By Rep. Mark Larson

Saturday, March 11th, the League of Women Voters held a regional forum on education finance and pending legislation in Durango. This was well attended by many concerned administrators, teachers, school board members and, to my mild surprise, over twenty parents unaffiliated with any particular group but concerned enough to attend the meeting on a Saturday afternoon.

One of the more controversial topics of the session so far has been SB-186, the Education Reform Bill. The House Education Committee heard over 13 hours of testimony and amendments a week ago Wednesday in the Old Supreme Court Chambers. This doesn't count the briefing they had that morning at 7:30 a.m. Those members experienced a very long 15-hour-plus day. Judging by the zombie-like expressions many committee members exuded the next morning, I was reminded of the impending battle this bill will evoke.

Many constituents have voiced their concern about this bill. I have made "hard copies" of the e-mail, made notes of phone calls and added letters to the growing file on the bill. What is becoming curious is that I am mainly communicating with educators, school board members and administrators — very few of the "affected" citizens, the parents, are getting involved. Many of those who are speaking out have shared their concern about utilization of a bell curve when grading schools, claiming this is a blatant effort to move public schools to charter schools. My understanding is that a bell curve was used to identify the bottom 2 percent of schools, and not move them into charter schools immediately but rather to provide them with resources from the state to help identify why the school is failing so miserably and to help them develop a plan for improvement over the next two years. One must understand that 47 percent of Colorado schools are at D or F grade levels. It would be impossible to financially assist all D or F schools simultaneously so a bell curve was established to identify those schools most in need of help. I do not believe the accusation that the hidden agenda here is to move public education to all charter schools.

I have received some correspondence suggesting that a school grading system will demoralize students in the lower performing schools. Maybe so. I have been told that the "proficient" standard has been unreasonably set at 70 percent. In most schools a 70 percent would equate to a C-, with 72 percent being a C. I am told that this standard is too high and does not take into consideration the student's capabilities and level of education when entering the system. And, what about the many transient students?

Surprisingly, the largest amount of correspondence was about the sex and human reproduction education provision in the bill that requires a parent to "opt-in" a student's participation instead of the current "opt-out" law that requires a parent to inform the school. I have genuine concern regarding this provision. While I recognize that this information really should be discussed in the home, the reality is that it is not. In my experience, this provision will expose children to a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and a host of avoidable situations that could be prevented with a minimum of education. I am introducing an amendment that returns the "opt-out" language to the bill while keeping the governor's wish to emphasize abstinence and inform parents of what is being taught. I think we can strike a balance here without the unintended consequences to our young people.

By the time you read this article we will have heard SB-186 in second reading debate. Over last weekend I was still assessing my position on the bill. I was contemplating some of the above concerns while some, in my estimation, were simply overreacting. Involving parents and the community via a graded report card of our schools is not a bad idea, in and of itself. How we assess our schools seems to be the sticking point. My vote will reflect your input and what, I am certain, will be intense debate.