________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT January 02, 2006 - Vol. 6, 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: VTBetterEd@aol.com NEWS & ANALYSIS... THEY'RE BACK: LEGISLATURE READY TO TACKLE....WHAT? Early education as well as school choice appear to be top education issues as legislators return for the 2006 half of the 05-06 session this week. Early ed, in particular, could prove contentious as senators who support universal (free preschool for rich and poor alike) early education scramble to fix the fix they patched together at the end of last session. At that time, Sen. Don Collins (D-Franklin), chair of the Senate Education Committee, inserted funding formula language for early ed into the budget bill, which ultimately passed. The funding language actually came from a State Board of Education rule, passed in 2000, that expanded public education funding in Vermont to the preschool grades. Whether this large expansion of the public ed system (and the consequent Education Fund taxes to go with it) through the rule-making process was legal is debatable. However, supporters of universal preK "codified" the rule by inserting it into the budget bill last year, thus hoping to put the kibosh on any concerns. But did they? It turns out that the budget language expires as session law on June 30. That puts universal early ed advocates like Sen. Collins in a curious position, scrambling to once again get into statute the authority for preK expenditures while simultaneously arguing the authority was already there to begin with.  What's likely to happen: Sen. Collins will try to move S.132, his universal preK bill, quickly. Sen. Wendy Wilton (R-Rutland) will offer a compromise bill that limits preK spending to at-risk kids and keeps private providers in the funding stream, thus protecting them from unfair "free" childcare business at the local public school. Meanwhile, as concerns about property taxes and dwindling enrollments grow, watch for a movement to limit education spending to K-12, the original focus of Act 60. More on the early ed issue is below. SCHOOL CHOICE BILL SPONSORED BY SENATE ED CHAIR Early education isn't the only thing on Sen. Collins's mind. He's also sponsoring a school choice bill, S.240. S.240 would extend and expand Vermont's current limited school choice law, Act 150, which sunsets in July of next year. Act 150 is an extremely limited choice program. It only applies to public high schools, only requires school districts to work out a choice arrangement with one other district, allows schools to limit the number of kids transferring to five percent of total enrollment or ten students, whichever is fewer, and no money changes hands. S.240 lifts some of those restrictions but not all. It requires school districts to form "regional agreements" with at least THREE other public school districts (instead of Act 150's one), continues to allow schools to limit transfers to five percent of their high school enrollment or 10 students, whichever is fewer, and it allows tuition to be paid to the receiving school (although it leaves the tuition charges up to the individual schools and doesn't specify who pays it; if students have to pay, this isn't choice, it's the status quo). S.240 also requires superintendents to work out a transportation plan for transferring students. But transportation "planning" can be used to stall or block choice for students who are willing and capable of getting to their chosen school on their own, so this component is not necessarily a good thing. How to make this a real, meaningful public high choice bill: get rid of the allowances for limitations on numbers of students transferring, set up a formula for money following the child, and allow local districts to work out any transportation issues as they deem necessary. Hmm...that sounds like the State Board of Education's own school choice bill. Perhaps Senators might want to take their cue from the SBOE instead of crafting an entirely new bill.  COMMISSIONER TO STATE BOARD: NEVER MIND At the December State Board of Education meeting, the commissioner of education, Richard Cate, informed State Board members that the early education funding language inserted into the budget bill at the end of last year's legislative session was permanent and would not expire this year. Within a few days of that pronouncement, however, Commissioner Cate was issuing a retraction. In an email to SBOE members, he wrote: "On Tuesday, I told you that the statutory language in (the) budget.... regarding early education was permanent. That was my understanding, but it seems that the Chief Legislative Counsel Bill Russell now believes that the language in the bill may not ensure that this is the case. Section 3(c), which follows, is the reason that there is a question. "<Sec. 3.  APPROPRIATIONS (c) Unless codified or otherwise specified, all narrative portions of this act apply only to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.> "The question is whether the language in Section 162b (see below) that excludes the early education language from the provisions of Section 3 fits within the exceptions contained in Section 3(c). "<Sec. 162b.  EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SERVICES  (a) School districts may offer early childhood education services through direct provision of services, collaborative programs, or direct contracting with other public or private providers, or any combination of these, and a school district may obtain funding for these services by counting resident early education pupils in its full-time equivalent enrollment pursuant to Vermont State Board of Education Rule 9200.4, as in effect on June 1, 2005. School districts are encouraged to collaborate or contract with existing public and qualified private early education service providers.> "It is likely that this matter will be discussed when the Legislature returns in January, at which time I will inform you of their final decision regarding the permanence of Section 162b. I'm sorry that I did not have this information when we discussed this matter at the State Board meeting.  Richard"  EARLY ED HISTORY For those who've had trouble following the history of the early education discussion in Vermont, here's a brief timeline: 1987: a few school districts begin operating preschool programs. 1997: Act 60 passes; allows preschool funding for "at risk" students (low-income or those from families where English is a second language). 1998: The VT Dept of Ed adopts a temporary rule (9200.4) that allows schools to use an ADM formula to fund the preschool kids they are serving. This opens the door to "universal" preschool (for rich and poor alike, funded at taxpayer expense). 2000: Rule 9200.4 expires, but the Act 60 legislative oversight committee (now defunct) tells the department to go ahead and make the rule permanent. The State Board approves this move. (The Board's authority to take such a sweeping "legislative" action is murky, but this is the rule that the VDOE relied on when encouraging schools to open preschools.) 2003: The Senate Education Committee considers S.166, a universal preschool bill. It passes unanimously in the Senate but goes nowhere in the House. 2005: In January, Education Commissioner Richard Cate asks the SBOE to approve rules that would have enacted S.166 through the rules process. The SBOE tables them for the time being. 2005: In March, The VDOE co-sponsors an early education conference touting the benefits of universal preschool and illustrating how schools can draw down the Education Fund using an ADM formula for all preK students. 2005: After the SBOE tables the rules, Sen. James Condos (D-Chittenden) and Don. Collins (D-Franklin) try to move S.132, a re-writing of S.166. They take testimony but don't move the bill out of committee. 2005: At the end of the session, Sen. Collins takes the ADM preschool funding language to the Appropriations Committee which inserts it in the budget bill. The bill passes. 2006: The budget bill early ed language expires in June. The Senate will consider early ed bills. The SBOE will also consider early education rules. Stay tuned....  *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM... U.S. Freedom Foundation On the web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.us SCHOOL FUNDING: ANY ARGUMENT WILL DO by David W. Kirkpatrick, senior education fellow  One objection frequently raised by opponents of school choice is the loss of state and federal money when students transfer from a school district's regular schools to a charter school. Aside from the fact that charter schools are also public schools, this claim suggests that districts should continue to be funded for students they no longer have.  It's an interesting paradox that when a district opens a new school it doesn't claim that the costs for the students in that school is a drain upon the rest of the district. But, should the new school be a charter school, even one also within the district, it said to be a financial burden negatively affecting the rest of the district. These crocodile tears never seem to be shed over the high number of public school dropouts each year. This, despite the fact that dropouts cause lower enrollments and financial losses. Exact figures may vary slightly from year to year, both in percentages and actual numbers, but U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, in a September speech, said one million students drop out of high school each year. That's up from estimates of about 700,000 annually a few years ago. So much for progress. Dropouts, of course, face personal consequences from having an inadequate education. Minorities experience a disproportionate share of these negative effects. Secretary Spellings noted that "Among ninth graders, five out of ten minority students fail to finish high school on time. Overall, three out of ten don't finish on time." She also estimated that the largely overlooked cost to the nation is "more than $260 billion in lost wages, lost taxes, lost productivity over their lifetime." One million dropouts annually is an average of more than 5,500 students leaving for each of the 180 days in a typical school year. That's far more dropouts daily than the total enrollment of the average school district, which has about 3,500 students. Yet little is made of it, nor is it argued that districts should continue to receive funding for these absent students. In individual schools, the attrition rate can be horrendous. For some schools it has been reported to be in excess of 80%. In one Washington, DC high school a few years ago, there were 836 sophomores at the beginning of the year - but 172 were gone by Thanksgiving. The junior class had but 399 students, and the senior class a mere 240. If the figures are consistent across the two year span from 10th to 12th grade, that means nearly 600 students, or more than 70% of the sophomore class were gone before graduation. Supposedly, so was the money. Some districts experience dropout rates that exceed 50% - for the entire district. A classic example of this lack of awareness, or at least of complaints, of an actual student loss in normal circumstances versus declining enrollments because of school choice can be found in Cleveland. When Ohio's students scholarship program began in 1996 it involved fewer than 2,000 students. The figurative gnashing of teeth and wailing could be heard across the state, particularly in the state capitol.  Yet, in 1972, the Cleveland public schools had about 150,000 students. By 1997, they had only some 75,000 - an average loss of 3,000 students per year for 25 years, a loss each year 50% greater than those involved the state tuition program. Half the students means half the state funds, half the teaching staff, half the potential membership of the district's teachers union, etc.  A loss of 75,000 student dropouts goes practically unnoticed while a loss of 2,000 students because of public student financial aid is alleged to be highly destructive to the district.  Nearly a decade later, the predicted disastrous effect on the Cleveland district has yet to occur. Yet the district, and others, still claim lost funds, particularly regarding charter schools. Sadly, the media reports the complaints and rarely raises the question as to why districts should be funded for students they no longer have or point out that per-student funding may actually increase.  Ask them to explain that one! David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native now living in Pennsylvania. He's a former public school teacher and officer in the Pennsylvania-NEA. *   *   * FROM COMMENTARY...     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.  *   *   * 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

---

........