The Colorado legislature is a powerful force when it comes to education as the body makes critical determinations on funding and policy. I have three wishes for the legislature to consider this upcoming session. Rather than putting forth the kinds of wishes one might choose if you were in possession of Aladdin’s lamp, I’ll stick to wishes that have a reasonable probability of coming true.

The first wish relates to school finance. Even with the limitations on available revenues set forth in the TABOR Amendment, the legislature (and both Governors Hickenlooper and Polis) have made progress in reducing (but not eliminating) the “Budget Stabilization” (or B.S.) factor that is now part of the school finance formula. The B.S. factor (formerly known as the “negative factor”) was created during the Great Recession as a mechanism to allow the legislature to balance the state budget. It works by adding funding to schools at the top of the ledger (in accordance with Amendment 23), and then sucking it back out further down the page. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled the mechanism constitutional in 2015.

According to Colorado Legislative Council, the B.S. factor reached its high point in fiscal year 2012-2013, topping out at $1.01 billion. Since that year, the legislature has chipped away at the B.S. factor, and it now stands at $572.4 million in the current year’s budget. 

Some legislators have grown weary of working on the B.S. factor every year, trying to re-arrange the School Finance Act to make it go away in a sort of fiscal shell-game, or to just remove references to the factor completely.

I wish for the legislature to continue working on reducing (and eventually eliminating) the B.S. factor. The present number of $572.4 million represents how far Colorado’s schools are still below pre-recession funding levels, not even accounting for inflation. To put that number in perspective, if school funding were increased to completely eliminate the B.S. factor, it would provide enough funding to put over 8,000 more teachers in Colorado classrooms (at present average salary levels).

My second wish also relates to school finance. The legislature will be considering two important changes to school funding this year. First, they are looking at a redesign of the state’s 1994 School Finance Act. Second they are considering changes to how local property taxes are calculated in an effort toward greater equity between communities as different and diverse as Aspen, Alamosa and Arvada — addressing the problem that some communities contribute much more in supporting education in Colorado than others.

Both of these proposed structural changes to how school funding works in Colorado are important and address real and valid problems, and they will create significant challenges. 

Redesigning the School Finance Act is likely to create winners and losers as we restructure to move funds from one district to another. Mill levy equalization will create a tax impact in those communities that have been underfunding their contributions to education. Both school districts and anyone interested in their property taxes are going to be paying attention to what the proposed structural changes mean for them and then aligning for or against these proposals according to self-interest. 

My wish is that the legislature carefully consider the arguments and points from all sides and for a thoughtful and gradual implementation toward a better framework. While some districts will benefit from a redesigned school finance formula, others will be very concerned about how they will have to lay off staff and reduce services to their students and community — a bitter pill to swallow given Colorado’s already relatively low national standing when it comes to school funding. And on the mill levy equalization front, we should all support equity in tax rates and should move towards uniform mill levies to support school finance. Having said that, efforts to achieve mill levy equalization should be gradual so no particular community is overly impacted too quickly.  

My final wish relates to the state’s system of testing and accountability. I credit the Colorado legislature for taking a hard look at the state’s testing system in 2015, following the recommendations of a state task force, and finding a middle ground between education reformers and anti-testing advocates on the number of state tests students are required to take annually. 

I wish for the legislature to follow a similar process in looking at the state’s accountability system. Familiar battle lines have been drawn among those seeking to create greater test-based pressure on schools through moving the goalposts (performance targets) further back for schools versus those who feel the current test-based accountability system is a rigged system to blame and shame our schools and educators, especially those serving our most challenged students.

I encourage Colorado legislators to create another broad-based state task force to evaluate the present system of accountability. This group would recommend meaningful changes that would preserve accountability for results but that would also do a better job recognizing that students come to school in different places in their learning. The task force would also consider and recommend other measures that could be included in the state’s accountability system, beyond standardized tests, recognizing that the skills our students need in their future are far more complex and important than what is presently measured on our state assessments.

These three wishes are attainable for our legislature in the upcoming 2020 legislative session — and I have high hopes for the New Year.

Jason E. Glass is superintendent and chief learner of Jeffco Public Schools, Colorado’s second-largest school district. He has previously served as the superintendent of Eagle County Schools and as Iowa’s director of education.