Early Education

Landmark school discipline reform legislation killed by Republicans on Colorado Senate panel

PHOTO: Nicholas Garcia
Students line up in the hallway at the Cole Arts and Science Academy in Denver.

A bipartisan attempt to reform how Colorado schools discipline their youngest students died Monday, even after the bill’s sponsors offered amendments to placate rural school leaders who opposed the legislation.

The Republican-controlled State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted 3-2 along party lines to kill House Bill 1210.

Two Republicans who voted against the measure said they felt the bill stripped away crucial tools teachers and principals need to manage their classroom.

“Our teachers need the tools,” said state Sen. Vicki Marble, a Fort Collins Republican. “I would say give them a bar of soap and let them use it when they need it.”

The bill would have allowed schools to expel and suspend students if they posed a physical threat to themselves or others.

A third Colorado Springs Republican, state Sen. Owen Hill, said he felt the bill was an overreach by state lawmakers.

Sponsors and proponents of the bill said they were disappointed but vowed to bring the legislation back next year.

“New ideas don’t always make it the first try, or even the second or third try,” said state Sen. Kevin Priola, a Henderson Republican and co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate. “But what it does is it creates thought and discussion. Sometimes it takes your colleagues time to see the light.”

Rosemarie Allen, an assistant professor of early childhood education at the Metropolitan State University of Denver, said after the vote that it appeared Republicans were more concerned about politics than doing what’s right for kids.

“I’m losing faith in the common sense of our legislature,” she said. “We’re not done yet. We will never, ever give up on our children.”

The original bill would have curbed out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for students in kindergarten through second grade, as well as preschoolers in state-funded programs. It would have permitted out-of-school suspensions only if a child endangers others on school grounds, represents a safety threat or if school staff have exhausted all other options.

In general, suspensions would have been limited to three days. Expulsions would be prohibited under the bill except as allowed under federal law when kids bring guns to schools.

Proponents of the bill spent more than a year crafting it. They say there are too many students in those early grades being suspended out of school, and that the tactic doesn’t work.

Last year, Colorado schools suspended students in grades below the third grade more than 7,000 times. Boys, especially black and Latino boys, were overrepresented in that group.

“The practice has shown repeatedly to make the problem worse,” said Phillip Strain, an early childhood education professor at the University of Colorado Denver. “Suspension and expulsion occurs at a local school level, but there is an economic ripple effect across the state and across the country.”

The bill hit an unexpected late roadblock when rural school leaders voiced opposition to the bill.

On Monday, two rural superintendents said that the bill violated their local control and that more mental health resources for students was a better solution.

“I think what it comes down for me, more than anything, is that we have continually eroded away local control and the authority of our local school boards to make the decisions they need to make,” said Rob Sanders, superintendent of the Buffalo School District in Merino.

Rural superintendents also have claimed that early childhood suspensions are a Front Range problem. A Chalkbeat story last week, however, reported that rural school districts also suspended boys — especially black and multiracial boys — disproportionately.

Sanders and another superintendent who testified Monday — Grant Schmidt of the Hanover district — took issue with how the state calculated the data cited in the story, saying it does not give a fair picture because of the relatively small numbers of students impacted.

In an effort to win over support from lawmakers sympathetic to the rural concerns, the bill’s sponsors offered three amendments that substantially weakened the bill.

The first made the bill only about suspensions, allowing for use of expulsions. The second amendment limited the bill to pre-school through the first grade. And the third amendment exempted rural schools from the law altogether.

All three amendments were unanimously approved. Then the Republicans killed the bill.

“We’re going to bring it back until we get those done. It needs to be done,” said Rep. Susan Lontine, a Democrat who sponsored the bill in the House. “When the reasons for not voting for the bill were taken off the table by those amendments that they all agreed to, and they still used them for reasons to vote against the bill … It doesn’t make sense.”

Nearing the finish line

New preschool compromise plan would add 15 counties, expand voucher access

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy
Preschoolers at School 55

Lawmakers have arrived at a tentative compromise for how to expand Indiana’s preschool program, and it includes controversial proposals to expand vouchers and online learning.

Under the compromise plan, 15 additional counties would be included in the state’s preschool program — up to 20 from the current five. The cost of the expansion will likely be unclear until early Friday, but House Speaker Brian Bosma said it will be closer to the $10 million per year increase called for by the House than to the $4 million increase proposed by the Senate.

This year’s debate over preschool has been heated. Bosma and other Republican leaders, including Gov. Eric Holcomb, have come out strongly for expansion, while others, notably Senate Appropriations chairman Luke Kenley, a Republican from Noblesville, have been more skeptical of spending money on a program still being studied by the state.

For many Democrats, the two Republican plans don’t add nearly enough money for early education. Preschool advocates, who have lobbied for spending $50 million per year, tend to agree.

None of the counties in the existing preschool program — Allen, Jackson, Lake, Marion and Vanderburgh — would receive less funding than they did last year unless the number of students or preschool providers have decreased significantly. But going forward, rural counties would be prioritized, said Rep. Bob Behning, the bill’s author.

To qualify for Indiana’s preschool program, a family of four still couldn’t earn more than $30,861. But in the original five counties only, families of four making up to $44,863 could apply if all the lower-income families who were interested already received grants and there was funding left over.

Controversial language allowing a new voucher “pathway” remains in the bill, but in a more limited fashion, Behning said. If a child used a preschool scholarship to go to a program at a private school that accepts vouchers, they could then automatically receive a voucher for kindergarten if they stay at that same school. Behning said about 171 kids now attend 24 voucher-accepting schools with preschool programs, and of those, just six kids would be eligible to continue with a voucher for kindergarten.

The plan also includes specific requirements for parents receiving vouchers, including how often their children will attend preschool and that they will read to their children every week. It’s not clear how such measures would be enforced, but parents would have to agree before they could get a preschool scholarship.

The compromise plan would also allow families who use an “in-home” online preschool program to be reimbursed for their costs. The state would agree to study these online programs, and priority would be given to parents of children who live in counties with no high-quality preschool providers.

The compromise proposal still must receive final approval from the House and the Senate, which is expected later this week.

Quality quest

How Colorado is trying to boost access to quality child care for poor kids

PHOTO: Meghan Mangrum

When Colorado changed the way it paid child care providers for educating little kids from low-income families — paying high quality providers more than lower-quality ones — there was both elation and frustration.

Deb Hartman, program director at a highly rated center in Las Animas County in southern Colorado, called the new approach “life-changing.” The extra money, she said, helped save infant and toddler classrooms that otherwise would have closed. She was able to give her teachers raises and even buy a coffee-maker for the teacher’s lounge.

But 300 miles north in Larimer County, officials who administer the state’s child care subsidy program for residents weren’t so happy. The new reimbursement rates meant a growing price tag for the program and today, nearly 600 kids on the wait list.

The dichotomy illustrates the growing pains that have come with state efforts to get low-income youngsters into high-quality child care — a key factor in making sure kids are ready for kindergarten and reading well in third grade.

While Colorado policy-makers have made an array of changes to the complicated $86 million subsidy program in recent years — several focused on promoting child care quality— there’s a long way to go to ensure poor kids get the same level of care available to upper-income kids.

Not only are there too few high-quality providers across the state, but many don’t accept subsidies, which is often the only way low-income families can gain access to top-notch child care.

Thousands of providers — about 84 percent — are still on the lowest rungs of the state’s two-year-old quality rating system, Colorado Shines. The lowest rating is Level 1, which means a provider is licensed and has met basic health and safety requirements. Level 2 is a step up and means a provider has started to climb the quality ladder, but has not yet achieved what is considered the mark of high quality — a Level 3, 4 or 5 rating.

Of about 680 high-quality providers across Colorado, about 37 percent accept subsidies. Sometimes it’s because they can easily fill their rosters with children whose parents pay full freight. In other cases directors balk at accepting subsidies because the program, officially called the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, has a reputation for red tape and out-of-date technology.

“It’s not very 21st century at all,” said Terri Albohn, who helps administer the subsidy program for Boulder County.

State officials say they’re in the process of streamlining and modernizing the program, which helps low-income parents afford child care if they’re working, in school or looking for jobs.

State officials aim to increase the number of providers that have ratings above Level 1 and to improve the distribution of high-quality programs that accept subsidies so communities outside the Front Range have better access.

“The idea is to try to break out of that I-25 corridor in particular,” said Erin Mewhinney, director of early care and learning for the state Department of Human Services.

When kids lack access to high-quality care, it can mean less-than-ideal child care arrangements — sitting in front of the TV or staying home with grandparents or older siblings.

One state initiative in the works will award grants to providers rated Level 2-5 that accept or plan to accept child care subsidies. Mewhinney said the state’s goal is to ensure that 33 percent of Colorado communities have at least one high-quality provider that takes subsidies. Right now, that number stands at 26 percent.

One person on the front lines of efforts to get more providers to accept subsidies is Jennifer Sanchez McDonald, coordinator of the Huerfano and Las Animas Counties Early Childhood Advisory Council.

She likes to tell providers that the program is “going to empower your site, not decrease your opportunities.”

In one recent example, she visited a licensed provider who cares for children in her home, discussing the subsidy program over a conversation at the kitchen table. The woman was worried about shrinking enrollment because some of her families were struggling to pay. Shortly after that conversation, the provider began taking the subsidies.

Sanchez McDonald hopes to get up to eight more of the 16 licensed providers in the two-county area to accept state subsidies. Currently, four take the subsidies — only two that have high ratings.

Besides getting centers to take subsidies, there’s also the challenge of getting parents to apply for them. Although area poverty rates are high and children often lag academically, many parents keep their kids at home until kindergarten, Sanchez McDonald said.

In Boulder County, officials launched a campaign called “Just One More” urging high-quality child care providers to set aside one new slot for a subsidized child. In some cases, the centers are accepting subsidies for the first time.

The campaign, begun 18 months ago, hinges on personal outreach to providers by county workers who describe the impact quality care can have on a low-income child and check in frequently during the early weeks of enrollment.

Elizabeth Groneberg, outreach coordinator for Boulder County’s subsidy program, said she tells providers, “You let me know when you get your first (subsidized) family. We’ll be in touch every day.”

At one high-quality private preschool, she said, the director agreed to begin accepting the subsidies so the child of one the center’s teachers could attend. Today, the center has two children in subsidized slots.

In Larimer County, where demand for subsidies far outstrips supply, officials say they’re not recruiting more providers to take subsidies because they couldn’t place children in those slots.

While about a dozen Colorado counties have wait lists for subsidies, Larimer has the largest, according to state officials.

“We want to pay for good quality care, but you have to have additional finances … to do it,” said Heather O’Hayre, deputy director of human services for Larimer County.

The real problem is that the state’s formula for distributing funds to counties isn’t working the way it should, O’Hayre said. She and her colleagues also lament that the committee that determines the formula is heavy on metro Denver representation and that members have no term limits. There are no voting members from Larimer County.

While state officials say they understand Larimer’s concerns about the long wait list, the fact that the problem is acute in just one county rather than several doesn’t necessarily indicate a problem with the allocation formula.

“I know they’re frustrated for sure,” Mewhinney said.