Afterschool Activity

A Pair Of Bills

HB13-1047 by Rep. Sue Schafer, "Extracurricular Participation Across School Districts"

and 

HB13-1095 by Rep. Amy Stephens, "Homeschool Students' Participation in Activities"

 

Briefly

These two bills were heard in Monday's Education committee (2/4/13). The committee is composed of 13 members: 7 Democrats, 6 Republicans. The chair is Democrat Rep. Millie Hamner. 

I like both of these bills because they demonstrate how expertly legislation can be made and passed. The sponsors did everything right: when drafting the bills they consulted with primary stakeholders, before bringing it before the committee it was evident that each committee member had been brought into the fold to see if they had problems with the bills and how those could be resolved, it was bipartisan featuring a strong Republican and Democrat harmonizing, and finally the presentation of the bills was professional and to the point. 

Clarifying Law

During testimony by the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA), the primary force behind the bill, we discovered that due to ambiguities in decade old law, high schools across the state were operating student draw to their after-school activities on somewhat shaky ground. 

For homeschool students, parents could simply choose a public school for their child to participate in after-school activities without talking with the administration of that school. For public school students whose school didn't offer the activity they desired, the student could go to another school within the district that did offer it, but again without consulting that school. Most importantly though, there was a loophole which made possible "coach chasing" where athletic students of a particular high school could opt in to another high school's activities because they wanted to play under a different, more successful coach.  Combined with an ambiguous clause that might require homeschool students to enroll in courses to participate in after-school activities, there is a growing public perception of unfairness according to Rep. Stephens. That's what the two bills meant to fix by clearly stating that parents must consult with schools when their students mean to opt in to after-school activities. The decision cannot be solely made by the parents.

In Support

1047 and 1095 brought the same groups of stakeholders to the table. In fact, the bills were meant to be joined into one but due to the constitutional provision that each bill must be single-subject, they could not. CHSAA strongly supported both, as did representatives of Academy School District 20 and Cherry Creek School District. All parties explained the frustrating nature of current law and that the bills were need to solidify what they had been practicing for the previous 10 years.

In discussion with the committee members it was clarified that homeschool students that opt in to after-school activities do not bump other students off the list to participate, and, that the bills would clarify they do not need to take courses at the high school of their choice in order to participate in the activities. 

The Vote

Both bills passed the committee with near unanimous votes. Rep. Chris Holbert did not get onboard for 1047 because he had received some emails disparaging the idea of schools being involved in the discussions with parents. 

They're headed for the Committee of the Whole with minor amendments attached. I predict they will fare just fine there and be in the Senate by next week.   

Academic Freedoms From Seattle

HB13-1089 by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, "Academic Freedoms Act"

 

The Bill

Many times, legislators identify something going on in schools that they believe should be improved. Rep. Moreno wants to expand the school meals program, Rep. Fields wants to improve school attendance, and Rep. Humphrey wants to allows teachers to foster classroom debate about established scientific knowledge solely on the topics of global warming, evolution, and human cloning. 

His bill would create the Academic Freedoms Act, an effort to help both k-12 and Higher Ed students develop critical thinking skills. From the bill:
 

TEACHERS TO FIND MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS TO PRESENT SCIENCE CURRICULUM WHERE IT ADDRESSES SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES.

PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND ADMINISTRATORS MUST PERMIT TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN A GIVEN COURSE.

Also extremely important is this passage:
 

THE STATE BOARD, ANY LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION,  SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, OR TEACHER IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL MUST NOT PROHIBIT ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER IN THIS STATE FROM HELPING STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN A GIVEN COURSE.

The two points. First, every school authority must allow teachers to, as it's understood, "teach the controversy". Second, no authority can stop a teacher from doing so. This effectively directs what a teacher may or may not do, something that is the sole responsibility of the locally elected school board. 

In Committee

1089 was assigned to the House Education committee composed on 13 members. 7 members are Democrats, 6 are Republican, and the Chair is Democrat Rep. Millie Hamner. As the usual flow of committees go, Rep. Humphrey made a short case for the bill he was sponsoring. What made this a less than convivial encounter was the initial questioning by Democratic members before the witness testimony phase even began. 

Rep. Fields began by asking what the consequences were if a teacher failed to create an environment of debate on these science topics. Humphrey responded that the bill had no enforcement, only encouragement for teacher to do so. Rep. Court then explained that teachers are already encouraged to do exactly what the bill is asking; why is the bill necessary then? Humphrey offered an explanation that sometimes students are afraid to ask their teacher about the controversies surrounding the subjects of global warming, evolution, and cloning, and that his bill was needed to allow students to complain to higher authorities if debate-friendly environments were not made. Other Democrats on the committee echoed their colleagues in asking why the bill would only apply to science courses and not English, Math, or History.

The witness testimony phase of the hearing began by Humphrey allowing opponents to his bill speak first. Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards, known as CASB, simply stated that the bill violated article 9, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution by taking away the rights of local school boards to dictate what goes on in classrooms. Up next was Karen Wick of the Colorado Education Association, essentially the teacher's union. CEA represents over 38,000 school district employees. She elaborated on what Urschel said but went into depth explaining how school boards pull together experts to craft school curriculum. According to her, 1089 would severely confuse that process and undermine academic standards already in place. 

Here something telling of a freshman legislator occurred; Rep. Landgraf found the notion of subject experts dictating what schools do and do not teach to be putting children in a box and asked how that would be good for education. The Chair of the committee actually had to pause things at that point and explain to Landgraf that that's how curriculum is determined in Colorado.    

Finally in the opposition camp was Katie Navin of Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education, a non-profit that influences the teaching of environmental issues in schools. Her main contention with 1089 was that it asked teachers to "explore the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories", arguing that evolution and global warming are facts, not theories. Rep. Chris Holbert expressed his belief that global warming is a hoax that he doesn't believe in. 

The first in line to support the bill was Scott Horak of the Christian Outdoorsman. I strongly encourage you to listen to what can only be described as a 10 minute pseudo-scientific rant beginning at the 1 hour 37 minute mark of the audio recording.   

Origin Of The Matter

By now you might have an inclination where this bill is headed. Where it came from, though, is surprising. After Horak concluded his remarks, another witness, Joshua Youngkin of the Discovery Institute, revealed that it was his Seattle, Washington based organization that wrote the language of the bill and brought it to Rep. Stephen Humphrey to pass in the Colorado Legislature. A quick review of the Discovery Institute reveals it to be a strange think-tank falsifying the work of Charles Darwin and advocating the intelligent design of the universe. 

Insisting that the language of the bill was "bulletproof", Youngkin explained the bill was designed to give students the ability to discuss the "question of climate change" and allow them to review information in an objective manner and make up their own minds. He explained to Rep. Buckner that textbook theories of evolution are not true and that current scientific education is only teaching one side of the controversy. Most interesting of all, Youngkin stated that the bill gives teachers the right to teach as they see fit, and, goes on to actually quote Charles Darwin, "...a fair result can only be obtained by carefully balancing the arguments and facts on both sides of the question".  

To The Vote

This bill came down to a cordial party line vote.  7 to 6, all the Democrats against and all the Republicans for, 1089 was PI'ed (postponed indefinitely, killed).

Afterthoughts 

Did Humphrey reach out to the Discovery Institute or did they track him down? How frequently do out of state interests have a driving role in Colorado lawmaking? Youngkin mentioned that the Discovery Institute managed to pass a similar bill to 1089 in Louisiana back in 2008. 

Is it concerning that freshman legislators sitting on the Education committee demonstrate a poor understanding of the fundamental framework for curriculum building? The Democratic party swept the House in recent elections- is this bill symptomatic of why the Republican party lost its previous majority hold? This session is witnessing a strong Republican "tacking to the right" of their legislative agenda, one that I predict will continue the trend of failing initial committee hearings.

Comparative Experience

Take A Look

This year's General Assembly composition is markedly different from the last. Democrats control the House with a tidy majority but still outnumber Republicans as they previously did in the Senate. Remember the basic differences between each chamber: in the House, there are 65 members each with 2 year terms; in the Senate, there are 35 members each with 4 year terms. All House members were up for re-election in 2012, only some Senate members were.

In The House

The following graphs compare the party composition of each chamber. Pay special attention to the staggering number of freshman (brand new members) in the House. 42% of both Democrat and Republican representatives are new to the legislature. While freshman are not unfamiliar with the process, they might be so with the plethora of issues that come before them. Unlike a senior member who has seen, for example, the numerous ways severance taxes are targeted to meet the needs of different stakeholders, a freshman might not have the same level of complex knowledge on the subject. They might have less informed opinions that can only be enhanced through years of experience, and they might not have the "political capital" necessary to achieve success with their own agendas.

One of the main reasons there are so many freshman this session is that House district lines (each representative's area that may vote for them) were redrawn as a result of the census. Many members also lost primary election battles within their own party, or were simply defeated by a newcomer of the opposing party. Term limits forced 8 members, 4 democrat 4 republican, out of the House. Democrat Nancy Todd made a successful run to the Senate, as did Republican David Balmer. That left a vacuum of 6 available seats to freshman.

In The Senate

The Senate in a much different story than the House. Here, some senators were not up for re-election in 2012 because their terms are staggered from one another (Senate seat X goes up for election in 2008, 2012, 2016 etc; Senate seat Y goes up in 2006, 2010, 2014, etc).  Because terms are 4 years long, with a maximum limit of 2 terms, the tenure of these members is more stable than in the House. Whereas representatives must run for re-election every 2 years, senators must only run every 4 (and really for re-election only once before they aren't allowed to do so again).

As a result, you'll notice more senior members with fewer freshman. Often, members like John Kefalas will transition from the House to the Senate by running for the vacated Senate seat. Kefalas ran for the seat formerly held by fellow Democrat Bob Bacon for two terms. Bacon could not run again because he was term limited. You'll notice there are some senators with more than 8 years of experience- that's because they were formerly representatives.

Does It Matter?

Yes. Members with more legislative experience are able to pull more political weight. They know how things get done, whose toes not to tread on, how to conduct a tight committee, how to use procedure to their advantage, and how to manage the pressure placed on them by constituents and stakeholders. Most importantly, senior members usually have good relationships with lobbyists and know the 'power players' of the game. Freshman still need to learn the ropes and may be susceptible to outside interests. More on that in a future post!  

Not quite... Pt. 1

Bills That Went Nowhere

We're now entering our third week of session and already the "bill body count" is beginning to pile up. Here's a quick compilation of what hasn't flown so far, you'll notice they are all Republican bills. With a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, that doesn't come as a surprise.

SB13-020 "Business Fiscal Impacts" by Sen. Ted Harvey.

This bill would have created a five day window for businesses to comment to the appropriate committee on the fiscal impacts of upcoming legislation. The immediate problem with the bill, as expressed by Democrats during its hearing, was that businesses would need to track legislation themselves and submit feedback on whether it would help or hurt them- but would that data be reliable, and how could it be verified? 

Most businesses however are in associations, and associations hire lobbyists to do just what the bill wanted. The lobby group keeps tabs on legislation to keep their clients safe. What Sen. Harvey proposed is already being done. On top of that, anyone can already testify before a committee to state whether a bill would help or hurt them. 

SB13-022 "County treasurer becoming the public trustee" by Sen. Lambert and Rep. Scott.

Remember my post on this one? I'll go into more depth on what happened to the bill, but it was pronounced "postponed indefinitely!" (dead) Thursday January 24th. For now, public trustees in second class counties will still be appointed by the governor. 

SB13-024 "Prohibit discrimination of labor union participation" by Sen. Hill. 

The bill would have simply made it illegal to require an employee to join specific labor unions. It was a classic Republican anti-union bill, now defeated by historically pro-union Democrats.

SB13-035 "Prohibit red light camera vehicle identification" by Sen. Renfroe and Rep. Humphrey.

It would have repealed the authority for local municipalities to use 'speed cameras' to catch a photo of drivers running red lights. What's important to note is that 'red light photo' tickets make up substantial portions of revenue for localities.

2012 'Red Light Photo Ticket' Revenues

HB13-1028 "Vehicle special license plate limit" by Rep. Scott and Rep. Priola.

Not even with Democrat Rep. Randy Fischer's support did this bill make it through its first committee. The bill would have limited those non-generic license plates we have in Colorado to 96 varieties. Currently there are 85. The reason it's popular is because the plates generate money, almost $100,000 per variety per year in extra registration fees that go to the highway fund. Police don't like the plates because it can be difficult to keep track of them all and spot the ones from Colorado from the ones that aren't. Rep. Fischer has been vocally opposed to the expansion of plate varieties because they must be legislatively created, something he and many other lawmakers from both parties believe is a waste of the General Assembly's time.   

HB13-1069 "Small business fiscal impact statements" by Rep. Navarro-Ratzlaff.

Very similar to SB13-020 by Ted Harvey, this bill would have required the legislative analysts that put together fiscal impact statements (the document recording how much money is at stake with each bill) to analyze how each bill would affect small businesses in Colorado, defined as 50 employees or less.