________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT January 17, 2005 - Vol. 5, No. 03 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... STATE BOARD - WHERE THE ACTION IS At the State Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, January 18, a number of reports will be presented, each of which could have implications for important education policies. The Board will hear reports on a public school choice proposal, early education rules, and will receive the annual Act 150 School Choice report. Here's a brief analysis of what to look for in these items: Public School Choice At its last meeting, the State Board decided to flesh out its earlier statement of support for public school choice with more specific details. To that end, the SBOE decided a public school choice program in Vermont should include the following elements: it should include grades K-12, it should be statewide (as opposed to district-wide) and money should eventually follow the child. On this latter point, the SBOE proposed that there be a phase-in of money following the child with the sending school keeping two-thirds of the block grant the first year of a program, split the block grant 50-50 with the receiving school the second year, and eventually allowing the receiving school to keep all the block grant the third year. The SBOE directed Vermont Department of Education staff to come up with a legislative proposal with these elements. The question - will the VDOE deliver? It's been our experience that there are a number of school choice critics working at the VDOE. Asking them to put together a school choice proposal could be akin to asking the Republican National Committee to devise a single-payer health care system. Another question - will the legislature listen to the State Board if it does come up with a good proposal or will they be stymied by blind allegiance to the Vermont NEA? Early Education "rules" Last year the legislature considered an early education bill, S.166, that would have encouraged subsidized early ed/day care. Although the bill passed in the Senate, it stalled in the House. Concerns about lack of choice and cost torpedoed it. Nonetheless, some public schools have moved forward with developing early education programs on their own. And look for this issue to resurface this year in the legislature with an emphasis on "building on existing community resources." Proponents will claim that coordinating with existing community resources will ensure parents get to choose. Don't count on it. Unless the money and control are in the parents' hands, choice is not guaranteed. The big question - Can Act 60 funds really be used for early education without changing the law? The current relevant passage says Act 60 funds should be used for "at risk" children, not the general population:  <<(d) Funds received under this section which are attributable to an increase in student count due to the poverty ratio of the district shall be used by the district to provide learning readiness experiences for preschool age children or early reading and math experiences for school age children. These services shall be provided to children who are AT RISK [emphasis added] of not succeeding in the general education environment. School districts are authorized to work collaboratively to share resources or otherwise find ways to maximize use of funds received under this section.>>   [Source: Vermont Statutes : TITLE 16 Education : PART 6 Financing; School Funds and Properties : CHAPTER 133. STATE FUNDING OF PUBLIC EDUCATION : Subchapter 2. General State Funding of Public Education : § 4011. Education payments.] Act 150 Report When Act 150, the highly-restrictive public high school choice program, was passed, legislators included a provision calling for annual reports on the Act's impact. These reports were supposed to alert legislators to the many catastrophes opponents of school choice predicted. Instead, the annual reports have shown conclusively that the sky has not fallen. That hasn't silenced critics, however, and the reports sometimes dwell on alleged negatives. Complicating matters is the fact that the program is so restrictive, reliable statistical samples are not really available. Last year this led to a call for "more studies" and more money for those studies. The question - What will this year's report hand school choice opponents in their quest to prove that school choice is the scourge of the planet? One source tells us there might be information on why kids choose the schools they choose. Horrors - it could be for nonacademic reasons. Maybe now's a good time to remind legislators that even school choice opponents choose schools for their children based on nonacademic reasons. Just ask the head of the state's teachers union about that one. Another question - will the cry go up for more studies, as opponents strive to find the study that will bolster their point of view, regardless how well the program works?  THE FIRST CHOICE BILL Plucky choice supporters in the House have already introduced a school choice bill just two weeks into the session. Representatives Otterman, Baker, Branagan, Endres, Helm, Kilmartin, Larocque, Myers and Winters (all Republicans) introduced H.19, a bill that would allow money to follow the child to public, private or home school of their choosing. The amount of money varies depending on grade level and type of school.  *   *   * ELSEWHERE  FROM...a US Department of Education NCLB newsletter on No Child Left Behind:  TIPS FOR PARENTS For parents of children with special needs, an individualized education program (IEP) ensures students with disabilities receive the services needed. The plan is developed at an IEP team meeting with parents and school staff. Below are suggestions to help families throughout the process: Before the IEP team meeting:   Consider the vision you have for your child's future as well as for the next school year. Request a written copy of your child's evaluation results or a meeting with school staff to discuss the evaluation before the IEP meeting. Do these results fit with what you know about your child? Is the evaluation complete and accurate? Consider a variety of ways to involve your child in developing his or her IEP, starting at a young age if appropriate. Self-advocacy skills are important to develop. At the meeting: Use school data, your child's progress reports, and other information you have about your child to make decisions. You may not want to agree to a proposed IEP at the end of the meeting. Review the proposed IEP document at home. If you disagree with what is being proposed, you must notify the school as soon as possible to resolve the disagreement. After the meeting: Your child's school must inform you regularly about your child's progress. You will be informed about whether your child is making progress toward meeting the annual IEP goals and whether that progress is enough to reach the goals. If your child is not making sufficient progress, a meeting should be held to review the IEP and make needed changes. You may request an IEP meeting at any time during the year if you believe it is important to consider changes in your child's IEP. Source: Adapted from "Planning Your Child's Individualized Education Program (IEP): Some Suggestions to Consider," PACER Center Inc., http://www.pacer.org, 1-888-248-0822. Used with permission.  FROM...The Freedom Foundation  On the web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.us TEACHER CERTIFICATION: AN IRRELEVANT PROCESS? by David W. Kirkpatrick, senior education fellow A teaching certificate is acquired through a program which emphasizes process not results or, in the jargon, inputs not outputs. Certified and qualified are not interchangeable terms. Even the late Al Shanker, longtime president of the American Federation of Teachers, said that at least a quarter of the nation's teachers are not qualified to be in the classroom. Nationally about 1200 schools of education prepare teachers. Less than half are accredited, assuming that accreditation has more validity than certification. In addition, if certification is valid, shouldn't education professors have to be certified? Why should certified teachers be prepared by non-certified professors? As it is, many, perhaps most, teachers are certified by an educational process presented by uncertified staff in unaccredited institutions.  Beyond that, large numbers of certified teachers in grades 9-12 have neither a major nor a minor in their subject. Perhaps as many as 1,000,000 of the nation's teachers have no major or minor in their subject. UCLA professor Donald Erickson, the source for that estimate, who is hardly an anti-education professor, being one himself, added that "hundreds of studies show that a certified teacher isn't more qualified than an uncertified teacher." Worse yet, in the poorest urban schools 45% of their secondary math teachers lack a relevant major or minor. A review of 113 studies found no relationship in 85% of them between student achievement and a teacher's educational background. A positive relationship was reported in 7% and a negative one in 5%.... New Jersey began an alternative certification program in the mid 1980s. Former NJ Governor Tom Kean noted that, in the first year, the state's public schools hired a Fulbright scholar, five Harvard graduates and a scientist holding two patents. Further, alternative candidates scored higher on the National Teachers Exam than those trained by conventional methods. By 1994, 41 states and the District of Columbia had adopted alternative teacher training programs, although only 14 were regarded as "true" alternatives. For example, Pennsylvania was said to have an alternative program. This "alternative" was available to someone with no education degree but a "strong knowledge in a specific subject matter." They can enroll in a college or university program, "taking the same education and subject courses required of all certification candidates," which could take up to three years to complete. Some alternative! The trend is away from conventional approaches. One national survey found 73% of classroom teachers support expanding alternative certification options. Michigan has discontinued certifying administrators, and a number of states, again including New Jersey, have successfully allowed noncertified administrators, including superintendents, in some instances. The certification process, while going back to the early 19th century for a precedent, is relatively recent. In 1920 not a single state required even a college degree for elementary teachers, most of whom didn't have one. Only ten states required one of secondary teachers. As late as 1948, almost 60% of the nation's teachers still lacked one. Were teachers less able then? Did students achieve less? Admittedly, the public school dropout rate was higher then, but as one who was educated prior to 1948, of my classmates who dropped out prior to graduation, I can't recall even one who wasn't literate. During a 1978 Kentucky court case when the state was challenged to produce scholarly research proving that certification equates to teacher competence, or to educational excellence, it could not do so. Defenders of the certification status quo should be required to prove two things: That present certification procedures work; and, That proposed alternatives won't work. They won't be able to do either. David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native. A former public school teacher and officer in the Pennsylvania NEA, he now lives in Pennsylvania. *   *   * 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 

---

........