Fundraising Frustration

Disparities grow as parent groups raise money to cover school funding gaps

PHOTO: Nicholas Garcia
Carmen Stevens, left, and Amarria Miller volunteer at their classroom's bake sale in December 2015. The Gilpin Montessori students were raising funds for their class pets.

Stephenie Falcone’s children attend two Denver schools just a mile apart, but when it comes to fundraising power, the differences are vast.

The contrast was particularly stark on Tuesday, December 8.

At Gilpin Montessori that afternoon, parents and students scraped together $300 by selling nut-free zucchini bread, red velvet cookies and bagels during the school’s “Winter Wonderland” concert. Nearly three-quarters of the school’s students come from low-income families.

On the very same day, a parent-teacher group at Polaris at Ebert Elementary, a gifted and talented magnet school with few poor students, raised $14,400 through a direct giving campaign associated with Colorado Gives Day.

The gap between the two schools’ fundraising tallies will likely exceed $100,000 by the end of the year—with Gilpin’s parents covering expenses like books, soccer T-shirts and field trips while Polaris parents raise enough to cover teacher or paraprofessional salaries.

The disparity between the two schools is hardly unique. The school fundraising playing field has always been uneven—reflecting the socioeconomic status of each school’s population—so the same story plays out across Denver and the state.

But observers say it’s gotten worse in recent years as state education cuts have forced more expenses onto the shoulders of Colorado parents—in the form of additional fees and ever-increasing fundraising goals. While high-powered parent groups work mightily to compensate for slashed funding, many schools slog along with low-dollar butter braid sales. And so the divide grows.

"You’re dropping ice cubes into boiling water and it’s better, but as long as the source of problem is getting worse you just cannot keep up."Lisa Weil, executive director, Great Education Colorado

“This is the state not fulfilling the obligation to our kids,” said Lisa Weil, executive director of Great Education Colorado, a group that advocates for improved state education funding.

Colorado ranked 43 among states and Washington, DC for per-pupil education funding, according to Education Week’s 2015 Quality Counts report, a wide-ranging look at education trends.

Weil likened the growing fundraising burden to a frog in boiling water—with the water heating so gradually, there’s no sudden sense of danger.

“Parents need to realize that the water has been boiling for a while.”

With every infusion of fundraising cash, she said, “You’re dropping ice cubes into boiling water and it’s better, but as long as the source of problem is getting worse you just cannot keep up.”

Efforts exist to pump up low-income schools’ fundraising muscle or share fundraising proceeds among schools, but they’re not widespread.

As a parent of children at two very different schools, Falcone doesn’t fault Polaris parents for their fundraising prowess, but wishes more could be done to close the gap.

At Gilpin, she said, raising big bucks is like “chipping away at a giant glacier with a spoon.”

The fortunate few

A scan of Guidestar’s database of nonprofit financial reports reveals that more than a half-dozen Colorado PTAs or PTOs—most in Denver—reported income of $200,000 or more in 2013. At least a dozen more reported more than $100,000.

“I don’t blame them,” said Shawna Fritzler, a Jeffco parent and treasurer of the Colorado PTA. “I want to do the best for my school, too. But at the same time, I hate creating that inequity.”

Slavens, Steele, Bromwell, Westerly Creek, Lowry, Bill Roberts, Cory, Swigert and University Park are among the highest fundraising schools in Denver, according to Guidestar. There are also several high-grossing schools outside the city, though their fundraising proceeds tend to be somewhat lower than Denver’s top tier.

"I want to do the best for my school, too. But at the same time, I hate creating that inequity."Shawna Fritzler, Colorado PTA treasurer

At many higher-income schools, parents have the time and know-how to organize galas, wine-tastings and auctions. They may be able to line up lucrative sponsorships or secure big-ticket auction items—things like week-long Mexican getaways, autographed sports memorabilia or limousine outings.

Many also have the means to attend ticketed fundraisers and contribute generously to their schools’ direct giving campaigns.

But tapping parents in the same way at Gilpin and many other district schools is unrealistic.

“Our school has working parents, single parents, grandparents raising their grandchildren,” said Jenn Koelliker, who has three children at Gilpin and a baby at home. “We don’t have stay-at-home moms with middle-class backgrounds like myself going out and using their free time to raise money.”

A contribution from every family

Slavens in southeast Denver, reported earning $260,000 from six fundraising events in 2013—$187,000 of that from an auction, according to IRS documents.

The K-8 school, where just 8 percent of students are eligible for free or discounted meals, clearly communicates its expectation that families contribute to the “culture of giving,” stating on its website, “We encourage parents to give of their time, money and talent every year…Our goal is to achieve 100% participation.”

The school also gives back to the community—donating $5,000 annually to the Denver Public Schools Foundation, providing holiday gifts to families at nearby Ellis Elementary and facilitating student-led fundraisers for charities such as Ronald McDonald House.

Principal Kurt Siebold acknowledged that Slavens is among the fortunate few, but said even with the PTA’s ambitious fundraising efforts the school isn’t staffed as well as it was nine years ago when he started there.

“I’ve had to tighten the belt in the whole school budget,” he said.

He said the problem is even greater for schools in the middle of the socioeconomic pack—the ones that don’t pack a hard fundraising punch but don’t receive federal Title 1 funds earmarked for schools with large low-income populations.

Mark Ferrandino, Denver Public Schools’ Chief Financial Officer, agreed and said that such schools can get access to a special $8 million pot of district money called “budget assistance.”

That funding is generally doled out in $75,000-$120,000 chunks, depending on the school’s needs, he said.

Lack of transparency

There’s not much transparency in the school fundraising world. Most parent groups operate in relative seclusion, with record-keeping typically left to volunteers.

While Guidestar provides IRS records for PTA chapters or similar parent groups, they are sometimes out-of-date or incomplete. Some parent groups don’t submit them at all.

The state education department doesn’t track school fundraising either. School districts may track the money to some extent, but it’s not typically accessible to the public.

In response to a question from Chalkbeat about school-by-school fundraising totals, Denver Public Schools spokesman Will Jones wrote via email that it would take 80 to 100 hours to audit the accounts where schools’ fundraising proceeds are held.

But most people aren’t clamoring for such information anyway.

In addition, many don’t understand how state education funding impacts the school fundraising landscape, said Jonna Levine, public policy director for Colorado PTA.

A lot of people don’t “pay attention to what’s going on and what creates that fundraising hole.”

Cupcakes for sale

Back in December, three Gilpin fifth-graders helped man the bake sale table in the school’s foyer. Cookies were two for 50 cents and a large heart-shaped brownie was going for $10. Hot coffee and cocoa were available for a donation.

Eymi Velazquez, center right, takes money from a Gilpin Montessori parent in December. Velazequez helped raise money for her classroom's pets.
PHOTO: Nicholas Garcia
Eymi Velazquez, center right, takes money from a Gilpin Montessori parent in December. Velazequez helped raise money for her classroom’s pets.

The students were raising money to care for their classroom pets—lizards and iguanas.

While hundreds of parents flowed in and out of the auditorium, few stopped to buy treats. Parent Iema Velazquez, who supervised the students, said most customers were parents who’d baked or donated items for the sale.

“They’re the same ones who buy,” she said with a shrug.

At a more affluent school, collecting money for pet supplies would be an easier lift, Koelliker said.

“Normally a room parent would say, ‘Hey, everybody give me $5.’ That doesn’t work in our school,” she said.

The same is true across town at Place Bridge Academy, where 95 percent of students are eligible for free and reduced-price meals and many are refugees from war-torn countries.

"Normally a room parent would say, ‘Hey, everybody give me $5.’ That doesn’t work in our school."Jenn Koelliker, Gilpin parent

Parents there don’t organize any school fundraisers. Instead, staff members spearhead the annual candy sale, which reaps about $2,500 for the school.

Principal Brenda Kazin said she’d like to see more money coming in, especially to help with after-school busing costs. But aside from applying for grants, there’s not a lot she can do.

“I just live with it and I do what I can to make sure the children get something from the extra money that we have,” she said.

Paying for staff

Financial documents for schools that routinely raise $100,000 or more a year reveal that many are using the money to pay for staff salaries—allowing them to lower staff-student ratios, give teachers more planning time or offer instruction that might not otherwise be available.

For example, fundraising by the Polaris PTO this year helped pay for two teachers, according to the group’s minutes. The PTO’s statement on the Colorado Gives website says fundraising money helps provide aides in every classroom, a full-time librarian and full-time art, music and physical education teachers.

The same website shows that at Steele Elementary in the affluent Washington Park neighborhood, the PTA pays for paraprofessionals or interns in every classroom and two part-time intervention teachers.

At Lowry Elementary, a more mixed-income school in the upscale Lowry development, the PTO helps pay for additional paraprofessionals, a gifted and talented teacher, a full-time intervention teacher and a humanities facilitator.

To experts, recurring expenses such as staff salaries shouldn’t fall to parents. They’re basics that should be covered by state per-pupil funding.

“You never want to fundraise for salaries or benefits or to pay your rent or your water bill,” said Nora Flood, president of the Colorado League of Charter Schools.

Among the state’s six largest districts, Cherry Creek, Douglas County, Aurora and Adams 12, have no policies addressing the use of parent group donations for staff salaries.

"There’s got to be a way to provide the same fundraising advantage for poor neighborhoods."Stephenie Falcone, Gilpin and Polaris parent

Denver and Jeffco have nearly identical policies on the issue.

Both say that principals have discretion when it comes to donations for classified staff, but that donations to employ teachers with daily classroom responsibilities should be handled centrally, with top administrators determining “the distribution of such donations based on need, equity and other school specific variables.”

Denver Public School administrators said district leaders try to honor the intentions of the donating group and that the “school specific” provision allows for flexibility in applying the policy.

Even at Gilpin—where annual fundraising tops out at $15,000—generating enough money to pay for additional staff is the ultimate goal.

Parents who are part of the school’s fundraising arm, “Friend of Gilpin,” say they need $60,000 to bring back seven City Year staff members who last year served as mentors and coaches. The energetic college graduates provided extra hands in the classroom and eased discipline problems at the school, which is under threat of closure.

“I have seen it save small boys specifically,” said Koelliker. “My goal is to raise that kind of money this year.”

But most of it won’t come out of parents’ pocketbooks. In fact, the school’s most successful fundraiser is a home tour in the Five Points neighborhood that targets community members rather than parents. Last year’s inaugural tour brought in $4,000 and this year it raised $8,000.

Still, it’s a far cry from $60,000, and that’s why both Koelliker and Falcone are still searching for their golden ticket.

“There’s got to be a way to provide the same fundraising advantage for poor neighborhoods,” said Falcone.

“Public school is not free anymore.”

No easy answers

While some parents and educators daydream about a scenario in which affluent schools share their fundraising proceeds with struggling schools, they know there would be resistance.

"I just live with it and I do what I can to make sure the children get something from the extra money that we have."Brenda Kazin, principal, Place Bridge Academy

“I think you’d get pushback from the parents,” said Kazin, the Place Bridge Academy principal. “They have the right to spend their money where they want to.”

That said, many schools do extend help to the less advantaged—say, by contributing to a community nonprofit or offering help to a sister school. Such contributions can be a hodgepodge, however, neither sustained nor systematic.

School district foundations often direct money to high-needs schools, but not exclusively. For example, the Denver Public Schools Foundation offers some types of assistance through a grant process and some to schools where at least 70 percent of students are low-income.

In northwest Denver, an annual bar and restaurant crawl called “Totally Tennyson” provides something of an antidote to the every-man-for-himself model of school fundraising. The event, originally run by the online community Highland Mommies and now privately managed, raises around $60,000 for 15 schools in the area—both high-income and low-income.

"Until people really start coming out in droves, it’s not going to change."Jonna Levine, public policy director, Colorado PTA

The money isn’t divided evenly, though. A school’s take depends partly on the number of $25 tickets parents and staff there sell and how many volunteers each school provides to help run the event. Additional funds are distributed based on a formula that takes a school’s need into account.

To leaders of Colorado’s PTA, the perennial focus on fundraising by parent groups is a long-standing problem. They say the primary goal of PTA chapters should be advocacy.

“You have some parents who can fundraise like nobody’s business,” Levine said.

But they could make a big difference if they put some of that energy into advocating for state-level change—for example, writing letters and making phone calls urging lawmakers to address the school funding crisis.

“Until people really start coming out in droves,” she said, “it’s not going to change.”

Deputy Bureau Chief Nic Garcia contributed to this report.

If you’d like to share your school’s unique fundraising challenge or solution with Chalkbeat, email us at co.tips@chalkbeat.org.

Colorado Votes 2018

Amendment 73: Understanding the tax increase for education on your Colorado ballot

PHOTO: Erica Meltzer/Chalkbeat
Thousands of Colorado teachers protested for more education funding in April. What will voters say in November?

Colorado voters face an important education decision this November: whether to approve a major statewide tax increase for schools. This request represents the third time in recent years that Colorado voters have been asked to put more money into schools.

The last two times, they gave a resounding no. Amendment 73 comes on the heels of teacher protests here and around the nation that have raised awareness of low pay and other unmet classroom needs.

Proponents of the measure say Colorado schools can’t keep doing more with less and need new revenue to do right by students. Opponents say that raising taxes will hurt the state’s economic prosperity without necessarily improving student outcomes.

Here’s what you need to know to make a decision:

What does Amendment 73 do?

This measure would create a graduated income tax for people earning more than $150,000 a year and would raise the state corporate tax rate. It also would change the assessment rate — the portion of your property value that is taxed — for commercial and residential property.

Altogether, these changes are projected to raise an additional $1.6 billion a year for preschool through 12th-grade education. That’s in addition to the roughly $9.7 billion in federal, state, and local money that Colorado will spend this year on schools.

The amendment raises the base amount Colorado is required to spend on each student, and it also dedicates money to preschool spots, full-day kindergarten, students with disabilities, those learning English, and those identified as gifted and talented.

Why is this on the ballot?

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requires that all tax increases be approved by voters. As for this particular tax increase, Colorado funds its schools below the national average, and since the Great Recession, state lawmakers have diverted to other areas billions of dollars constitutionally due to education.

Proponents of the measure believe the only way to adequately fund Colorado schools is to tap into an additional revenue source, like these tax increases.

Opponents counter that administrative spending has grown faster than student population and teacher salaries, and that the state and school districts could free up money for classrooms by setting new priorities.

I see amendments and propositions on my ballot. What’s the difference?

Propositions become laws and can be changed by the legislature. Amendments become part of the state constitution and can only be changed by another vote of the people. Amendments need the approval of 55 percent of voters to pass, a higher bar than propositions that only require a simple majority.

How will the money be spent? What guarantees do we have that it will reach the classroom?

Amendment 73 requires that new money “supplement and not supplant” existing funding. That means the legislature cannot redirect current spending on education and replace it with this new funding source. The amendment says the legislature should adopt a new formula for distributing money to districts that takes into account student and district characteristics, but it doesn’t lay out exactly what that should look like.

In the meantime, Amendment 73 describes specific uses for $866 million in new revenue:

  • Base spending per student will go up from $6,769 to $7,300, a 7.8 percent increase
  • Funding for full-day kindergarten. Right now, districts get a little more than half a student’s worth of funding for each kindergarten student.
  • An 8.3 percent increase for preschoool, bringing the total to $131 million
  • A 6.8 percent increase for special education, bringing the total to $296.1 million
  • An 80 percent increase for gifted and talented programs, bringing the total to $22.5 million
  • A 93 percent increase for English language learners, bringing the total to $41.6 million

The extra money that districts currently receive for students with disabilities, those learning English and those identified as gifted accounts for a fraction of the additional cost of educating them, particularly in the case of students with more significant disabilities. Districts have to use tracking codes to account for this money and ensure it goes to its intended purpose. In some districts, additional money might translate into better services for these students, while others might use the additional dedicated funding to free up other money.

That leaves $738.6 million that can be spent on public education as determined by the legislature. Once that money lands in school district coffers, they have broad discretion over how to spend it. This is by design and part of an effort to get buy-in from around the state. Many school boards have passed non-binding resolutions promising to spend the money on teacher pay, more mental health supports for students, and lower class sizes.

In turn, opponents have criticized the lack of specificity as a blank check that won’t necessarily increase teacher salaries or improve student outcomes.

A recent analysis from EdChoice found that since 1992, teacher salaries in Colorado had fallen even as per-student funding and the number of administrators had increased. Colorado Department of Education records show that instructional staff — teachers, counselors, speech language pathologists, school nurses — increased by 14 percent between 2006 and 2016 while administrative staff increased by 34 percent. School administrators argue these positions are necessary to support the work that teachers do and keep districts in compliance with a host of new state and federal regulations. In smaller districts, administrators often wear multiple hats. When we ask teachers about this issue, some of them share the concern that too much money gets spent on central administration, even as they also believe schools need more money overall

You can look up how much your district spends here.

What does it mean when people say Colorado schools are ‘underfunded’? Compared to what? How underfunded?

There are several different ways to look at this. The National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union, ranks Colorado 28th in per pupil spending when state, local, and federal money is combined and puts Colorado about $758 per student below the national average. Education Week does a more complex ranking that takes into account regional cost differences and puts Colorado nearly $2,800 below the national average. Colorado teacher salaries are among the least competitive in the nation, making it hard to recruit and retain educators. More than 100 of Colorado’s 178 school districts operate on four-day weeks.

Back in 2000, after previous years of budget cuts, Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment that requires school funding to increase by population plus inflation. But starting with the Great Recession, Colorado lawmakers have not allocated all the money required by that amendment. Over the past 10 years, Colorado schools have missed out on $7.5 billion the law requires them to receive. The courts have upheld this budget maneuver. Money from Amendment 73 could not be reallocated during the next downturn, protecting schools but potentially creating other budget problems for the state.

Colorado also gets low marks on equity. Colorado spends much less money on education than most states with similar levels of wealth and economic activity. Per-student spending varies widely around the state, with rich districts often getting more state money than poor ones. Some districts have convinced voters to approve local property tax increases, while other have not — or have such low tax bases that voters would need to take on large increases to generate much benefit. The additional funding from these local tax increases varies from $32 to $5,024 per student.

Amendment 73 wouldn’t change these structural problems with school funding. It would give state lawmakers more money with which to level the playing field. Right now, sending more money to some districts would require reducing funding to others, creating a political minefield.

Will I pay more in income taxes if Amendment 73 passes?

People who earn up to $150,000 a year will keep paying the same 4.63 percent state income tax rate they do now. Those earning more will pay a sliding increase starting at 5 percent for income from $150,001 to $200,000 up to 8.25 percent for income over $500,000. Someone with taxable income of $200,000 would pay an extra $185 a year, while someone with $1 million in taxable income would pay an extra $24,395, according to a fiscal analysis by the state.

The increases will affect about 8 percent of individual and joint income tax filers. Amendment 73 does not include a provision to adjust the income threshold for inflation, so it’s possible that more taxpayers will pay these higher rates in the future.

This change would generate most of the new revenue under Amendment 73.

What’s the effect on corporate taxes?

Amendment 73 would raise the corporate income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 6 percent. You can see how that compares to other states’ corporate income tax rates here. The average corporate income taxpayer would owe an additional $14,139, according to state fiscal analysts.

Would Amendment 73 raise my property taxes?

This is a complicated question. Amendment 73 does not raise property tax rates anywhere in the state. But if it passes, residential property owners will pay more in 2019 than they otherwise would have, while owners of non-residential property will pay less.

Amendment 73 fixes the assessment rate at 7 percent for residential and 24 percent for non-residential property. That’s lower than it is now, but other constitutional provisions would have pushed the residential rate even lower in 2019. 

Exactly how much more or less you pay will depend on your property value, real estate trends in your community, and local tax rates.

This represents a partial fix to a complicated fiscal problem that has bedeviled Colorado lawmakers and the administrators of rural taxing entities — school districts, fire protection districts, and others — for years.

In Colorado, your property is assessed at close to market value, but your local tax rate only applies to a portion of that value. That’s the assessment rate. Another constitutional provision known as the Gallagher Amendment ensures that non-residential property owners always pay a larger share of property taxes than homeowners. Since 1982, when the Gallagher Amendment was approved by voters, property values along Colorado’s developed Front Range have skyrocketed, putting the assessment ratios between residential and other property seriously out of whack. Those ratios apply statewide, and many rural communities have seen their already sparse tax base hollowed out.

In the case of schools, that’s meant the state government has had to backfill more and more money that used to be generated by local taxes. Amendment 73 includes a provision to hold the assessment rates steady just for schools for two reasons. One is that it provides property tax relief to ranchers and farmers, which the measure’s backers hope bolsters support in parts of the state that are traditionally more hostile to tax increases. The other is that it ensures the new tax revenue generated by the amendment doesn’t just backfill an ever-deepening hole in rural districts.

Residential assessment rates will continue to drop for other taxing entities, creating an even more complex system, unless the state succeeds in a more comprehensive Gallagher fix.

Don’t schools get a lot of marijuana money already?

The bulk of marijuana tax revenue for education goes to a program that helps schools pay for buildings and construction repairs. Districts apply and compete for grant money from the program, and in most cases have to put up some portion of the project’s cost. 

Starting this year, 12.59 percent of marijuana tax revenue is also set aside for the regular education budget. That’s about $20 million a year at current rates. Marijuana money is also set aside for various grant programs including one that schools can use to help pay for health professionals such as counselors or nurses. As the state collects more marijuana revenue, the amounts set aside for the grant programs has increased.

However, the marijuana money available to schools represents a tiny fraction of total education spending, and most of it can’t be spent on basic needs like teacher salaries or classroom materials.

 

recruitment and retention

School districts counting on public support for higher teacher pay to pass new tax increases

Teacher Christina Hafler and her two-year-old daughter Emma join hundreds of other educators at a rally outside the State Capitol to call for increased eduction funding on April 16, 2018 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

Most school districts asking voters to approve local tax increases for schools this November have one thing in common: They are promising that money will go to raise teacher pay.

Polls show voters are inclined to support increasing teacher pay this year, following several high-profile walkouts across the country where teachers shared their struggles with working multiple jobs, and paying out of their own pocket to outfit their classrooms or help feed hungry students.

“Right now you got a pretty clear majority of people saying, teachers deserve more,” said Keith Frederick, who conducts polls for school districts and other government bodies to determine if they should put requests on the ballot. “Voters are very interested, these days anyway, they’re interested in their community schools, higher teacher pay.”

Many officials from those districts say the pay they offer simply isn’t keeping up with nearby districts, meaning a harder time recruiting and retaining teachers. Salaries and employee benefits take up the largest chunk of school district budgets.

School districts in Aurora, Jeffco, Westminster, Douglas County and Sheridan are among the districts making a local request this November. Ballots have been mailed out this week, and voters will start to decide if the request is worth a local tax increase.

Statewide, teacher pay in Colorado ranks below national average.

But measuring how competitive teacher compensation actually is among districts can be complicated. Surveys and studies show that salaries alone do not account for what keeps teachers in their job or what makes them leave. And how teachers get paid in some districts is complicated, based sometimes on their evaluations, or performance of their students, or school, or the difficulty in filling the job they’re in.

Then there are other work conditions that can be considered benefits. The school district based in Brighton moved this year to a four-day school week after failing to pass several tax measures. Although the change will only result in small savings, the district claims it’s a new way to attract teachers without having to raise pay.

But looking at state data for last year, most districts that have the highest starting salaries or average pay for teachers, including Cherry Creek, Boulder, and Poudre, also have the lowest teacher turnover.

Average teacher pay and teacher turnover rates

 

DISTRICT Average Pay Percent Teacher Turnover
Thompson $49,572 16.8 %
Poudre $54,140 9.7 %
Douglas County $53,080 13.4 %
Elizabeth $40,471 23.2 %
Littleton $66,399 9.5 %
Aurora $54,742 26.2%
Cherry Creek $71,711 10.1 %
Sheridan $49,535 35.9 %
Denver $50,757 20.3 %
Jeffco $57,154 14 %
Westminster $58,976 19.1 %
Adams 12 $59,511 12.8 %
Boulder $75,220 10.33 %
Pueblo 60 $47,617 18.3 %
Pueblo 70 $49,328 13.6 %

*Source: Colorado Department of Education. Districts in bold have a tax request tied to teacher pay on this November’s ballot.

None of those three districts are requesting local tax increases this year, but their neighboring districts, including in Douglas County, Elizabeth, Jeffco and Thompson, are.

The contrasts between districts can be large. In the neighboring Poudre and Thompson districts, the difference in the average pay is about $5,000, and the difference in starting salaries is even larger. Higher-paying Poudre has a teacher turnover rate of less than 10 percent. In lower-paying Thompson, the turnover rate is about 17 percent.

The Thompson district is requesting a $13.8 million mill levy override to raise teacher pay, and to purchase new books and technology. The district is also requesting a $149 million bond for building maintenance, security improvements and a new school.

Some of the districts requesting tax increases this year have failed to win voter approval before, including Thompson, Westminster and Jeffco. Although several factors including the political culture of the districts influence the vote, highlighting what voters value — like boosting teacher salaries — might improve the chances of voter approval.

Although most of the local tax measures don’t face organized opposition, criticism of a statewide tax measure for schools might impact other questions down the ballot. Critics of the statewide school measure have said that districts are not under obligation to use the money to pay teachers more, and worry that new money could go into administrative costs instead.

Some districts are trying to create assurances for voters.

Aurora Public Schools agreed to language in its contract with the teachers union that requires the district to set aside at least $10 million from new mill levy revenue, if approved, to give teachers a 3 percent raise starting in January. Remaining money would go into creating a new teacher salary schedule.

The Jeffco school board passed a resolution that commits a certain percentage of new tax revenue for teacher pay. The tax measure also includes language prohibiting use of that revenue for administrative budgets.

Even if districts do use the money for increasing salaries, most districts likely have to negotiate with their employee unions to decide just how to do it — whether it’s raising base salary, giving across-the-board raises, or creating new systems that reward certain teachers.

Several school boards across the state also passed resolutions committing to certain items that would get funding first if voters approve the state ballot request for new school funding. One common, top priority among those is improving salaries.

Denver’s school leaders said they would use the largest portion of the proposed new state revenue for teacher salaries. Negotiations there have been heated, as district leaders insist the state measure needs to pass in order for the district to come closer to meeting the union’s demands.