A national study released Tuesday gives Colorado an “F” in education spending, finding the state has the fiscal capacity to do far more to fund its K-12 schools.
Colorado also earned a “D” in distribution of education dollars, a measure which looks at whether states give more to schools based on concentrations of poverty.
The report, titled “Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card,” is based on financial data from 2005 to 2007 – or before the current recession. There is an addendum based on 2008 data recently released through the U.S. Census.
Still, members of Children’s Voices, the group behind the pending Lobato v. State lawsuit, said the report’s findings are consistent with their claims.
“This report shows that Colorado falls short in providing sufficient and fair education funding to assure that Colorado’s public school children receive a constitutionally adequate education,” said Kathy Gebhardt, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Lobato suit and executive director of Children’s Voices.
The Lobato case started in 2005 when a large group of parents from eight school districts across the state and 14 school districts in the San Luis Valley sued the state, claiming that Colorado’s school finance system violates the state constitution’s requirement for a “thorough and uniform” public education system.
A Denver District Court judge ruled against the plaintiffs in 2006 but, a year ago, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned that decision and sent the case back to the lower court for trial. The number of districts involved as plaintiffs has now grown to 21.
Tuesday’s study was prepared by the Education Law Center, based in New Jersey, with the help of Bruce Baker of Rutgers University Graduate School of Education. It ranks all 50 states on four different measures, including whether they send more resources to students in poverty.
The study’s authors believe “funding should increase relative to the level of concentrated student poverty.” That’s the “funding distribution” measure on which Colorado received a “D” – 18 other states also received a “D” or “F” on that measure.
Colorado’s “F” came on the “effort” measure considering state spending relative to state fiscal capacity, or the ratio of state spending on education to per-capita gross domestic product. According to the report:
To focus on the areas over which states exert the most control, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, and Virginia receive Ds or Fs on both State Effort and Funding Distribution. So not only do these states dedicate a low proportion of their fiscal capacity towards their education system, they also have allocated that money in a way that does not systematically ensure that districts with higher poverty levels get more funding.
The other two measures considered in the study were funding level, which ranked states from highest to lowest per-pupil funding with figures adjusted to account for interstate differences, and coverage, which looked at the proportion of school-aged children attending public schools as well as the income disparity between families using private versus public schools.
Colorado ranked 35th on funding level and 12th on coverage.
Six states did “relatively well” on all four measures, the study found: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Wyoming. And four states received “below-average” ratings on each indicator: Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri and North Carolina.
Read the full release from Children’s Voices about the funding study. And read a national perspective on the study from Education Week.
The notion that Colorado gets an F for school funding because we fail to spend as much on education as some Graduate School of Education in New Jersey thinks we ought to spend is ridiculous. It is right up there with De Beers and the rest of the diamond cartel giving the state an F because not enough of the engaged couples meet De Beers’ standard that an engagement ring ought to cost three times the groom’s gross monthly income.
I’m sure that the standard is nice for the diamond industry, but it is hard to make the case that it is anything more than a ploy to get people to spend more than they were planning to spend by trying to set a new norm. Gee, why would a Graduate School of Education be trying to convince people that we’re not spending enough on education?
What next: Colorado consumers fail to spend enough on bathing suits! A detailed analysis by the Bathing Institute shows that Colorado residents spend much less than they’re capable of spending on beach and pool attire, lagging well behind California, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina,…. Luckily, we still get an A from the Tofu Trade Institute for our outstanding consumption of Tofu and Soy Milk, while those pikers in New Jersey get an F.
The notion that Colorado gets an F in school funding simply because it doesn’t spend as much as New Jersey is ludicrous on its face, and comparison with DeBeers and Tofu demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the school funding situation.
Colorado gets an F for school funding because it underspends on education, not just in relation to other states, but in relation to what students need. This issue is not for lack of funds, it is for lack of vision and leadership. This is a state that had to pass a constitutional amendment to ensure that a minimal level of funding was guaranteed. And in response, a powerful state senator, and member of the Education committee, engaged a law firm to look for loopholes that would allow the state to spend under the constitutional mandate. he then proudly announced at a public meeting, that he so supported education that he voted for a $264 million CUT in education spending.
At the end of the day, Colorado is 35th in K-12 spending, and 49th in higher education spending. Net result, an uneducated citizenry, unprepared to compete in the 21st century. But we have ski resorts, and nice mountains, so lots of tourists come here, and we have a large force of workers who will be great housecleaners, waiters and lift operators.