(From the Denver Post, June 6, 2009)
By PETER HUIDEKOPER JR.
Maybe the Republicans aren’t the only party with an identity crisis.
On matters of education reform, the Democratic Party seems of two minds. Before Colorado Democrats present a proposal to Washington on how our state might spend $500 million more for education, they would do well clarify what they believe–because the mixed signals I hear won’t make for a convincing case.
From some we hear a push for innovation. Much talk of cho ice and charters, new schools and new designs, new autonomy at the site level, new efforts to evaluate teacher performance — and to reward our best teachers, etc.
From others, it’s, “Wait a minute, slow down, let’s first be sure to support the current system.”
Writing in Education Next (Spring, 2009), Richard Lee Colvin captured the “schism” evident in the party, nationally, last summer: “A sharp divide among Democrats was in full view at the party’s national convention in Denver, where urban mayors and educators challenged the dominant role of teachers unions in shaping policy” (“Straddling the Democratic Divide”).
In Colorado, a central question for Democrats is whether they will follow and expand on the education reform positions advocated by Sen. Peter Groff, or do they pull back and return to policies more favorable to the school boards, the districts, and the Colorado Education Association?
Groff was hardly the lone Democrat taking positions that ruffled the feathers of such groups. Terrence Carroll, Chris Romer, and others have sought bold reforms. But Groff was special. In 2006 the Colorado League of Charter Schools gave Groff and Carroll the League’s annual policymaker award. Sponsoring legislation that created the Colorado Charter School Institute, the two men worked across the aisle–to the dismay, no doubt, of school districts unwilling to open more charters.
Groff was also a founding member of the Democrats for Education Reform-Colorado steering committee. (The name itself invites some amusement: What, one wonders, do the other Democrats call themselves? Democrats Who Believe in Public Education As It Is, With Woeful Dropout Figures, Alarming Achievement Gaps, and Disappointing Academic Achievement?) The Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) states that its mission “is to encourage a more productive dialogue within the Democratic Party on the need to fundamentally reform American public education.” Groff received the DFER’s Education Warrior Award last year.
How is that “productive dialogue within the Democratic Party” going? The public talk is impressive; it is all on the side of Big Changes, No More Incremental Change, and Everything is On the Table.
But in truth, when Groff was nominated for his new position in the U.S. Department of Education, Joe Williams, executive director of the Democrats for Education Reform, noted: “Peter will be missed in Colorado, where his willingness to find new ways to solve old problems in education have helped put the Rocky Mountain State on the reform map.” Then Williams offered a mild warning: “We look forward to working with the next generation of Colorado leaders to make sure public education reform does not stall in his absence.”
Which is exactly what might happen. A recent article in The Denver Post, “School-reform allies regroup in state Senate,” stated: “Freshman Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, and a former state Board of Education member, and some of her Democratic colleagues f ound the 2009 session ‘frustrating’ and too centered on elevating charter schools at the expense of traditional school districts, she said. ‘I think a lot of it was due to the Groff-Romer team. I expect things to be less frustrating (next year),’ Hudak said.” (May 24, 2009).
It has been a breath of fresh air to hear Democratic leaders less beholden to the system, less quick to defend the education establishment.
Sure, more money would be welcome. It is exciting to think of the good efforts that could grow. But this one-time foundation program officer recalls times when you ask enough hard questions of those seeking a grant and it becomes clear that — for all the nice words — their heart isn’t in it. They are saying what they think you want to hear, not what they believe.
Should Washington hear that false note as Colorado tries to present its best case, perhaps it will decide to sow its seeds on more fertile soil.
Peter Huidekoper Jr. of Parker is a teacher. EDITOR’S NOTE: This online-only guest commentary has not been edited. Guest commentary submissions of up to 650 words may be sent to openforum@denverpost.com.