issue: Education

Manno for Forbes: Britain’s Labour Party Promotes Opportunity Pluralism

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

The United Kingdom holds a general election on July 4th, the day we former colonists celebrate Amexit—America’s 248th birthday of our self-proclaimed exit from that country. A 2024 Pew Research poll of British adults taken before the call for an election concluded that “Britons see the state of the UK in relatively bleak terms.”

Current U.K. polls show the opposition Labour Party crushing the governing Conservative Party, in power since 2010. Truth be told, the only poll that counts is what voters say on July 4th. But assuming polls are generally accurate, there is value in assessing how Labour’s proposed working family’s agenda for education and workforce training resembles U.S. conversations on what I call opportunity pluralism.

One must begin by acknowledging that U.S. education governance is more decentralized than in Great Britain. Hence, much of the information exchange between representatives from a new Labour government and the U.S. would involve initiatives implemented at the state and local levels in the U.S.

Keep reading in Forbes.

Kahlenberg in The New York Times: Is It Possible to Desegregate the Nation’s Biggest School System?

Posted on by Alex Terr

Richard D. Kahlenberg, a researcher at the Progressive Policy Institute who has written about school segregation, said one challenge for the city’s kindergarten model was that “when you’re talking about 4-year-olds, the concept of merit isn’t all that relevant.”

“It’s probably the most problematic aspect of the system,” he said.

Read more in The New York Times.

Manno for Education Next: Career and Technical Education Clears New Pathways to Opportunity

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

Many Americans, including the last wave of Gen Z-ers now entering high schools, want schools to offer more education and training options for young people like career and technical education, or CTE. They broadly agree that the K–12 goal of “college for all” over the last several decades has not served all students well. It should be replaced with “opportunity pluralism,” or the recognition that a college degree is one of many pathways to post-secondary success.

School-based CTE programs (there are also programs for adults) typically prepare middle and high school students for a range of high-wage, high-skill, and high-demand careers. These include fields like advanced manufacturing, health sciences, and information technology which often do not require a two- or four-year college degree. CTE programs award students recognized credentials like industry certifications and licenses. Some programs also provide continuing opportunities for individuals to sequence credentials so that they can pursue associate and bachelor’s degrees if they choose.

Keep reading in Education Next.

Pankovits for RealClearWorld: What U.S. Democrats Can Learn From UK Labour

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tressa Pankovits

British voters go to the polls in less than a month. All signs point to a crushing defeat for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his Conservative Party after 14 chaotic years in power. The Labour Party, ably led by Keir Starmer, is leading the Tories in polls by more than 20 points and appears poised for a strong victory.

Like here at home, U.K. voters say the economy is their most important issue. Unlike here, however, K-12 education — known as “schools policy” in Britain — is expected to be a key flashpoint. Labour is leaning into the issue, knowing that it’s important to working-class families fed up with crumbling schools and a government that seems to care little about their children’s academic or mental well-being.

This is not the first time that Labour has had to rescue an education system in crisis. The last Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, rode into office in 1997 partly on the back of an oft-repeated three-word phrase: “Education, education, education.” Like his American counterpart, President Bill Clinton, Blair wasted little time pushing through education reforms.

Keep reading in RealClearWorld.

New Report Details Federal Funding Gap Between Postsecondary Workforce Education and Degree Programs

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Washington, D.C. — Roughly 20% of federal investment in postsecondary education supports workforce development for fields like construction, manufacturing, and more, according to a new report on federal workforce funding levels released today. The report, Building a Stronger Workforce: Federal Spending on Postsecondary Education and Training, produced by the Progressive Policy Institute, the Associated General Contractors of America, and Procore, notes that of the $139.5 billion the federal government spends annually on postsecondary education, only $28.2 billion goes to workforce education and training programs. The other $111.3 billion supports “traditional” degree programs that only 38% of Americans complete — creating a funding gap that is making it difficult for many employers to find qualified talent.

Included in the report are recommendations on how federal and state policymakers can address this discrepancy and better support employers in addressing workforce shortages in high-demand industries. Recommendations include increasing federal investments in workforce development, investing in “what works,” ensuring employers are in the driver’s seat of talent development efforts, and encouraging stronger employer-centered partnerships. The report also highlights promising state programs that provide direct resources for employer-led education and training.

The groups released this report during a bipartisan event earlier today on Capitol Hill that featured remarks from the office of Representative Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the report’s authors, and an employer and training provider, who discussed the challenges posed by the current federal funding levels and urged policymakers to help.

“The wide disparity in federal funding between career and technical education programs and traditional degree-granting higher education programs needs to be rebalanced to ensure the next generation of American workers are prepared to excel in family-sustaining and rewarding careers. I thank AGC and PPI for adding their voices to the much-needed conversation about how the federal government prioritizes education funding. There are many great educational pathways, and it is time for policymakers to recognize this and take action to support students’ success outside of the traditional classroom,” said Rep. Lloyd Smucker.

“We need bipartisan solutions to ensure current and future workers are well-prepared for in-demand employment opportunities,” said Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.). “I am pleased to see that PPI and AGC are working to address this challenge by examining the discrepancy between federal funding levels of workforce development and traditional academic programs. Our investments in education and workforce development at the federal level must be strategically aligned to unlock the full economic potential for hardworking people in eastern North Carolina and beyond.”

Read and download the report by PPI authors Taylor Maag and Tamar Jacoby here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the leading association for the construction industry. AGC represents more than 27,000 firms, including over 6,500 of America’s leading general contractors, and over 9,000 specialty-contracting firms. More than 10,500 service providers and suppliers are also associated with AGC, all through a nationwide network of chapters.

###

Media Contact: Brian Turmail, Associated General Contractors of America, brian.turmail@agc.org

Tommy Kaelin, Progressive Policy Institute, tkaelin@ppionline.org

Building a Stronger Workforce: Federal Spending on Postsecondary Education and Training

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Executive Summary

America’s labor market presents a paradox. Although the unemployment rate is just 3.9%, there are more jobs open than people who can fill them. Nationwide, there are roughly 68 workers for every 100 open jobs. Many factors contribute to this workforce shortage, but one of the most significant is a growing skills gap — millions of workers across the economy are unprepared for in-demand employment opportunities.

In construction and other industries, employers are hurting, desperate for talent, and looking for innovative ways to attract people to open positions. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that the construction industry currently has 407,000 job openings. This shortage is expected to grow, with a projected need for 723,000 workers annually due to economic expansion, worker retirements, and the changing skill needs driven by energy transitions and technological advancements. Some 88% of construction firms report having a hard time finding workers to hire.

To address this challenge, employers in construction and other industries are investing in workforce development — working to ensure current and future workers have the skills needed to succeed in high-demand careers. But employers can’t do it alone. And although federal funding is available to support skill development, it is not nearly enough. Just $28.2 billion out of a total $139.5 billion allocated annually for postsecondary education and training is spent on workforce development.

This policy brief estimates current federal spending on postsecondary workforce education and training and compares these funding levels to funding for traditional academic programs. This brief explores how investment in workforce education today compares to in investment in recent decades. Finally, it offers examples of how four states are investing in workforce education and offers policy recommendations for stakeholders and policymakers to consider for the future.

Read the full report.

Manno for Forbes: K-12 Teachers Are Not A Happy Lot

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

There’s trouble in the profession.

Public school teachers are stressed out by their work. They have a gloomy outlook on the problems students face and a dim view of K-12 education’s future. These and other bleak views are chronicled in a new Pew Research Center survey of classroom teachers entitled What’s It Like To Be a Teacher in America Today?

Truth be told, teachers are just as prone as the rest of us to overstate how bad things are. Moreover, this survey is a snapshot of one point in time.

But it is important to understand teachers’ perceptions of K-12 education following Covid-19. This means listening to their voices and their unflattering reflections, as challenging as they are.

Keep reading in Forbes.

Building a Stronger Workforce: Federal spending on postsecondary education and training

Thursday, June 13, 2024
8:45 a.m. Breakfast and coffee
9:00 to 10:00 a.m. Program

 

U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
SVC 210
First St SE, Washington, DC 20515

 

Please join the Progressive Policy Institute, in collaboration with the Associated General Contractors of America and Procore, for the release of a new paper, “Building a Stronger Workforce: Federal Spending on Postsecondary Education and Training.” The report illuminates current federal spending on postsecondary workforce education and training and compares these funding levels to investments in traditional academic programs.

The event will bring together congressional staff and industry representatives to discuss the implications of the report for construction and other industries.

Attendees will also have a chance to hear from members of Congress and employers working within current funding restraints to ensure workers and job seekers have increased economic opportunity, and employers have the talent they need to remain competitive. We hope to see you there!

Confirmed speakers include:

  • Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.)
  • Taylor Maag, Director of Workforce Development Policy, PPI
  • Tamar Jacoby, Project Director, PPI
  • Nathan Barry, Ph.D., Vice President for Strategic Operations and Initiatives, Metropolitan Community College
  • Harry L. Davis, III, President, Sussex Development Corporation

 

RSVP here.

Manno for Philanthropy Daily: Apprenticeships: A Donor’s Guide to Creating New Pathways to Opportunity

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Bruno Manno

As schools and universities grapple with preparing young Americans for the world of work, American employers struggle to find enough workers to fill jobs they have available. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in May 2024 the U.S. labor market had 8.5 million job openings and 6.5 million unemployed people, which is about 1.3 jobs for every unemployed person.

A great deal of ink has been spilled and dollars spent trying to bridge this disconnect between worker supply and demand. Much of that effort assumes that the traditional pipeline from high school to a two- or four-year college to the workforce or some variation on this approach is the only, or best, way forward. But many Americans, including employers and young people, are questioning whether a college degree is the best pathway to a good job and adult success.

They want other education and training pathways that prepare individuals for employment and adult success. These new avenues include apprenticeships, which typically integrate paid, on-the-job training with formal classroom instruction. These “learn and earn” pathways offer an alternative to the traditional college campus experience by creating a school and workplace campus experience.

These new apprenticeship pathways are just beginning to take shape. Early returns are very promising. This means it is an area ripe for philanthropic impact. Individual donors and foundations wanting to create more pathways to opportunity for individuals in their communities should consider funding apprenticeship programs. In doing so, they foster opportunity pluralism.

Keep reading in Philanthropy Daily.

Bruno Manno Joins PPI to Lead the Newly Established What Works Lab

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Washington, D.C. — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is pleased to announce the appointment of Bruno Manno as Senior Advisor. Manno will lead the newly established What Works Lab, a pioneering initiative dedicated to exploring and implementing innovative education pathways that promote economic and social mobility.

The What Works Lab will highlight and document evidence-based approaches to prepare individuals for a lifetime of opportunities. The Lab’s initial focus will encompass five key project topics: addressing challenges in education and workforce development, promoting opportunity pluralism, organizing pathways programs, bridging ideological divides through a governing agenda, and fostering responsible citizenship to nourish civil society.

“Through the years, Bruno Manno has been a friend, a mentor, and an invaluable partner for PPI’s work on modernizing America’s K-12 public schools and creating alternative career pathways for the majority of young Americans who do not have college degrees,” said Will Marshall, President of PPI. “That’s why we’re delighted to announce he’s joining PPI to head an exciting new project — the What Works Lab. The Lab’s mission is to identify and validate the most promising initiatives around the country for equipping young people with the skills and opportunities they need to thrive in today’s economy.”

Manno brings a wealth of knowledge to PPI, having served most recently as the Senior Advisor for the Education Program at the Walton Family Foundation. His work has consistently focused on helping children find unique paths to opportunity and purpose, aligning perfectly with the Lab’s mission to create diverse and effective educational pathways.

The What Works Lab will collaborate with other PPI initiatives, including the New Skills for a New Economy Project and the Reinventing America’s Schools Project. This cooperation will harness the collective expertise of PPI staff and senior fellows to address the multifaceted challenges facing the American workforce and education systems.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Tommy Kaelin – tkaelin@ppionline.org

PPI Comment on NPRM for Additional Student Debt Relief, Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0123, Federal Register, 2024-07726

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Although we at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) believe some modest relief from overly burdensome debt is warranted, we are concerned many of this rule’s provisions would provide generous windfalls to relatively affluent borrowers while providing little additional benefit for borrowers most in need. The rule also comes with a high cost to taxpayers — $147 billion by the department’s own estimates — yet has no offsets to pay for it, making it a clear violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s administrative PAYGO provision. Proceeding with this rule as written would only worsen the existing bias that federal policy has towards the minority of young people who attend college, at the expense of the majority who do not yet will be saddled with the bill.

Founded in 1989, PPI – a 501(c)(3) think tank – is a force for radically pragmatic innovation in politics and government. Our mission is to develop a new progressive blueprint for change that can help center-left parties broaden their appeal and build stable governing majorities. PPI has been a prominent voice in fiscal policy through our Center for Funding America’s Future, which works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. The Center has played a critical role in shaping fiscal policy debates around key legislation over the past five years and has been extremely involved in the national college affordability discussion.

In a previous comment, we applauded the administration’s efforts to expand and improve upon income-driven repayment programs, which we believe are the best mechanisms to help borrowers who are burdened by the debt of pursuing degrees from which they did not ultimately benefit. But we also warned that the Department’s SAVE plan was overly aggressive in scope, leading to the typical college graduate paying back only three fifths of what they initially borrowed — and not a dollar of interest. Providing such a generous subsidy is profoundly unfair to the majority of American taxpayers who didn’t attend college and are being asked to foot the bill for people who did, despite earning lower average incomes than them. Even worse, it is likely to further inflate the already high costs of college by incentivizing universities to hike tuition rather than control costs.

PPI is concerned that the current proposed rule would compound these mistakes. The rule’s most expensive provision, the cancellation of accumulated interest, will mostly benefit wealthy professionals while being redundant for low-income borrowers struggling with high debt burdens. Enrolling the SAVE plan already prevents borrowers with large loan balances and lifetime earnings equal to or below those of the average college graduate from having to pay any interest. But borrowers who enhance their future earnings by taking on large debts, such as lawyers, doctors, and other professional degree holders, will reap a significant windfall that they should not get if this rule is finalized as proposed. Currently, the rule proposes to cancel up to $20,000 of interest for those on standard repayment and an unlimited amount for those enrolled in IDR. We urge the department to set this interest cap as low as possible for all borrowers to limit these regressive impacts.

We are similarly concerned about the provision to forgive all loans after 20-25 years. Those enrolled in IDR plans even before the SAVE plan was enacted were on track to have their balances forgiven after 20-25 years of making the required payments. If someone is paying back student loans for more than 25 years, they are likely a professional degree holder with a large debt balance who has chosen to structure their repayment plans over a longer period of time. Giving forgiveness to a relatively affluent group in the last few years of their repayment is unnecessary and arbitrary, especially when the most vulnerable borrowers already benefit from a similar policy.

We are more sympathetic towards the provision providing relief to borrowers who attended low-value educational institutions. These students are most likely to be burdened by the debt of pursuing a degree from which they did not financially benefit. We applaud previous rulemaking from the department targeting these often fraudulent institutions, forcing them to transparently disclose the financial value they provide for students, cutting off future federal aid, and closing them if necessary. But we encourage the Department to work with Congress to ensure the costs of canceling this debt are borne by these predatory institutions as much as possible rather than asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

The administration has already spent more than $600 billion of American taxpayer money on executive actions to cancel student loan debt, most of which belonged to individuals with above-average lifetime earnings, without explicit approval from Congress. We urge the Department to work with lawmakers on developing progressive reforms to the SAVE plan, greater accountability for educational institutions, and other common-sense reforms to control the cost of higher education rather than pursuing more unilateral debt cancellation schemes.

Even in the absence of congressional action, we also encourage the Department to keep the above concerns in mind when developing their proposed regulations on “waivers for hardship,” as is mentioned to be forthcoming in the proposed rule.

Read the comment on the proposed Department of Education rule.

Marshall for The Hill: Red states are fueling a public school exodus

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Will Marshall

A new spirit of secession is fracturing our country. Republicans are carving out a red-state confederacy where they can impose their own laws and social mores in defiance of national majorities.

To take the most obvious example, Americans strongly oppose abortion bans. That hasn’t stopped 21 Republican-controlled states from passing laws outlawing or severely restricting abortion.

Now red states are applying this twist on John Calhoun’s doctrine of states’ rights and concurrent majorities to education.

Read More in The Hill.

Pankovits for The Orange County Register: Moderate Sen. Bill Dodd should withdraw misguided anti-charter school bill

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tressa Pankovits

Senator Bill Dodd, D-Napa, bills himself a moderate with pragmatic priorities. So, it’s puzzling that he’d introduce Senate Bill 1380. SB 1380 would authorize school district boards to deny charter school applications if it had closed a school within the past five years. It would also gut county education boards’ authority to overrule the local board’s denial.

Elected school board members are politicians. They can be beholden to political donors, and sometimes donors’ priorities don’t align with families’ need for better public school options. Taking away oversight over school boards’ decision-making would grant them excessive power.

Dodd’s rationale is the misguided notion that when parents enroll their child in a public charter school, they drain school districts of funding. But charter schools are public schools: free and open to all. They are part of California’s public school system; they simply operate independently of district bureaucracies.

Keep reading in The Orange County Register.

How Online Education Can Open Doors for Rural Students

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Seventy-two percent of America is rural, yet these areas are only home to 14 percent of the population. Rural communities across the U.S. have higher poverty rates and lower education levels compared to those in urban and suburban areas.

While 41 percent of urban adults have a college degree, only 28 percent of rural adults do. While in most states, rural high school students achieve graduation rates similar to urban and suburban peers, their college enrollment rates are much lower. Without a degree, or a necessary alternative, rural students are less able to find higher-skilled and higher-paying jobs.

Going to college is a major decision, for anyone, but especially rural students who face increased barriers in accessing postsecondary education. Not only are there not as many colleges in rural areas, but getting to campus can pose a logistical challenge due to the distance students have to travel. This is especially hard if you are an adult learner, who make up over 30 percent of today’s postsecondary students. These learners are usually working or have a family and don’t have the flexibility to travel for hours to continue their education.

Rural America also continues to question the value of degree programs — grappling with the time, cost, and return on investment. Additionally, many communities and families fear that students who pursue a college degree will ultimately leave to seek better-paying careers elsewhere.

It’s clear college as we know it is not working for rural students. To close these gaps in educational attainment and economic opportunity, the nation’s higher education system must evolve to create more accessible, flexible, and industry-responsive opportunities.

Online education presents a solution to this educational divide. Remote, online opportunities offer a flexible and convenient way for students to learn. Instead of traveling far distances for their coursework, rural students can pursue online learning at their own pace, on their own time, and from the comfort of their own home. This flexibility eliminates the stress and cost of a long commute, the difficulties of juggling work and school, and having to build a schedule around very specific class times.

Online learning also helps to mitigate the concern of losing the younger generation to urban areas for higher education. Instead, these opportunities allow learners to stay in their community while also presenting a local economic development strategy. A more skilled workforce attracts employers which hopefully means more jobs and increased economic prosperity in the region.

However, even with the benefits, more must be done to ensure rural students can access online learning opportunities that yield strong economic returns.

First, reliable access to the internet remains a concern for rural students. Only 63 percent of rural adults say they have access to the internet at home, compared with 75 percent of urban adults. Policymakers and leaders must ensure these communities have access to basic internet so they can take advantage of remote education options. For example, Western Governors University (WGU) is working to help more students gain internet access by offering scholarships and working with political leaders to drive comprehensive solutions to the challenge. The Biden Administration has also invested in this effort through COVID recovery bills like The American Rescue Plan Act’s Digital Equity Act Program — providing $2.75 billion to establish three grant programs that promote digital equity and inclusion. They aim to ensure that all people and communities have the skills, technology, and capacity needed to reap the full benefits of the nation’s digital economy.

Second, online learning can be isolating, especially if you are learning in a remote, rural community. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) has an idea that to enhance online education, college leaders, policymakers or others could create telecommuting hubs. These coworking spaces would offer broadband and office space — to help learners work together on shared challenges, while also allowing program completers to stay in their communities while pursuing high-wage work.

And lastly, federal regulation matters. Many rural schools have started partnering with online program managers (OPMs) for help launching or supporting online programs. OPMs supply a package of products, technology, and skill-sets that may be outside the core mission, experience, and expertise of a given college or university — helping to provide services outside a college or university’s reach. Writing on behalf of St. Bonaventure University in New York, Michael Hoffman said that their “OPM brings tremendous knowledge of online student recruitment, retention, and instructional design, which has been fundamental to our ability to offer high-quality, fully online programs.” However, last year, the Department of Education proposed a regulatory change that would have a detrimental impact on the ability of rural colleges to offer online classes through OPMs. To ensure more individuals — especially in rural communities — have access to online programming, federal leaders must regulate in a way that allows and incentivizes positive partnerships with OPMs, while ensuring these partnerships are fair, non-discriminatory, and yield strong student outcomes.

Online education emerges as a transformative solution to the multifaceted challenges hindering rural students’ access to postsecondary education. By overcoming geographical barriers, providing flexibility in scheduling, and mitigating the phenomenon of brain drain, online learning opens doors to educational opportunities previously inaccessible to many in rural communities. Its adaptability and accessibility not only empower students to pursue higher education but also contribute to the revitalization of rural economies and the retention of talent within these communities. As we continue to embrace the digital era, the promise of online education in bridging the gap between rural and urban educational opportunities remains a beacon of hope for a more equitable and inclusive future.

Maag for The 74: Creating a Climate-Literate Workforce in Colorado, Starting in Middle School

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Taylor Maag

The Yampa Valley of Colorado is breathtaking – with the Flat Top Mountains and the Yampa river. It is a region of deep history and natural beauty. But it’s not hard to see the effects of climate change. It is getting hotter and drier, the snowpack is changing and wildfire risk is at an all-time high. And this isn’t unique to that area of the state. A majority of Colorado has warmed 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century. In 2020, 625,000 acres burned in forest fires, and warming temperatures are decreasing the snowpack in the southern Rockies.

To solve these challenges, the state and the nation at large need a workforce that is prepared to address the concerns of today, find solutions for tomorrow and transition the country to a more climate-conscious economy. Unfortunately, the rapidly growing clean-energy sector is bumping up against serious labor constraints, having difficulty filling jobs and ensuring that workers have the needed skills. In the next seven years, there are expected to be over 550,000 new energy-transition jobs in the U.S. In 2022 alone, green job postings on LinkedIn jumped 20% — yet the pool of workers with the skills required to fill them grew by only 8.4%.

Regions like the Yampa Valley need help attracting and developing talent that can combat this worsening crisis. A leader in this initiative is Lyra, a nonprofit that seeks to reimagine education by designing and broadening climate-driven career pathways and empowering school communities to drive their own reforms. The organization does this through three main efforts: innovation zones, mission accelerators and the Climatarium initiative that is increasingly pertinent to solving some of the state’s most dire challenges.

Keep reading in The 74.

Pankovits for Colorado Politics: Lawmakers pick on low-income children of color

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tressa Pankovits

Three suburban Colorado legislators last month introduced a bill designed to run public charter schools out of the state. Yet, most charter schools serve urban, not suburban, children. In Colorado, 49.5% of all charter school students live in a city. Not surprisingly, more than half are non-white. Additionally, almost 40% are eligible for a free or reduced lunch, which is how education systems measure low-income students. By way of contrast, just 2.5% of Colorado’s suburban students attend a charter school.

So, why are state Reps. Tammy Story and Lorena García, and Sen. Lisa Cutter crusading against a public education option preferred by minority families who aren’t their constituents?

It’s not as if they’re “bad” schools. The Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University studied national test scores from 2009 to 2019. Colorado charter school students placed second in the nation. In a slightly different study by Stanford University’s Center for Research of Educational Outcomes, Colorado’s public charter school students benefitted from extra personalized learning each year — equal to 15 extra days of reading instruction and 13 days in math — when compared to district schools. That’s fantastic for the state’s 135,000 children lucky enough to get off of a waiting list and get a seat.

Keep reading in Colorado Politics.