Colorado Supreme Court gives go-ahead to schools funding trial

The justices rule, 4-3, that courts can decide whether state funding is sufficient.
By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

In an opinion that could eventually have profound implications for the state budget, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a challenge to whether the state spends enough on public schools can go forward.

In a 4-3 decision, the state's high court overturned the ruling of two lower courts that said the question of how much school funding is enough is one for lawmakers to decide, not the courts.

The ruling Monday means the plaintiffs, who include parents from eight school districts across the state and 14 school districts from the San Luis Valley, can now go to Denver District Court and try to prove the state does not provide enough money for education.

"The state has never figured out how much it costs to provide an education that meets the constitution," said Alex Halpern, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

This is one of the key points in the lawsuit and education in Colorado. The Constitution says "thorough," but we've never looked at what it would take to give every student in Colorado a thorough education.

Halpern said he expected a trial on the question of funding adequacy could go to court in about a year.

Attorney General John Suthers, who defended the state in the case, said the decision is not good news for Colorado taxpayers.

"The majority opinion suggests the plaintiffs, who are seeking additional tax funding that could potentially involve billions of dollars, might find relief from the courts even though the legislature and the voters have determined current educational funding is adequate," Suthers, a Republican, said in a statement.

This isn't quite true. The voters haven't ever said whether or not we put enough money into education. The last time they were asked, in 2000, the passed Amendment 23 which required the legislature to increase the amount of money that's going to schools. And they were pretty specific that Amendment 23 set a minimum amount of money, not necessarily a sufficient amount.

Legislators have varying views on how well we fund schools. I don't think are funding is adequate and I know there are a lot of legislators who agree. Just because we vote for the School Finance Act, or for the budget, doesn't mean we believe it's spending enough on education -- we make do with what we have and what we can get.

Potential impact is huge Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, a member of the legislature's Joint Budget Committee and a key lawmaker involved in school finance issues, also said the ultimate impact of the ruling could be huge.

"I think it's good for education but bad for the budget," Pommer said. "If they find that our education funding is not thorough, it puts the onus on us to fix that, and I don't see how we could fix it without more money."

We've taken the view that without enough tests, enough commissions, enough requirements on schools and enough talk, education in Colorado will improve. It hasn't worked and it won't in the future. A lot of legislators say more money won't help. Oddly, they never apply that view to highway construction and maintenance.

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, another lawmaker involved in school finance issues, said any challenge to school-funding adequacy would take years to resolve. He doubted a challenge would be successful.

"I think the judiciary would have a very challenging row to hoe to say what we are funding in Colorado is not adequate," King said, "but I've been surprised by courts in Colorado before."

Plaintiffs originally filed the case in 2005, arguing that the state was not spending enough to meet the requirement in the state constitution to provide a "thorough and uniform" system of school funding.

The group of parents and school districts argued that the school-funding system did not adequately provide for disabled, poor or minority students and those who don't speak English and come from low property-value districts.

But Denver District Judge Michael Martinez in 2006 threw out the case, ruling that because the current funding system complied with Amendment 23, the voter-approved measure that requires education funding to increase every year by at least the rate of inflation, the system complied with the constitution and the courts had no say in the matter.

Requiring school funding to go up with inflation just means it stays the same from year to year after you figure in costs. It's hardly a definition of a thorough education. Or uniform, for that matter.

A Colorado Court of Appeals panel upheld the decision in 2008.

But the state's high court Monday overturned both lower courts, declaring that Amendment 23 "neither relates to nor concerns the 'thorough and uniform' mandate" in the state constitution.

Ruling that courts could not decide what is a proper level of education funding "would give the legislative branch unchecked power, potentially allowing it to ignore its constitutional responsibility to fashion and to fund a 'thorough and uniform' system of public education," the Supreme Court said in its opinion.

Dissent: "Thorough" not defined
In a dissent, Justice Nancy Rice said the constitution places the issue "squarely and solely in the legislative ambit."

Sure, but what if the legislature doesn't obey the constitution?

She was joined in the dissent by Justices Nathan Coats and Allison Eid.

"There is no national standard from which this court could adopt a definition of 'thorough,' and more importantly, the varying definitions other states ascribe to the term illustrate no consensus on what 'thorough' means," Rice wrote. "As such, any definition we might construe would necessarily constitute a policy determination. "

Odd how some people who believe in states rights suddenly need a national standard when it's convenient. The Colorado Constitution doesn't call for meeting national standards, it sets its own standard.

It's not hard to construe a definition; the legislature has put plenty of them into law already. Just defer to the legislature, pick a legislatively-approved definition, and apply it. Of course, the we put education standards in law assuming only other people will have to measure up to them, like teaches and school boards, but laws sometimes boomerang on the people who write them.

And, of course, once courts begin to make policy, it is difficult to stop."

The state is facing its worst budget crisis since the Great Depression and has already filled a $1.8 billion shortfall over the past two budget cycles. In September, lawmakers learned revenues likely would be another $240 million short in the current 2009-10 budget year that ends in June.

Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, is considering a cut to public-school funding for the next fiscal year that would result in at least a $170 million net reduction over the current year. Some education groups say that cut could violate Amendment 23.

And this decision won't make "reinterpreting" Amendment 23 any easier."

Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com

Lawmakers expect education to take biggest budget hit

JOHN SCHROYER

THE GAZETTE

DENVER - Will it be higher education? What about the Department of Public Safety? Or K-12 programs? What if two dozen agencies will have their funding cut completely?

That's pretty extreme. No agency is going to get it's funding completely cut. And if "agencies" means departments, we don't even have two dozen of them.

Those were just some of the possibilities buzzing around the Capitol this past week as lawmakers debated where hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts will have to be made. The questions could be answered as soon as Friday morning, when Gov. Bill Ritter's director of the office of state planning will deliver a series of proposed rollbacks to the Joint Budget Committee.

Ritter, a Democrat, said in his State of the State address last week that he'll seek an across-the-board 10 percent budget cut from each state department, which would total roughly $800 million in cuts. The LegislaAs part of that process, the governor asked each state department to come up with cuts equal to 10% of their budgets. That gives him -- and us -- a range to pick from.ture is facing an estimated $631 million shortfall for the current fiscal year due to the economic downturn, but many lawmakers fear that the actual number will be much greater.

Not really. We've said over and over that there won't be across-the-board cuts. Those never work out well. It's a lot better to look at what can be cut, then pick the cuts that do the least damage to state services.

As part of that process, the governor asked each state department to come up with cuts equal to 10% of their budgets. That gives him -- and us -- a range to pick from.

Colorado's constitutional funding restrictions, however, have left many legislators pointing to a single target - higher education.

"We are completely boxed in. Higher education will be where the cuts will have to come," said Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, a former member of the JBC. "The people of this state have dictated where we have to go, (because of) TABOR. People say, well, we have limited options. That's not true. We have no options."

Morse pointed out that the top half-dozen departments funded by the state eat up 94 percent of the state's $18.6 billion budget, but all of those except for higher education are protected either by state or federal law.

The Taxpayers Bill of Rights, authored by Colorado Springs anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce, prohibits the Legislature from raising taxes without a vote of the people, and a separate constitutional provision precludes state expenditures from growing by more than 6 percent each year.

JBC Vice Chairman Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, agreed with Morse that the state's colleges and universities are in the cross hairs.

"We're going to lose another generation of kids. Literally, we're going to cause dropouts over the next few years," he said.

Pommer estimated that in this fiscal year and the next one, the Legislature will have to figure out how to cut the budget by perhaps $1 billion, adding, "Literally everything we can think of is on the table."

Legislators said they aren't certain what the governor has in mind, and no one in his office would let loose any hints. Speculation was rife, though, that gains made last year in education could be rolled back.

Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said there's more than $100 million in K-12 education programs that are not shielded by Amendment 23, which safeguards most of public school funding.

Merrifield said the Legislature could decide to remove a portion of the $34.5 million it appropriated in last year's budget for full-day kindergarten.

Any school funding above the requirements of Amendment 23 could be on the table for cuts, said Glenn Gustafson, deputy superintendent and chief financial officer for Colorado Springs School District 11.

Every school district in the state received about $20 extra per pupil, in two payments, that could be cut, he said. For D-11, that would be about $600,000, he said.

Other at risk areas include the extra money provided to districts that receive the lowest per pupil allotment; extra money provided under a formula for districts with declining enrollment, and capital construction money for charter schools, he said.

"If they take it back right now, we would have to find those cuts," he said. "We would be in kind of pickle but they could retroactively take that away.

"While we're concerned about any reduction, we understand that the state has a problem and we do have reserves that can help us with some cuts Merrifield, who chairs the House Education Committee, said, "I'm going to try to protect as much as I can, but... I can see the writing on wall. We are just in deep, deep doo-doo."

Those cuts could also wind up hurting charter schools around the Colorado Springs area, said Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument.
She said she's heard rumors that a $10 million appropriation for charter school capital construction could be sliced in half.

"We have a lot of students affected by that," Stephens said.

She's another one who's also worried about higher education funding, especially for the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, which she said "took a harder hit than some of our other universities" when a recession hit the state earlier this decade.

Stephens said she hopes the governor won't protect any sacred cows, but will demonstrate a willingness to withdraw many of the new state programs begun under his watch.

As long as we protect her sacred cows, like the additional $5 million earmarked just for charter schools last year, we can cut money for children in special education, preschool and anything else.

Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, linked much of the budget shortfall to illegal immigration. He referred to a recent
report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, which found that illegal immigrants cost Colorado roughly $1 billion in taxpayer dollars each year.

"Part of the solution to this budget problem is to deal with the illegal immigration problem, so that the people who are losing jobs have jobs to get," Schultheis said.

The bottom line for the JBC, however, is simple, said Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland.

"Anybody's ox could get gored. They have to just be prepared."

Gazette writer Sue McMillin contributed to this report

School tax hikes OK for now, court says

Well this story's off to a good start. "School tax hikes OK." What tax hikes? Nobody's taxes are going up. In school districts where voters decided the district should keep the revenue it gets from its existing tax rate, district will keep the revenue. In fact, while no one's tax rate is going up, in some districts the tax rate is going down.

The headline is more like a political sound bite than the start of a news story.

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News, Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

A law that funnels more tax money to schools is still in force for now, allowing local school districts to raise taxes in 2009, the state Supreme Court said Friday.

What district is raising taxes? In a lot of districts taxes won't to down, but not cutting taxes isn't the same as raising them. And in each case the voters in the district voted to let the district keep the money.

But the court refused to say whether the law is constitutional, and it gave no hint when that decision will come.

The 2007 law would raise an estimated $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years by blocking a scheduled decline in property taxes.

Opponents filed suit, saying it's an unconstitutional tax increase because it wasn't approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Except that it was approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. And it only applies to districts where voters approved it. If the Rocky really doesn't understand this, I with it would explain why it doesn't apply to districts where voters didn't approve a TABOR exemption.

In a two-page order, the judges lifted an injunction by Denver District Judge Christina Habas, who held the law unconstitutional. The unsigned Supreme Court order allows the 178 school districts to set tax rates, which are due at the state education department by Dec. 15.

The education department earlier this week asked the court to rule in the case by Friday so the school districts could meet the deadline. The court heard oral arguments in September.

The law is backed by Gov. Bill Ritter and most Democrats in the legislature.

Most Republican lawmakers oppose it.

Both sides warned against viewing the Friday order as hinting at which way the court will rule.

Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman, said, "This is a very specific, very narrow order.

"We're not reading the tea leaves at all," said Education Department spokesman Mark Stevens.

Richard Westfall, the attorney for groups and individuals who brought the suit, said that if the judges had wanted to rule on the constitutional issue, they would have done so.

"It seems to me they have not yet decided it," Westfall said.

This is possible. I misunderstood where the Court was in the process. I thought the Court was very close to issuing its opinion, but just hadn't finished the formal document. In that case, it would make sense to let the districts certify their mill levies one way or the other - either using the formula under the new rule (if the law is constitutional) or under the old rule (if it's unconstitutional).

If the court is actually a long way from handing down its opinion, then I guess it could let the school districts certify their mill levies either way and sort everything out later.

The order itself says the court, in lifting the lower court injunction, intended to "preserve the status quo as it existed under (the 2007 law) until this court issues its final decision in this matter."

But several lawmakers read the order as upholding the law.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the court wouldn't tell school districts to set tax rates one way, then tell them to do something different in a few weeks.

I didn't say they wouldn't do that, I said I didn't think they would do that. Notwithstanding my last comment, it does seem like there would be better alternatives than having districts certify a mill levy that's not going to stand. Maybe the court could have pushed back the certification date.

"It just seems like an odd thing to do," he said. Pommer was the main House sponsor of the 2007 law.

Pommer, the vice chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said the order makes it likely the Legislature will have more money to work with next year.

When districts get less money from local taxes, the state has to give them more money from state coffers. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, the state will probably have to give more money to schools. That means less money for other state services. I guess the like is accurate, but it's sort of the reverse of what I said.

The reporter asked me if we were cutting money out of the budget so we could give it to districts if the Court ruled against the 2007 law. I said "no," because we almost always work according to current law. The 2007 law is current, since the Court hasn't ruled it unconstitutional.

We work according to current law because it's the the most practical thing to do. A lot of people sue the state for a lot of reasons. We would have a hard time doing anything if we acted as though all of those people were doing to win in court.

But, he added, "It's not like it's a total relief. It could be a cruel joke."

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, a vocal opponent of the 2007 law, said the order demonstrates the court's partisan bias.

"I've always assumed that this court would place its loyalty to the Democratic governor ahead of its fidelity to the constitution," Penry said. "This Supreme Court is the most partisan branch of government in Colorado."

Or maybe the Court hasn't decided. Or maybe the law is just constitutional. Keep in mind, conservatives spend most of their time calling courts "activist." They usually say that when courts overturn something the legislative branch has approved. Or approve something the legislative branch has denied. Conservatives call that "activist" because the court is putting its opinion in place of the "will of the people" as expressed by representatives they elected to the legislature (or Congress).

In this case, if the Court rules the law is constitutional, it will be letting the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, stand. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, it will be "activist" by "legislating from the bench" and replacing a duly passed law with its own opinion.

That puts conservatives in an awkward spot. If they win this case, they'll have to applaud the court for being activist. It they lose, they'll have to attack the court for failing to be activist.

Hopefuls eye size of government, budgets

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call LONGMONT — Catherine Jarrett wants smaller government, while Jack Pommer says he will work to make sure government does more with less.

Jarrett, a Republican, is challenging incumbent Democrat Pommer for the Colorado House District 11 seat, which covers portions of west and north Longmont.

Pommer first won the seat in 2002, then ran unopposed in 2004. Jarrett decided to challenge him in 2006 and again this year because she wanted to give voters a choice and not allow Pommer to run unopposed.

During the Times-Call election forum Wednesday night, Jarrett looked back at recent legislation she claims has caused big government to get bigger and infringe on individuals’ rights and responsibilities.

“The main purpose of government is to keep an orderly society so people can take responsibility for their own lives,” she said. “I’m concerned that government is taking over responsibilities that are rightfully ours.” Jarrett pointed to recent laws that, she argued, increased local property taxes by freezing mill levies and will increase costs for patients because health-care companies now have more reporting requirements. She said another bill abolished the St. Vrain Valley School District’s abstinence-based sex education program.

“You have a choice: either bigger government or people like me for smaller government,” Jarrett said.

Pommer said that during his time in the state House, he helped make preschool available to thousands more Colorado children and helped lay the groundwork for full-day kindergarten.

He also touted a bill that requires public utilities to get 20 percent of their energy from renewable resources, a move that not only helps the state with energy sustainability but has brought green manufacturing to the state and created jobs in rural parts of Colorado.

Pommer said he now wants to find better ways to provide state services. Rather than throwing more money at health care and prisons, he said, state lawmakers should focus on creating preventive programs that keep people out of hospitals and prisons, or keep people from returning. “I want Colorado to do more with less,” he said.

House Democrats take on CSAP tests

Bill would drop some writing, math and science sections
May 1, 2008By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau
DENVER - Democrats pushed through a major rollback of standardized testing Wednesday, voting for a bill to eliminate all writing tests from the Colorado Student Assessment Program as well as some reading, math and science tests.

The Federal NCLB law requires a lot of tests -- the bill eliminates that tests that aren't required by federal law. That will save us $10 million a year and the bill puts that money back into real education two ways:preventing high school students from dropping out ongoing education for teachers

Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, advanced two bills to cut back the CSAP. House Bill 1357, which the House gave its initial approval, pares back the CSAP to the minimum standard required by the federal No Child Left Behind law. That means eliminating all writing tests, the reading and math tests in grades nine and 10, and the 10th-grade science test.

Solano's other bill, HB 1186, prohibits schools from punishing students who skip the CSAP test. The House gave it final approval Wednesday, sending it to Gov. Bill Ritter for his signature.

But Solano's first bill has put her at odds with the sponsors of Ritter's major education-reform plan, which he calls the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, or CAP4K.

Which is odd because one of the two key arguments for CAP4K is that are current standards are wrong and have to be rewritten. The CSAPs test how well kids have learned the state standards. If the state standards are wrong, why not (at least) eliminate the CSAPs that aren't required by federal law.

(The second arguement for CAP4K is weird. It's that when kids in Colorado aren't learning, it's because we don't test them enough).

"CAP4K will rebuild the entire house. House Bill 1357 repaints the front door," said Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, one of the sponsors of the CAP4K bill, Senate Bill 212.

"CAP4K will end CSAP as we know it, but in its place will put relevant, timely assessments," Witwer said.

So we've been slavishly following state standards that turn out to be irrelevant and untimely. How many students, parents, teachers, schools and communities have been harassed, threatened and insulted over their CSAP results? Now we're admitting the CSAPs test the wrong things.

Officials from Ritter's Department of Education testified against Solano's bill at a hearing several weeks ago.

"The governor will have to decide if these two bills can mesh," Solano said.

CSAP's critics say the results aren't useful because grades come in too late to help individual students. The CAP4K bill will tie the new tests to new curriculum standards that will focus on college preparation.

But they'll be developed by the same people who came up with the CSAPs.

But Solano found many allies among fellow Democrats who dislike standardized tests in general when she pushed ahead with HB 1357 on Wednesday.

Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, sang an anti-CSAP song to the tune of "On Top of Old Smoky."

"Don't think about thinking - it's not on the test," Merrifield sang.

Colorado's obsession with testing has robbed the passion from teaching and the love of learning from students, said Merrifield, a retired teacher.Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, led the defense of CSAPs for Republicans.

Critics are wrong when they say schools "teach to the test," Rose said."We teach to children the knowledge they need, and then we test them to see if they've absorbed that information," he said.

Well, not really. The Dept. of Education, which wrote the standards, now says those standards are bad.

Earlier in the morning, the House gave final approval to Solano's other bill, HB 1186.

It prevents schools from punishing students who skip the CSAP. Solano said schools have withheld credits or permission to join school activities.

But schools still will be penalized when students skip, a fact that irritated Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

"What this preserves is the true idiocy of the school-accountability system," Pommer said. "The teacher gets penalized, the school gets penalized, but there's no penalty for the individual student."

We would never pass a law saying if you get caught speeding we fine someone else. But our so-called "school accountability" law says students don't have to take the CSAP but, if they don't, we subtract points from the results of the students who did take the test. What sense does that make?

Without the penalty, three Southwest Colorado schools would have had higher scores on last year's School Accountability Reports. Florida Mesa Elementary in Durango and Dolores Middle School would have gone from average to high, and Pleasant View Elementary north of Cortez would have gone from low to average.

Think about that. Under stand a federal law a school can get shut down if it doesn't do well on the CSAPs. There are schools all across the state that have lost points because students, with their parents permission, chose not take the test.

Additional votes on both the CAP4K bill and Solano's CSAP bill are scheduled for today.

Lawmakers boost early childhood education

By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

DENVER - Changes lawmakers made last year in school financing allowed this year's Legislature to increase funding for preschool and daylong kindergarten programs, according to the state lawmakers who annually carry the bill.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said last year's freeze on property tax mill levies is allowing the Legislature to do something it's never been able to do before in a large way - fund early childhood dev- elopment.

"I think we're actually making a significant change that will help students learn better," Pommer said. "Over the years, we've done all this stuff that was supposed to help reduce the (achievement) gap to try to help students learn better, and most of it has been a bunch of nonsense."

As a result, the annual School Finance Act not only includes a $216 million increase in the aid the state sends directly to schools next year, from $3.1 billion in this year's budget, but it also will be able to add another $49 million to pay for more preschool and all-day kindergarten programs, Pommer said.

"The one thing that everybody involved in education knows is that some kids don't show up for first grade ready to learn," he said. "The way you get around that is by making sure that kids who need it have access to high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten."

The bill, which cleared the House Education Committee on Thursday and heads to the House Appropriations Committee next week, also includes:

Increasing the statewide base per-pupil funding by 2.2 percent to match inflation, plus 1 percent as required by Amendment 23 approved by voters in 2000.

Provides additional funding for kindergarten, holding harmless those school districts that don't choose to implement all-day programs, to add 22,000 more students. Creates a grant program to build or renovate school buildings that want to add full-day kindergarten classroom space.

Adds $2 million in grants to special education programs.

Increases the number of preschool slots statewide by 300, bringing the total to 20,160.

Pommer said that while the increase in kindergarten money isn't enough to offer the class to all children, it does help school districts increase the number of at-risk students in the program.

"We're letting districts decide how they want to use it," he said. "Some districts are going to offer it in schools where they feel like there's a particular need, some are going to use it to reduce the tuition in their existing programs, and others will probably come up with ideas we haven't thought of."

Pommer said the long-term goal is to increase funding to early education programs by $100 million over the next six years.

Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada and a retired kindergarten teacher, said focusing on early childhood education is the best way to address the state's high dropout rate, close the so-called achievement gap between white students and minorities and get more students into college .

She said the facts are clear that teaching children early in life helps them learn more as they get older.

"The solution is in preschool and in full-day kindergarten," said Windels, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee. "I've tried every year to add a few more preschool slots for at-risk kids . . . and it is an exciting day, an exciting year that we are finally going to be able to offer preschool (and kindergarten) to every at-risk child who wants to go."

Charter schools likely to get more for renovation, construction

April 1, 2008 - 7:29PM
The annual battle over charter school funding began anew Tuesday with the release of a report by the Colorado League of Charter Schools saying that students in those institutions receive less funding than kids in traditional public schools.

Their annually-recycled dishonest lobbying campaign to get even more money than they already get. It would be nice if a newspaper would add up the amount of money charter schools get compared to public schools, rather than just reporting this nonsense every year.

Charter school opponents countered that those schools can take advantage of more grant funding than other schools but often don't. Still, they conceded that charters are likely to get twice their usual funding for facility renovations and construction this year.

The report said charter schools spend $480 out of the $6,369 they receive in per-pupil funding on operating expenses for facilities because, unlike traditional public schools, they must buy or fix up buildings not owned by the school districts where they operate. With operational costs subtracted, their per-pupil funding falls below the state minimum, the report said.

What about the charter schools that get free facilities from school districts? They never mention that, as a powerful special interest, they forced through a state law requiring school districts to give them any space the district has available.

They, and the newspapers, also leave out the fact that public schools don't get state money for buildings either. They have to go to the voters and, if the voters say no, the public schools have to live without the money.

(There is one exception. We settled a lawsuit filed by Colorado's poorest districts a decade or so ago, and the settlement requires us to pay a minimal amount of money to them so they can eliminate conditions that are dangerous to their students. Charter schools can apply for that money just like any public school. The private payoff to charter schools, on the other hand, is only for charter schools; no public school can ask for it).

When districts ask voters for building an maintenance money, the charter schools get it too. That's another requirement the charter lobbyists got the legislature to ram down the throats of school districts. Of course charter schools could ask the voters for money too, but they've never been willing to live by democratic rules. It's easier for them to lobby the legislature until it overrules local voters and takes away their ability to determine where their tax money goes.

As far as them having to "spend $480 out of the $6,369 they receive in per-pupil funding" on their buildings, that's misleading too. Every district along the Front Range has to spend $500 from each public school student's per pupil revenue on special education. Charter schools have weaseled their way out of that. A lot of charter schools also, by state law, get a share of the district's at-risk money even though they refuse to accept at-risk students.

Then, of course, there's the original lie that got charter schools responsibility-free, taxpayer money in the first place. They promised their schools would be better and less expensive than public schools and, specifically, that they would never need capital construction and maintenance money.

That promise lasted just long enough to dupe the legislature. They've never been better, or even as good, as public schools. But immediately after getting themselves written into state law, the demanded -- and got -- the same funding public schools get. Even that wasn't, and isn't, enough. Today they get more. And it's still not enough, which is why this article is in the paper. It's part of their relentless demands for more and more money.

The need to find affordable facilities also means charter schools can be illequipped to serve all students' needs. A full 39 percent of them don't have access to a gym, and only 28 percent of charters have kitchen facilities that meet federal standards, the report said.

Less than 1 percent of Colorado Department of Education facilities grants have gone to charter schools since 2000, though those schools serve roughly 7 percent of Colorado's public school students. Some school districts have included charters in bond issues on ballots, while others have not, league president Jim Griffin said.

What the charter school lobbyists, and the newspaper, is leaving out here -- knowingly -- is that those grants don't go to 99% of our public schools either. The state makes those grants because we were forced to by a lawsuit, and the grants only go to the poorest schools that are the most dangerous to students.

Most public schools in the state aren't greedy enough to even apply for the grants. They realize that the money only goes to schools that desperately need it. It's a good indication of how avaricious the charter lobby is that they would even try to take money away from those students.

The solution is to dedicate more funding to charter schools' capital needs, Griffin argued. He expects a provision in the 2008 School Finance Act to provide $10 million for that, rather than the usual $5 million, he said.

"We have to do what it takes to bring our charter schools up to the standards we expect in Colorado," said Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, noting one charter school in Granby serves lunch in a tent.

Update: During the debate over the school finance bill I offered an amendment that would have actually helped get a lunchroom for the charter school in Granby. I say "helped" because we can't tell charter schools how to spend their money. The Republicans the pro-charter Democrats supported the amendment and it was put into the bill. The charter school lobby was furious. They don't like to see a great unfairness poster issue like that go away. They also don't like distributing funds on a need basis.

Charter lobbyists got the Senate to strip the amendment out. They kept the money in the budget, exclusively for charter schools, but distributed across the board so it won't help any individual, low-income school fix anything.

When the bill came back to the House the charter lobby has gotten its legislators back in line. They said the Granby lunch-in-a-ten situation wasn't an issue anymore. And it won't me, until next year's school finance act when it will be ressurected as a glaring example of unfairness toward charter schools.

On a broader note, what do you think would be the response if a school district told people it could afford to open a new school, then opened it without a lunchroom and complained about students having to eat in a tent?

But House Education Committee Chairman Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said the report twists the funding numbers.

All schools factor facility costs as a percentage of their per-pupil funding, and because some charter schools don't have a gym or cafeteria, they have less of a facility to maintain with that money, he said.

The School Finance Act does not contain any special allocation for the schools that house 93 percent of Colorado's public school students, nor do those schools have access to federal or private grant programs specified for charters, he said.

State college tuition could rise 9.5%

Budget bill orders biggest hikes at research schools

By Berny Morson

Rocky Mountain News

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Colorado residents attending state colleges and universities could be socked with tuition increases of up to 9 1/2 percent next fall.

"Colorado universities still a bargain"

How about that for a more accurate headline. Here's how CU's tuition, for instance, compares to similar schools across the country:

The pattern is the same when you compare or other state universities and colleges to their peers in other states.

Our tuition is relatively low despite that fact that Colorado contributes far less funding to its universities than the other states.

And our low tuition buys a better-than-average education. In the U.S. News rankings, CU looks pretty good compared to its peers:

	Rank
	44	University of Texas -- Austin
	75	Indiana University -- Bloomington
	79	University of Colorado -- Boulder
	85	University of Kansas
	85	Iowa State University
	91	University of Missouri -- Columbia
	91	University of Nebraska -- Lincoln
	96	University of Massachusetts -- Amherst
	112	Florida State University

The legislature's Joint Budget Committee included that recommendation Friday in the draft of the annual state spending bill.

Students at the four research schools - the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines - would see increases of up to 9 1/2 percent.

Other four-year schools - such as Metropolitan State College - would see increases of up to 71/2 percent, while the increases at the community colleges would be capped at 5 1/2 percent.

But the budget committee recommendation also would cap increases for the neediest students at 5 percent and would add $9 million of additional funds for financial aid and work- study grants.

Increases for graduate students and non-resident undergraduates would not be capped under the proposal.

The six-member JBC could still revise the draft before it is introduced in the House of Representatives on March 24.

The House or the Senate also could make changes.

The increases still would have to be adopted by each school's governing boards, which could raise tuition by lesser amounts.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the tuition increase is needed because the state can't afford to raise direct support for higher education.

Without more money, schools will have to cut programs.

"There's a lot of talk about keeping tuition down," said Pommer, who made the motion to raise tuition. "The question is, keeping tuition for what down?

"If you destroy the university so you're not charging much tuition . . . you're not getting much of an education, either."

Colorado tuition will still fall below the average of comparable institutions in other states, Pommer said.

Gov. Bill Ritter and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education had sought increases that topped out at 9 percent.

Blake Gibson, a leader of Associated Students of Colorado, said he understands the financial bind Colorado universities are in.

But, he warned, students are being priced out of higher education.

Students at many Colorado schools saw double digit tuition increases last year, said Gibson, a CSU sophomore.

"Like anything else, there's kind of a point where it just becomes too much," Gibson said. The increases add to the heavy debt burden many students carry, he said.

Along with the higher tuition, the JBC voted to increase higher education funding by more than $60 million, including the additions to financial aid.

Education costs may go up Here are some sample resident undergraduate tuitions for next year, assuming higher education governing boards take advantage of the full increases allowed under the draft state budget bill:

INSTITUTION THIS YEAR* NEXT YEAR**

* CU Arts & Sciences $5,418 $5,933

* CU Business School $8,632 $9,452

* CU Engineering $7,498 $8,210

* Metro State $2,432 $2,614

* Community Colleges $2,315 $2,442

Plan busts school mold

An overhaul addresses how kids learn, not what courses they take.
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/24/2008

Shayn Herndon, 16, a Loveland High sophomore, adjusts outlet boxes in a house students build to learn geometry. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post )

Loveland High School used to offer watered-down math for students flunking geometry and algebra.

Then the geometry and construction teachers created a course that's all the rage at Loveland High — a house-building class where students learn the slope of a line by determining the pitch of a roof.

The school started with two classes last year and now has six. Enrolled students have outperformed their classmates on state tests. And now Thompson School District is creating an algebra course where students will convert a gas-guzzling car to an electric one.

That creative course design is an illustration of what Gov. Bill Ritter envisions under his new education initiative — a revamping of curricula from preschool to college to produce courses focused more on content than titles.

Details of the governor's initiative are still sketchy, though a 28-page draft of the legislation is likely to become official this week.

The three-year initiative will specify, grade by grade, which skills a student must master, from counting to 25 in preschool to nailing down quadratic equations in high school.

Colorado would overhaul the Colorado Student Assessment Program tests or create new tests to assess a student's skill level, and college admissions staff would use those scores to determine admittance.

The draft calls for an 11-member panel of curriculum and testing experts to recommend new curriculum standards to the state school board, modernize exams to test for those standards and create a tiered diploma system for high school graduates.

The point is to shift the focus from course titles and the number of years a student spent in math or science class to what he or she actually learned.

"Right now, time is the constant and learning is the variable," said Roger Sampson, president of the Education Commission of the States, based in Denver. "Students sit for 180 days every year. Some of them learn a lot of skills, and some of them learn a minimal amount of skills."

A school with no dropouts

A real-life example of Ritter's plan played out in Chugach School District in Alaska, where Sampson was once superintendent.

Chugach students move on when they pass tests on course content — some kids graduate at 15, and others are still in school at 21. The dropout rate is near zero, Sampson said.

"A district with no students" would be a better heading.   Try to find out how well students are learning in this district and you get some interesting results.  For instance 2008 11th grade test scores:
Reading * (1 student tested)
Writing * (3 students tested)
Math * (2 students tested)

* Results cannot be published without releasing personally identifiable information.

It turns out that the Chugach School District has 214 students -- in the entire district.  And those students are spread out over 22,000 square miles, including areas so remote you can only get to them by airplane.  One-on-one teaching is a great idea.  Advancing each child individually and on his or her own schedule is wonderful.  But try doing it in a school district with 30.000 students. 

I applaud what the Chugach District has achieved (even though I can't see the results), but using it as an example for Colorado is a real stretch.  This is a constant problem with so-called education reform: it's often based on "miracle schools" where something amazing happens but it can't be reproduced or, in some cases, measured objectively.

Ritter's initiative assumes every kid is headed to college.

"What we're doing is what every state aspires to do," said Sen. Chris Romer, the Denver Democrat bringing Ritter's plan to the legislature.

All students would have to learn a core curriculum, including English competency, to graduate. Beyond that, they could select courses leading toward job readiness, community college or guaranteed admission to any university in the state.

Students earning the state's top-tier diploma — an "honors diploma" — would have to take an "extremely rigorous" college track that includes advanced math and science, said Sen. Josh Penry, a Grand Junction Republican co-sponsoring the legislation.

"This will be a gold standard," he said. "It's central for me."

Penry and Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, failed to pass legislation last year that would have required every student to take four years of math and three years of science. They introduced the bill again this year but put it on hold while waiting to see whether Ritter's plan is tough enough.

The political notion that every kid is going to college irritates Gerald Keefe, superintendent of the 100-student Kit Carson School District.

Keefe has been an outspoken adversary of the state Department of Higher Education's college entrance requirements, which call for four years of math for the class of 2010. But he supports Ritter's initiative.

"Even if you want to go into welding, you need to know calculus? That may be true, but you don't need a whole calculus course," he said, noting that kids can learn calculus in a shop class. "It doesn't have to be the same environment we're used to."

Local boards retain role

Colorado, with a history of local control in education, is one of only five states without comprehensive graduation requirements. The governor's plan preserves at least some control for local school boards because it will not mandate what courses schools must teach, only curriculum standards.

Colorado first created content standards in 1993 but has not updated them since. Plus the standards cover only third through 10th grade, meaning there are none spelling out what a preschooler should learn or what a 12th-grader must know to graduate.

"There is no overarching vision of what the education system should produce," said Matt Gianneschi, Ritter's education policy adviser. "The state has been silent and left it up to local boards to decide what college readiness is."

The result: About one-third of students have to take remedial, noncredit courses when they get to college, prolonging their graduation and leading to a higher dropout rate.

"We don't want to get them all ready for college to see them drop out," said Ken Turner, deputy education commissioner. "Engaging students in things they find meaningful — that's what it's about. We need to expect more of ourselves and our young people."

Colorado policies now are too "inexact or clumsy" in determining a student's college readiness, said David Skaggs, director of the Higher Education Department. "We need to be more fair early on to alert high school students and families what is expected," he said.

Ritter's goals include cutting the 26 percent high school dropout rate in half and doubling the number of college degrees and certificates by 2017.

Ritter's initiative — called the "Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids" — takes some cues from a national report that had lawmakers buzzing last year.

"Tough Choices, Tough Times" from the National Center on Education and the Economy calls for letting students test out of high school after 10th grade to attend community or technical colleges. Students headed for top universities would study college-track courses through 12th grade.

Similar efforts are happening across the country. But Colorado can move "to the frontier" by allowing more flexibility in how schools teach skills, said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit helping states set education standards.

While some educators have been frustrated by a lack of details on the initiative the governor announced in early January, they are excited about the prospects.

"The governor's idea is right on the mark," said Thompson Valley Superintendent Dan Johnson. "There are various ways in which a student can show competence besides just a number of hours in a seat."

Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com

More money for early childhood education proposed

Andy Koen

Colorado Springs

State lawmakers want to spend more money on early childhood education. Under the proposed school finance act, more children would qualify for state funded preschool and school districts would get more money to offer full day kindergarten.

The extra money would mean a boost in enrollment at the Community Partnership for Child Development, who oversees the Head Start program in Colorado Springs. Noreen Landis-Tyson, CEO of the partnership says they have long waiting lists of people in need of financial assistance.

"Families who cannot afford to purchase early care and education programs but whose children need those programs to be successful will definitely benefit from the increased number of slots," Landis-Tyson said.

The proposals are just a couple of the goals established by Governor Bill Ritter's blue-ribbon education panel, which meets in Colorado Springs on Monday. The panel’s recommendations seem to reflect the idea that the best time to improve a child's education is at the beginning.

"I think the research shows that things like preschool and kindergarten, the earlier you get kids into a learning environment they better off they're going to be," said Mike Stahl, president of the Peaks Peak Education Association

The school finance act has not been yet been introduced in the house. The sponsor of the bill, Representative Jack Pommer (D) Boulder, says the money for the programs would come from excess revenue generated by a property tax freeze initiated last year.

Questions linger about state's role

Some asking if Coffman should have noticed red flags

By Kate Larsen, Camera Staff Writer
December 25, 2002

While it's clear the St. Vrain Valley School District mismanaged its budget into a $14 million debt, some community members say they think the State Treasurer's Office should share the blame.

It's common for school districts to borrow money from the state treasury's interest-free loan program to tide them over until property tax revenues are collected in the spring. For the past two years, St. Vrain Valley borrowed a larger amount of money than normal to cover its growing debt and did it earlier than usual — and some say that should have raised a red flag at the state level.

Rick Samson, vice president of the St. Vrain Valley school board, said if a lending institution notices an abnormal borrowing pattern, it should take notice.

"We hardly ever borrow, and then one year we borrow six times and earlier — you'd think that someone would say, 'What is St. Vrain doing?'"

State Treasurer Mike Coffman, who approves the loans, said the law outlining the loan program is not set up in a way that would help him detect problems. Additionally, Coffman said St. Vrain Valley used misleading numbers on its loan request forms.

"I wish they had been honest with us," Coffman said. "They disguised their purpose."

On a Nov. 5 loan request, St. Vrain Valley Finance Director Walker Nielsen stated the district's cash balance to be about negative $2.4 million. The debt was in fact much larger — about $10 million — at that point.

Nielsen has since resigned. Ken Kirkland, the district's assistant superintendent of business services, has been suspended without pay.

In an agreement with St. Vrain Valley last week, Coffman ordered across-the-board pay cuts and a series of other cost-cutting measures to rectify the district's recently uncovered $13.8 million deficit, attributed to budget mismanagement over several years. The Boulder County District Attorney's Office is investigating the mismanagement.

Jennie White, the parent of a Skyline High School student, said she holds St. Vrain Valley staff and board members accountable for the budget crisis, but Coffman should also take some responsibility. White said she's concerned that Coffman loaned the district so much money without ever asking questions.

"I have concerns not only as a citizen of the (school) district but of the state," she said. "Where was Coffman's office when it came to checks and balances?"

Dick Murphy, who served as a deputy state treasurer and as the chief financial officer for the Boulder Valley School District, said St. Vrain Valley's loan applications may not have raised any red flags because school districts' spending patterns can vary.

"One large purchase can throw off a budget," Murphy said. He is acting as a liaison between Coffman's office and the St. Vrain Valley staff as the district works on its financial recovery plan.

"The state treasurer doesn't have much choice but to loan the money unless there is evidence that the loan cannot be repaid," Murphy said. "I don't think there's anything within the (loan) document that would indicate one way or another if it could be paid back."

Coffman said he had no reason to be suspicious, as St. Vrain Valley had never been in default on previous loans and there hadn't been any problems with other school districts.

But Jack Pommer, a Democrat recently elected to the State House to represent Boulder and Longmont, says it is Coffman's job to be suspicious because he's watching over the state's money.

"Mike Coffman is so interested in becoming governor that he forgot he's the state treasurer, and the state treasurer has the responsibility to watch over our money," Pommer said.

Pommer said Coffman overreacted to the situation to keep the public's attention away from his office and on the school district.

One change Pommer said he would like to see in the loan program is for school boards to be notified within 30 days of how much their district is borrowing and for what purpose. He is drafting legislation to introduce during the next legislative session.

Currently the loan program requires the signature of a school district's chief financial officer and the superintendent.

Teacher open-talks bill gets initial OK

By Ryan Morgan
Denver Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - A bill requiring that employment contract negotiation sessions between teachers and their school boards be open to the public survived two Democratic attempts to kill it on the House floor Monday.

Instead, it won preliminary approval and will be up for a final vote later this week.
Sponsored by Rep. Rob Fairbank, R-Littleton, House Bill 1314 would "let the sunshine in" on the negotiations.

"I would ask for us to take a look at allowing the taxpayers to have some idea of how millions of dollars are being spent on teacher contract negotiations," he said.
Republican Rep. Don Lee of Littleton agreed.

"This could be a civics lesson for the children," he said. "It's much better to have it open to the public."

Current state law requires that public officials hold the vast majority of their meetings in public, but doesn't explicitly make that requirement for teachers' contract negotiations. Some school districts' meetings are public, while others hold theirs behind closed doors. The final contract, however, is public.

Democrats spoke up against the bill. Rep. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, said she supports the principle of Colorado's open-meetings law, and thinks that it should probably be expanded.
But, she said, "this bill is singling out teachers, and it's unfair."

Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, had another worry. Unlike legislative meetings, contentious school contract negotiation sessions don't have a sergeant-at-arms to keep order, he said, and could turn into a melee.

"If we have these negotiations open to the public, we're going to have a potentially dangerous, potentially frightening situation," he said.

But the floor debate itself soon took on an air of the potentially ridiculous a few minutes later, when Merrifield hopped up and down in front of the speaker's podium, incensed because it looked as though acting Speaker Rep. Ray Rose wouldn't recognize him to speak.

Rose relented, and Merrifield was able to speak again, denouncing a remark made by Republican Rep. Nancy Spence, who recalled "shakedowns" at the hands of teachers unions when she served as a school board member.

Several other Democrats criticized Fairbank's bill on the grounds that it violates the cherished Republican principle of local control.
"I think we should have faith that the school boards will do what they were elected to do," said Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder Democrat.

Officials at the Colorado Education Association, which came out against the bill, made similar criticisms.

"It is because the school district and its employees have determined how they want their negotiations to be held," spokeswoman Deborah Fallin explained. "They've decided at the local level how they're going to negotiate."

A no-brainer for schools

Monday, March 17, 2003 - House Bill 1032 seemed like a no-brainer.

Fortunately, state lawmakers saw it that way, too. Even though it was sponsored by two Boulder Democrats - folks not necessarily en vogue this session - it sailed through both chambers.

The bill, which becomes effective upon Gov. Bill Owens' signature, requires school district superintendents and chief financial officers to get school board approval before seeking an interest-free loan from the state.

"It's a good idea to prevent another St. Vrain," state Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, told the Senate Education Committee last month. He was a co-sponsor of the bill, along with Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

Had the St. Vrain Valley School District board been given monthly updates on the district's loans and financial status, the nearly $14 million financial fiasco that has engulfed the district might have been avoided.

Lawmakers should be lauded for passing HB 1032 quickly and with few changes.

According to the bill, the CFO and superintendent must explain to the board why the loan is needed. A majority of the board members must then approve the request.

It's up to State Treasurer Mike Coffman to decide whether they'll receive the money.

The Colorado Association of School Boards supported the bill for much the same reason we do: It triggers an opportunity for boards to start asking questions.

Most school board members are not financial experts (although we wouldn't be surprised if some St. Vrain candidates this fall have money backgrounds) and could use the extra dialogue.

Really, it's about oversight. In these days of Enron and Qwest, it's hard to argue against more disclosure.

Bill requres school boards to know about loans

March 11, 2003

A bill requiring school boards to approve requests for no-interest loans from the state is on its way to Gov. Bill Owens' desk.

The Senate unanimously approved House Bill 1032 on Monday.

The bill, sponsored by Boulder Democrats Rep. Jack Pommer and Sen. Ron Tupa, comes in response to St. Vrain Valley's discovery of a $13.8 million budget deficit. The district borrowed money from the state through a program in the state treasurer's office, but school board members didn't know about the loans until the entire budget crisis came to light.

HB 1032 would require school board notification and approval before administrators could ask to borrow money from the state.

Voucher bill nearer passage

HB 1160 ready for its third, final reading in House

By Ryan Morgan
Denver Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - The Republican-backed voucher bill most likely to become law took another step closer to passage when a razor-thin majority gave it the nod on the House floor Tuesday afternoon.

Rep. Nancy Spence's House Bill 1160, which passed on a standing vote, would take money out of school districts and use it to pay for private schooling for poor, low-achieving students.

"Everyone wants to close the opportunity gap" between wealthy, high-performing districts and their poor, low-performing counterparts," Spence, a Centennial Republican, said in presenting her bill. "Now is the time to do it."

The program would apply to students who receive "low" or "unsatisfactory" scores on their CSAP tests, and who qualify for free or reduced-cost school lunches. Those students' parents could take money from the school - 85 percent of the school's "per pupil operating revenue" - and use it to pay for private or religious schools.

Supporters and critics alike agree small, inner-city schools, such as the tiny Watch Care Academy in northeast Denver, will receive most of the funds.

The bill would begin as a pilot program and would expire in 2008 unless lawmakers decide to renew it.

Spence amended her bill on the floor to bar support for schools that promote hate speech, and also to require that students who use the vouchers continue to take the CSAP tests.
But Democrats didn't let the bill pass without a fight.

Rep. Suzanne Williams, an Aurora Democrat, said vouchers are a discredited solution that voters have repeatedly turned down at the polls.

"The voucher system, or whatever you want to call it, is an old system now," she said.

Rep. Rosemary Marshall, D-Denver, said Spence's bill runs afoul of Colorado's "Blaine amendment," which holds that "no public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment."

But Republicans, including Rep. Doug Fairbank, said recent Supreme Court decisions limited the scope of the 19th century Blaine amendment. Fairbank also noted that James Blaine, the amendment's author, was motivated by bigotry. Blaine successfully amended 36 state constitutions because he wanted to stop the spread of Catholic schools, Fairbank said.

"The only reason there is a Blaine amendment is anti-Catholic sentiment," he said.
Other Democrats tried to change the bill.

Rep. Jack Pommer introduced an amendment intended to address religious discrimination in schools receiving the funds. Spence's bill prohibits schools that receive public money from discriminating against students using the vouchers.

But those schools would still be allowed to discriminate in hiring their staff members and teachers, which Pommer's amendment would have barred.

The amendment failed after Spence said it would be an unfair imposition on those schools.

Other Democratic amendments shared a similar fate. Rep. Dorothy Butcher, D-Pueblo, tried to change the bill to apply only to kindergarten through sixth grade, but that measure died on the floor.

Spence's bill finally passed after nearly two hours of floor debate. It will be up for its third and final reading by the end of the week, and will head to the Senate if passed.

Bill would give parents money to pay for private schools

By Ryan Morgan
Denver Post Staff Writer

Thursday, February 13, 2003 - Republicans have spent the past decade trying to get school voucher bills passed into law.

This year, they're likely to succeed.

Rep. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, chairwoman of the House Education Committee, is pushing a bill that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle predict will become law. House Bill 1160 would take money out of school districts and use it to pay for private schooling for poor, low-achieving students. It has passed a House committee and is slated for action on the House floor as early as today.

Spence's bill in some ways is more modest than previous efforts. HB 1160 would launch a pilot program limited to Denver Public Schools, and the program would expire in 2008 unless lawmakers decided to renew it.

"We've got to do something to reach those at-risk, needy students to try and close that learning gap between the lowest-achieving group and the higher-achieving groups," said Spence, an early opponent of vouchers who has changed her mind.

"(Opponents) say, 'Keep more money in public schools, don't take it out.' Well, how long do we have to wait? I don't think parents are willing to continue to keep their students in schools where they don't have a quality classroom," she said.

The program would apply to students who receive scores of "low" or "unsatisfactory" on their CSAP tests, and who qualify for free or reduced-cost school lunches. Those students' parents could take money from the school - 85 percent of the school's "per pupil operating revenue" - and use it to pay for private or religious schools.

Spence's proposal has received the support of centrist - and even center-left - organizations, including the Bighorn Center for Public Policy and the Colorado Children's Defense Fund.
But Colorado Education Association officials and House Democrats aren't on board.
While they acknowledge that Spence's bill is almost certain to become law, they're not happy about it.

"It's a bait-and-switch," Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said recently. "You're going to have 500 kids in this so-called voucher program, and they're going to have these really rich backers making sure that this works for them."

The backers Pommer refers to are religious schools, some of which have large, wealthy backers who can help defray tuition and transportation costs.

If the program is expanded statewide, students trying to transfer to other, nonreligious private schools won't get those resources, Pommer said.

Or as fellow Democrat and Education Committee member Suzanne Williams put it: "What kind of school will this money buy them? Only a very small, Catholic religious school is going to take them."

But Spence said those small, subsidized religious schools are located where they can help students who need it the most, she said.

"Most of them are small religious schools in the inner-city neighborhoods where the poor students are," she said.

St. Vrain gets needed loan

State treasurer decides reduction in training days acceptable

By Amy Bounds, Camera Staff Writer
February 12, 2003

State Treasurer Mike Coffman agreed Tuesday to send St. Vrain Valley School District the $1 million state loan it needs to make payroll this month.

Coffman considered withholding the loan because the district teachers negotiated a reduction in workloads to compensate for a 7 percent pay cut that went into effect last month.

"I am willing to accept the argument that cutting teacher professional development days and planning days will not adversely affect St. Vrain's students," Coffman said.

Teachers' union officials met with the district for almost 18 hours this weekend before reaching a compromise on workload.

Out of that meeting came an agreement to cut two training days — March 7 and May 16 — and one grading day — June 5 — from this year's schedule and reduce the hours spent in faculty meetings each month. Another six teacher training days also would be cut from next year's school calendar.

No student school days would be cut.

The district signed an agreement with the state in December stipulating the pay cuts in exchange for millions in state loans as the district works to erase a $13.8 million shortfall caused by financial mismanagement.

Coffman questioned why the district requires teacher training days if they don't directly benefit the district's 22,000 students.

"In talking to educators both in and out of St. Vrain, I've been informed that it just simply is not effective," Coffman said. "Should the taxpayer be paying for these days at all, or should teachers be spending them in the classroom?"

St. Vrain Valley school board President Kathy Hall countered that the days are valuable to update teachers on new programs and teaching methods, but it was necessary to compromise and give the days up.

She said Coffman should have forwarded the district the money Monday. She surmised he waited as a way to punish the district and set an example for other school districts.

"It was very difficult on students, parents, employees and the community — and unnecessary," Hall said.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he and Rep. Paul Weissmann, D-Louisville, met with Coffman early Tuesday afternoon to express their concerns. Pommer, who represents part of Longmont, said he's been hearing from many worried teachers and school district officials.

"These teachers are going to do what they need to do," Pommer said. "Having three days is not going to affect these kids' education."

After this $1 million payment, the district does not anticipate needing more state loans this school year. They originally expected to need $2.2 million this month based on conservative projections.

St. Vrain Valley's 1,100 union members still must ratify the workload agreement, and the school board must approve it. Teachers' votes are expected to be tallied on Feb. 19, followed by a school board vote.

Jeanne Beyer, St. Vrain Valley Education Association spokeswoman, said negotiators stayed away from cutting classroom hours after the district made it clear student days were off limits. Coffman had said he would cut off state aid if the school year was shortened.

Beyer said the union is considering legal action because Coffman publicly urged teachers to reject the agreement on the basis that any workload reduction would be unfair to students.

"That's pretty out of line," she said. "He's not a party to the collective bargaining agreement. Teachers are very critical of Mr. Coffman. He's never taught school to our knowledge. There's a lot of resentment that he was speaking about something that he knew nothing about."

Coffman said urging a "no" vote was simply idealism on his part.

"Teachers are absolutely sending the wrong message to the taxpayers of this district that they're not willing to make a sacrifice," he said.

Loan-notification bill for schools OK'd

Tuesday, February 04, 2003

A bill meant to prevent financial catastrophes such as the one crippling St. Vrain Valley School District passed the House on Monday morning.

HB 1032, sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, requires district officials to notify their school boards when they apply for short-term, interest-free loans from the state.

At St. Vrain, administrators used the loans to keep their financially askew district in the black, while elected school board members stayed in the dark. Board members only became aware of the problem once they were were $13 million in debt. The bill now goes to the Senate.

Bills target school-board finances

St. Vrain, Elizabeth problems inspire package to protect districts, taxpayers

By Monte Whaley
Denver Post Education Writer

Friday, January 31, 2003 - A package of bills aimed at protecting school districts from financial disaster and taxpayers from "fiscal moonshine" was introduced Thursday by lawmakers.

All five measures were inspired by revelations that mismanagement plunged both the St. Vrain Valley School District in Longmont and the Elizabeth School District southeast of Denver into multimillion-dollar deficits.

The proposals range from one that would shore up accounting procedures in school districts to one that would allow citizens to block bond issues if they felt they were misled by school officials.
Problems in the St. Vrain and Elizabeth districts were "a wake- up call," state Treasurer Mike Coffman said Thursday while being flanked by bill sponsors.

"We must do all we can to see that it never happens again," Coffman said. "Colorado's students and taxpayers deserve nothing less."

Bill sponsors and state school officials said they will work hard to get the bills passed this session.

Many of the bills were recommendations made by a special group formed last month to study the fiscal problems in the two districts.

Mostly, the proposals will help ensure school districts get timely and easy-to-understand financial information before it's too late to fix problems, Coffman said.

The St. Vrain and Elizabeth boards said the deficits caught them by surprise.

One proposal - Senate Bill 149 - includes several "common- sense" measures such as requiring school districts to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles and prohibiting spending over available revenue, Coffman said.

The measure also would require state-mandated reserves to be fully funded and for school boards to review their district's financial situation at least quarterly. It is co-sponsored by Sen. Ken Arnold, R-Westminster, and Rep. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial.

Arnold and Rep. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, are sponsoring a proposal to modify the state's Interest Free Loan Program for school districts. The lawmakers want the state to pass its interest costs on to borrowing districts.

"The program costs the state several million dollars per year in interest costs that it can currently ill afford," Mitchell said. "And school districts would still benefit from the state's ability to borrow at the lowest rates available."

The initiative would require school boards to formally vote on all loan requests.

A related proposal - SB 158 - would help districts that find themselves unable to repay loans by the annual June 25 deadline. It would allow school districts to engage in sale-leaseback transactions to satisfy restrictions on carrying debt from year to year, lawmakers said.

The legislation "will provide school districts the flexibility they need to comply with TABOR (Taxpayer's Bill of Rights) while meeting their financial obligations," said Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder. He and Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, are co-sponsoring SB 158.

SB 139 would let citizens fight bond issues when they felt that a school board, city, county or special district withheld key information before a bond election.

Top St. Vrain officials knew of the district's widening deficit before last fall's bond election but did not tell voters, Coffman said.