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.

Last week, the Colorado State Board of Education voted 4-3 to adopt federal education standards, dubbed “Common Core Standards,” to better position the state for winning federal “Race to the Top” dollars, a competitive federal grant that will be awarded to a few select states that qualify.

To be considered for the grant, a state must adopt the federal core standards.

Last May, lawmakers narrowly passed legislation significantly reforming how tenure for teachers is treated in Colorado–despite tremendous push-back from the Colorado Education Association. The legislation  represented another effort to win Race to the Top funding in the first round of grant picks. Colorado did not the make the cut, however,  with the passage of the reform bill–Senate Bill 191, sponsored by Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver.

Now, state education officials believe the adoption of the federal Common Core standards will better position Colorado schools to win a share of funding in the second round of Race to the Top competition.

Yet, Susan Goettel, superintendent of the Meeker Rio Blanco RE 1 School District, in Meeker, said the handful of schools in her remote rural community, tucked away in the northwest corner of the state, already do an excellent job of educating students and that the new standards probably won’t have much of an impact on the just under 680 students in the district’s K-12 schools.

“I personally don’t see that it will cause that big of a difference if you’re a district that already has district standards that have been well above the state standards,” said Goettel.  “We have a very proud tradition in our community–and whether or not we get a say on what we do and how we do it is a concern to our constituents as well as our board members.”

The shift from local control to state control and now to federal control is simply a sign of the times said Goettel, but the issue of who should determine local standards won’t go away anytime soon.

“The times they are a changing,” acknowledged Goettel.  However, Goettel maintains that “local control is always an issue.”

Echoing the observations of Goettel, a rural district in the far southeast corner of Colorado, Lamar RE-2, has the same concerns as its northwestern counterpart.  Chuck Soper, the newly installed superintendent, said that the federal standards in and of themselves are not worrisome but that the gradual erosion of the “rich tradition” in Colorado of local control for school districts is disconcerting.

“They’re (the standards) not substantially different from the already-adopted Colorado standards, so we’re not intimidated by them,” Soper said. “As an educator, I guess I’m a bit concerned about the trend toward what appears to be national education standards. This Race to the Top application that Colorado has got itself involved with … it looks like there’s quite a bit of emphasis on regional or national standards and regional and national assessments, and that’s a bit concerning to people who are used to local control.”

The Lamar school district educates around 2,000 students, said Soper, and because of its small size, the district is able to approach things in ways that larger towns aren’t able to with excellent results. Nudging from the federal government is not necessarily welcome for a small community such as Lamar.

“Nationalized standards … leave people in rural school districts a bit chagrined,” he said.

Ritter, in his remarks prior to signing Senate Bill 191 into law, acknowledged the attention that the bill received after it became clear the CEA would actively and publicly oppose the bill, effectively splitting democratic lawmakers who are normally united in their support of CEA concerns.  Ritter was quick to add that the relationship between the CEA and Democratic Party members runs deep.

“From the time I started running for office, the CEA has been supportive of our efforts, and, I would say, a partner in reform. I understand that they considered Senate bill 191 ‘a bridge too far’ and they couldn’t get there, but they eventually got to a place where their opposition became neutrality,” said Ritter, in reference to 11^th hour amendments to the bill that allowed the CEA to ease up on their firm opposition to the bill.

Still, the CEA says they have not formally retreated from their opposition to the bill that is now law, according to the CEA’s spokeswoman, Deborah Fallin.

“[The] CEA did not take a formal position of neutral.  We didn’t take that action.  We did not support the bill,” said Fallin, after the governor’s remarks today.

However, the CEA has taken the position that despite their opposition to the law and the protracted battle with lawmakers, they will work towards a favorable implementation of the reforms.

“Although CEA did not support the bill, we are committed to doing everything we can to make sure this law is implemented correctly,” said Fallin.

Ritter touted the measure as a positive step in the right direction that will not only benefit students, but teachers and principals as well.

The wisdom behind this bill is not a punitive bill, but a way to bring people (ineffective teachers and principals) along,” said Ritter. “We have all been blessed by an inspired teacher, and I look forward to continuing the partnership we have established with Colorado’s educators.”

Key Components of the new evaluation system:

Thirteen of the Senate’s 21 ruling Democrats as well as eight of the House’s majority Democrats joined all Republicans voting in both chambers on Wednesday to send the groundbreaking proposal to Gov. Bill Ritter, who endorsed it earlier this year.

“The Democratic party and the CEA usually agree on issues,” said Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, who is vice chair of the Senate Education Committee and the only one of its members to have voted against the bill. “Damage has been done, trust has been lost– how much is hard to know right now.”

The bill’s passage, which came despite concerted opposition from the 40,000-member union, also has some GOP lawmakers now wondering if the CEA’s clout as one of the perennial heavyweights of state politics may be ebbing.

Senate Bill 191 provides sweeping reforms regarding the evaluation and retention of K-12 teachers, changing the way they achieve and hold onto tenure. Among its other provisions, the bill says teachers who receive unsatisfactory ratings twice in a row could lose their tenured status and possibly their jobs. The measure meanwhile is expected to keep Colorado in the running for federal Race to the Top education dollars, awarded to states showing the most innovative education reforms, including enhancing teacher proficiency.

Its bipartisan sponsors, Democrat Michael Johnston, of Denver, and Republican Nancy Spence, of Centennial, in the Senate along with Democrat Christine Scanlan, of Dillon, and Republican Carole Murray, of Castle Rock, in the House, have deftly  handled its journey through the legislative process. They’ve had to navigate their way around the CEA, Colorado’s largest union, which bitterly opposed the bill with a PR blitz and a lobbying campaign that has mustered hundreds of teachers at a time at the State Capitol.

Johnston, who downplays talk of a wedge between his party and the union, says he knew he would be stepping into controversy when he first approached the CEA last December with his outline for tenure reform, proposing sweeping change on a priority the CEA views as non-negotiable—protection of teacher tenure.

“These are big changes and big changes are always hard,” said Johnston. “My negotiations with the CEA have been very warm and they’ve been very honest and up front. I think from the outside it has looked a lot more contentious than it was from the inside.”

Republicans were more blunt.

“Tenure has been a bottom line issue for teachers unions forever,” said Spence, a veteran sponsor of wide-ranging education-reform proposals in both chambers and under both Democratic and Republican legislative majorities. “The CEA is nothing but a labor union—let’s admit that.  Their interest is in protecting their membership.”

Spence, who has locked horns with the CEA for years, said she believes that the passage of bipartisan sanctioned tenure reform will have an effect on the unions’s longstanding relationship with the Democratic party.

“This bill is such a threat to the core of what CEA stands for.  I’m sure this has been a humiliation to the folks at CEA … in a Democratic-led legislature with a Democratic governor, to lose an issue that represents their heart and soul,” said Spence.  “I think this bill transcends CEA power.”

Hudak said she finds it odd that the reform is happening under Democratic leadership.

“When the Republicans had control of the House, Senate and governor’s office they didn’t try and change tenure,” said Hudak.  “If the Republicans didn’t want to take it on I can’t see why the Democrats would be willing to do that and jeopardize our best friends, the CEA.”

Murray, a former teacher and wife of a public school principal, said that she believes that the Democratic lawmakers who support the measure are doing so because of the federal Race to the Top dollars that may become available with passage of SB191 and that the Democratic holdouts on the bill are staunch union supporters.

“The strongest advocates for the CEA are the legislators who are former teachers and members of the Democratic caucus that are pro-union,” said Murray. “I also think that Race to the Top put this issue over the top.”

Because the measure has the support of the Colorado Department of Education and groups such as the Colorado Association of School Executives, Murray said she believes it’s just a matter of time before the CEA will be forced to recognize that it will not be able to have as much sway over the Democratic party.

“It’s just one of those things whose time has come,” said Murray.

Johnston counters that he is optimistic about the future relationship with Democratic lawmakers and the CEA despite the bruising that has occurred.

“It’s a disagreement that will take some collaboration and healing,” he said. “I think what’s going to happen is that we’re all going to realize that we disagreed on this issue but on all the big issues that are coming we’re going to be absolute partners.”

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.

Senate Bill 191, which made its debut in committee today, would reform the evaluation process for determining teacher effectiveness in the classroom, along with reforming the basis on which a teacher can gain a non-probationary status—what some would call tenure.

The bipartisan proposal, sponsored by Sen. Michael Johnston, D- Denver, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, has met with pronounced push back from the Colorado Education Association and its local affiliates, who say the bill’s provisions are unfair to teachers, particularly when it comes to probationary status.

For both Johnston and Spence, non-probationary status should not be assumed and should be earned and kept based on performance.

“The privilege of non-probationary status is the most significant one that we have to offer in the profession,” said Johnston,  “Historically we have seen that being offered to people based on getting older.”

All week, teachers have been appearing at the Capitol gearing up for today’s Senate Education hearing, prompting Republicans to issue a public denunciation of what they say is a misuse of tax dollars when money must be spent to pay for substitute teachers in the classrooms of those teachers appearing at the capitol.

“It’s certainly not right– taxpayer money is being used to undermine the public education system,” said Spence in a prepared statement earlier this week.

According to Article 35 of the CEA’s policy, a limited number of workdays can be used for official Association business—such as lobbying at the capitol—with appropriate and timely notification to the school’s principal.

Yet, Spence is wondering what the reasoning is for pulling teachers out of classrooms and then not having them actually testify, on record, before the committee.  Spence said that the only on-the-record opponents of the bill were union officials—not rank and file teachers or parents.

“I was astonished that the CEA leadership from across the street monopolized the testimony time and the rank and file teachers were not given the opportunity to testify,” said Spence. “I would have liked to hear from the rank-and-file teachers on this bill that their union leaders are opposing. So far we’ve only heard from the union officials.”

Because so many individuals are expected to testify, only opponents of the bill were heard today.  Proponents of the bill will testify before the committee Thursday, after which the panel will vote the measure up or down.

House Concurrent Resolution 1002, sponsored by Democratic Representative Debbie Benefield of Arvada, was heard by the House Education Committee, before a packed hearing in the Old Supreme Court Chambers–a room usually reserved for large turnouts.  After four hours of testimony, the committee approved the measure on a party-line vote.

Benefield began the testimony with her reasoning behind the measure—to give legislators more future discretion when it comes to funding education by making revisions to TABOR in the upcoming November election.

“Our hands are so tied at this level (of funding) that it’s almost an impossibility without undoing some of the issues that beset our state constitution,” said Benefield.

Those who came to support the measure spoke of what they said is a dire need for tax increases to fund education.  Those who came to oppose the measure spoke of preserving the right of voters under TABOR to approve or disapprove requests for a tax increase.

Former Republican state Rep. Penn Pfiffner came to speak to the panel against the measure, now as chairman of “The TABOR Committee,” a group that advocates no changes to the constitution regarding taxpayer rights.  Pfiffner began with a question for the panel.

“Is this (HCR1002) the best vehicle to bring us what we need?” asked Pfiffner. “I’m going to tell you it isn’t.”

The argument that Pfiffner and many others made against the resolution was that it would effectively dismantle TABOR completely.

“The real purpose of this measure is to establish a frontal attack—a way to get rid of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” said Pfiffner.

Karen Wick of the Colorado Education Association testified in support the measure, saying that something needs to be done about lagging revenues for education.

“Our ultimate goal is to have a new tax structure by 2011,” said Wick, who told lawmakers she is especially concerned about a fiscal freefall when federal stimulus dollars run out and TABOR provisions remain.

Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, said HCR 1002 is needed to ensure a reliable revenue stream, rather than having to ask for it during each election cycle with an uncertain outcome.

“The belief in education and the belief in making sure that we are funding education is alive and well in many of our districts and I’m always appalled when I hear that a parent voted against their own investment in education,” said Todd.

Carol Boigon, chair of Great Education Colorado, a coalition of organizations and individuals formed to support improvements in education though increased funding, told the panel that something has to be done—and soon.

“When it comes to public education in Colorado, inaction is not an option,” said Boigon, who also sits on the Denver City Council.

Rep. Carol Murray, R-Castle Rock, said that she understands the dynamic at stake because her husband is a public school principal.  However, going after TABOR, for her, is the wrong approach.

“It’s brutal out there right now in education and I get it.  But what we’re looking at today is a drastic change to TABOR.  We’re looking at using a sledgehammer on something that we should be using a scalpel on,” said Murray.

The measure is now headed to the House floor where it must, as a concurrent resolution, receive a two-thirds majority vote.  It would then go to the Senate for consideration where it must also receive the supermajority vote to pass.  If the measure passes both houses, it would then go to a full vote of the people as a ballot measure in November.

“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.

At stake is federal stimulus dollars designated for K-12 education competitively awarded to the top tier of states demonstrating their commitment to education reform through concepts set forth by the Obama administration. The application deadline for first-round consideration is January 19.

Both measures would restructure the way teachers obtain and retain tenure, now granted after three years of probation. Education reformers in both parties as well as some public-school administrators long have said the current system can give a teacher too much insulation from accountability and serves as an obstacle to advancing the best teachers–or culling out the worst.

“My bill will ensure that bad teachers aren’t passed on year after year,” says Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, a veteran lawmaker who authored one of the two pending proposals.

“I know that school districts and teachers don’t want to protect unsatisfactory teachers.  At its core, the most important component of education is the quality of the teacher,” said Spence, a longtime advocate of wide-ranging education reforms who has worked closely with both parties at the Capitol.

The Spence bill extends the probationary period of a new teacher from three years to five years and makes tenure subject to renewal every five years thereafter, pending a written review.

The other proposal is being offered by Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, who was appointed to the northeast Denver seat last May by a vacancy committee when former Senate President Peter Groff resigned to take a position in the Obama administration.   Johnston has ties of his own to the Obama administration, serving as one of the president’s top three education advisers during the 2008 presidential campaign.

“My bill would revamp the entire evaluation system for teachers and principals,” said Johnston, adding that his bill, if passed, would provide, “a clear, and high, bar of how teachers earn tenure and how they keep tenure.”

The measure proposes linking teacher evaluations to student growth and measuring effective teaching.  Principals would also be evaluated based on their percentage of effective teachers, student growth and leadership abilities.   Current evaluation methods assign teachers a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating after their three year probationary period that is arbitrary with little or no feedback, Johnston believes.

“I think that the evaluation system is broken, and I experienced that both as a teacher and as a principal,” he said. “Right now, what we have is an evaluation of teachers based on a 30-second walkthrough by a principal that doesn’t give us good information.”

Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, the House Education Committee chair who will sponsor the Johnston bill in the House along with Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, says he is glad to see the issue at last addressed. A retired schoolteacher, Merrifield says that the satisfactory rating that he always received was a meaningless label that communicated little about how he could improve or be recognized for what he was doing well.  He also feels confident that K-12 teachers will support his bill.

“Evaluations for teachers have for a long time been a joke,” said Merrifield. “If we can come up with an evaluation system that is really useful, takes a deep look at teacher’s effectiveness, and then makes suggestions on how they can be more effective teachers–I think that most teachers would be pleased to have that opportunity.”

It remains to be seen exactly how the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, will weigh in once the bills are formally introduced in the legislature.  Johnston and Merrifield say that they have spoken with the union and others but have not yet sat down to iron out differences.

CEA spokeswoman Deborah Fallin said her organization won’t take a position until it has been able to examine the bills, but she said extending the probationary period for a teacher, as Spence’s bill does, would be unacceptable.

“What can we find out in five years that we can’t in two to three years?” asked Fallin.

Johnston acknowledges that his bill would be dramatically different from current state law and unique among the states –earned tenure based on performance and keeping tenure based on performance –while Spence maintains that her bill would be less disruptive and a more simple solution by requiring teachers to prove their effectiveness  over a broader number of years.