On Nov. 3, Denver voters will be asked to approve Ballot Issue 4A, a mill levy override that would raise property taxes by about $44 million for Denver Public Schools.
A mill levy is the property tax rate, and an override is a voter-approved increase to it. The district says it needs the money, and supporters say the case is real. But the question voters keep asking hasn’t been answered: what will be different?
The mill levy increase is modest per household. It would add $11.50 for every $100,000 of a home’s value, about $72 a year on the city’s median-priced home. The pressures behind it are also real. DPS has about 89,000 students and falling enrollment, and because Colorado funds districts per student, fewer kids means fewer dollars. Health insurance, utilities and special education costs are rising too.
Denver voters have approved mill levy overrides before. DPS collected $369.6 million last year from seven voter-approved overrides dating to 1988. That history is exactly why voters deserve specifics. A district that has been trusted this many times should be able to say what the next dollars will do.
To its credit, 4A is more specific than most tax requests. It would put $25.8 million toward a $1,750 raise for full-time employees, $4 million toward career and technical education programming, $2.9 million toward student mental health, $2 million toward special education, and $9.3 million toward charter schools, which state law requires districts to share override revenue with.
The flat raise means bus drivers, custodians and food service workers get a larger percentage increase than teachers and principals. That is a defensible choice, and it’s stated plainly.
But these are spending categories, not a plan for better results. Nothing in the measure sets a target for teacher retention, vacancies in hard-to-staff classrooms, or student achievement.
Earlier in the process, DPS floated incentives for teachers at high-poverty schools and extra pay for hard-to-fill positions. Those don’t appear in the final request. And in the allocation voters will see, no line is devoted to literacy, the skill that underlies everything else.
Money can help. Research on school finance reforms found that a 10 percent increase in per-pupil spending led to higher graduation rates and nearly 10 percent higher adult earnings. But the same researchers cautioned that the effect depends on exactly how funds are spent. If the details determine whether money works, a funding request that skips them leaves out the main part.
Other states show what specifics look like. Mississippi ranked 49th in fourth-grade reading in 2013. It then trained teachers in evidence-based reading instruction and sent coaches into its lowest-performing schools, spending about $15 million a year on literacy, 60% of it on coaching and intervention staff. It has since become the only state to see gains across all performance levels over the last decade.
Colorado has its own foundation in the READ Act and science-of-reading efforts, along with high-impact tutoring. The question is whether Denver’s new mill levy money would be tied to scaling what works.
Trust is also a factor. The Denver Post editorial board recently urged voters to reject the measure, citing infighting on the school board. Whatever one thinks of that argument, it shows that goodwill toward the district can’t be assumed. Stated and specific plans should help refocus the board and superintendent. Specifics can help rebuild it.
Whichever way the vote goes, Denverites should ask the school board and district leaders to commit publicly to four things:
A specific plan. Say what the new dollars will fund and why, starting with the weakest area, literacy.
An evidence standard. Back strategies with research, or pilot them with a real evaluation before scaling.
Public targets. Publish where students and staff retention are now, where we aim to be, and report progress every year.
A built-in review. When this override comes up again, decide on evidence whether to keep, change, or end each program.
Denver voters have said yes many times. Asking them to say yes again without specifics is a gamble. Giving them a plan is a better bet.
