CU Independent presents opposing viewpoints of two CUI opinion writers reflecting on Amendment 66. Opinions herein do not reflect the CU Independent or any of its sponsors.
For Amendment 66: Lauren Thurman
Hot on the ballot this election year was state constitutional Amendment 66 — or, as most of the populace referred to it, “Oh, the education one, right?” Hot as it may have been, it was stone-cold dead on election night, and we are much the worse for it.
Colorado is among the least tax-burdened states in the country, ranking in the bottom 10 for the past five years. Colorado is also, unsurprisingly, one of the nation’s biggest misers when it comes to education spending. K-12 funding has dropped by almost $5 billion in the last five years, bringing Colorado from No. 35 in the country for education spending to No. 49. Out of Colorado’s 178 school districts, 70 of them hold school only four days a week, primarily for financial reasons. Arts programs are being cut left and right. A small tax increase seems like a no-brainer. Surely we’d have enough of a sense of shame to suck it up and invest in the literal future of our state.
Apparently not. The most popular argument among those who voted no (aside from “my kids are out of school, so buzz off”) is that the amendment would have been, like previous initiatives, about as effective as a bandage on a ruptured spleen. The general assumption was that the funds would be sent into a mysterious void, probably ending up in the pockets of administrators, with no real effect on classrooms or jobs.
This was little more than unfortunate misinformation. The bill was kind of groundbreaking in terms of comprehensiveness and transparency. Amendment 66 (full text here) included annual audits of what would have been called the State Educational Achievement Fund, the results of which were to be made conspicuously public knowledge so that an open dialogue could develop between taxpayers and legislators.
Amendment 66 would have also ensured that a minimum of 43 percent of state revenue was channeled into education starting in 2014, eliminating the possibility of cuts farther down the line, giving our kids some semblance of security.
It is unfortunate that Amendment 66 was brought to the public while the economy was still in recovery, while faith in the government was still at a profound low, and that we will never get to see what good could have come of it. This bill packed a punch. That one of the amendment’s chief opposition groups was called “Coloradans for Real Education Reform” is, then, pretty funny in a cry-into-your-ice-cream kind of way. It was the kind of thought-out, proactive legislation I would consider “real” reform. Where are all the counter-proposals the opposition groups seem to have up their sleeves?
That was a rhetorical question. There are none.
Contact CU Independent staff writer Lauren Thurman at Lauren.thurman@Colorado.edu.
Opposing Amendment 66: Ryan Hite
Amendment 66 failed at the polls with an overwhelming 66 percent voting it down. It was just the latest of many education-focused tax increases proposed in Colorado in recent years, and it was the most comprehensive yet.
It was not a failure on the part of raising awareness, because the pro-66 groups out-raised anti-66 groups 10 to one. It was not that the people of Colorado did not want to increase education funding. Proposals to increase local taxes for school districts passed in the same districts that shot down Amendment 66, and many people want to see education reform. The ultimate issue was with the nature of the bill and the timing of the bill.
Many supporters touted that Amendment 66 was a bill “for the kids,” but the bill itself was too vague about where the money was actually going. It touched on issues that sound promising — expanded pre-k, improved evaluation, an innovation fund — but all the language was about programs and services, not outcomes for kids. Basically, it said too much about the numbers and not enough about the human results or goals.
In addition to those promises, the bill would be financed by a large tax increase for all Coloradans, especially the middle class and the small businesses that are still recovering from the economy. The bill would pool all the money together and then allocate the funding to schools based on income, demographics, and funding levels.
Colorado is a state with some large, rich school districts and some small, poor districts. Because the funding allocation would be unequal, many families from the largest school districts would actually be getting less money back than they were putting in. They’d throw a ton of money to school districts that are either losing students and on their last leg, or to school boards that may not use the money to help students. Instead, the money would fund massive reform projects that would hurt schools, and pay for retirement accounts and administrative costs, which increased 83 percent in the past few decades.
Ultimately, it was shot down because middle-class families would be hurt by the income tax increase and not even see reform because they also live in large, rich school districts.
There are ways to make schools better than throwing more dollars from taxpayers at the problem.
Contact CU Independent Staff Writer Ryan Hite at Ryan.hite@colorado.edu.
