From the editor

As the curtain rings down on the 2007-08 school year, I feel like the cartoon character who has his good conscience, in the form of a miniature angel, whispering in one ear, and his bad conscience, represented by a little devil, whispering in the other.

Only in this case, in place of a good conscience is a positive, upbeat, hopeful school reform angel, and substituting for the bad conscience is a bitter, cynical, dismissive school reform devil. The dialogue goes something like this:

GOOD: It’s been a year of forward motion on school reform in Colorado. We’ve got far-reaching new legislation like BEST school construction, Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, and innovation schools legislation. These new laws will have a positive impact on preK-12 education on Colorado for years to come.

BAD: I’ll grant you the positives in BEST. But CAP4K is a bureaucratic hairball that will choke progress for a long time. And the fact that everyone loved the final version of the innovation schools bill should scare even a cockeyed optimist like you to death. The bill is so watered down with compromises that it will amount to nothing.

GOOD: Well, whatever you think of this year’s legislation, there’s a lot of exciting, innovative stuff happening around the development of new schools in individual school districts, and within the charter school movement. Denver Public Schools is opening new schools this fall as part of its consolidation effort. DPS is also entertaining proposals for new charter and “innovation schools.” Some of these are expansions of models that have proven successful, like West Denver Prep. Aurora is opening its first “ Pilot School” this fall. Mapleton’s MESA High School got all of its first graduating class into four year colleges, as did the Denver School of Science and Technology. Truly, a “thousand points of light.”

BAD: Again, you’re mixing bits of good news with large chunks of BS and assuming the recipe will be tasty. That approach doesn’t work in cooking and it won’t work in school reform. The bits of good news include MESA and DSST, and the possible expansion of  successful models in Denver. The jury is still out on exciting charter possibilities like the Denver Venture School, and on Aurora Pilots. And Denver’s new schools, opening this fall? Puhleeze. I want to take my little trident and jab you in the ear for even mentioning these. The odds against their success are astronomical. Horace Mann Trevista, Place Bridge Academy, Cole Arts and Science Academy. Beware of reconstituted schools with fancy, high falutin’ names.  Especially when the school district is stacking the deck against those same schools by ignoring best practices from other districts. They are rushing the openings, and cramming too many kids and grade levels in without allowing for an orderly phase in. The question isn’t whether they’ll fail, it’s how quickly.

GOOD: My, aren’t we negative? These schools have high-powered leaders who are building strong teams. They will prove you wrong. In any case, we have a new commissioner of education in Colorado, who now has a year under his belt. He is building bridges, repairing the Colorado Department of Education’s tattered image, and making innovative moves to attack our most vexing problems; the achievement gap, for instance.

BAD: Dwight Jones is a smart, driven and capable fellow. But the classroom is where the tale is told. And the commissioner is a long way from the classroom. He can use his position as a bully pulpit, and push through some needed regulatory changes. But until we attract people of the highest caliber to the teaching profession in much larger numbers, and figure out how to keep them in the profession, our schools, particularly in urban areas, will continue to languish. Instead, we get a heaping helping of the happy-talk jargon du jour – building an intentional school culture, having authentically high expectations for all kids, professional learning communities; blah, blah, blah.

GOOD: You are a nattering nabob of negativity. Educators in this state are an incredibly dedicated bunch of hard-working, compassionate people.

BAD: You are a naďve, mush-brained dreamer. Results are all that matter.

Enough. My ears are ringing. Maybe the yammering from both sides will quiet down over the summer. That way, by late August I’ll be able to balance the messages from those tiresome voices in my head and start the 2008-09 school year with a healthy and hopeful perspective.

The article below by Todd Engdahl provides a guide to legislation education passed this year, organized by interest group.

What the legislative session means to you

By Todd Engdahl

The 2008 Colorado legislature did major work on education funding and facilities and on school reform.

But, the nearly 70 education-related bills that were passed aren’t all of interest to everyone in the education community, so EdNews is providing a look at those bills by the people they affect.

You can scan the list for information on bills that might be of most interest to you. The classifications admittedly are arbitrary, and some bills are of interest to a broad range of people, so they are listed more than once. Not all bills passed this year are listed; a few were so narrowly focused that the handful of interested people already know about them.

To read bill texts, go to our Education Bill Tracker and click on the numbers of the bills you’d like read.

Administrators and school boards

General interest:

House Bill 08-1079 updates state law on the administration and funding of career and technical education

House Bill 08-1339 replaces state standards for school bus safety lighting with federal standards

House Bill 08-1344 tightens up requirements for teacher background checks

House Bill 08-1388 (the school finance bill) contains $1 million in grants for which districts can apply to use for planning alternative teacher pay systems

Senate Bill 08-038 divides the state into 12 regions to better coordinate the services that the Department of Education and boards of cooperative educational services provide to local districts. Each region will have a broadly based board to direct its activities, and state funding will be available for their work

Senate Bill 08-130 creates a simpler, more uniform process for schools, groups of schools and districts to apply for waivers from state laws and rules and from union contract provisions so they can create innovative education programs

Senate Bill 08-212 (the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids) will change content standards (and therefore curricula and tests) and college entrance requirements. It will take four-five years for the program to roll out, but administrators need to pay attention early as the program is planned

Bean counters:

The long appropriations bill (House Bill 09-1375) and the school finance bill (House Bill 08-1388) have lots in them for you people, but we’ll spare you the details because we know you’re already on the case

Lunch ladies and gym teachers:

House Bill 08-1224 expands the kind of “wellness” programs (including nutrition) that are eligible for a state health grant program

Senate Bill 08-123 provides free lunches to K-2 students now eligible only for reduced-price lunches

Senate Bill 08-129 requires the State Board of Education to draft regulations for the healthiness of beverages provided at school

Planners:

House Bill 08-1027 gives administrators more choice in getting inspections done on school building projects

House Bill 08-1335 is the Build Excellent Schools Today program designed to provide up to $1 billion in the next few years for school construction and renovation statewide

Principals:

House Bill 08-1386 creates a state principal training program, but some grant money has to be raised before the program can begin

Security guys:

Senate Bill 08-001 creates a school safety center in the state Department of Public Safety

Senate Bill 08-181 creates a process for school personnel to be trained in federal emergency response procedures

House bill 08-1267 sets up a pilot program for creation of high-tech mapping systems that can be used when responding to school emergencies

Charter and reform advocates:

House Bill 08-1159 cleans up state law governing the Charter School Institute

House Bill 08-1388 (the school finance act) provides $10 million for charter school facilities costs (to be distributed on a per-student basis) and maintains the current allocation of at-risk student funds but also requires charters to do a better job of identifying at-risk kids

Senate Bill 08-130 creates a simpler, more uniform process for schools, groups of schools and districts to apply for waivers from state laws and rules and from union contract provisions so they can create innovative education programs

Senate Bill 08-208 toughens up requirements for background checks of charter school employees

Military personnel and families:

House Bill 08-1162 makes it easier for military spouses who hold teaching credentials from other states to get temporary Colorado credentials and teach here

House Bill 08-1252 allows tuition assistance for National Guard members enrolled in the homeland security program at DU

House Bill 08-1317 enrolls Colorado in the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, a program designed to make transfer of records, credits and the like easier for military kids who move into new schools in new states

Senate Bill 08-166 broadens the eligibility for College Opportunity Fund stipends for National Guard members who otherwise are eligible for in-state tuition

Parents

All parents:

House Bill 08-1025 makes possible the state’s new system of tracking student progress year to year, which should help make more sense of CSAP scores

House Bill 08-1336 requires the school districts to do a better and more meaningful job of reporting truancy statistics

Senate Bill 08-212 (the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids) will change content standards (and therefore curricula and tests) and college entrance requirements, but it will take four to five years for the program to roll out

Active parents:

For people heavily involved in school fundraising, House Bills 08-1013 and 1358 expand and clarify the exemption of school-related sales from state (but not local) sales taxes

Students

Future students:

Senate Bill 08-212 (the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids) will change content standards (and therefore curricula and tests) and college entrance requirements, but it will take four-five years for the program to roll out. Financial literacy (House Bill 08-1168) will have to be part of the new standards

Hungry kids:

House Bill 08-1224 expands the kind of “wellness” programs (including nutrition) that are eligible for a state health grant program

Senate Bill 08-123 provides free lunches to K-2 students now eligible only for reduced-price lunches

Senate Bill 08-129 requires the State Board of Education to draft regulations for the healthiness of beverages provided at school (say goodbye to those sodas if your school hasn’t banned them already

Kids who struggle academically:

House Bill 08-1223 requires the Department of Education to provide more training to teachers in handling literacy problems, specifically including dyslexia

Senate Bill 08-089 allows schools to use up to 15 percent of state special education funds on early intervention for young children, the idea being to keep them from needing special ed later

Kids who want to go to college:

House Bill 08-1370 provides $5 million a year for extra counselors in some secondary schools, especially those with lots of at-risk students

Little kids:

House Bill 08-1021 allows highly gifted kids to start kindergarten a year early

House Bill 08-1388 (school finance) provides significant new funding for the state preschool program, full-day kindergarten and kindergarten facilities

Student government types:

House Bill 08-1157 creates a 44-member “Youth Advisory Council” – check with your state senator if this sounds interesting

Test takers:

House Bill 08-1186 says teachers and vice principals can’t penalize you in any way for not taking a CSAP test

Troubled kids:

House Bill 08-1019 requires quicker transfer of records between schools for children who are in foster care and other out-of-home placements

House Bill 08-1204 is designed to improve and standardize the education of kids in juvenile detention and treatment facilities

House Bill 08-1388 (the school finance law) provides more funding for those facilities and schools

Teachers

Everybody:

House Bill 08-1025 made possible the state’s new system of tracking student progress year to year, which should help make more sense of CSAP scores

House Bill 08-1344 tightens up requirements for teacher background checks

House Bill 08-1384 is designed to create some incentives for teacher retention, including a statewide survey of working conditions and financial incentives for some teachers who hold national certifications

Senate Bill 08-212 (the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids) will change content standards (and therefore curricula and tests) and college entrance requirements. It will take four-five years for the program to roll out, but teachers need to pay attention early as the program is planned

Career and tech teachers:

Senate Bill 08-017 changes the credentialing process for career and tech teachers – warning, there are fees involved

Teachers thinking about retirement:

House Bill 08-1403 allows the PERA and the DPS retirement system to merge, which when it happens will make it easier to teachers to leave or join DPS

Senate Bill 08-150 strengthens the confidentiality of retirement records

Would-be teachers:

House Bill 08-1255 broadens the program of loan forgiveness for education grads who teach in rural areas – but it doesn’t provide any new funding

Senate Bill 08-133 provides scholarships for education students who plan to teach math, science, special ed, English-language learns and world languages and actually has some money behind it

University and college folks

Administrators:

House Bill 08-1201 clarifies and updates the administrative powers of the CollegeInvest program

Senate Bill 08-018 clarifies the different roles and duties of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education and the Department of Higher Education

Senate Bill 08-126 gives campus administrators greater flexibility in use of cash funds

Senate Bill 08-245 allows the state treasurer to make college and university bond payments when individual institutions are unable to do so

Athletes:

House Bill 08-1058 requires registration and regulation of agents who seek to represent student athletes

Board members:

Senate Bill 08-191 adds a non-voting faculty member to the School of Mines board and Senate Bill 08-227 changes some of the requirements for the CSU board

Campus cops:

House Bill 08-1106 clarifies that campus police officers (but not security guards) have to be certified

Campus planners:

House Bill 08-1205 gives campus administrators more flexibility in managing construction projects costing less than $2 million

Senate Bill 08-180 provides greater flexibility to the Metro State Auraria boards in acquiring and managing property

Senate Bill 08-218 (and Senate Bill 08-233 and House Joint Resolution 08-1042) create a new, dedicated funding stream for higher education construction projects

Health center directors:

Senate Bill 08-044 urges colleges to do a better job of screening students for TB

Private college promoters:

Senate Bill 08-169 gives the Colorado Commission on Higher Education broader powers to regulate new private colleges

Researchers:

Senate Bill 08-001 will provide about $5 million a year in grants for bioscience research grants.

Students:

Senate Bill 08-073 mandates greater transparency in textbook pricing

Senate Bill 08-079 makes it easier for some students to qualify for in-state tuition regardless of their parents’ residency status

Ed News highlights:

Landmark school construction plan now law

Written by Todd Engdahl

Gov. Bill Ritter Thursday signed House Bill 08-1335, the Build Excellent Schools Today program that was one of the major education initiatives of the 2008 legislative session.

“This is pioneering legislation,” Ritter said during a ceremony at Monaco Elementary School Commerce City, an older school scheduled for repairs this summer. “This is the most substantial commitment to rebuild and repair K-12 schools in the history of Colorado.
 
“It doesn’t solve all of our school-construction needs. But it’s a first step in a long process toward ensuring that all Colorado children learn in safe, healthy schools.”
 
State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, one of the architects of the plan, said, “There’s no greater investment we can make in Colorado’s future. This program puts state resources to their highest and best use for Colorado’s school kids.”

The new law will consolidate some existing construction funds and add about $30 million a year from the state school lands trust fund plus voter-approved local district matches to create a new fund. That money will be used to pay off the lease-purchase agreements that would provide construction money. The program won't tap existing tax revenues or require new state taxes.


in

Key education ballot measures move along

Two education-related ballot measures, one championed by House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and the other by Gov. Bill Ritter, jumped a key procedural hurdle Wednesday but have a long way to go before they appear on the November ballot.

Romanoff’s plan would repeal much of both the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and Amendment 23, diverting the so-called TABOR surpluses to K-12 education and freeing up money in the state general fund for spending on other programs. (Two versions of the plan, No. 125No. 126, were before the state Initiative Title Setting Review Board on Wednesday.)

The speaker, who’s leaving the legislature because of term limits, floated the idea as a legislative referred measure to the voters, but he let the resolution die in committee because he couldn’t round up the two-thirds votes needed in each house. (The two measures considered by the title board differ only slightly. If Romanoff and his allies go ahead, they will choose only one for which to gather signatures.)

The Ritter plan, currently labeled initiative No. 113, would abolish the offset of local property taxes against state mineral severance taxes that energy companies now enjoy. Sixty percent of the additional revenue would be used for college scholarships (called the “Colorado Promise Scholarships”), with portions of the rest going to wildlife habitat, clean energy and for transportation and water needs in communities impacted by energy development. and

Blog highlights

Colorado: the low standards state?

Friday, May 23, 2008
Written by: Pol Econ Ed

The American Federation of Teachers just released a new research report, “Sizing Up State Standards,” that assesses the strength of state standards around the country.   They identify Colorado as one of only 7 states with no strong standards, according to their evaluation.

The report’s findings are not all negative – they find one state, Virginia, having 100% of their standards ranked strong, and many others making good progress in strengthening standards. 

I’m not expert enough about standards to know if AFT’s perspectives are correct, but they should be sobering to people in Colorado who might think we now have good/strong standards.  AFT looks for “clear, specific, and content-focused standards.”

It would seem that CAP4K and its re-thinking of state standards, testing, and assessment regimes is a very necessary and important project.

Bennet strikes back on ProComp

Friday, May 23, 2008
Written by: Alan Gottlieb

It’s always risky wading into the piranha-infested waters of  school district-teacher union contract negotiations. But what’s occurring right now between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association merits comment.

First of all, it appears that the groundbreaking teacher compensation system approved by voters three years ago, at a cost of $25 million per year, has been a flop with teachers. Apparently, the incentives offered for performance, acquisition of skills and willingness to specialize or teach in tough schools were insufficient to attract much interest.

So, DPS wants to do two things. One is to increase the size of bonuses to make them more attractive. The second, more significant, is to take the tens of millions of unspent ProComp dollars (piling up in a trust fund) and use them to frontload salaries for new and mid-career teachers. DPS says this would result in an immediate, average $9,000 per year bump in salaries.

So, why has the DCTA declared a bargaining impasse, its leadership expressing “no confidence” in Supt. Michael Bennet? It’s hard to say. From appearances though, the same union that showed fortitude and vision by co-authoring ProComp now want to dismantle it. It looks as though the union wants all that money poured into the traditional salary schedule. See Uncle Charley’s post on this topic from earlier this week.

Bennet, never one to sit idly by, has fired off a letter to all DPS teachers, explaining the district offer. He attached a detailed Powerpoint presentation. Read the letter here and see the Powerpoint here.

Unless and until the union responds publicly (and it might, because leadership hates nothing more than when Bennet has the temerity to address its membership directly) we can only rely on quotes in newspaper stories.

Let’s hope the union fires back publicly, so we an understand where its leadership is coming from. Though, given the way the DCTA has behaved recently, any response probably will be written in crayon.  

This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 8:37 am and is filed under Teacher unions, Teacher pay. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Edit this entry.

3 Responses to “Bennet strikes back on ProComp”

1. Uncle Charley Says:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 am e

You’d think a blog like this one (http://dctaprez.blogspot.com/) would at least give some insight to your question. But nope. Ms. Ursetta has been silent for more than a week. It really makes you curious what’s going on behind CEA / DCTA doors.

Sad, but also somewhat predictable, that the union would lose nerve and threaten to shut down ProComp so soon after helping to get it off the ground.

But the credit goes to Bennet, who has made a bold and shrewd move (in addition, to the right one) in pushing the offer he has to upgrade ProComp. Union leadership is now conflicted between the demands of its senior members and its junior members. DCTA needs to choose wisely …

2. pol econ ed Says:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am e

These posts have made some excelllent points.

But, I don’t think ProComp is really at risk. This impasse highlights the fact that ProComp had to be a compromise, full of many different kinds of elements to boost teacher pay, if it was going to get passed, with union support, in the first place. Now, after some experience, there is some evidence about what elements are being utilized, which ones are not, and how much money is being paid out. And, this key question of whether or not the balance will shift to a program with even more, and larger, incentives, or focus more upon benefits that approach entitlements.

To their credit, Bennet and DPS are pushing for more money for incentives, as well as boosting entry pay. While this may rattle more senior teachers in the union, surveys do show that teachers generally support higher “combat pay” in at-risk schools, and higher entry pay is popular. I think there is plenty of room for a good compromise, favorable to DPS tudents, on this impasse.

3. van schoales Says:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm e

So I wonder what DCTA will propose? It seems to me that ProComp is fairly broken with $87 million sitting in trust and only $7 million being paid out this year, not to mention the $2 million/year in administrative overhead. On top of all of this, there seems little public evidence that ProComp or these particular types of pay-for-performance systems have an impact on student performance. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of paying people for performance (teachers too) but I’m not sure that this system will do the trick. I’d like to hear more from folks that know much more than I do about ProComp or similar systems. What do the rest of you think? By the way, the main reccomendations of Bennet and Co. seem to make a great deal of sense in terms of recruiting and retaining teachers but I wonder why this program should be regarded as a “pay for performance” system.

Demise of the College Opportunity Fund

Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Written by: Captain Haddock

With recent talk of voucher legislation affecting K-12 schools, Colorado’s very own “voucher” program for college students, the College Opportunity Fund (COF), is under fire.  COF was supposed to help low income kids pay their college tuition by throwing a couple thousand bucks their way.  But COF is meeting with grumbles, especially among Dems.  According to the Rocky:

Schools say COF is too complicated. While most eligible students get the stipend, more than 3,000 this year didn’t apply and needlessly paid up to $2,600 more for their education or defaulted on their bills.

"The bottom line is that COF was a noble goal that met reality," said Tony Kinkel, president of Pikes Peak Community College in Colorado Springs. "It’s time to get rid of it."

David Skaggs, a former Democratic congressman and now executive director of the state Department of Higher Education, said he’s received only complaints about the funding system.

"There’s a consistent theme . . . all in the ‘We avoided TABOR but other than that this isn’t worth it category.’ "

The initial rationale for COF – exempting tuition from the TABOR revenue cap and providing support to low income students —  was laudable, even though its initial supporters might have gotten a little too caught up in the market-based ideology behind it.  But however well intentioned, it never flew.  The process to apply for COF is complicated, so many students never even bothered. 

Providing an affordable higher education to all Colorado kids is a good idea.  Let’s hope that the next plan that comes down the line does its job.  As a start, may I suggest (or at least daydream about) eliminating TABOR.  That’s the main reason our state needed COF to begin with.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am and is filed under Higher ed. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Edit this entry.

3 Responses to “Demise of the College Opportunity Fund”

1. pol econ ed Says:
   May 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am e

While the COF certainly has problems, they would seem to be fixable, if only to keep tuition out from under the TABOR restrictions. What amazes me is that the colleges/universities were not actually paid more COF money, even when they attracted (or did not attract) students. That is not only contrary to the policy concept, but seems to be against the law. That is the part I would get upset about. Similarly, it would seem that the application process could be eased in practice, and made nearly automatic. I agree that the ideological idea that this would stimulate increased college going and access by low income students was always a somewhat unrealistic hope.

2. Uncle Charley Says:
   May 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am e

I largely agree about the COF: Mend it, don’t end it.

3. David Ethan Greenberg Says:
   May 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm e

It is interesting that the many of the same people who believe most strongly in equalized funding for K-12 education are philosophically against the COF, even though that’s the function it is designed to accomplish for publicly funded higher ed.

Prior to the COF, the research universities received the most per pupil funding from the state…in the case of say, CU-Boulder, close to three times per student what a community college received. Now, where do the most affluent students attend college? At the research universities. And where do the poorest go to school? At the community colleges and places like Metro, which get the least $$$ on a per student basis from the state.

I know relatively few politicians who would support the proposition that we should fund affluent school districts like Cherry Creek or Boulder with two or three times the tax dollars per student as we would fund Mapleton or Pueblo. But it seems to be OK to fund the higher ed institutions who serve affluent students at two or three times the rate as those that serve the less advantaged.

By having the funding go to the student rather than the institution, COF was to address this imbalance by balancing the subsidies out. Affluent kids still got a bigger subsidy, but it was closer to what the poor kids would get.

But:

1. The per state funding for the COF, thanks to TABOR, dropped from a planned $4700 per student to under $3000 by the time it was implemented, making it relatively useless as a way to make college entry affordable;
2. The state created a somewhat cumbersome student registration process for the COF, and the high schools were too inept to explain it to their kids; and
3. It was called a “voucher”, which immediately tainted the discussion, even though COF was based on what is generally considered the most successful program in history in opening up higher education to a mass population, the GI Bill, which was, gasp, a voucher system!

So the whole thing lost momentum.

If the state moves back to the old system, the most affluent kids in the state will once again get the biggest hidden subsidies; the populists can pretend that they are providing poor kids more “opportunity” by offering lower subsidies but higher “financial aid”, and nothing will change. And other than poor kids, who won’t know they are getting screwed, everyone will be happy.

The issue isn’t about a misguided faith in free markets…its about equity.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form