Should public funds be used for out-of-school learning programs?

At its simplest, Colorado Proposition 119 would create a new program called Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress (LEAP), which would use revenue to provide financial assistance for activities such as after-school education and tutoring. The program would be funded through an increase in recreational marijuana taxes, estimated at $137,600,000 annually by 2025, plus money from Colorado’s State Land Trust. But there is quite a bit of nuance to this measure, to be discussed below.

I normally suggest that people should read the entire ballot measure text, but fair warning – the text for 119 takes up almost 13 full pages in the Colorado Blue Book. Proposition 119 would add new sections to the Colorado Revised Statutes, not the Constitution, and will only require a simple majority to pass.

WWLD? (What Would LEAP Do?)

Proposition 119 would establish a Colorado Learning Authority to oversee the LEAP program. In very short, the stated purpose would be to provide greater access to “learning opportunities” through tax-supported financial aid of up to $1,500 per “eligible student.” Priority would be given to students from lower-income families, beginning with students from families at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, while priority could be given to students who aren’t proficient to grade level standards in certain academic areas, or to students with specialized needs.

The potential learning opportunities are generally listed in the Prop 119 text, including but not limited to:

  • Tutoring and supplemental academic instruction
  • Support for youth with special needs and learning disabilities
  • Access to mental, physical, and emotional health services
  • English and foreign language acquisition
  • Programs no longer offered in some schools, such as music, arts, or career training

Part of the rationale for the LEAP program is to address “learning losses” that students might have suffered during the pandemic and “achievement gaps,” loosely defined as disparities in educational performance between classifications of students – often based on racial or economic factors. To address these issues, wealthier families are obviously more likely to be able to afford actions like tutoring for their children than poorer parents.

Per Proposition 119 language, the Colorado Learning Authority would be an “independent agency within the Department of Education.” Also, the Authority could perform functions such as budgeting, purchasing, planning, and management independently of the Colorado Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Commissioner of Education.

If the initiative passes, the Authority would need to be formed, and its duties would include developing criteria for how to solicit and certify learning program providers, how to best ensure youth safety, how to manage financial aid to students, and more. Independent financial audits would be required yearly. While financial aid to students might be available as soon as 2022, the Authority would not need to have its formal performance evaluation system in place until January 1, 2024.

The Authority would have an Executive Director, and staffing as necessary. It would also have a nine-person Board of Directors, appointed by the Governor of Colorado and confirmed by the Colorado Senate. No more than five Board members could be a member of the same political party. The initiative language says the Governor “shall” seek board members with expertise in start-up enterprises and educational services for low-income children. There would also be four non-voting members, three appointed by the Board Chair and one by the Executive Director of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs. After 2025, the Board would need to include one voting member from each congressional district, plus an at-large member to reach nine members.

Marijuana Money: Proposition 119 would create a LEAP Fund, primarily to be funded with a gradually increasing tax on recreational marijuana and marijuana products. Currently, there is a 15% tax, and if 119 passes a 3% tax would be added to the 15% in 2022, increasing to 4% in 2023 and 5% for 2024 and beyond. The new taxation above the original 15% would go into the LEAP Fund.

According to the Colorado Blue Book, the new taxation would be worth an estimated $137.6 million in the state budget year 2024-25.

State Land Trust: In short, the State of Colorado owns 2.8 million acres of trust land. and the Colorado State Land Board manages the trust, using the land to help fund Colorado public schools. This arrangement has been worth $1.7 billion to Colorado public schools since 2008.

If 119 passes, $21 million in State Land Trust funding would be diverted from the State Land Board’s Permanent Public School Fund to the State Public School Fund in state budget year 2021-22, and then the same amount of money would be transferred from the state General Fund to the LEAP Fund. This would increase to $22 million in budget year 2022-23.

Opposition Arguments: Readers might expect opposition to 119 from marijuana business groups, but certain educational groups have also registered skepticism or discontent. Notably, the Colorado Education Association initially supported 119 but changed its position to “neutral.”

For Boulder readers, the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education (the school board) recently passed a resolution against the initiative. The resolution focused on that the Authority could operate independently of state and local education oversight; that public funds might be used with private learning opportunity providers; that LEAP would be funded through a “sin tax” on marijuana plus diverting money from the State Land Board; and that state and federal programs or funding might already address some of LEAP’s objectives.

The Colorado Democratic Party also passed a resolution against 119 with some of the same concerns as the BVSD Board, and specified recent state bills and federal programs that would address some of what LEAP is proposing to accomplish:

Who’s Behind It?

As of Oct. 5, the issue committee “Yes on Prop. 119” had received $1,851,745 in contributions.
Large contributions include: Gary Community Investment Company, $500,000; Ready Colorado, $325,000; and Colorado Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization Committee, $25,000.

There is a committee registered with the Secretary of State called “No on Prop 119,” but as of Oct. 5 it had not reported financial contributions, though it reported a $7,500 non-monetary contribution. Also, the anti-119 committee Cannabis Community For Fairness and Safety reported a $5,000 donation from Organic Alternatives on Oct. 8, and the anti-119 committee Coloradans Against School Vouchers had reported a $7,500 donation from Taxpayers for Public Education and a $5,000 donation from Colorado AFL-CIO.

ON THE WEB

Ballot Measure Text: Initiative language and analysis for Proposition 119, and all other 2021 State of Colorado initiatives, can be found in the Blue Book at: https://leg.colorado.gov/content/initiatives/initiatives-blue-book-overview/ballot-information-booklet-blue-book
PRO: https://voteyesonprop119.com/
CON: I have not found an opponent website as of early October, but will keep looking.

PRO ON 119:

  • Students may have suffered learning losses during the pandemic, and academic achievement gaps have been ongoing for a long time. Financial aid from LEAP could help underprivileged students catch up with their peers.
  • The LEAP programs might allow families and students to meet targeted needs for specific students that aren’t being met during the normal school day.
  • Colorado schools don’t all offer the same courses or programs, so targeted financial aid might help students who don’t have certain courses or programs available at a given school.

CON ON 119:

  • Schools in Colorado are underfunded when it comes to meeting core needs, like retaining teachers and providing facilities. The LEAP program might not be considered a high-priority need in the face of these shortfalls.
  • The LEAP program will not have the same required oversight from agencies like the state Department of Education or Board of Education as certain other programs, which might raise questions about checks and balances.
  • Increasing marijuana taxation to pay for LEAP could be considered regressive and excessive, depending on point of view.

Richard’s Take

I’m taking sort of a “regretful NO” position on Prop 119. Basically, I think it could be great to provide extra educational opportunities for students in danger of falling behind, especially disadvantaged kids, but I don’t like several major components of this ballot measure. This includes: the methods of funding LEAP; funding separate programs when Colorado schools that provide core educational services are currently underfunded; that the actual LEAP structures are yet to be created; and that 119 creates a new large bureaucracy in which parts of its operation might be free of certain types of well-established public oversight.

A New Program When Schools Are Short-Changed?: While COVID-19 has undoubtedly been a problem in the world of education over the past 18 months, students still spend many hours in their regular school environments on a weekly basis, whether it’s virtual or in-person. In my opinion, addressing core school needs is where Colorado’s funding efforts ought to be directed.

I’ve followed education funding stats for years, and in general Colorado has lagged national averages in per-pupil funding and competitive pay for teachers, plus the state still has a several-hundred-million-dollar “budget stabilization factor” to pay down. Adequate education funding going directly to the schools can help hire high-quality teachers, pay for modern technology, maintain adequate facilities, fund security measures, and more. I’m not crazy about a big increase in marijuana taxation, but if it’s what we have to do, I’d rather have $137 million per year go toward the basics so kids can get more of what they need while they’re actually in school.

Marijuana As A Cash Cow: I’m not happy at all about feeling the need to write this, but I’ve been completely sober for years now and it’s wonderful. I’m only saying this so hopefully people won’t think I’m about to defend marijuana because I support intoxication, because I don’t.

But unlike some modern marijuana critics, I was around in 2012 when voters passed Amendment 64 to legalize recreational marijuana, and remember perfectly well that the campaign was called “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.” Also, while Amendment 64 did require the first $40 million of tax revenue to fund school facilities, marijuana taxation was never intended to fund a mountain lion’s share of Colorado’s education expenses.

Proposition 119 increases marijuana taxes by a heavy amount, and it’s in my opinion without a direct linkage to the problem it’s supposed to address. So, why not shoot for new alcohol taxation, or literally anything else? Someday I will write a painfully long column about the negative health and societal impacts of alcohol relative to marijuana, but for now, I trust readers understand alcohol abuse causes many a problem, and in my opinion there’s no reason it should be less subject to a new sin tax than marijuana.

Legalized recreational marijuana is relatively new, and it’s a fairly common first thought to consider taxing it to fund – whatever, really – but there’s a point at which tax rates can become unfair, and I believe Prop 119 would at least test this boundary. Plus, a big marijuana tax increase now might make the next increase more difficult to justify, even if it’s for a great purpose.

LEAP’s Yet To Be Formed and Will Lack Oversight: If we have learning losses due to the fairly recent phenomenon of COVID, can we really wait for a new authority to build itself and approve new sets of learning providers that parents probably won’t fully know about? Plus, I’m not necessarily a believer that you can’t have good educational programs without the Department of Education or State Board of Education, but I also like strong standards and oversight when it comes to at least the use of public funds. Even though I can’t say with certainty that any new programs wouldn’t meet reasonable standards, I’m not at all enthused that the initiative specifically allows LEAP to operate independently of these very well-established institutions.

All in all, the problems of learning loss and achievement gaps are very well known in educational circles – I even included questions about them in my Boulder Valley School District questionnaires for 2021 Board candidates, and I’m hardly an education specialist (though not a slouch)! The state General Assembly is passing bills and the federal government is providing funds to address some of what LEAP is trying to accomplish, so I’d say let’s pass on 119 and keep focusing on some legitimate issues through traditional and fully accountable means.