Ben DeGrow is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute, focusing on education labor issues.
Last night’s election results are a wake-up call. First, what to make of the resounding message sent by the major defeat of Prop 103? If it were a 10- or 12-point loss rather than a 28-point loss, I think you could chalk up the result to a low budget and a weak coalition of support, or to off-year levels of political interest.
But something bigger is at work, across party lines and regions of the state, that cannot be ignored. While the political middle, uninformed as it often is, may be inclined in good times to pay more taxes to K-12 organizations, a real hurt from the economy is amplified by Colorado voters’ general skepticism of tax increases.
Here I think there is a clear gap between those “inside the education bubble” and most people living and working (or just looking for work) outside of it. Even someone like me, an advocate of some bold changes much less inclined to champion the K-12 establishment, but heavily immersed in the educational and political dialogue surrounding school systems, didn’t foresee the size of the anti-103 wave. I don’t have any evidence in front of me to support a claim either way, but it seems worthwhile to consider whether the gap has been growing in the past couple years.
So where does Colorado K-12 education go following the demise of Senator Heath’s tax hike initiative? A couple weeks ago I wrote in a comment on another post on this site:
After 103 fails, Colorado needs to look more seriously not only at restructuring the school finance system so that money follows the child but also at deregulating inputs (maybe charter schools have shown the way) and changing governance structures of K-12 education. Given current federal policies and incentives, it would be anything but an easy task. That, and / or find a creative new funding source or cheer for a major economic recovery — which 103 would inhibit. Because what I think we’re seeing now are the fruits of a system with an unsustainable structure. Even some of the more innovative and resourceful schools and districts are squeezed by these limitations.
I may remain a voice crying in the wilderness, but simply put, a move toward effective, forward-thinking innovation needs to become the priority for K-12 education before any future statewide tax increases can be sought. At least not unless the Colorado Education Association wants to place more bad political bets with its members’ dues money again. My recommendations for ways the state could save money and use it more productively on K-12 education are out there, and open for debate. Perhaps it’s also time for some affluent entity to donate copies of Stretching the School Dollar to school board directors and superintendents across Colorado.
Other ideas? Since the biggest advocates of increased K-12 funding so often compare Colorado’s dismal per-pupil spending ranking vis a vis Wyoming, maybe we could follow the lead of our neighbors to the north. Raise more funds by opening up oil and gas drilling, and collecting the mineral revenues. Without eliminating our state income tax, to match Wyoming. Though that won’t fill the appetites and demands.
On a local level, individual school districts might have better success asking voters for money, though the record there from last night was not much more encouraging. Even tying increased revenue to major promising reforms seems a less promising route than committing to major change under existing budgets. Voters soundly rejected Douglas County’ $20 million mill levy override, designed and advertised as a source of funds to develop a world-class performance pay system. The size of the rejection represents more than just a backlash from the anti-voucher crowd.
They also rejected a $200 million bond proposal in Dougco. Hand in hand with the re-election of Craig Richardson and Justin Williams, and the addition of Kevin Larsen to the board, the bond election result may more clearly chart the future in this already cutting-edge school district. Programs like Douglas County’s Choice Scholarships — a brand of forward-thinking innovation that some other boards, especially those in high-growth areas, may have to look closely at — save modest amounts of operating funds in the short term but greatly enhance the prospect of effecting long-term savings by reducing the need for public debt to build more school facilities.
Pending the courts’ decision, this result only strengthens the hand of those who want to continue and expand the pilot voucher program. And the fact that the pro-voucher candidate slate prevailed intact against the slings and arrows of those who tried to prove their agenda unpopular is a powerful vindication, stands in my opinion as the biggest education news from last night’s election results.
November 1 also should prove a wake-up call for reformers who want to challenge union power at the district level. Denver Public Schools reform candidates were well funded, and ended up maintaining status quo by winning 2 of 3 seats (maybe a third, but the 100-plus vote deficit is probably too much for Jennifer Draper-Carson to overcome). On the other hand, despite all the hoopla about local Republican Party organizations getting involved, the unions showed their natural superiority at the local ground game in Jefferson County, where their two candidates won by significant margins. A more sophisticated and substantially-funded effort from the reform team might have changed the result, but no one can really know.
Conservative-leaning reform candidates in other races yielded a mixed — but largely positive — result, given the odds against them. Too soon to tell how these results will end up affecting the move to promote effective, forward-thinking innovations.
A better investment for reformers, though? Working to move school board races to even-numbered years, on the date of the General Election. But such a change may require the result of another election first.
Sorry, Ben. Last night’s elections didn’t awaken anyone. Convictions were hardened, not questioned. With its 28-percent loss, Prop 103 may have sunk like the Titanic, but its supporters will fill it with their hot air until it floats back to the ballot box.
Read this: “Tomorrow, we get up, brush ourselves off, and get back to work,” said nancycronk , a commenter on the liberal blog, Colorado Pols. “Quitting is never an option.”
Someone needs to tell nancycronk that quitting – or at least self-questioning – should be an option. Blaming their loss on strategic blunders obscures the obvious: Proposition 103 was a tax increase to fund an educational ecosystem that the majority of voters, including parents, didn’t want to pay for. Period.
It wasn’t defeated because of the timidity of Governor Hickenlooper, lousy fundraising, ineffective messaging, or bad timing. It wasn’t defeated because voters were stingy, selfish and ignorant. And it wasn’t defeated because its proponents were out-maneuvered by evil Republicans.
Proposition 103 was defeated because the “voters don’t know their best interests” school of public philosophy was rejected by, well, the voters! Of course, in the eyes of the proposition’s supporters, this only proves that voters need more of the disinterested guidance that educationists in the current system will gladly provide. But providing such guidance costs money, Ben. So cough it up, you selfish ignoramus.
If its proponents would pull the camera back a bit, they’d see that two-thirds of ordinary voters want to spend their money on their own children, and not have it spent for them. And that’s precisely why the tax-raisers will be back. They need money.
Their goal, as the only true advocates of children as well as the disinterested champions of educational quality (no sarc tags needed anywhere), is to convince voters that credentialed educationists like themselves need more money to do what has to be done, whatever that may be. If getting more money involves slippery sloganeering or less-then-disinterested motives, that’s a small price to pay for keeping schools in the good hands of educational experts like themselves. So, they’ll be back because they sincerely believe that money will make public schools better for every precious child in Colorado, particularly those politically disabled by having conservative parents … through no fault of their own, of course.
“Get up, dust the dirt off, congratulate your opponent, thank the good District, stay involved, and if you really love your community (and are sincere)…,” commented Muhammad Ali Hasan on the above mentioned blog.
You see, Ben, such sincerity is unassailable. They doubt not. They’ll be back.
Thanks, Kristen. Appreciate your realistic view. I understand that many will not heed the wake-up call. But for those truly ready and willing to listen, I hope the important message sinks in. In the meantime, keep your eyes on Douglas County. At the risk of appearing vain: http://www.ediswatching.org/2011/11/need-to-keep-hope-alive-choice-media-tv-highlights-dougco-program/
Kristin,
That’s far too simplistic (oddly, in a post criticizing the other side for being simplistic). There is always a tension between the self-interest of people spending money “on their own children” and the common good of educating all children. Mostly that’s been a healthy tension — less so recently.
I’ll agree that Prop 103 was not well designed and destined for failure, but I’d like to think that education is one of the few places where we can agree that every child, regardless of family income, status, or zip code, should have the opportunity for an education that will lead to a successful and productive life as citizens. This simply won’t happen if we only spend our money on our own children.
I’d encourage a little more recognition that a strong public education system benefits us all, and the commonality of interest we should all have in creating one that works better both inside and outside of our own local communities.
Alex, you are absolutely right. Don’t worry, I won’t make a habit out of agreeing with you
Ben, Thanks. I’ll take a closer look at what’s going on in that county.
Alexander, Perhaps because I’m not Manichean – “the other side”? – I want public education to take place within many educational delivery structures, each with its underlying ideological foundation. I see shades of grey, not black and white, and believe we share a common goal of wanting every child to have a great education. Obviously, we don’t share a common solution to how we should accomplish this goal, and, in particular, when/how ordinary Coloradoans should be taxed to support political structures in which this common goal is realized.
That’s because there won’t be a common answer. Or, a solution.
There will be many evolving solutions, each tailored to a particular cohort, or even to an individual student. That’s the real recognition, the one that humbly admits, “This works for me, but not for thee.” The folly of Prop 103 is that it legitimized, through funding, a narrow set of solutions. It wasn’t nuanced enough to include ALL families and children, just some of them.
I’m sure you’ll agree that good and well-intentioned families, ideological cohorts, and taxpayers have been estranged from the tax-subsidized portion of the education “community.” Perhaps “both sides” would benefit from a little more recognition that asserting a simplistic “commonality of interest” has had the unintended and hurtful effect of delegitimizing families and taxpayers who don’t fit within.
My best good wishes for your continued success in fostering great charter schools … and more.
Kristen,
I appreciate your kind wishes. Like you, I have a strong affinity for choice and allowing parents to make the best decisions for their individual child from a number of options, and I found plenty of fault with 103.
However choice has to be accompanied by access. My fear is that choices proliferate for those who can afford them (everything from tuition to transportation), and fail to do so for those who can’t. Without access, choice can exacerbate inequality. To prevent this, there has to be some “subsidy” from the more affluent to the less affluent. Where and how we develop this pooled system is a good and reasonable debate, but it does have to be pooled; we cannot only contribute what we individually receive and still have all children with equal access and opportunity.