Education Reform Follow Up

As a follow up to my post from a few days ago, I wanted to share Colorado's failure to attain any federal dollars from the Race to the Top program.  This is particularly disappointing given that some of the reform measures implemented this year were targeted as much at winning grant funding as they were actually making the state's education system better.

Denver Post: "Colorado finishes at back of pack in Race to the Top education grant competition"

Denver Post: Smartest Students Stranded at the Top

Denver Post: Smartest students stranded at the top, 8/15/2010

This story is an interesting read.  Though I have not been writing about it, education "reform" has been on my mind quite a bit in the last few months.  This is no doubt due in part to the fact that I am now a parent of two young children.  As their parent, I feel an obligation to be informed enough about the state of education, particularly public education, that I can advocate for my boys as they navigate their way through our educational system.  

The other part of my interest is less personal and more theoretical, at least at this point.  I think its fair to say that many policy decisions are held up on the basis of the fine print.  That's not to say that the devil isn't in the details or that the means in which a policy will be implemented are unimportant.  I do think, however, that the details often derail the train because the train isn't firmly on the tracks.  The very idea of a broad policy is to implement a top-down approach or solution to an issue.  Without that defining directive, the slightest swerve or tangent can wreck the process.

Thus, I've been thinking about the education policy that is developing in this country.  For a while, I felt like education might be one of those issues lacking a true policy direction.  Then I came across the linked Post article, and the author hit the nail squarely on the head.  Instead of building an educational system that encourages all students to reach their own potential, we've constructed a means by which we make sure all students reach a set minimum standard.  The real message is that everyone needs to be good enough, but no one needs to be great.  

Part of me was relieved - there is a method to the madness.  Part of me was (and remains) mortified and dejected that I will be subjecting at least two children to such a sad state of affairs.  Granted, there are an infinite number of variables - from individual school administrators, to teachers, to parent involvement and the individual student - that are significant in the education of each student.  Those variables, however, can only buck trends to a certain extent.  Neither can we throw issues of resource allocation and practicality out the window.  For instance, the State of Colorado, struggling to fund public education and competing for federal Race to the Top dollars, passed a new teacher tenure bill that ties teacher performance evaluation heavily to student performance on end-of-year testing.  The incentive this creates for classroom teachers seems obvious to me.  A teacher concerned about job security will most certainly devote time to making sure each student achieves satisfactory scores.  That incentive can apply at the various administrative levels through a given public school district.  Instead of spending time encouraging top students to achieve more, a teacher must spend more time with underachieving students in the interest of self preservation.  

Without data to support my opinion, I find it hard to believe that even teachers and administrators with the best of intentions for their top students will not inevitably and inescapably become locked in that cycle.  The result is that achieving students are essentially ignored by the system this policy has created.  Certainly everyone is "good enough," but at what point will we realize that "good enough" is pretty disappointing for many students?  If at any point my children sit me down and tell me that I performed well enough as a parent, I'll be heartbroken.  Yet that is the very level of achievement in education that we are currently promoting.

Denver City Council Unanimously Approves New Zoning Code

Five years of research, public input, and drafting culminated on Monday June 21, when Denver’s City Council unanimously approved the city’s new zoning code, the code’s first major revision in over half a century. Reaction to the formal adoption has been primarily enthusiastic, with all parties eager to see how the revised code operates and affects Denver’s neighborhoods.

Proponents of the code praised the new code’s recognition of and basis in the form and function of Denver’s existing neighborhoods. Councilwoman Jeanne Robb of District 10 called the code an “affirmation of Denver neighborhoods.” Touted as a “form-based” code, local developer Mickey Zeppelin went so far as to call it a “value-based code” that “reflect[s] the values of the community.” Councilman Michael Hancock expressed the economic potential the Council sees in the new code, calling its adoption “the greatest economic development decision this Council will make at the turn of the century.”

Some “mixed feelings” do linger. Of primary concern to many speakers at the adoption hearing were changes in zoning that might affect property values. This is particularly true for lots that will be downzoned under the revised code. That is, lots that previously could have legally held a duplex or multi-unit residence may be restricted to single-family dwellings. Property owners who have perhaps foreseen the potential economic benefit of selling to a buyer who will replace a home with a mutli-unit structure now see those plans losing traction.

The Planning Department intends to evaluate the new code’s effectiveness during its first six months and issue a report detailing its performance.

If you think your property may be impacted by the new code, don’t hesitate to contact me with questions. In the meantime, I invite you to review the two articles linked below.


Denver Post: Denver city council passes overhaul of city’s zoning laws, June 22, 2010.  

Denver Business Journal: Denver city council approves new zoning code, 13-0, June 22, 2010.

*Originally posted at www.davidmcdaniellaw.com.  Material copyright The Law Office of David McDaniel, LLC, 2010.

Quickie - oil spill

While doing some research for a possible oil spill post over at The Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer blog, I came across some horrifying information about the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.  Sadly, the precedent of that scenario does not bode well for the Gulf cleanup or for the possibility of BP actually paying for the damaged it caused (or at least helped cause).  

In short, the legal awards against Exxon have been slashed through appeals over the years, from as much as $5 billion, initially, to $500 million.  Furthermore, as of March 2009 - 20 years after the spill - federal and state governments were still seeking $92 million from Exxon to recoup costs of cleanup and restoration, which have been estimated at a total of $1.5 billion.  

Essentially, accidents such as the BP oil spill and Exxon Valdez are being subsidized - subsidized financially by the government entities who are attempting to remediate and restore the devastated environments and subsidized in terms of "negative externalities" by the businesses and individuals have never been fully or will never fully be compensated for the damage done by the spills.

Denver's New Zoning Code is on the Way

Over the past several years, a task force has been working on a massive overhaul of Denver’s zoning code. The drafting process is now complete, and the adoption process is underway. After months of writing, public input, and rewriting, the code will be presented to Denver’s City Council on May 24.

The new version of the zoning code is a comprehensive revision, replacing piecemeal regulation with a consistent, unified vision. The code is “context-based” - it starts with what is already here. It regulates both use and the built environment so that each is consistent with the respective character and composition of Denver’s existing neighborhoods. The code recognizes what is valuable and critical in these neighborhoods and seeks to protect those aspects.

Why is such a drastic overhaul necessary?

• According to the site dedicated to the new code, “Denver's 53-year-old zoning code is broken and needs to be fixed. It suffers from more than a half century of incremental changes that have made it complicated, inconsistent and cumbersome.” 

• Furthermore, the new code is required to make zoning policy more consistent with city planning documents like the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver. These documents must work together to provide a unified vision and plan for the city that will allow it to deal with economic, environmental, and social issues. 

• Finally, in the 53 years since Denver has adopted a revised code, the philosophy and theory of city planning and land use has changed, turning back toward community-oriented and mixed-use design instead rather than the separate use philosophy characteristic of suburban planning. This renewed emphasis on community affirms the design and growth patterns evident in the city, particularly in Denver’s older neighborhoods. It represents a renewed recognition of the principles that are naturally present in an urban environment. It also represents a commitment to making Denver a city where residents can live sustainable, healthy lifestyles - environmentally, economically, and socially. 

I would encourage you to spend a few moments browsing NewCodeDenver.org. On that site, you can find the draft of the new code, as well as the previous three drafts. You can also read about the process of how those drafts came to be and the people that have worked on or with the Zoning Code Task Force. You can also keep track of events related to the adoption process.

I find land use and zoning both interesting and pertinent because they can dictate so much about daily life - how far you live from the grocery store, whether or not you must drive there, what the houses on your street look like, etc. As such, this code revision stands to have an impact on many of Denver’s residents and businesses at some point, either directly or indirectly. If you have questions about how the new code might impact your home, business, or community, please contact me.

*Originally published at www.davidmcdaniellaw.com.  Material copyright The Law Office of David McDaniel, LLC, 2010.

Lessons from Free Mulch Day!

Today was Denver's annual mulch giveaway.  Each January, the city waste services collect discarded Christmas trees and turn them into mulch, which they give away free to city residents who are willing to come and scoop it themselves.  That in itself is a nice lesson in reuse and recycling.

But the thing that really struck me while I was filling up our bags with free mulch was an interesting confluence of opposing perspectives.  First, there was certainly an air of self-preservation.  The mulch went fast.  The giveaway started at 8:00 am.  At 8:45 as we were leaving, the last of the pile was gone.  Folks were left scraping bits and pieces off the asphalt.  At the same time, though, there was a noticeable atmosphere of community - of sharing, of common purpose, and of civic gratitude.  In addition to the three giant bags of mulch I brought home, the value of the experience certainly made Free Mulch Day a worthy outing. 

"Livability" Should Not be a Strictly Urban Concept

From conception, the transportation and growth policies of the Obama administration seemed to be focused on urban environments.  Maybe its the documented growth of urban populations in the U.S. or the redevelopment and infill that's occurring in many of the country's big cities.  Or maybe its a bit of my own personal slant.  

In any regard, though, I believe most people who read about "transportation alternatives" and "livability" think of these as concepts relevant only to urban environments.  Stephen Lee Davis of Smart Growth America both disputes that perspective and wonders why it is so prevalent in Washington, D.C., even among representatives of rural constituencies.  He relates his own experiences living in Bentonville, Arkansas, during a time when the city was booming under Walmart's influence.  (Bentonville is home base for Walmart operations.)  As a resident of the town's historic center city, he was able to observe the geographic expansion of Bentonville and contrast his lifestyle in Bentonville to those who inhabited the new suburban residential developments.  That contrast originated largely from the planning and layout of those newer "communities."

I will let Mr. Davis tell you the rest of his story, in Part I and Part II.  I have a hard time arguing that livability doesn't have as much rural applicability as it does urban.  After all, is choice not essential to freedom? 

Some Health Care Stuff

The link below is a good resource for anyone who wants a relatively concise explanation of some of the new health care bill's provisions, particularly as they relate to Medicare, the CHIP programs, and the low-income persons and families that participate.

http://ccf.georgetown.edu/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=ccf%20publications/health%20reform/health%20reform%20package%20final.pdf

I am interested to see if and how opponents' perspectives might change about the reform bill as some of the benefits begin to become apparent.  I have a feeling some folks who have been opposed to reform in principle might find some of the provisions quite beneficial, particularly if they have health problems, problems finding affordable insurance, or are currently unemployed.  I could be wrong about that; only time will tell, I suppose.