________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT July 26, 2004 Vol. 4, No. 27 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... PROVEN AND PROMISING READING PROGRAMS? The Vermont Department of Education has posted on its web site a publication entitled "Proven and Promising Reading Programs in Vermont Schools." But if you're looking for a list of programs that have actually improved reading scores in the state, you won't necessarily find it here. The publication lists reading programs that jibe with current federal education guidelines on effective, scientifically-based reading programs, and tells which Vermont schools are using them. So teachers who are interested in investigating reading programs can use the list to contact teachers and administrators at other schools to ask about their programs. Assessments of the actual outcomes of these programs are in the works.  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 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A think tank of the New Democrats, on the Web at: http://www.ppionline.org GOOD NEWS ON NCLB  The past month has seen a string of positive stories about how NCLB may not be the disaster that critics claim and may in fact advance progressive causes. Stateline.org reports that even though anti-NCLB bills have been introduced in a majority of state legislatures only three states: Utah, Vermont, and Maine, have actually enacted legislation protesting NCLB. It's probably worth noting that all three states are relatively homogenous. No state has been willing to join the NEA's much-ballyhooed lawsuit challenging NCLB, which, not coincidentally, we've been hearing about much less lately. The civil rights and finance equity communities are also increasingly realizing that student achievement data generated by NCLB is a boon for efforts to show that poor kids aren't getting an adequate education and their schools need more resources. Stay tuned for more action on this down the road. Further Reading: "Feds Quell States' Revolt on No Child Left Behind," Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org (07/06/04): http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=383406 "Education Lawsuits Succeeding With No Child Left Behind Data," Civilrights.org (07/08/04): http://www.civilrights.org/issues/education/details.cfm?id=23987 * * * TEACHER QUALITY It's a few weeks old, but a recent Mathematica study showing positive results for Teach for America teachers is still generating considerable buzz and kudos for TFA. The study compared achievement gains for TFA teachers' students with those of students taught by other teachers in the same schools. The study found that TFA teachers had results comparable to other teachers in reading; while in math, TFA teachers' results outperformed those of even veteran teachers. Both the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Rocky Mountain News recently ran stories lauding the results. The Washington Post's Jay Mathews also takes a look at the study in a piece that's notable both because it forces TFA critics to admit the results show TFA does as well as or better than other alternatives (including certified teachers in urban communities), and because Mathews raises tough questions about why the current system makes it so hard to get good teachers in high-poverty schools. Further Reading: "Teach for America Gets Results," Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial (07/03/04): http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/108884700697853.xml?oxedi "These Teachers Give Kids, Educators Room for Thought," Linda Seebach, Rocky Mountain News (06/26/04): http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2991630,00.html "When Good Isn't Good Enough," Jay Mathews, Washington Post.com (07/13/04): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46017-2004Jul13.html Eduwonk's Cliffs Notes on New Teach for America Evaluation (06/09/04): http://www.eduwonk.com/archives/2004_06_06_archive.html#108678743672299377 FROM THE FORDHAM FOUNDATION On the Web at: http://www.edexcellence.net THE GOVERNORS SPEAK--BUT ARE THEY LISTENING? by Justin Torres If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make any noise? If the nation's governors talk about education reform yet it has no effect on what they do, do the words matter? That's the question that arises from the just-concluded summer meeting of the National Governors Association. NGA is one of the nation's most respected public policy outfits; since it purportedly represents the views of the highest state officials in the land, everyone assumes that what it says matters. But the NGA is compromised by the necessity of representing a wide range of opinions--from conservatives like Bill Owens of Colorado and Jeb Bush of Florida to liberals like Jim McGreevey of New Jersey and Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. Further, it has a new leader every year--and the two parties take turns. As a result, its position papers sometimes tend toward the oracular: weighty yet abstract, lofty and nebulous enough to lend themselves to wide interpretation. Simply put, in the interest of forging the appearance of consensus, the NGA often fudges a great many details and differences. That doesn't mean its meetings aren't sometimes knife fights. Every governor always has his or her eye on the voters back home, as well as the special interests that can mobilize them. This means staff members--and occasionally living, breathing governors--spend hours in fierce negotiations over punctuation and turns of phrase. This year's process was no different. What was different, and noteworthy, was the product; what the NGA ended up saying on a number of important issues. (The policy papers aren't yet updated on the web, but you can view the old ones at: http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/1,1169,C_POLICY_POSITION,00.html.) For all the caterwauling over NCLB and suchlike, we may be seeing a critical mass of governors lining up more decisively behind important education reforms. This hasn't happened since the mid 1980s. Consider: Head Start. The NGA's revised policy on Head Start is a big improvement, though it still has some distance to go. The governors stopped short of block-granting the program, as the Bush administration proposed, but called for increased state oversight of how funds are spent and for giving states the ability to "coordinate" Head Start with their own child development programs. Better yet, the policy drops its support of "a well-developed staff training program" in favor of "quality staff." That may sound esoteric--or trivial--but the shift means something: recognition that Head Start can't simply remain a jobs program and needs to focus on improving the lamentable quality of too many Head Start employees. Most important, the governors for the first time recognize "school readiness" as an important goal of Head Start. Obviously, that's one of those classic NGA phrases, which can mean different things to different people. But it creates space for reformers to make the argument that "school readiness" requires an explicit focus on academic basics, those vital pre-K cognitive tools such as shapes and sounds and colors. Let's hope that argument gets made. And heeded. Civics and History. No surprise, we adore policies that start by recognizing, as this one does, the valuable contributions of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in highlighting the woeful state of history and civics instruction in America's schools (see http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=56 for recent reports on the topic). But our admiration for this new NGA policy is not just about ego massage. This solid statement calls for "rigorous and well-developed standards" in civics, history, geography, and economics; "thorough content" and "consistent assessment" under the tutelage of teachers who are "highly qualified" as measured by "accredited coursework." We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Even better, this statement nowhere mentions "social studies," but rather gives each individual discipline comprising that tortured field its own moment in the spotlight. Eradicating that locution--and the philosophical mistakes it reflects--has been a longstanding goal of ours, concerning which we now declare victory. Standards. The old NGA statement on standards was an embarrassment. The new one is much improved, calling for clear, concise, explicit, and accessible standards that are aligned to tests and operate within a system of accountability. Better, the NGA document embraces the findings of the American Diploma Project (see http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/AmericanDiplomaProject?openform), which urges that high school curricula and exit standards be revised to reflect the knowledge and skills needed for modern jobs and higher education. Better yet, the new statement explicitly recognizes the achievement gap and the need for schools to graduate students who are all "academically prepared to take advantage of postsecondary opportunities." (That NGA for the first time mentions the achievement gap gives you a sense of how bad its previous statements on standards were.) It's heartening to learn that this statement emerged from a collaborative effort between New Jersey and Florida, states lead by governors from opposite ends of the political spectrum--a good sign that a wide swath of governors is lining up behind the standards agenda. Charter Schools. Huzzah. The new policy replaces a weak paragraph that was buried in a longer document and clearly meant to be overlooked by everyone. This new one puts the governors, for the first time, squarely in support of charter schools, concluding that "families should have options within the public school system that will most effectively meet their children's needs" and calling for strong charter laws, adequate funding, and strict accountability for performance. It recognizes charters as one tool to narrow the achievement gap and even comes out in favor of funding charter facilities. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's team led the charge for this statement, with assists from Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and California. It's a strong statement of support for charters that we hope gets heard. Will the new verbiage make any difference? That's the crucial question and one we cannot yet answer. Any governor can ignore NGA position statements issued in his or her name. But these statements serve as a useful baseline, a common denominator of policy thinking among the nation's chief state executives. It's encouraging to realize that this week, America's governors--caveats, ambiguities, and concerns notwithstanding--put themselves on record for high standards, rigorous assessments, serious accountability, and public school choice. Now can we hold them to it? * * * FROM THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION (http://www.freedomfoundation.us) THE EMERGENCE OF THE VOUCHER CONTROVERSY  by David W. Kirkpatrick, senior education fellow It is said that nothing is so irresistible as an idea whose time has come; and that those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it. The voucher debate may demonstrate both statements have validity. The contemporary debate over vouchers in the United States can be traced back to 1955 and "The Role of Government in Education," a chapter by Milton Friedman in the book, Economics and the Public Interest. Even then, student aid programs existed. Among others, the World War II GI Bill, part of the Veterans' Readjustment Act of 1944, paved the way. There is a misconception that the millions of veterans used it only to attend college. In fact, most GIs used it to attend trade schools, including proprietary for-profit schools, to obtain a high school diploma, or to attend religious institutions. This original GI Bill not only has been joined by subsequent versions, but there has been a proliferation of numerous federal and state student grant and loan programs, as well as many private programs. Subsequent attempts to provide similar direct aid to elementary and secondary students however, has run into politically charged opposition. In March 1970, for example, Christopher Jencks and his colleagues at the Center for the Study of Public Policy issued a preliminary report recommending that a five- to eight-year tuition voucher demonstration project be established to study their possible use in basic education. Before the Center could even issue results of its eight-month feasibility study in December of that year, the National Education Association (NEA), at its national convention in July, condemned the idea and called upon Congress to forbid any demonstration project. The NEA also tried to discourage local educators from cooperating with any such study. So much for deciding education policy based on facts determined by research and/or pilot projects. Nonetheless, the federal government found a willing candidate for a five-year project in California's Alum Rock School District. One condition was that local staff agree to participate. Alum Rock teachers belonged to local units of both the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), with the NEA local being the larger. When both groups agreed to participate they were promptly attacked by their own national unions. So much for representing teachers. One ironic development during the 1972-1977 project involved David Selden, the AFT's national president at the time the project was started, and who had testified before Congress against it. After leaving office in 1974 and visiting Alum Rock, he became convinced the approach was a good idea. In "Vouchers: A Critic Changes His Mind," in the June 1975 issue of Nation's Schools and Colleges, Selden wrote: "When I last visited Alum Rock ... (there) was a shared confidence that something different--and good--really was going on." No longer AFT president, Selden's audience and sphere of influence were greatly reduced by then. It didn't help that his mea culpa appeared in the last issue of the magazine it was in. In fairness, both supporters and detractors of the project tend to agree that it wasn't a full-fledged tuition voucher or student grant program. No other districts or schools were involved, no teachers could be fired, and other restrictions led it to resemble a site-based management program. Nonetheless, within those confines, some rated it a success although the two major teacher unions to this day have never had a kind word to say about it. Typical of their distortions was the claim, when the project ended on schedule after five years, that the federal government gave up on it because it was a failure. Rather than parents and students, it was the teachers who gained the most. This should have been no surprise. Patients don't wish to control hospitals, or clients the courts. What they do want is to be able to determine who will serve or represent them. So, too, in Alum Rock. Teachers had more freedom to work as teams and develop teaching approaches and curricula that they preferred. In turn, student and parent approval increased. All they wanted were options. Since educational choice is a constitutional right, why should it be denied to those who can't afford it? # # # # # "The case for school vouchers is the classic case of consumers against monopolies ... By embracing school choice -- if not everywhere, then at least somewhere -- liberals could at one stroke emancipate ... schoolchildren while also emancipating liberalism ..." Jonathan Rauch, "TRB from Washington," The New Republic, November 10, 1997  *   *   * 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, August 9 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 

---

........