The arrogant folly of Amendment 39

Don't put funding figure in constitution

Published September 28, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

If you're in favor of improving public education, be sure you go to the polls to vote "No" on Amendment 39. This misguided measure would require school districts to spend 65 cents of every operating dollar on "classroom instruction," putting local school budgets in a constitutional straitjacket.

Does 65 cents sound reasonable? Maybe it is, but how can we be sure? It's nothing less than arrogant folly to put such an inflexible percentage into the state constitution.

What if 65 percent isn't reasonable? The amendment defines "classroom instruction" as "activities dealing directly with interaction between students and teachers, or other classroom and instructional personnel, special education instruction, tutors, books, classroom computers, general instruction supplies, instructional aides, libraries and librarians, and class activities such as field trips, athletics, arts, music and multi-disciplinary learning." That definition may sound broad, but it actually leaves many unanswered questions.

Can districts get credit for the salaries teachers are paid for work days when students are not in school? What about principals who teach part time? What about contract schools? Charter schools?

How about the cost of buses for those field trips? Transportation is not included, according to the Web site FirstClassEducation.org, which is orchestrating this multistate campaign. Neither is administration, as you might expect, as well as student support staff such as nurses and counselors, teacher training and curriculum, food services, energy and school maintenance.

Other states have recently adopted similar policies, which is all the more reason Colorado would be prudent to wait and see whether this proposal actually accomplishes anything before cementing it into our state constitution.

There's a certain amount of "let them eat cake" about this movement. "We're not against counselors," said Rep. Joe Stengel, a leading proponent of the amendment, "but if the district wants counselors, let them take the money out of the other 35 cents." At-risk kids need more support, not less, in order to get the most out of classroom instruction.

It may be true, as proponents claim, that states that spend more of their money "in the classroom" do better on standardized tests, but that doesn't prove that increasing the percentage will yield better results. After all, raising total spending, which also increases spending in the classroom, has regrettably little effect on improving academic performance.

In an attempt to blunt 39's appeal, the legislature put Referendum J on the ballot, which would place the 65 percent rule in statute and define it more broadly. It's a fairly harmless measure, but we can't see any benefits from it, either. Voters should reject Ref J, too.

The main danger to sensible policy, however, is clearly Amendment 39. Even those who believe it will deliver on its promises should balk at making it a constitutional mandate.

Vote "No" on 39.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News