Remember way back when representatives of a 15-member task force appeared before the Joint Education Committee to deliver It was a sunny late January day …
State testing task force presents today. Hearing about lots of last-minute drama.
— Eric Gorski (@egorski)
There was some drama — one parent on the task force refused to sign.
Prevailing wisdom was that lawmakers would tackle the testing conundrum in February — with the Republican-controlled Senate taking the lead — before moving on to the perennial business of passing a school finance bill.
We have documented what has happened since … after a and before the bill got a committee hearing, both chambers came up with their own bills, long periods of witness testimony ensued, cleared committees and … and then nothing.
Here we are, with just a week remaining in the 2015 legislative session, and the bills continue to be laid over …
First came Monday …
Hmm. Senate lays over final vote SB257, its big testing bill, until Tuesday.
— Todd Engdahl (@ToddEngdahl)
And … House lays over its testing plan, HB1323, until Tue.
— Todd Engdahl (@ToddEngdahl)
… then Tuesday …
Both Colorado testing reduction bills – in the House and Senate — delayed again today before third and final votes.
— Eric Gorski (@egorski)
… and Wednesday …
Senate and House have both postponed votes on their major testing bills for yet another day.
— Megan Verlee (@CPRverlee)
The game of Legislative Testing Chicken continues.
— Education Policy Ctr (@EdIsWatching)
The House and Senate bills actually have come to more closely resemble each other as the process moves along.
The Senate bill initially included a three-year timeout on accountability tied to PARCC/CMAS tests results. That was scaled back to an additional one year, which is the same break the House Bill calls for.
So what is hanging things up? By most accounts, the divide centers on two issues — the fate of mandatory ninth grade testing and the extent to which local districts would be allowed to develop their own local alternative assessments.
The Senate bill does away with mandatory ninth grade tests, leaving it up to districts whether they want to continue. The House bill was amended after fierce lobbying by education reformers to keep 9th grade tests mandatory.
Last week’s House Ed committee hearing on House Bill 1323 — something the federal government doesn’t require.
Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, argued allowing districts to drop ninth grade testing would create a “doughnut hole” for parents looking at school choices. Rep. Jack Tate, R Centennial, countered that 10th grade tests provide a better measure of a high school’s performance.
“Why put more resources into redundant data?” Tate asked.
The task force could not reach consensus on 9th grade — some wanted it optional and others backed the status quo.
On developing alternative local assessments, the House bill has a narrow allowance for a maximum of five districts totaling no more than 15 percent of the state’s students. That provision was crafted to allow for a band of rural districts, led by Mancos, that wish to create their own. But it would shut out any and all large districts, including Douglas County.
The Senate bill would open the door for alternative tests to all comers as long as they met federal requirements.
Those two issues are significant areas of disagreement. Is it possible to bridge the gap? Will someone blink?
The lack of movement on both bills indicates behind-the-scenes negotiations to forge a compromise — not a big leap. That could take a number of forms, including a conference committee.
If both chambers give final approval to their bills more or less as is, we could see the scenario that Rep. Jim Wilson of Salida, a HB 1323 co-sponsor, described: two bills passing like ships in the night and crashing on the rocky shores of the other chamber.
Rep. Brittany Pettersen, D-Lakewood, acting chair of the House Education Committee, said late Wednesday afternoon she anticipates final votes on both bills Thursday and remains optimistic in finding a bipartisan solution Hickenlooper will sign into law.
“The bills have differences, but I think we have much more in common,” she said. “We’re close. We still have some work to do.”
Then there is the uncertain fate of the opt-out bill, Senate Bill 223, which would prohibit penalties against teachers, principals, districts, schools and students if opt-outs drive down test participation. The bill passed Senate Ed 8-1 and .
The bill was sent to the House and was scheduled to be heard by the House Education Committee earlier in mid-April.
But it was pushed off till this past Monday, leading to speculation from Republican Sen. Chris Holbert of Parker and his Douglas County neighbor — Dougco Public Schools Superintendent Liz Fagen — that political gamesmanship may have been at work …
Hmm… was House EdCom hearing on SB-223 “Opt Out” moved to 4/27 so that Hick could veto after the session ends? No override?
— Chris Holbert (@Chris_Holbert)
Oh no! State test parent opt-out delayed to 27th even though it has tons of leg support. Is this so Gov can veto after leg goes home?
— Liz Celania-Fagen (@DCSDFagen)
Hickenlooper’s office has signaled he will not support any legislation that would put Colorado’s federal funding for poor students at risk, a possibility if Colorado violates federal requirements on levels of test participation. Bill proponents argue no state has lost federal Title 1 funding over opt-outs.
that the federal government may intervene on the opt-out issue, .
Adding drama to the debate, after the Board of Education voted to hold districts harmless if test participation drops below required 95 percent levels due to high numbers of opt-outs.
After sailing through the Senate, the opt-out bill came in for some harsh questioning in the House Education Committee over the federal funding threat, whether the move will provide an incentive for keeping low-performing students out of tests and the bill’s failure to spell out consequences for educators found to have done that. A vote on the bill is scheduled for Friday.
In an interview Wednesday, testing task force chairman Dan Snowberger said he was disappointed but not surprised by the testing bill mess under the dome. He also had sharp words for some of the players involved.
“I see people at the Capitol lobbying who are not representative of the average Coloradan,” said Snowberger, superintendent of the Durango School District. “You get a few people bending the ears of our legislators, and all of a sudden that is what Colorado is painted as.”
Snowberger described those influential voices as “groups from more affluent parent groups that obviously don’t want assessments.” He said he does not see minority groups or groups concerned about the achievement gap represented.
The task force, he said, represented a broad array of interests, and even though not everyone was in love with resulting recommendations, it was something they agreed they could live with.
“I think we have moved away from that in public decision-making,” he said. “We all want exactly what we want and we hold out – and we get nothing.”
Ilana Spiegel, a task force member and parent from the Cherry Creek School District who has been lobbying for more aggressive testing reduction, responded that parent groups are more active out of frustration with years of lobbying by education reform and business groups promoting a flawed agenda.
“They don’t like the fact that other people feel empowered to start responding and presenting alternative points of view,” she said.
With the clock ticking on the session, it’s anyone’s guess what testing reform in Colorado might look like – if it happens at all.
“I am optimistic something will get done,” said Julie Whitacre, a CEA lobbyist. “There is very little doubt at this point parents, teachers, districts, students, all of them are crying out that the system that we have is broken and not working … What we disagree on is how to do it.”
