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.

Well, tagging on at the end of an Ed News Colorado story about Jeffco school district employees pleading with the Board to stop budget cuts was this little nugget about last night’s meeting:

Shortly before public comment began Thursday, board members voted 4-1 to close employee negotiations to the public. Board member Laura Boggs was the only “no” vote.

Defenders of the status quo learned their lesson from last year. Since the teachers union bargaining agreement in the state’s largest school district says negotiations are supposed to be open, they needed to act early and decisively to keep the prying eyes of taxpayers away from important discussions. Sad. But thankfully, it’s not the only Colorado front in the fight to open union negotiations and bring the public into public education.

You have to go no farther than Douglas County, Colorado’s third-largest school district, where union leaders have lashed out against the reform-minded school board. Rather than sit back and let contentious negotiations fester behind closed doors, or allow the unseemly tactics to continue outside them, a group of local citizens is urging the board to open negotiations and shine the light on the real disputed issues. You can read (and sign, if you support) their petition here. It reads in part:

Negotiated union policies greatly impact how our tax dollars are spent and how our schools and classrooms function. In tight budget times, when we rightly demand greater accountability of our elected school board to make tough decisions, these decisions should be made in full view!

Meanwhile, at the State Capitol, Representative Kathleen Conti has introduced House Bill 1118 with the goal of “ensuring transparency in collective bargaining negotiations.” As my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow explained in a 2010 issue backgrounder, a similar bill was introduced, and very nearly passed, eight years ago (back in the dark ages…).

HB 1118 is slated for a committee hearing later this month, so you can expect to hear more soon about this important issue of public transparency and accountability. As I’ve pointed out before, open negotiations not only would remind union officials who they’re bargaining against (you: the taxpayer), but it also would help clarify who really is in charge of public education.

One of the first important items to pop up is next Monday’s scheduled committee hearing for House Bill 1149, aka Parent Trigger II. This lighter version of last year’s Parent Trigger bill by Rep. Don Beezley looks like it at least will have a chance to go further than the House Education Committee, unlike last year’s proposal.

In a nutshell, HB 1149 gives parents of students in low-performing schools greater voice to speed up the process of closing, turning around or converting the school. Currently, the State Board has to intervene in struggling schools designated “priority improvement” or “turnaround” after five years. The new proposal would empower parents during the third year of the process. If 50 percent of them sign a petition, the State Board would only be obligated to give them a hearing before taking one of three options:

1. Do nothing (i.e., continue the existing improvement plan);
2. Wait and schedule a reevaluation of the school’s plan for the following (fourth) year; or
3. Direct the Commissioner of Education to convene a review panel to make recommendations.

Okay, so it’s hardly a huge, radical change, and not nearly as strong as the original version. But it does give parents in low-performing schools a little more power and potentially a lot more voice.

According to the Colorado Department of Education’s School Performance Framework, 221 of the state’s 1,806 schools and alternative education centers are operating under a priority improvement or turnaround plan. Of that number, 105 (representing a variety of schools from Denver and Pueblo, as well as rural and suburban areas) will be going into the third year and should be immediately affected by the legislation.

While Colorado’s HB 1149 doesn’t appear to be as potent as the “parent trigger” proposals coming forward this year in places like Arizona, Florida, Indiana and Louisiana, it is a small step in the right direction.

In the meantime, inquiring minds want to know whether anyone will see little Eddie’s shadow peeking around the State Capitol in the coming days. Wait and see, there should be enough time. Fourteen more weeks of legislative session, you say? As tempting as it sounds, guess I can’t roll over and go back to sleep yet….

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….

One such major issue is how Colorado K-12 public schools recruit, hire, pay, evaluate and retain their teachers. The implementation of the state’s educator effectiveness law occupied a lot of time and attention last year, and an important — but unusual — deadline comes up next month. The rules adopted by the State Board of Education either must be ratified or repealed by the state legislature by February 15.

The hope also remains that this debate propels more local momentum toward important educator compensation reforms like those highlighted in my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow’s 2011 issue paper on the subject. Time to stay tuned in….

Meanwhile, the national debate on teacher quality presses forward. And that brings an important contribution compiling all the key research on the question in the new book Teachers Matter by Manhattan Institute senior fellow (and now one of Colorado’s own) Marcus Winters. This professionally-made 5-minute video, including a few key interview excerpts with the author, frames the issue well (H/T Jay Greene):

Nice. So this is 2012, huh? Well, I’m sure you’ll be hearing more from me and my Education Policy Center friends about educator effectiveness in Colorado as the pages on the calendar keep turning. And that’s just one of the important issues on which we’ll keep focusing. It’s good to be back.

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!

Guess what! Just over a week ago I banged on a drum that may have started to hurt some of your ears by now. The drum is the madness of taxpayer-funded release time for Colorado teachers unions. And then (out of the blue?) yesterday the front page of the Denver Post shouts about “Colorado teachers unions under fire for taxpayer subsidies from school districts.” Thanks so much to reporter Karen Crummy not only for taking note of this issue my Education Policy Center friends have highlighted for years but also for doing lots of her own digging to tell a pretty disturbing story.

The Post’s findings about the number of districts paying tax dollars for union officers and other teachers to leave the classroom, and the lack of accountability for the practice, track very closely with the findings in Independence Institute papers from 2004 and 2010. That’s probably why Crummy saw fit to interview and quote one of my Education Policy Center friends:

“It’s bad enough that they pay for union release time at all, but to not even have a basic level of accountability, especially in these tighter budget times?” said Ben DeGrow, an education policy analyst at the Independence Institute who has advocated that schools change union leave policies. “It’s kind of appalling.”

Yes, you could say that, especially when the article identified more than $5.8 million in taxpayer subsidies to teachers unions over the past five years. But don’t worry, the state’s largest teachers union gave the Post an answer for that:

“This impacts student achievement. People don’t understand the value of our role in helping the district function,” said Beverly Ingle, president of the Colorado Education Association.

Wow. Taking days to go the CEA Assembly and elect officers and conduct business for a private organization impacts student achievement? Lobbying against educator effectiveness legislation impacts student achievement? Negotiating a new union contract with taxpayer-paid employees on the other side of the table impacts student achievement? Enlisting volunteers for partisan political campaigns impacts student achievement? I could go on….

But strangely enough, it’s the comment only paragraphs later in Crummy’s story by a local CEA official — from the only one of Colorado’s largest 20 school districts identified as not having any taxpayer-subsidized union leave — that sends the most stinging rebuke:

“The way we look at it is, ‘Why would the district pay us not to be in the classroom?’ ” said Jim Smyth, president of the Mesa Valley Education Association.

I am told that way back in 2003 a bill to outlaw taxpayer-subsidized union release time almost passed the legislature. Too bad it was almost. In these tough budget times, it might make a difference for a few teachers who are being laid off. If publicly-funded union perks aren’t on the chopping block now, then how can the cries of abject poverty be taken seriously?

Maybe, just maybe, the attention this time will make a difference for fiscal sanity and educational accountability.

The state will deposit 90 percent of the student’s funds into an account parents can use for a variety of educational expenditures, including textbooks, therapy services, tutoring, and even tuition for alternative or online schools.

Not only does the money follow the student to serve their educational needs as the family chooses, but the families are encouraged to be wise consumers by the fact they can save money in their ESA from year to year. Any money left over at the end of high school can be used toward college expenses. Who wouldn’t like that?

Well, as education reform doctoral fellow Stuart Buck notes on the Flypaper blog, the Arizona School Boards Association, the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials didn’t like the loss of control that comes with ESAs. They may even sense the 2011 legislation opens the door for more students and families to experience the liberation. So they filed a lawsuit that had its first hearing earlier this week. Buck breaks down the arguments and concludes:

…if the Arizona courts properly apply their own precedents, they will reject the attempt by powerful interest groups to stiff-arm special education students.

I certainly hope he is correct. In addition to interested Arizonans like the Boesl family, the state of Utah also has to be keeping a close eye on proceedings. I told you a couple months ago about a legislator from our neighbor to the west who was planning to introduce a dramatic, consumer-empowering proposal even more expansive than Arizona’s. The efforts in Utah can only be bolstered by a plain and positive vindication in the Arizona courts.

In The Grand Canyon State, these kind of anti-school choice legal actions seem to be a regular occurrence. Most recently, an effort to upend a tuition tax credit program was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v Winn. Meanwhile, here in Colorado, the fight continues to appeal a district court injunction of the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program — a groundbreaking, parent-friendly reform, the first school board-initiated voucher program in the nation.

Perhaps the point is that it doesn’t matter if you are helping kids and families by promoting School Choice 1.0 (vouchers) or version 2.0 (tax credits) or the cutting-edge version 3.0 (ESAs). Where power is threatened, attorneys will be hired by the status quo to try to strike the opportunity down. What encourages me on this Friday is to recall that school choice has won many battles in court and that the will of supporters to keep fighting these battles in defense of educational freedom remains as strong as ever.

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!

a year-long campaign to celebrate bold, creative innovative teachers in classrooms across this nation. These front-line innovators are already embedding digital learning into new instructional practices to ensure that every student leaves the classroom ready for college, career and life success. We ask you to join with us, as with them, as we launch an unprecedented, collaborative effort to expand innovation into every city, town, school and classroom in America!

Former West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise explains a little bit more in this 3-plus minute video:

Digital learning has real power to help transform our state’s and nation’s education system into a more nimble, productive, effective, and student-centered enterprise. But it’s far from just a matter of importing iPads into the classroom. The market for computerized and web-based technology to enhance learning is booming, but progress is hindered by policies designed for the 20th century factory age.

If you want a clear and sobering big-picture assessment of where our education system is today, and why it needs to change dramatically, check out former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s CNN interview with Piers Morgan.

Last month’s release of the Nation’s Digital Learning Report Card provided a road map. Most of its proposals that Colorado hasn’t already adopted can help fulfill the promise of online and blended learning strategies for students and for our state. But remember: as my Education Policy Center friend Pam Benigno and the nationally-renowned Michael Horn both have said, more regulation is exactly the opposite of what we need.

In fact, an effective array of digital learning options can best be created by quite the opposite approach. Via American Thinker’s Gary Jason:

…the unionized teachers and administrators may use web-based instruction to co-opt school choice….

Keep pushing vouchers. Within a voucher system, one can easily allow cyber-schooling for those who want it.

Exactly. The two reform ideas are complementary, not contradictory. In the meantime, my Education Policy Center friends will continue helping to arm students and parents with information about their education options — including full-time online and blended learning — as policy makers hopefully see the need to overhaul policies that are choking effective innovations like digital learning. So get yourself ready for February 1, sign up today (it’s not too early), and help spread the word!