As far as I know, this is the first-ever setback for a school choice tax credit program in the judicial system, at least as a less-than-100 percent positive decision. Both the Institute for Justice — which represents New Hampshire families who benefit from the program in the case — and the Cato Institute’s Jason Bedrick highlight the dangerous dual fallacy in the judicial logic:

1. In direct contradiction with the U.S. Supreme Court and other sources, “money that would otherwise be flowing to the government,” even though it has never entered the state coffers, is in fact “public funds”
2. Therefore, the “public funds” in scholarship tax credits only can support parental choices of secular private schools, but not religious schools

The first point ought to scare Granite State citizens. After all, it’s somewhat less than refreshing to learn that, for all legal intents and purposes, a portion of your money belongs to the government before it actually, or even potentially, gets there. What of the notion that someone who lawfully earns money is presumed to be entitled to the fruits of his or her labor? How many “public funds” are in your bank account? So much for the “Live Free” part of the state motto.

The second point inspires no greater confidence than the first. As Bedrick quotes Josiah Bartlett Center president Charlie Arlinghaus about the distinction between religious and secular educational options in what parents can choose:

This ruling is particularly odd. The entire program is fine unless a parent by their own choice chooses a religious school. By this logic a program is illegal if neutral and only legal if actively hostile to religion.

For now, I think we all can accept that Judge Lewis’ ruling indeed stands out as a “particularly odd” bird in the jurisprudence of this type of private school choice. So no reason to give pause about pursuing a scholarship tax credit program for Colorado, which would help Colorado kids win. Given the peculiarity and the logical implications of yesterday’s New Hampshire decision, we have every indication the case will be appealed to (and ought to be overturned by) a higher court.

The nation’s leading school choice advocacy organization offers up some key details:

The American Federation for Children, the nation’s voice for educational choice, today praised the Arizona Legislature for passing two educational choice bills that will greatly improve educational options for thousands of Arizona families. Senate Bill 1363 expands the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to include kindergartners who were previously excluded from the program and expands the scholarship amount for qualifying children. House Bill 2617 improves the Corporate Tax Credit, allowing qualifying small businesses to donate to the tuition tax credit program. Both laws now await Gov. Jan Brewer’s signature.

It must be a pretty neat feeling to accomplish so much good with the stroke of a pen. When (not if) SB 1363 is officially adopted, it will be the second straight year Arizona has grown its first-of-a-kind ESA program. The 2013 improvements include putting more educational dollars in families’ control by tying the formula to charter school funding, and making kindergarteners eligible for the program (yay!).

The other bill, HB 2617, affects one of Arizona’s three existing scholarship tax credit programs by allowing small businesses (not just large corporations) to take a credit for making donations that allow poor and some middle-income kids a chance to attend a private school of their choice. If you want to learn more about Arizona’s Corporate STO Credit and how a similar program could work for Colorado, check out my Education Policy Center friend’s recent paper and the fabulous website Colorado Kids Win.

This is some good news you can take with yourself to the ballpark, on vacation, or wherever else the summer season might take you. Cheer up, and celebrate the progress of school choice!

In Douglas County, Colorado, they are actually going to offer more pay to attract teachers in shortage areas, thus becoming the first school district to enact the law of supply and demand.

Supply and demand? Whoa, how radical for K-12 education! First, let me assure you there is no known threat of economists taking over schools. Put those conspiracy flowcharts away. Douglas County’s fluid system assigns new teacher hires to one of five different salary bands, based on which of 70 teaching job descriptions for which they have applied. Both middle school and high school social studies instructors (who presumably cover economics in class) fall in the lower two pay bands.

For some, however, like displaced union president Brenda Smith, a basic principle of economics is just a passing fad for the world of education:

The most offensive and destructive aspect of [DCSD's new compensation and evaluation system] would label some teachers as more valuable than others. Since it’s apparently easier to recruit a second-grade teacher than a 10th-grade science teacher, the second-grade teacher would be paid less. Is a great science teacher really worth more to a child’s education than a great second-grade teacher teaching that child to read?

To which I reply: Ms. Smith, is a 30-year veteran 2nd grade teacher more valuable to the kids in her class than the 5-year veteran 2nd grade teacher who works down the hall? So why are most K-12 educator pay systems built around seniority? Because it’s a convenience for the adults and encourages loyalty and longevity, which works up to a point. In most districts, the first teacher would be paid considerably more: How is that fair?

If there are fewer well-qualified applicants for one area of teaching, doesn’t it also make sense to pay them more to ensure there are enough to meet students’ needs? Who decides the inherent value of different employees to the school district’s mission (i.e., adding value to children’s education), and on what (hopefully rational) basis? You don’t have to go down this path of thinking too far before you realize the school district is not its own universe and that the opportunity costs of employees and potential employees also have to be considered.

We may be getting to the root of the issue here. Recognizing the differences in demand for educational specialties, not to mention in teacher effectiveness, undercuts this notion of lockstep labor solidarity transplanted into K-12 education from the industrial world. Market-based pay and performance pay better respect and recognize the importance of professional teaching that honors individual excellence, healthy teamwork, and what schools need to meet students’ needs.

I haven’t even taken time to touch on the inaccuracies and misleading statements in Ms. Smith’s Denver Post op-ed. Like the fact there actually were hundreds of teachers involved in crafting the evaluation system and related pieces — just without her and her fellow formerly-taxpayer-subsidized union officer colleagues acting as filters.

What about the myth of the “$84 million fund balance”, exaggerated claims about a mass exodus of disgruntled teachers, or the wildly overstated decline in third grade literacy? The result is outlandish rhetoric from Ms. Smith about “demonization and devaluation” that leaves the average reader scratching her head.

I think the real fad here to be tossed out of K-12 education, like bell bottoms and disco from mainstream American culture, is the industrial union collective model dictating how teachers are evaluated and paid. Real system transformation can be scary, especially for those losing power. To me, though, the fruits of such change look very promising for productive learning, for using taxpayer resources to help raise up the next generation of citizen leaders and breadwinners. But hey, I’m just a child of the 21st century.

Last week, the Wisconsin legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approved new tax deductions for families that put their kids in private school as part of its 2013-2015 budget. The plan allows for families to deduct up to $4,000 for every student in kindergarten through eighth grade and up to $10,000 for every high school student.

According to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Wisconsin is already surrounded by states that offer individual families tax deductions or credits for private tuition and/or other educational expenses. The short list of seven states includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota.

While this is a fine approach, and I certainly wish Wisconsin well, Colorado would do even better to pursue a scholarship tax credit program. This proposal, something that even more states have adopted, provides a benefit not directly to families but to taxpayers who donate to scholarship organizations that help low- and middle-income students attend private schools. And the benefit for a credit is bigger than for a deduction.

Check out the short video for a better explanation. Or just go straight to the new website Colorado Kids Win to find all the resources you need. As scholarship tax credit programs help more and more students, and save expenses by the state, they also grow in popularity. How do you like that?

If adopting such a program means we can outdo Wisconsin, so much the better!

Today offers a somewhat subtle example, but a very important one nonetheless. Douglas County School District’s innovative work of adopting market-based pay, recognizing the economic realities of supply and demand for different teaching specialties, got a national write-up by Reuters’ Stephanie Simon. I’m already tuned into what’s going on in Colorado’s third-largest district, so more than the information itself, it was this reaction that caught my eye:

“It’s quite novel,” said Eric Hanushek, an education economist at Stanford University.

That would be the same Eric Hanushek who is rated as the third-most influential “Edu-Scholar” in the country. And what’s his honest reaction? Dougco’s work in this area is “quite novel.” Former Education Secretary William Bennett would list market-based pay among “all of the good reforms” Dougco uniquely has taken on. I just prefer to call it one of a kind.

Earlier I told you about one Colorado charter school (included in this Independence Institute report) that has been using a differential compensation model for several years. Beyond that, I’m not aware of any school district — even the ones doing real or so-called “performance pay” — that has trod Dougco’s trailblazing path.

So much so, that Dr. Ranjit Nair’s piece on effective personnel recruiting and management, in the American Enterprise Institute’s new “Roadmap for Education Reform” series, doesn’t even mention the idea of market-based pay.

However, the Reuters piece notes that Dougco’s market-based pay system has “drawn attention” nationally from other superintendents, including Houston’s Terry Grier. So maybe it will catch on quickly, right?

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The comment from a former local teachers union organizer exposes the opposition’s shoddy reasoning while also reminding us why it can be so difficult to effect such a commonsense policy change that allocates scarce resources to attract quality instructional talent:

“I really don’t believe a P.E. teacher works less than I do. He has more kids than I do. And he may be the one who’s keeping some kids in school so they’ll sit through my class,” high-school English teacher Carlye Holladay said. “You need so many different kinds of teachers to reach all kids.”

It’s not necessarily about what kind of teacher works harder — either to prepare for the job for on the job itself — though one has to wonder why more applicants are lining up for P.E. positions than for advanced math or special education. Meanwhile, the second half of her argument works precisely for the imaginative effort she is railing against. Recognizing disparities in teacher supply and demand, and being able to adjust accordingly, better ensures that capable people fill all “different kinds” of positions.

In every other sphere of life, we understand that a person has no more inherent value than another because of his or her salary. It’s how the free market functions effectively, how systems are better aligned to meet the needs of customers. Yet in the world of K-12 education, we Transformers cross our fingers and hope against hope that as Dougco moves forward with market-based pay and learns and adapts from the experience, that the idea spreads a little more quickly than the norm. Is that too much to ask?

Friday it was Colorado’s turn in the spotlight. Antonucci came at the information from an interesting angle, showing that Denver Public Schools’ ProComp “performance pay” system has not deterred new hiring. He makes a few other valuable observations. But leave it to little old Eddie here to uncover a few more interesting tidbits from the data for you all.

First of all, the Census Bureau says the state’s per-pupil funding grew by 8.3 percent from 2006 to 2011 — just short of keeping pace with inflation. Yet as Antonucci explains in a newer post, school districts typically are not set up to absorb the occasional recessionary cuts like they are the frequent increases that outstrip the “marginal costs”:

School systems do not compute costs and then seek revenue to cover those costs. They match spending to available revenue, “computed” through the political process.

Second, the per-pupil impacts are all over the place for individual Colorado districts. Just among the largest 50, you have some districts that experienced healthy 5-year funding gains (all figures calculated per student):

1. Englewood (26%)
2. Fountain-Ft. Carson (21%)
3. Falcon 49 (19.9%)
4. Montezuma-Cortez (19.8%)
5. Fort Lupton (19.6%)

And it’s noteworthy also to see the district budgets hardest hit:

1. Steamboat Springs (-9.8%)
2. Adams 14 (-5.1%)
3. Douglas County (-3.1%)
4. Montrose County (-2.7%)
5. Poudre (-1.8%)

Altogether, teacher hiring in about 70 percent of the top 50 districts did not keep up with student enrollment. All told there are just over 17 students enrolled for each Colorado teacher. But so much of the story is left untold by the numbers. Is having more teachers better? Not necessarily. Keep an eye on policies as they change to focus more on retaining and rewarding teachers based on effectiveness.

Finally, there are the discrepancies on how much Colorado spent per student in 2010-11:

• U.S. Census Bureau: $8,743
• U.S. Department of Education: Not available yet
• Colorado Department of Education: $9,414
• National Education Association: $9,953

Wait, why don’t all the numbers agree? I’m just stuck here scratching my head.

Still, the data tell part of the story. Given the way Antonucci introduced his Friday post, nothing against Denver Public Schools. Yet in a few years, it will be even more telling to see how stronger compensation reforms in Douglas County, Harrison, and Eagle County affect hiring in those places, too.

Behavioral patterns connected with exercising a little self-restraint are usually deemed to be good habits. Raising taxes is anything but an effective solution for a education system that isn’t exactly built to be productive. A key problem with the current billion-dollar tax initiative is that it’s not tied to nearly enough substantive reform to give voters confidence that the money will yield significantly positive results.

The Ed News piece, though, takes some older people on a walk down memory lane. It goes beyond the 2011 demolition of Proposition 103 as far back as 1982, to look at Colorado statewide tax hike initiatives. The result is mixed, but definitely against overall. For every Referendum C or Amendment 23 there are a couple that went down to the ashes of defeat. It seems hard to draw any big conclusions because the substance and circumstances vary quite a bit.

While they raise points on both sides, the consensus of experts in the story suggests passing this year’s K-12 tax hike will be an “uphill battle.” A few of the challenges include a lack of bipartisan political support, ongoing economic struggles, and a narrowing time frame to convince voters to open up the pocketbooks. A couple points they didn’t raise were that Colorado currently ranks 26th in combined state and local tax burden, and in current spending per student (pg 55, Table H-11).

Having said all that, one sentence in the Ed News story nonetheless raises a couple quibbles:

Some education advocates have been nervous about the fact that a final version of the ballot measure hasn’t been selected.

First, it would be really nice to know which of the 20 versions of a tax increase we are going to be confronted with deciding… and soon. Second, it’s unfortunate to see the term “education advocates” used strictly in the context of those supporting the tax initiative package. Plenty of people, including myself, support education without necessarily favoring this approach.

Having looked back once again, it’s time to cast our gaze forward with a couple parting questions: Would it help or hurt the cause if voters knew that Colorado schools report spending $9,000 to $10,000 per student each year just on operating expenses? Or that voters in some counties would end up paying a lot more in taxes than their local schools will see in their coffers?

And the beat goes on….

Twenty years ago on Monday, then-Gov. Roy Romer signed into law Colorado’s Charter Schools Act, the third of its kind in the country. Carroll captures the essence of it well and, importantly, also points readers to a great new Independence Institute non-fiction story:

Cracking the door open to school choice wasn’t easy, of course. It took supporters years of work and multiple setbacks in the legislature before open enrollment and charters emerged intact. And that story of relentless resolve has now been recounted, step by step, in a 37-page booklet released by The Independence Institute titled “On the Road of Innovation: Colorado’s Charter School Law Turns 20.”

The respected Post columnist gives high praise to the report, calling it “painstakingly evenhanded.” I would also point out that it’s an interesting page-turner, much more gripping to read than the usual wonkery (not that there’s anything wrong with that). This new paper has political drama, lighthearted moments, and even some sad stories. If you care at all about kids and schools, and have even a slight appreciation about learning from the past, you’ll want to read it.

Not convinced to check out On the Road of Innovation yet? Whet your appetite by listening to yesterday’s 20-minute radio conversation between Benigno and Ben DeGrow. Then you also can go ahead and watch the cool 25-minute commemorative documentary created by the Colorado League of Charter Schools.

It may be dusty old history to me because I happen to be so perpetually young. But at the same time, the paper (not to mention, the podcast and video) reminds us of all the creative hard work that went into building the thriving Colorado charter landscape we see today. It may give me a lot more to keep an eye on, but I certainly appreciate being able to do that!

I already provided some clarification to that story, when it still only graced the pages of local newsprint. But the Post story includes an observation about a different Dougco elementary school that bears a closer look:

Parents at Saddle Ranch Elementary held a rally Thursday in support of the school’s teachers after they heard that about 18 of the campus’ 35 teachers were leaving the district. They said none of the teachers at the school were given a highly effective rating, and they believe those teachers are not being valued.

District officials would not comment on teacher ratings at the school, and said only eight teachers, including three retirees, have officially said they are leaving. [emphases added]

This isn’t the first time we have seen disputed numbers about how many teachers are actually leaving Dougco schools. And we’ve already seen how the official numbers of teachers not returning to DCSD is pretty much in line with past years, not to mention how the elimination of a certain inducement to retire is having its own effect. Surely I’m not alone in hoping to see someone investigating to see the source of rumors that are providing us with mismatched numbers.

One might wonder what kind of role displaced union leaders have played in trying to tear down the CITE evaluation system — which hundreds of Dougco teachers helped to craft — and to poison the atmosphere for a Board of Education they don’t much care for. In another recent Denver Post story, the DCFT president painted a picture of how the evaluation system and related changes took place, a picture that doesn’t mesh with other accounts:

Union leaders said the plan, which bases raises on evaluation results and market-based salary criteria developed by the district, is misleading and lacks transparency.

“They are trying to put out this show that teachers are extremely happy about this, but, in the end, I think people are highly confused about what it is that they will be getting,” said Brenda Smith, president of the Douglas County Federation.

Some might say: Hold on a minute. Why even interview a leader from a union that isn’t even officially recognized anymore? I take a different position. Reporters should do the interview if they want, just ask a different question, something to set them apart from others covering events. Who is willing to look into it?

DCSD’s groundbreaking educator evaluation and pay system isn’t the only fresh issue that merits journalistic scrutiny. The 2012 expiration of Dougco’s teachers union master contract — with DCFT losing its monopoly power — is essentially without precedent for a district of that size. Why not ask Randi Weingarten or Brenda Smith (or another local AFT official) how many union members remain after the district payroll system stopped collecting AFT dues and political contributions? Previously, about 70 percent of 3,300 teachers belonged.

Until an intrepid investigative reporter digs deeper, we have to speculate on the numbers. A couple of recent examples are instructive. More than a decade ago Utah passed the Voluntary Contributions Act, which ended school district collection of union political action funds only (as opposed to all dues funds in Dougco). As a result, the share of teachers contributing to union PACs dropped by 90 percent.

More recently, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s Act 10 reforms — which limited union collective bargaining power, though not to the same extent as the Douglas County School Board’s actions — resulted in a 30 percent drop in union membership among local and state government employees. The two-year decline just for one of Wisconsin’s larger AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees) chapters was 35 percent.

So could we really guess that the Douglas County Federation of Teachers has lost about a third of its membership? It’s helpful to find the answer, since if the drop-off has been even 30 percent (or less), then a true majority of Dougco classroom educators no longer now are union members. I don’t know the answer. But somebody in the private union organization does. And the reporter who works to uncover the facts may have a nice little scoop.

The premise of the report is an unusually high number of teachers leaving DCSD’s Chaparral High School. Two teachers and union members — including one who served on DCFT’s 2012 negotiation team — say they are departing for greener pastures because of an “adversarial” relationship with the central administration, particularly related to the development of a teacher evaluation system:

“Teachers were not a part of the process. We did not collaborate. We were not a part of the conversation of what was going to be included in it,” [Chaparral teacher and DCFT negotiator Carlye] Holladay said.

The first issue to address is the entire perception that Chaparral is representative of some massive teacher walkout. The 9News story showed a slide of district figures that indicate teacher turnover is only up ever so slightly, in line with last year’s numbers. Given the scope of changes, that’s rather remarkable. But the next slide in the presentation also tells more of the story:

While the combined number of those who “resigned” or left on an “involuntary” basis stayed exactly the same from last year, it’s not clear how much of the sharp increase in teacher retirements are from Chaparral as opposed to other sites. But one reason some teachers might find it opportune to retire is the final year of a negotiated phase-out to extended severance service benefits. In future years those payouts will be gone, fully redirected back to classrooms. But there’s also another phase-out of funds now headed back to serve students that may tell part of the story:

Using taxpayer funds to underwrite unaccountable union officer salaries was part of the status quo regime. But that doesn’t get to the heart of the particular problem. What about the alleged cause for the complaint that teachers haven’t been involved or collaborated in the innovation process? Why state something that is so easily disprovable?

As school board president John Carson pointed out to 9News, hundreds of teachers have been involved in the crafting of the CITE evaluation system (300 alone on the Standard 6 Task Force) as well as the changes to other key components, such as curriculum, assessments, and professional pathways.

The strategy for the opponents of choice and innovation seems to be a focused attack on the evaluation system — which, as the Denver Post carefully reports, is tied to differentiated compensation increases for the overwhelming majority of DCSD teachers. A few months ago, the status of the evaluation system was the one area of concern expressed by DCSD teachers amid overwhelmingly strong responses of satisfaction.

Still, critics who support the traditional union pay model over the performance-based model haven’t offered suggestions to improve the evaluations. Rather, they seem far more interested in using the situation as a political bludgeon to attack cultural and systemic changes they don’t like, changes they must fear will spread to other districts. Maybe their fears are stoked by declining union membership numbers so likely to have followed the end of union dues collections.

One thing they ought to fear, however? Telling obvious falsehoods about the role teachers have played in crafting Douglas County’s innovative changes.