________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT February 21, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 08 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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: VTBetterEd@aol.com NEWS & ANALYSIS... EARLY ED RULES WITHDRAWN The early education rules proposed by the Vermont Department of Education were withdrawn from consideration at the State Board of Education's February 15 meeting. According to one observer who was at the meeting, the Board suggested to the Commissioner of Education that he either withdraw the rules or they would be voted down. He withdrew them. The rules generated controversy because they appeared to be a recreation of a failed early education bill, S.166, that didn't make it out of House Education last year, and they included several provisions that numerous diverse groups found objectionable. For example, although the rules allowed for some collaboration between public and private providers, this collaboration was at the discretion of the local supervisory unions and by no means guaranteed. Thus many private providers would be facing competition from public school providers whose services were offered for free. S.166 OR BUILDING BRIGHT FUTURES? What's next for early education in Vermont? Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden), the former chairman of Senate Education and leader of the S.166 effort, might re-introduce his bill, according to one Senate source. Because Senator Condos didn't insist on provisions that would ensure private providers had a level playing field with public providers, don't look for this retooled S.166 to be any better than the last one.  The governor was not supportive of S.166. Although he remained mute as the bill made its way through the Senate, the governor was "not enthusiastic" about it, according to an interview with Jason Gibbs in the fall. Gibbs claims representatives from the Agency of Human Services voiced reservations about the bill as it made its way through Senate Ed last year. In the meantime, a bipartisan group of legislators has introduced in both House and Senate an early education initiative entitled Building Bright Futures. The BBF bill is in the Government Operations Committee in the Senate (S.89) and in the House Education Committee (H.231). This bill has its origins in an executive order signed by the governor last summer and would set up an overarching program that would serve the health and education needs of young children. It is modeled after a North Carolina program called Smart Start that was supposed to use a combination of public and private funds to fuel the program. In fact, when interviewed last summer about the Building Bright Futures initiative, Gibbs said: "Building Bright Futures gives (the business community) the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is." Unfortunately, if Vermont is to follow North Carolina's example, the money coming from the private sector won't amount to much. North Carolina's Smart Start program gets the lion's share of its cash from the state - at least 90 percent - with private contributions not living up to expectations. Neither S.89 nor H.231, the BBF bills in the Vermont legislature, include a specific formula for a public/private matching of funds.  SCHOOL CHOICE IN THE HOUSE: THREE BILLS Three school choice bills sit in the House now, representing in their own way a "three bears" approach to expanding educational opportunities for Vermont students. Will the legislature decide, like Goldilocks, that one is "just right?" The least expansive of the bills is H.121. Introduced by Rep. Kathy LaVoie (R-Swanton), it extends the life and breadth of Act 150, the very modest public high school program enacted several years ago. Instead of requiring high school districts to form a collaboration with another high school district, H. 121 would require high school districts to form choice agreements with - hold on to your hats - TWO high school districts, at least one of which should be in the same technical center service region as the sending school and one outside the region. H. 189, sponsored by Representatives Endres, Allaire, Allard, Audette, Bostic, Condon, Howrigan, Koch, LaVoie and Pillsbury, is the public school choice bill designed by the Vermont Department of Education at the State Board of Education's direction. This bill covers all grade levels, allows choice throughout the state (not just within a certain district), and calls for money to follow the child after a transition period of a few years. It's a decent bill, with bipartisan support - five Republicans, four Democrats and one Independent. With its SBOE origins, its moderate approach building on Act 150's success and its emphasis on public education, it might enjoy good support in a moderate legislature, making it "just right." However, Vermont's legislature this year is not moderate. It tilts heavily toward the extreme edges of the liberal pro-teachers-union approach to education. If there are any true New Democrats in the state, though, this is the bill they could get behind. Rounding out the threesome of choice bills is H.19. Sponsored by Representatives Otterman, Baker, Branagan, Endres, Helm, Kilmartin, Larocque, Myers and Winters, this is a neat little voucher bill that would allow parents to receive certificates worth $5,000 (for high school) or $2,500 (for elementary grades) for the education of their children at independent schools, or $500 to $1,000 for homeschooled children. Parents choosing public schools outside their district would have their children's education covered by the state block grant but would be financially liable for expenses beyond that. The legislators who sponsored this bill are all Republicans and are to be congratulated for courageously moving forward with an initiative unlikely to gain much support from the majority of their colleagues.  MEANWHILE, IN THE SENATE... The Senate Education Committee has heard testimony from perennial witness Superintendent William J. Mathis who continues to argue for more money and less accountability. His message as usual is that the federal No Child Left Behind Act will cost too much and is unfair. In years past, he estimated that NCLB would cost Vermont $158 million. One Senate source tells us he's moved that figure up this year. Two bills - S.38 and H.59 - take their cue from Mathis and seek to "direct the State Board of Education not to comply with the testing and consequences provisions of the federal NCLB," but those bills are being tabled while the state waits to see how the new US Secretary of Education intends to handle NCLB. If those bills passed, Vermont would most likely lose all its Title I money, which is tied to compliance with NCLB. Because NCLB asks states to use their own testing procedures (Vermont uses the New Standards Reference Exam), it's hard to understand why Mathis and crew are so upset. It's also hard to understand how they expect parents and taxpayers to learn how schools are doing other than through testing. Without testing, all parents and taxpayers have to rely on is the word of their superintendents. But maybe that's the way Mathis would like it and is why he promotes his extremist no-testing/more money agenda so vigorously.  SPEAKING OF BASHING NCLB.... Congressman Bernie Sanders will play host to an anti-NCLB discussion on Thursday of this week. The discussion panel is dominated by the more-money/less-accountability crowd, including a representative of Superintendent William Mathis's think tank, the Vermont Society for the Study of Education. Angelo Dorta, head of the Vermont NEA, is also on the agenda. Bernie Sanders and education lobby representatives bashing a Bush education program hardly qualifies for news in our book; it's more of the "dog bites man" kind of story. But we suspect it will garner attention from the mainstream media in the state because it's an easy 700 words to write up. More complicated and important education stories (such as the early education rule-making process), meanwhile, get left in the dust with nary a drop of ink or second of air time spent on them.  WHO COVERS EDUCATION IN VERMONT? We do! Consider a gift to Vermonters for Better Education, the publisher of the weekly Vermont Education Report, Vermont's ONLY continual source of education news. Send donations to: VBE, 170 Church Street, Rutland, Vermont 05701. VBE is a nonprofit organization and contributions are tax-deductible.  NEW STATE BOARD MEMBER: RUTH STOKES Williston resident Ruth Stokes is the latest Governor Douglas appointee to the State Board of Education. She will begin serving her six-year term on March 1. Stokes is currently Executive Director of the Vermont Student Opportunity Scholarship Fund (VTSOS), a post she's held since 1999. VTSOS grants scholarships to Vermont students whose parents cannot afford to choose a private or out-of-district public school for them. Stokes formerly served as a state representative, a member of the University of Vermont Board of Trustees, a town school board member, an executive board member of the Vermont School Boards Association, and has taught high school science. Stokes replaces Deborah McDowell whose term ended this month.  VERMONT NEA DUES TO GO UP The Education Intelligence Agency, a national teachers union watchdog organization, reports that the Vermont NEA plans to raise its dues $17 next year in order to close a budget deficit.  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION On the web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.us Q&A'S ON SCHOOL CHOICE by David W. Kirkpatrick Senior Education Fellow Q. Should we give students vouchers or try to improve the public schools? A. This is a false choice. The two options are not mutually exclusive. In fact there currently are, and have been, efforts by different factions to move on both fronts. As a child, President Bill Clinton, a Baptist, attended a Catholic parochial elementary school for a few years in Arkansas because his mother thought the local public schools were inadequate. If that parochial school had not been available to him at a key time in his childhood he might never have become President. Yet he never mentions it nor, as President, did he visit a parochial school. In addition, as President he sent his own daughter to a nonpublic Quaker school in Washington, D.C., rather than any of the District's public schools. At its base this debate is a matter of money, which makes it a moral issue. Those with money can send their children wherever they wish. More commonly they live in a school district of their choice, or even in the attendance area of a preferred school. Low-income parents and students can not even do that. Vouchers are, therefore, not about giving the poor the right to determine how and where children will be educated. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1925 that they already have that. The issue is to make it possible for them to exercise that right. After all, a voucher is another name for a scholarship or grant, such as most college students receive or such as those provided to veterans by the various G.I. Bills. Q. Should vouchers be for the few or the many? A. They should be available for everyone who is interested in utilizing them although the majority aren't likely to use them. A survey of public school parents a few years ago found 53% already live where they do so their children can attend the public schools of their choice. Q. Should public money be given to wealthy parents who can afford to pay for their children's education? A. It already is now. First, wealthy people already have their children in public schools where they receive not just a few thousand public dollars per year but where annual per-pupil expenditures are $20,000 or more - in New York State annual per-pupil expenditures in individual districts extend to over $45,000. Which presents another fact, that the most expensive K-12 schools in the nation are public schools in wealthy suburbs, not private schools as is commonly alleged. Thus, wealthy parents are not going to decide where to educate their child because of a grant of a few thousand dollars. Low-income, or even middle-income, families need not apply to schools in wealthy districts and, of course; they can't afford to live there. So much for another "fact," the claim that public schools must accept all students. Not true. They only accept those the law says they must, those who live within their district boundaries. As someone has said, wealthy people send their children to public schools that are private schools in disguise. For which they also save thousands of dollars because they deduct their property taxes from their income, often amounting to tens of thousands of dollars a year on a multi-million dollar home. Q. Are there other ways to enable parents/students to exercise school choice? A. Yes, and they are being adopted. One is what is termed a universal tax credit, which now exist in several states. In this system, individuals or businesses can contribute money to a nonprofit scholarship foundation and deduct the contribution from their taxes. The foundation then provides the scholarships for students to use at the school of their choice. Another major reform is the charter school movement. From the first one in 1992 the number has grown to more than 3200 attended by nearly 1,000,000 students. The evidence is that charter schools, which are free public schools, are emerging as an improvement over the usual one-type-fits-all public system. The opportunity for all parents to exercise their constitutional right to determine how their children will be educated is long overdue, and long overdue. David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native and former public school teacher. He was also an officer in the Pennyslvania NEA and currently lives in Pennsylvania.  #  #  #  #  # A survey for "the National Education Association found strong support for school choice programs among the public: 63 percent of those polled favored legislation that would provide parents with tuition vouchers of $1,500 a year to send their children to any public, private or charter school." --Krista Kafer, "School Choice for Me, But Not for Thee," p. 9, School Reform News, August 2002.  *   *   * The VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT is published by Vermonters for Better Education 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701, 802.773.5240 Contact VTBetterEd@aol.com for more information.   Subscribe Here SubscribeRemove

---

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

---

........