Proposition 119 promises funds for education, and a new government agency

On Nov. 2, Coloradans will be asked to vote on a measure that would raise taxes on marijuana sales, divert funds from the State Trust Lands and create a new state agency. This agency, the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program (LEAP) would provide out-of-school learning and enrichment opportunities for children between the ages of 5 and 17 years old.

LEAP would then certify individuals and/or groups as educational providers for these out-of-school programs. Licensed teachers who wish to be providers would also have to go through the LEAP certification process.

“What kind of authority do they have?” said Judy Solano, representative of No on Prop 119. Solano was previously a public school educator for 27 years and served as a District 31 representative in the Colorado House of Representatives. During that time, she sat on the house’s Education Committee; she is also the chair of Advocates for Public Education Policy.

“There’s no need for another agency; we already have the Department of Education with oversight,” she said. “This agency would operate totally independently, even though it would be housed in the Department of Education, they do not have to collaborate.”

Solano also said that a portion of marijuana tax–approximately 1% of the state education budget– already goes to the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), which is used for grants for local school districts and other programs.

Additionally, she expressed concern over the proposition diverting money away from the State Trust Lands, which generates revenue for public K-12 schools and other public institutions. “It was established in 1876 [as] a federal program,” she said. “The federal government gave every state acreage to use for public schools… There’s a whole shared responsibility with the local school districts and the state… this money, that would go to this independent agency, [LEAP] to be used to contract with private education providers.”

Under the proposal, any aid provided by the program to families cannot be used for school tuition or other instruction that is already part of the school curriculum. This would mean that any aid granted to families would have to be paid only to the out-of-school providers. LEAP says they will prioritize low-income students.

However, there are concerns that the independent board, and its providers, would establish programs that compete with public schools. It’s also unclear how and where those providers would be available to students, and opponents speculate that they will be disproportionately available in urban spaces as opposed to suburban/rural areas.

“If they wanted to put it [the additional marijuana money] into CDE, wouldn’t that be nice?” said Solano. “We should be coming up with a way to adequately fund public education… [LEAP] would be a big bureaucracy.”

Notably, there is a section in the ballot measure (clause seven) that states a private individual cannot sue the agency. So, if a parent of a child participating in LEAP is dissatisfied with the services provided, it will be up to the attorney general to enforce the law. As it is currently written, the ballot measure is also vague about how the agency will operate as well as how the agency will qualify providers and students.

At present, a number of organizations have come out against the proposition include Advocates for Public Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Colorado AFL-CIO, Colorado Democratic Latino Initiative, Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Association of School Executives, Colorado Energy and Environment Initiative, Taxpayers for Public Education, Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition, Coloradans Against School Vouchers, and Cannabis Community for Fairness and Safety, among others.

Organizations supporting the proposition include Academic Advocates, Colorado Youth Congress, Latino Education Coalition, Colorado Succeeds, Transform Education Now, LEAP 4 CO, Learning Opportunities for Colorado Kids, African Leadership Group and others. Additionally, Gary Community Investment Company reportedly donated $1.45 million to the campaign. The registered issue committee, Yes on Prop 119, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

“We already have a department,” Solano said. “This agency would be bigger than the Department of Education, [and] with an unelected board, it doesn’t seem like the right way to go about this.”

For more information on the registered committees, visit:

CO TRACER registered committee in favor: YES ON PROP. 119

CO TRACER registered committee in opposition: NO ON PROP 119