CEA Opposes School Finance Act, SB 256
Your Help Needed
April 17, 2009

CEA is taking unusual action by opposing the K-12 School Finance Act (SB 256). Last week the bill was introduced and the Senate quickly passed it. SB256 contains a cut to school districts of $150 million (more than $170 per pupil).

NOW is the time to let every legislator know.

We believe that this $150M cut violates Amendment 23 and is unconstitutional.
The intent of the voters when they approved Amendment 23 in 2000 was to fund K-12 education at inflation plus 1% each year through 2011 and at the rate of inflation after that.

Under the Amendment 23 formula, K-12 should receive a 4.9% increase in funding for 2009-10. The $150 million cut in SB 256 slashes Amendment 23’s constitutionally-mandated increase in half.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Email your legislator right now. Click here to see the attached list of Representatives.

Tell your Representative that you want him/her to honor Amendment 23 and fully fund K-12 education. Remind them that future of Colorado – our children -- are in our classrooms today. Our students cannot afford to have their education opportunities cut. Urge legislators to support changes to the School Finance Act that will restore funding to all districts.

When you send your letter, please bcc pnoscroy@nea.org (CEA staff) so the CEA lobbyists know who is being contacted.

Be brief and polite. State your name and your school district.

Thank you for e-mailing your Representative

School Finance Update
April 21, 2009

SB 256 – SCHOOL FINANCE BILL

The House Education Committee made some significant changes to the School Finance Bill, including reducing the $150 million cut to $110 million. It also maintained provisions that provide flexibility for districts.

1. Maintained Flexibility for Districts

• Capital and/or Insurance Reserves – Repeals this required set-aside for future years beginning in 2009-10
• Instructional Supplies and Materials – Same as above
• 3% TABOR Reserve – Districts can now use their buildings to fulfill their TABOR reserve requirement as the state already does; this frees up one-time money.
• Mill levy cap increase – Increases the mill levy cap from 20% to 25%, but the district must submit a plan to the State Board about the district’s proposed use of the additional funding/can include capital construction before they go to their voters. (Mill levy cap increase applies only to the handful of districts at/near the 20% mill levy cap.)

2. Reinstated Five-Year Averaging for Declining Enrollment Districts
The Committee reinstated the fourth and fifth year-averaging. This would have been a $9.4M cut in 2009-10 and a $16M cut in 2010-11.

3. Removed Cuts to Size and At-Risk factors

• Size factor – Senate version included a $3m cut to fund the new Centers of Excellence (described below) and a $140.3 million to address the solvency of the State Education Fund. The House Education Committee removed both of these cuts from the Size factor; however there remains a serious cut to K-12 funding (see below).
• At-risk factor – Senate version includes a $1.5M cut to fund the Centers of excellence; the House Education Committee removed the cut.

4. Created New Fiscal Crisis Factor
This new factor cuts $110 million off the top of the district total program to address the solvency of the State Education Fund. It is about a 2% reduction from the increase a district otherwise would have received if inflation plus one percent were fully funded. It replaces the previous $150 million cut (from Size factor and declining enrollment). While the total amount being cut has been reduce by $40 million, we believe it continues to undermine Amendment 23.

5. Changed Centers of Excellence and Identified New Funding Source ($2 m total)
This began as a method of rewarding middle/junior and high schools with high percentages of at-risk students who are achieving based on the state longitudinal growth model. The new provision maintains rewards for schools, but specifies that the rewards are for school with 75% or more at-risk students and directs CDE to identify those schools that are excelling. It also limits the funding to $250,000 for these rewards.

In addition, the new provision directs $1.75 million to the Closing the Achievement Gap program, which assists schools striving to increase their student achievement.

The $2 million in funding for the full program comes from unspent surplus money from the Read-to Achieve program.

6. At-risk Funding for Districts and Charter Schools
The committee reverted to current law and removed the provision in the bill that required at-risk money to follow the students to district and charter schools. The issue will be included in a proposal for a summer interim committee to address how best to implement this provision.

Additionally, the bill removed the “Hold Harmless Categorical”, which would have removed $6.8 million from other categorical programs to phase in the at-risk funding following students.

7. Charter School Capital Construction
The committee reverted to current law and held charter school capital construction at $5 million. The Senate version set the funding at $140/charter school student in 2009-10 (a $2.2 million increase); $160/charter school student in 2010-11; and then indexed to inflation after that.

8. Pilot Statewide Boarding School for At-risk Students
This provision was changed by committee members to be a study to assess the feasibility of creating residential schools for at-risk students, gifted and talented students and other specific groups of students.

9. Mill Levy Stabilization
The original bill proposed a “re-Brucing” measure, stipulating that if voters in a district vote to reinstate the TABOR revenue limitation and thus reduce its mills, the amount of state aid will be calculated as if the district had levied the previous number of mills and the state will not backfill the resulting reduction in the district’s share of funding. It was pulled off in Senate Education committee. In lieu of reinstating it in House Education Committee, Senator Bob Bacon and Representative Michael Merrifield are sponsoring a separate bill to address the issue.

On The Hill