Schools for Tomorrow Blog

It is difficult to tell from press reports whether or not Speaker Romanoff’s plan to propose to voters a way to simplify the state Constitutional constraints has a realistic political chance of moving forward.

On the plus side, the Denver Post did editorialize positively about it today, Romanoff does have a Republican co-sponsor, and he doesn’t face a bunch of competing proposals this year.  On the negative side, it requires two-thirds votes, the governor is non-committal, and the late introduction leaves little time to build a supportive campaign.

Regardless of the political prospects, it is also hard to tell if this is a good solution.  In some sense, given the current Constitutional contradictions and vise-like grip on the state budget (and therefore the virtual irrelevance, in a budgetary sense, of the legislators themselves, in terms of representative government), virtually any proposal is likely to be an improvement.  And, achieving comprehensive reform in a time of single subject initiatives and referred measures, absent a Constitutional convention, is nearly impossible.  So, Romanoff deserves credit for trying.

The idea behind the deal seems to be: keep the TABOR requirement to vote on new taxes, eliminate the spending limit, end the Amendment 23 requirement of K-12 budget growth, but protect K12 spending with a reserve fund, and maintain Senate Bill 1’s requirement that increased revenue, above a certain level, flow to transportation.

I suppose a computer at the Budget Office could figure out all of the future scenarios for this compromise, but I can’t.  In good economic times, it seems clear that more tax revenues would flow in, which state government could now retain, though much of that would then flow to transportation.  It is less clear how K-12 and higher education would do under this plan.

In any event, kudos to Romanoff for opening a serious discussion, and it is probably worth figuring out the pros and cons in more detail.

There’s an interesting op-ed piece in today’s Denver Post calling on Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association to enshrine autonomy in the teacher contract now being negotiated. The piece was co-authored by representatives of Colorado Succeeds, a business organization supporting education reform, and Metro Organizations for People, a grassroots community organizing group.

 A coalition of seemingly disparate interests can be a powerful force. Let’s hope these two groups can push through the kind of meaningful change to the teachers contract called for in the op-ed.

Why does a little voice in the back of my head keep whispering "When pigs fly?"

Behind the front-page Presidential race headlines about bitter voters and Bosnian sniper fire, it’s always worthwhile take a look at how education issues are affecting the Presidential race.  This week’s EdWeek reports on how Barack Obama talks about education in his stump speeches.  Obama’s gift, supposedly, is his ability to connect with audiences.  He excels at what linguists call “code-switching” – consciously modifying speech to slip from one culture to another.  Obama speaks urban black to urban blacks, Sentatorial wonkish to senators, and academic liberalese to, well, to you and me, all more or less authentically.

Nowhere might this trait come in handy more than in education.  We all know that vast disparities exist in the educational experiences of black and white students  — black students, on average, come from poorer families, are more likely to experience violent crime, are more likely to drop out of school, and perform worse on achievement tests. 

The EdWeek article reports: 

The Democratic presidential candidate has been pitching an audience-pleasing message of economic populism to crowds of a few thousand packed into each gymnasium. But he gets some of his loudest applause when he segues to education — and a bit of a lecture to mothers and fathers on how to be parents.

Sure, there is the usual critique of current government policies. But the cheering peaks with a dose of tough talk.

"Parents if you don’t parent, we can’t improve our schools," he said. "You’ve got to parent. You’ve got to turn off the television set in your house once in a while, you’ve got to put the video game away once in a while." …

"You should have a curfew in your house so your children aren’t out in the streets all night. You should meet with the teacher and find out what the homework is and help that child with the homework. And if you don’t know how to do the homework, don’t be embarrassed, find someone to help you."

"Fathers, be fathers," he added. "Be a part of your child’s life. Be a part of your child’s life and try to make them proud.

"And the last thing is, if your child is misbehaving at school don’t curse out the teacher. You know who you are. It’s not the teacher’s fault that your child is misbehaving. That’s some home training."

The crowd reacted raucously and Obama laughed. "You know what I say is true, though. Don’t blame the teachers, and the government and the schools if you’re not doing your job."

For white Americans like me, the experience of African-Americans in our schools is one which is hard to broach.  Many well-meaning white folks have a split personality on the subject.  Half of our brains knows that the legacy of slavery and segregation underlie historical inequities which our schools have barely begun to acknowledge, much less address.  But the other half values personal responsibility and hard work.  That half knows that parental involvement, high expectations, and positive cultural attitudes towards education are keys to success, too.

Obama has a rare ability to broach these subjects while bringing audiences along, especially black ones.  In a recent Newsweek column, Jonathan Alter waxes Obamish in a similar vein:

Remember the 1998 movie "Bulworth," where Warren Beatty plays a U.S. senator suffering a nervous breakdown? When Beatty’s character tells astonished black Democrats that it’s time for them to "put down the chicken and the malt liquor," it’s final proof that Jay Bulworth is crazy and suicidal. But consider what happened late last month in Beaumont, Texas, when I covered Obama speaking before an African-American audience. A woman asked about health care and Obama explained how, for the first time in human history, thousands of obese children, many of them black, were being diagnosed with adult-onset diabetes—a disease that is killing millions and helping bankrupt the health-care system. He told the crowd that kids couldn’t keep on "drinking eight sodas a day," then went in Bulworth’s direction.

"I know some of y’all got that cold Popeye’s [chicken] out for breakfast. I know," Obama said with a smile. He continued: "That’s why y’all laughing. You can’t do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school … It’s not good enough for you to say to your child, ‘Do good in school,’ and then when that child comes home, you got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don’t check their homework, there is not a book in the house, you’ve got the videogame playing."

Instead of being jeered, he was cheered wildly.

When we consider which Presidential candidates would be best for education, we should consider their policies, the ins and outs of their views on merit pay or school choice or standardized testing.  But we should also consider who can make people – kids, parents, teachers, everyone – do their best.

I was pretty excited this morning to open up my email and see a very welcome new addition to the world of edublogging. The brains behind the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly have graduated from the world of weekly email newsletters to fast-paced and lively debate on their new site, called Flypaper.

And for their grand introduction, the Fordham team tells us why they decided to join the years-old blogging revolution:

Yes, it’s finally happening: Fordham’s Gadfly is blogging. How come?

The answer can be glimpsed around our D.C. office, in the education-related chats that occur there. On any given day—in the kitchenette, over sandwiches at lunch, in our meetings, in the corridor—we’re bandying about ideas and issues, working toward conclusions that reflect our goals and mission.

Why not, we thought, take some of these discussions to the internet and invite everyone to join them? Why not expose our conversations for others to see, add themselves into, and improve the final result? We think and argue education policy all the time and suspect that many of you would enjoy being part of the conversation—whether you’re a teacher, a concerned parent, a school board member, or a wonk.

They’ve actually been blogging for more than a month, and I didn’t even notice. Well, at least there’s enough material up there to get a real flavor of Flypaper’s style and approach. Frankly, I like it. I think it’s a great addition.

Fordham’s thoughtful, right-of-center education policy approach translated into off-the-cuff banter, links to breaking stories, and occasional deep thoughts? If they keep this up, the new Flypaper blog has the potential to be for education what The Corner at National Review is for politics and current affairs in general. One of the best parts of both sites is the fact that all the bloggers are able to let down their hair and not take themselves too seriously.

For this right-of-center Colorado edublogger, often swimming against the tide, I can’t help but look at this development in a most positive light. It’s kind of like being the stereotypical beleaguered band of Western townsfolk whose humble village is being ravaged by horse-thieving outlaws (okay, don’t take the analogy too literally) when they look off in the distance and see relief riding in from the hills: “Here comes the cavalry!” 

Comes now news that House Speaker Andrew Romanoff may propose a constitutional amendment that would eliminate TABOR spending limits and replace Amendment 23’s mandated spending with a K-12 trust fund. (See story in that little tabloid paper.) TABOR’s requirement that voters approve tax increases would be retained.

Reasonable folks long have fretted about the Colorado Constitution’s conflicting fiscal requirements, but would such a plan supply the necessary fix? The story doesn’t indicate that it addresses troublesome property-tax provisions.

More to the point, could the Romanoff plan fly this year? The 2008 session is rapidly approaching its mandatory adjournment date, and Romanoff also would need some Republican votes to gain the two-thirds majorities necessary to send the plan to the voters. And, according to the story this morning, Gov. Bill Ritter is non-committal about the idea.

Even more to the point, getting the plan passed by voters would require the kind of well-planned, well-financed, broad-based campaign that was behind Referendum C. It’s an open question whether that’s possible now, given the date and the intense competition for political money this year.