Sentinel Colorado, publishing Chalkbeat Colorado, lays out where Colorado’s 2026 gubernatorial candidates stand on education, with a useful split between Michael Bennet and Phil Weiser over a federal education tax-credit program. Bennet says rejecting the program could be “short sighted” and wants Colorado to wait for final rules before deciding, while Weiser says he would not participate because he believes it would take money away from public education.
That is where the campaign fog machine meets the actual policy fork in the road. Education is where politicians love to speak fluent bumper sticker. “Invest in kids.” “Support teachers.” “Protect parents.” “Fund the future.” Wonderful. Now tell us who controls the money, whether families get real options, what accountability exists, and whether any of this helps kids read, write, do math, and become functioning adults.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Bennet has the deepest education résumé in the field, starting with his time as Denver Public Schools superintendent, where the article says he closed low-performing and underenrolled schools, expanded school choice, and allowed more charter schools. That is a real record, which also means voters can judge the results instead of just admiring the brochure.
- Bennet’s campaign says he opposes private school vouchers and public dollars going to private or religious schools, but he is not ready to reject the new federal tax-credit program. That is either caution or political yoga. Maybe both.
- Weiser is clearer on the federal tax-credit question: no. He says Colorado should not participate because he believes it would pull money away from public education. That is clean, at least. Whether it trusts parents enough is another matter.
- The Republican candidates mostly talk parental rights, classroom transparency, school safety, workforce training, apprenticeships, and culture-war issues, but the article notes Bottoms, Kirkmeyer, and Marx did not answer whether they would enroll Colorado in the federal education tax-credit program. If you want to be governor, “no comment by deadline” is not an education platform. It is a brochure wearing shoes.
- Parents are tired. They do not want another ideological jazz-hands routine from people who have not packed a school lunch in years. They want safe schools, honest academics, discipline, accountability, choice, good teachers, and kids who can graduate into real life without needing remedial adulthood.
My Bottom Line
This is not a cage match. It is a voter guide, and voters should use it like one.
The practical tax-credit question matters because money means control. If families can access real options, that can be a lifeline for kids stuck in schools that are not working. But if the program is just another policy machine with a nice logo, weak oversight, and a bunch of adults feeding off the edges, then spare us the victory lap.
The conservative-realist test is simple. Do parents get meaningful choices? Are taxpayers protected? Does the money follow students or systems? Is there real accountability for results? Are we improving reading, math, graduation, safety, career training, and discipline? Or are we just rearranging education furniture while kids keep falling behind?
Teachers are not the villain. Most are doing hard work inside a system designed by people who love mandates more than outcomes. The real problem is incentives. Bureaucracy protects itself. Politicians protect slogans. Parents and kids are left trying to find the one door that actually opens.
Colorado does not need more education poetry. It needs results. Trust families, measure outcomes, fund what works, stop funding what fails, and quit pretending every disagreement over school choice is a moral emergency. Parents are not asking for magic. They are asking for schools that work.
Source: The Sentinel
Share your thoughts...