I’m guessing Governor Schwarzenegger and any number of other high powered states are calling Duncan’s office and screaming foul.

McLeroy came across as an extremist and ideologue in the Times piece. So kudos to Texans for giving him the cowboy boot.

The purveyor of this disinformation, INCITE! describes itself as “a national activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color and our communities through direct action, critical dialogue, and grassroots organizing.”

As I said earlier this week, if people who believe in public education keep chopping away at each other we’ll all lose.

This article from today’s New York Times Magazine is sobering, if not downright terrifying. The Texas State Board of Education, and its near-majority bloc of hard-core Christian fundamentalists, wants history textbooks rewritten to state that

the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions.

What makes this more than just a depressing footnote is the fact that Texas, thanks to its size and statewide curriculum,  wields disproportionate influence over textbook publishers. Apparently the publishers lack the spine to stand up to the looney-tunes stuff coming out of the Texas state board, so kids in Colorado could soon be reading history textbooks promoting this pinched, dangerous and incendiary worldview.

I fail to see how this differs in any substantial way from the Taliban, madrassas and calls for holy war against the infidel. In degree, yes. But it’s still early in the process.

If only we could cut through the tired political frames and get to what works or at least has a chance at working for kids.

That was the glum assessment of a long-time Denver education reformer yesterday as we walked together out of the love-fest that was the state’s Race to the Top application submission press conference. And indeed, that seems to be the growing consensus among at least a narrow swath of wonks and analysts, both local and national. See Nancy Mitchell’s story and today’s Denver Post editorial for a taste of the analysis.

Gov. Bill Ritter and Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien focused their remarks yesterday on the importance of having “key stakeholders” (let’s drive a stake through the heart of the term stakeholders, shall we?) reach agreement on provisions of the R2T application. The practical impact was a lengthy delay in producing a new system for evaluating teachers; a system that would, presumably, use student growth data to help assess which teachers were serving kids well.

Ritter and O’Brien said they didn’t want Colorado to be like those mean states that called special legislative sessions to ram through new laws dealing with evaluation over the objections of teachers’ associations and other interest groups. It’s a calculated risk that the U.S. Department of Education and the R2T judges will value kumbaya over kick-some-butt. Even Ritter and O’Brien seemed more than willing to acknowledge that Colorado might not finish in the money in R2T’s first round.

“The interests of adults won out over the interests of kids,” someone else complained yesterday. Actually, that’s a tired canard used whenever your side doesn’t emerge on top. Still, despite yesterday’s self-congratulation event, the mood in Colorado education circles isn’t exactly upbeat right now.

Equally interesting is a sidebar examining how Denver’s three newest school board members view charter schools. The position staked out by Andrea Merida should send a chill through anyone who supports school choice. After saying she doesn’t want to approve any more charters for now, Merida goes on to complain that most charters are too small to serve enough kids to make a difference in a neighborhood.

But what’s most troubling is her distorted, flat-out inaccurate view of the Denver School of Science and Technology. Written into DSST’s charter is a dual lottery system, so that the school will always have AT LEAST 40 percent of its student eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch (the current number is 45.1 percent). DSST’s founders instituted the dual lottery because they knew full well that low-income families often get driven out of successful, popular schools because affluent parents have sharp elbows and know how to work the system.

This means that DSST will always have at least 40 percent of its kids coming from low-income families. Nothing prevents the number from going much higher than that.

So how does Merida interpret this eminently sensible and socially responsible policy?

But, she argues, the portion of low-income students in DPS as a whole is higher than that: 70 percent.

“That really isn’t a public institution,” she says. “An underprivileged child can be excluded from participating in a school that’s funded with public money.”

Factually she could not be more wrong. But who cares about facts when you’re trying to put ideological points on the board?

1. Does the lack of a Democrat incumbent help, hurt or have no effect on Colorado’s Race to the Top application?

Probably no effect. But if anything, I believe it might help a little if Ritter indeed stays attuned to the important policy discussions without the election year distractions. Then again, hard-liners in his own party might be more prone to challenge Ritter on some issues now that he is a lame duck. So if nothing else, Race to the Top likely just got more interesting here in Colorado.

2. Who would be more likely — Scott McInnis or a new Democrat governor (Hickenlooper, Salazar, Romanoff, etc) — to modify or dismantle the entire CAP4K edifice?

Honestly, I see neither a new Republican nor Democratic administration wasting energy on trying to dismantle CAP4K in the short term — especially given budget realities for the next couple years. Modify CAP4K, though? Just a guess here, but give a slight edge to McInnis. He might make some tweaks on the edges. But under either scenario, education will remain too low on the state political agenda for much of an overhaul.

3. Which possible Democrat will be looked on most kindly by the Colorado Education Association? How influential will the CEA and other interest groups be in determining who gets the nod?

Ay, there’s the rub. Especially given Hickenlooper’s recent endorsements in the DPS school board race, and his less-than-enthusiasm for the labor agenda, I’m guessing the CEA would prefer a more reliable partisan like Rep. Ed Perlmutter as the nominee to rally the troops. But if union leaders are willing to be more pragmatic about the situation, they might sit on their hands in the primary and give the mayor a pass.

4. What does this portend for meaningful ed reform in Colorado?

I believe a McInnis-Hickenlooper race could be very competitive (if that’s indeed what unfolds). Whoever wins in November, let’s be optimistic about the outcome. When it comes to choice, charter schools, accountability and innovation, I believe either one would be at least as favorable to effective education reform as the current occupant of the governor’s mansion.

But if Hickenlooper indeed runs and gains the CEA’s support for the nomination by making concessions, then all bets are off. And if Hickenlooper adds to the week of surprises by taking his name out of contention, I’d just about might as well scratch what I’ve written in this post and start all over.

Bottom line: We’re left with plenty more questions than answers as we tread the murky darkness in 2010.