Mount Virtus

In Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News, columnist Linda Seebach brought attention to the biased, teachers union-funded Think Tank Review Project - featured on Mount Virtus back in January. When I publicly criticized the Project, I received a long, friendly email response from Project co-chair Kevin Welner. In our exchange, Welner and I came to agreement on our mutual respect for Ms. Seebach’s evenhanded, analytical approach.

A couple key grafs from Seebach’s column:

After the formal discussion was over, I broached that subject with Welner. He said there is no intention on anyone’s part to make the project political, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. He also said it’s difficult to find expert reviewers on the right, and I don’t doubt that either, given the political atmosphere in most ed schools.

Still, I urge you to go online and see how it has turned out, at epsl.asu.edu /epru/thinktankreview.htm. There are 16 reviews posted, and every one is about research published by think tanks that are right of center, and more specifically, that support greater parental choice in schools. Not all the research is about school choice, but a lot is. And the reviews are almost all highly negative.

And she concludes:

The NEA, or its agent, certainly has every right to provide funding for professors so they can carry out a project they are sincerely eager to do anyway. But it also has every right to withdraw funding if it decides it doesn’t care for the choices the professors make. And that’s a problem.

Having developed an apparent skepticism of the Project’s research attacking school choice, Seebach’s observations are spot on. And I’m glad she has added her voice to this conversation. A little transparency and a strong dose of healthy skepticism were all I ever asked for vis a vis the Think Tank Review Project.

The Denver Post reports today that State Representative Kent Lambert (R-Colorado Springs) has filed a lobbyist-ethics complaint against the Colorado Education Association for spreading misinformation about the Governor’s property-tax measure before the legislature:

He cited an e-mail Mason sent to eight CEA members and a CEA website posting as including the misleading statements. According to Lambert, Mason and the CEA are saying the proposal, which was added Monday to the annual funding bill for schools, would “take pressure off future cuts to K-12″ and “is NOT a tax increase.”

Of course, both statements are untrue. Amendment 23 protects K-12 from any potential future cuts - even before Amendment 23, K-12 rarely received a funding cut. And the proposal increases property taxes for homeowners and business owners in more than 100 of Colorado’s 178 school districts.

That CEA leaders got caught in a lie is hardly earth-shattering news. It’s highly doubtful anything will come from the formal ethics complaint, but it does make for a mildly entertaining news story on a Wednesday.

The Rocky Mountain News has great coverage today of the Colorado Democrats’ property tax increase. The news continues to be precarious for the majority party at the State Capitol: taxpaying voters - and Dick Wadhams - are watching you.

Colorado’s liberal, out-of-touch House Education Committee has just voted to approve the governor’s amendment to the School Finance Act that would raise taxes for most property owners in the state. The vote passed on an 8-5 party line vote, with all Democrats lining up to raid taxpayer pockets.

By listening to much of the testimony, you would think that school revenues in Colorado are running dry. Nothing could be further from the truth. And whenever other possibilities for raising funds for education have been introduced, the Democrats resist - unable to dream of doing anything but hiking property taxes.

The dirty little not-so-secret? The property tax increase advertised for the “children” is being used so the state government can spend even more money on budget areas outside K-12 education. The Referendum C tax increase of 2005 just wasn’t enough with the Democrats in charge. What a voracious appetite the governor and legislative majority has for your money!

My report for the Independence Institute on Governor Ritter’s tax-raising proposal to fund new education programs is officially released today. Here is the summary:

On March 12, 2007, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter proposed the “Colorado Children’s Amendment,” a plan to spend $84 million to expand preschool and kindergarten programs. To free state money to fund the programs, he proposed a mill levy rate “freeze” that would shift some of the school funding burden to local sources. On April 10, the governor revised the plan—offering tax relief to property owners in 33 school districts while creating higher property tax bills in 104 districts. The annual revenue estimate for the plan’s new version is $55 million.

State analysts argue the property tax increase would be legal. The proposal nevertheless clearly violates the spirit of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Moreover, voters have strongly resisted plans to raise local property taxes to fund statewide programs.

An examination of statewide revenue data shows education funding grew significantly in the first four years after Amendment 23 mandated annual K-12 spending increases, as follows:

• Colorado school districts received 15.6 percent more per student in state dollars
• Colorado school districts received 11.6 percent more per student in total dollars
• Colorado school districts received 50 percent of revenues from local sources in 2005, down from 53 percent in 2001

From 2001 to 2005, Colorado schools also received 8.5 percent more per student in property tax dollars. Out of 176 school districts:

• 103 districts, representing three-fourths of the state’s public school students, received more property tax dollars per student
• 20 districts increased per-pupil property tax revenues by 30 percent or more
• Only 10 districts lost 20 percent or more in per-pupil property tax revenues

The “Colorado Children’s Amendment” is a one-size-fits-all proposal that raises taxes unevenly depending on a property owner’s district of residence to pay for new statewide education priorities. If voters in a particular school district wish to pay more property taxes to fund local schools, they should be asked specifically and directly first.

Meanwhile, Colorado Republican lawmakers - in near unanimous opposition to the proposal - have pressed the Governor to look at other ways to reform the state’s school finance structure besides adding to the property tax burden of owners in select school districts. Privatizing the lottery and boosting revenue from School Trust Land are among their ideas. More to come on this later …

In case you haven’t seen this, there is at least one especially poignant tale of heroism to be told among yesterday’s incident of great evil, terror, and tragedy at Virginia Tech University:

As Jews worldwide honored on Monday the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust, a 76-year-old survivor sacrificed his life to save his students in Monday’s shooting at Virginia Tech College that left 33 dead and over two dozen wounded. Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, threw himself in front of the shooter when the man attempted to enter his classroom. The Israeli mechanics and engineering lecturer was shot to death, “but all the students lived - because of him,” Virginia Tech student Asael Arad - also an Israeli - told Army Radio.

Several of Librescu’s other students sent e-mails to his wife, Marlena, telling of how he had blocked the gunman’s way and saved their lives, said Librescu’s son, Joe.

“My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee,” Joe Librescu said in a telephone interview from his home outside of Tel Aviv. “Students started opening windows and jumping out.”

Condolences to the family of Professor Librescu and the many others who were lost or grievously wounded at the hands of an angry killer. Such heroism as the aging Holocaust survivor displayed ought not be forgotten.

And today, while the tragic wounds are so fresh and sore, there came words of compassion, as witnessed in the remarks of President George W. Bush on the Virginia Tech campus this afternoon:

In such times as this, we look for sources of strength to sustain us. And in this moment of loss, you’re finding these sources everywhere around you. These sources of strength are in this community, this college community. You have a compassionate and resilient community here at Virginia Tech. Even as yesterday’s events were still unfolding, members of this community found each other; you came together in dorm rooms and dining halls and on blogs. One recent graduate wrote this: “I don’t know most of you guys, but we’re all Hokies, which means we’re family. To all of you who are okay, I’m happy for that. For those of you who are in pain or have lost someone close to you, I’m sure you can call on anyone of us and have help any time you need it.”

These sources of strength are with your loved ones. For many of you, your first instinct was to call home and let your moms and dads know that you were okay. Others took on the terrible duty of calling the relatives of a classmate or a colleague who had been wounded or lost. I know many of you feel awfully far away from people you lean on and people you count on during difficult times. But as a dad, I can assure you, a parent’s love is never far from their child’s heart. And as you draw closer to your own families in the coming days, I ask you to reach out to those who ache for sons and daughters who will never come home.

These sources of strength are also in the faith that sustains so many of us. Across the town of Blacksburg and in towns all across America, houses of worship from every faith have opened their doors and have lifted you up in prayer. People who have never met you are praying for you; they’re praying for your friends who have fallen and who are injured. There’s a power in these prayers, real power. In times like this, we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God. As the Scriptures tell us, “Don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Amen.

In yesterday’s Pueblo Chieftain, my opinion piece arguing the case against Governor Bill Ritter’s property tax hike to subsidize state preschool and kindergarten programs ran as “counterpoint” to the argument for the Governor’s proposal by State Treasurer Cary Kennedy. Kennedy skillfully avoided discussion of the back-door tax hike while plugging the benefits of the plan for Pueblo.

How? Under the Governor’s revised plan, 33 school districts will receive a tax cut while most districts will receive a tax increase. Pueblo happens to fall in the latter category. But that doesn’t take into account the plight of taxpayers in Grand Junction, Englewood, Pagosa Springs, Wray, or nearby Alamosa, among others.

But two points are worth repeating from my op-ed. First, the new version of the tax increase will raise an estimated $55 million to offset an $84 million increase to early childhood programs while somehow simultaneously saving the state budget:

The remaining $29 million would have to come from the current state budget. If the money isn’t available in the general treasury, lawmakers would have to raid the State Education Fund. Amendment 23 created the fund as a means to provide additional dollars to kindergarten-through-12th grade public schools.

However, the governor’s office has said the plan is necessary to save the State Education Fund from bankruptcy in four years. Paying out $29 million of state money on new programs wouldn’t solve the alleged problem. Even so, the bankruptcy projection is based on a worst-case scenario. A nonpartisan legislative staff report shows that Amendment 23’s school spending mandates are not expected to drain the fund.

And while the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights has effectively cut property tax rates in many Colorado school districts, property tax revenues for education have continued to climb:

Real property tax dollars per Colorado student grew 8.5 percent from 2001 to 2005. During the same four years, state school funding increased 15.6 percent per pupil.

Meanwhile, Phil at Clear Commentary makes an articulate philosophical and logical case against the tax increase - his arguments may be roundly ignored by liberal statists, but they are strong and compelling.

The Governor and his team - including Treasurer Kennedy - are trying to cool off the political hot potato of a property tax hike. But I’ll do my part to keep telling you the rest of the story they would rather you not hear.

Update: Read also the Colorado Springs Gazette’s Sunday editorial with stinging criticism of Ritter’s plan.

The reactionary Democrats in the State Capitol are at it again, and one of them got caught in a lie! This afternoon, the House Education Committee - on a party line vote - killed Senate Bill 73, a proposal sponsored by two commonsense Democrats (Senator Chris Romer and Representative Michael Garcia) and supported by the Republican caucus. The bill would require students receiving a public high school diploma to demonstrate basic English competency. It even lets local school boards define the standards.

SB 73 passed the Senate 33-1, with only arch-education establishment apologist Senator Sue Windels (D-Arvada) voting against it. But the House Education Committee is stacked with a flock of reactionary Democrats, who want to preserve the “soft” and uncompetitive education monopoly. Their reasoning for voting against English competency as a requirement for graduation? Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s Rocky Mountain News gives a platform for partisan criticisms from Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government (CCEG)’s Chantell Taylor of the Senate Republican website Colorado Senate News. Democrats under the Golden Dome are too clever to launch the same frivolous charges and half-baked conspiracy theories that Taylor has made, yet it’s apparent they are politically allied.

Is there any thing legally or ethically wrong with their political alliance? Of course not. Let’s just be a bit more transparent about it, so people can judge fairly for themselves. As far as Taylor goes, she has been exposed before. When she came forward to hurl ethics accusations against Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez and then-Secretary of State Gigi Dennis during the heat of the campaign, I pointed out how the Denver Post neglected to publish a few facts about her that were easily found in a two-minute Google search.

Yesterday a Colorado Senate News contributor interviewed Taylor and posted the story, a perfectly legitimate practice for a state-paid employee. It involved no electioneering or lobbying, as he pointed out, just attempted to shine some more light on an organization that the media has too often half-accurately portrayed as a “watchdog group.” It shouldn’t be too much to ask that the Post and News also label CCEG as “liberal-leaning” or “Democrat-leaning.”

Chantell Taylor cried wolf last August: should she be trusted so readily this time?

Coloradans need to be more aware of and engaged with what’s going on at the state legislature, especially when economic freedom, educational choice, individual rights, and good judgment are regularly under attack by the Democratic majority. Hello … are you paying attention?

Well, to help facilitate more interest in the goings on under Denver’s Golden Dome, I commend you to check out Backbone America’s “Colorado Call to Action” on 710 AM KNUS. I’d be interested to hear from someone who got a chance to tune in for this evening’s 7 PM debut, since I was occupied at the time.

Of course, if you’re a reader of some of Colorado’s active center-right blogs - like Best Destiny, View from a Height, The Daily Blogster, Exvigilare, Slapstick Politics, Backbone America, Colorado Senate News, The Colorado Index, Colorado Conservative Project, Colorado Charter Schools, Clear Commentary, A Line of Sight, Mark Hillman, right here at Mount Virtus, or others - you’re already much better informed about state issues than most.

But it might just be another way to get your Colorado friends and family members tuned in to important legislative decisions that have an effect on our lives. Thanks to John Andrews and KNUS for their important project.

It’s not often I praise a liberal Democrat in our state legislature. But it only seems appropriate to highlight the fact that Sen. Ron Tupa (D-Boulder) demonstrated some common sense on the matter of school accountability today. Tupa joined the 3 Republicans on the Senate Education Committee - Nancy Spence, Josh Penry, and Mike Kopp - to kill House Bill 1284, which would have stripped the CSAP test of any effective meaning as a way for parents to judge the quality of schools.

So kudos to Tupa on this one. I don’t see eye to eye with him on many issues, but I have admired him more than some of his other Democratic colleagues for at least taking a more free-thinking approach to education issues. Of course, it would be a lot better if his committee vote weren’t a swing vote and that he were joining a more sensible Republican majority in never letting a bill like H.B. 1284 see the light of day in the first place.

But I’ll take what I can get for now.

This vicious email to Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) - to threaten her grandchildren - is despicable and criminal. Whoever authored it should indeed be prosecuted.

Update: ColoradoPols draws the opposite conclusion about the Post article (“Ritter Property Tax Freeze Gets Good News”). Maybe they should have read this post first.
The incomplete school funding analysis in today’s Denver Post, when considered with a few more facts, actually makes the case against the governor’s property tax increase for the “Children.” Yes, the Post identifies a potential problem with the current structure of Colorado school finance - highlighting that state government carries an ever greater share of the school funding burden, and that the tax bills of property owners in rural, low-growth districts have gone up more than their wealthy, high-growth counterparts.

But instead of giving too much significance to this one trend, a fair-minded analysis will look at some other aspects of the story. And added together, it bodes poorly for the Ritter mill levy rate “freeze” plan:

1) Since more of K-12 education in Colorado is being funded through income tax dollars collected by the state, what share of those income taxes is being paid by different classes of wealth and residents of different school districts? Does this even out the perceived imbalance of tax burdens? Inquiring minds want to know the hard data, but logic dictates that a broader tax comparison would narrow the disparity to some extent.

2) The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) allows school districts to ask voters to raise more money through their program mill levies. While advocates of the Ritter tax increase point out that 174 of 178 Colorado school districts have suspended TABOR revenue limits, many of those districts have not specificially sought voter approval to override mill levy rates. Where there may be real shortages (and even where there’s only an administrator’s wish list), TABOR allows local elections to approve more funding.

3) The problem is not that more state funding has been needed in most districts to compensate for declining property tax revenue. Adjusted for inflation and student enrollment, Colorado school districts raised 8.5 percent more property tax revenue in 2005 than in 2001. Districts with the largest property tax revenue gains tended strongly to be the high-growth areas with small and declining mill levy rates. From 2001 to 2005, Colorado school districts saw 15.6 percent state revenue growth. Funds from all sources contributed to an 11.6 percent climb in total revenue.

4) The governor’s proposal would generate an estimated $65 million a year more in property taxes. But its effect on property owners would be vastly different depending on which school district one lives in. Some would not be affected at all, some would see increases worth pocket change, and some would pay a considerable amount more. If the Ritter plan were designed to fix the alleged inequities brought forward in today’s Post story, it would truly miss the boat. Nonpartisan legislative staff estimates indicate that almost all the districts facing the biggest property tax hikes under Ritter’s “freeze” plan are located in many poorer, rural, and low-growth areas. Many homeowners in Yuma County, Alamosa County, Archuleta County, and Fremont County will be hit harder than those in Steamboat Springs, Aspen, and Eagle County.

Those who want more local dollars for education need to ask the voters, those who believe that school funding has declined need to look more closely, and those who want to stick it to the rich - or even spread the burden evenly - need to look for another plan. Thanks to the Post for helping to point out that Governor Ritter’s proposed tax increase is not the school finance solution some Democrats at the State Capitol want it to be.

I penned a column for the Edspresso website to give a little extra analysis to the now infamous email exchange between Representative Mike Merrifield (D-Manitou Springs) and Senator Sue Windels (D-Arvada), telling supporters of charter schools that a “special place” awaits them in the hotter realms of the afterlife. If you’re so inclined, please check it out.

If you’re bored, I’m on the air this hour (5 PM - 6 PM MDT) on KVOR in Colorado Springs to discuss the Merrifield-Windels email and more about education.

Are you a student at a charter school or the parent of one? Or maybe just stuck on one of the long waiting lists to get in? In the past week we’ve learned that the now-ex-chairman of Colorado’s House Education Committee Mike Merrifield (D-Manitou Springs) thinks you’re worthy of eternal damnation - Mike Littwin thinks it’s a big joke:

This wasn’t a Deanna Hanna or a Joe Stengel scandal. This was Mike Merrifield writing that backers of vouchers and charter schools deserved a “special place in hell.”

That’s it. It was written on private e-mail, but, apparently, not private enough. Windels’ e-mails went the way of a public records request from a new conservative Web site - facethestate.com - and, when it went public, Merrifield had to apologize for not loving charter schools and then resigned as head of the House Education Committee.

Your blood boiling? I didn’t think so. The most upset person I met was [Senator Sue] Windels, who noted that her friend Merrifield is undergoing chemotherapy.

Maybe Littwin just doesn’t know anyone connected to charter schools - which serve conservative families, liberal families, and everything in between in Colorado. But he’s sure that any anger from the email revelation is all contrived. That’s good old-fashioned liberal compassion for you.

He might have noticed that the rest of the email exchange between Merrifield and Windels (D-Arvada) detailed their plot to effect a “full repeal” of the Charter School Institute, which uses strict but fair, objective standards to authorize charter school requests when parents face recalcitrant opposition from local school boards. Two state lawmakers lead a coalition that wants to take educational choices away from families, and then we learn just how visceral is the hatred that at least one of them has for parental choice. Is it a big deal? Yes.

Meanwhile, the Denver Post reminds us that Representative Merrifield’s “resignation” as committee chair “changes little.” But now you have clear insight into the plans of Democrat leaders and their liberal apologists in the press. Patronize charter school parents, let the brouhaha blow over, and get ready to return to the status quo as soon as possible.

One of Merrifield’s fellow Democrat legislators, who happens to disagree with most in his party on this issue, isn’t feeling the love. According to the Post:

Merrifield wrote that Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, one of a handful of Democratic advocates for charter schools, “would freak, but who cares.” Carroll said the e-mail made it clear Merrifield “thinks we have a lower class of morality than he does.”

He’s already dismissed the concerns of many Colorado parents, but how long before Littwin notices the growing rift within his own Democrat Party? Don’t hold your breath.

Colorado Democrats continue to show their true colors. They voted to create a fund to accept donations for after-school math and science tutoring programs but shot down an attempt to give even a token amount of state funds as seed money. Senator Mike Kopp (R-Littleton) proposed contributing $250,000 from the State Education Fund for the program, which has a proven track record of success:

“This amendment would augment strength within the program by moving money to fund the proposal,” said Kopp when proposing his amendment.

“I think $250,000 is a reasonable amount to help these kids achieve their goals. (The program) has a 100-percent graduation rate, and some of these kids are doing types of mathemathics I haven’t even heard of before.”

The vote in the Senate against the amendment was 18-16. To his credit, freshman Senator Chris Romer from Denver jumped the party ship and showed himself to be one of the few commonsense Democrats in the State Capitol.

During the previous fiscal year, the State Education Fund (SEF) took in $361 million and spent $336 million on K-12 education. Revenues and expenditures are forecast to continue rising for the foreseeable future. The SEF accounts for a small fraction of total state dollars spent on public schools. And Democrats couldn’t find a quarter million to scrape together for a program with a proven track record?

Okay, I tried to feign surprise, but it didn’t work too well. We know that the Democrats are too beholden to the established union and bureaucratic interests in the public education system. How could Ken Gordon or Sue Windels explain to CEA lobbyists that a sum less than .01 percent of the state’s annual contribution to public schools could be spared to help improve high schoolers’ understanding of math and science?

Or maybe giving a tiny shred of public money to this program would be a tacit acknowledgment that the education system spends its plethora of funds in a less than efficient manner?

Or maybe they really are having a hard time finding savings in the budget? I’ve got an idea that would more than cover the miniscule amount proposed in Kopp’s amendment. At least $750,000 a year funds teachers union officers to take leave from the classroom to perform union business (Large PDF). In 2003, Democrats (and sadly, a few Republicans) worked to kill a proposal that would have outlawed taxpayer subsidies of union release time. So on second thought, maybe fiscal frugality really wasn’t the Democrats’ motive here.

Nor was it the motive when Sue Windels and the Democrats in the Senate Education Committee shot down a proposal to provide school districts incentives to reward their best teachers with pay increases. Uncomfortable with the idea of giving better teachers more money, CEA testified against Senator Nancy Spence’s SB 141. Never mind that Governor Ritter himself has touted performance pay in his “Colorado Promise.”

While it may appear to the uninitiated that Democrats at the State Capitol from time to time have found the religion of fiscal conservatism, be not deceived. It’s simply a matter of badly misplaced priorities. When the interests of students and families clash with the interests of unions and bureaucrats, most Democrats ditch the people for the interest groups.

So $250,000 by itself isn’t a big deal, but it does tell us a lot. And little by little, the independent voters of Colorado may find themselves experiencing serious doses of buyer’s remorse.

Ideally speaking it is the hard job of a legislator to prioritize the distribution of scarce resources to programs based on their deserving and effectiveness. Representative Cheri Jahn (D - Wheat Ridge) is laudably pushing to ensure that foster children receive their share of state social services funding.

But the Democrat majority in Denver could do significantly more to provide these children greater stability and an opportunity for success: provide publicly-funded scholarships allowing foster kids the ability to choose a stable education program, whether the school be public or private. Foster children frequently are shuttled from home to home, and in the process transferred from school to school - often moving into educational environments that offer both privacy and needed services. The public school system can accommodate some of these foster care children, but certainly not all. It’s worth taking a look into.

Of course, making the scholarship proposal would require challenging the union power base that prefers to keep a tight grip on the public school monopoly. But it’s been enacted in Arizona and proposed in Maryland. It’s an idea where concern for what works best for at-risk kids should trump ideology and partisan differences. There may be enough Democrats in the Colorado legislature willing to join Republicans and give such a plan a try, but having to get through the pro-union gatekeepers in the education committees would make such an endeavor more than daunting - I’d say it would border more on the realm of impossible.

One moral of the story is clear: Having the Republican Party in power means at least having education committees who are favorable, not resistant, to school choice. Ideas like publicly-funded scholarships for foster care children could be introduced and debated. Interest groups, like the unions and bureaucrats, would not be able to dominate the conversation. Just a thought.