Colorado lawmakers take hard line on education funding changes proposed by governor

As a panel of legislators wraps up the last of its work on Colorado's next spending plan, its chair took a hard line on a proposal by Gov. Jared Polis tackling public K-12 education funding that schools say will cost them millions.

The issue deals with enrollment averaging. 

In his 2025-26 budget proposal to the Joint Budget Committee on Nov. 1, Polis said he wants to scrap the way school students are counted for the purposes of school funding.

The first deals with student headcount. Currently, the state counts students on a rolling, four-year average, which wards off enrollment swings.

Polis proposed a single-year count, which he said would save money and fund "actual students where they are, rather than where they were four years ago; thus, more equitably driving resources to where the need is."

The move could save the state about $190 million in 2025-26.

School districts criticized the proposal because it could result in the loss of millions of dollars. Last week, some 2,000 educators, students and parents showed up at the state Capitol to protest the proposal, among other issues.

In Adams 12 Five Star, for example, the superintendent said such a change would cost the district $13 million and it would mean the loss of 130 teachers, as well as result in larger class sizes and fewer academic and extracurricular options for students.

JBC Chair Sen. Jeff Bridges, D-Greenwood Village, spoke strongly against the the governor's proposal.

"We have a commitment from the people that are most engaged in this, that we will not be seeing cuts to kids this year," Bridges said. "I can tell you ... I don't think there are any people in the legislature who think we should eliminate averaging entirely this year. I think the number is zero. And I really wish that people outside this building would stop talking about that and certainly stop accusing the legislature of supporting something like that because we don't, and we've said over and over and over and over that we don't."

One of the JBC's big decisions of the day was what to do about the new school finance formula.

The bill creating the formula, House Bill 24-1448, includes a "trigger" that applies to the JBC. During the formula's six-year phase-in period, the JBC can pause its implementation based on one of two conditions: a decrease in what local property taxes cover for K-12 funding or income tax diversion to the state education fund decreases by 5% or more in the current or next budget year, as determined by the March revenue forecast.

Bridges advocated for launching the new funding formula, stating it will give to schools what it costs to educate kids. The state has underfunded low-income students, English language learners and schools in general for decades and that needs to be corrected, he said.

"This is the most pro-education JBC that the state has ever seen," added Rep. Rick Taggart, R-Grand Junction, emphasized that education is at the heart of the people on the JBC. 

That got pushback from fellow member Sen. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder.

"I don't think that whether you vote to keep the trigger or to not have the trigger has anything to do with your commitment to public education," Amabile said. 

The committee split on a vote on implementing the new school finance formula. The vote to pause the new formula needed four votes. It got three "no" votes from Bridges, Taggart and Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, one of the votes to pause the formula, raised concerns about the impact on the state education fund.

"Even though we vote on this trigger, I would still like to know where our sustainability plan is at because we do have to have a sustainability plan," she said.

"It's important for everybody to understand with regard to how unsustainable our state education fund is when you start taking a lot of money out of it," Kirkmeyer told her fellow JBC members.

The state education fund is the third prong of K-12 education funding; the first two are local property taxes and state general fund. The fund came out of 2003's Amendment 23, directing one-third of 1% of all taxable income to be deposited annually into it.

Kirkmeyer indicated that she worries that the the State Education Fund could become insolvent.

As decided by the JBC, the budget will add $150 million in general funds to the state share for public K-12 education funding and result in a total state contribution for K-12 of just over $10 billion, including $4.4 billion in general funds.

The committee next discussed how much to set aside for higher education, and what it would recommend for tuition increases.

Polis had proposed a $12 million general fund increase and a recommended tuition increase below the rate of inflation at 2.3% for resident and 2.4% percent for nonresidents. That request, however, also came with a general fund overall reduction of $38 million, with the largest cut of $20 million to the CU School of Medicine, used to draw down matching federal funds. The proposal asked the university to use other sources of funds to generate the match.

The institutions had asked for $80.2 million from the general fund, although more recently they sought a higher tuition increase at 5% with a lower general fund increase of $61.9 million.

The committee approved the tuition increases, which are expressed as a footnote in the budget bill, at 3.5%, along with a general fund boost of $7.5 million for needs-based aid and $32.3 million for the colleges and universities.

The JBC is expected to have the 2025-26 budget closed by the end of the week.