The measure, House Bill 1254, would update existing bullying policies, require data collection, and set up a website with anti-bullying resources.

Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, one of the bill’s sponsors, said the update is needed, in part, due to what she calls cyber-bullying and more verbal assaults.  Schafer says the new variations on bullying have become rampant in recent years among school kids.  She blames adult behavior that she believes kids have picked up. House Speaker Pro Tem Kevin Priola, R- Henderson, is also sponsoring the measure.

“With all the talk radio and combative conversations among adults, children are hearing more from parents, mass media, TV, blogs and such that are influencing them,” said Schafer.

Social media tools are also providing a platform for the bully rhetoric that children are engaging in, says Shaffer, and schools need to become more aware.

“We want to send a message and be proactive before there’s another tragedy,” Schafer continued. “Schools need to be self-educated about social media. Let’s do what we can.”

Jane Urschel , executive director of the Colorado Association of School Boards, said the bill would not only be burdensome for schools who will have to form and adopt a new bullying policy, but it also asks them to address an issue they are already acutely aware of.

“This bill would put mandates on districts that they can’t afford,” said Urschel. “The school districts are not ignoring this issue and want every child to be safe.  Schools already have a handle on this.”

Urschel also said she is hopeful that the bill will be redrafted in such a way that her organization won’t have to oppose the bill outright.

The bill will be heard in the House Education Committee on Monday, and at least one of its members, Rep. Robert Ramirez, R-Westmnster, has already said he is skeptical of the need for it.

“I have a huge problem with legislating personal behavior,” said Ramirez. “Bullying is something that is already addressed by schools as incidents occur. A state law isn’t going to change anything.”

According to the Colorado Trust Bullying Initiative, of students surveyed in 2008:

• 57 percent reported verbal bullying
• 33 percent reported physical bullying
• 10 percent reported online bullying

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 Bill 191 has pitted teachers against teachers while also straining relationships between historical allies over the bill’s overhaul of teacher and administrator evaluations.

The House Education Committee heard testimony on SB 191 for well over 10 hours, with raw emotions rising to the surface at times. The bipartisan measure, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Christine Scanlan of  Dillon and Republican Rep. Carole Murray of Castle Rock in the House and Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, in the Senate, has sent shock waves through the education community with its sweeping reform of how teachers are evaluated for retention.

Proponents say the measure is needed in part to keep Colorado in the running for federal Race to the Top education dollars. The funding is awarded to states showing the most innovative education reforms, including enhancing teacher proficiency.

Testimony began with two different teacher unions—one supporting and the other opposing the measure. The American Federation of Teachers said it welcomed the reforms while the Colorado Education Association, longtime allies with many Democratic lawmakers, rejected the reforms.

“The CEA rejects reform that is being done to teachers and not with them,” said CEA President Beverly Ingle.

Democratic chairman Rep. Michael Merrifield, of Colorado Springs, and several other Democratic panel members were solid in their support of the CEA’s position and expressed that solidarity throughout the evening.

“The angst doesn’t need to be here,” said Merrifield. “We have a bill here that says we’re going to get this done come hell or high water.”

Meanwhile, the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Association of School Executives, and the Department of Education all threw their support behind the measure, making for terse exchanges with the Democratic panel members opposing SB191.

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.

CASE Deputy Executive Director Bruce Caughey said that he regretted the animosity created by the bill but said that the reforms were necessary and inevitable.

“I can’t think of a more important topic to be having a robust conversation about,” said Caughey. “I am sad about the divisive politics in this bill that we are fighting about.”

The measure passed 7-6 despite the  “40,000 times no” vote cast by Democratic Rep.Cherylin Peniston of Westminster–a reference to the approximate statewide membership of the CEA.  The bill must first pass muster with the House Appropriations committee before it can be considered by the full house.

The measure also passed over objections of two Republican dissenters, who said they could not impose the mandate on local school districts that are struggling financially.

The concern was echoed by representatives of the public school district boards and adminstrators. Jane Urschel, of the Colorado Association of School Boards, said unfunded mandates at a time when schools are tightening their belts made the bill unworkable and that the school boards regrettably could not support the bill.

“This is perhaps the most difficult testimony that I’ve ever given,” said Urschel. “The intent of this bill is genius but how the bill is executed is not. We can’t have art on demand by the state–that decision has to be made locally.”

Also opposing the bill, and delivered with the same regrets, was the Colorado Association of School Executives. Both groups suggested that if the mandate were replaced with an incentive for the schools, they could support the bill.

Rep. Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, voted for the bill but agreed with Urschel and said he would prefer incentives over mandates as well.

“We’ll need creative accounting to pay for this,” Summers said.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of those who came to speak to the committee spoke emphatically in favor of requiring an arts curriculum in public education.  Many who spoke were students or former students whose lives were enriched by their exposure to the arts. Others said they simply couldn’t imagine an education without art.

“Performing arts are just as important as math and reading.  To have an education without these things is just unthinkable,” said Dan Ritchie, the former University of Denver chancellor who has an arena on the DU campus named after him.

Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, lamented the loss of arts in favor of math and science–which she said are given priority for the sake of standardized testing. She said only wealthier schools have the means to support arts in the curriculum.

“High-stakes testing has crowded out the arts, especially in lower-income schools,” said Solano.

Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, a former schoolteacher, said she always found ways to integrate the arts into curriculum and that Merrifield’s measure mandating the arts curriculum won’t be burdensome on school districts.

“I don’t look at this as a mandate.  With my students, I took their artistic sense and was able to integrate the arts into other subject areas,” said Todd.

Mark Hudson, of the Colorado Music Education Association, said it came down to deciding what’s most important.

“Can we afford to do this? The question is–can we afford not to?” Hudson asked the committee.

Merrifield said the measure is simply overdue.

“There are ways for us to be creative in finding a way to do this,” said Merrifield. “I’m calling this the ‘no more buts’ bill.”

Sponsored by Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, Senate Bill 89 was originally written as a statement of the religious rights of students and teachers but was revised to instead require clarification from the attorney general of Colorado, by memorandum, on issues pertaining to religious expression in schools. Schultheis said he wanted to provide a guide for parents and teachers who are unclear about what their rights are.

“The purpose of the bill is to dispel myths,” the veteran lawmaker told the Senate Judiciary Committee.  “There is a misconception that expressing one’s religious views is somehow prohibited in public schools.”

Schultheis pointed to issues surrounding the Christmas season in public schools as a common example of confusion as to what is and what is not appropriate for those who celebrate the holiday.

“People don’t know what they can and can’t do around Christmas,” he said. “They’re very confused because it (references to Christmas) is generally squelched.”

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, who noted she is Jewish, said public schools should not favor one religion over another and that religious holiday celebrations should not be a part of school activities at all.

“School is not the place to talk about a religious holiday,” said Hudak, who is a former schoolteacher.  “You need to be aware that there are many children who don’t celebrate Christmas. I feel like a second-class citizen during the holidays.”

Yet, Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, a supporter of the bill, agreed with Schultheis that confusion prevails in public schools as to where the boundaries lie on religion. Lundberg said he supported the bill as a way to clarify for teachers what the law says about what is permissible and not permissible.

“This bill says let’s put the legal facts on the table,” said Lundberg.

Jane Urschel, of the Colorado Association of School Boards, said school districts already have policies that address appropriate religious expression and that the bill is not necessary.  She also expressed concern about the possibility that clarifying the boundaries of religious expression may compromise neutrality by public schools.

“It appears that it promotes the exercise clause rather than remaining neutral,” said Urschal.

Jeff Knetsch of the American Civil Liberties Union said if religious expression is clarified by the attorney general, as proposed in the bill, it might encourage more religious activities in public schools and that the lines between the establishment-of-religion clause and the freedom-of-religion clause in the First Amendment will be tested.

“It (the bill) seems to be a solution in search of a problem, and I’m afraid that it might promote tyranny of the majority,” said Knetsch.

Mark Hotaling of the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado urged the panel to support the bill in the interest of protecting religious freedoms that he said should not be taken for granted in light of the firsthand religious persecution he has seen in many parts of the world.

“This bill protects religious freedom for everyone–the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim and the atheist,” said Hotaling.

Before voting against the bill, two of the four Democratic senators on committee, Linda Newell, of Littleton, and committee Chair Morgan Carroll, of Aurora, said they would be willing to join Schultheis in simply asking Colorado Attorney General John Suthers for a clarification on the issues raised in the bill.

“This body has pitted business against education,” said state National Federation of Independent Businesses Director Tony Gagliardi, contending all Colorado will suffer if business is saddled with a heavier tax burden.

The Senate sponsor of the bills eliminating various tax exemptions and credits, Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, began today’s hearing in the Senate Finance Committee with an exhortation to the panel to consider what is at stake and to focus on things that matter most.

“The conversation is, ‘Is this a fair and equitable way to balance jobs and the needs of children?’ ” Heath said.  “It’s about the kids … those kids who are only in fifth grade once.”

Faced with a $1.3 billion budget shortfall next year amid revenue projections that indicate a much slower-than-anticipated recovery, Gov. Bill Ritter has proposed a slate of business-related tax credits and exemptions to eliminate either temporarily or permanently. Ritter’s plan would bring state coffers another $131.8 million.

The package of 13 tax-policy bills, which began its course in the House last week, has been put on the fast track at the urging of the governor and embraced by Democratic leadership, but not without intense resistance by GOP lawmakers and the business community itself. They argue that jobs will be lost in an already-stressed economy.

Public education advocates, including the Colorado Association of School Executives, The Colorado Association of School Boards and The Colorado Education Association, came to support the measures, which they say would provide desperately needed funding for an education system that is already suffering a $140 million loss in this year’s budget.

Yet, Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, who runs a charter school in his community, said siphoning money away from business offers little guarantee that the funds actually will aid public schools given the state’s record on the subject. He cited the General Assembly’s decision to freeze the statewide property-tax mill levy in 2007, bringing in some $8 million a year that was supposed to assist public schools but, he said, never made it into the State Education Fund.

“How can this source of funding fund K-12 education when the property tax increase didn’t?” asked King, who added that an increase in personal income via jobs saved creates more money for the State Education Fund.

Proponents of the measures said they were trying to balance the relative merits of lower taxes for business with the revenue needs of education.

“The irony of this is that we are living in the seventh-wealthiest state,” Heath said. “Lets understand, we have already cut this budget by 25 percent.”

Republicans on the panel said if businesses are hit with lost revenue, they may not be able to weather the current recession without having to let employees go. That, they said, would drain the state revenue pool even further, rendering the issue of jobs for teachers moot.

“We have a fundamental disconnect on how to revive an economy,” said King.  “Do we protect government jobs against private sector jobs?”

A one point an exchange between a business owner who testified against the measures and Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, provided a moment of comic relief at the hearing, drawing laughter from both the panel and the audience.

“I don’t want to balance this budget on the backs of your kids, said Johnston implying that schools would receive less funding without a sacrifice from business.

“My kids are homeschooled,” the witness deadpanned.

Gagliardi said businesses already are doing their part on behalf of schools.

“Business has paid more than its share—look at Gallagher,” he said, referring to a state constitutional provision keeping residential property taxes low at the expense of business property.

Yet, Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, suggested the business community was overstating the impact of losing the tax exemptions and credits .

“A few cents more?  Who’s going to even notice—the sky is not falling–the added revenue could cover the cost of 450 teachers,” said Hudak.

Debate over the bills continues Thursday.