Adams 12 School District’s Blatant Advertisement for Amendment 66

Adams 12 School District’s Blatant Advertisement for Amendment 66

October 16, 2013 | Filed under: Education

As a parent of two boys in Adams 12 Five Star Schools, I received the following email today:

Amendment 66 is a statewide ballot measure related to education funding. The amendment appears on this year’s ballot for the Nov. 5 General Election. Colorado has a Fair Campaign Practices Act that governs the district’s involvement in election matters. In short, Adams 12 Five Star Schools is allowed to present a factual summary of the ballot issue, but we are not allowed to advocate either for or against any election matter. As part of this factual summary, it’s also permitted by law to include both arguments in favor and in opposition of this amendment.
You’ll find the district’s factual summary of Amendment 66 attached, or you can view it on the district’s website by clicking here. Please remember to exercise your right to vote in this mail-in election.

Attached to the email was a 2 page PDF document.  The first page contained the so-called factual summary.  The 2nd contained arguments for and against.  The argument against was a thinly-veiled attempt by the school district to stay within the requirements of the law, while still advocating for passing this legislation.  The text they included in opposition to the amendment was as follows:

• Tax increase of $950 million.  Increasing state income taxes reduces the money households have to spend or save.
• This measure imposes an additional tax burden on state taxpayers without any guarantee of increased academic achievement
• Under the measure, taxpayers in some school districts will pay more in new taxes than these districts will receive in new revenue.  Thus, the measure maintains a funding structure that uses tax revenue from some districts in order to subsidize P-12 education in other districts.

Compare this language to that which is in the official Blue Book:

• Amendment 66 is a $950 million tax increase that may impede economic expansion at a time when the state’s economy is still recovering. Increasing state income taxes reduces the money that households have to spend or save. As a result, consumer spending and overall economic activity may also decline, negatively impacting the competitiveness of Colorado businesses. The state currently has adequate financial resources to implement Senate Bill 13-213 for the next year without a tax increase. The legislature set aside $1.1 billion in budget year 2012-13 and an estimated $290 million in budget year 2013-14 for P-12 public education. These recent set-asides are indicative of an expanding economy that may permit adequate investment in P-12 public education without additional tax revenue.
• This measure imposes an additional tax burden on state taxpayers without any guarantee of increased academic achievement. Senate Bill 13-213 makes incremental changes to the school funding allocation formula without providing significant educational reform. This approach lacks real accountability as the new funding formula does not reward schools or districts that show gains in student achievement. Amendment 66 leaves in place an outmoded system of delivering education that has not shown significant measurable improvements for students on state assessments.
• Under the measure, taxpayers in some school districts will pay more in new taxes than these districts will receive in new revenue. All individuals will see a state income tax increase of at least 8.0 percent to implement the new P-12 education formula, and some will see substantially higher percentage increases. At the same time, under Senate Bill 13-213, 37 of 178 school districts will see increases in funding of less than 8.0 percent. Thus, the measure maintains a funding structure that uses tax revenue from some districts in order to subsidize P-12 education in other districts.

I’d like to call your attention to the omission of the statistics in the summarized version of the school district letter.  Also, look at the removal of descriptive language and adjectives in general.  This is how one goes about deliberately weakening an argument, while still appearing to be in compliance with the law.
Now look at the arguments in favor, as stated by the school district letter:

• The additional money allows local boards of education to target areas where research suggests investments are likely to product improved student outcomes, such as ensuring effective teachers are in the classroom, reducing class sizes, investing in early childhood education, upgrading classroom technology, and giving principals and teachers more control over budget decisions.
• Since budget year 2008-2009, the state legislature has cut P-12 funding, with funding for the 2012-2013 school year $1 billion below what the funding formula would have required
• The measure provides accountability.  The state will be required to prepare a return on investment study and a cost study to identify funding deficits

Not only does the school district summary of the arguments favor the favorable argument by nearly 1/3 more total words, but it includes the detail and descriptive language it omitted from the opposition language.  I’m sure they’ll argue that they were summarizing the blue book text, that’s why they referenced the Blue Book as a Source at the bottom of the letter.  But it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to recognize what the school district is doing here.  They call it a summary, but its not.  Its a hatchet job intended to minimize opposition to the Amendment.
Their pro-Amendment 66 advertisement doesn’t stop with tricky language.  Take a look at the image they included in their summary:

I imagine the caption for this image would have been: “Vote for Amendment 66 – It’s patriotic!”
The controversy over Amendment 66 is more than just about whether or not we should spend more money on our children’s education.  It is about whether or not we trust our government to spend our money the right way.  How can you trust a government when it so blatantly skirts the law and sends out political propaganda such as this?  If our government can’t be an honest broker when it comes to describing the amendment to the parents of the children, what makes us think that they will be honest when they use that additional $1 Billion to teach our children?
Vote no on Amendment 66.