Call it what you will — Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, CAP4K, Preschool to Postsecondary Education Alignment Act — the 800 pound gorilla at the State House is the proposed Ritter-inspired bill being circulated among education insiders.

For a superb run-down of the draft bill "to align and upgrade the content that’s taught in Colorado schools and to guide all students to college or workforce readiness," read this article  at Education News Colorado.

Let me tell you, folks, the results are in and the draft’s early reviews aren’t pretty. “You should see this. NOT impressive,” one friend wrote, attaching the draft to his e-mail. “See if you can find the link between legislative intent (reduce dropout rate, increase post-secondary rate and success) and the bill itself.”

And this from another friend: “General, vague vision with no substance. It creates another commission that doesn’t strip power from anyone else. It just adds another layer of regulation and bureaucracy. All in all, a HUGE disappointment.”

Having waded through the draft’s 35 pages, my take is similar to the ones above. There’s a lot of grandiose language and a host of good intentions. But it’s hard to see how this bureaucratic bird’s nest is going to lead to the desired results. Look for major changes as it works through the legislative process.

Here’s another provocative take on the draft, from an educator knowledgeable on these matters:

So let me see if I’ve got this right.   The “Pre-school to Postsecondary Ed. Alignment” bill “must take  into account the fact that different students have different aspirations: Some will seek higher education upon graduation; some will seek career or technical training to pursue a particular vocation; others will immediately seek to enter the workforce.”  (all quotes are direct citations from the unedited, unrevised draft of 2.25.08)

On the assumption that “there is little variation in the level of academic preparedness that a student must achieve in order to succeed after high school, regardless of the student’s aspirations” the bill defines “post secondary and workforce readiness” to mean that “a student is able to demonstrate knowledge in identified subject matter areas at a sufficiently high level of comprehension or skill to successfully complete, without need for remediation, the core academic courses identified by the (Colorado) Commission (of Higher Education)”.  In other words, the goal is that all high school students be prepared for the academic expectations of 1^st year college courses set by members of the college faculties.

While paying lip service in its opening sections to the importance of “students’ exposure to and involvement in activities that develop creativity, critical thinking skills, communication, social and cultural awareness, self direction, leadership and other skills invaluable to the 21^st century workforce” the bill goes on to give as examples of the kinds of assessments that will identify levels of post secondary and workforce readiness 1) a standardized, curriculum based, achievement, college entrance examination (in other words the ACT or SAT); and 2) the basic skills placement or assessment test administered by institutions of higher education (most commonly, the Accuplacer exam.)

Repeatedly, the bill asserts that any standards set in this new system must be “comparable in rigor and scope to the most rigorous academic (emphasis is mine) standards adopted nationally and  internationally” leaving no possibility of rethinking the dominant academic paradigm of the current standards movement.

Because Colorado is a local control state, where curriculum and graduation requirements rest in the hands of local school boards, the bill cannot mandate state graduation requirements.  Instead it establishes a state level “endorsement” which, beginning with the class of 2015, will be added to high school diplomas to testify to the fact that students receiving that endorsement have scored sufficiently high on the previously mentioned assessments, or others like them, to meet the criteria of post secondary and workforce readiness.  Any school district may require that all students meet the standards of the endorsement in order to earn a high school diploma.

The bill requires that all students, with the exceptions considered below, be tested on their level of mastery of these standards beginning in 10^th grade.  Every student who is not yet sufficiently adept will have an annual meeting with their parents and a teacher or counselor to identify the areas in which they are in need of additional learning.

Any student may choose to opt out of the curriculum which is aligned with these new standards and every student in special education is allowed to be exempt from these requirements.

Those students reaching the endorsement level of mastery will be guaranteed admission to open admission or non-selective four year colleges.  Selective Colorado public colleges will be able to add further entrance requirements.  It is not clear if these institutions will be allowed to enroll students who do not earn the post secondary and workforce readiness endorsement.

The body of the bill elaborates on the various ways in which the new post secondary and workforce readiness standards, aligned to freshman courses, will work their way through the K-12 system affecting standards, curriculum, state level assessments and college admissions.  Schools are expected to create a postsecondary and workforce readiness program to prepare students for these new standards and assessments.

Let me state this proposal in simpler terms:  Colorado will identify scores on the  ACT, SAT, and Accuplacer exams, which highly correlate with college readiness and make the achievement of those scores the condition for earning the state’s post secondary and workforce readiness endorsement for diplomas and the condition for guaranteed entrance to Colorado public schools.  ACT has already established these cutoffs and it is worth noting that they are significantly higher than current Colorado ACT averages.

Stated this clearly a number of concerns become evident, which I pose as questions:

• Are the academic skills measured by these tests the same skills needed by students planning technical and other careers which do not need enrollment in academic programs of two or four year colleges? 
• Are college expectations, set by college professors, representative of the expectations of the wider world of work?
• What difference is there between the post secondary and workforce readiness program being proposed and the traditional college track currently in place in most high schools?
• Is a paper and pencil, bubble in test, the fairest way to assess the learning of students from diverse backgrounds and with diverse abilities?  .
• Does a paper and pencil bubble in test give us any information about “invaluable 21^st century skills”?
• What in this system will actually change teaching and learning?
• Is higher education prepared for the downsizing that will follow such a significant rise in entrance requirements, if indeed the endorsement is a necessary condition for admission?

Popularity: 2% [?]

It only takes some clever wording in a news release to create the impression that something old is news. 

A Monday news release from Gov. Bill Ritter’s office touted the proposed school safety center with phrases such as these:

• Gov. Ritter and two bipartisan legislative sponsors today announced plans to create a Colorado School Safety Resource Center, which will assist schools in preventing, responding to and recovering from emergencies.
• Authorizing legislation will be sponsored … (Italics added)

The news release sparked stories on the websites (and in some case in print) of The Denver Post, the Boulder Camera, the Rocky Mountain News, the Summit Daily News and 9News.com. 

In fact, Senate Bill 08-001 was introduced on Jan. 9 – the first day of the legislative session – by Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument. Ritter himself mentioned the proposal in the State of the State speech. And, the bill was passed out of the Senate Education Comittee and on to Judiciary on Jan. 23.

The bill would create a school safety center and 13-member advisory board in the Department of Public Safety to advise schools on emergency response and other security issues. The appropriations section in the bill is blank, and no fiscal note has been produced yet, but I suspect the Appropriations Committee will have to have a say before too long.

Popularity: 1% [?]

We’d like to announce a new feature of our new website, EdNewsColorado.org.

It’s called CBAP, the Colorado Bill Assessment Program, and we use it to rate assorted education bills introduced in the 2008 legislature.

Two bills are assessed this week:

House Bill 08-1145 by Rep. Doug Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, clearly rates as “Unsatisfactory.” It would require distribution of copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to all high school seniors, 20 hours of instruction in those documents during the senior year and would fine school districts $100 per student for kids who didn’t get the documents or take the classes.

Perhaps Rep. Bruce doesn’t know that Colorado students already get civics instruction, and he clearly doesn’t get the irony of him sponsoring a punitive government mandate.

Ranking “Partially Proficient” is House Bill 08-1004 by Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Arapahoe/Denver, and Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita. It would allow school districts to work with their local police departments to use cops as truant officers.

The bill’s hearing in the House Education Committee last Thursday was one of those classic cases of everybody liking the concept but being uncertain about the execution. CEA, CASB and CASE lobbyists all testified in favor, as did a representative of the Colorado Children’s Campaign. But committee member seemed to think the bill was full of unanswered legal questions, and Chair Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, laid the measure over for further work.

CBAP assessments are open to anybody. Refresh your memory with a glance at the EdNewsColorado bill tracker, then post a reply with your assessment of your favorite (or least favorite) bills.

Popularity: 1% [?]