Local voters will face three questions on the November ballot that will help determine education funding. Some voters will undoubtedly be tempted to vote a straight ticket, either favoring all three or advocating the tax cuts that could result from defeating the measures. Those voters should consider further, because the issues are more complicated than they first appear.

Two of the questions are statewide. The first, Amendment 23, would gradually increase education funding by at least five percent each year. That sounds good, because it would increase state per-pupil funding and other state support for schools, which has decreased over the past decade. It’s funded by reducing taxpayers’ state refunds — not a popular move, but increased funding must come from somewhere.

Unfortunately, this amendment also contains a feature that makes it a bad idea. It requires a specific amount of funding to be diverted to education, on the assumption that growth in Colorado will continue apace. If growth slows, as it inevitably will, the revenue source will dry up while the constitutional mandate to fund education at that level will continue. That takes away Coloradoans’ right to make budget decisions, either by initiative or through the legislature. Education funding will be safeguarded — hardly a bad thing — but it could come at the expense of other essential services that also contribute to the health, education and welfare of Colorado’s children.

Vote "no" on 23, because writing such budgetary rigidity into the state constitution is a dangerous idea.

Referendum F is somewhat similar, reducing state income tax refunds to provide grants for math and science programs. The rationale is that Colorado’s economy depends on technologically skilled workers, and this measure — which is statutory rather than constitutional — provides a mechanism by which schools can qualify for such funding.

This referendum is less worrisome than Amendment 23, because it sunsets after five years, and because it doesn’t go so far as to write funding requirements into the state constitution. Voters who believe more education funding is needed may be more comfortable with this one.

The third measure is local, a request by Montezuma-Cortez School District Re-1 to continue for three years a mill levy that has, until now, been used to repay a bond. The mill-levy continuance is limited to three years, and the money will be used for the special building and technology fund.

Voters should seriously consider approving this measure, because it’s a relatively painless way of funding school improvements locally. It will allow for some improvements to be made while the economy is relatively healthy, and it won’t increase anyone’s taxes. The 5.1 mills is not a large tax, three years is not a long time, and the money will be used locally, rather than plowed and perhaps even lost in the state budget system.