New Democrat Update - February 2001
OWENS' TROUBLING CONVERSION
Quality public education is key to equal opportunity and upward mobility. Now more than ever, we must equip Colorado's public education system to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Last year, Gov. Owens made education one of his top priorities, successfully persuading the legislature to require annualized student testing and assigning letter grades to individual schools based on those test scores. Schools consistently getting "failing" grades would be converted into independent charter schools so that new management could implement the necessary reforms.
While troubled by some elements of his package last session, New Democrats were pleased with his emphasis on pushing authority, responsibility and accountability to those on the front line - principals and teachers. In our view, initiatives like charter schools accomplish the very reforms that improve student achievement - autonomous individual schools, true policy-setting boards (instead of centralized command-and-control), parental involvement, clarity of the school's mission, strong leadership and the degree of freedom and respect offered teachers (The other necessary ingredients are standards-based accountability and choices for parents, already in place in Colorado).
Then in November, voters took matters into their own hands by approving Amendment 23. Many Republicans worried that Owens' opposition to the initiative - which requires funding to increase by inflation plus one percentage point over the next ten years - would push him to the sidelines of the education debate.
In a triumph of politics over principle, Owens awkwardly attempted to re-enter the arena and demonstrate his relevancy. Despite a history of supporting charter schools and local control, he did a complete "flip-flop," advocating the opposite - micro-management proposals mandating how schools would use the additional Amendment 23 funding.
The zig-zagging persisted in the same news release (www.state.co.us/owenspress/12-06-00a.htm) announcing his switch from a previously unyielding position on letter grades for schools to one that classifies them as excellent, high, moderate, low or unsatisfactory (both of which are overly narrow and flawed accountability measures). His proposal "to cap, in state law (our emphasis), class size in grades K-3" and the sudden change of heart thereafter, only reinforced the troubling pattern.
All of the above suggests that the governor is either more interested in playing politics or simply has no coherent strategy for improving public education. Neither possibility is reassuring.
In the real world, each school faces a very different set of perplexing challenges to improve student achievement. There is no one, magical "silver bullet." One school may need higher teacher salaries, another additional preschool opportunities, another smaller class sizes, still another more professional development training for teachers.
In fact, many schools encounter problems not even identified by those in the far-off, distant State Capitol. Principals and teachers need flexibility to respond to ever-changing, dynamic challenges.
Senate and House Democrats should continue fighting Owens' misguided, centralized command-and-control, micro-management mandates. In its place, they should advocate a strategy that empowers, and holds accountable, those on the front line - principals and teachers. As the private sector has already recognized, the people actually doing the job are best positioned to figure out and actually implement the right solutions.
Owens should join with New Democrats and move from centralized mandates to encouraging bottom-up innovation based on local needs and conditions. It is time to trade regulations for results and bureaucracy for accountability.
BANNING RACIAL PROFILING
Like most other fair-minded Coloradans, State Rep. and New Democrat Peter Groff (D-Denver) wants to find out if racial profiling is occurring in our state. With police departments across the country admitting to stopping and questioning people based on their race, it is only logical to determine if it is going on here.
Many law enforcement officials defend racial profiling as a way to target limited resources on likely lawbreakers. Profiling, they say, is based not on prejudice but on probabilities.
Racial profiling is actually a very inefficient way to catch criminals. When police use race-based profiles, they devote time and attention to individuals who are not involved in illegal activity leaving real criminals free to carry on. Assuming that all members of a race are legitimate targets for police action simply because they share the same skin color with some criminals is an unsound assumption on which to base an enforcement strategy.
More importantly, it corrodes the presumption of innocence to which all Americans are entitled. It alienates law-abiding citizens and reinforces the view in some communities that the police are an occupying force, rather than a common instrument for self-defense. Finally, the distrust generated discourages the police's best source of crime-related information - neighborhood residents.
Groff's colleagues should open their eyes and minds to determine if this morally indefensible practice is happening in our backyard. Otherwise, citizen distrust, strained racial relations and possibly ineffective law enforcement will continue.
If you would like a copy of "Eliminating Racial Profiling: A Third Way Approach," please contact the Colorado DLC.
WHY GORE LOST
Be sure to get the latest copy of Blueprint, entitled "Why Gore Lost, and How Democrats Can Come Back." This special edition provides in-depth political analyses of the 2000 presidential election, details on how Democrats can prosper in 2002 and get the White House back in 2004.
The magazine is on the web. If you would like a hard copy, please contact the Colorado DLC.