Well, the bill finally got a hearing yesterday afternoon before the House Finance Committee. A fairly long one. And ultimately an indecisive one. Education News Colorado has the best account I’ve seen:

After dark had fallen and the witness list was exhausted, [committee chair Rep. Brian] DelGrosso said, “I think we have raised several questions” and that “trying to piecemeal some amendments might not be the wisest decision.”

“I’m going to lay it over a couple of weeks,” he told [bill sponsor Rep. Spencer] Swalm. “Maybe you can give the committee a couple of different options.”

So now it’s time to hurry up and wait again. I’m learning that’s just sometimes how it goes in the big people’s sausage maker known as the legislative process.

Down at the Capitol my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow was one of more than a dozen who testified. Among other things, he pointed out his research from the Citizens’ Budget that showed how a similar tuition tax credit program would save a lot of money for the state (vindicated by the fine work of legislative fiscal analyst Natalie Mullis) as well as for local school districts. The response from bill opponents at the Colorado Education Association to this well-founded argument?

The bill’s sponsors are trying to sell the bill as a way to save the state money. Really.

Yes. Really. (Maybe as a 5-year-old, some might think I ought to respond with something equivalent, like sticking out my tongue and saying, “Are too!” But I’m above that sort of thing.)

In addition to highlighting the favorable research on the impacts of private school choice programs, Ben also responded to another claim brought forward by CEA’s lobbyist straight from their blog:

We oppose HB 1048 because we do not believe in using public dollars for private and religious schools.

Then what about the millions of dollars Colorado public schools spend each year on “tuition paid to private schools or non-approved agencies”? Maybe that’s not such a big deal after all. Maybe it’s the fact that parents get to choose how the money is spent that some find so disturbing.

Giving families more choices (and promising ones at that) and saving money for the state and local schools. Some might even call that a no-brainer.

Hey, there, don’t look now, but I think there’s something behind you… like the bogeyman!! Not really, it’s just the impression I got from reading yesterday’s Colorado Independent story titled “Colorado private school vouchers are back, disguised as tax credits.” (H/T Complete Colorado) You’ve got to watch out for those pesky vouchers in disguise. You never know what they might sneak around to do: haunt your house (Vouchergeist!), drink your blood (Vouchers or Vampires?), or worst of all, maybe steal some of your Legos!

About that story in the Independent, guess what? Did you know that teachers unions and public school establishment groups are opposed to private school choice? I had no idea before reading it that groups like the Colorado Education Association or Colorado Association of School Boards might not like Rep. Spencer Swalm and Sen. Kevin Lundberg’s House Bill 1048 (PDF), which would provide modest relief in the form of tax credits for families who pay for private school tuition or home school expenses.

Ok, time to get less silly. I’m glad to see the Left-leaning Independent acknowledge the plain truth that the proposal would save the state money during these tight budget times — much like a somewhat similar tuition tax credit proposal put forth by my Education Policy Center friends as part of the Citizens’ Budget. But a couple of other points in the article deserve a response, like this one:

School districts would lose per pupil funding tied to student registration when students failed to enroll. Currently that funding averages $6,822 though it is likely to see cuts this year as in years previous. The report noted the school districts would see a loss of student enrollment and, as a result, a reduction in full time employees.

Yes, the story got the Per Pupil Revenue (PPR) figure essentially right. However:

1. PPR is a term referenced in the School Finance Act that includes the main part, but not all, of school operating budgets — Colorado K-12 receives somewhere around $10,000 per student.
2. It’s not accurate to say PPR cuts are expected as in “years” previous — PPR was cut last year (singular) but otherwise has gone up year-after-year, especially since Amendment 23.
3. A loss in student enrollment through HB 1048’s tax credit bill would ensure greater revenue remains with school districts on a per-student basis, addressing concerns about “fixed costs.”

We all care primarily about what’s best for students first and trust parents overwhelmingly to make the best decisions about schooling, right? I mean, we’re more concerned about that than ensuring the maximum number of K-12 union employees? Right? Next up is this quote from the state’s teachers union spokesperson:

“[The bill is] just exactly like a voucher except that they would give a citizen a tax credit on their income tax,” [CEA member communications director Jeanne] Beyer said. “We are basically opposed to spending tax dollars on private schools, private or religious. We have nothing against private schools, nothing against religious schools, nothing against home schooling. We just don’t think that we should be spending tax money on them.” [emphasis added]

Is CEA really opposed to spending any and all tax dollars on private schools, whether religious or independent? If so, they might make a fuss about the fact that school districts currently spend taxpayer funds on private school tuition and services, particularly for students with special needs. I’d be interested to find out how much is spent on that each year. I’d also be interested to know if CEA is really opposed to spending all tax dollars on private schools, or only opposed to individuals directing their own tax dollars to empower a student to attend a private school of their choice.

Neat article, if a bit needlessly scary. Perhaps someone else writing about this topic might be interested in discussing it from the angle of control. Fight the power, right? Don’t you think it seems at least legitimately worth further investigation?

Ed News Colorado’s Nancy Mitchell says the comments were about 60/40 against the private school choice proposal, though their embedded five-minute video dedicates 80 percent of airtime to opponents. In addition to the Ed News video, you should watch the local 9News report, including a great comment from Douglas County resident and task force member Charcie Russell:

“It’s not about private versus public, it’s really about more choice, and I see that great for kids, great for parents, and great for the district,” Russell said.

It’s not surprising to see passion on both sides. The opposition, though, should consider the merits of their arguments. Drawing from resources at the Foundation for Educational Choice and the Institute for Justice, my Education Policy Center friends have compiled the following document to address concerns about effects on public school performance, fiscal impact and constitutionality:

Douglas County School Choice Arguments Nov2010

The School Choice Task Force has come forward with a whole host of great ideas for the Douglas County School District to serve families better, including improved open enrollment policies, enhanced charter school relations, better advertising of district opinions and expanded services to home educators. The next public hearing on all proposals — including the Option Certificates — is scheduled for December 7, followed by a Board vote on December 21.

Previous coverage:
- Let’s Shed Light, Not Heat, on Douglas County School Choice Reform Efforts
- Local Buzz Growing Around Douglas County School Choice Reform Proposals

I love it when the Denver Post brings big attention to issues I’ve covered here weeks before. It tells me little Eddie is ahead of the curve. It was true of this summer’s Common Core standards debate, and today it’s true of the Douglas County school board looking to expand the boundaries of parental choice. I wrote on October 18 about the DCSD School Choice Task Force:

The Task Force has looked at a range of changes for possible recommendation and adoption — everything from improving open enrollment policies to enhancing services available to home schoolers to ensuring equitable treatment of charter schools to considering a local private school choice program.

I wrote that after the Board itself publicly reasserted in a public memo:

We believe that informed parents, not Board members, are best suited to determine which schools will best serve the needs of their individual students.

But doing what newspapers do so well, this morning’s Denver Post headline “Douglas County School District considers starting voucher program” latches on to the potential controversy. So let’s engage by providing some clarity. The Post’s Jeremy Meyer reports concerns about families using public money to choose religious education, then notes:

All six Douglas County private schools that serve students after first grade are Christian-based, according to the Colorado Department of Education. According to the department, about 2,500 students attend those six schools.

“We come from a fabulous school district, and they are high-performing schools,” said Barnard, who is a parent to a high-school student and a recent graduate. “Ninety-eight percent of our parents are very happy with Douglas County schools. I truly believe the Option Certificate Program has the possibility to destroy the district.”

First, let’s set aside the hyperbole. If DCSD is doing a fabulous job and parents are happy, it’s extremely difficult to see how this proposal (still under consideration) would destroy the district. A close look at the proposal shows careful consideration has been given to ensuring public and parental accountability and compliance with existing laws. Any final decision also will have to take those issues into account.

Second, what CDE is reporting is incomplete. The Parker Montessori School has served students beyond 1st grade before, and the Woodlands Academy in Castle Rock (3rd-8th grade) was omitted from the list. Nor does anything preclude the creation of a new legitimate private school if parental demand exists. If not, no harm is done to students.

Also, a couple persons interviewed in the story expressed their concerns about a possible negative fiscal impact on the district were this plan to be adopted. So I respond: What if the plan included private school choice AND provided a fiscal benefit to the district on a per-pupil basis? What if the overall school choice plan (that includes better advertising available options, making the open enrollment process more parent-friendly, enhancing neighborhood school autonomy, improving charter school relations and expanding services to home educators) yields similar benefits?

The main thing right now is to get involved in the public process that started with the School Choice Task Force months ago — and getting involved means getting informed, too. My understanding is that as the different formal proposals are submitted to the Board they will become available for public inspection and review — and that should include online.

This won’t be the last you hear of this story. But now that the Denver Post has taken notice, let’s ensure we are generating more light than heat about the whole process.

We also want to address the perception that the Board of Education prefers one type of school over another. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, your Board supports choice. We believe that informed parents, not Board members, are best suited to determine which schools will best serve the needs of their individual students. Under our Superintendent’s leadership, schools are making efforts to define themselves clearly. We strongly support these efforts so that parents have the best information to choose which school will meet the unique learning needs and goals of their children. This work will also provide choices for teachers to match their professional styles with the school’s learning environment. Our role will be properly limited to ensuring that all schools operate on a level playing field, one that affords equal resources and opportunities for all students…. [emphases added]

Since June, the DCSD Board has convened a School Choice Task Force of local citizens, school leaders and other education experts (including my Education Policy Center friends). With a new superintendent in place, the Board is looking to expand the boundaries of choice in an effort to better serve students and the community. The Task Force has looked at a range of changes for possible recommendation and adoption — everything from improving open enrollment policies to enhancing services available to home schoolers to ensuring equitable treatment of charter schools to considering a local private school choice program.

As explained on the DCSD website, one more Task Force meeting remains:

DCSD Choice Task Force meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. Meeting is open to the public. Subcommittee plans are slated to be heard before the Board of Education in November.

The 60,000-pupil suburban school district may be on the verge of some groundbreaking changes that could open the door to broader educational transformation in service of academic excellence and ensuring students have access to great schools that meet their needs.

I’m talking about former Arvada state senator Al Meiklejohn, who died Monday at age 86 and will be put to final rest today. As reported in this week’s Denver Post obituary, Meiklejohn served six years on the Jefferson County Board of Education and “constantly pushed for public-school reform and better salaries for teachers.” For his service he has a Jeffco elementary school named after him.

You know Senator Meiklejohn was a man of influence and stature when in the week of his death he has received such high praise from two very different sides of the education spectrum. First, the teachers union in their CEA Capitol Connection blog declared him “a champion for public education,” highlighting a 1996 feature to him in their own magazine on the occasion of his retirement from the state legislature.

Meanwhile, homeschool parental rights advocate Treon Goossen wrote very kind and moving words about Meiklejohn in her weekly email update:

I speak often of Sen. Meiklejohn, who was my friend. I have been thinking of all of the times he stood for us against a very strong public school majority. He was part of that majority and yet he fought strongly for our right to educate our children at home, free from the oversight of school districts. I remember the many conversations with him when Rory and I worked to get the law passed and in subsequent sessions. He helped stop threats to tighten regulations and worked with us to improve the law. I have never seen anyone fight so valiantly for a freedom that he would never choose. I remember his kindness to a mom, pregnant with her 5th child, and helping her to understand a complicated process and giving her the courage to fight on when the odds were so against us. To me, he was one of those treasures that come into your life, rare and delightful. Every parent who home schools in this state, and even in other states where our law was used as a model, should honor the memory of this wonderful man.

Indeed, Senator Meiklejohn played a very important role in the passage of Colorado’s homeschool law, as explained in depth by my Education Policy Center friend Marya DeGrow in the 2008 Issue Paper Colorado’s Homeschool Law Turns Twenty: The Battle Should Never Be Forgotten (PDF).

R.I.P., Al Meiklejohn, friend of public education AND supporter of educational freedom.

There isn’t much left for me to say in response to this shoddy and prejudiced piece of work. Big Journalism’s Izzy Lyman and the American Enterprise Institute’s Jay Richards already have effectively skewered it. Let me just add: As Education Next writer Milton Gaither clearly showed a little over a year ago, people choose homeschooling for a wide variety of reasons. The caricature West tries to draw is simply a figment of someone’s imagination.

Sometimes I wonder if attack pieces like “The Harms of Homeschooling” primarily originate in the hearts and minds of those who simply despise the idea of parents having the freedom to choose an educational experience for their children different than what the state offers. I guess it comes down to whom you think knows best. Hard as it is for me to admit, my vote is for mom and dad — not Congress or the governor or the education commissioner or even my local school board member.

We should celebrate the freedom to choose, as the wonderful School Choice for Kids website does. Among other things, the site includes lots of information for Colorado parents who wish to teach their children at home.

Power to the people for a bright future!

Chartered by the Adams 12 School District and located in Northglenn, Westgate serves students from kindergarten to 6th grade. According to the school’s main web page:

Our school offers an innovative, stimulating learning environment to all students, including the twice-exceptional, visual-spatial, and highly/profoundly gifted learners. We specialize in gifted learners whose needs diverge from traditional educational models. Our instruction is organized to support diverse learning styles by using methods that match the strengths of alternative learners.

We believe the social and emotional needs of gifted students are as important as their intellectual needs. While making our high expectations clear to all students, we also offer a loving learning environment where it is safe to take risks among peers. Our goal is to make our students feel successful, understood, and appreciated for who they are.

Like so many of the wide and growing array of public educational menu options available here in Colorado, Westgate isn’t the right fit for everyone. But the new charter elementary school sure looks like it fills a niche to bring out the best in a certain group of students whose parents recognize this sort of need in their child and support ideas like the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and Responsive Classroom (PDF).

Another neat aspect of Westgate that may appeal to even more parents? The school “plans to offer half-day programming to a limited number of home schooled families with gifted students.” Clearly, it’s too late to enroll for the 2009-10 school year, but if you find Westgate to be an appealing educational option, look for opportunities in the months ahead to include your student in the admission lottery.

Other new schools featured:

• West Denver Prep II
• St. Vrain Community Montessori School
• Math and Science Leadership Academy (Denver)
• Cesar Chavez Academy Denver
• Jeffco’s 21st Century Virtual Academy
• Thomas MacLaren School (Colorado Springs)
• Montclair School of Academics and Enrichment (Denver)
• Atlas Preparatory Charter (Colorado Springs)
• Envision Leadership Prep (Denver)
• Animas High School (Durango)

This seminar, which will feature FEE president Lawrence Reed and author Gregory Rehmke, is specifically designed for Christian high school and home-school students who want to seriously explore this complex economic issue.

FEE is a great organization, and Dr. Lawrence Reed is an excellent thinker, speaker and gentleman. If you’re anywhere near the Denver metro area, and you get a chance to go, I highly recommend it!

You can register online here.

Over at the Britannica blog, Dan Willingham wonders aloud if school choice might be a bad policy not effect positive change in the system through competition because many parents won’t make the “rational” decision:

The logic of school choice seems obvious. If parents selected their children’s schools, they would not choose bad ones, so bad schools would not be able to survive. Schools would have to improve or close, just as a store that offers poor service will lose business to a store that offers better service.

Here’s my problem with that logic: I think it’s highly likely that many parents will choose bad schools.

(H/T Core Knowledge blog)

You’re welcome to go ahead and read Mr. Willingham’s entire entry. But I think Jay Greene has done the best job of providing a rational objection:

Dan is mistaken in that choice does not require perfect rationality on the part of parents. All that it required is that parents, on average, will do better at picking schools for their children than the bureaucrats who design schools and compell children to attend those schools….

Of course, the reason why we have democracy despite our awareness of human irrationality is the same reason why we should have schools choice: on average, people are better at making decisions that affect their own interests than are others. Even poorly-educated people lacking information are likely to have more knowledge of their interests and how to pursue them than are others making decisions on their behalf.

In the end, a parent is many times more likely than a bureaucrat to choose the best educational environment for her own son or daughter — even if it’s the school their child already attends and a bureaucrat may happen to agree. But that’s only likely to happen when a wide range of choices already exist. Another argument in favor of expanding policies and programs of wide-ranging parental choice in education.

Meanwhile, my Education Policy Center friends continue to do the very important work of helping parents to make the most informed decision possible, through the amazing School Choice for Kids website. You’ll find information there on the public school open enrollment process, all different kinds of private schools, and even homeschooling for the bold and the brave. You also can find the right kind of school near you using an excellent map search tool.