________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT January 05, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 01 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  Covering education news in Vermont and beyond... Informative, provocative, unique... Published by Vermonters for Better Education  VBE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to enlist parents and the public at large in achieving quality educational opportunities for all the children of Vermont by monitoring the state of education in Vermont; promoting the value of educational freedoms for all parents; and giving parents the evaluative tools with which to identify excellence. Libby Sternberg, executive director: LSternberg@aol.com NEWS & ANALYSIS... VERMONT NEA GEARS UP FOR LEGISLATURE AND ELECTION YEAR A glance at the January issue of the Vermont NEA's newsletter (http://www.vtnea.org/Jan04.pdf) shows where the teachers union's priorities will be this year - and they're hardly a surprise. The eight-page newsletter contains a legislative preview as well as several articles critical of the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, there is information about former governor and current presidential candidate Howard Dean. Vermont NEA members are exhorted to help Dean by participating in a day-trip to New Hampshire on January 10. An NEA "canvassing bus" will pick up people at high school parking lots on that day in South Burlington, Camels Hump, Montpelier, Randolph, and White River Junction. The campaign itself, however is providing "training, literature and food" for the excursion. The No Child Left Behind Act also appears to be playing a prominent role in both VT-NEA politics and policy. On February 6 and 7, the teachers union will hold a conference entitled "Defending Vermont Public Schools" that will focus on the "flaws" in the NCLB Act. This is such an important facet of the VT-NEA's agenda that they are willing to pay for all meals for members at the conference and for hotel rooms for several members from each local association. Several potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates have already mentioned Governor Jim Douglas's support of NCLB as an issue. A three-page "legislative report" in the newsletter outlines the VT-NEA's agenda this year in Montpelier. More anti-NCLB material appears in that section as well as the usual warnings against school choice. But the VT-NEA is also concerned about the list of "unfunded mandates" the legislature will be considering as a result of the compilation of this list by the VSBA, the VSA and others. For example, the VT-NEA bristles at the possibility of dropping the mandate that requires schools to offer drivers ed during the school day. They also object to reconsidering whether Vermont should continue to require employers to pay for family leave. The VT-NEA usually stands shoulder to shoulder with the groups who put together the unfunded mandates list. But the VT-NEA now complains that they and "groups representing parents and children" were left out of the process.  EDUCATION BILLS ALREADY IN THE WORKS Although the House and Senate Education Committees will only listen to reports from study committees and department of education staff this opening week of the legislature, education-related bills are already making their way through the system. In the past month approximately ten education bills have been written. Below is a round-up of the bills related to curricula and education services delivery: SENATE BILLS S. 241: Introduced by Sen. Virginia Lyons (D-Chittenden), this bill directs the state board of education to "adopt nutrition standards for pubic schools" and mandates that physical education be a daily program of "moderate to vigorous physical activity." S. 243: Also introduced by Sen. Lyons this bill would "establish nutritional standards for food and beverages sold on school grounds" and would forbid the sale of certain foods and beverages that don't meet the nutritional standards. S. 245: Introduced by Sen. Mark Shepard (R-Bennington), this bill amends one of the tuitioning statutes by allowing schools boards to tuition elementary and/or secondary students to out-of-state school districts if it is "more convenient" for the student. S.246: Also introduced by Sen. Shepard, this bill gives parents of disabled children access to special educations services even if their children are home-schooled or educated at an independent school. S. 281: Introduced by Senators Matt Dunne (D-Windsor) and James Condos (D-Chittenden, and chair of the Senate Education Committee), this bill would direct the legislative council to develop civics education programs, materials, and activities and direct the SBOE to develop state civics standards in one grade. A $70,000 appropriation is included in the bill. S.282: Introduced by Sen. Hinda Miller (D-Chittenden), this bill would require schools to "award foreign language credit to an immigrant student who can read and write in his or her native language." HOUSE BILLS H. 489: Introduced by Representatives George Cross (D-Winooski) and Howard Crawford (R-Burke, and chairman of the House Education Committee), this bill would allow the SBOE to change supervisory union boundaries when a vacancy occurs within a superintendency. H. 490: Also introduced by Representatives Cross and Crawford, this bill would repeal the governor's diploma program. This is the only bill so far to take up a specific suggestion of the "unfunded mandates" group. The governor's diploma program was listed as an unfunded mandate in the December report of the VSBA and other groups.  COMMENTARY  AN ELECTION-YEAR LEGISLATURE by Libby Sternberg The legislative session begins this week but so does the campaign season, at least in a peripheral way. While legislators will focus on the work they believe most important for the state, they would be superhuman not to be thinking of how their legislative actions will play during the upcoming campaign season. This is, after all, an election year. That doesn't mean that nothing will get done. With the cover of the unfunded mandates list provided by the VSBA and others, the legislature might actually be able to roll back some legislation that is burdensome to local districts. However, the Vermont-NEA will be there to cry foul if these rollbacks don't suit their constituency. Already they're complaining about seemingly insignificant changes - for example, the suggestion to repeal the requirement to offer drivers ed during the school day. As usual, the Vermont-NEA will be a significant player in the legislative and campaign seasons. Their representatives are present at virtually all meetings of the House and Senate Education Committees. And they've thrown their support to former governor Howard Dean in the Democratic presidential primary - already organizing bus trips to New Hampshire to help him. Expect similar efforts, albeit on a less grand scale, during Vermont's election cycle. The mantra from the VT-NEA and its friends seems to be that Governor Jim Douglas has appointed pro-school choice members to the State Board of Education as a sop to the "right wing" of his party. This means that school choice could become an issue in the campaign whether the governor does something about it or not. Hopefully, he (and others) will move on this issue. It is mind-boggling that movement has been so slow in a state where choice programs date back to 1869 (when the first tuition town statute was passed). In addition, the collection and redistribution of education funds by the state means that local districts only have a partial claim on the money to be used to educate students. But opposition to choice, as pointed out before on these pages, is strong, well-funded and well-organized. Two years ago when the legislature proposed a public school choice bill, a parade of teachers, principals, and superintendents testified at a public hearing to talk about how expanding school choice could harm their schools (curiously, hardly any of them seemed to think their schools might actually attract new students under a choice program). Any choice proposal is likely to draw the same kind of crowd, especially if the VT-NEA, the VSBA and others are notifying their memberships of the opportunity to stop a choice proposal. For legislators who want to move the issue forward, it won't be easy. But, to paraphrase a well-known Vermont politician, "you have the power."  VERMONTERS FOR BETTER EDUCATION RECEIVES GRANT - BUT COULD ALWAYS USE MORE! The Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation has given Vermonters for Better Education a $6,000 grant as part of VBE's recent fundraising drive! VBE will be using the money it has been raising for a public awareness radio ad campaign. If you want to contribute to this worthy cause, send checks to: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701  *   *   * WHO COVERS EDUCATION IN VERMONT?  WE DO! You may have noticed that we're beginning the fourth "volume" of the Vermont Education Report. That means we're starting our fourth year covering education stories in the state that you WON'T FIND ELSEWHERE. Education is a complicated and important topic. In Vermont, it's a nearly one-billion-dollar industry. Yet scant notice is given to it in the major newspapers and broadcast media in the state. Only in the VER will you find regular coverage of education issues - stories on what the department of education is doing, what is happening in the education committees in the legislature, and how the state really compares nationwide, as well as tidbits from around the country. Help us keep going - send a contribution today to: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701.  *   *   * ELSEWHERE  A round-up of notable articles from other education publications. SCHOOL CHOICE IS A RIGHT, NO BASHING NECESSARY by David W. Kirkpatrick, Senior Education Fellow U.S. Freedom Foundation http://www.freedomfoundation.us Few institutions are as sensitive to criticism, however soundly based, as the media and the public schools. Criticize the former and they cite the First Amendment's protection of a free press, as if that protects them from analysis, while public school defenders complain about "bashing" at any suggestion that things are less than perfect. As one who has spent a lifetime involved in public education, as a student, parent, teacher, and union leader, among other things, I'm aware there is much to be said for public education, and that most students will remain where they are regardless of what options are made available. This, however, is not to deny that the system fails to educate millions of students. Few of the defenders of the current system would argue that it meets the needs of all students; or even 90 percent. And 10 percent of the current enrollment is nearly 5 million students. Since all parents have a constitutional right to select the school for their children, all should be in a position to exercise that right. The issue is money. As Ohio State Senator Patrick Sweeney (D-Cleveland) has said, if you have a checkbook, you have a voucher in your pocket. To choose one school is not "bashing" another school. Millions of students attend a college of their choice and no one suggests that selecting college "A" is bashing college "B". To say vouchers take money away from public schools is to argue that schools should be funded for students they don't have. Cleveland lost 75,000 students from 1972-1997, enrollment going from 150,000 to 75,000, and vouchers had nothing to do with it. The Cleveland Scholarship Program didn't go into effect until the 1996-7 school year. Should the Cleveland School District have been reimbursed for 150,000 students? Private schools are charged with "creaming," ignoring the fact that, while they can reject students, they rarely do so, if space is available. Further, while they can more easily expel students, they rarely do that either. Typically, schools of choice comparable to public schools graduate a higher percentage of their students. The public schools drop-out rate, often a "push-out" rate, runs in excess of 50 percent for many urban schools. Even if "creaming" should occur, it will only happen if students/parents decide to make a change. Why should students be forced by law to remain where they are unhappy or unsuccessful? It is said students don't pick a school, schools pick students, a strange argument. No school can pick students who do not apply. If this argument is valid students should be prohibited from selecting a college because it is the college that picks them. Actually, on a school basis, it is the public schools that pick students since the district establishes its schools, and their attendance boundaries, and assigns the students to them. Public school parents have no choice other than the district's mandate... Another unverified charge is that vouchers lead to fly-by-night schools. Where? How many? And, even if that should happen, since no voucher student is assigned to a school, those that are inadequate usually pay the price; unlike public schools which, however unsuccessful, receive new students each year, and the money that comes with them. Most observers note that students in schools of choice do, indeed, perform better than those in the public schools. In Cleveland an independent study found that students gained in the first year. The officially authorized study by Indiana University said they didn't. Establishment defenders cited Indiana's as the correct study. However, by the end of the second year, Indiana University researchers found significant gains. Those findings were greeted with silence by those who hailed the first year's report. Even had there been no gains, where students do as well at a cost of $2500 a year as others do at more than three times the cost, who has the better program? It is claimed that nonpublic schools are not as accountable as the public ones. In fact, they are more accountable. Public schools are accountable for the money trail, not results. Nonpublic schools, or even public schools of choice, such as magnet, alternative and charter schools, are the ones that are accountable for both. Finally, the claim that public and nonpublic schools do not compete on a level playing field - It is true that public schools are more heavily regulated. But try to deregulate them and see who objects - the same ones who complain about too many regulations. Reformers and nonpublic school people do not oppose deregulating the public schools. If a level playing field is the goal, why do public schools receive much more money per student? The typical nonpublic school operates at a cost - cost, not tuition - of one-half to one-third that of the public schools. The only chance opponents have to stop the school choice movement is to make public schools so good no one will want to leave, although that probably won't work either. Even among equally good nonpublic schools, or colleges, people have their own reasons for selecting one rather than another. In a free society, that's the way it should be. Editor's Note: David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington, VT native. *   *   * The VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT is published by Vermonters for Better Education 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701, 802.773.5240 Contact LSternberg@aol.com for more information.   Subscribe Here SubscribeRemove

---

Return to Education Report Index | Return to VBE Index | Vermonters for Better Education Homepage 

---

........