Summary#

HJR 26-1028, titled Full and Fair Funding of Public Schools, is an enacted Colorado joint resolution; it does not create or amend a statute. It reaffirms support for full and fair school funding and declares the House’s intent to consider two funding studies, choose which study’s methods and recommendations to follow, and develop a multi-year plan with revenue triggers. Its stated goal is to pursue full and fair funding, not to provide more funding now.

• The resolution states the House’s intent to understand the studies, choose a study’s methodology and recommendations, and develop a phased implementation plan.
• The plan is to include revenue triggers, but the resolution does not define them or say how much funding to add.
• The resolution does not change the school funding formula, set teacher pay, or require new staffing or services.

What it means for you#

• Students, families, educators and school districts: The resolution itself does not change school funding or school services. Any effect would depend on later decisions and action.
• State lawmakers: The resolution declares the House’s intent to take the listed steps. It does not set a deadline or itself require lawmakers to adopt a plan or provide more funding.
• Taxpayers: It creates no new tax or fee.

Money#

The resolution itself appropriates no money and sets no tax, fee or funding amount.

• The resolution says a prior appropriation set aside $3 million for the studies, of which Colorado spent $2 million. This is background, not new spending under this resolution.
• It reports that one study estimated adequate school funding would be $3.5 billion above current funding and $3.1 billion above the funding formula when fully implemented. Those are study estimates, not costs approved by this resolution.
• No cost estimate for a future implementation plan is provided.

What is unclear#

• The resolution gives no deadline for choosing a study or developing the plan.
• It does not say which study or recommendations lawmakers will choose, or how they will handle differences between the studies.
• It does not define the revenue triggers or say what funding sources they would use.
• It does not say how much additional funding the plan would provide or how the plan would interact with the existing funding formula.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the resolution is that it gives lawmakers a stated next step after studies found gaps in school funding: consider the evidence and develop a phased plan.
• A multi-year plan with revenue triggers could connect increases in funding to available revenue, rather than promising an immediate increase the resolution does not fund.
• Choosing which study’s methods and recommendations to follow could give lawmakers a basis for deciding what changes to pursue.

Case against#

• The resolution does not require a plan, set a deadline, or commit to any funding increase. Its stated intent may not lead to a change in school funding.
• It does not say how lawmakers will choose between the studies or which recommendations will be included, so the promised plan’s size and direction remain open.
• The resolution does not explain what revenue triggers would be or how they would work. Without those details, the timing and scale of any future funding increase are unknown.