A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Rocky Mountain News, Denver, March 11, on the need for the U.S. to pass the Colombian trade treaty:
The United States and Colombia, its beleaguered ally in a region where lately we seem to have fewer of them, concluded a free-trade agreement in February 2006. It has been pending in Congress ever since, and the Democratic leadership shows no signs of bestirring itself to get it passed. Recent events in South America suggest that it is in the United States’ interest, and certainly in Colombia’s interest, to pass the agreement, and soon.
On March 2, Colombian forces bombed a rebel encampment just inside Ecuador, killing, among others, Paul Reyes, the second in command of FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Whatever its one-time political goals, FARC now exists largely for the sake of terrorism, drug trafficking and kidnappings for ransom or use as hostages. While deeply hated by most of the Colombian people, FARC’s leftist rhetoric resonates with some nearby regimes.
Since taking office in 2002, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has made great strides against the guerrillas, restrained the violent private militias that arose in reaction to them and done so without resorting to the excesses of previous governments. And he is reliably pro-Washington.
We don’t want to be an unreliable friend. Passing the free-trade agreement would shore up a friendly government and help Colombia’s economy and ours, too. Two years is long enough for any serious objections to the treaty to have arisen. The Democrats should say no to the protectionist wing of their party.
Editorial: reaty/
———
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., March 9, on the notion that Congress is working to torpedo health coverage:
Out on the campaign trail, most of the presidential candidates have been going on at length about how important it is that affordable health insurance be made available to every American. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives recently took a significant step toward making that goal unobtainable.
By a 268-148 margin, the House passed what is called the “Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act,” named in honor of the late Minnesota senator. It would require insurance companies to provide equal coverage for mental and physical illnesses when policies cover both. Proponents claim it would help to end the stigma of mental illness and “create greater access for people needing mental health and addiction treatment,” as the Associated Press put it.
What it would do in real life would be to drive up the cost of health insurance—or create an incentive for insurance companies not to cover mental health services at all.
The only way to make health insurance available to everybody is to have choices—Kia-level plans as well as Mercedes Benzes and Rolls Royces. With bills like this, Congress is working to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Newspaper:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Fort Morgan Times, March 10, on the state’s broken promises over CSAP:
It is easy to understand the sense of betrayal in the reaction of educators when a Colorado Department of Education representative came to Wiggins recently.
He came to talk about a new way of measuring student growth, but also talked about a new computer system that tracks student scores across the state.
One person asked if this system could be used to track the results individual teachers were getting when their students take the Colorado Student Assessment Program tests. The response was that it was possible but perhaps not useful.
The representative tried to reorient the question to what would help with educating, not what would come crashing down on some teacher’s head as a “gotcha.” Essentially, he said it would not happen.
Some were skeptical. As one person put it, he’d heard that story before.
What he was referring to was the very beginning of testing to Colorado subject standards. At that time, educators and parents were told that schools and children would never be judged based on the results of the tests.
Jump to today. Accreditation of schools is based almost entirely on the results of CSAP. Those results are broken down not only by the individual student but by specific categories of testing, and children are taught on the basis of how a teacher can get them to succeed on the test. Given the “high stakes” of these tests, increasing pressure is being put on students to do well.
So much for those promises. Teachers have already been bracing themselves for the next wave of “accountability” that will wash over their heads. That is exactly why the pressure is on the students. A teacher can only succeed if the children try hard on the test.
Interestingly, when the state standards were created, teachers were at first told not to “teach to the test.” Programs were put in place to help teachers ferret out how they were already teaching the standards and how to add those that were not in the curriculum. Principals and other administrators told teachers they did not need to teach to the test.
However, as time passed, the emphasis was focused more and more on how to do just that. Today almost all curriculum is judged on how it prepares students for the test.
CSAP advocates now say the breakdown of specific scores by students can help teachers know kids’ strengths and weaknesses, helping them to focus on how to learn better. Of course, what that means is focusing on how to take the test better. If you don’t believe that, spend a few days in an elementary school.
Some say it is urgent that students catch up to how other nations score on standardized tests, noting that the U.S. does not rank among the highest nations in test scores.
However, those same high-scoring nations—such as Japan and China—used to come to the U.S. to see how we teach the kind of innovative thought that creates new inventions, despite our scores. They complained that their students learned by rote and did not have new ideas. Their nations used and built the technology that came from America, but they did not create as much new technology.
Of course, that may change if our focus continues on rote memorization and taking tests.
Perhaps the new method of tracking growth among kids will allow students to exercise their creativity while also gaining necessary basic skills. Maybe the focus will trend away from test scores as the ultimate goal—but don’t count on it if the attitude remains the same.
Just a little something to think about as students face the 2008 round of tests starting this week.
Editorial: editorial.txt
———
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., March 10 on state highway funding:
Last week, Gov. Bill Ritter acknowledged that Republicans in the state Legislature had effectively slammed the brakes on his proposal to raise the vehicle registration fee an average of $100 apiece to boost money for state highways.
Good for the Republicans. As this newspaper argued a month ago, the plan to raise vehicle registration fees without a vote of the people should come to a screeching halt. Although the TABOR Amendment doesn’t mandate a citizens’ vote because vehicle registration is considered a “fee” not a “tax,” such a significant additional cost to vehicle owners deserves their vote.
However, that proposed increase in registration fees is just one of five revenue-raising ideas recommended by Ritter’s special panel on transportation.
The vehicle-registration hike would raise an estimated $500 million, but the governor’s panel recommends $1.5 billion a year in additional funds.
Other ideas include increasing the gasoline and diesel tax, raising the state sales tax, creating a new visitor fee on rental cars and hotel rooms and increasing the state severance tax.
Whew! That’s a bunch of new taxes. No wonder Republican lawmakers said, “Slow down!”
State highways undoubtedly face some serious maintenance needs created by the state’s increasing population. There are aging bridges and many miles of deteriorating pavement.
But boosting highway funding by $1.5 billion a year would do far more than meet basic highway needs. More than $600 million a year would be earmarked to increase highway capacity and mass transit. There would also be millions for new bicycle and pedestrian paths.
However, even obtaining a clear picture of what basic needs are is not easy.
For instance, $500 million is said to be the minimum amount needed to preserve what we already have. But almost half of that would go to improve highway surfaces statewide from an average “C” rating to a “B” rating.
Do you care if you’re on a C-rated road or a B-rated road?
Also, the state has 116 bridges that are listed “deficient” but safe to carry vehicles. You might reasonably wonder whether the bridges are an actual threat to your safety?
Colorado may need to devote more money to its highways. And we have no problem with using more of the growing pot of severance tax money to maintain state highways—especially in areas such as this region, where heavy traffic from energy-industry trucks is adding to maintenance needs.
But when it comes to adding highway capacity to meet growing needs in Front Range metro areas, or to get from Denver to the ski areas along Interstate 70, it’s hard to see why taxpayers statewide should be dunned to help build those projects.
In such cases, we believe those who use the roads most should pay through things like toll roads, not taxpayers in places like Grand Junction, Cortez or Fort Morgan, who rarely use those highways.
Editorial: 8—4A—roads—edit.html
