Ballot Measures Reflect States’ Shaky Economies

In an election year dominated by the pitched battle for Congress and major governors’ races, state ballot measures involving education are largely tied to a similar theme: the burden of funding K-12 programs when state finances are shaky.

“It’s all funding,” said Jennie Drage Bowser, a senior fellow in the Legislative Management Program at the National Conference of State Legislatures, in Denver.

In some cases, initiatives, constitutional amendments, and other ballot measures seek to tap new sources of funding for education. For instance, an initiative in Washington state would raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals, lower other taxes, and divert any new revenue to schools and health programs.

More indirectly, California is considering a measure to roll back a package of recently enacted corporate tax breaks. Proponents, including the state’s largest teachers’ union, say the resulting revenue could help stave off potentially damaging cuts to education.

Maine and Oregon voters will weigh plans to create new casinos that would direct part of their proceeds to K-12 education.

But in other states, voters are deciding whether to take dollars currently targeted for education programs and redirect them to other priorities—or to tax relief.

An Arizona initiative seeks to divert funding from early-childhood health and education programs to the state’s general fund.

In Colorado, anti-tax advocates are seeking to significantly restrict state and local governments’ ability to raise revenue through a trio of initiatives opposed by nearly every major education organization in the state.

Class-Size Redux

In Florida, voters are considering an initiative that would loosen a 2002 constitutional amendment dealing with class-size reduction. The new initiative, which was put on the ballot by state lawmakers and is backed by the Florida School Boards Association and the Florida Association of School Administrators, would raise the current law’s class-size caps, and give schools more flexibility in implementing the law.

Opponents, including the state’s teachers’ union, argue it’s just a way to cut funding for schools.

Under current law, classes can’t be larger than 18 pupils in prekindergarten through grade 3, 22 students in grades 4 through 8, and 25 students in high school. The ballot provision would raise the state’s class-size limits by three in K-3 and by five students in the higher grades.

The amendment also would include a change aimed at giving principals more control over how the reductions are implemented.

Under the amendment, the class size numbers would be transformed into requirements for the average class size in a particular school, instead of hard caps for each individual class. The state used that method during the amendment’s implementation period, which ended this school year.

The hard caps have created headaches for principals, said Larry Wood, the managing director for the Florida Association of School Administrators in Tallahassee. Schools have had to take drastic measures, such as busing students to other schools, simply because one or two additional children enrolled, he said.

But the initiative’s opponents—including the state’s teachers’ union—say its purpose is to shift funding from K-12 schools to other priorities. The amendment could save $350 million to $1 billion annually, according to Florida TaxWatch, a research and advocacy organization.

“It’s a money issue,” said Mark Pudlow, a spokesman for the Florida Education Association, a 140,000-member union that is affiliated with both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. “In Florida, we’ve traditionally been reticent to properly fund K-12 education.”

The Florida Department of Education said the amendment doesn’t include language related to spending.

The flexibility that principals are seeking could be achieved through legislative action, Mr. Pudlow said. But Mr. Wood said lawmakers don’t see it that way. He rejected the argument that saving dollars is the core motivation behind the initiative. “I think class-size reduction is a great thing. ... The issue is [about] tying local managers’ hands,” he said.

Oklahoma voters, meanwhile, face a pair of dueling initiatives that could affect education funding.

One would require the state’s per-pupil spending to match the average of other states in the region, including Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, and Texas.

Watching the Neighbors

“Right now, Oklahoma’s kids don’t have the same opportunity as kids in neighboring states,” said Walter Robinson, a spokesman for the Yes on 744 Coalition, which is made up of more than 20 organizations, including the Oklahoma Education Association and some Native American tribes.

The state ranks 49th nationally in per-pupil expenditures, and 48th in teacher pay, Mr. Robinson said.

But a competing initiative seeks to nullify the school spending provision by explicitly stating that lawmakers can’t be required to spend a certain amount of money on a particular program, or to make spending decisions based on actions in other states.

State Rep. Leslie Osborn, a Republican, introduced that second proposal, and warns that the school spending initiative would likely lead to cuts in other vital services, such as public safety. “Education has to be a priority,” Rep. Osborn said. “But it’s not the only priority.”

If both measures pass, the amendment with the most votes will become law, Rep. Osborn said.

Colorado voters, meanwhile, will consider a trio of measures aimed at dramatically reducing the state’s ability to collect revenue to finance a variety of services, including education.

These ballot initiatives, backed by anti-tax advocates, “are draconian,” said Deborah Fallin, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association. “They are truly a set of proposals designed to send Colorado back to the 19th century,” she said.

One measure would severely restrict local governments’ ability to collect property taxes. School districts would lose an estimated $337 million in property-tax revenue during the first year, and $1.5 billion by the end of the 10-year implementation period, according to an analysis conducted for the Colorado General Assembly. The provision would require the state to make up the difference. But opponents say it doesn’t specify a funding mechanism.

Another measure would severely restrict state and local borrowing. The third would reduce or eliminate a variety of taxes and fees, squeezing revenue streams for education and other services.

The measures are supported by the Colorado Union of Taxpayers. On its website, the group says the initiatives “are a direct reaction to poor treatment of taxpayers. This reaction is fully justified and will ultimately help create many new jobs in Colorado, while preserving local governments’ ability to provide police and fire protection and to educate our children.”

Assault on Tax Breaks

In cash-strapped California, the state’s largest teachers’ union helped get an initiative before voters that would roll back recently enacted corporate tax breaks.

The initiative could help stave off future reductions in education spending, said Dina Martin, a spokeswoman for the California Teachers Association, a 325,000-member affiliate of the National Education Association.

The proposition “ends nearly $2 billion in special corporate tax loopholes,” Ms. Martin said. “By granting these loopholes, we’re taking money away from schools.”

But opponents say the measure would further stifle the state’s stuttering economy.

“It’s fundamentally a jobs-killer,” said Nick DeLuca, a spokesman for the No on 24 Campaign. “Healthy public services depend on a healthy economy.”

In Arizona, voters will consider an initiative that would shift tobacco revenue now directed for early- childhood education and health services to the state’s general fund.

Arizona lawmakers are already counting on the money. They have built $385 million into this year’s budget, assuming that the amendment would pass. Lawmakers would have to rework the spending plan if the initiative fails.

But passage would mean the immediate end of the early-childhood programs financed by the tax, said Rhian Allvin, the executive director of First Things First, a governmental organization charged with distributing the funds.

The amendment calls for the legislature to direct the funding to health programs, but “I have a hard time believing that they would do the kind of work First Things First is doing,” Ms. Allvin said.