55%.

To achieve this balance, Colorado tinkers with the assessment rate, which determines the amount of property value that is actually taxable. As residential property values soared along the booming Front Range, the residential assessment rate fell from 21% in the early 1980s to just 7.15% this year to keep tax collections at 45% of the total.

The non-residential assessment rate remains fixed at 29% of a property’s assessed value. How much a property owner pays on that taxable value is determined by tax rates levied by local school districts, counties, and other taxing districts.

The falling residential assessment rate has had a number of challenging effects. It’s dramatically shifted the state’s tax burden to businesses, a major reason that some Republicans support repeal, especially when so many business owners are struggling to stay afloat.

It’s also left many small, rural taxing districts that support hospitals, libraries, and fire departments struggling to provide basic services.

Gallagher sets assessment rates based on statewide averages. In urban and suburban communities, property values have risen so much that local governments still take in more revenue each year, even with less of that property value being taxable. These areas also have lots of businesses paying taxes as well.

But that’s not the case in rural communities with a limited tax base.

Schools have been shielded, to a degree

Once a school district’s per-pupil budget is established by a formula, Colorado’s school finance system requires the state to make up whatever money is not covered by local taxes. Over time, the Gallagher Amendment, in particular how it interacts with another voter-approved amendment, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, has shifted the burden of school finance from local districts to the state.

That means school districts haven’t felt the hit from reduced property tax collections the way that fire districts have.

But the state budget has. Every year, growing education costs crowd out other needs in the state budget, from transportation to human services to higher education. And even then, lawmakers haven’t met their constitutional obligations for school funding. Every year, they hold back money in a maneuver known as the budget stabilization or negative factor.

This year, with the state budget battered by a COVID-induced downturn, that withholding reached nearly $1.2 billion out of roughly $8 billion in education spending.

Next year, the impact is expected to be much greater.

COVID makes everything worse

A coalition of rural fire chiefs, business groups, and politicians of both parties have wanted to do something about Gallagher for a while now. The pandemic and the economic downturn created a favorable political environment to place an amendment on the ballot with bipartisan support.

Widespread business closures and loss of income are expected to result in a drop in commercial property values. According to Gallagher’s ratio, if business property values go down, the assessment rate on residential property has to drop too, so that those taxpayers will only pay 45% of total tax collections. State property tax administrators estimate the assessment rate will hit 5.88% and that the loss of income to school districts will be around $490 million.

In the East Grand district in northwest Colorado, Superintendent Frank Reeves estimates the decrease in assessed value could cost his district about $900,000 out of a $10 million annual budget. The 9% hit would comes as the district is spending more on everything from smaller class sizes and plexiglass dividers to online courses.

The district already covers about 78% of its own costs, and the state withholding more money would cut deep. Separate from Amendment B, the East Grand district is asking voters to approve a local tax increase that would bring in about $1 million a year.

“We’re going to have to do pretty much all of our funding locally,” Reeves said. “We can’t count on the state to give us what we need to operate.”

But many rural districts with small tax bases struggle to get voters to agree to increases. For those with limited property values, it would take a large increase to generate much money.

When Reeves talks budgets with other rural superintendents, it’s “doomsday,” he said.

What Amendment B does and doesn’t do

Amendment B would keep assessment rates where they are today. That means the portion of a home’s value that is taxable would stay at 7.15% instead of decreasing. Property assessments — a home’s value for tax purposes — could still go up or down based on determinations made by county assessors.

At today’s assessment rate, the owner of a $200,000 home in a district with a tax rate of 26 mills would pay roughly $371 in school taxes. If Amendment B passes and the home’s value stays the same, that homeowner would pay a similar amount next year. If Amendment B fails, the Gallagher requirements would still be in effect, and the portion of the home that is taxable would go down. That means that if the home’s value stays the same, the owner would pay closer to $305 in school taxes next year.

Of course, home values rarely stay the same over time.

Opponents of Amendment B point out that increases in property values have generally outpaced the decreases in the residential assessment rate, such that homeowners continue to pay more every year.

Supporters of Amendment B say the legislature could still reduce the residential assessment rate in the future, though they admit that’s unlikely to happen in the next fiscal year, given the dire budget outlook.

State lawmakers and local school districts will face tough budget decisions next year either way, but the challenges will be much more significant if Amendment B fails.

“The state has made it clear they don’t have the ability to backfill in this current environment,” Rainey said.

Voter guide: Nicotine tax would fund Colorado preschool efforts, fight teen vaping

2020-10-20T03:41:12+00:00

A tax on nicotine products on this November’s ballot could deliver the dedicated funding source that Colorado preschool advocates have sought for years to make sure more children have access to early learning.

Supporters also hope Proposition EE will make a dent in an epidemic of teen vaping. But a “sin tax” may be shaky ground on which to expand essential government services.

Proposition EE would more than triple state taxes on cigarettes by 2027 to $2.64 a pack and also impose new taxes and fees on smokeless tobacco and vaping products popular among youth. Colorado has the nation’s highest rate of teen vaping, with the low cost being one factor. The measure also would set a minimum price for cigarettes, a provision that already has provoked a lawsuit.

The tax revenue would fund free preschool to 4-year-olds across the state, among other efforts. Providing universal preschool was a key campaign promise of Gov. Jared Polis when he ran for office in 2018, but finding the money for it has proved challenging.

The sin tax aims to generate revenue — perhaps as much as $276 million a year — and also to discourage harmful behaviors by making them too costly to partake. Its double-edged sword is controversial: If the tax succeeds in changing behavior, people spend less money on the sin — and generate less money for the government.

What’s in it for children?

Colorado falls below the national average in providing quality preschool education to families. The state enrolls only 23% of its 4-year-olds and 9% of its 3-year-olds into public pre-K programs, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research.

If the measure passes, all children will have access to at least 10 hours of preschool each week in the year prior to entering kindergarten. Children in families with low incomes or who face other barriers to school readiness will have access to additional preschool programming to better meet their needs beginning in the fall of 2023.

“This would make Colorado unique in the country in that we would offer a state preschool program that would provide something for everyone, but provide the greatest benefit to those who face the greatest barriers to opportunity,” said Bill Jaeger, vice president for early childhood and policy initiatives for the Colorado Children’s Campaign.

Currently, the Colorado Preschool Program — which serves low-income families and those with learning challenges or other risk factors — only has the funding to serve 40% of eligible children.

Two years ago, the latest data available, Colorado met only four of 10 minimum standards for high-quality preschool education, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research. Enrollment grew by fewer than 500 children from the previous school year. The state ranks 28th nationwide in access for 4-year-olds, 12th in access for 3-year-olds, and 39th in state spending per pupil.

With additional revenue, Colorado could improve its quality preschool education rankings.

“As enrollment expands, then [Colorado] could move up a few rankings quickly, and if it moves toward universal, into the top 10,” said Steven Barnett, NIEER founder and senior co-director.

However, the most reliable income source for preschool education is one that taps into property taxes, he said, but with provisions to make it more progressive.

Research shows children who attend high-quality educational programs are more likely to graduate from high school, have higher earning potential as adults, and are less likely to commit crimes or become teenage parents. And in Colorado, white children are more likely to be enrolled in quality preschool programs than children of color, a gap that additional funding could help close.

Jaeger called Proposition EE “a wise investment,” leaning on the numerous findings that prove preschool works in the long run.

“For every $1 invested in quality preschool, between $8 and $16 is avoided in societal cost and between $2 and $3 is returned in increased per capita earnings and jobs for state residents,” Jaeger said.

Voters rejected an increase in the cigarette tax in 2016, as they have rejected most statewide taxes on the ballot. Proponents hope that the impact of the coronavirus pandemic coupled with imposing a new tax on vaping products and fuel — which are not currently taxed in the state — give the measure a better chance of passing this year.

Opponents: Now is not a good time

Opponents are leery of the measure because it first directs its tax revenue to the general fund and preschool funding would be delayed for several years. The group calls the proposition a “blank check” for unidentified projects. While the proposition lays out how the money would be spent, future legislators could make changes.

They also contend that a pandemic-induced recession is not the best time to impose a tax on the most vulnerable populations.

“As our economy recovers from COVID 19, now is not the time to raise taxes on any Colorado voter,” wrote A Bad Deal for Colorado, a committee funded by discount cigarette makers opposed to the measure, in a statement. “Proposition EE taxes approximately 14% of Coloradans, around 80% of whom earn less than $40,000 per year.”

By the numbers

If approved, the measure would increase the current $0.84 tax on a single pack of cigarettes gradually over a seven-year period until it reaches $2.64 by 2027. That would bring Colorado from 39th in the nation to 13th, based on 2020 tax rates maintained by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The measure also would set a minimum price of $7 per pack starting in January, growing to $7.50 per pack by 2024.

Discount cigarette makers already have filed a lawsuit challenging the minimum sales price provision. Altria, the owner of Marlboro cigarettes, helped write the initiative and is not opposing it, unlike previous years, the Colorado Sun reported.

For smokeless products such as chewing tobacco, cigars, and snuff, the current 40% tax would incrementally increase to 62% by 2027. The measure would impose a minimum tax of $1.48 per 1.2-ounce container starting in January that would increase to $2.26 by 2027.

Also beginning in January, vape products including vaping devices, fuel, and e-cigarettes would be taxed at 30%, increasing over time until it reaches 62% by the summer of 2027.

The measure would provide an estimated $25 million to $35 million a year for Colorado’s rural schools for the first several years, replacing dedicated funding the legislature could no longer afford after the coronavirus downturn.

Starting in 2024, the measure calls for 73% of revenue generated by the tax to be put into a newly created fund for preschool programs, with the rest remaining in the general fund for other programs.

Analysts estimate that, in total, Proposition EE would generate about $178 million by 2022-23 and as much as $276 million a year by 2027-28.

A Brighter, Healthier Future for Colorado’s Kids, a group supporting the measure, estimates the proposition will generate $2 billion for universal preschool over 10 years and $110 million for tobacco-vape cessation and other public health programs.

That all depends, though, on whether Coloradans keep vaping and smoking at the same rates.

Voter guide: Denver’s 4A and 4B would fund school nurses, air conditioning, and more

2020-10-10T00:26:10+00:00

Denver voters will decide whether to earmark tax dollars for schools this November.

They face two questions on the ballot. Measure 4A asks voters to approve a $32 million mill levy override, a type of tax increase. 4B asks voters to approve a $795 million bond.

What would the bond and mill levy override pay for?

In general, bonds pay for one-time expenses like school construction or maintenance. Bond funds can also be used to pay for technology such as computers and tablets. Mill levy overrides can pay for ongoing expenses like staff salaries, software, or programming.

The Denver school board approved a slate of projects and initiatives to be funded. The projects were recommended by a 75-person committee, which prioritized those that would benefit students from low-income families, multilingual students, and students with disabilities.

The projects that would be funded by the $795 million bond issue, 4B, include:

Installing air conditioning at 24 schools. Currently, 55 of Denver’s more than 150 school buildings lack air conditioning. The committee recommended the 24 schools based on student demographics and indoor temperature studies.
Renovating or rebuilding the Montbello high school campus in far northeast Denver. The construction would restore a large, comprehensive high school to a neighborhood where most students are Black and Hispanic.
Upgrading learning environments. This would include replacing outdated equipment, upgrading playgrounds, building new science labs, expanding classroom space for career and technical programs, and other projects.
Buying land for new schools in the far northeast Gateway neighborhood. The district anticipates additional students from new home construction in that neighborhood.
Upgrading technology and safety systems. One of the largest investments in this category would expand student access to computers and home internet, the lack of which has impeded virtual learning for low-income families.

The initiatives that would be funded by the $32 million mill levy override, 4A, include:

Pay raises for teachers and hourly workers, including bus drivers, custodians, and paraprofessionals. The district would also increase its minimum wage.
Hiring more school nurses. Last school year, only 15% of Denver campuses had a school nurse five days a week, which is concerning during a pandemic.
Hiring more school staff to tend to students’ mental health. This could include school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. Students need more mental health support in the face of COVID-19 and rising youth gun violence.
Increasing special education services. More students are requesting one-on-one support from a paraprofessional, and more young students need speech therapy.

How would 4A and 4B affect my tax bill?

If approved, 4A would raise Denver’s property tax rate by 1.55 mills next year. That’s the equivalent of $51 per year on a home valued at $465,000. Denver property owners are already taxed at a rate of 46.7 mills for Denver Public Schools, and 4A would raise that to 48.2.

The tax rate could go even higher if, for example, property values drop and the district can’t raise sufficient funds at the current rate. The ballot measure would allow the district to raise the tax rate by 1 mill per year, up to a total of 4 additional mills.

Measure 4B is not expected to raise the property tax rate next year. That’s because the district can make payments on the bond with revenue generated at the current tax rate.

The 4B bond would raise $795 million. But with interest, the total amount of money Denver taxpayers end up paying will be higher: as much as $1.5 billion, per the language of 4B. If voters reject 4B, the property tax rate would go down.

What are the pros and cons?

Supporters of 4A and 4B — which include all seven members of the Denver school board, the Denver teachers union, and the Denver Democratic Party — say the measures will make Denver schools safer for students physically and emotionally, connect more students to virtual learning during COVID-19, and help pay teachers and other staff a livable wage.

Opponents of 4A and 4B — which include the Denver Republican Party, as well as critics of the district administration — argue, in part, that the district has repeatedly asked voters to raise taxes for schools and should use that funding, along with budget reserves, to address its needs. However, no one submitted a statement for the blue book in opposition to the ballot measures.

Voters last approved tax measures to benefit Denver Public Schools in 2016.

Colorado colleges decided to hold tuition flat. But the move also comes at a cost.

2020-07-28T23:34:53+00:00

Facing an unprecedented economic crisis, Colorado’s colleges and universities decided to forgo tuition increases, a move that might have brought in more money this fall for cash-strapped schools.

That’s unlike during the Great Recession, when declining state support in Colorado’s colleges and universities prompted schools to greatly increase tuition for students, said Tony Frank, Colorado State University chancellor.

Instead, where state support has again dipped during the crisis brought on by the coronavirus, schools have decided instead to institute furloughs, cuts, and layoffs.

Colorado higher education leaders say the decision to hold tuition flat is necessary, with the crisis laying bare the squeeze that school leaders have found themselves in since the last economic downturn. School leaders see raising already high tuition as a very last resort, even as state support has dipped and the costs to respond to the pandemic rise.

“Most of us have brought our tuition up to national averages and there’s a law of diminishing returns for, I think, many of us now as we think about raising our price,” Frank said during a Monday panel focused on the challenges higher education faces. Undergraduate tuition and fees at CSU are about $12,000 a year for in-state students.

At stake for schools as they struggle financially is the thinning of resources that allow them to equitably meet the needs of all and allow for them to maintain a quality education.

About further shifting the burden to students, Frank said, “In general I don’t think there are many university presidents who think that tuition is a long-term solution.”

State Higher Education Executive Officers Association senior policy analyst Dustin Weeden said institutions have also endured unexpected costs such as paying to shift to a remote environment, more campus cleanings, and spring refunds to students for certain campus fees.

Schools are also concerned about whether students will return in the fall. Tuition increases might discourage some, despite colleges’ need for more revenue, Weeden said.

“Institutions are really in a hard spot,” Weeden said.

For the state’s colleges, the shifting plans around in-person and remote instruction come at a steep cost.

College campuses are built to deliver education in person. Sending students home last spring forced schools to invest in an online education infrastructure.

Fixed costs for schools also don’t disappear, with faculty and staff still needing to be paid and schools still needing money for utility and building costs.

“Teaching online isn’t necessarily cheaper than teaching on campus,” Metro State University of Denver President Janine Davidson said. “Especially if you’re already a brick-and-mortar campus and you’re going to add that technological backbone. It’s not trivial.”

This year, universities’ state funding has decreased 5%. But it could have been worse. Funding decreased modestly thanks in part to $450 million in federal coronavirus relief money that Colorado lawmakers used to backfill the state’s 58% cut — a $493 million disinvestment.

Schools have directly helped students overcome rising tuition after the Great Recession through grants, including a CSU program that has provided targeted financial aid for over 19,000 students, Frank said. But rising tuition creates hurdles for students.

And additional tuition increases would only create a burden for the school to find more resources for low-income students, he said. He is worried the pandemic will cause a greater need for financial aid among low-income and middle-class families.

Without aid, those students would be stuck with high tuition bills that will take them years to pay off and cut into their long-term earnings, Frank said.

But there is a trade-off to not raising tuition, Weeden said. Research shows higher spending at a university improves the quality of education for students.

There is a real and understandable concern about the financial toll the pandemic will have on schools if it stretches into the spring semester, Weeden said. And he expects the coronavirus’ impacts on Colorado schools to last years.

“I think the real long-term concern is the viability — whether or not an institution can remain viable and operating,” Weeden said.