Discussing a Denver Post article about Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal to raise revenue primarily for kindergarten and preschool programs by freezing reductions in property tax rates, Mike Rosen baselessly claimed on the March 14 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA show that Ritter's proposal serves “the agenda of the teachers union” because “any time you talk about another program, 85 percent of the money is going to go to the rank and file of the teachers unions.” In fact, federal government statistics show that expenditures on all public school staff -- not just teachers who belong to a union -- comprise less than 85 percent of public and secondary education spending. Furthermore, less than 20 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers are even represented by unions, according to labor figures.

Rosen also smeared state Sen. Sue Windels (D-Arvada), chair of the Senate Education Committee and the Senate sponsor of Ritter's plan, calling her “the bag lady for the teachers union in the state Senate.”

According to the March 14 Post article by Mark P. Couch, “Ritter's Colorado Children's Amendment of 2007 calls for $84 million in annual spending on pre-school programs, full-day kindergarten and money for local school districts.” The Post further reported:

The central feature of the amendment, which Democratic lawmakers hope to add to the school-finance measure today, is to prevent property tax rates from decreasing as property values go up. The move would let school districts across the state collect an extra $63.6 million during the upcoming fiscal year, according to Legislative Council figures.

Ritter's plan calls for $65 million for full-day kindergarten, $12.6 million to eliminate a 4,000-slot waiting list for preschool programs and $6.4 million for 11 school districts.

The programs' cost would be covered by the property-tax freeze and extra money the state has from updated inflation and student enrollment projections.

During his March 14 broadcast, Rosen argued that because “the teachers unions” are “the most politically influential block” of workers in public schools, they would realize “85 percent” of the revenue to be raised by Ritter's proposal:

ROSEN: Keep in mind that 85 percent of operating expenses in the public schools -- which is a very labor intensive field -- 85 percent goes for compensation of people who work in the schools. And that percentage has not changed in recent years. There are some capital expenditures, to be sure, and those are usually funded through bonds. But when we talk about operating expenses, 85 percent go to pay people who work in the schools. And of those who work in the schools, the most politically influential block are the teachers unions. And any time you talk about another program, 85 percent of the money is going to go to the rank and file of the teachers unions.

In fact, according to the latest statistics from a July 2006 report published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), during the 2003-2004 school year, 66.1 percent of the United States' public elementary and secondary education spending was for “instruction and instruction-related expenditures,” defined as “expenditures for staff and services that work directly with students, such as teachers, teaching assistants, and librarians.” Another 5.2 percent went to “student support services,” which include “guidance counselors, school nurses, social workers, and attendance staff”; and 11 percent went to “administration.” The remainder (17.8 percent) of the 2003-2004 school year expenditures went to “operations,” including “expenditures for keeping schools and other school district facilities operating, as well as student transportation and food services.” So, excluding “operations,” the other three categories of public education expenditures encompassing not only teachers but also other instructional, support, and administrative staff accounted for 82.3 percent of total expenditures -- similar to Rosen's 85 percent figure, which he at first claimed “goes for compensation of people who work in the schools.”

But Rosen then dubiously asserted that, because “the most politically influential block are the teachers unions,” 85 percent of the money allocated for any new educational program would actually go “to the rank and file of the teachers unions.” However, according to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2006 unions represented only 41.7 percent of employees in “education, training, and library occupations.” Furthermore, the BLS noted that in 2004 -- the most recent year for which it provided the statistic -- unions represented only “about 17 percent” of preschool and kindergarten teachers. And, according to the Post, Ritter's plan would allocate the vast majority -- around 92 percent -- of the money it raised to kindergarten and preschool programs.

From the March 14 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: And also this hour, let's see if we can make some sense out of this so-called “tax freeze” that Governor Ritter was explaining the other day. And the usual suspects were involved in this: Sue Windels, who's the bag lady for the teachers union in the state Senate. Senator Sue Windels, former teacher from Arvada. She's chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee -- and talk about letting the foxes guard the henhouse -- and she's the sponsor of this school finance bill which has been described as a tax freeze, a property tax freeze to fund education. By my definition, a freeze is when taxes don't go up. What they're freezing is mill levies. The rate -- the mill levy rate you pay. What they're not freezing is the assessed value. And the reason, under [the] Gallagher [Amendment] and some other state laws, and under TABOR [the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights], that your property taxes haven't skyrocketed -- although they've gone up in recent years -- the reason they haven't skyrocketed is because we've got an offset. When assessed values go up, mill levy rates don't go up as much as they otherwise would. When you freeze the mill levy rate -- meaning, when you don't allow it to go down to offset the increase in assessed valuation -- your property taxes will go up. So it's not a property tax freeze, it's a mill levy rate freeze. That is, preventing the mill levy rate from going down to offset the increase in assessed values. I'll take you through that again. But this is an opportunity for the teachers union to add more jobs -- preschool teachers and kindergarten teachers -- and have more money in the kitty for pay for members of the teachers union. That's, in large part, what this is about.

[...]

ROSEN: Under Gallagher, this relationship between property taxes raised from residential properties and business properties is such that the business end of it has been, has been asked to carry a larger burden than would otherwise be the case. So businesses are paying higher property taxes in relative terms and residents are paying lower property taxes relative to business, but not lower property taxes in an absolute amount.

What the governor is proposing, and what Sue Windels -- who's a former teacher, who's chair of the Senate Education Committee, and who carries baggage for the teachers union in the state legislature. And the teachers union wants more, more, more, more, more when it comes to education spending. And it wants more, more, more, more, more not just in order to benefit kiddies -- although sometimes the kiddies do benefit -- but primarily to benefit the teachers union. The union, first and foremost, represents its rank and file. Under this plan there'll be more money available for preschool and kindergarten, which means if the number of kiddies in preschool and kindergarten goes up, there are going to have to be more teachers to teach them. Which means the membership of the teachers unions goes up, and there's also more money available in the kitty to pay existing union members more than would otherwise be the case. And that's the agenda of the teachers union.

And I have a clear bias in this area. And I've indicated that bias many times on the air. What I want is a revolution in education. I want to end the government monopoly on the delivery of education. I am content to keep the same process for funding schools, and that is we fund schools with tax dollars, a combination of property tax dollars and general revenues that comes from the state. I'm OK with that. I don't want to disturb the funding mechanism in general, but I do want to change, revolutionize the delivery mechanism. And through vouchers that a parent would have in order to purchase a year of tuition at the school of their choice, government or private, we would fund those vouchers from the exact same source that funding comes from now to support the government school monopoly. But you'd be free to have the dollars follow your kids. I am in despair of any fundamental change in public education -- the quality of public education -- within the government's school delivery system.

So what I want is choice and competition. Variety. I want to enable parents. I want to empower parents as customers. And until the teachers union joins me in supporting that kind of a program, I'm going to oppose additional funding for the government delivery monopoly system. At such time in the future that we can actually have choice and competition, then I will be a champion of more funding. And that increase in funding would apply to private schools as well as government schools. But that's what it will take to get my support for more funding: choice, competition, vouchers. Until we get that I'm going to oppose more funding. I will argue for maintaining the current level of expenditures.

And, by the way, I've been losing that argument. Amendment 23, which was underwritten by the teachers union and supported by a majority of voters in 2000, mandated increasing in -- increases in spending for public education above the rate of population and inflation growth. We were told that that would fix things in public schools. Well, obviously it hasn't. It just resulted primarily in more money for people who work in the public schools. Keep in mind that 85 percent of operating expenses in the public schools -- which is a very labor intensive field -- 85 percent goes for compensation of people who work in the schools. And that percentage has not changed in recent years. There are some capital expenditures, to be sure, and those are usually funded through bonds. But when we talk about operating expenses, 85 percent go to pay people who work in the schools. And of those who work in the schools, the most politically influential block are the teachers unions. And any time you talk about another program, 85 percent of the money is going to go to the rank and file of the teachers unions.