The case of the missing education funding

My ballot was sitting on my desk, only one blank remaining. I was confused.

Colorado Proposition 103 is supposed to restore cut state education funding by increasing our taxes for the next five years. But I distinctly remember that we passed a constitutional amendment about ten years ago that promised to increase school funding every year.

Either the Legislature has been violating the state constitution by cutting education spending, or someone isn't being quite honest (or possibly both).

Amendment 23 passed with 52.7 percent of the vote in 2000. It promised, among other things, to "(increase) per pupil funding for public schools and total state funding for special purpose education programs by at least the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for the next ten years and by at least the rate of inflation thereafter." And yet, for the past couple of years, education funding has been on the chopping block along with everything else.

I sympathize with the Legislature. Theirs is an impossible task. They are being micromanaged by us citizens with many conflicting goals.


[more]

How Did I Do? Election 2010

Are people reading my recommendations more this year? Are they starting to take me more seriously? Are people actually starting to read the issues and think about their implications before voting?

I'm not sure what happened this year, but the election results were much closer to my recommendations than they have been in past years. Probably just luck.

I called for a protest to vote "No" on all statewide ballot issues. In fact, almost all were soundly defeated. The only one that passed was a measure referred by the legislature to allow them to temporarily move the state capital in a state of emergency. Definitely not a big deal.

And voters approved every single county, city, and school district issue, including five tax increases. The only issue in the batch that I had recommended against, the Boulder Valley School District tax increase was certainly for a good cause. My concerns had to do with accountability, and hopefully BVSD will prove responsible with this new chunk of cash.

And maybe my winning streak will continue into future years.

Local Taxing Issues

For those of us living in Boulder, five of six local ballot issues this year include tax increases. Given the current financial conditions, we need to look closely at the short-term and long-term benefits of each before casting our ballots.

County Issue 1A's property tax increase was drafted in response to a confluence of three factors. State legislation required the county to spend down its human services rainy day fund; state funding for human services needs has been cut significantly; and, due to the recession, the rainy day has arrived.

Not only is it wise and humane to help people in our community who are feeling the worst pain of the economic downturn, the county is also required to do so by state law. This measure is responsibly crafted: It has a five year sunset, makes good use of public/private partnerships, and directs the commissioners to reduce the new tax as state funding is restored and conditions improve.

County Issue 1B is a new 0.15 percent sales and use tax for open space acquisition. Most people are not fans of higher sales tax, but most in the county like our open space.


[more]

I Don't Like Mondays

Ten years ago...


Mondays from Mike Ellis on Vimeo.

How Soon they Forget

Lance Armstrong had surgery today to repair the clavicle he broke while racing two days ago. Said Lance, "It's the biggest setback I've ever had in my cycling career." This from the man who quit the sport when cancer almost killed him.

Also on Monday, infamous Boulderite Ward Churchill took the stand in defense of his $94,000 per year teaching job at CU, saying, "When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann." You nailed it (and yourself) Ward.

How Did I Do? Better than the County Clerk!

Every year after the election I compare how I recommended and voted with how all of the ballot issues actually fared at the ballot box. This time, it took three days for the county to finish counting votes in Boulder County, the slowest in the entire state.

What went wrong? Well, apparently the folks doing the counting were paying attention and noticed some anomalies in the optical scanning that was picking up votes that weren't made. It took hand checking each ballot for paper dust and ink smudges, a very slow process. I guess no other jurisdictions were doing the same type of check, so they were able to finish faster. Please, nobody tell them that their vote counts may not be accurate.

Anyway, back to my own report card. First, I got 100% on the City of Boulder issues. That's right, the city voted with my recommendations on all seven of the questions on the ballot. Are that many people reading and agreeing with my blog, or are the people here just that much smarter? Basically, people agreed to continue funding the city at the current level, but not to give council more powers.

At the county level, I got one out of two. I recommended a NO vote on extending the Worthy Cause tax, and it passed with flying colors (which I could have predicted.) Oh, well. I don't think the money from this sales tax will go to any group that doesn't deserve it. I just wish people were trusted to make their own decisions on who to give to.

We did pass, in line with my recommendation, the new clean energy district, a novel way to fund, with no public expense, small renewable energy and efficiency projects. Boulder folks are smart AND generous.

On the state level, I didn't do as well. State voters ignored my recommendations on nine out of fourteen issues.

My successes: Luckily, Amendment 48, which redefines "person" in parts of the state bill of rights went down narrowly. Amendment 52 also failed -- it would have taken money from water projects, pine beetle mitigation, and other priorities that will be getting more urgent with global warming, and spent it on getting more people in their cars to ski resorts. Two out of three of the attempts by business to cripple unions also failed. Less critically, voters agreed with me that 21-year-olds are not old enough to run for state legislature.

Big losses: Referendum O would have protected our state constitution against the continued onslaught of amendments, but failed because too many people were convinced (incorrectly) that it would decrease their ability to write initiatives. Amendment 50 won, giving state casinos the right to not only stay open all night and increase bet limits, but also prevent their own taxes from going up. Two measures that would have helped with education funding went down -- Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 51, a sales tax to help people with developmental disabilities failed; I guess Coloradans as a whole are not as generous with their sales tax dollars as Boulderites. Amendment 54 passed. Like Amendment 41 in a previous election, it takes a semi-reasonable idea (in this case preventing undue influence by government contractors) and pushes it way beyond reasonable, probably way beyond constitutional.

Mixed blessings: Also failing was Amendment 46, which would have ended affirmative action in the state. No doubt it is still useful, but symbolically it still grates. And Referenda M and N also passed contrary to my recommendation. These remove so-called obsolete clauses from the state constitution, although I wasn't convince in either case that we had the whole story.

Yes, this Insomniac is out of touch with the Colorado voter, and proudly so!

The Grand Compromise -- Colorado 2008 Amendment 59

One of the worst abominations that has been added to the Colorado Constitution by virtue of the current ease with which citizens can amend it was called TABOR, or the Tax-Payers' Bill of Rights. It says, among other things, that the state can't spend any more money each year than the previous year, plus population growth plus inflation. This is regardless of tax revenue that has been brought in (which must be refunded if in excess of this amount), any economic conditions, the fact that the cost of some things rises higher than inflation, or the fact that a down economic year may force the entire state's spending to "ratchet" down for all future years. This law was designed purposely to cripple government by one of our state's laughing stocks, Douglas Bruce.

[The other laughing stock is the City of Boulder.]

Another item added to the state constitution a few years back, in response to TABOR, was Amendment 23. It requires the state to increases its funding on P-12 education every year.

Of course, just having the limits of TABOR guaranteed that the state government would go into crisis eventually. But when you added in the bad economy a few years back and then Amendment 23, things got pretty bad. The state had to cut spending on just about anything that moved that wasn't constitutionally mandated. For example, spending for higher education was decimated. This explains why we see items like Amendment 50 which would fund community colleges with gambling taxes, and Amendment 58 which would fund college scholarships using oil and gas severance taxes. Note that every single earmarked tax proposal includes a so-called "de-Brucing" clause, which says they get to keep and spend all the money that comes in, instead of refunding it.

Members of the state legislature tried to come up with a compromise to put on the ballot but were not able to get it passed. So, instead, they created this citizen's initiative, Amendment 59.

Amendment 59 eliminates the requirement for the state to refund "excess" tax collections. Instead, the money that would have been refunded is put into the State Education Fund, which is used to pay for P-12 education. It also creates a savings account within that fund, with 10% of the fund revenues saved per year. Finally, it eliminates the Amendment 23 requirement that education spending go up every year. (In fact, education spending may actually go down, as money is put into the savings account.)

Given the state of the economy, it is likely that tax revenues will not be increasing and no new money will actually make it into the State Education Fund for a while. But eventually when the economy recovers and tax revenues increase faster than inflation, there will almost certainly be money to add. However, as more and more items get "de-Bruced", I assume this amount will go down.

The long-term benefit of this is elimination of the conflict between TABOR and Amendment 23. The short term benefit is pissing off Douglas Bruce. I'm not sure which is the more compelling reason.

Vote YES on Amendment 59.

Oil for Roads or Oil for Colleges? Colorado 2008 Amendments 52 and 58

When companies in Colorado take nonrenewable resources out of the ground (such as coal, gold, oil and natural gas, but mostly from natural gas), they pay a severance tax in order to compensate the state for the permanent loss of those resources. This is on top of the income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., that they pay to do business in Colorado. The rate is between 2% and 5%, but with tax credits and exemptions it actually works out to an average rate of 1.3%. This is the lowest effective severance tax rate in the large-producing western states region.

The revenue gained from the severance tax is split evenly between the local governments affected by the extraction and several state programs. The bulk of the state money is spent on water projects, but some of the revenue is spent on wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance, invasive species such as pine beetles and zebra mussels, soil conservation, renewable energy, and a few other priorities.

With the current energy boom, severance tax collections are expected to increase significantly in the next few years, although of course there are no guarantees.

There are two measures on the Colorado ballot this year that would affect the severance tax, and they need to be considered together. In fact, if both pass, there are contradictory provisions and it is not clear how they would be resolved.

Amendment 52 is a constitutional amendment, which means its provisions would likely prevail in court and would be harder to change. It would not impact the money provided to local governments. But in the portion allocated to state programs, the amount spent on current priorities would be capped at the prior year's amount plus inflation, and the remainder would be allocated to transportation projects. Within these transportation projects, special emphasis would be placed on reducing congestion on I-70, the major east-west highway in the state that provides the majority of access to the mountain resorts.

So, this amendment would be enshrined in the constitution, making it impossible to change without another vote of the people. It would potentially conflict with and trump another legally passed measure. It would remove revenue from a number of important state spending priorities. Some of there priorities are likely to need more money because of rising energy costs and global warming, such as water projects (global warming is predicted to increase droughts in this state), invasive species (pine beetles have already laid waste to the pine population on the Western Slope and have begun to make their way through the Front Range), renewable energy, and low-income energy assistance. And it increases spending on roads, which will only exacerbate the energy and global warming issues. Not only that, by focusing on a single transportation corridor, I-70, the interests of most of the state or ignored for the benefit primarily of the ski industry.

Oh, and once the state legislature sees this new revenue stream for transportation, what's to stop them from decreasing its allocation from the general fund?

I don't see a single reason to vote for Amendment 52.

Amendment 58 approaches the severance tax issue from a different angle. First, it increases the effective severance tax rate by making three changes. Currently, companies can apply a large chunk of their property taxes to effective eliminate a big chunk of the severance tax, and this amendment would eliminate that tax credit. The amendment applies the severance tax to a number of smaller wells currently exempted. And it changes the multi-level tax rates (between two and five percent) to a single level (five percent), while exempting smaller companies from the tax.

Plus, Amendment 58 is a statutory amendment, meaning that the state legislature can adjust this as necessary when things change over the years.

So far so good. There really is a cost to the state when companies permanently extract natural gas from beneath our ground, and companies are largely not paying that cost. This measure would fix that. Even after the increases, our effective severance tax rate would remain the third-lowest among the large-producing western states. Nobody is going to stop drilling or significatly raise natural gas prices.

Amendment 58 also changes how the severance tax revenues are spent. Sigh. I knew this wasn't going to be so easy.

Amendment 58 takes 44% of future severance tax revenues and splits them according to the old formula. According to projections, over the next four years, these older priorities should get about the same amount of money as they do today (because the expected increase in extraction and the increased effective tax rate would make up for the loss of 56% of the total income).

This 56% would be split among a new set of priorities. Most of the money, 60% would be applied to a new fund providing college scholarships to low and middle income Colorado residents. The remainder would be spent on wildlife habitat, energy efficiency and renewable energy, transportation projects in areas affected by the oil and gas industry, and small community waste water and drinking water projects.

Who can argue against college scholarships, especially given that the state has hugely cut spending on higher education? The other priorities all seem good. It is more earmarking, but at least we're earmarking a revenue stream that has historically already been earmarked.

So, this one has a new revenue stream I can live with and reasonable, albeit earmarked, priorities. And some of the new priorities actually help with energy and climate change issues, which is where the severance tax revenue should be spent if it has to be earmarked.

Vote NO on Amendment 52.
Vote YES on Amendment 58.

And, whatever you do, don't vote for both of them!

What Are the Odds I'm Going to Vote for This? Colorado 2008 Amendment 50

A while back, the people of Colorado voted to allowed "limited gaming" (gambling) in three mountain towns, ostensibly to help preserve their historical character. Now they've gotten the taste of money and they want more, and they are prepared to bribe us to get it.

Currently, the Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek allow slots, blackjack, and poker. The maximum bet on anything is $5. And the casinos must close between 2:00 AM and 8:00 AM.

Under Amendment 50, the casinos in those three towns (with the approval of the local voters) would be allowed to stay open all night, add roulette and craps, and up the maximum bet to $100.

They have another big ask, which has not been so well advertised: Currently the gaming tax is 20%, but the gaming commission has the right to up that to 40%. But if this measure passes they would require a statewide for any such increase.

For comparison, the gaming tax in Nevada is 6.75%, in Atlantic City is 9.25%, in Mississippi is 24%, and in Pennsylvania is 55%.

So what would we get in exchange for turning our "family-friendly" $5 bet casinos into all-night, high-stakes joints with even more ways to lose your money, and for protecting the casinos from the threat of paying higher taxes?

First of all, the gaming commission has to figure out what portion of the gaming tax revenues are attributable to this new rule. I guess that means casinos have to separately track all bets between 2:00 and 8:00 AM, all bets on roulette and craps, and all bets over $5. (I'm wondering if the casinos suporting this issue are budgeting for this new expense.) This money would not be subject to the TABOR limits that restrict increases to tax revenue.

Then the amount of gaming tax that exceed the revenue from fiscal year 2007 would be deposited into a special fund, and distributed 22% to the local governments of those three towns (based on how much increased revenue they brought in because of this new law) and 78% to community colleges in the state. Of course, that is dependent on the amount of tax revenue actually going up.

So, to summarize, we turn these three towns into high-stakes gambling destinations, destroying what little historical character they have left. We protect the casinos from a potential doubling of the casino tax. We give the local governments a bribe to encourage them to make these changes. And if there is any money left over (remember, we're in a recession, and who knows how many people will be willing to bet $100 at a clip) it can be used to support community colleges. That would be instead of actually funding them at a responsible level.

Vote NO on Amendment 50.

Why'd He Do It?

On my run today, I came upon a dead skunk in the middle of the trail, so far decomposed it no longer smelled. On the way back, I stopped to watched a green snake slithering through the grass.

No particular reason, but I started thinking about Senator McCain's presidential campaign. Have you seen any of his ads? I generally TiVo through them, but occasionally I can't, and I get to see how he's positioning himself for the biggest job in the world. And that is: By insulting his opponent and telling tales that are so close to being lies that the camera has to focus high on his face to not show the smoke curling from his pants when he approves the ads.

You know I used to have quite a bit of respect for the Arizona Senator, back when he really seemed willing to stand up to people on both sides of the political fence. He used to think the fundamentalist right was an evil influence on politics. Then he actively sought out the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who actually is working towards nuclear war with Iran so that Israel will be destroyed and he (Hagee) can proceed directly to Heaven without having to pass Go. He promised to nominate Supreme Court justices that would vote for evangelical causes. And then he went and selected fundamentalist Gov. Palin as his running mate.

Why did he pick her? Well, my theory is that he had to do something drastic to stop Obama's convention momentum. Democratic excitement, and the biggest on-site and television audience in political convention history, and all that stopped cold by talk about Sarah. Perhaps a good short-term decision, but he's going to have to live with this longer term.

And speaking of Palin, what's up with her idea of teaching creationism in public schools? Suppose we did just that, put intelligent design on the high school science curriculum right next to evolution. To be intellectually honest, we would have to hold it up to the light and point out all the flaws in this so-called scientific theory. If you are a supporter of evolution (and who isn't), that might be intellectually satisfying. But, if actively supporting a specific religion in public school is unconstitutional (as it surely is), then actively pointing out the flaws in a specific religion is just as unconstitutional. Therefore, the science teacher would be prevented from saying anything negative about intelligent design, which would completely defeat the purpose of the "science" part of the science class.

Not to mention putting all those kids in the middle of the controversy, making them pawns in some religio-political battle. No, that should be done at home.

Walking the Walk

A few weeks ago, I suggested that people find ways to add more walking into their lives. Well, great minds think alike.

A group of parents in south Boulder has started a "walking school bus" named the "Darley Dart", which takes children to Bear Creek Elementary once a week. They plan to add two more routes this spring.

Yes, anybody can do it. The parents in this case got a Safe Routes to School grant to help them get it going. And now, their are fewer cars on the streets, the kids are getting exercise and having more fun, the parents are spending more quality time with the kids. Is there anything not to like about this idea (other than the fact that more people aren't doing it)?

Is It True They Eat Their Own Young?

Anyone who has lived in Boulder for a while knows about Jon Caldara and the Independence Institute. Jon had a column for a while in the Daily Camera in which he enraged local liberals with his very conservative views. Jon is president of the Independence Institute, a local "non-partisan" think tank that promotes a libertarian view point.

That's why I was shocked to read a study published by the Independence Institute highly critical of Bill O'Reilly and his coverage of the Boulder High School/Conference on World Affairs controversy. I found the study after following a link in a comment to my earlier post on this topic (yes, I read the comments).

There is also a podcast of Caldara discussing the study with its author, Dave Kopel. It was fascinating to hear Caldara struggle to make sure we all knew he was true to his conservative base, that he still thinks Boulderites are clueless, while attacking one of his own for Michael-Moore-like tactics.

Of course, never mind that Jon Caldara uses one of Michael Moore's worst tactics: creating a caricature of some of the people you disagree with, and then attacking all people who disagree with you based on that caricature.

In any case, I thought Dave Kopel did a good and fair job in his analysis, and was much better at leaving his own opinions out of it (or at least presenting the other side along with his opinion).

Some of the highlights of the report:

• O'Reilly lied when he said that all Boulder High students were required to attend the panel discussion.
• O'Reilly lied when he said the same people have been invited back next year.
• O'Reilly's crew committed a felony home invasion as part of their investigation, and then broadcast that crime on television.
• O'Reilly is being hypocritical, in that in his own book he advises middle school and high school students, "I’m not going to tell you to avoid sex, because in the end you’re going to do what you want anyway. ... Sex is best when you combine sensible behavior with sincere affection.”
• O'Reilly took quotes out of context to completely change the meaning of what some speakers said.
  • For example, he used one quote to show that a panelist was telling kids to not use condoms, when in fact the speaker was telling the kids just the opposite.
  • Same thing with 12-year-olds having sex: The speaker in fact said there was never any good reason for 12-year-olds to have sex, while O'Reilly's quotes out of context imply otherwise.
  • Same thing when O'Reilly claimed that the speaker was promoting homosexual experimentation.
  • A panelist's warnings about drug use were presented as promoting drug use.

If you think you know what happened at the panel and you are outraged, I suggest you read this report, rather than blindly following the outrage-on-demand factory that is Bill O'Reilly.

Tenure's After

So, a bunch of Republican state legislators got together and demanded (yet again) that Ward Churchill be fired. That seems rather stupid to me.

It's not that I'm not sympathetic. Apparently Professor Churchill has proven himself a terrible scholar and probably should be fired. It's just that, by demanding that the University bypass its own policies, they are encouraging the view that this entire thing is merely a political firing. That will only increase the likelihood that Churchill's inevitable wrongful firing lawsuit will succeed.

If we're going to fire people for making up facts and taking credit for other people's ideas, then I think we should take it further. We need to apply the same standard to our politicians. Let's investigate the lies by State Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany and his buddies casting stones at the University's glass house. Let's make a list of all the times they have taken credit for someone else's work. Then, we'll pick someone who knows nothing about the situation to publicly demand the ouster of the offending politicians.

Oh, and while we're at it, we should also demand the firing of any media pundits who are doing similar things. That means you, Bill O'Reilly.

Or maybe all we need to do is admit that, whether you are a university professor, a politician, or a pundit, being self-righteous does not make you right.

Only In Boulder

Well, it's happened again. The Denver and national media is focused on Boulder, and what nut cases we are. People in my office are accosting me with facts about how outrageous we are. And that just makes the people of this town, well, to be honest, it makes us feel morally superior.

I can't begin to list the number of times it has happened over the years. Mostly the Denver shock jocks. This time it started with the KOA Denver radio host, Dan Caplis, but then even Bill O'Reilly got into the picture.

Yes, Mr. O'Reilly is up in arms about Boulder -- specifically Boulder High and the local school board. It seems that the Conference on World Affairs held a panel at Boulder High and invited the students, which they do every year. In fact, they held four panels, three of which generated no controversy: "Latin America: Political Forecast," "Marijuana Policies," and "Borat - Humorous or Hurtful."

But the fourth panel was titled "STDs: Sex, Teens and Drugs," and included a frank discussion of safe sex and drug use. One student complained to his parents, who complained to the school board. The school board initially apologized, and then back pedaled, saying the only error was that some students were required to attend the panel.

Now most Boulder residents don't know who Dan Caplis is, since he doesn't host the World Music hour on KGNU (the local left-of-Ward-Churchill public radio station). And they have only a vague idea that O'Reilly is a slim version of Rush Limbaugh, or perhaps just some weird half man/half bear that Stephen Colbert idolizes.

But now these media celebrities, who don't live in Boulder and who don't have kids at Boulder High, are pronouncing that students were forced to go to a seminar where they were encouraged to have wanton unprotected sex and use illegal drugs. Not the only lie foisted on the listeners and viewers eager for the next outrage. For example, O'Reilly stated that the school has invited the same folks back next year. While Boulder High will continue to host CWA events in future years, the same panel and the same speakers are not on the schedule (which of course doesn't even exist yet).

And now the principal, the superintendent, and the school board president are cowards because they refuse to talk to the O'Reilly and Caplis media machines and their loony followers who are harassing them non-stop.

There was a letter in today's Camera that made me laugh. Jack Strichman, upset about the panel, questioned whether the school district would be the subject of lawsuits when an attendee of the panel died of AIDS or an overdose of drugs. Amusing, when the panelists were encouraging responsible behavior, while Mr. Strichman clearly believes that children should not be taught responsible behavior. If his child were to suffer such a fate, I might not hold him directly to blame, but I would say that he could have done a better job for preparing that child for the realities of life.

The critics of this panel are quick to say that our children should be protected from such talk. In fact, the students we are talking about are not children, they are high school students, almost adults. If you as a parent have not instilled your moral beliefs in your children by that age, I would say that you have failed. If you can't trust your child in a discussion of beliefs that are different than yours, then you have lost your child. High school students are exposed very day to ideas just as "radical", on TV, on the Internet, from their friends, at the mall, etc.

So, Bill O'Reilly and friends, please keep it up. We Boulderites are all into feeling good about ourselves, and disapproval from you only helps!

65 Percent Solution is a 35 Percent Problem (Colorado Amendment 39 and Referendum J)

Two issues on the Colorado November ballot attempt to codify the amount of money spent by school districts on so-called direct classroom expenses. Amendment 39 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution, while Referendum J is an attempt by the state legislature to present a slightly more palatable option. Both specify that school districts must spend at least 65% of their budgets on such expenses (although the two differ in the definition of classroom expenses).

My first question, which I have not heard answered by anybody, is why 65%? Has there been some magical study that showed that spending at least that percentage better teaches our children? Or was that number just pulled out of somebody's hat to create a rallying cry?

If Amendment 39 passes, 166 school districts across the state (out of a total of 178) will somehow have to come up with a combined total of $278 million annually. That's $1.7 million each year for the average district. But these districts won't easily be able to raise the additional revenue, so what it really means is forced budget cuts across the board in "non-educational" areas.

Supporters of Amendment 39 would have you believe that it will magically increase spending in the classroom without increasing taxes. It will not. It is a stealth measure to cut public school spending.

What does this mean? Expect any and all of the following:

• Firing principals, nurses, counselors, bus drivers, and food service workers


• Eliminating teacher training


• No cuts in student testing (which is mandated by law)


• Drastic cuts in college placement, health services, food services, and transportation


• School boards are probably safe, but expect public pressure for them to eliminate meals at meetings or some other drivel


• Deferring building maintenance and repair, as well as new construction


• Major cuts to school administration (this includes things like paying teachers and buying computers)

None of these cuts will be acceptable to the public, and so then what happens? Currently, about 8% of school budgets are already earmarked, which leaves a small group of spending areas that will have to be hit hard.

What about Ref J? In its favor, it wisely puts this rule into a state statute, which at least allows tuning the process as we learn about all the pitfalls to come. And it includes more types of expenses as classroom expenses (specifically principals and support staff). This means that most districts would be compliant at the start: Only three districts would have to make up a total of about a million dollars per year. But it still has the same fundamental problem of defining an arbitrary spending level for every single school district in the state.

In both cases, this is an example of the state trying to shoehorn a one-size fits all solution onto everybody, without regard for local concerns. There is no compensation for different local requirements for transportation, school lunches, utilities, and other expenses that may vary widely.

Ref J at least allows local voters to opt out of this arrangements. Any school district could by simple vote remove itself from having to meet the 65% rule. But Amendment 39 has no such safety clause.

There's another difference that jumps out at you if you read these two measures. Amendment 39 is obviously written by a bunch of ideologues trying to force their world view on the rest of us. Referendum J, as it was written by experienced lawmakers, at least has the appearance of considering all of the impacts, contradictions, and potential confusion of the measure.

So, what happens if a school district doesn't meet these new rules? They can always apply for a waiver, which may or may not be granted. If it is, they have another year to comply or to file for another waiver. If the waiver isn't granted, well, then unspecified sanctions just might be applied by the general assembly.

Or not.

Vote no on Amendment 39. If you strongly support this issue, vote for Referendum J as the lesser of two evils, but I'm voting no.

Who's Number One?

The Boulder Valley School Board is considering getting rid of high school class ranks. It turns out that the formula for calculating GPA counts core classes higher than electives, which means that an A in a college prep class counts more than an A in an elective. What this means is that the student taking the "more well-rounded" curriculum may pay for it in their ability to meet college entrance criteria, or in the super-competitive race for valedictorian.

I think they are dancing around the real issue here. The trouble is, it is hard to determine class rank among all the students with an A grade-point average. But why are so many students getting straight As? Don't grades mean anything any more?

Apparently not. Today, well over half the students going to college have straight A high school GPAs. This is almost double the number from when I went to school. [Exercise for the reader: When did this lunatic graduate from high school?] This is while SAT scores have fallen by an inflation-adjusted 140 points.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Start giving Cs, Ds, and Fs again. Make students work hard for that A, and even for the B. When I was in high school, I had to walk uphill in the snow to get an A, and today's students should have to do the same. [Ok, let them bring their iPods.] Students (and their parents) should not expect automatic As. The average student should get a C.

When it comes down to it, colleges don't count grades and class ranks very much in their entrance criteria anyway. They just don't mean anything. And you don't need a 4.0 average to figure that out.