________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT July 12, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 26 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... DEADLINE PRESSING FOR PROPOSALS TO ASSESS CHOICE When school choice advocates pressed for broader public school choice over the past few years, a common argument used by opponents was this one: the state already has in place a school choice plan and we should wait to see how it's working. That plan, Act 150, only allows a handful of students per public high school to choose another public high school with which the first school has formed a collaborative agreement. It's no surprise, then, that the data collected from this restrictive system is hardly reliable enough to draw sweeping conclusions. The one conclusion the annual reports do point to is one opponents to choice choose to ignore - the sky didn't fall when kids were allowed to choose. Not to worry. Opponents have another chance to find some morsel of information they can use to obstruct more expansive programs. Requests for proposals went out last week from the Vermont Department of Education (VDOE) for a more in-depth study of Act 150. This study is required by the law itself and is supposed to include a look at whether the quality of educational services in schools has been maintained, whether transportation needs presented barriers to choice, reasons why students and parents decided to choose another school, how choice has affected "stratification" of student populations, and how satisfied everybody was with the program. Friday, July 23, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. is the deadline for bidders to make their proposals on this $30,000 contract. For the full RFP and other information, go to the VDOE's web site at: http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/html/laws/act150.html HOW DO CANDIDATES STAND ON EDUCATION ISSUES 'Tis the season... to hear politicians making promises about education. The problem for voters, however, is figuring out exactly what candidates mean when they say they're "for schools" or "support education." The devil is in the details.  To help people sort through the rhetoric and determine what particular programs a candidate supports, the Center for Education Reform has put together a survey that organizations can use to question candidates running for Congress. The 10 questions on the survey can provide a useful guide, however, for any individual voter interested in questioning candidates - for Congress, for statewide office, or for local office. The full survey, which includes brief background statements on most questions, can be found at http://www.edreform.com/_upload/CER_candidate_meter.pdf , but pasted below is a condensed version of the questionnaire itself: 1. What are your three overall education priorities that, in a perfect world, you would accomplish during your tenure in office. How will you go about achieving them? Why are these the most important priorities? 2. In order of priority, what should policymakers be most concerned about in schools? _____Curriculum standards (i.e. reading, math, and other core subjects) _____Construction _____Class size _____Teacher quality _____Accountability/Strong Testing Program _____School Choice (Charter Schools, Scholarships, etc.) 3. What role does money play in improving schools? Please explain your answer. 4. What role should parents play in the education process? How much control do you believe parents should have over which programs or schools their child is enrolled in? 5. Do you support charter schools? If yes, please list anything you would do to support them. 6. Do you agree or disagree that the federal No Child Left Behind Act is good policy? Please explain your answer. 7. Four states and the District of Columbia now fund school choice programs for parents whose children are at risk or in failing schools. Do you support such programs? If so, would you push a similar program in your area? 8. Do you support opening public school classrooms to well-educated people from other careers and giving them a fast-track route to becoming qualified teachers? 9. Do you agree with the position of many teacher unions and others in the education bureaucracy that the public school system is healthy as it is? Have you accepted or received support and/or endorsements from any of these groups or like organizations? 10. If you could dictate one area where you would spend Bill Gates' money for education, what would it be?  IT'S NOT TOO LATE... ...To send a DONATION TO VBE! Thank you to those who've responded to our call for help so far. We're on our way to designing a radio ad campaign and we're working on other publications and materials, so extra dollars would help right now. Make your tax-deductible donation check out to: VBE and send to us at 170 Church Street, Rutland, VT 05701. Thanks!  *   *   * ELSEWHERE  FROM THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION On the Web at: http://www.edexcellence.net PELL GRANTS FOR KIDS Guest Editorial by Sen. Lamar Alexander For the past 50 years, the United States has actively supported the expansion and improvement of higher education through a generous funding system that encourages autonomy, choice, and competition. Our institutions of higher education have helped produce the research that has been responsible for creating half our new jobs since World War II. They have sculpted an educated leadership and citizenry that have made our democracy work and made it possible to defend our freedoms. It is past time to take the formula that has worked so well to help create the best colleges in the world and use it to help create the best schools for our children. That is why I am proposing a different way of spending some new federal dollars for schools: create a "Pell Grant for Kids," a $500 scholarship that follows middle- and low-income children to the school or other academic program of their parents' choice. Parents could use these Pell Grants to help their schools pay for more math teachers and or for new art programs--or parents could purchase English or music lessons or other services that schools don't provide. The model for Pell Grants for Kids would be today's Pell Grants for college students, federal dollars that--with student loans--follow 60 percent of America's college students to the institutions of their choice. Pell Grants for Kids would provide more federal dollars for schools with fewer strings and more local control over how the money is spent. In its first year, Pell Grants for Kids would cost $2.5 billion new federal dollars, providing every middle- and low-income student in kindergarten and first grade with a $500 scholarship. Congress could add grades each year. No existing program would be cut. Most of the new scholarship money should be spent improving public schools. This has been both a Democratic and Republican idea. In 1979, Democratic Senators Pat Moynihan and Abe Ribicoff proposed amending the Higher Education Act to make elementary and secondary students eligible for Pell Grants. In 1992, Republican President George H.W. Bush proposed a "GI Bill for Kids," a pilot program offering $1,000 scholarships to K-12 students. Pell Grants for Kids is an even better idea today because it would: · Help pay for the requirements of No Child Left Behind; · Reduce inequity in school funding; · Avoid higher local property taxes; · Avoid increased federal control of local schools; and · Give parents more say and more choices in the education of their children. If the GI Bill for Veterans and Pell Grants helped to create opportunity and the best colleges in the world by letting scholarships follow students to the colleges of their choice, then why not use the same strategy to help close the achievement gap and create the best schools? Lamar Alexander is a Republican United States Senator from Tennessee. He served as U.S. Secretary of Education from 1991 to 1993; as president of the University of Tennessee; and as Governor of Tennessee. * * * FROM THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION On the Web at: http://www.edexcellence.net THE ACCOUNTABILITY FIRESTORM  Guest Editorial from Jim Fedako This summer is bound to get hot due to the escalating controversy surrounding No Child Left Behind. Once this year's state test results designate a number of schools and districts as needing improvement, election year political pressure will blow across always-warm embers and spark August fires. Cries for change will be loud and only the most committed pro-accountability politicians and bureaucrats will withstand the heat. Autumn's backdraft of opposing ideologies will not be contained until the last vote is counted, and, at least in Florida, counted again and again. As a local school board member, I sit right in the center of the accountability firestorm. I hear the charge that the district is just "teaching to the test." I hear the complaints that the tests do not elicit true knowledge and understanding. And, I hear the claim that state tests are part of the anti-public school agenda. It is this line of thought that I want to address. One point missing from the accountability debate is that, at least in Ohio, state-mandated tests are not crafted by anti-public school activists out for blood. Nor are they crafted by faceless bureaucrats and testing companies. The tests at the heart of the accountability controversy are the product of Ohio's local public school educators. I serve on an Ohio Department of Education content advisory committee for a state proficiency test in writing and am the only non-professional-educator on the committee. The other members are all public school teachers or administrators. The role of the committee is to review test items prepared by a national testing company to ensure that each item is aligned with state content standards, and that each item is appropriate for the given grade level. By consensus, the committee can approve an item as presented, modify it, or create a replacement. During the initial test item review process, where I see the test company's interesting and benign questions, others see hazards and immediately throw up red flags. Any objection, no matter how trivial, and the test item is sunk and a replacement crafted. As expected, the approved items are bland and uninspiring. Yes, Diane Ravitch certainly got it right in "The Language Police" when she detailed the level of influence pressure groups have on test and textbook content. In addition, whole content standards can be deemed "untestable" if there is any concern that the standard cannot be tested "fairly." Multiple choice is always problematic, even when it can be used as a simple means to show mastery. What are considered "testable" are written responses to anemic questions that reflect a small subset of grade-level content. The responses are then evaluated by a rubric of generalities. A proficiency exam in writing becomes a modified, mini-portfolio. Bland, uninspiring, and incomplete? Certainly. The next step in the anti-public school agenda? Hogwash. The tests are as they are simply because the education professionals (teachers and administrators) want them that way. Nothing is tested that does not meet with educator approval, at least in Ohio. Ohio teachers who complain about the state tests should direct their comments to their peers and professional organizations. These folks are the ones being given professional leave to create the tests that have caused the unfolding accountability controversy. In this instance, the feds, state and testing companies are not the responsible party; the blame lies within the school walls. Jim Fedako is president of the Olentangy, Ohio Board of Education. FROM THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION (http://www.freedomfoundation.us) THE STRUGGLE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE  by David W. Kirkpatrick While Americans pride themselves on their social conscience and concern for the individual, other nations often have been the leaders in establishing social programs. For example, Social Security was introduced here in the 1930s, long after its establishment in other nations, not least of all Bismarck's Germany in the 19th century. The pattern has held true for educational freedom as well, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 1925 ruling that school choice is a constitutional right. It is particularly strange that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a self-proclaimed advocate of individual civil liberties, consistently opposes school choice, which the Supreme Court has said is a civil right. The ACLU in this instance defends governmental coercion rather than individual rights. For years they argued that publicly funded school choice would violate the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ended that argument on June 27, 2002 when it upheld the voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio. It did not, however, end the ACLU's uncompromising opposition to such programs. As with most proposals for significant change, progress to implement school choice has been slow and hard-fought. Opponents include a coalition of large, well-funded organizations, not least of all the teacher unions. School choice supporters, if organized at all, and millions are not, belong to many small groups with limited resources. They are also less unified because not all choice proposals are the same and some want their version or none at all. It is also easier to block change than to bring it about. Successful legislation must pass through a series of stages before it becomes law. Blockage at any point kills it. It is unfortunately true that many Americans lack a basic commitment to democracy and pluralism despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Otherwise why is there so much fear of letting parents determine the course of their children's education? The emotional charge that choice will lead to schools for witches, or schools started by the David Dukes or David Koreshes of the world has, sadly, been effective. Forget for a moment that those extremist schools don't exist now, and for good reason. First, there has been no demand for them. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court in the same 1925 decision that upheld parental rights in choosing the education of their children, also said the government can regulate, limit or prohibit schools inimical to the public interest. Those making these charges might also pause for a moment and consider where the David Dukes, David Koreshes, Ku Klux Klanners, neo-Nazis and the like obtained their education. The answer, almost always, is the public schools. While the public schools have not taught such agendas, they obviously haven't been able to dissuade students from holding such views either.  Most professed advocates of education are advocates of schooling, and the two are not the same. There is no shortage of those who support government schools or private schools. On the other hand, there are too few who are primarily concerned with the education of students rather than the welfare of institutions. So it is that we have compulsory schooling, not compulsory education. There has been no requirement that citizens be educated, as large numbers of high school dropouts and functionally illiterate adults attest. It would be well to remember the words of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court in the 1943 West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette case, the still controversial decision that students could not be required to pledge allegiance to the flag. Jackson wrote: "As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public education officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort.' As Carmen Brutto, a columnist covering Pennsylvania state government once wrote, "I haven't met anyone yet who is against the right of free choice. Except, of course, when someone else wants to exercise the option." David Kirkpatrick, a Bennington native and Pennsylvania resident, is a former public school teacher and former Pennsylvania teachers union officer. *   *   * SUMMER SCHEDULE The Vermont Education Report will not be appearing in your email box next Monday because we will be going to a summer schedule - publishing every other week. The next time you'll see the VER is Monday night, July 26 unless breaking news occurs! Please feel free to email us with information or news, however - VTBetterEd@aol.com.  *   *   * 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 

---

........