In other words, the proposal that represents a small, positive step for parental empowerment stepped out from beneath the groundhog’s shadow. And not a moment too soon, for such a commonsense piece of legislation.

Yes, it’s sad to see only Republican representatives showing a modest support for the education consumer. Is it just Colorado where Democrats seem so universally wed to protecting K-12 institutions of power (the Colorado Association of School Boards and Colorado Education Association both testified against HB 1149) at the expense of a little extra parent voice in the school turnaround process?

Interestingly, California Democrat Gloria Romero today expounded on her support of a more comprehensive parent trigger bill coming out Florida:

This is not a Democratic or a Republican fight. It’s a fight for parents, by parents. This is also a civil rights issue that is personal to me. My mother had a sixth grade education; I have a Ph.D. I know what education means for ending poverty, and I know how hard we are making it for millions of children to get the quality education they need and deserve.

If you are poor, African-American, Latino or a member of any other underserved constituency, too often your success in school is tied to your zip code and to government officials who make life-altering decisions for you. Those with financial means move to a different school, but those who stay need a way to make the schools work for their children.

Or as Colorado’s Rep. Beezley was quoted in the Ed News story:

Help me offer a little bit of hope … to parents with children in some of our lowest performing schools…

The far-from-conservative Metro Organizations for People came out in support of HB 1149, noting that the existing five-year turnaround process is “far too long.” If they were in California or Florida, they may have found support from the Democratic caucus so far. There’s still time for the Colorado legislature to debate and vote on this bill in a bipartisan (or better yet, nonpartisan) fashion. I hold out hope that it can be the case.

In the video, Bowdon highlights the wonderful news about last July’s decision rejecting the NAACP lawsuit. Justice Paul Feinman wrote in that opinion:

The court is not permitted, nor would it be appropriate, to substitute its own view of this complex societal question of how best to educate our children for the conclusions already reached by the legislative and executive branches.

I am pained to say this, but the Manhattan judge’s demonstration of humility could serve as a lesson to Colorado judges who have presumed authority in the Lobato school funding lawsuit. That 2009 ruling has opened the door for the costly postlude to the original round of legal debates. Now that the judiciary has said it can determine school finance policy, they have started getting their chance to weigh in. And it’s not been pretty.

Professor Joshua Dunn, the CU-Colorado Springs scholar who broke down the conclusions in Part 2, Round 1 of the Lobato case on an iVoices podcast, has followed through with a Colorado Springs Gazette op-ed that drives the point home:

Shockingly, Judge Rappaport claimed that “the interpretation of the Education Clause does not need to be harmonized with either TABOR or the Gallagher Amendment.” In other words, the judge believes she is free to ignore those inconvenient amendments.

To illustrate what a preposterous, and dangerous, position that is, imagine the U.S. Supreme Court saying that the President’s commander-in-chief powers did not have to be harmonized with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. Outrage would be the appropriate response.

I guess there’s a lot of outrage going on then. Outrage that a group like the NAACP would play legal hardball to deprive poor children of color of educational opportunity. Outrage that the anti-charter forces there still haven’t given up. Outrage that a New York judge shows more humility than our Colorado bench. Outrage that parts of our state constitution get ignored. On and on it goes….

But it’s Friday, so I’m going to mellow out. And just smile…. And play Legos. Have a great weekend!

This made for useful sound bites, but was always problematic because the definition of classroom spending was amorphous. Principals and curriculum specialists weren’t classroom spending, but teachers’ dental benefits were. There was bound to be a lot of cheating to reach the magic number. Unions hated it. And even though unions hated it, I didn’t like it either. In 2006, I wrote that I remained “doubtful that meeting such a threshold has any effect on the quality of instruction or on student performance.”

Very similar points were made by my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow when Colorado’s Amendment 39 and Referendum J were on the ballot in 2006 — before my time. He noted that unions and established interest groups were on the right side of the issue, if largely for the wrong reasons. While the proposals crashed and burned here in Colorado, apparently a few other states like Georgia latched on.

The “65% Solution” still had enough mojo to emerge as part of a Florida ballot initiative package in 2008. In one of my first-ever postings here, I speculated about the danger of mixing good & bad policy for short-term political benefit. Since then, though, the report from Georgia is the first I’ve heard on the issue.

Another lesson? Not all reform fads are good. The so-called 65% Solution neglected the root of a systemic problem in K-12 education. Reshuffling dollars spent with new bureaucratic titles or accounting categories sells the problem short. Let the money follow the student based on need and parental choice, and we won’t need to worry about changing state law or the constitution to require certain shares of K-12 dollars fall into a certain category.

That would be change we could all rally behind. No dustbins needed.

To commemorate the occasion, Colorado’s own State Board of Education chairman Bob Schaffer penned his thoughts on the National Journal Education Experts blog. At the time NCLB was debated and passed Congress, Schaffer was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. So his perspective on what he describes as “an enormously bad idea” is especially insightful:

Ten years later, there are few who deny NCLB has been a failure. Anyone who expected otherwise back in 2001 was either fooling himself, or more likely, didn’t read the law.

The law actually accomplished just what it was written to do – spend enormous sums of money the federal government didn’t have and hadn’t yet printed, provide perverse incentives for lower standards, and turn school administrators and teachers into dutiful federal bureaucrats instead of the productive local educators they had previously been free to be.

Ouch. Schaffer explains elsewhere in his piece how the original idea under the name “No Child Left Behind” promoted by President Bush was a good concept that morphed into a bad program through the Congressional amendment process. He also argues that the marginally positive benefits that have followed NCLB were “well underway through state initiative” and likely would have come to fruition without the joint efforts of Bush and the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

Like I said before, I haven’t been alive long enough to know just how true that is, though his argument certainly has merit. Back in the day, my Education Policy Center friends tried to make the most of the federal legislation here on the ground in Colorado. In 2003 Pam Benigno wrote the influential, groundbreaking and frequently-cited issue paper No Child Left Behind Mandates School Choice: Colorado’s First Year. In the end, sadly, the nearly toothless and incomplete federal legislation failed to fulfill the promise, notwithstanding the best efforts of many.

For a slightly different point of view, you also should check out Kathleen Porter-Magee’s somewhat softer assessment that the law primarily fell short because of weak implementation that failed to upgrade from the NCLB 1.0 scheme. I sort of get her comparison of NCLB to the iPod, since my dad sometimes lets me play with his.

Congress may some day get around to reauthorizing the major education legislation — whether tweaking it or starting over from scratch, I don’t know. But here’s hoping that lawmakers take heed to the lessons of why NCLB failed to fulfill the lofty expectations.

Ed News Colorado’s Todd Engdahl as usual does a great job previewing the session and legislative initiatives likely to emerge. If you want the in-depth take, you simply have to go check out the story. According to the story, action is likely to be seen on the following fronts, among others:

• School finance reform
• Standardized testing implementation
• Charter authorizing standards
• Educator effectiveness rules ratification
• Online education oversight and regulation
• School construction funding
• School discipline policies
• A new version of the “parent trigger”
• “Restrictions on automatic salary increases for teachers who earn master’s degrees” (yee haw!)
• Private tuition tax credits

Many, not all, of these present some welcome changes. And of course, the devil remains in the details. In the meantime, word on the street is that another bill is coming to require school district-union bargaining transparency.

It looks like 2012 could bring some more Colorado legislative activity on K-12 education than a slow 2011 did. How much legislation passes, not to mention how much will be worth passing, remains to be seen. But now that my Education Policy Center friends are so much closer to the State Capitol, you can bet that little Eddie will have more of a front seat to observe what’s going on….

Along with our fantastic School Choice for Kids website, this is definitely something you’ll want to know about for 2012, if you are at all interested in looking for a new public school for your child here in the great Centennial State. Many school district open enrollment periods really get rolling in January. This kind of guide can be very valuable if you think the cyberschool option might be right for your family.

Shortly thereafter comes the first-ever national Digital Learning Day on February 1. Colorado is one of at least 27 states to have signed on as a partner to this effort. Participating in Digital Learning Day is something I definitely look forward to!

Meanwhile, as we here in Colorado are fighting back against the overwrought attacks on full-time online schools, yesterday comes this excellent commentary in the Detroit News by Ingrid Jacques:

…Eleven years ago, Michigan became one of the first states to open a statewide virtual school. This year, the Michigan Virtual School facilitated around 18,000 course enrollments to middle and high school students, giving more children access to advanced and specialized courses.

The state additionally offers several multidistrict and numerous single-district virtual programs, according to a report on virtual learning by Michael Van Beek, education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

And starting in 2010, Michigan opened two full-time virtual charter schools — a result of legislation passed in late 2009 to bolster the state’s chances of winning money from the federal Education Department’s Race to the Top program. [emphasis added]

Yes, this is the same Michael Van Beek who I have cited in writing about transparent union negotiations, taxpayer-funded union release time (where have we heard about that recently?), public school open enrollment and teacher performance pay. Sounds like he covers a lot of the same ground as my Education Policy Center friends, huh?

Speaking of which (in addition to the new publication and the February 1 celebration) 2012 also will kick off with my friends pushing forward in the fight to break down Colorado policy barriers that limit effective online and blended learning opportunities. One key example that Van Beek mentions in the same column for Michigan would also apply to our state — namely, that “the Legislature remove seat-time requirements and instead reward schools based on student mastery of a subject.”

Sure, maybe we can take a break now so we can unwrap the presents from Santa and spend a little extra time playing in the snow. But we need to be prepared to come back next year to take part in this important work!

What’s that, you may ask? EMO is money automatically collected with union member dues to spend on state and local political campaigns. Still need a clearer picture? Watch this 14-minute segment with the Independence Institute’s Jon Caldara interviewing Ben on his weekly public affairs show Devil’s Advocate about the Colorado teachers union political refund:

Ben shares an important point on his own blog:

As I often say, if you like how the union spends your money on politics, you have no reason to complain and absolutely nothing to do. But for those teachers who would rather support their own political causes, or use the money to pay for Christmas shopping or just save for a rainy day, then members need to be informed of their opportunity.

Since the time is so short before the deadline comes, here are some key shortcuts to ask for the Every Member Option political refunds ($39 for CEA, up to $24 for some of the CEA locals). Check out the Independent Teachers website for explanations, deadlines, amounts, addresses, form letters and more. Or you can go directly to CEA’s online refund request form (though there is no such form for those who want the refund from the local union, too).

If you are a Colorado teacher — if you know one, if you love one, if you care about one — please pass on the word about this opportunity. It will take you only a minute or two to do, about the same amount of time for the member who wants to request one or more EMO refunds. But remember: After December 15, the opportunity (and the money) is gone for the whole 2011-12 school year!

The contract provides an estimated $900,000 in annual release time for police union work, including lobbying. Six officers are released from city work on a full-time basis (each receiving 160 hours of overtime at 1.5x their regular salary). PLEA also uses 35 representatives. These representatives are not given a set amount of release time. Instead, they are authorized to use an unspecified amount of release time to accompany fellow officers to grievance meetings, use of force hearings, etc…. Release time harms police officers….

Then yesterday, the national website Real Clear Markets featured commentary from the Manhattan Institute’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth that the federal government is dishing out huge sums of taxpayer dollars for bureaucrats not to work:

…The Office of Personnel Management reports that taxpayers paid Federal workers over $137 million in 2010 to work as representatives for government unions, up from $129 million in 2009.

The time that union representatives spend not working for taxpayers is labeled “official time” by OPM. According to the report, “Official time is time spent by Federal employees performing representational work for a bargaining unit in lieu of their regularly assigned work.” Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, this is perfectly legal.

I’m not sure whether to be completely outraged that money I’m going to have to pay back when I grow older is being wasted like this, or relieved to learn that Colorado school districts aren’t alone in having this problem. Back in 2010 my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow wrote his latest analysis of the union release time boondoggle. Previously he uncovered the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars annually used to subsidize teachers union activities. His 2010 report simply asked for a little commonsense accountability… Please?

As I noted months ago:

The privilege remains embedded in many collective bargaining agreements. The Jefferson County Education Association, for example, gets 275 days each year releasing teachers from the classroom to do union business with the district responsible for paying the substitute costs. Evidence showed an earlier president of the Poudre Education Association engaged in political activities while most of her salary was paid from public funds. The same arrangement remains in place.

Did I mention some of the taxpayer-funded leave days have been used to lobby at the State Capitol?

I get it. There’s only so much attention out there that parents and other citizens can give. There’s only so much outrage to go around before forehead veins start popping everywhere, before the stress does all the big people in. And the federal government in Washington, D.C., is eating up some people’s quota for outrageous and disturbing news.

But I’d like to think if there was a little more awareness of the problem, a little more reporting of the wasted taxpayer dollars — maybe some open union negotiations to expose the “release time” subsidies more widely to the general public — that we might see some positive changes. A little accountability? Some taxpayer savings, or maybe rewards for better teachers?

I don’t have to be a dreamer, though. Any school board members or legislators out there paying attention?

Pretty much nobody is in school today, as we all gear up for the big turkey feast tomorrow. As my parents constantly remind me, the fourth Thursday in November is about more than food and football. Yes, Thanksgiving is about giving thanks. While I could gratefully mention the standard fare — family, friends (like those big people in the Education Policy Center), freedom, our big screen TV, and my growing (ahem!) Legos collection — more fitting for the blog are seven things to be thankful for in Colorado K-12 education:

1. While nobody asked Colorado teacher union members before taking political contributions from their paychecks, at least they can ask for the money back by December 15;
2. While the state senate president hasn’t given up his attacks on the online education option for parents, at least his attempt to push a selective audit was defeated;
3. While a number of pro-reform school board candidates lost and many inside the “education bubble” were distraught at the crushing defeat of the Prop 103 tax hike, at least the opportunity for truly creative innovation lies ahead with a number of new pro-reform board members ready to step up;
4. While a Denver judge went out of his way to shut down the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program, at least the rays of hope for a successful appeal on behalf of students and parents are growing brighter;
5. While a lot of hard work remains to be done, at least the State Board of Education has continued to push for a top-notch educator evaluation system through the rule-making process;
6. While the open enrollment process is less than perfect and opportunities could be expanded, at least Colorado still has one of the strongest laws and Denver Public Schools is making it easier for parents to exercise their options; and
7. While we still have a long way to go in ensuring the best in public school financial transparency, at least some more districts and other K-12 agencies are making progress to comply with the 2010 law.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I will be back on Monday, with my turkey sandwich and leftovers.

Colorado’s top senator says he’ll introduce legislation to “rein in” online schools after his request for an online education audit was rejected Tuesday on a party-line vote by the Legislative Audit Committee.

The gridlock in question is yesterday’s 4-4 audit committee vote, which prevents Senate President (and Congressional candidate) Brandon Shaffer from making a selective attack on K-12 online providers and the families that choose their services for a full-time educational program. At least through the audit process, that is. Ed News writer Nancy Mitchell explains that opponents of Shaffer’s request proposed a more comprehensive audit:

Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora, immediately questioned the scope of the audit, asking why all K-12 schools weren’t included.

“I can tell you I think there is tremendous problems right now in all of our public schools, regardless of whether they’re online or not,” she said. “So I’m concerned at why we need to do this audit.”

Hey, how about an audit of school districts granting taxpayer-funded release time to unions with little or no accountability? Among other troubling revelations, we have seen many union leave days used to lobby at the State Capitol during the school day. My Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow wrote a paper documenting the abuse.

The problem is “gridlock” would probably eat up any such commonsense audit request — unless perhaps it could be included in the comprehensive K-12 audit request? Now there’s an outcome I would be reluctant to bet any of my precious piggy bank pennies on.

And so we’re left with a case of Audits for thee, but not for me, and a state senate president still bent on regulating the online education option to death when we know that’s just a terrible idea.

How many more nights of sound sleep for little Eddie until the legislative session starts?