The General Assembly finished its work with a flurry, not a whimper. The Joint Budget Committee (JBC) managed to outplay Gov. Jared Polis with its final amendments to the School Finance Act.

Polis is all in on “innovation” with public school money, even if innovation includes jiu-jitsu lessons for private school students. He didn’t want legislation to stop flim-flam related to Education Re-Envisioned BOCES’ (ERBOCES) distribution of state tax money to unvetted “education” providers. ERBOCES pushed out more than $110 million for “enrichment” programs for about 8,000 home-schooled and private-school students across the state. Providers included micro schools comprising as few as two families’ children. Other instances involved lacrosse trainers and skiing lessons.

The JBC cleverly placed an amendment to BOCES’ scope of action in the School Finance Act (SFA), which Polis doesn’t dare veto. This bill-length amendment will do the job of taming ERBOCES’ enrichment program racket. BOCES may no longer serve students outside their authorizing districts. BOCES may no longer underwrite “contract” schools that get around state statute for how schools using public money operate. State Rep. Emily Sirota of the JBC made a forceful case for this amendment to prevent exploitation of loopholes in state statute.

State Rep. Ken DeGraaf of El Paso County objected to the BOCES amendment. He claimed in debate providing state funds to home-schooled and private-school students is a beneficial use. He asserted the BOCES amendment would eliminate “innovation.” He noted horseback riding lessons for private school students paid with public funds may be considered innovative. Then he asserted the amendment was socialism. Who knew?

Gov. Polis, in alignment with DeGraaf, did manage to stop a draft bill to put “guardrails” on his opt-in to President Donald Trump’s Education Choice for Children Act (ECCA). ECCA allows taxpayers to receive up to $1,700 in tax credits when they donate funds to Scholarship Granting Organizations offering scholarships to students for various educational purposes, including paying tuition for private-school education. The bill would have prohibited discrimination in the distribution of funds based on state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

As an alum of La Jolla Country Day School in the San Diego area, it’s easy to see why Polis finds offering public money for private-school scholarships attractive. He got that private-school education, thus all kids should. He doesn’t want to go for a tax increase to fund it, but he is willing to use a tax credit.

The governor justifies his position by asserting the tax credits are not tax dollars per se, and thus are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. Of course that’s the kind of thinking that allowed ERBOCES to pitch $110 million in public dollars out a window. In any case, Colorado governors should always support anti-discrimination laws when public dollars are used. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or disability is pernicious and, until recently, generally unlawful.

Gov. Polis is term limited. After his June veto date, he won’t be in the legislation business. Voters will want to know how candidates for governor and state Senate and state House of Representatives stand on these issues.

School finance represents almost one-quarter of the state budget. The state pitches in $5 billion plus, and local property taxes cover the remaining $5 billion, plus or minus. The state is losing school-aged population. Schools are funded on a per-student basis. Every child who receives an ECCA scholarship for private school in order to leave a public school depletes that public school of about $13,000. This trim threatens the principle of publicly funded public education as a public good and public necessity.

If scholarships can be issued in a discrimination environment, it’s easy to predict the most expensive-to-educate public school children will no doubt not be on the receiving end of the money.

Candidates from both parties need to publicly state their commitment to public schools or using public money to finance private education. This discussion should extend to the role of charter schools in the public school arena, especially when the charters do not or cannot educate children from discrimination-protected classes.

Governor candidate U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet was educated at St Albans, a prominent private school in the D.C. area. Governor candidate state Attorney General Phil Weiser was educated in a public school in New York state. Bennet, as superintendent of Denver Public Schools, launched its pro-charter options. Weiser’s office provided guidance to the Colorado Department of Education and no doubt to the JBC on BOCES statute and ERBOCES’ uses of state law. Weiser has spent his Attorney General career cracking down on fiscal and discrimination bad actors.

The question for voters on the Democratic primary side is clear: Which candidate will commit to the public in public education with full funding and support of school districts, their neighborhood and community schools, and their students? Which candidate most values choice through tax credits and/or public dollars for expansion of the charter school system, especially through the Charter School Institute? Which candidate will fulfill Colorado’s constitutional requirement for a “thorough and uniform system of free education throughout the state”?

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.