|
||||
|
Oct. 5, 2000 BY MATT GLECKMAN
Amendment 23, which is intended to increase the base funding per pupil for Colorado students in kindergarten through 12th grade, has been called a can’t-lose proposal by some and reckless spending by others. If approved, the amendment to the Colorado Constitution would increase the per-pupil funding by the rate of inflation plus 1 percent for the next 10 years. After 10 years, the funding would increase by at least the rate of inflation. The state would be required to deposit one-third of 1 percent on federal taxable income of every individual, estate, trust and corporation into the state’s educational fund. "I have some concerns about (Amendment 23)," said Re-1 Superintendent of Schools Bill Thompson on Wednesday. "But I do feel that we need a school-finance formula that will allow us to compete on the open market for personnel. I am in favor of increased school financing," he said. Proponents of the amendment, which include the Colorado Education Network and Yes on 23, say that the amendment would restore public-school funding, which has not kept pace with rate of inflation for 10 of the last 13 years. "We are currently spending almost $500 less per pupil in real dollars than when Colorado was in the recession of the 1980’s," says the Colorado Education Network in a press release. "As a result, class sizes are increasing and teachers don’t have enough textbooks to go around. We need to make education a priority again." The organization said, "What is most amazing about the school-funding cuts is that they have come at a time of unprecedented economic growth. In the last five years, personal income in Colorado has grown at a rate of 25 percent more than the rate of inflation." According to the two organizations in favor of the amendment, the increase in funding would be used for reducing class size, improving student safety, expanding preschool and kindergarten, technology education and introducing programs to meet state standards as well as a number of other "categorical programs." However, Jon Calbara, chairman of Children First — an organization of parents who say they want to see money spent on their children, not on special interests — says that while the intentions of Amendment 23 are good, he feels that, if approved, it would lock Colorado residents into spending a large amount of money without knowing what that money will be used for or what the state’s future economy might be like. "It’s like writing a $5-billion blank check," he said. "At first glance it seems like a very good thing —I mean the idea of trying to put more money towards education seems like a good idea," Calbara said. "The fact is that this is a massive tax increase, but that is only part of it," he said. "The real danger here is that we are saying that we will increase funding for any line item no matter what the economic conditions of Colorado in the future are." Calbara said that proponents of Amendment 23 are projecting that the rate of inflation will remain around 3.7 percent. "But those of us who have been in Colorado long enough know that our economy goes up and down. "I’m glad that it is good now but there is no constitutional guarantee that it will be good forever — and that is what this law predicates itself on," the chairmen said. However, the amendment does contain a "safety valve" which would ease up educational funding after two years of "devastating" economic conditions in Colorado. "It’s not much of a safety valve," Calbara said. The chairman said that, if approved, money would be taken out of the TABOR surplus to be put into education. "But should the TABOR surplus go down or be more likely over-committed, it will still put more money into education," Calbara said. This means that, by constitution, the state legislature will have to cut funding from health care, higher education, prisons, transportation, and other items to feed this growing mandate, Calbara added. |
||||
|
Copyright © 2000 the Cortez Journal.
All rights reserved. |
