Who Is In Charge

CSU student trustee bill passes House

Tuesday roundup
College degree bills
Outdoors education bill
For the record

Update March 3, 10 a.m. – The House voted 37-28 Wednesday for final approval of House Bill 10-1206, which would give students two voting seats on the Colorado State University Board of Governors.

Text of Tuesday story below

Colorado State University students took a step toward voting seats on the system’s board of governors Tuesday with preliminary House approval of House Bill 10-1206.

That’s one step farther than they went last year, when a similar measure, House Bill 09-1177, was killed in the House Education Committee.

Tuesday’s floor debate found Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the issue, arguing points about student conflict of interest, whether its actually better for students to just be board advisors and whether passing the bill would create pressure for similar changes on other governing boards.

Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, led the charge against the bill, arguing that college boards should have disinterested voting members and saying students don’t fit that definition because they pay tuition. (Several bill supporters argued that’s exactly why students should have a vote, because tuition now is the largest part of CSU’s revenue.)

Colorado State University campus
Colorado State University campus in Fort Collins

Prime sponsor Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, defended the bill and told his colleague that the students “will be back again if this bill doesn’t pass.”

The bill passed on a standing vote, and then a procedural move by Murray to defeat the bill failed on a 28-35 vote. The House will have to take a final, roll-call vote on the measure before it can go to the Senate.

The bill would convert the two student representatives on the board into full voting members. The students, one from the Fort Collins campus and one from Pueblo, would have to be juniors, seniors or grad students and would be appointed to terms of one academic year. Student governments and administrations could suggest candidates to the governor for appointment. The board’s two faculty members would remain non-voting.

CSU administrators and the board oppose the bill. Lobbyist Mike Feeley, a Democratic former senator, is representing them. According to disclosure records, he has been paid $6,220 by the university so far this session. Feeley is with the politically influential firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Senate advances Mesa, Colorado Mountain degree bills

Mesa State College wants to award graduate degrees, two-year Colorado Mountain College wants to offer bachelor’s degrees, and the Senate thinks both of those initiatives are fine ideas.

Senators voted preliminary approval Tuesday to Senate Bill 10-079, which would allow Mesa to get into the grad school business – but with limitations. The Senate approved a floor amendment that includes the phrase “a limited number of professional and technical degree programs.”

The four-year college is anxious to offer degrees that meet workforce needs on the Western Slope, such as teachers of nursing. “This is fundamentally an access program,” said Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction. “You have tremendous demand for these programs.”

Colorado Mountain College
Colorado Mountain College's facility in Edwards.

On Monday the Senate gave a preliminary OK to Senate Bill 10-101, which now has been amended to allow Colorado Mountain College, a two-year local district college that serves the central mountains, to offer no more than five bachelor’s degrees appropriate to the needs of its service area and approved by the Colorado Commission on higher Education. An amendment also sets out a list of standards CMC must meet for CCHE approval.

Although both bills have long lists of cosponsors, they’ve caused some heartburn about institutional “mission creep” and whether such decisions should be put off until after the current higher education strategic planning process is finished at year’s end.

Department of Higher Education officials had opposed both bills, but lobbyist John Karakoulakis said Tuesday that the amendments fix the department’s concerns.

House tussles a bit over environmental ed bill

Despite Republican suspicions about untapped piggy banks and environmental hidden agendas, the House Tuesday voted preliminary passage of House Bill 10-1131, which would set up a grants fund for schools and programs that involve kids in outdoor environmental education activities.

This is one of several aspirational “gifts, grants and donations” bills floating around the legislature this session, and this one is a favorite of tireless child advocate Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien. It seeks to tap an unused cash fund at the Department of Natural Resources, plus future federal and private money, to pay for a program estimated to need about $100,000 a year.

Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, suggested the DNR money should instead be swept into the general fund to help balance the state’s budget.

Rep, Christine Scanlan
Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon

Concerned about the possible tone of such programs, Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, proposed an amendment to require they also teach kids about responsible resource extraction. That failed.

Assistant Minority Leader David Balmer, R-Centennial, floated an amendment that would have required kids be taught about the environmental benefits of nuclear power. Noting French reliance on nuclear power, Balmer asked his Democratic colleagues, “If France is for it, it can’t be bad, right?”

An exasperated Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, came to the microphone to say, “We do not need to get specific in this bill about particular curriculum items. This bill is to get kids outdoors.”

Balmer’s amendment also was defeated.

This bill passed on a voice vote. Prime sponsor Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, is vice president for education at the Keystone Center, which among other programs operates the Keystone Science School.

For the record

The Senate Tuesday gave preliminary floor approval to Senate Bill 10-026, which would facilitate exchange of student data between the Department of Education and College in Colorado for the program designed to have middle school students develop individual career and academic plans. Also passed was Senate Bill 10-154, which changes the accreditation process for alternative schools serving high numbers of at-risk students.

In addition to passed Senate Bill 10-056, which would require school districts to provide to parents standardized information about both required and recommended immunizations, the House Education Committee Monday passed three other bills. They were:

  • Senate Bill 10-058 – Expanded eligibility for nursing teacher loan forgiveness
  • Senate Bill 10-018 – Creation of a program to provide award-winning schools with trophies and banners, to be funded by gifts
  • Senate Bill 10-088 – Study of the average daily membership student count system, yet another proposal to be paid for by “gifts, grants and donations”

Use the Education Bill Tracker for links to bill texts and status information.

a closer look

Fact-check: Weighing 7 claims from Betsy DeVos’s latest speech, from Common Core to PISA scores

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy

In a speech Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made the case for giving up on the type of school improvement efforts favored by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush. In its place, she argued, the federal government should encourage tech-infused innovation and school choice.

Looking to weigh her claims? Here’s a closer look at a few.

1. DeVos: “The most recent Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, report, with which you are all familiar, has the U.S. ranked 23rd in reading, 25th in science and 40th in math. And, you know this too: it’s not for a lack of funding. The fact is the United States spends more per pupil than most other developed countries, many of which perform better than us in the same surveys.”

This stats are accurate, but may not be fair. The U.S. does spend more per pupil, in raw dollars, than most other countries. But international comparisons of these sorts are complicated, and American spending is similar to countries with similarly sized economies.

As we’ve written previously, it’s also misleading to say that more money wouldn’t help American schools. A number of studies have found precisely the opposite, including a recent one showing how cuts to schools during the Great Recession lowered student test scores and graduation rates.

2. DeVos appeared to refer to Common Core as “federal standards,” saying, “Federally mandated assessments. Federal money. Federal standards. All originated in Washington, and none solved the problem.”

That’s off the mark. As advocates for the Common Core never tire of pointing out, the creation of the standards was driven by state leaders through the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, with the support of several private organizations, most prominently the Gates Foundation. (Gates is a funder of Chalkbeat.) As DeVos notes earlier in the speech, the Obama administration did incentivize states to adopt the standards, though, and Secretary Arne Duncan was a vocal champion.

3. DeVos: “At the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.”

This is true, in a sense — the Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed before DeVos became secretary, prohibits the federal government from pushing states to adopt specific standards. But DeVos doesn’t control what academic standards states adopt, and most states are still using use some version of the Common Core.

4. DeVos: “Throughout both initiatives, the result was a further damaged classroom dynamic between teacher and student, as the focus shifted from comprehension to test-passing. This sadly has taken root, with the American Federation of Teachers recently finding that 60 percent of its teachers reported having moderate to no influence over the content and skills taught in their own classrooms. Let that sink in. Most teachers feel they have little – if any — say in their own classrooms.”

The statistic DeVos pulled from this poll is accurate, though her framing may be more negative than the results suggest. It asked teachers to rate how much control they had over “setting content, topics, and skills to be taught.” The most common answer was “a great deal” (at about 40 percent of teachers), and another 30 percent or so chose moderate control. Twenty percent said minor, and only 10 percent said they had no control.

5. DeVos: “To a casual observer, a classroom today looks scarcely different than what one looked like when I entered the public policy debate thirty years ago. Worse, most classrooms today look remarkably similar to those of 1938 when AEI was founded.”

This statement is misleading but has a grain of truth. We examined a similar claim when the TV program produced by the XQ prize argued that schools haven’t changed in 100 years. In short, DeVos is right that many basic trappings of school — a building, a teacher at the front of the class, a focus on math, reading, science, and social studies — have remained consistent. But this glosses over some substantial changes since 1938: the end of legally mandated race-based segregation, the rise of standards for special education students, and the expanded use of testing, among others.

6. DeVos: “While we’ve changed some aspects of education, the results we all work for and desire haven’t been achieved. The bottom line is simple: federal education reform efforts have not worked as hoped.”

This is a big assertion, and it’s always tricky to judge whether something in education “worked.” As DeVos pointed out, a federal study showed the federal school turnaround program didn’t help students. She also highlighted relatively flat international test scores, and others have pointed to flat national scores in recent years.

That said, there were substantial gains in math in fourth and eighth grade, particularly in the early 2000s.

But raw trend data like this can’t isolate the effects of specific policies, particularly when other unrelated changes — like the Great Recession — can also make a big difference. Studies on No Child Left Behind have shown positive results in math, but little or no effect in reading. An analysis of Race to the Top was inconclusive.

One bright spot: a program that paid performance bonuses through the federal Teacher Incentive Fund led to small test score bumps, according to a recent study by DeVos’s Department of Education.

7. In response to a question about school performance in Detroit, DeVos said she shouldn’t be credited — or blamed — for the results in the city. “You’re giving me a whole lot of credit to suggest that whatever happened in Detroit was as a result of what I did,” she said. “We have been long-term supporters of continued reform and choice in Michigan.”

This one is up for debate, though it’s clear DeVos has long been a major player in Detroit’s education scene. She has supported charter schools, which educate about half the public school students in that city, and been a major donor to Republican politicians and causes in the state. She started an influential advocacy group in the state called Great Lakes Education Project.

She was also a key opponent of a commission that would more tightly oversee Detroit charter schools, which ultimately failed amid GOP opposition. It’s clear she has had an impact in the city, but that doesn’t mean she’s gotten everything she’s wanted: in 2000, Michigan voters rejected a DeVos-funded effort to fund vouchers for private schools. She also hasn’t gotten her wish that Detroit have a traditional school district eliminated entirely.

DeVos on offense

DeVos criticizes Bush-Obama policies, saying it’s time to overhaul conventional schooling

PHOTO: U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaking to the Council of Great City Schools.

One era of federal involvement in education is over, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said Tuesday, in some of her most expansive public remarks since taking over the department last year.

DeVos used a speech at the American Enterprise Institute to hit on familiar themes: America’s schools haven’t changed in many years, failing to embrace technology while still spending more and more money. But she also offered a pointed skewering of the approach of her recent successors.

“Federally mandated assessments. Federal money. Federal standards. All originated in Washington, and none solved the problem,” said DeVos. “Too many of America’s students are still unprepared.”

She also gave a harsh assessment of one of the most controversial policies of the period. “Common Core is a disaster,” DeVos said, echoing her boss, President Trump. “And at the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.”

In place of those efforts, DeVos offered a different framework for improving education: overturning a host of conventional approaches to schooling.

“Why do we group students by age?” she asked. “Why do schools close for the summer? Why must the school day start with the rise of the sun? Why are schools assigned by your address? Why do students have to go to a school building in the first place? Why is choice only available to those who can buy their way out? Or buy their way in? Why can’t a student learn at his or her own pace? Why isn’t technology more widely embraced in schools?”

Some of these questions dovetail with DeVos’s embrace of private school choice programs and tech-infused approaches to schools, including fully virtual options. The emphasis on technology is aligned with a number of wealthy philanthropies that have embraced computer-based “personalized learning.”

They also mark a departure from the paradigm of previous administrations. No Child Left Behind, the law signed by President George W. Bush, and the Obama-era Race to the Top program both focused on improving academic standards, instituting tests, holding schools and teachers accountable for results, and expanding charter schools, though generally not private school voucher initiatives.

DeVos’s vision is more aligned with a strain of conservative thought that has grown increasingly skeptical of test scores. “I talk about accountability more in terms of transparency and information that parents can access to find out how the schools are doing for their child,” DeVos said in a follow-up session with Rick Hess of AEI, the conservative think tank whose board DeVos previously sat on.

This rift is not entirely surprising. Former secretary Arne Duncan has sharply criticized DeVos and Trump, and left-of-center charter advocates have attempted to separate themselves from an unpopular and polarizing president and secretary of education.

In a rare agreement with the American Federation of Teachers, DeVos argued that federal involvement had put too much focus on test scores, citing a poll commissioned by the union. “The result was a further damaged classroom dynamic between teacher and student, as the focus shifted from comprehension to test-passing,” she said.

The AFT responded icily on Twitter: “More American educators feel disrespected by DeVos than anyone else in the entire world. You can’t blame Bush & Obama for that.”  

Debates about evidence continue

Earlier at the event, “Bush-Obama school reform: Lessons learned,” researchers and policymakers conducted a post-mortem of the last couple of decades of federal school reform.

The results weren’t always pretty. Virtually all participants agreed that well-meaning efforts had proven difficult to implement and sustain: No Child Left Behind had become widely reviled for increasing testing; teacher evaluations pushed by the Obama administration continued to rate most teachers as effective and faced stiff opposition from teachers’ unions; Common Core became the target of conservative ire and the associated tests were scrapped in most states; and a comprehensive study of the federal school turnaround program found that it made little impact on test scores or graduation rates.

Evaluating large policies, like Race to the Top or Common Core, is inherently challenging.  Nationwide test scores have been fairly stagnant in recent years, though that may be due to the effects of the Great Recession.

At one session, participants suggested that not enough had been done to incorporate teachers’ perspective into federal policy. (Notably, no current teachers or union representatives participated in panels at the AEI event.)

Still, research suggests that No Child Left Behind substantially improved math achievement. Studies in some districts have found benefits of their revamped teacher evaluation systems, too.

Joanne Weiss, chief of staff at the Department of Education under Duncan, cautioned against judging policies too quickly. “At some point you gotta say, the results should be in today,” she said. “[But] we have a history in education of calling it too early and moving on to something else, and then 10 years later the research comes in.”

Nevertheless, DeVos seized on the mixed results of past efforts to make the case for her favored changes: more school choice and more innovation at the school level, not driven by the federal government.

She didn’t mention the research on those approaches, which is decidedly mixed and even negative in some cases.

A number of recent studies on school voucher programs have found showed they hurt student test scores, though they bounce back for some students who stay in private schools for several years. In DeVos’s account of disappointing federal programs, she did not mention a recent study of Washington D.C.’s voucher program, which showed drops in math achievement. (A few studies have found positive impacts on high school graduation rates and college attendance.)

Fully virtual charter schools, which DeVos has long backed, have posted even worse results. And some math programs that blend technology with more traditional classroom culture have posted positive results, but as a whole, the evidence base for those approaches remains thin.

DeVos’s skepticism of federal involvement also highlights the central paradox of her job: As the leader of the very agency she is critiquing, how will she advance her agenda without expanding the federal footprint?

So far, DeVos has rolled back a number of Obama-era regulations and supported a new federal tax break for private school tuition, while acknowledging its impact would be modest.

We also fact-checked seven claims — from Common Core to PISA test scores — DeVos made during her speech. Read more here.