I’m not sure if she was thinking it would happen this week, but open up the opinion section of today’s Denver Post, and you’ll see a guest column written by Cherry Creek educator Brian Kurz titled “Go back and fix SB 191.” My modest suggestion would be for the author to go back and check some of his facts and assumptions. First:

[Bill sponsor] Michael Johnston authored SB 191 and pushed its passage as a way to better position Colorado for Race to the Top money. Johnston knew first-hand the obvious flaws with both the language of [sic] bill and the ambiguity of how to achieve its goals. Despite the lack of specifics, the bill was Colorado’s chance at a $175 million lottery.

While Johnston certainly expressed hopes of winning Race to the Top, I don’t know how many times he scrupulously stated that SB 191 was the right thing to do regardless of Race to the Top — something he expressed in public legislative meetings and on widely-heard radio interviews. By the same token, I can’t say we’ve heard Johnston expound on the “obvious flaws” and “ambiguities” in SB 191, but Mr. Kurz seems to know the bill sponsor’s mind.

What “obvious flaws” and “ambiguities”? Check out this rhetorical sleight of hand:

During debate about the bill, the Colorado Education Association and other concerned opponents brought up several problems with the language in the legislation. No definitions for “growth” or “effective education” were provided. No consideration was given to teachers of students with extreme truancy issues. No latitude was provided for students whose home lives made performance at school a challenging endeavor. Instead, Colorado’s teachers, families and students were told that a blue ribbon panel would decide what growth and effective teaching meant after the passage of the bill….

Where do I begin? First, who were the “other concerned opponents”? That’s right. CEA was pretty much all alone in opposing this commonsense legislation.

Second, the bill was clearly amended to give consideration to several mitigating factors (“EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION DIVERSE FACTORS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPECIAL EDUCATION, STUDENT MOBILITY, AND CLASSROOMS WITH A STUDENT POPULATION IN WHICH NINETY-FIVE PERCENT MEET THE DEFINITION OF HIGH-RISK STUDENT…”). Maybe not enough latitude was given for the columnist’s taste, but that doesn’t mean the issue isn’t addressed here.

Third, the term “effective education” isn’t included anywhere in SB 191 (a quick word search on the PDF would show that). But if he’s talking about “educator effectiveness,” check out the next point.

Fourth, the “blue ribbon panel” (aka the Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness) was created by executive order months before SB 191 was introduced. Governor Ritter already had tasked the group — including several representatives chosen by the Colorado Education Association — with creating statewide definitions of “teacher effectiveness” and “principal effectiveness” long before Johnston introduced his bill. SB 191 focused the Council’s work on creating definitions of, and quality standards for, effectiveness that are based at least 50 percent in student academic growth (using multiple measures).

That brings me to the fifth and final point — which is the column’s complete omission of the barest hint that SB 191 (widely touted as the “Great Teachers and Leaders” bill) places virtually identical responsibility on school principals to be evaluated significantly on the basis of student academic growth.

The bill isn’t just picking on teachers. Anyone who questions the construct of “teacher effectiveness” such as Mr. Kurz argues against also should grapple with the argument that the legislation builds incentives for school leaders to be quality evaluators and to invest personally in the effectiveness of their teaching workforce. Maybe the author doesn’t want to fix that part of the legislation?

Now I don’t mean to imply that Mr. Kurz meant to distort the truth when he sat down to write his piece railing against SB 191. But he could have been more careful in making sure not to be misinformed. Whatever the cause, it seems some people are taking all the wrong lessons from Colorado’s unexpected RTTT loss. Which is their prerogative. Just don’t re-write history.

This capitulation to national standards in pursuit of federal funds is misguided. Colorado could have led the nation in setting high standards for our public schools, not jump on the bandwagon of uncertain, still-evolving national standards.

Following the pied piper of new federal funding has proven to be a trap many times in the past. When will we stop being enticed into federal programs with some up-front federal funding and then be left hanging when those initial funds run out?

Besides the obvious problem of relying on federal funds that soon will disappear, Senator King raised a specific point I haven’t seen discussed much. Namely, that Colorado’s own high-quality writing standards figure to be forfeited once our state begins relying on regional or national assessments. I think we all can agree students need improved writing skills. It’s very hard to see how Common Core gets our state there.

On a related note, Debi Brazzale of the Colorado News Agency reported yesterday on the skepticism of rural superintendents toward the adoption of Common Core. She must have heard our recent 10-minute iVoices podcast (MP3) with Kit Carson school district “chief” Gerald Keefe.

Parting question for the weekend: Does this development mean Colorado is getting ready to part ways with the long-established principle of “local control” of public schools? If so, what would the implications be?

No legislative success, however, trumps that achieved in Colorado in May 2010. The perfect storm—a charismatic, Democratic legislator who is a Teach For America alumnus, the lure of Race to the Top funds, and a whole array of advocacy groups that included the Colorado chapters of Democrats for Education Reform and Stand For Children—pulled off teacher legislation that was bitterly opposed by the state union and which no one dreamed possible a year ago.

The success of SB 191 is becoming conventional wisdom nationwide, and it’s hard to disagree about its national significance — even if the implementation of the bill is slow and its actual effects promise to be somewhat modest. Maybe the best news s that Colorado achieved this remarkable legislative success despite the fact our state tends more than most toward the local control end of the governance spectrum.

But the article also prompted me to think about what else the Colorado General Assembly might find a way to take on. Here’s my nominee:

The love affair that states have with master’s degrees really cannot be justified, as no study of any repute has ever found that these degrees make teachers more effective, particularly when the degrees are earned in education.

I’ve highlighted this problem before and the fact that Colorado spends about $140 million or more a year on these “master’s bumps” alone. Not exactly the hallmark of a productive education system. Now that Colorado has begun to take on teacher tenure and evaluations, here’s hoping that the state can use whatever leverage it has to tackle the issue of “master’s bumps,” too.

Well, today the Wall Street Journal has the latest news on this legislation, and it’s not all good for school choice supporters:

A bill that would give poor children in New Jersey scholarships to attend private schools is bottled up in the Democratic-controlled Legislature even though it has the backing of prominent members of the party.

The bill, called the Opportunity Scholarship Act, is essentially a voucher program that would give as many as 20,000 poor students who go to failing schools about $6,000 to $9,000 each to attend a private or parochial school. The scholarships would be paid for by corporations, which would donate to a scholarship fund and receive the same amount as a tax credit. The contributions would be limited to a total of $360 million over the five years of the program….

Proponents of the bill say the votes exist in both the Senate and Assembly, if only Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver would post the bill for discussion.

Nobody ever said a legislative battle like this one would be easy. Empowering poor families with greater school choice, which would create competition, threatens established interests. And in almost no other state are established interests (read: teachers unions) as strong as they are in New Jersey.

While it’s disappointing to see private school choice legislation bottled up in Trenton, let’s keep some perspective. The bill is still alive, has strong backing from both sides of the aisle (including Governor Chris Christie, who has pledged to sign it), and if passed not only would aid thousands of poorer New Jersey students but also would open the door politically for vital school choice progress in other states.

So stiffen your spines, stay strong and don’t lose heart in doing well. The struggle will not be easy, but the price of purchasing new educational opportunities for untold numbers of students will be well worth it. New Jersey, your friends in Colorado stand with you.

Last week, Littleton joined state senator Michael Johnston on an episode of Jon Caldara’s show Devil’s Advocate to discuss both Senate Bill 191 and the Race to the Top requirement to sign on to Common Core standards. Check out the YouTube playlist for a great debate!

The compelling give-and-take on Devil’s Advocate is a microcosm of a larger national debate playing out. Checker Finn from the Fordham Institute is all for the reform, saying the newly-released Common Core Standards are “better than ever.” But education experts from the Heritage Foundation disagree, saying it puts us on a path to standardizing mediocrity, while the venerable Dr. Jay Greene continues his strong compelling case against Common Core.

What can I say? Tune in, get informed and get involved in the debate to determine who sets academic standards for Colorado.

The state’s largest teachers union, the Colorado Education Association, carried all the weight of opposing SB 191 and pushed amendments that watered down some of the bill’s better features. And yesterday CEA officials turned down the chance to show up for the bill signing event:

The law now goes into its developmental phase — leaning on a 15-member council to define details behind the legislation.

The Governor’s Council for Educator Effectiveness will have its third meeting today in the Colorado Education Association’s boardroom. Its first order on the agenda: “Understand the implications of SB 191 for the council’s scope of work and timeline.”

Did you catch that? The all-important Council charged with crafting the evaluation system details set forth by SB 191 convenes inside the teachers union headquarters. Despite having the largest representation on the Council to begin with, and despite dragging their feet (at best) and throwing up roadblock after roadblock to stop the bill, or at least weaken it. So much for neutral turf.

Meanwhile, if you’re looking for a cutting-edge performance-based teacher evaluation system in Colorado, no need to wait for the Council to finish its job in 2011. I’ve pointed you before to the groundbreaking work Harrison School District is doing in overhauling teacher evaluations and compensation.

Now Harrison is getting national attention from Education Sector’s Rob Manwaring on The Quick and The Ed blog, who concludes:

Now this proposal does not go far enough, but it is a start. The next step, might be to actually let a teacher go who receives three poor evaluations in a row.

Well, don’t forget SB 191. Once implemented, teachers will lose their tenure-like protections after two consecutive ineffective evaluations. But with CEA’s amendments to the bill, these ineffective teachers still will have greater rights through arbitration than my mom and dad do at their jobs.

The scene is last Thursday in Trenton, New Jersey, at the State Capitol — where a senate education committee hearing was scheduled for the bill S1872, which would create a 5-year pilot scholarship tax credit program. Cue Lori Drummer, writing for the Big Government blog:

When State Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Union), chairman of the committee and longtime supporter of school choice, prepared to call the committee to order, he noted that all of the seats had been taken by New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) members.

The chairman requested that half of the seats be made available for the children who supported the school choice bill. The union members refused to offer the children any seats. (

So, the senators’ desks were moved, and Chairman Lesniak took the committee hearing outside….

Outside? Yes, outside! Three cheers for Senator Lesniak. While students rallied for school choice and opportunity, the teachers union acted selfish and immature. Rather than give in to the NJEA’s petty childlike behavior, the Democratic chairman rose above the fray. The good news, as Lori reports? “The committee unanimously passed the legislation” — which could end up providing scholarships to as many as 20,000 children by the fifth year.

Real school choice in New Jersey? It could be coming soon…. Why not Colorado next?

Angel choirs are singing, Hallelujah! Colorado’s legislative session is O-V-E-R. Finished. Done. The hot-button education issue SB 191 passed on the last day of session. Though amended to water down some of its effects, the bill is a genuinely positive change in the right direction of tenure and evaluation reform. One senator speaking on the floor got it about right yesterday:

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, didn’t speak during previous debates, but he struck a nuanced note Wednesday. “The change in this bill is not as dramatic as it proponents hope nor as cataclysmic as its opponents fear. It is a moderate bill.”

Still, given the intensity and stridency of opposition coming from the state’s most powerful lobbying force, passage of SB 191 represents a true achievement worth celebrating. National education expert Rick Hess shares that view about SB 191’s passage, giving props to my Education Policy Center friends along the way:

This, as I’ve said previously in the midst of the fight over Florida SB 6, is “seriously big stuff.” Indeed, Pam Benigno, director of the Education Policy Center at the Independence Institute, called it a “landmark day in Colorado,” saying the bill “will align evaluated teacher and principal effectiveness more closely with student academic growth and weaken tenure protections for consistently ineffective teachers.”

As the Colorado News Agency points out, the political fallout from the debate may be the most significant and enduring legacy of SB 191. You can’t walk away from the last month of legislative debates without sensing that the education reform turf has shifted in Colorado, even as plenty of policy work still needs to be done.

A new chapter has begun. Stay tuned….

As Mike Antonucci observed in pointing out an online Alexander Russo interview with Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year Michelle Switala, the most recognized successful teachers especially tend to have a maverick quality about them.

Locally we have an even better and timelier example, as CEA member teacher and fellow Ed News Colorado blogger Mark Sass takes union leaders to task for their disingenuous attacks on SB 191: Colorado’s teacher effectiveness bill. Among other things, Sass points out that he and a few other CEA member teachers testified in favor of the legislation.

Unlike in many other states, Colorado teachers can choose to join or not join a union or other professional organization. And many make their decisions to do so for a wide variety of reasons. The information on our Independent Teachers website is there to help them.

But it’s disappointing (and hardly surprising) to see CEA leaders sometimes act as if they’re speaking on behalf of all their members — or even worse, on behalf of all teachers. How widely supportive (and even more importantly, how well informed) CEA members and other teachers are of the union’s outspoken opposition to SB 191 remains a mystery.

Kudos goes to three reporters (along with legislative staff and others) who stayed late to burn the midnight oil until the hearing ended at 12:37 AM. They have a strong case for earning overtime — if not combat — pay. Oh, the melodrama their stories just begin to tell….

First, Ed News Colorado’s Todd Engdahl:

[Committee chair Rep. Michael] Merrifield read a letter from education scholar and author Diane Ravitch, who wrote, “Colorado can’t fire its way to better teachers.”

Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, president of A+ Denver, read a letter from former Denver Mayor Fedrico Peña, who had testified passionately at the Senate Education Committee hearing on the bill.

“I’m so sorry Federico wasn’t here because I was armed and ready for him,” Merrifield said.

The last witness, Associate Commissioner Rich Wenning of the Colorado Department of Education, took the brunt of sharp comments from committee critics but cooly defended the bill.

“We are dealing with a major systemic reform. … It’s really comparable to the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids. … Statutes catalyze change.”

Next up, Jeremy Meyer from the Denver Post:

Questions by committee members to school superintendents, union leaders and educators showed a deep divide on the panel that must pass the legislation before it can be considered by the full House. Colorado’s Senate passed the bill last week, and Gov. Bill Ritter says he supports the bill and will sign it if it gets to his desk.

A key point of contention is how the legislation would change the state law on teacher tenure.

“This bill has nothing to do with teacher effectiveness,” said committee vice chairwoman Judy Solano, who is against the legislation. “It has to do with due process. I don’t put shades on. This has nothing about helping teachers get more effective.”

Last but not least, Debi Brazzale from the Colorado News Agency:

Jane Urschel , speaking for CASB, said that SB191 is a new opportunity for the advancement of K-12 education in Colorado and urged the panel to embrace the opportunity.

“It’s in your hands to create a new moment in Colorado’s history. You are the only leaders who can reform aspects of earning tenure,” said Urschal.

Merrifield shot back at Urschel, citing her testimony on a previous bill that he sponsored asking for mandated arts curriculum in public schools, saying that she was being hypocritical by now supporting a bill that mandates the implementation of an evaluation system.

“You were very angry and self-righteous back then about an unfunded mandate,” said Merrifield.

After all was said and done, SB 191 passed the committee by a narrow 7-6 vote — with Democrats Christine Scanlan and Karen Middleton joining all five Republicans in support. By all appearances, the landmark piece of legislation reforming how Colorado evaluates and grants tenure to public educators will be heard by the full House on Monday.

To become law, SB 191 will have to pass second and third reading, and differences will have to be ironed out between the house and senate in rather short order. Legislators must hurry and wrap things up before session ends on this coming Wednesday, May 12.