Heavy Denver snowstorms and the return of the Colorado Rockies from baseball’s spring training join the increasingly frenzied pace at the Capitol to signal that May will soon be here. I’m kept busy with work in both Judiciary and Agriculture, Natural Resources & Energy committees and with more hours on the senate floor as we pass or dispense with a flurry of bills from both the House and Senate.
The annual school finance act is still to come and other K-12 education bills are also showing up. One somewhat controversial bill involves funding for charter schools on par with other district schools. I’ve received a fair amount of email both objecting to and supporting the bill. I understand the concerns expressed about sharing greater funding with charter schools. That said, I am, and always have been, a supporter of charter schools since first becoming familiar with them when my now grown daughter expressed an interest in 5th grade in attending a Durango charter middle school.
Charter schools provide a choice for students, and their parents, to find the best educational fit for the student. In today’s world of “traditional,” charters, private and homeschooling and even online options, we see that many students do better, academically and socially, in different settings. This has special significance in inner city urban areas of Colorado, but it is also important in the less populated regions as well.
Engaging students and parents in the consideration and selection of the best option for each student helps provide consumer choice and often, although not always, leads to greater engagement and student achievement. I’ve seen great success stories out of charter schools, yet I recognize that not enough progress has been made in funding them since my daughter attended one more than 15 years ago, so I am supportive of the bill as it now stands.
Another area of school funding that should be seriously addressed is what has been called the “negative factor.” The failure to follow the voter approved constitutional directive in funding schools was deemed necessary during the recession as the state budget was strained to provide other state services, especially increased Medicaid spending, besides education. This was the same time period when nearly $500 million of severance taxes was moved to backfill the budget for all sorts of programs other than to pay for the infrastructure that was to have been built with those taxes.
While state budgeting is tethered to reality more strongly than federal government spending, Colorado needs to address its budgetary shortcomings, which necessarily includes the voters in deciding how we will prioritize our finite resources. If the ballot initiative for a Colorado single-payer health care system passes, with a projected annual budget of $38 billion in new taxes, in my view, state funds available for K-12, higher education, transportation and other areas will fall further down the list than they already are. You can read an independent analysis of Amendment 69 at Colorado Health Institute’s website.
Colorado’s initiative process provides an opportunity for greater voter budgetary prioritization than in states without this way of passing laws and constitutional amendments, but the caveat of “buyer beware” should be printed on each ballot. It’s not too early to be learning about the many initiatives that voters will have before them in November.
Ellen Roberts represents Senate District 6 in Colorado’s General Assembly. The district encompasses Montezuma, Dolores, La Plata, Archuleta, Montrose, San Miguel, San Juan and Ouray counties. Contact Sen. Roberts by phone at (303) 866-4884, or by e-mail [email protected].Editor’s note: With the legislative session drawing to a close, state Sen. Ellen Roberts will resume her off-season schedule of writing he column on a monthly basis.
