rolling the dice

The legislative habit of gambling on the future

One of the many peculiarities of Colorado’s complex state budgeting process is the legislature’s weakness for spending – or at least promising to spend – money before it’s even collected.

The latest example popped up just last week, when the House approved House Bill 14-1342, a measure that would provide extra funding for higher education construction projects – but only if the 2013-14 budget year ends with more surplus revenues than currently predicted.

K-12 education has benefited from such tactics in the past, and there has been some fear in districts that this year’s higher ed plan might disadvantage K-12.

The scheme probably means that the State Education Fund would receive a smaller infusion of cash than it might have otherwise. But in any event the higher ed finance plan won’t affect district funding in 2014-15, an issue that’s the focus of a separate – and bigger – debate.

“It’s based on ‘if’ there’s money left at the end of the year,” said Dillon Democratic Rep. Millie Hamner, chair of the House Education Committee.

So the K-12 lobby has decided not to pick a fight over HB 14-1342 and instead to remain focused on its main goal for 2014 – persuading lawmakers to make as large a dent as possible in the state’s $1 billion K-12 funding shortfall.

“Do we like this amendment? No!” Bruce Caughey, executive director of the Colorado Association of School Executives wrote in an email to members last week. He said the CASE legislative team recommended “that we do not get drawn into a battle with higher education, the governor and the Joint Budget Committee” and remain focused on reducing the shortfall, known at the statehouse as the “negative factor.” A group of superintendents is pushing for a reduction of as much as $275 million. A pending bill, House Bill 14-1292, proposes $100 million.

That doesn’t mean HB 14-1342 will get a free ride in the Senate. Denver Democratic Sen. Pat Steadman, vice-chair of the Joint Budget Committee, doesn’t like the idea of earmarking unknown future revenues. “I’m not the biggest fan,” Steadman said Tuesday morning before the bill was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I expect we’ll be talking more about the bill on the floor,”

Budget timeline
  • The legislature will vote by May 7 on a budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year, which starts July 1.
  • That budget is based on revenue estimates that were issued in late March.
  • Actual tax collections almost always differ from those estimates, especially when revenues are increasing.
  • So, backers of HB14-1342 are betting that when the state closes its 2013-14 books next fall there will be a bigger actual surplus than was predicted this spring, providing money for buildings.

Summary of HB 14-1342

Like virtually every other budget fight, the HB 14-1342 tussle has its roots in the 2008 recession, which sent state tax revenues into a tailspin. Among the many programs cut was construction on college campuses.

Revenues have been slowly recovering over the last two years, and lawmakers, lobbyists and executive branch bureaucrats hoped the 2014 legislative session would provide the opportunity to put some catch-up spending in the 2014-15 budget.

Even before the session started, Gov. John Hickenlooper proposed a $100 million increase in higher ed operating funds, a plan widely supported in the legislature. And college leaders and lobbyists also were looking forward to a boost in construction funding.

The Capital Development Committee, a joint House-Senate panel that reviews construction projects, produced a list that included some college projects. But the committee’s plans were derailed on March 20 when JBC members announced they would back an alternative project list supported by Gov. John Hickenlooper, which included only two higher education buildings, one at the Auraria Higher Education Center and one at the University of Colorado campus in Colorado Springs.

That’s when the higher education lobby and sympathetic legislators sprang into action and came up with the plan to spend possible future money on those campus buildings. The amendment was added to the bill last Thursday and given final approval in the House on Friday.

The amended bill protects two programs that the 2013 legislature had designated as recipients of sany urplus funds – the Colorado Water Conservation Board ($30 million) and the State Education Fund ($31.1 million).

In theory, that means the SEF would get less money than it would have under a 2013 law that allocated 75 percent of any surplus to the fund. (The SEF is a dedicated account that is used to supplement state General Fund spending on schools and for other K-12 spending.)

Even with the cap on the SEF transfer, Hamner called the bill “a fair compromise,” adding, “I have to look at the bigger view” of both K-12 and higher ed needs.

If there’s enough surplus to cover the water board and SEF transfers (plus $10.3 million to be kept in the General Fund), then any money above that would go to a ranked list of higher education construction projects. There’s a cap of $119.5 million on the campus spending. If the surplus revenue is more than about $190 million, the money above that goes to the SEF.

In past years lawmakers have used the future-revenues gambit to benefit the education fund, and those gambles have paid off. For instance, the SEF last fall received slightly more than $1 billion in 2012-13 surplus funds.

And K-12 advocates are trying to go back to that well. A House amendment to House Bill 14-1298, the annual School Finance Act, proposes diverting 75 percent of any 2014-15 surplus into the SEF.

Earmarking to-be-collected funds, whatever the purpose, bothers Steadman, one of the legislature’s budget experts. “It’s not the way to do it,” he said in an interview. Noting that the legislature meets every year, he notes, “We’ll be here next year to spend next year’s money.” Budgeting should be done “in real time,” he said.

He also said earmarking too much money ahead of time might limit the 2015 legislature’s ability to make annual mid-year budget adjustments.

The Senate is considering HB 14-1342 this week, along with the main 2014-15 budget, House Bill 14-1336. Steadman says he’ll have some proposed amendments for the higher ed construction bill, so the debate will continue.

Use the Education Bill Tracker for links to bill texts and other information.

School Finance

Why some IPS schools are facing big budget cuts, and others are mostly spared from the pain

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy
School 107 is expected to lose about $230,000 next year, one of the larger cuts in the district.

At campuses across Indianapolis Public Schools, principals are grappling with a painful prospect: cutting hundreds of thousands of dollars from their school budgets. And that may be just the beginning.

The district is looking to cut about $21 million from its $269 million general fund budget for 2018-19, including about $8.9 million that will come from budgets for schools and certified staff such as teachers, according to a preliminary budget document. Officials declined to give school-by-school breakdowns until they are finalized later this summer.

The district initially planned to fill its budget gap by asking voters for nearly $1 billion in extra funding in May, but after the proposal received little support, the board first shrunk and then delayed the request. The cuts that begin next year could continue if the state’s largest district isn’t able to find other savings or win voter support for a referendum to increase taxes and school funding in November.

“We have the hope of a referendum,” said Weston Young, the district’s chief financial manager.

Chalkbeat has the details on what types of schools are expected to lose the most, what schools might cut, and what this means for the future of the district.

Big schools — including high schools — are taking the brunt of the cuts.

When it comes to cutting spending, large schools are carrying more of the burden, according to the preliminary documents. That includes middle and high schools, as well as some elementary schools. At some of the district’s smallest campuses, however, officials say budgets are already too lean for significant cuts.

Indianapolis Public Schools sends money to schools using a formula known as student-based allocation, which gives them funding based on how many students they enroll and student needs. But every school also has a baseline amount of money district officials believe they need to operate.

Small schools that serve wide grade spans, which might only have one class at each grade level, often get extra money to be sure they reach the minimum. In contrast, large campuses typically get enough from the per student formula to be above baseline. On a basic level, the district budget is based around the idea that it costs less per child to educate students in large, efficient schools.

Because of that approach, campuses that were already at minimum funding levels won’t see significant cuts, Young said. On the flip side, however, bigger campuses are shouldering a larger share of the cuts.

That could be bad news for the four high schools that will remain open in the fall. The schools will be among the largest campuses in the district, and they are expected to face significant cuts.

Last month, Superintendent Lewis Ferebee told Chalkbeat that cuts would not damage the effort to revamp high schools because, in addition to baseline funding, the schools will have donations from private partners such as Salesforce.

“Obviously, we won’t have all the resources that we’d like to have,” he said, “but we will be in a good position come August of 2018.”

Magnet schools and career and technical education get extra money — and extra cuts.

On top of their regular budgets, choice programs, such as Montessori, International Baccalaureate, and career and technical education, receive millions of extra dollars each year. That spending is also on the chopping block as the district cuts costs.

But because the district had already planned spending on those programs and some areas are easier to reduce than others, cuts won’t be spread evenly, said Aisha Humphries, director of budget and strategy for the district. In Montessori schools, for example, instructional assistants are integral to the model, she said. In order to cut that, the district would have to change the school model.

“When you do budget cuts, it may be that we want to cut equally and make everybody feel the pain equally,” Humphries said, “but you may not be able to do that.”

But there are other areas where the district can more easily cut back, Humphries said, such as by reducing the number of foreign languages offered in middle school.

Schools are giving up technology, teachers, and other staff.

As the district cuts budgets, principals ultimately decide what painful trade offs to make. Under the new budgeting approach the district rolled out this year, principals are given a set amount of money, and they have control over how they spend most it. If a principal wants to make class sizes slightly larger to pay for a school social worker, for example, they can. When it comes to budget cuts, the approach is the same.

“They are still in the driver’s seat,” Young said.

When schools got budgets earlier this year, they were built on the assumption that the district would win the May referendum. But principals knew that additional funding might not come through, and some planned for potential cuts when they created their budgets, Young said.

When principal Jeremy Baugh learned School 107 is expected to lose about $230,000 next year, he already had some potential cuts in mind. The school will cut back on new technology, instructional supplies, and professional development. Baugh also won’t go through with his plan to hire two new educators.

School 107, which enrolls just over 600 students, is expected to have one of the larger budget cuts in the district. But in part because the school is growing and will get more money for those new students, he doesn’t expect to cut current staff.

“We didn’t have to make significant cuts that were impacting staff right now,” Baugh said. “So we felt pretty lucky.”

School Finance

How much are Indianapolis teachers paid? Here are the highest and lowest paid districts in the city

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

As teachers across the country rally for more education funding and higher salaries, policymakers and the public are paying renewed attention to how much educators are paid.

Nationwide, stagnant teacher pay coupled with plentiful well-paying openings in other fields means that it’s even harder for principals and administrators to fill open positions. For some teachers, low pay is one reason they leave the classroom altogether, whether to become administrators or find another career.

In Indiana, cash-strapped districts often struggle to pay for raises even for their current staff — making it difficult to retain teachers. Educators in Indianapolis have lots of schools to choose from, and teachers can increase their pay by heading to nearby districts.

Educators in Indiana school districts made an average of about $48,743 last year, according to the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board. Pay is higher in districts in the state’s capitol, but it varies widely, with educators in the lowest paying district earning about $11,000 less on average than teachers in the top paid district. (The board only collects data on districts with teachers unions so it does not include average pay for teachers in charter schools.)

When teachers with particularly high demand skills switch jobs, they can also boost their earning by moving higher on the pay scale.

Average teacher pay in Marion County 2016-17

Source: Indiana Education Employment Relations Board collective bargaining report. (Image by Sam Park)

One reason why average pay might be higher in some districts than others is because the pay scale is higher. Starting pay in Beech Grove Schools, for example, is $38,000 per year. In Speedway Schools, a district with consistently high pay, teachers earn a minimum of $44,252.

Minimum teacher pay in Marion County 2016-17

Source: Indiana Education Employment Relations Board collective bargaining report. (Image by Sam Park)

The gap is even wider for experienced educators. In Indianapolis Public Schools, the pay scale sets the maximum salary at $72,740. That’s almost $14,000 less than the max pay for teachers in Speedway — $86,702. (Some teachers may earn more because they are still paid based on older pay scales with higher caps.)

Maximum teacher pay in Marion County 2016-17

Source: Indiana Education Employment Relations Board collective bargaining report. (Image by Sam Park)

But there’s another reason why some districts have lower average pay than others — they have more inexperienced teachers. Both Beech Grove and Indianapolis Public Schools have higher floors and ceiling for pay then they did in 2013-2014. Nonetheless, the average pay in those districts has declined, likely because they have more inexperienced teachers with lower salaries.

This year, both districts have relatively high numbers of teachers in their first year, according to data from the Indiana Department of Education. In Indianapolis Public Schools, nearly 10 percent of certified educators are new to the classroom. In both Beech Grove and Warren Township Schools, about 7 percent of educators are new.