CO Dems eye the West Slope and open their checkbooks. Does classroom churn = rationale for gov't subsidized housing? What do you think? Should special districts want/get federal money?
Do you live on the Western Slope or know someone who does? Are they tired of the Western Slope not looking like the Front Range?
Do they want more homeless people? More liberal policies? More mandates? More intrusion into every aspect of their life?
Have I got a deal for them!
Per the article linked below, the Colorado Democrats are taking their show on the road and have their eyes on the Western Slope.
I saw a series of tweets earlier that showed a bunch of Democrats receiving giant novelty checks from the party (see the image at the head of this post). Turns out those grants are there to help boost candidates for local office in a series of counties (most of them on the West Slope).
Quoting the article:
"The party allowed only county chapters with Democrats running for county commissioner to apply and asked them to detail their plans for winning the races in the online application. The counties selected each received $3,000 grants, with a requirement to use at least 15% of the funds on media and digital advertising."
Perhaps more ominously to those that have read The Blueprint and/or who are aware of how Democrats have used a patient and well-funded approach to political takeover by setting up infrastructure and grassroots support, I present a later quote:
"The counties will receive an 'onboarding packet' and weekly calls with the party, according to information posted on the state party’s website. The goal is to help each county develop 'long-term infrastructure.' 'This project will prioritize targeted $3,000 investments into counties and candidates, comprehensive campaign planning, rigorous training, and robust staff support for dynamic campaigns led by both incumbents and challengers,' according to the party website."
As I have said before, if you live in these areas and are worried, now is the time to get involved. Some of it is demographic change, but many people missed the patient and thankless work the Democrats did the first go 'round with taking over the politics of this whole state.
Understandable. We're all busy. The key to life, however, lies in learning from your mistakes and not repeating them.
If you don't want the Western Slope to become "Denver-Lite" now is the time to do something.
If you have a small group of conservatives and want to grow that effort, get with me. I can connect you to people who will do the same for you that the Dems are doing for their local people.
If you are an individual wondering what you can do to get involved, get with me. I can connect you to people that can show you how to get involved at a local level as an individual.
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/colorado-democratic-party-western-slope/
Related:
The attached picture comes from the deputy director of the Colorado Democrat Party's twitter account.
I have preached about the importance of getting involved at the local government (and this includes special district) level for a while and you can clearly see by this why doing so is important.
Democrats hold every. single. lever of power in this state. Now they're itching to replicate this across local governments because clearly not enough people in this state are falling in line with the policy goals coming from the Capitol and the Front Range.
Those pesky local control fans need to be brought to heel.
Get involved and start now. If you were caught off guard by Colorado becoming blue at a state level, don't repeat the mistake at the local level.
Churn and 3rd grade reading scores: does this become rationale for gov't subsidized housing?
I posted late last week about the need for skepticism in reading social science. Skepticism because it's all too easy to get sold on something that seems to promise big effects for little changes. See the first link below if you want to go back and read.
I thought I would put some meat on the bones of this topic with an example. Linked second below is a Chalkbeat article the thrust of which is best summed up with a quote:
"When stacked up against all the other factors, classroom churn [defined roughly as when a student either leaves or enters a new classroom -- think of it as akin to employee turnover**] ranked third among the factors most closely correlated with third grade reading scores, behind students’ household income and whether their parents have college degrees. When stacked up against all the other factors, classroom churn ranked third among the factors most closely correlated with third grade reading scores, behind students’ household income and whether their parents have college degrees. Other classroom factors, including class size and teacher pay, did not correlate with third grade reading scores, the study found."
It may not at first be apparent, but the relevance here is that studies like the above are often the first link in a chain that ends in policy.
That is, I would not at all be surprised to see this study in the future being used to drives "evidence-based" policy that shows we--we the government, we the taxpayers--need to provide housing to people so that our young people can succeed in life.
I diagram that out in the attached screenshot.
I also took a screenshot of the paper's opening statement and attached it so you could see that reflected in the study authors' own words rather than just coming out of my mouth.
There are a number of flaws in reasoning here.** The first and most obvious being the study itself. I won't go into great depth here, but if you are curious, I point you to the study itself linked third below and particularly to the discussion starting on p 16. Fans of Cargo Cult Science will adore that part.
Secondly, there is the obvious confusion of correlation with causation: two things being associated does not necessarily mean that one is driving the other. They could both be driven by some third factor or any number of others. This confusion seems to be in both the Chalkbeat and the paper itself.
There is more than one, but I'll stick to one example. Give screenshot 2 a quick read, I highlighted one particular part for special emphasis.
Correlation is not causation. We live, as I wrote in the earlier newsletter I linked to first below, in a complicated world. What the researchers are saying in plain English is that we need to intervene early in a child's life to have a big impact (not something I disagree entirely with), and that their study showing correlations points to interventions we can use to improve outcomes (a shakier contention I don't hold with).
I.e. by changing this or that one thing in the study, we can improve learning outcomes, which will change lives -- a GIANT outcome for not much input. That's not the way the world works.
I don't disagree at all that churn would negatively affect a student: how on earth is a child to learn when his or her young life is in constant chaos, constant flux?
If the idea is that we can pick apart a problem with multiple interacting factors, toss money at one or more of them, and have it fix the child's whole life, however, that's wishful thinking. Poverty, and the effects it has on a student's life, is multi-faceted and what may look like a cause in one sense may just be another effect.
I'm not against so-called evidence based interventions, but I think we ought to be careful that we don't worship the concept. Particularly when evidence based is based on shaky evidence with multiple bad premises.
I think a far greater use of our money and time would be to continue supporting school choice. If poverty and its bad outcomes are based on multiple things, then only by having the flexibility to adapt to students will we help people.
Only by having multiple approaches to teaching, learning, and support of the student (and their family) will we start to help students and families both to get out of poverty and the churn associated with it.
**Using social science poorly to drive "evidence based" policy is not unique to situations like this, that's why I'm speculating that we'll see this study again.
https://www.coloradofuturescsu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SDoS_final_report_July-2.pdf
What do you think about special districts getting federal money?
A reader who is involved in small local government issues sent me the following. Sunday morning seemed a good day to share this because it's something with no clear or easy binary answer.
In other words, it's time to ask, "what do you think"?
Special districts (see the first link below for more context) are local, often small governmental entities that collect taxes and provide some service. Fire districts are one. Water districts like the one I'm in are another.
Right now, these districts are only defined and recognized by state and local law. There is no Federal government recognition and/or definition of such entities.
And Colorado's Special District Association (see the second link below) would like to change that. They're seeking to (see the third link) help push through Federal legislation that would, quoting their page, " ... establish a first-ever, formal definition of “special district” in federal law and ensure communities served by these local agencies are eligible for all appropriate forms of federal financial assistance."
That is, they want to get recognized by the Feds as agencies so they can start applying for Federal money. They're vying for another source of revenue, of tax money.
This is where the ambiguity comes in. I'm not sure what to think here.
Recognition would be nice. I'm not a lawyer, but I could easily see it providing for certain legalities that don't exist now. Privileges and limitations on what the Feds could do, for example--similar to what happens with states.
At the same time, however, you and I both know that money ain't free. There are always strings attached. Federal dollars come with Federal rules. If you don't like the way the state of Colorado steps in on your local control, imagine how much you'll like it when the Feds do it.
I also am thinking here about the power of the purse (so to speak). When a local agency is tied to its local population (and, for some, also to the state), they are more responsive to locals. Give them a chance to get money that is more diffuse, money that comes from a larger pool of people from every state in the union, and they'll not be tied as tightly.
I don't know.
If it were merely the money, I'd be more apt to say no thank you. If I knew more of the non-monetary benefits, I'd be more apt to think it over and try to weigh the two.
If anyone here is from a special district or has experience on one, in particular on this issue, I invite you especially to chime in.
I also want to open the floor to anyone to add their thoughts.
What do you think?
https://dlg.colorado.gov/special-districts
https://www.sdaco.org/