Proponents propose requiring 66% of district per-pupil funding go to classroom expenses; reviewers ask about definitions and local-control interactions

Proponents of Proposed Initiative 61 presented their measure April 4 to require that at least 66% of per-pupil funding sent to school districts be spent on direct classroom funding. The hearing was held in the statutory review process and included staff from Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services; Matthew Beck and Anna Petrini participated for staff.

Reviewers framed the central drafting issues: whether the metric should apply to locally levied education property taxes only or to all funds given for general purposes under the Colorado school finance formula, and whether the initiative’s declaration language should define terms such as "administrative costs" and "direct classroom expenses." Proponents said they generally intend the measure to cover all funding given for general purposes and to rely on existing local and state implementation definitions rather than attempt an exhaustive constitutional definition.

Staff noted the Colorado Constitution’s local-control provision (Article IX, Section 15) and asked how the proponents intended the funding mandate to interact with school boards’ authority over instruction. Proponents said they did not believe the mandate would conflict with local-control provisions because funding conditions are within the state’s control. Reviewers also asked how enforcement would work and whether proponents planned to add a private right of action; proponents said they would consider whether to include enforcement text.

The review team raised drafting considerations about whether subsection language that "includes" items should instead form a definitional clause so the list is exhaustive rather than illustrative. Proponents agreed to examine whether to convert the illustrative list into a statutory-style definition. Additional questions concerned whether salaries should explicitly include benefits and whether supplies for classroom aides and special-education professionals are intended to be included; proponents confirmed the intent to include compensation and supplies for listed instructional staff.

The session ended with staff offering technical comments for proponents to consider. The hearing does not itself change law; it is an advisory drafting review that proponents can use to refine ballot text.