Now that the General Assembly has said everything that can possibly be said about firearms, bullets, legal recourse regarding gun manufacturers, and guns/mental health, perhaps legislators can take some time to think through two education bills: HB23-1241 to create a task force to study the K-12 accountability system and HB23-1239, local innovations for education assessments.

HB23-1241 will create a task force to study the current accountability system including academic opportunities, inequities, promising practices and improvements. The bill is supported by an interesting combination of education advocates including the American Federation of Teachers and the Colorado Charter School Institute. The League of Women Voters supports as well as conservative, pro-business groups Colorado Succeeds and Ready Colorado.

HB23-1239 will cap the use of standardized assessments to the “minimum extent possible if requested by the local education provider.” The bill also requires the Colorado Department of Education to “support local education providers that innovate new assessments.” Many of the lobbying organizations that support HB23-1241 oppose HB23-1239, including the Colorado Charter School Institute, Colorado Succeeds and Ready Colorado.

Here’s an interpretation of what’s going on.

HB23-1241 offers a task force on school assessment processes. In years past, organizations that support standardized testing above every other measure of school performance, a manifesto of the so-called education reform movement, have controlled the debate on these task forces and thus action in the legislature. The task force bill gives these same groups confidence that legislative leaders in the House and Senate will ensure that their picks for the task force will support “ed-reform” policies.

The possibilities in HB23-1239 are not nearly as controllable. HB23-1239 has the potential to return at least some local control over academic assessments to school districts. The Colorado Charter School Institute complains creating local assessment options will reduce “critical comparability that empowers parents and families to choose from an array of options in an apples-to-apples fashion.” The problem with this assertion is there is no apples-to-apples comparison when assessing children, teachers, schools and school districts. When we think about it, there’s no apples-to-apples comparisons among apples.

A look at the results of assessment data from 2022 gives powerful insight into why HB23-1239 would breathe fresh air into our now stale ways of understanding what schools do for children, families and communities.

Right now, most of the 15 “best schools” in Colorado, according to a mix of data from PublicSchoolReview.com and the CDE’s school performance frameworks, share specific characteristics. Ten of the schools have at least 65% of students who are white. Four of the schools are Gifted/Talented magnets. Four focus on “core knowledge” curriculum. The three comprehensive high schools among the top 15 all have more than 70% white students and 8% or fewer students on free lunch.

The top schools, in other words, fit what everyone knows: if you live in a wealthy zip code or you’re selected based on tests as being the smartest kids in the room and you go to the schools for the smartest kids in the room, your school will probably make the top-15 list in Colorado.

But that leaves the other 1,700 schools in a weird place where the selected assessments don’t describe them and their work with children, families and communities, well, at all. Let’s examine two comprehensive high schools in Jefferson County as examples.

Drive into the mountains to Evergreen High School at ninth in the top-school list. It’s 89% white. Only 5% of its students qualify for free lunch. Only 1% are English language learners and only 7% are students with disabilities.

Now drive down from the mountains to Alameda and Wadsworth in Lakewood. There is Alameda International Junior/Senior High School. Alameda ranks 1,639 on the list. It’s the opposite of Evergreen with 78% of its students Hispanic and 13% white. Almost 70% of its students qualify for free lunch. Almost 40% of students are English Language Learners. Students with disabilities represent 15% of students.

How does any kind of apples-to-apples comparison apply to these two high schools in the same school district with completely different populations? The CMAS assessment that allows Evergreen to shine puts Alameda in the dark. And yet Alameda is a great school with vibrant students eager to learn in a culturally rich, multi-lingual community.

If HB23-1239 passes and does its job, Alameda can shine in its unique way. Its linguistically diverse, international student body will be appropriately valued.

In the meantime, until our assessment criteria show flexibility to adapt to the unique factors of schools, students and their parents can do what the legislature may not do – they can vote “no” on standardized tests by opting out of the 2023 CMAS tests coming up right now.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.