“…a final resolution of the constitutional and legal issues involved in the case require an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

“The judge’s decision provided little practical guidance on how the state should fund a ‘thorough and uniform’ system of public education. Moreover, while the judge focused on the inadequacy of state funding, she did not reconcile this issue with other very relevant provisions of the Constitution, including the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23….”

Along these same lines, UCCS political scientist Joshua Dunn even more strongly pointed out on a recent iVoices podcast that Judge Rappaport’s ruling uniquely demonstrated “an absolute contempt for the constitution” by openly stating she could ignore those important constitutional provisions. In comments for a School Reform News story written by my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow and released on Tuesday, Dunn made a couple other key observations, including:

Dunn believes the judiciary should not write policy, since it is free to ignore the competing demands of state-budgeted services.

“Courts don’t have to consider opportunity costs. That’s why God gave us legislatures,” he said.

So long story short, it is good to see Lobato being appealed, though it’s sad that the case even has reached this point and will drag on for many more months and cost taxpayers many more thousands of dollars. It’s also important to note that only one of the two key parties has made the important decision before Christmas. Hopefully, the other comes before the New Year. Thus Ed News Colorado reports:

…the State Board of Education, after an hour-long closed session over the phone, adjourned without taking a vote on an appeal and will meet again Dec. 27.

I don’t know what the delay is about with the state board, but there’s probably a good reason. In the meantime, here’s wishing some good holiday cheer will help lead them to a sound and sensible course of action, too.

Being of a decidedly reform-minded bent, the group has offered up some expected developments in their five choices for each of the “Best” and “Worst” categories. Most of the items I’ve covered at one time or another during 2011. Naturally I can’t make you vote for any particular events (or even vote at all), but I am making some strong suggestions that fans could select on my behalf as one of the most inexpensive Christmas gifts you’ve ever purchased. This is my blog, and I like to save the best for last. So which of the five choices should you recognize as the worst education event of 2011?

Worst: As time goes on, I have less and less patience for the big people in Washington, D.C., so the bungled re-authorization of No Child Left Behind (#2) mostly makes me shrug. The magical money tree hasn’t done much for real education reform in many of the Race to the Top-winning states (#3), either. Maybe California’s new governor further messing things up (#4) just seems too far away for me to get too worked up. And as tempting a choice as it is, the chief reasons for the repeal of Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 (#5) are little connected to education reform and teachers unions.

So by default, I am casting my vote for #1: the Atlanta cheating scandal. As I wrote months ago when the story first emerged, the problem here is the predictable overreaction from reform opponents. If the scandal led to better testing security and/or greater use of online adaptive assessments, I would have to vote for something else as the worst development of the year. But the Koret Task Force page explains what really has transpired:

…[W]hat the public has “learned” is that testing is bad because it creates so much stress that well-meaning educators are pushed to the limit and eventually succumb (for the children’s sake, of course!) to the temptation to cheat, lie, and break the law.

Best: My Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow wrote an op-ed explaining the sensible rationale for rolling back government employee collective bargaining privileges in states like Wisconsin (#2). expressed my admiration for the sweeping range or reforms legislated in Indiana (#5). While California made some progress in establishing working rules for its “Parent Trigger” (#3), here in Colorado the idea faltered. And my edu-crush on Michelle Rhee is no secret, so I had to give some consideration to her teacher evaluation system surviving her tenure in DC Public Schools (#4).

But in the end, we can’t do any better than recognizing 2011 as the Year of School Choice (#1). Especially when the “reinvigoration of school choice via opportunity scholarships and vouchers” hit so close to home with the passage of the groundbreaking Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program. Forget the injunction for now. Cast your vote for the accelerating national trend toward educational freedom.

Vote for the #1s, and I’ll say: Thank you very much! Of course, I could point out that there are still nearly four weeks left in 2011, and maybe we haven’t yet experienced the “best” or “worst” education event of the year. But that’s just the pesky little provocateur in me speaking….

As four school reform bills Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) successfully championed earlier in 2011 go into effect, Sandoval is redoubling efforts to expand school choice and end social promotion for third-graders who lack basic reading skills.

Nevada’s House and Senate are currently controlled by Democrats. During this last session, they refused to grant a hearing to a voucher bill Sandoval backed. Nevada lawmakers convene every other year, so the governor’s next crack at improving K-12 education will come in 2013.

A key insight that comes out in the story is the Nevada governor’s commitment to advancing a big plan that would give more families real choices about their learning options. And his staff is doing the homework to come up with the right plan. It sounds very promising.

The local Nevada Policy Research Institute is cheering for tuition tax credits. In a new Daily Caller column, Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute makes the case for such a program to help save state budgets — particularly focusing on a positive response to the strong, resounding No! Colorado voters gave to the Proposition 103 tax hike. DeGrow laid out the estimated savings in detail in his K-12 contribution to last year’s Citizens’ Budget.

Earlier this year the Colorado legislature gave some hope of at least moving the conversation forward on tuition tax credits, with House Bill 1048. Given the way it was treated in the legislative sausage-maker, it’s hard to see a clear path for the promising proposal in the imminent future.

But now is certainly not the time to give up. Especially not when Nevada may move forward with such a program in 2013 (it’s really not that far away, you know). Some might be skeptical of Governor Sandoval’s ability to pull together a winning coalition for a strong school choice bill, but the comments of some in the School Reform News story are quite encouraging. So when it comes to guessing whether Nevada might be among the next states to enact a private school choice program, all I can say is: Don’t bet against it!

Earlier this week the Pennsylvania state senate voted 27-22 to approve a plan that “provides vouchers to low-income students attending the bottom 5 percent of the state’s worst performing school districts in achievement tests,” reports the American Federation for Children. The legislation also would expand the state’s large and highly successful tuition tax credit program.

Writing for the Daily Caller, Andrew Campanella explains how the momentum behind this legislative proposal shows how school choice has risen above traditional political barriers to find increasing support in “blue states”:

Led by a Democrat and a Republican, a school voucher bill — yes, a voucher bill — passed out of the State Senate with bipartisan support, just one day after the legislation (Senate Bill 1) was approved in the Senate Education Committee.

This all happened in the Keystone State, a state that voted for President Obama in 2008 by more than 10 percentage points. In fact, the last time the state voted for a Republican for president, there was still a superpower called the Soviet Union and the sitcom “Full House” was in its first season.

I have to admit that TV show is before my time, though when I mentioned it to my parents and my Education Policy Center friends it brought out some chuckles. Apparently the show starred a little girl (yuck!) who always said “You got it, dude,” when she liked what someone else had to say, and predictably played the conscience of the big people on the show with the line: “You’re in big trouble, Mister!”

The bipartisan plan that passed the state senate is supported by Governor Tom Corbett — whom RiShawn Biddle notes is stepping up this time around to take a stand for school choice and parent power. That leaves the state house as the big X factor to determine the fate of a program designed to offer an educational rescue to many of Pennsylvania’s most disadvantaged students.

As much as it pains me to do so, let me conclude by giving both the Pennsylvania state senate and Mr. Campanella a big “You got it, dude.” And if they end up killing this school choice bill, you can bet I’ll be telling off the Pennsylvania state house: “You’re in big trouble, Mister!” Hey, I’m twice as cute as that little girl (girls?) was. Not to mention less bratty and more successful in using my adorable precociousness in support of a terrific cause!

Meaningful education reform must be forced upon the system from outside by giving parents of all income levels real choices about where their children go to school. That requires giving parents comprehensive school choice that includes an expanded charter-school system and a voucher program for low-income parents with children trapped in a failing school.

The debate about improving failing urban schools has raged for decades, but solutions have been unacceptably slow in coming. Unless progress in student achievement accelerates, it will be 2123 before all children are at grade level in reading and math. During that time, we will continue to lose an increasing percentage of African American and Latino males to the criminal-justice system and an increasing percentage of Philadelphians will be sentenced to a permanent underclass requiring increased social services. The lack of quality education harms the community as a whole. We can do better.

I’m not the only one to offer up a hearty “Amen.” Independent columnist Chris Freind gives Ackerman high marks for her remarkably bold and honest take about effective education reform. The columnist’s only regret? That the former superintendent waited so long to declare her support:

But it is a sad note that revelations like hers must come after her departure. Just imagine how different things could have been had the Philadelphia School Superintendent come out of the gate advocating school choice. While certainly not a slam dunk, it would have infinitely increased the chances for the adoption of choice, particularly since a majority of the legislature and Governor Tom Corbett also favor it.

While voucher legislation came up short in Pennsylvania this year — defying the 2011 “Year of School Choice” trend — a column like the one written by the former Philadelphia schools superintendent may add momentum to push a bill over the finish line in the Keystone State in 2012. And the momentum keeps growing….

What’s the connection? The Des Moines Register reports today that Gov. Terry Branstad and his education man Glass have proposed “the most sweeping and comprehensive changes to Iowa’s education system in the state’s history.” Reported areas of major change include:

1. Overhauling teacher pay systems (interesting note: Des Moines was one of the very first districts in the country to adopt the now-ineffective single-salary schedule… talk about stubborn!)
2. Raising the bar on teacher preparation program requirements
3. Ending “social promotion for third-graders who can’t read” — a la Florida
4. Creating a rigorous accountability system for school performance — like Florida again, perhaps?
5. Instituting end-of-course exams for core secondary subject areas to ensure students are competent when they graduate

These are certainly some good ideas. As the Register notes:

Jason Glass, Department of Education director, called the blueprint one of the most aggressive reform plans to be put forth by a state.

Is he right? I’ll take his word for it, at least for now. With so many bold education reform plans and bills going on throughout the nation, little old me would be getting too big for my boots to make any of my own grand pronouncements about one state vs. another. Locally, though, the Iowa governor’ grand reform plans face some significant political challenges. There are legitimate questions about additional costs and whether Iowa’s K-12 system can achieve greater productivity. But the forthcoming initiative also has elicited some open minds, as well.

Maybe those Iowans aren’t so stubborn after all. Maybe effective education reform really ought to give Iowa a try. We’ll just have to wait and see….

“Far too few of their high school graduates are actually prepared to go on to college,” Duncan said on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” airing tonight and tomorrow. “I feel very, very badly for the children there.”

“You have seen massive increases in class size,” Duncan said of the Texas public school system during Perry’s terms as governor since December 2000. “You’ve seen cutbacks in funding. It doesn’t serve the children well. It doesn’t serve the state well. It doesn’t serve the state’s economy well. And ultimately it hurts the country.”

Eduwonk and Time Magazine education columnist (and Democrat) Andrew Rotherham was as puzzled as anyone by the Secretary’s broadside, and got a chance to follow up directly:

When I asked [Arne] Duncan about this dire assessment in an interview I had scheduled today for my next School of Thought column, the former head of the Chicago school system was light on specifics:

“Texas has challenges. The record speaks for itself. Lots of other states have challenges too. But there is a lot of hard work that needs to be done in Texas and a lot of children who need a chance to get a great education.”

To which edublogging guru Joanne Jacobs aptly replied:

The statement is meaningless: All states have challenges that require hard work. The question is whether Texas is shirking.

Both Rotherham and Jacobs point out that Texas hasn’t been shirking. A stellar performer? No, but certainly nowhere near the bottom. The Lone Star State’s graduation rate significantly outperforms the Windy City, where Duncan once ran the schools, and even Texas’ minority students edge out their Chicago counterparts. (To be fair, Rotherham has his own issues with Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s education platform and posits that “it’s debatable how much credit Perry deserves for education reforms that largely predate his administration.” But I’m not writing here to wade into these deep political waters.)

Further, the Secretary’s claim that Texas has witnessed “massive increases in class size” does not comport with reality — as analyzed both by PolitiFact and the Dallas Morning News. The line of criticism itself is strange enough given that only six weeks ago Duncan told a national news reporter that reform should focus more on teacher quality than class size.

But what do I know? I’m just a kid, and a lot of this political debate flies way over my head. Someone tells me the big election is 442 days away. If it only gets more absurd the closer we get to November 6, 2012, just how crazy is all this talk going to get?

But you know what? Colorado isn’t the only place where people are currently waiting for a judicial decision on a “Choice Scholarship Program.” This news comes today from the Northwest Indiana Times:

A Marion County judge is set to rule next week on whether Indiana’s new school voucher program passes constitutional muster.

Talk about back-to-back big news in the school choice world. One week a Denver District Court judge rules on whether the nation’s first local school board-enacted voucher program can go forward. The next week a Marion County judge makes the same determination concerning the nation’s most expansive voucher program, enacted this year by Governor Mitch Daniels and the Indiana legislature.

It’s for this reason among others that the Hoosier State last night won the Fordham Institute’s “Ed Reform Idol” competition. (By the way, did anyone consider the sweet irony of Tony Bennett hoisting the “Idol” trophy? No, not that Tony Bennett. Who put that picture there? I’m talking about Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction.)

Anyway, while reformers stay tuned to legal developments in Colorado and Indiana with eager anticipation, there are hundreds and even thousands of families with a lot more riding on the line. This is very personal for them. My Education Policy Center friends have met with and heard from several of them in Douglas County, even sharing a video to tell 13-year-old Nate Oakley’s story.

For these very important reasons and more, here I am keeping my fingers crossed….

First and foremost is an article titled “Utah passes first ‘high-quality’ digital learning law; districts seek guidance”:

Online education providers are embracing Utah’s cutting-edge digital learning law, but struggling for guidance as high school students enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools sign up for virtual courses this fall.

Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed Senate Bill 65, the first law in the nation to incorporate all 10 elements of high-quality learning the Digital Learning Council proposed last year. For the program’s first two years, Utah students enrolled in a traditional or public charter school can take up to two high school-level courses from approved digital providers through the new Statewide Online Education Program (SOEP).

“Utah is leading the nation with a student-centric online policy that empowers parents and students with the ability to choose the course and provider that best meet their individual learning and academic needs,” said Robyn Bagley, board chair of Parents for Choice in Education (PCE), a Salt Lake City-based grassroots group. [link added]

This is the same Robyn Bagley who last month, at the invitation of the Independence Institute, shared with education leaders lessons from Utah’s adoption of its digital learning law.

And now for something completely (well, sort of) different, here’s the other School Reform News story:

Tough economic times have pushed a Utah school district to sidestep formal bargaining relations with union officers and to draft a new, non-union contract teachers must sign—or lose their jobs.

On June 28, the Ogden City School District (OCSD) board ratified a “common contract” for teachers, formally ending the Ogden Education Association (OEA)’s exclusive right to represent district employees in negotiations for salaries, benefits, and working conditions. The decision ended 15 months of unsuccessful efforts to renegotiate a collective bargaining agreement.

Utah and Colorado are among only nine states where school boards have such latitude to decertify a union’s status as exclusive representative and change the terms of negotiation — as long as the bargaining contract is expired, of course. Rather than open up a whole can of worms with this debate right now, let me just say that there certainly are some interesting education reform developments going on in the state of Utah.

So apparently there’s some big national march called “Save Our Schools” or something like that. I told you about it a month ago. While the good people at the National Council on Teacher Quality took a conciliatory approach to pointing out the flaws in the “SOS” program. But the award goes to Sara Mead, writing at Eduwonk, for this effective takedown:

…This is not an agenda for accomplishing anything. It’s just a wish list. Half of it is a wishlist of things the organizers don’t want (performance-based pay, school closures). Half of it is a wishlist for things someone might want, without any clear theory of how to operationalize them or what that might actually look like in practice in the real world. (I, too, would like to see “Well-rounded education that develops every student’s intellectual, creative, and physical potential”–but in the absence of clear prescriptions and mechanisms about how to make that a reality, well, you might as well wish for a pony, too.)…

I can’t help but think that a lot of people marching on the nation’s capital for this cause — as pure as their motives may be — are tangling with some vague, outsized imaginary enemy. Then again, as Anthony Krisky has pointed out, it’s not exactly a grassroots movement. Given the pro-union sympathies of so many of its outspoken leaders, one might have to ask them what they think about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s reforms enabling local school districts to save teacher jobs? Is that “anti-teacher”?

Guess what, Colorado has its own “SOS,” too. I wholeheartedly defend their right to speak up. I just don’t get much of where they’re coming from with a largely illogical, fanciful and ambiguous agenda. Maybe we should just start referring to it as SOS?… as in: Huh?