________________________________________  THE VERMONT EDUCATION REPORT April 17, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 16 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯  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... EARLY ED STUDY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT POISED FOR PASSAGE; MORATORIUM FAILS An important amendment to S.314, the bill requiring a study of early education, will be voted on in the House soon while a moratorium aimed at stopping any new early ed programs from starting (until the study is complete) failed on Friday. The amendment poised for passage, however, is sponsored by the House Education Committee and spells out the make-up and scope of the study committee. The study committee will be composed of appointees of the Senate and House as well as representatives of the child care provider community, education and other relevant groups. The scope of the committee's work will include some critical areas of investigation. For example, the committee will be asked to look at how much such programs will cost, how many programs already exist, what is the benefit of these programs, whether enrollment should be voluntary, whether parents should be allowed to choose providers, and more. Another amendment, calling for a moratorium on funding new programs until the study is underway, failed with votes falling largely along party lines (with some notable exceptions). Rep. Carolyn Branagan (R-Georgia) introduced the moratorium amendment. When voting for it, Rep. Kevin Endres (R-Milton) explained his vote this way: "Our taxpayers have made it clear that they want the Education Fund used for K-12 public education. However, we need to answer the question of publicly funded pre-K education once and for all. This amendment simply suspends newly funded programs from being started until the study is completed and the next legislature acts. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do." The majority of representatives, however, opted not to vote for this fiscally responsible amendment, instead keeping Vermont taxpayers on the hook for universal preschool even before its value is studied by a committee the legislature is requiring.  Those who voted AGAINST the Vermont taxpayer and early ed fiscal responsibility are listed below (party affiliation is listed after their names): Acinapura of Brandon R Ancel of Calais D Aswad of Burlington D Atkins of Winooski D Audette of S. Burlington D Barnard of Richmond D Bohi of Hartford D Bostic of St. Johnsbury R Botzow of Pownal D Brennan of Colchester R Brooks of Montpelier D Clark of Vergennes R Clarkson of Woodstock D Condon of Colchester D Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford D Corcoran of Bennington D Cross of Winooski D Darrow of Dummerston D Deen of Westminster D Dostis of Waterbury D Edwards of Brattleboro P Emmons of Springfield D Evans of Essex D Fallar of Tinmouth D Fisher of Lincoln D Frank of Underhill D French of Randolph D Grad of Moretown D Green of Berlin D Haas of Rochester P Head of S. Burlington D Heath of Westford D Howard of Rutland City D Hunt of Essex D Hutchinson of Randolph D Johnson of South Hero D Keenan of St. Albans City D Keogh of Burlington D Kitzmiller of Montpelier D Klein of East Montpelier D Kupersmith of S. Burlington D Larson of Burlington D Lippert of Hinesburg D Maier of Middlebury D Malcolm of Pawlet D Marek of Newfane D Martin of Wolcott D Masland of Thetford D McCullough of Williston D McLaughlin of Royalton D Milkey of Brattleboro D Miller of Shaftsbury D Minter of Waterbury D Molloy of Arlington D Monti of Barre City D Mook of Bennington D Myers of Essex R Nease of Johnson D Nitka of Ludlow D Nuovo of Middlebury D Obuchowski of Rockingham D Orr of Charlotte D Partridge of Windham D Pearson of Burlington P Perry of Richford D Pillsbury of Brattleboro I Potter of Clarendon D Pugh of S. Burlington D Randall of Troy P Rodgers of Glover D Rusten of Halifax D Seibert of Norwich D Shand of Weathersfield D Smith of Morristown D Sweaney of Windsor D Tracy of Burlington D Trombley of Grand Isle D Zuckerman of Burlington P The complete list of yeas, nays and absentees can be found at the legislative home page (http://www.leg.state.vt.us) under the House Journal for April 14, 2006. GOOD NEWS: GOVERNOR SIGNED HOMESCHOOL BILL H.862, a bill that introduces more flexibility into home study regulations in Vermont, was signed into law last week by Governor Jim Douglas.  "It is my hope that this new law will streamline the home study enrollment process, increase autonomy for home study programs, and encourage future collaboration between the Department of Education and Vermont's homeschool community," Governor Douglas said of the bill. Here's a rundown of what the bill stipulates: A home study program, which has successfully completed two consecutive years of home study for any student, will not be required to submit an annual minimum course of study except for the year in which a child reaches the age of 12. A student who is 13 years of age or older will not be required to study physical education, comprehensive health education and fine arts. This will open the door to more personal choices around electives for older homeschoolers. In order to evaluate students' progress there will be a specific format for end-of-the-year assessments done by licensed Vermont teachers. Specific and authorized use of certain standardized achievement tests for end-of-the-year assessments. The bill was the result of home study advocates' hard work with the Vermont Department of Education and legislators.  MEANWHILE.....SCHOOL CHOICE IN NH School choice has scored a victory in New Hampshire where a choice bill successfully made it through the state Senate and House and was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee. This bill received support from both Democrats and Republicans and sets up a public/private corporation to administer scholarships for low-income students to attend the public or private (including religious) schools of their choice. The corporation will accept donations from businesses and individuals. Businesses will receive a tax credit for donations.  The bill can be viewed at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0131.html *   *   * FROM ELSEWHERE... FROM....The US Freedom Foundation On the web at: http://www.freedomfoundation.us EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM DAY by David W. Kirkpatrick On June 1,1925 the Pierce decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declared that parents "have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare" how their children will be educated. Still the law of the land, the 9-0 decision has never been challenged and is not likely to be. Yet it is doubtful that one person in a thousand could identify the subject of the case if they were asked to do so. Not that it is totally forgotten. A Google search for "Pierce vs. Society of Sisters" listed 3,210 sites. However, most appear in sources of limited circulation.  This lack of awareness is demonstrated by supporters of school choice who argue parents should have the right to determine how their children are educated. This, as the Court made clear, is a right they already have. What too many families lack is the financial ability to exercise this right, whether by sending their children to an independent school, homeschooling, or, as millions do, by at least being able to afford living in the school district or even the attendance area of a school they wish their child to attend. In brief, the battle over school choice is how to make it possible for low-income parents to exercise this civil right they already have.  Many school choice opponents are more concerned with protecting their jobs and their special interests than with the education, welfare and constitutional rights of the students. And there are those who believe government can do a better job of educating, or training, children than can parents. This has a long history. Sparta, in ancient Greece from 400-600 B.C., took all boys from their families at age seven, placed them in state-run boarding schools, and parents had absolutely no part of that process. Spartan girls, as with most civilizations at the time, and even since, were given no formal education. One of the first proposals for an educational system in the new United States came from Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphian and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote, "Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. Let him be taught to love his family, but let him be taught at the same time, that he must forsake them ... when the welfare of his country requires." The first actual statewide plan, also in Pennsylvania, in 1834, was largely the result of the efforts of Thaddeus Stevens, best known as the leader of the Congressional Radical Republicans at the end of the Civil War. He argued that "the rich and poor man's sons (are all) deemed children of the same parent -- the Commonwealth." In the 1925 arguments before the Supreme Court in the Pierce case the spokesman for the state of Oregon boldly stated, "As to minors, the state stands in the position of parents patriae, and may exercise unlimited supervision and control over their contracts, occupations and conduct, and the liberty and right of those who assume to deal with them."  As Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton promoted a number of educational reforms. When asked if the state knows better than the parents, he said yes. During the debate over a school choice initiative in California, a website supporting the measure received a message saying, "I support government monopoly schools. Parents cannot be trusted. Liberty and choice are dangerous to society." Perhaps that was sarcasm. Still, many believe this whether they state it so explicitly or not. So those who support parental rights in education should never forget June 1 as the anniversary of the Supreme Court's declaration of parental independence. Why not go further? There are countless national days, week, and/or months honoring this, that or the other thing. Why not recognize June 1st of each year as Educational Freedom Day? Hundreds of such observations across the nation could regularly recognize and emphasize the essential constitutional principle upheld in the Pierce decision. At the very least, all education entities - departments of education, school buildings and collegiate and university schools of education, should have over their doors these words from the Pierce decision: "THE CHILD IS NOT THE MERE CREATURE OF THE STATE." David Kirkpatrick is a Bennington native who now lives in Pennsylvania. He is a former public school teacher and officer in the PA-NEA.  *   *   * 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

---

........