First, Education Next recently released the results of its 2010 annual survey. The bottom line?

With the exceptions of school spending and teacher tenure, the divisions between ordinary Democrats and Republicans on education policy matters are quite minor. To be sure, disagreements among Americans continue to linger. Indeed, with the exception of student and school accountability measures, Americans as a whole do not stand steadfastly behind any single reform proposal. Yet the most salient divisions appear to be within, not between, the political parties. And we find growing support for several strategies put forward in recent years by leaders of both political parties—most notably online education and merit pay.

In particular, Education Next’s Paul Peterson and Marty West talk about the growing support for charter schools — most notably among minority groups and parents who live in neighborhoods where charter schools operate.

Second, this morning the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released its latest version of the Report Card on American Education. Matthew Ladner, Andrew LeFevre and Dan Lips analyze and rate each state on two basic frameworks:

1. Measured performance and academic growth among the state’s low-income students; and
2. The quality of the state’s education policies in the areas of choice, accountability and educator effectiveness

Interestingly, Colorado ranks 17th in the former category and second nationally in the latter category. (Which is the only state leading Colorado? You guessed it: Florida.)

As we move forward, I hope both sets of data help to inform Colorado’s education reform strategies and efforts.

That may be true, but I do like to understand where the people running for office stand on education issues, so I was glad to see today’s story by Todd Engdahl in Ed News Colorado on Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper’s education agenda — which breaks down the campaign’s official issue brief:

Education needs to be about what is best for our kids and that means raising the level of their achievement in knowledge and skills necessary to be successful adults. We must continue our investment in building a 21st Century education system in Colorado. Without a strong education system, job creation and economic development cannot be sustained. Making Colorado synonomous [sic] with innovation has to include supporting great teachers, and engaging parents and local communities as partners to improve our schools.

Key Priorities

• Build on the work that is currently underway involving the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) to develop a more strategic assessment tool to inform and impact student outcomes and respond accordingly.
• Improve transparency in our school districts and hold leaders responsible while giving them the authority and tools to effectuate change.
• Develop and support better teachers and better principals using more integrated technologies across the State.
• Create and expand career-oriented partnerships with community-based organizations and businesses.

I know: Some thoughtful broad-stroke ideas, but not a lot of depth. It’s actually pretty good as campaign policy documents go (spelling goof aside), and much more substantive and engaged than any education briefs I’ve seen from other gubernatorial candidates.

Though to be fair, the other candidates deserve time to weigh in. In addition to placing a footnote or two so readers know who says Colorado ranks 12th or 28th in this or that, they also should be careful about the claims they make that could be challenged by statistics. From the Hickenlooper education brief:

One of the biggest challenges we face is that other states are spending more on education than we are. Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming all spend more per pupil than Colorado. In fact only two neighboring states (Arizona and Utah) spend less on education than we do.

Wait… Not so fast! A look at the most recent financial data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) show that Colorado ranks ahead of all neighboring states except Wyoming and Nebraska in total dollars spent per student (chart below compiled from Table 6 and Table 8 of revenue and expenditure data):

NCES 2007-08 Total Spending Per Pupil
And of course, a look at static rankings leaves out the perspective of how much per-pupil education funding in Colorado and the nation has grown over time, using real dollars for comparison.

Hats off to the Hickenlooper team to weigh in first on education issues, setting a high bar for a substantive discussion. Hopefully, they clean up the typo and clarify the claim about Colorado’s K-12 funding record while listing more sources. But maybe this post just all goes to show how much of a little geek I can be (in which case I may give out a letter grade later).

Why? Because some of the fuel behind getting the State Board to adopt the interstate educational compact was the value it would add to the state’s RTTT application — despite objections laid out by state senator Keith King (R-Colorado Springs) and others. Word on the street is that some local school officials have been raising the specter of repeal, feeding on the RTTT loss to add momentum to their cause.

In a new blog post, the State Board’s Marcia Neal (R-Grand Junction) reasserted her deep skepticism toward federal involvement in education and what she sees as a course of action leading Colorado down a path toward greater national dictates on our schools:

We’re told Washington doesn’t understand local control. Might I provide an example School districts and personnel, as well as the public, have been very involved in the development of Colorado standards, adopted by the SBE in May, 2010. Following adoption of the Common Core (by 4-3 vote), anxious to move forward, they asked us what they should do next. The answer…nothing, “wait until we find out.” Is that not indicative of the future?

One thing the R2T announcement made clear, Colorado is one of the leaders in educational reform. Others are woefully unprepared. Are we to wait for them or are they to make a gigantic leap forward? We already work and collaborate with other high achieving states like Massachusetts, Indiana and others.

Given the current state of events, two of the State Board members who voted to adopt Common Core — Republican Randy DeHoff and Democrat Elaine Gantz-Berman — penned the column “Standards a must for schools” for Sunday’s Denver Post, seeking to allay fears:

The only role the federal government has played in encouraging states to adopt the Common Core was to tie it to points earned in the Race to the Top grant application. Although Colorado is disappointed that we did not earn a Race to the Top grant, we firmly believe adopting the Common Core was the right step….

There is healthy skepticism that adopting the standards will lead to too much federal intrusion in our classrooms. But standards don’t tell us what to teach or how to teach it. Rather, they describe at what level students must grasp the depth and complexity of subjects at each grade level.

Those seriously interested in rolling back or repealing Colorado’s adoption of the Common Core standards would have to change the mind of one of the four original Yes votes to be successful. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

What about in 2011? At least two new members will join the Board: It looks like they will be Republicans Paul Lundeen and Deb Scheffel. Lundeen has sent an open letter to the State Board declaring his opposition to Common Core. Scheffel — who also has a Democratic opponent William Townend running in her overwhelmingly Republican district — most likely will fill Randy DeHoff’s seat. Where she stands on the issue might foretell the fate of the movement to see Colorado “unadopt” Common Core.

But since I can’t get my mind off being aghast that Colorado missed out on its chance at $175 million, you just really need to check out some of these reactions. First, a trifecta from our friends over at EdNews Colorado:

1. Alexander Ooms reminds us not to overreact, that outcomes are important and we can effect positive change without the $175 million
2. Robert Reichardt points out that Colorado and other Western states can’t win until we effectively explain how local control really works
3. Ben DeGrow from our own Education Policy Center notes how Colorado’s RTTT loss could open the door for the unions’ “politics of blocking”

Put together, a wide range of observations on the Race to the Top results raises plenty of questions, and ultimately casts doubt on the value of the program:

• The Eduwonk Andy Rotherham highlights some of the problems with the grant-review process and suggests Secretary Arne Duncan convene a commission to improve the process for future versions of RTTT (or other large-scale federal education grant programs)
• Rick Hess feels sorry for Duncan for all the messes created, including having “to tell strong-willed reform leaders like Colorado state senator Mike Johnston and state chief Dwight Jones….’Sorry about that, but go check out Hawaii’s reform agenda.’”
• Mike Petrilli points out that when reviewers updated their scores, mediocre Ohio somehow passed up reform mecca Louisiana: “Ohio’s surge allowed Ted Strickland to edge out both Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie–and the White House can’t be too upset about that.”
• In a similar vein, Harvard’s Paul Peterson says the process is suspect, bringing attention to the fact that 9 of the 10 winners were Blue States (Democrat-leaning) and concluding that “RttT is as much or more a partisan boondoggle as an education reform strategy.”

All that being said, if Colorado still feels bad about losing out, at least we’re not New Jersey — where a bureaucratic mistake on the application form cost the state $400 million in federal education funds. Talk about a political hot potato….

If recent history is our guide, then we should go back to March and look at NCTQ’s forecast from the first round of RTTT. Delaware, Rhode Island and Tennessee were the only three states to receive green lights; Delaware and Tennessee ended up the only two states to come home with the money.

This time around there figure to be plenty more winners. So the fact that Colorado is one of only three states (Louisiana and Rhode Island are the others) plus Washington, D.C., to receive the coveted green light means our state is a virtual shoo-in for the federal dollars. What kind of valuable, long-term positive impacts would Colorado experience in the highly likely scenario of being an RTTT winner? Now there’s an open question.

Some of the same people who insist teachers across the board are underpaid also hope you can’t do the math. As the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke points out, the touted number of teacher jobs to be saved (100,000) means the cost for each job is approximately $100,000. Are teachers getting paid really well? Or is the rest of the money paying bureaucrats or buying political favors? I may be young, but I’m not naive enough to expect any serious answers.

Of course, Mike Antonucci also has done the research and reporting to show that the estimates of layoff numbers are overblown as many teachers across the country are being rehired. Does this mean that a “crisis” has been manufactured to help push our nation — and particularly, me and my generation — deeper in debt? You said it. Not I.

It looks like the Obama administration — which is a champion of the edujobs bailout — no longer needs to be burdened by perceptions that they have bucked too hard against the National Education Association (NEA) and other established interests. Rick Hess aptly observes that the President and Arne Duncan have been showcasing the belief “it’s better to spend and then start wishing really hard than to make the tough choices.”

In this case, they and a couple Republican Senators from Maine bowed down to the NEA’s lobbying campaign that will end up ensuring millions more in dues revenue while kids like me get nothing more than being stuck with the bill for money borrowed plus interest.

Some of the decisions made by the State Board are pretty cut and dry, many of an administrative nature. From time to time they are faced with more momentous choices. Monday’s vote certainly is one of them. My understanding — based on the Ed News report as well as what my Education Policy Center friends are hearing — is that of the Board’s seven members, two are definitely opposed (Peggy Littleton and Marcia Neal) and one is leaning that way. Board chairman Bob Schaffer could turn out to be the deciding vote.

It’s kind of a Catch-22: Voting Yes on Common Core opens up a potential Pandora’s Box of greater federal control and involvement over Colorado parents and schools. Voting No means effectively ruling out Colorado’s chances to bring home up to $175 million in U.S. Department of Education Race to the Top reform dollars. (Note: Over the four years of the grant award, that probably will amount to less than one-half of one percent of Colorado’s total K-12 revenues.)

I’ve thought long and hard about the matter, and believe that the price for adopting Common Core is too high. Colorado can continue to move forward on education reform and make tough decisions without the major federal entanglement it would entail. I agree with the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke:

…the Obama Administration’s push for national standards and tests, threatens the long-established right of parents to direct their children’s education and confuses a proper understanding of federalism. States model federalism for children by setting standards, tests, and curriculum. But that important lesson in self-government will be another unintended casualty of this standards overhaul now that the federal government is overreaching to set the educational terms for local schools….

But it’s not just our deep-rooted principal of federalism that is at stake in President Obama’s education agenda; it’s also our ongoing pursuit of excellence that hangs in the balance.

Adding weight, Matt Ladner’s latest in-depth analysis effectively exposes the weak arguments of some leaders advocating for the adoption of Common Core — those who are trying to tell us just to relax and not worry about the whole thing.

Sorry, I can’t relax, especially with Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan pushing the envelope more and more on the federal role in education. The more I learn about Common Core, the more concerned I am about what a rash decision to approve them could mean for Colorado’s current and future students, like me. State Board member Peggy Littleton brought the important issue to our attention a couple months ago, and I’m very glad she did.

Also of interest on this topic: Listen to the new 10-minute iVoices podcast as Kit Carson School District’s Gerald Keefe explains why he and other rural superintendents are pushing back against the effort to enact national standards.

Peterson muses that a Republican takeover of Congress this November just might save Obama’s presidency… by saving his education reform program:

Will a Republican majority in the House, coupled with a conservative majority in the Senate, throw the president a lifeline? As the presidential election heats up, many Republicans will urge relentless opposition to everything, even if it fits the education reform agenda. But that backward-looking strategy will only give substance to inevitable Democratic charges that Republicans are negative nabobs of Know Nothing. If the president proposes something school reformers like, Republicans will have to sign on.

It’s an interesting argument. Feel free to chime in. Judging by the way my mom and dad yell at the TV a lot during the political news programs, I’m guessing there isn’t a whole lot that President Obama and Republicans agree on generally. If school choice and education reform is that one thing, then here’s to making some important progress in that area. Because it would be better than the situation we have now in Congress, that’s for sure.

In his new report for Education Next titled “The Long Reach of Teachers Unions,” the inimitable Mike Antonucci looks at the big picture of NEA and AFT spending, and then breaks it down state-by-state. He writes:

In the 2007–08 election cycle, total spending on state and federal campaigns, political parties, and ballot measures exceeded $5.8 billion. The first-place NEA spent more than $56.3 million, $12.5 million ahead of the second-place group. That’s not all. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the smaller of the two national professional education unions, ranked 25th in campaign spending, with almost $12 million, while NEA/AFT collaborative campaigns spent an additional $3.4 million, enough to earn the rank of 123rd. All told, the two national teachers unions distributed $71.7 million on candidate and issue campaigns from California to Florida, Massachusetts to South Dakota. Millions more went to policy research to support the unions’ agenda.

A look at the state-by-state chart Antonucci created (PDF) reveals that Colorado was the third-largest target of combined NEA & AFT spending in total dollars. Because Colorado is a relatively small state, we were the second biggest target on a per-teacher spending basis.

In all, the two teachers unions expended $8.3 million on political action in our fair state in 2007-08 — which breaks down to about $174 per teacher. Only Oregon had a bigger bulls-eye. But why Colorado?

As I explained before, a large part of the reason was the unions’ intense opposition to two ballot measures: a Right-to-Work amendment for private employees (despite the fact Colorado teachers themselves have Right-to-Work protections) and the Ethical Standards amendment, which would have kept school districts and other government agencies out of the business of automatic dues collection.

So, being summertime and all, this news is a call to shine up the old badge of honor, pin it on my shirt, and go play Cops and Robbers (or Cops and Union Bosses) in the neighborhood with my friends.

Now look, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think unions per se are the problem here (though the kind of bizarre and irrational scare tactics exemplified in the video certainly aren’t helping their cause). And I certainly don’t think union officials deserve all the blame for the special legal (and sometimes tax-funded) arrangements that help them live high on the hog. It’s human nature. Besides, there have been plenty of complicit local and state elected officials.

However, I can almost imagine an alternative version of this video, if someone were willing and able to make it. The premise? A non-union teacher wishing she didn’t have to go through a painful annual process of opting out of union dues, and awakening to a world with greater options, such as:

• Government agencies recognizing all (union and non-union) membership alternatives as equal options
• The ability to join a local-only union rather than having an all-or-nothing choice through the unified dues structure
• For those who belong to any union or non-union organization, the respect and courtesy of being asked first before political funds are deducted from their paychecks, and of course…
• The freedom not to have to visit, or send a letter to, a private office during a two-week period of the busiest time of the school year just to ensure you don’t lose more than $700 in dues to a group you never chose to join

But I guess that wouldn’t be quite as scary. Because if the union is as great as this original video says it is, why fear giving teachers and other education employees more choices?