Category Archives: Governor

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or so it seems. The article in today’s Denver Post, headlined “Nearly one in three Colo. graduates needs remedial courses in college, study finds”, almost could have appeared the year before … or two years ago … or the year before that. To be exact, the new report from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (PDF) finds that 29.3 percent of Colorado’s 2008 high school graduates who attended a Colorado two-year or four-year college needed formal remedial help in math, reading and/or writing. Six years ago my Education Policy Center friend Marya DeGrow completed an issue paper on the same topic, titled Cutting Back on Catching Up (PDF). Using the same CCHE data, she noted that 26.6 percent of Colorado’s 2002 high school graduates needed remediation — at a cost of $18.9 million to the state of Colorado and $15.4 million to the college students themselves.

There’s been plenty of debate — here in Colorado, more than in most states — about the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (RTT) $5 billion grant funding program. On the surface it sounds really good, promoting some commonsense and effective reforms that in many cases should have been enacted years ago. To some extent, it may actually yield positive results. But now that 40 states have participated in the first round of applications (and Colorado opted for the safe “consensus” approach), we soon will find out whether the faith in RTT is justified. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal note, the first big test will be to see how selective the grant process actually is (H/T Frederick Hess): It’s been reported that Mr. Duncan may reward as many as a dozen states in the first round. A state like California in that scenario could receive between $350 million and $700 million. That may seem like a lot of money, until you consider that California’s K-12 education budget shortfall next year is expected to be between $5 billion and $10 billion.

Yesterday the state of Colorado turned in its Race to the Top grant funding application to the U.S. Department of Education. Missing the opportunity to do something bold, Colorado instead opted for “consensus” and “collaboration” — as reported by Jeremy Meyer in the Denver Post. Some of my older friends in the Education Policy Center are less surprised by this development than I am. Still, whether it jeopardizes our chances to win some of the federal cash or not, this approach is disappointing. One of the greatest statesmen (or women) who ever lived, Margaret Thatcher, famously once said: “Consensus is the negation of leadership.” An opportunity for greater leadership was missed. We may still win some money because very few other states opted to be bold either — and in comparison we could look pretty good. But that doesn’t cut it for me.

Education Week blogger Stephen Sawchuk reports that Georgia may be taking a bold step in reforming teacher compensation: Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has announced plans to support legislation that would overhaul the statewide teacher-salary schedule and allow teachers to opt into one that determines pay partly on performance-based measures. States have tried to do statewide performance-pay before, but this example stands out because it sounds as though it would fundamentally restructure how the salary schedule operates. Teachers opting in would no longer get supplements for advanced degrees, which have only weak correlations to student performance. Instead, they would win additional compensation based on observations of teachers and growth of student performance to determine teacher effectiveness and base compensation on those results. The plan would go into effect in 2013, and current teachers could “opt into” the plan or remain on the current salary schedule. Teachers hired after Jan. 1, 2014, would automatically be enrolled in the system.

State Treasurer Cary Kennedy seems like a nice lady, and I think it must be hard being a politician in such an office — especially during the tough budget times faced by state government and the difficult decisions that requires. But does the current budget reality mean Treasurer Kennedy can have it both ways? As the Denver Post has reported, Governor Bill Ritter is asking K-12 schools to give up $260 million in expected funding between the current budget year and 2010-11 — despite Amendment 23’s constitutional requirement to guarantee annual increases in the core of state K-12 education funding. As my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow has noted, the potential showdown between union-backed Ritter and the Colorado Education Association over the proposed cuts could make for “interesting times.” For Treasurer Kennedy, who devised Amendment 23 but now in office stands by fellow Democrat Bill Ritter, the scenario presents an especially challenging dilemma. Ed News Colorado’s coverage of Kennedy’s Friday speech to the Colorado Association of School Boards at the luxury Broadmoor hotel (a good use of taxpayer funds itself?) really captures the challenge she faces:

Last year I told you about the remarkable education reform success story in Florida. The elements of this success can be traced to a comprehensive set of policy changes made while Jeb Bush was governor, including: School accountability Student accountability Private school choice Scientific-based literacy instruction Alternative teacher certification In a comprehensive article for the Summer 2009 edition of Education Next, Matt Ladner and Dan Lips explain exactly what Florida did to make dramatic gains on 4th grade national test scores. Perhaps more importantly, they take on critiques from those who say the scores are misleading because of social promotion policies or can somehow be attributed to other education initiatives voters approved: universal preschool and class size reduction. Check out the article.

You usually hear politicians, like our governor, and those begging for more money for the school system make the case that it’s “for the children.” It’s become a cliche. Hey, I’m not blaming anyone … I’ve made the *“for the children” schpeel once or twice myself. But the leader of an independent teacher organization in Georgia takes a whole different approach. At least when quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week about Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s plan to turn around failing schools (H/T Eduwonk):

Sometimes even shameful things can work out for good, with good people working hard to make sure kids can keep the quality education options they have received through school choice. In Arizona, thankfully they worked very quickly. Things went awry on March 25, when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on a shameful lawsuit by shutting down two voucher programs that served special-needs and foster care kids. Even then, though, as my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow reported for School Reform News, there was a ray of light: [Executive director of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice Tim] Keller said that remains a possibility in Arizona, where it could be accomplished by popular vote either through a legislatively initiated referendum or a citizens’ petition drive. “Right now, every conceivable legal option is still on the table,” he said. Fast forward 65 days to this monumental press release from the Alliance for School Choice:

Update: State Board member Peggy Littleton also weighed in (see below) When I asked my teacher, she told me that judges are supposed to interpret the law — not just make up stuff. (Which is something I tend to do after eating the last two chocolate chip cookies from the jar.) So I was a little confused and disappointed when I saw what went down a couple days ago at the Colorado Supreme Court. Independence Institute president Jon Caldara and the Denver Post‘s Vincent Carroll are among many who have highlighted flaws in the court’s judgment. They’re right — the ruling seems to say taxpayer protections in the state constitution don’t mean much when the issue at stake supposedly is “for the children”. I know it’s really not my fault, but being a kid, whenever I’m used for unsavory political purposes — well, I feel a little guilty about it. That guilt led me to get my Education Policy Center friends to ask the opinions of some other important people about this supreme court decision: namely, members of the Colorado State Board of Education. Interestingly, the State Board was the original defendant in this lawsuit led by the Independence Institute […]

You may think I spend a lot of time complaining about the education spending proposal inside Congress’ so-called stimulus (I prefer “magical money tree”) bill. Well, rather than just get up on my soapbox again (but hey, if I don’t stand up there, nobody will see me), I decided to share firsthand thoughts from a couple of Colorado’s state education officials on the issue. Earlier this week, new State Board of Education member Marcia Neal shared some thoughts on the education portion of the federal stimulus bill with Grand Junction reporter Mike Saccone: “I think there’s growing concern over this huge amount of money they’re throwing around,” Neal told Political Notebook today. “As always my concern … is the issue of local control. That when you accept money from the feds and they direct the way you spend it, they’re basically directing your local educational program and increasing your dependence on federal money.” Neal, a Republican, said she hopes the Senate, when it mulls the economic stimulus package this week, clears up the issue of local control. As I’ve highlighted before, Marcia Neal has expressed support for choice and local innovation. My friends in the Education Policy Center, though, wanted […]