Return to Education Report Index | Return to VBE Index | Vermonters for Better Education Homepage
..
..
..
..
www.SchoolReport.com
Vermonters
for Better Education
Return
to Education Report Index | Return to VBE
Index | Vermonters for Better Education
Homepage
________________________________________ THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT
January 09, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 02
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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 OF THE STATE
Governor James Douglas outlined an "affordability" agenda in his State of the State address last week that included strong words about spiraling education costs. Pointing out that Act 60's promise of "responsible and moderate growth" in education spending has run smack into the reality of education spending growing "at almost twice the rate of inflation," he also noted that while property taxes will jump "over 10 percent just this year to next," school enrollments have been declining.
"When enrollment is dropping, but spending is rising and taxes are soaring," the governor said, "we have a problem that requires immediate action."
To that end, he proposed several initiatives including capping education property tax growth, eliminating loopholes in the income-sensitivity program to ensure that owners of expensive properties are paying their fair share, and reconsidering last year's decision to include early ed funding language in the budget bill. On this latter point, the governor said:
"Last year, this General Assembly added a provision into the final budget bill that I fear will lead to an unacceptable outcome: adding two more pre-kindergarten grades to the already stressed K-12 education system and putting taxpayers on the hook to fund it. Instead of this approach, we need to find ways to assist our private pre-school providers. Through Building Bright Futures, we must ensure that all our pre-schools are of high quality and that our children are safe. I am asking the General Assembly to reconsider the decision to further increase the cost of education and the growing tax bills that accompany those costs."
It is unclear, however, just how far the governor is willing to go down that road. Will he, for example, direct cabinet officers at some point to turn off the money spigot for "universal" early ed programs that underwrite the preschool of rich and poor alike? Or will he merely veto any early ed bill that doesn't limit spending to at-risk kids while protecting private providers? Using past history as a guide, it's likely he'll choose the latter path.
MEANWHILE, OVER AT THE STATE BOARD
The State Board of Education continues to grapple with the early education issue and at its December meeting decided to form a subcommittee devoted to the topic. The subcommittee is made up of SBOE members Ruth Stokes, Chris Robbins, Matthew Francis, and SBOE Chairman Tom James.
The first meeting will take place Tuesday, January 10 at 3 p.m. at the Department of Education's offices in Montpelier. The meeting is open to the public.
SPEAKING OF THE SBOE
Rep. Kathrine R. Niquette (R-Colchester) has introduced an interesting bill aimed at reviewing SBOE rules for cost-effectiveness.
H.583 would establish a committee to review "rules adopted by the commissioner and the state board of education to determine whether the rules are cost-effective." The bill directs this new committee to determine which rules should be changed or deleted entirely "because the expense of implementing them as written is overly burdensome to schools...."
The committee would have 10 members - two senators, two representatives, two teachers (selected by the Vermont NEA), the commissioner of education, an SBOE member, and two public school administrators. That means at least five of the ten members are destined to be members of the more-money/less accountability crowd.
The bill's intentions are good, but the structure isn't conducive to reining in costs.
SENATE AND HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEES
Do you want to tell legislators you want real school choice for Vermont? Or you don't want them to expand the public system to include preK for rich and poor? The first place to start is the education committees that consider these bills. Below is a list of members of both committees. Legislators can generally be reached through email using this formula: First initial Last name@leg.state.vt.us. So Sen. Don Collins, chair of the Senate Education Committee, can be reached at dcollins@leg.state.vt.us
Senate Education Committee
Senator Don Collins of Franklin District (D), Chair
Senator William Doyle of Washington District (R), Vice-Chair
Senator James Condos of Chittenden District (D)
Senator Robert Starr of Essex-Orleans District (D)
Senator Wendy Wilton of Rutland District (R)
House Education Committee
Representative George Cross of Winooski (D), Chair
Representative Kathy LaVoie of Swanton (R), Vice-Chair
Representative Denise Barnard of Richmond (D)
Representative Gregory Clark of Vergennes (R)
Representative Kevin Endres of Milton (R)
Representative Tim Jerman of Essex (D)
Representative Duncan Kilmartin of Newport City (R)
Representative Judith Livingston of Manchester (R)
Representative Rosemary McLaughlin of Royalton (D)
Representative Anne Mook of Bennington (D)
Representative David Potter of Clarendon (D)
COLLINS SCHOOL CHOICE BILL COULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE
Last week, the VER reported that Senate Education Committee Chairman Don Collins (D-Franklin) has introduced a school choice bill, S.240, that would expand on choice opportunities for public high school students. At that time, we noted that S.240 increased the number of transfers schools are forced to allow under the current public school choice law, Act 150. We made an error. Sen. Collins's bill does NOT increase the number of transfers schools are forced to allow. It uses the same small numbers (five percent of enrollment or 10 students, whichever is fewer) contained in Act 150.
While Sen. Collins's bill does call for high schools to form more "regional agreements" with each other, it also requires superintendents to work out transportation plans for transferring students. This could become a huge stumbling block on the way to choice if superintendents stall on making plans or if they make their transportation plans so onerous that their districts won't want to implement them.
Sen. Collins can be reached at dcollins@leg.state.vt.us
WHAT EXACTLY DOES HE MEAN BY "PUBLIC EDUCATION"?
Sen. Collins has another interesting bill in committee this year as well. His S.197 "proposes to make it clear that funds in the education fund are to be used for the support of public education."
This brief bill contains a very small change to Vermont education statutes that could have far-reaching implications, depending on the intent of the bill.
Currently, Vermont education statutes stipulate that education fund money is to be used for "the support of education." Sen. Collins proposes to add the word "public" before education in that clause.
Is he trying to restrict the use of education fund money to public schools only? If so, what happens to the programs that include private schools -- most notably, the 130-year-old tuition town system?
* * *
FROM ELSEWHERE...From... The Wall Street Journal
January 3, 2006 Editorial
On the web at: http://www.opinionjournal.comTEACHERS' PETS
If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.
Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings -- the first under the new rules -- helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students....
Many of the organization's disbursements -- $30,000 to the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, $122,000 to the Center for Teaching Quality -- at least target groups that ostensibly have a direct educational mission. But many others are a stretch, to say the least. The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts....
There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.
The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter school group backed by the NEA's Washington State affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools). And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.
When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.
The good news is that for the first time members can find out how their union chieftains did their political thinking for them by going to http://www.union-reports.dol.gov, where the Labor Department has posted the details....
FROM....The Institute for Justice
On the web at: http://www.ij.orgBAD NEWS FROM FLORIDA
In a major blow to education reform in Florida, the Florida Supreme Court struck down the state's Opportunity Scholarship program, the nation's first statewide school choice program. For six years, Opportunity Scholarships have enabled families to opt out of failing public schools and into better-performing public or private schools.
The Court ruled in an opinion drafted by Chief Justice Barbara Pariente that Opportunity Scholarships violate the Florida Constitution's "uniformity" clause, which guarantees all Florida students a "uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." The Court declined to rule on a separate claim by teachers' unions and other school choice opponents that Opportunity Scholarships violate the state Constitution's Blaine Amendment.
The 5-2 ruling could force hundreds of mostly minority students out of the private schools of their choice and back into the failing public schools they left. As of last school year, African-Americans and Hispanics made up 95 percent of Opportunity Scholarship recipients. The Court is allowing the scholarships to continue throughout this academic year only.
"This ruling is a serious blow to equal educational opportunity and the schoolchildren of Florida," said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Clark Neily, who helped argue the case before the state's High Court. "We are reviewing our legal options and will work swiftly toward a solution to keep Opportunity Scholarship children in their schools."
The Institute for Justice, the nation's leading legal advocate for school choice, represents families using Opportunity Scholarships.
"Nothing in today's unfortunate decision will stop the nationwide march toward greater educational opportunity," said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. "Just this past year, new school choice programs were passed in Utah and Ohio, and programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, the District of Columbia, Arizona and Pennsylvania continue to flourish. That progress will continue. Because today's ruling was based on a narrow provision of the state Constitution, its effects are limited to Florida."
In a stinging dissent, Justice Kenneth Bell wrote, "Nothing in the plain language or history of article IX requires a finding that the Opportunity Scholarship Program is unconstitutional. The clear purpose behind article IX is to ensure that every child in Florida has the opportunity to receive a high-quality education and to ensure access to such an education by requiring the Legislature to make adequate provision for a uniform system of free public schools. There is absolutely no evidence before this Court that this mandate is not being fulfilled."
"This ruling is such a radical departure from Florida precedent and common sense that the opinion appears both nakedly political and specifically designed to avoid confronting the Blaine Amendment question," said Neily. "There is no case law whatsoever interpreting the 'uniformity' clause to prevent the State from providing both public education and scholarships. And indeed, the State has a long history of paying for some public students to attend private schools. In fact, a unanimous Florida appellate court earlier in this case rejected the 'uniformity' argument against Opportunity Scholarships, and no other state has taken such a radical interpretation of similar constitutional provisions."
"There's nothing left to do now, but to fight to save school choice however we can," said Angela Mack, a mother of six in Miami with two children using Opportunity Scholarships to attend the well-regarded Lincoln-Marti school. "My kids would be devastated without these scholarships. They will not go back to the public school they left. If they can't finish school at Lincoln-Marti, they will drop out."
"Losing his scholarship will be devastating to my grandson," said Ramona Nickson, whose grandson uses an Opportunity Scholarship to attend Monsignor Edward Pace High School in Miami. "I can't take him out of his school, and I just don't know what I will do. I have no means to keep him in his private school and I can't even imagine sending him to another school."
In a section of its opinion titled "Other Programs Unaffected," the Court specifically limited the impact of the decision to Opportunity Scholarships only, writing "the effect of our decision on [other] programs would be mere speculation."
* * *
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.
SubscribeRemove
........