Senate Bill 15, nearly identical to last year’s unsuccessful proposal,  which failed in the Republican-led House, is again sponsored by Sens. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo and Michael Johnston, D-Denver.

The measure would create a tuition category for undocumented students that costs less than out-of-state tuition but is effectively higher than the rate for Colorado students who receive a stipend toward the in-state rate through the Colorado Opportunity Fund.

The committee’s chair, Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, said extending in-state tuition to undocumented students is a matter of recognizing reality.

“These people are Americans without the paperwork,” said Bacon.

Yet, Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said the tuition proposal merely masks a larger issue.

“As long as it is not legal to hire a person who is not documented,  these kids will still be in the same predicament,” said Spence. They won’t be able to work, even if they are college grads.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

House Bill 1061, by Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Greenwood Village, dubbed the Skills for Jobs Act, directs the Department of Higher Education to work with the Department of Labor and Employment to evaluate workforce projections with regard to educational programs offered.

Kagan said matching job-market needs with education would stimulate job growth.

“This will foster business growth in the state by keeping Colorado graduates in the state in well-paying jobs,” said Kagan.

The data is already collected by the state and the federal governments, and Kagan said not to make use of that data would be a mistake.

“We already collect most of this information,” said Kagan “To go to all the trouble of collecting it, collating it, and not putting it out there for the use of the public, is folly.”

Still, Rep. Don Beezley, R- Broomfield, said he appreciates the concept, but his preference would be a more market-driven approach—for quality assurance.

“To be honest, I have a lot more confidence in the marketplace to achieve those goals as long as we don’t interfere and screw it up.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The bipartisan House Joint Resolution 1004, sponsored by Reps. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, in the House and Sens. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, and Michael Johnston, D-Denver, in the Senate, directs the Colorado Youth Advisory Council to study preventative measures regarding teen suicide and to report its findings to the legislature.

Citing statistics indicating that one out of every five teenagers in Colorado has considered suicide, Massey said nothing else could be more important than tackling the issue.

“If there’s anything we can do to stem this tide, it’s of paramount importance that we do whatever we can,” said Massey.

Kerr, a teacher, said he has seen the devastation teen suicide has bestowed on his school district in Jefferson County.

“I know personally that my community has been heavily impacted by teen suicide,” said Kerr. “Whatever we can do to prevent it from happening and raise awareness in our communities is critical.”

Driving the issue home, University of Denver student Thomas Tarler, who has struggled with depression throughout high school and his young adult life, said current approaches need to be augmented with a more direct approach.

“To say that there is a hotline to call, that does nothing,” said Tarler. “We need a more proactive approach. This should be the highest priority in Colorado. Suicide affects every teenager.”

The resolution is now headed for consideration by the full House before it heads to the Senate.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

“I’m sick of the dog-and-pony show. … We sit there and listen to every school come in front of us and tell us how great they are. I think it’s a waste of our time,” said the committee’s Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver.  ”Instead, we should actually have conversations. ”

The conversation Ferrandino says he wants to have is one centered on  issues and challenges colleges and universities are facing and the long-term prognosis for higher education in Colorado—rather than the usual litany delivered by school presidents of student numbers and great programs offered.  An annual presentation to the budget committee is given by all state departments, including the Department of Higher Education.

The hearing, scheduled later in the month, allots 20 minutes or so for school presidents to talk about their schools. Ferrandino said he would prefer a frank discussion over the future of higher education.

“I know that higher education  presidents are very reluctant in public forums to talk about all the problems that are going on because at the end of the day they’re salespeople for their institutions,” said Ferrandino.  “But, I think that does a disservice to both this committee and the people of Colorado. We need to figure out a way to make those conversations happen even if it’s a little uncomfortable for them. ”

Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs concurred.

“Hearing the same thing from the same people, I think, has diminishing returns, and I think that we need to get down to the formula and real management (for higher ed),” said Lambert.

Meanwhile, Sen. Pat Steadman, D- Denver, said more emphasis on problems higher education is facing would be appreciated.

“I do wish there was a way to condense this and get a little less sunshine blown in our faces.” said Steadman.  “A little bit more honest conversation about what needs to change. ”

Added Ferrandino, “There’s a huge elephant in the room–about long-term funding and what are we going to do as a state with higher education.  We hear about all the great things they’re doing but we never hear about what happens if the funding dries up and what happens if there’s zero state dollars.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The controversy swirls around Proposition 103, asking for an increase in both income and sales taxes over a five-year period. The estimated $3 billion raised through the increase will be applied toward education funding—pre-school programs through higher ed.  If passed, Proposition 103 would round up the state income tax’s flat rate from 4.63 percent to 5 percent and the  state sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent.

The latest jab thrown in the dust-up comes from newly installed Republican Senate Minority Leader, Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs, who derided a study by the pro-Proposition 103 Bell Policy Center for finding that private-sector job stagnation incurred by the tax increase would be offset by job growth in the public sector.

“Eliminating private sector jobs to create government jobs makes no sense,” said Cadman. “People across Colorado have already suffered massive job losses over the last year. How many private-sector jobs are the supporters of Proposition 103 willing to sacrifice in order to pass their $2.9 billion tax increase?”

The Bell Policy Center issued its report in response to a study by  Barry W. Poulson, a Senior Fellow in Fiscal Policy at the anti-Proposition 103 Independence Institute in Golden and John D. Merrifield, Professor of Economics at the University of Texas, finding that 11,000 jobs will be lost if the measure passes. (The Colorado News Agency is an independent media project of the Independence Institute.)

“Economic analyses of the effects of state taxes and spending on economic growth show that while tax increases are likely to slow job growth, increases in state spending tend to increase job growth. At a minimum, it is likely that they would cancel each other out, with the decline in job growth due to increased taxes being offset by the increase in job growth created through increased education spending,” says the Bell Policy report.

Meanwhile, the Colorado branch of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, with a membership of around 7,500 businesses, fired off a statement last week disavowing words attributed to Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, architect and voice of Proposition 103, saying businesses supported the measure. Tony Gagliardi, president of the small-business coalition, said he wanted to set the record straight.

“At a time when Colorado is still trying to recover from the most injurious financial recession in our history and with an unemployment rate that still is above the national average, why does Senator Heath think this a great time to raise taxes on hard-working people and those who are the true job creators?” said Gagliardi.  ”Has he taken one too many swigs of his own campaign Kool-Aid?  Let me be absolutely clear. NFIB-Colorado opposes this tax increase.”

Yet, Great Education Colorado, a statewide advocacy group for education, in a recent letter to state officials asking for their support said the path to economic recovery must include increased funding for education.

“If you want to support Colorado families during these tough economic times, then you must support public education.  If you want to rebuild our economy, then you must support public education,” reads the letter.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, who requested the audit, says he wants reassurance that online schooling—utilized by students in rural school districts with limited course offerings as well as by students with unique circumstances—is functioning well.

In a letter distributed Monday to committee members, who must approve requests before they are given to the auditor,  Shaffer sought, “an emergency audit to be performed of full-time online K-12 education programs receiving General Fund support.” Shaffer’s letter cited a Department of Education report of “exceedingly high student failure rates,” lack of accountability and oversight of the program, and districts that accept the funding with “little or no plan for retention or educational successes.”

“In an economic climate where the state of Colorado is forced to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from its education budgets, we must ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money is spent efficiently and effectively,” said Shaffer.

Among the three panel members voting against the audit request were Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora, and Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton.

Kerr said the suddenness of the  request raised red flags he couldn’t ignore.

“Why this, why now?” asks Kerr. “An eleventh-hour emergency audit request—and there is no such thing as an emergency audit—by someone, who is running for Congress, and who already has access to the information he is seeking, amounts to political grandstanding.”

Acree said she, too, questions the urgency as well as the need for an audit.

“The same issues that present themselves in online K-12 education are there in the brick-and-mortar schools,” said Acree. “This seems like an effort to undermine educational choices and is using the resources of the auditor’s office to do so.”

Yet, the State Auditor’s Office said the request will receive the same treatment that every audit receives. There will be an eight-hour review looking into the merits of the request, the findings of which will be presented to the committee in November, with a vote at that time on whether to approve a full audit.

“This will be handled just like any other audit, like any other request,” said spokeswoman Jenny Atchley.

Shaffer, who was not present at today’s meeting, said in his letter the urgency of his request  is related to the task lawmakers will have as they begin to make budgeting decisions in January.

In a prepared statement after the meeting, Shaffer said his military experience and a desire for educational success helped shape his decision.

“When I was in the Navy, I was taught you get what you inspect, not what you expect. I’ve requested this audit to ensure we’re getting the best education for our children and the most effective use of taxpayer dollars.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The task force, established under Senate Bill 11-133, sponsored by Sens. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, and Linda Newell, D-Littleton, and Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Loveland, was tasked with examining once-proliferating zero-tolerance policies, the use of legal sanctions for students, and how schools interact with the juvenile justice system.

Affording local discretion at the local level; eliminating most mandatory expulsions; a retooling of suspension policies; integrating restorative justice opportunities, and the role of law enforcement will all be addressed in the soon-to-be-drafted omnibus bill. Tuesday was the deadline for the bill’s contents—in conceptual form—to be approved by lawmakers on the panel and submitted for drafting by staffers.

Critics say the one-size-fits-all “zero-tolerance” policies at public schools—introduced in the ’90s on campuses across the country to stem a perceived surge in violence, illegal drug use and disciplinary woes—have tied educators’ hands and are forcing too many youths into the justice system, often for minor infractions.

Newell, who co-chairs the committee with Nikkel, said she is pleased with the bill that is emerging and is particularly pleased that Colorado could be a trend setter in revisiting zero-tolerance policies.

“Schools and parents are going to love what this bill does,” said Newell.  “There’s significant meat to this bill. Other states are watching what we do on this and I think we’ll be on the leading edge of this issue.”

Rote punishments, meted out in accordance with strict guidelines, have often resulted in kids falling prey to what some have been calling a “school-to-prison pipeline,” said Newell.

“It’s exciting to think that we can help reverse the trend for zero-tolerance and reduce unnecessary punitive actions for kids that get caught up in the system,” she said.

The task force’s Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, says giving schools the opportunity to assess an incident—and respond appropriately—on a case-by-case basis will produce better results.

“I’m hoping that the discretion will result in common-sense policy that is determined at the local level,” said Szabo. “Common sense will ensure that we don’t over- or under-discipline and will allow children to be treated as individuals who have their own unique personalities and circumstances.”

The panel will meet again in October to fine-tune the proposed legislation.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Proposition 103 will ask for an increase in both income and sales taxes over a five-year period. The estimated $3 billion raised through the increase will be applied toward education funding—pre-school programs through higher ed.  If passed, Proposition 103 would round up the state income tax’s flat rate from 4.63 percent to 5 percent, and the  state sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent.

The opposition group, led by former Douglas County Republican state Rep. Victor Mitchell, held a Capitol news conference at which it distributed a  study by Oregon economist Eric Fruits showing that 119,000 jobs will be lost and some $218 million in potentially taxable income driven out of Colorado if the tax passes.

Mitchell said the timing of the tax increase is especially bad.

“This could not happen at a less opportune time,” began Mitchell. “This would be a crushing blow to our economy.”

Republican House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, of Monument, who stood behind Mitchell at the press event along with other GOP lawmakers, echoed the study’s assessment of the tax increase’s impact on the jobs.

“The question is—in this economy—is this the right time to ask for an increase in taxes?” said Stephens. “Everything we do affects businesses, and in this economic climate, it’s all adding up for them.”

Mitchell asserted that the revenue raised by the proposal would produce little if any improvement in the education kids would be receiving.

“K-12 is not lacking in funding, it’s lacking in structural reforms,” said Mitchell.

Proposition 103 is projected to generate around $536 million annually. However, where those dollars are applied will be up to the legislature and the governor and can be used across the educational spectrum, Mitchell said.

Mitchell said opposing the tax increase is not a vote against education but rather a question of value for taxpayers’ dollars.

“I’m a product of public schools. I understand the value in funding education,” said Mitchell. “ I’m all for fully funding K-12 education, but we’ve got to get the structural issues addressed before we can know what fully funded means.”

Waiting in the wings at Thursday’s news conference to offer a rebuttal was Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, who was instrumental in getting the tax question on the ballot and is serving as the proposal’s leading voice.

Heath maintained that the job losses cited were gleaned from numbers that suggested a slight decrease in projected job growth should the measure pass—a 12.9 percent gain in job growth versus 14.3 percent.

“The numbers they came up with are really quite questionable—it’s fuzzy, fuzzy math. We would never put out a report like that,” said Heath. “We don’t know the assumptions they made.”

Heath also suggested that parents are already paying more for education in out-of-pocket expenses through a steady increase in school fees, although Heath conceded that the tax increase would not likely trigger a downward trend in those fees.

“Parents are paying for everything,” said Heath. “They’re paying a lot more than this tax increase in fees right now.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Critics particularly blame one-size-fits-all “zero-tolerance” policies at public schools, which they say have tied educators’ hands and are forcing too many youths into the justice system.

The task force—established under Senate Bill 11-133, sponsored by Sens. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, and Linda Newell, D-Littleton, and Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Loveland—will examine not only zero-tolerance policies  in particular but also more generally the use of legal sanctions for students and how schools interact with the juvenile justice system.  After the task force—consisting of lawmakers as well as experts in school discipline—finishes its work, it will report its findings in November to the legislature with recommendations for proposed policy changes.

Newell says taking a look at discipline issues will be, “a huge step toward restoring balance and fairness to school-discipline policies in our state.” She said reform is overdue.

Critics of the status quo say zero-tolerance school-discipline policies dictate suspension and expulsion even for student behavior that in the past was handled within the school environment.

Panel member Yvette Plummer said her son, a special-needs child and a minority, is statistically at risk for becoming ensnared in zero-tolerance policies.

“I don’t want my child to become a statistic,” said Plummer.  “These kids have a higher chance of being on the school-to-jail-track.”

Panel member Libby Szabo, a Republican representative from Arvada, said the zero-tolerance philosophy too often misses the mark.

“It can be just as detrimental to over-discipline as it is to under-discipline,” said Szabo. “There are just too many instances where kids are caught up in this policy unjustifiably.”

The lawmakers discussed alternatives including restorative justice, intervention and other policies that allow for flexibility within the schools themselves. Keeping kids in school rather than suspended or expelled was the common theme.

Members of a student-advisory group also addressed the panel, saying they will be bringing their unique perspective to the meetings since they see up close the impact discipline policies have on students. They said “too many of our members are being expelled, and we think more kids should be allowed to prepare for college without a criminal record. Let’s get them off the school-to-jail track and onto the go-to-college track.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

State Education Board Chair Bob Schaffer, who long had advocated for a parental-notification law, says he’s not willing to backpedal when it comes to a parent’s right to know.

“I don’t mind the debate, but if they (the CEA) want to put the best interests of alleged pedophiles and child abusers above the safety of children and keep parents in the dark, I take the side of parents,” said Schaffer, a a Fort Collins Republican and former congressman who represents Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District on the board.

CEA spokesman Mike Wetzel says the union’s June 30 lawsuit asks the courts to declare the rule unconstitutional because it “will create fear and unrest among students, parents and school employees in the school community” while also presuming the guilt of the accused.

“Let’s face it: Bad things happen to good people,” said Wetzel.  “The parental-notification rule does nothing to further protect students, nothing to alleviate the concerns of parents, but everything to destroy the career of any school employee wrongly accused.”

Wetzel says that an accused employee, who is later found not guilty, simply may not be able to recover from the ordeal. Schools may also wind up losing good people, says Wentzel.

“The court of public opinion is an unjust, ugly place, and we can’t support laws that will drive fine educators into that abyss,” said Wetzel.

The policy, which went into effect at the end of May, was enacted by a unanimous board vote and has received the  editorial endorsement of the Denver Post. However, it has drawn fire from the statewide lobbies representing local school boards and superintendents.

Schaffer says it’s one thing to recognize the rights of the accused in the justice system but quite another simply to keep parents informed so they can do what they believe is best for their own children.

“Would you want Casey Anthony, who was acquitted, to babysit your child?” asks Schaffer. “Parents, are bosses in the school system, and deserve to be as fully informed as the school districts are. We need to put the safety of children first, ahead of the interests of dues-paying employees, and let the parents decide about their children’s safety.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.